And then third, my continuationist critics will charge that I am picking the easy, wacko fringe element within charismatic circles. I need to go and interact with Wayne Grudem, John Piper, Craig Keener, DA Carson, yada, yada, yada… I believe that charge is woefully naive and theologically Pollyannish.The so-called open, but cautious continuationists insist the bizarre and devilish behavior portrayed in that video as charismatic is really fringe, cultic extremes. The reality is the other way around, however.http://hipandthigh.wordpress.com/2013/09/13/the-spirit-of-anti-christ/
If Fred is including me in that veiled reference, and it's hard to see how he's not, even if he has more than me in mind, I invite him to furnish verbatim quotes in which I indicate that the wackos represent a fringe group or cultic extreme–in contrast to mainstream Pentecostalism. I look forward to the supporting documentation to back up his attribution.
No. I didn't necessarily have you in mind, though I guess I could include you seeing you have written so vigorously against my position in recent weeks.
ReplyDeleteI had heard that claim long before you started addressing it in blog posts. Everyone goes to the default, fall back "scholars" I mentioned: Carson, Fee, Piper, Mahaney, and now Keener, who has written two volumes on miracles. Which by the way, I have read through at least the first volume and find utterly uncompelling as a defense of modern day miracles.
At any rate, I believe I am correct in that the "cautious, but open" continuationists, like the Carsons and Grudem's represent a small faction of what is charismaticism. Hence, they are not mainstream and thus on the fringe of Penetcostal/charismaticism. That is why their willing enablers in the "open, but cautious" arena are theological Pollyannish.
Take for example Adrian's missive he wrote. He claims there are abuses and wackos, but can he name any, or will he even name any? Laying aside the prosperity cultists and TV evangelists, who in charismatic circles would Adrian say is heretical and has bad teaching? Anyone from the NAR crowd?
Look, I have spent the last month researching the various groups of charismatics out there, and I am fairly confident when I say those that you keep pushing off as worthy charismatics who must be heard and dealt with by folks in my camp are in essence the extreme minority among charistmatics.
So as far as I am concerned, with what I have witnessed in my research, John is spot on describing what is happening as blasphemous.
Fred Butler
Delete"...and now Keener, who has written two volumes on miracles. Which by the way, I have read through at least the first volume and find utterly uncompelling as a defense of modern day miracles."
It's dangerous to erect a high wall between biblical miracles and modern miracles, where testimony for biblical miracles is totally believable while testimony for modern miracles is totally unbelievable. That ad hoc skepticism inevitably undermines the credibility of biblical miracles.
"At any rate, I believe I am correct in that the "cautious, but open" continuationists, like the Carsons and Grudem's represent a small faction of what is charismaticism."
On the one hand, Grudem doesn't belong to the "open but cautious camp." He's a full-blown charismatic. That designation refers to folks like Robert Saucy. On the other hand, it's misleading to classify Carson as a "continuationist" or charismatic.
I've corrected you on that before. That's one of my problems with MacArthurites. You're retailing these legendary memes, which quickly attain an unquestioned and unquestionable canonical status within the snow globe of MacArthurville.
"Hence, they are not mainstream and thus on the fringe of Penetcostal/charismaticism. That is why their willing enablers in the 'open, but cautious' arena are theological Pollyannish."
Sorry, Fred, but that's kind of silly. Those who hang on every word of Benny Hinn, T. D. Jakes, Joyce Meyer et al. don't read books by real scholars. You can't honestly blame responsible scholars for what the rabble do.
The "enabler" charge parallels the siege mentality of militant Darwinians like Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, and Jerry Coyne who attack any fellow Darwinian who publicly concedes weaknesses in the evolutionary paradigm or defends the right of intelligent-design theorists to have a seat at the table.
If you want some examples of the evidence Fred is treating so dismissively, see here and here. Notice Keener's references to medical documentation, corroboration from investigators who had debunked other cases, acknowledgment of Christian miracles by non-Christian sources who were in a good position to judge the matter, etc. If Fred is so dismissive of that sort of evidence, does he apply the same sort of reasoning in other contexts? Does he accept skeptical dismissals of Biblical miracles that are similar to his dismissals of modern ones? Does Fred apply the same sort of standards before he'll conclude that God has answered one of his prayers? When people offer medical documentation and other such arguments for concluding that the human body shows evidence of intelligent design, for example, does Fred dismiss such arguments in a manner similar to how he dismisses the arguments for a modern healing? Does Fred dismiss all modern claims of evidence for demonic activity? If not, how does he justify accepting evidence for modern claims of demonic activity while rejecting the often similar evidence for miracles of a Divine nature?
DeleteI'd like to see Fred offer something more specific than dismissing Keener's entire first volume as "utterly uncompelling". For example, once Fred is done with the second volume, after reading all of Keener's discussions of miracles he witnessed himself, maybe Fred could explain to us why we should think it's probable that Keener was mistaken every time. The issue isn't whether he might have been mistaken. Rather, I want to see Fred explain why we should think it's probable that Keener was wrong in every instance, even to the point that his claims are "utterly uncompelling".