Thursday, October 31, 2013

Critical thinking on modern miracles


Name one that is biblical. To claim that false healings and miracles and gibberish are the works of the Holy Spirit is a dangerous practice. That is MacArthur's point. Produce one person that has been healed of congenial blindness, one amputee who's limb has grown back, one legitimate resurrection...just one. Show me someone who speaks in the tongues Luke describes in Acts 2...just one. 
http://thegospelcoalition.org/book-reviews/review/strange_fire#comment-1100570585 
All of that to say, if contiuationists are correct that signs and wonders are a part of the normal Christian experience and they are happening with regularity among God’s people, then there should be gifted individuals who should do extraordinary signs and wonders with their laying on of hands.  Their ministry should be public — I would suggest a children’s cancer hospital or special ministries department at a local church.  And their ministry should be witnessed by believers and unbelievers alike and those signs and wonders should be both undeniable and verifiable. 
http://hipandthigh.wordpress.com/2013/07/08/the-continuationists-signs-and-wonders-problem/

i) It's striking that MacArthurites like Ed and Fred are utterly oblivious to the fact that their objection to modern charismata parrots the atheist objection to God's existence. If there is a God, why doesn't he heal amputees? If God exists, why doesn't he cure every patient in a cancer ward?

Same thing with atheists and prayer studies. If God answers prayer, then that ought to show up on double-blind experiments. 

Charismatics can respond to the cessationist objection in the same way cessationists respond to the atheist objection. If a cessationist defends himself by saying God doesn't heal amputees because it's not God's will to heal amputees, and God has a good reason for not doing so, then a charismatic can defend himself by saying God doesn't empower a modern-day Christian to heal amputees because it's not God's will to heal amputees, and God has a good reason for not doing so–either directly or indirectly. 

ii) Likewise, Jesus and the apostles didn't try to prove themselves by searching for sick people to heal. Rather, sick people came to them. 

iii) Now, bad arguments can be persuasive because they contain a grain of truth. The element of truth lends a specious plausibility to a bad argument. And that's the case here. 

I think Fred is calling the bluff of charismatics. And up to a point, there's nothing wrong with that. It's like calling a psychic's bluff by taking the psychic out of her controlled environment, where she can manipulate the variables, and putting her in a situation where she has to do cold readings. 

Notice how Fred prefaces the challenge:


if contiuationists are correct that signs and wonders are a part of the normal Christian experience and they are happening with regularity among God’s people, then there should be gifted individuals who should do extraordinary signs and wonders with their laying on of hands. 

And there are undoubtedly continuationists who claim that. So that's a fair challenge.

iv) However, there's no reason to think the alternative to cessationism must be believing that "signs and wonders are a part of the normal Christian experience and they are happening with regularity among God’s people."

v) For instance, how do cessationists define faith-healers? Let's take a comparison:

a) A Christian prays for a cancer patient. The next day, the cancer is gone.

b) A Christian lays hands on a cancer patient and prays over the patient. The next day, the cancer is gone.

Is (b) a faith-healer, but (a) is not? Is that the distinction? If not, is there some other differential factor?

vi) What if a Christian has the "gift of healing," but doesn't claim to be a faith-healer? Suppose he or she simply acquires a reputation for having the ability to heal, without doing anything to cultivate that image or advertise that fact? Is that Christian a faith-healer? 

vii) If a Christian is a healer, does that mean he or she must be able to heal anyone and everyone? If a serial killer with terminal cancer comes to her, and she lays hands on him or prays for him, and he still dies of cancer, does that mean she's a fraud? 

What if it wasn't God's will to heal the terminal serial killer? Unlike the faith-healer, God knows who this individual is. God knows what this individual will do if miraculously cured. Therefore, God blocks or withholds healing. 

viii) If someone claims to be a faith-healer or miracle-worker, then we have every right to demand evidence. That, however, is different from proposing an artificial litmus test. 

If Jesus heals a women who suffers from internal bleeding (Mt 9:18-26), but he doesn't heal someone dying of radiation sickness, the latter doesn't cancel out the former.  We should judge each case by the evidence for (or against) each case. The fact that nothing happened in one case isn't evidence that nothing happened in another case.    

ix) It's also illogical to prejudge the question of modern charismata by charismatic claims. Whether or not modern charismata occur is irrespective of what charismatics claim, one way or the other. It's undoubtedly the case that many charismatics make exaggerated claims or entertain exaggerated expectations. However, disproving exaggerating claims–which is a worthwhile exercise in itself–does nothing to disprove modern charismata. 

If a weather forecaster predicts that it will rain 5 days in a row, and it only rains 3 out of 5 days, his prediction was false. But his mistake doesn't falsify the reality that it rained 3 days out of 5. He was partially wrong, but he was partially right. The event is independent of his claims. Disproving his specific claims does nothing to disprove a weather event. 

Cessationists and charismatics can't prescribe or proscribe reality. It will be whatever it will be, regardless of their prognostications. 

Ultimately, you need to judge the question of modern miracles, not by what cessationists or charismatics claim, but by what really happens–or doesn't. If the incidence of miracles is lower than the rate which Pentecostals optimistically predict, the mismatch disproves Pentecostalism, but it does nothing to disprove the miracles which do occur–assuming they occur. It's unfortunate that so many cessationists fail to draw that fundamental distinction. 

39 comments:

  1. Steve: "Is (b) a faith-healer, but (a) is not? Is that the distinction? If not, is there some other differential factor?"

    Fred Butler wrote this before: "I have seen spiritual gifts happening in the Church and on the mission field as well, but I have yet to see gifted messengers who have the ability to turn on and turn off spiritual power and use it as God has anointed them to use it."

    Would you consider that a salient differential factor?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hm, but why is this a criterion? Why should we necessarily expect "gifted messengers who have the ability to turn on and turn off spiritual power" in the first place?

      Delete
    2. The ability to turn it on and off is a classic definition of magic. Fred is unwittingly assimilating the charismata to witchcraft.

      We wouldn't expect prophets and apostles to be able to turn it on and off.

      God can do it because he is the source.

      Delete
    3. I wonder if Fred would apply that to the disciples in Luke 9:40 with likewise disregard for God's sovereignty and purpose.

      Delete
    4. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    5. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    6. TUAD,

      As I pointed out before, I already addressed that distinction. Don't argue in bad faith by acting like I haven't. That won't be tolerated.

      Delete
    7. No offense intended! Ever. Would you please provide links to your posts addressing this distinction?

      Much thanks.

      Delete
    8. For instance:

      http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2013/08/what-is-prophecy.html

      Delete
    9. Another example:

      http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2013/08/is-continuationism-false-by-definition.html

      Delete
  2. Here's a testimony of healing by R.A. Torrey (1856 – 1928) 2nd president of Moody Bible Institute (a cessationist institute). By the way, in his book "Divine Healing: Does God Perform Miracles Today?" Torrey repeatedly states that he did NOT believe it was always God's will to heal the sick on earth. I'm quoting from the same book:

    How often God has given to me faith as I have prayed for some sick one, and healing immediate, complete and wonderful has followed. When I was Superintendent of City Missions in Minneapolis, I found on my desk one day a request to go to a home three miles distant. The people were unknown to me. Upon reaching the home I learned that they were French, and had been Roman Catholics, but the husband and wife had been converted, though many of their relatives were still Roman Catholics. I learned that the woman had been sick for four years and had had nine different physicians, none of whom could help her. She was helpless. She could move her hands, but she had to be lifted upon a sheet when they made the bed. I sat down by the sick-bed and asked the woman what she wished me to do. She replied that she wished me to pray that she might be healed. One of her Roman Catholic relatives, who sat by a window in the same room, said, “If she is healed we will all become Protestants.” I read to the sick woman this passage that we are expounding, James 5:14, 15. Then I asked her, “Do you believe God will heal you?” She replied that she believed that He could heal her. “But,” I said, “Do you believe that He will heal you?” And after reading her various promises from the Word she said she believed that He would. I then explained to her very fully the meaning of anointing and that on her part it meant a full surrender to God of all her physical powers. Then I knelt by her bedside and, “having anointed her with oil in the name of the Lord,” I prayed that God would come in with the healing power of His Holy Spirit and restore her to perfect health then and there. As I prayed God gave me faith that He heard my prayer. I prayed “the prayer of faith,” and as I arose I said to the woman, “I expect you as soon as I am gone to get up and go about your work.” I went from that home with the full assurance that God had answered my prayer. The night of the day following, before I began our evening meeting, I said to one of my missionaries, “Polly, you are going to hear something tonight.” I was sure someone would come down from the neighborhood and say that the sick woman was well. And, sure enough, when the meeting was opened for testimony a neighbour of this woman arose and said that God had completely healed the woman, and that immediately after my departure she did get up, dress, and go out for a call. And the following Sunday she was down to our services, three miles away. And she remained a strong, healthy woman as long as I remained in Minneapolis. Afterwards they went South and I lost track of her. But many years later, when I was holding meetings in Los Angeles, in a tabernacle that was erected for me by the churches of that city, down on the corner of Seventh and Los Angeles Streets, I told this story one afternoon in speaking on the subject of “Prayer.” A man sprang up in the audience and said, “Mr. Torrey, that was my wife. We are living in Los Angeles, and she has been a well woman from that day, about thirty-five years ago, until this day...........There is no need that I multiply instances, though I could multiply them almost without limit. The teaching of this verse is not merely the teaching of the Word of God, that of itself would be sufficient; but I know in my own personal experience that the promise of this verse holds for the present day. [Source]

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Another testimony by Torrey:

      Take another illustration. There was an M. E. minister up in Dakota who had a child that was improperly formed. There was some defect in her backbone so that the little child was bent together and the abdomen protruded, causing constant pain, and the child could not sleep. The parents brought the child to Minneapolis to see what specialists could do, but the specialists told them, that there was no hope for the child, that they might put her in a plaster-cast so that she might live, deformed, not longer than two or three years. Though the parents were Methodists they were so desirous for the health of their child that they tried “Christian Science,” but found no help in that system of error. Then the minister said to his wife. “Let us take her to brother Torrey.” They brought her over to my house, a little child of about two years of age, terribly misshapen and greatly suffering. I took the child in my arms and prayed for her. God gave the necessary faith and the child was healed. Relief came immediately. That night she slept normally for the first time, even the defective part of her body was made right. Something like eighteen years later I was holding meetings in Petoskey, Mich. In one of the afternoon meetings a Methodist minister from one of the neighboring towns came in. He got up in the meeting and told his story, saying he was the father of that daughter and that she was completely healed and a candidate for the mission field. She herself came in a few days later, a beautiful, perfectly-formed young woman. She was in our Auditorium in Los Angeles at our Sunday morning services a few weeks ago.
      [Source]

      Delete
    2. Another testimony by Torrey:

      My first experience of this kind was during my first pastorate, more than forty years ago. As far as I can recall I had never read any books on Divine Healing and had never heard much of anything about it. A young man in my congregation, a dentist, was taken very sick. His father was a member of our church. I went to the home to see and talk with the young man, but he was unconscious, in the last stages of typhoid fever. One of the leading physicians of the town sat by his bedside and told me that the crisis was past and had passed the wrong way, that there was no hope whatever of his recovery. As I sat there an impulse came to me to kneel down and pray to God that He would heal the young man. I did this, and as I prayed a great assurance came into my heart that God had heard my prayer. I arose and said to the doctor, who was a backslider, “He will get well.” The doctor smiled and replied, “Well, Mr. Torrey, that is all very well from your standpoint, but he cannot get well. The crisis is past and has passed the wrong way, and he will die.” I replied, “Doctor, that is all right from your standpoint, but God has heard my prayer. The man will not die, he cannot die at this time. He will get well.” I returned to my home. A short time afterward they came up to tell me the young man was dying, that he was doing certain things that only one dying would do. I replied to them, “He is not dying, he cannot die now. He will get well.” And get well he did, and as far as I know is living still, though that was over forty years ago.
      [Source]

      Delete
    3. Another testimony by Torrey:

      Let me relate carefully one instance. When I was very young, so young that I have no recollection of it, I suffered a very severe attack of scarlet fever, which left me with an infected ear. It was necessary to operate at the time, back of the ear. Even when I had attained to manhood it was necessary to carry absorbent cotton with me constantly and, most of the time, keep it in the ear. The drum was perforated, and I heard with such difficulty with that ear (the left ear) that whenever I used the telephone it was necessary to bring the ear-piece way around to the other, the sound, ear. I went to a very well-known ear specialist in Cleveland, Ohio, and found temporary relief from the discharges, but in a little time they returned. My ear continued in this diseased condition for several years longer. While working in Minneapolis I had a severe attach of pain in the ear. I said to myself, you pray for the healing of others, why do you not ask God to heal your own ear? I at once knelt down alone in my own home and asked God to heal that ear. He healed me instantly, and for many years I had no discharge from that ear and no pain in it, the drum healed over and I can now hear well with both ears. I have told this to two ear specialists and they both asked me to let them look into the ear, which, of course, I did; and both stated that the drum was evidently once perforated and is now healed over.
      [Source]

      Delete
    4. In A.T. Pierson's biography of George Mueller he wrote that Mueller at times received what was something like (or actually was) the "gift of faith" for the healing of the sick. If Mueller did operate in the charismatic "gift of faith" on occasion, then that would suggest that cessationism is false.

      QUOTE:
      He observed that repeatedly he prayed with the sick till they were restored, he asking unconditionally for the blessing of bodily health, a thing which, he says, later on, he could not have done. Almost always in such cases the petition was granted, yet in some instances not. Once, in his own case, as early as 1829, he had been healed of a bodily infirmity of long standing, and which never returned. Yet this same man of God subsequently suffered from disease which was not in like manner healed, and in more than one case submitted to a costly operation at the hands of a skilful surgeon.

      Some will doubtless say that even this man of faith lacked the faith necessary for the healing of his own body; but we must let him speak for himself, and especially as he gives his own view of the gift and the grace of faith. He says that the gift of faith is exercised, whenever we "do or believe a thing where the not doing or not believing would not be sin"; but the grace of faith, "where we do or believe what not to do or believe would be sin"; in one case we have no unequivocal command or promise to guide us, and in the other we have. The gift of faith is not always in exercise, but the grace must be, since it has the definite word of God to rest on, and the absence or even weakness of faith in such circumstances implies sin. There were instances, he adds, in which it pleased the Lord at times to bestow upon him something like the gift of faith so that he could ask unconditionally and expect confidently.
      END QUOTE [italics removed, but bold added by me]
      [Source]

      Here's a quote from Mueller himself:

      QUOTE:
      It pleased the Lord, I think, to give me in some cases something like the gift (not grace) of faith, so that unconditionally I could ask and look for an answer. The difference between the gift and the grace of faith seems to me this. According to the gift of faith I am able to do a thing, or believe that a thing will come to pass, the not doing of which, or the not believing of which would not be sin; according to the grace of faith I am able to do a thing, or believe that a thing will come to pass, respecting which I have the word of God as the ground to rest upon, and, therefore, the not doing it, or the not believing it would be sin. For instance, the gift of faith would be needed, to believe that a sick person should be restored again, though there is no human probability: for there is no promise to that effect; the grace of faith is needed to believe that the Lord will give me the necessaries of life, if I first seek the kingdom of God and His righteousness: for there is a promise to that effect. (Matt. vi. 33.)
      END QUOTE [italics removed, but bold added by me]
      [Source]

      Delete
    5. From the two quotes above, I think it's a good inference to say that sometimes when Mueller prayed for a sick person he received the gift of faith (or something like it) for their healing and sometimes he didn't. Also, that sometimes, they were healed with and sometimes without that apparent gift of faith having been given to him. Then there were also times when the sick person didn't get well even after protracted prayer (e.g. his wife).

      Delete
    6. From the R. A. Torrey example:

      "Then I asked her, “Do you believe God will heal you?” She replied that she believed that He could heal her. “But,” I said, “Do you believe that He will heal you?”

      This example is distressing . . . because it puts a high burden on the person to psychologically convince himself/herself that Christ will definitely heal me.

      I don't see "I believe You definitely will heal me" in Scripture as much as "I do believe that You are able to heal me."

      Matthew 9:28

      Daniel 3:17-18 - "our God is able to deliver us; but even if He does not, . . . we will not bow down to the idol."

      1 John 5:14 - "according to His will . . . "

      Delete
    7. I agree. The leper struck the right balance: "Lord, if you are willing, you can make me clean" (Lk 5:12).

      Since it's not God's will to heal every ailing Christian, it would be presumptuous as well as mistaken to make that a precondition of miraculous healing.

      Delete
    8. Yeah, that's an inconsistency in his teaching since he denies that it's always God's will to heal. Maybe the incident happened in his earlier years when he was still developing his understanding of divine healing. Here are quotes in the same book where Torrey denies that it's always God's will to heal.

      QUOTE:
      Does this teach that everyone anointed and for whom the elders pray will get well? It means just what it says, and notice just what it really does say, “The prayer of faith shall save him that is sick.” In many instances the elders may not be given faith. Are they to blame for not having faith? Not necessarily. It is not always the will of God to heal His sick children, even some of the ripest saints, when they are sick. The fanatical teaching so common today, that, if any child of God is sick, it is conclusive proof that he has sinned, or is out of communion with God in some way, is utterly un-Scriptural, indeed it is plainly anti-Scriptural. In 2 Kings 13:14 we read, “Elisha was fallen sick of the sickness whereof he died.” Was Elisha, then, out of communion with God at this time? Read the story yourself, and you will find that he was in particularly intimate communion with God at that time, and that on that dying bed he made one of the most remarkable prophecies of his entire life and that he was speaking as the especially chosen mouth-piece of God, even while “sick of the sickness whereof he died.” Paul left Trophimus at Miletus sick (2 Tim 4:20). Paul seemed to need his companionship and Paul was a mighty man of prayer, but his prayer had not availed as yet to raise Trophimus up. In Phil. 2:27 we read that Epaphroditus “was sick nigh unto death.” Had Epaphroditus sinned or gotten out of communion with God? And was it because of his sin that he was so sick? No, we are distinctly told in the immediate context that it was because of his devotion to the work of Christ that he “came nigh unto death.” (Phil. 2:30.) Epaphroditus was healed in time in answer to Paul’s prayer, but his sickness was not because of sin or because he was out of communion with God, and he was not healed immediately, as all who came to Jesus when He was here on earth were. We see, then, that oftentimes the lack of faith is not from any fault of the elders nor from any fault of the sick one, but because of the will of God that in this particular instance (for some good reason known to Himself, and that He does not see fit to reveal to us) the sick one should not be healed.
      [Source]

      Delete
    9. And again:

      QUOTE:
      In many instances, however, the lack of faith is the fault of the praying elders or the fault of the sick man. In the latter instance there is some unjudged sin or some lesson that the sick one has not yet learned. The antecedent probability in any given case is in favor of healing; for health is the general will of God for His people. But one may need a “stake in the flesh,” “a messenger of Satan,” just as the apostle Paul needed it, to keep him humble. In such cases no amount of praying, nor of anointing either for that matter, will bring healing. In such a case the physical infirmity, the “stake in the flesh,” is indeed the “messenger of Satan” (sickness belongs to Satan’s realm); nevertheless it is allowed by God, it is His gift, with the gracious purpose of keeping the sick one humble in the midst of many revelations. (Study carefully the entire passage, 2 Cor. 12:7-9). But healing is to be expected. Paul himself expected healing in his own case until God definitely revealed it to him that it was not His will in that particular instance.
      [Source]

      Delete
    10. And Again:

      QUOTE:
      It is often said that this verse [i.e. Matt. 8:16-17; specifically verse 17] teaches that the atoning death of Jesus Christ avails for our sicknesses as well as for our sins; or, in other words, that “physical healing is in the atonement.” I think that that is a fair inference from these verses when looked at in the context, “Well, that being the case,” many say, “every believer has a right to claim physical healing for all their physical sicknesses and infirmities right now, just as much as a right to claim immediate pardon for all their sins, on the ground of the atoning death of Jesus Christ.” But that does not follow. It is very poor logic. For the question arises, When do we get what Jesus Christ secured for us by His atoning sacrifice? The Bible answer to that question is very plain, and the Bible answer is, when Jesus Christ comes again. We get the first fruits of the atoning work of Christ, the first fruits of salvation in the life that now is, but we get the full fruits only when Jesus Christ comes again. Romans 8:18-23 makes that as plain as day.........The atoning death of Jesus Christ secured for us not only physical healing, but the resurrection and perfecting and glorifying of our bodies. Can we therefore have the resurrection of our bodies right now? And have we a right to claim that now, because it was secured by the atonement, just as we claim forgiveness of all our sins now?.......No, we do not get the full measure of what Jesus secured for us by His atoning death on the Cross in the present life, but at His Coming Again. It is at the Coming of our Lord that “our spirit and soul and body” are to “be preserved entire” (I Thess. 5:23 R. V.).......I have had in the past many friends who have believed and taught extreme doctrine regarding healing being included in the atonement. Most of these friends are now dead. But while we do not get the full benefits for the body secured for us by the atoning death of Christ in the life that now is, but when Jesus Comes Again, nevertheless, just as one gets the firsts fruits of his spiritual salvation in the life that now is, so we get the first fruits of our physical salvation in the life that now is. We do get in many, many, many cases physical healing through the atoning death of Jesus Christ even in the life that now is.
      [Source]
      [Source]

      Delete
    11. For myself I believe it's always God's revealed (and promised) will to heal upon the condition of faith. Even though it's not always God's intention or decree to heal. Faith itself is God's gift and in His Sovereignty God can grant or withhold such faith in a believer or group of believers. It's the constant duty of a believer to believe God's promises (e.g. for healing) while at the same time to also submit to God's intentions and decree. I see it similar to the promise of salvation. The offer of salvation to all who will believe is genuine (whether to the elect or non-elect), but only those to whom God grants justifying faith will believe. Similarly, the offer of healing to all who will believe is genuine, but only those whom God intends to heal will be healed. Ideally via the means of God given faith for healing, but other times in the absence of any faith for healing (to reveal an especially sovereign act of God).

      While God's will is ultimately unified and one, from our perspective I see five distinctions as a Calvinist (usually Calvinists will refer to only two (#1 & #3 below) or three (#1, #3 & #4 below) distinctions.)

      GOD'S WILL OF:

      1. DECREE of what He will infallibly do and wil cause to inexorably come about (all things considered in His omniscience);

      2. DESIGN (or intention, purpose) which explains God's purposes for His decrees (which may be multi-valent). For example, God may decree the exact same calamity on two different people yet in the one case it's divine retributive punishment and in the other a case of divine chastisement and remedial fatherly discipline. Job endured what he did for multiple purposes like to refine/purify his faith (like gold is refined); to make him an example for future believers; to demonstrate Job's righteousness; to demonstrate that even the most godly need continuous sanctification; to refute Satan;

      3. DEMAND (or command, or prescriptive/preceptive will) whereby God reveals what He expects of us in obeying His commands, believing His promises/warnings, expecting answers to prayers etc. These are general and universal expectations that depend on God's current covenant dealings with man;

      4. DELIGHT (or as Sproul says dispositional will, or will of disposition) which refers to what God generally desires or would like or delights in "all things being equal." For example, that humans in general should be saved since they are made in God's image.

      5. DIRECTION (or directional will) which, unlike #3 which have to do with general commands and expectations, has to do with specific personally given commands and expectations. If one is a cessationist this only applied during Biblical times. And example of a directional will is God's command to Balaam not to go with the princes of Balak. But because Balaam was subborn and unwilling to fully obey, God allowed Balaam to eventually go to Balak, all the while knowing that He had previously purposed by His decree that Balaam would eventually go to Balak.

      Delete
  3. "Whether or not modern charismata occur is irrespective of what charismatics claim, one way or the other. It's undoubtedly the case that many charismatics make exaggerated claims or entertain exaggerated expectations. However, disproving exaggerating claims–which is a worthwhile exercise in itself–does nothing to disprove modern charismata."

    I think this is wanting your cake and eating it too. Isn't it essential that if modern "charismata" is true, that it ought to be, well, modern, and being practiced by somebody somewhere? So why can't we see it? If biblical tongues are actual languages, which they most certainly are, and they speak them all the time, it should be easy to get a recording of one and identify it for the language it is. Even an "angelic language," as many would like to feign, should still have some identifiable characteristics. Fact is, there are many such videos already, and that's the reason why people are not willing to give credence to the Charismatic claim.

    Why is it that the idea of Charismatic exaggeration, or of outright lies, false tongues, false prophecies, etc, not a problem for you?

    Another problem is that it isn't just the Charismatics who claim miraculous healings or other such miracles. It's the Oneness Pentecostals, with testimonies of alleged cancers disappearing because of their pastors praying over someone, complete with claims of medical substantiation. Now, these are a people who deny the trinity, and declare that you are damned because you have not been baptized in the name of Jesus by one of their ministers. Wiccans, Voodoo Priests, psychic vampires, all claim different supernatural phenomena. Mormons, as a matter of history, tell of "Charismatic" events in the early days of their religion. Charismatic Catholics, who worship Mary and deny salvation by grace, and think they are earning their salvation through their works, with their proof being these miracles, are these people really filled with the Holy Spirit? Is God really working through them?

    And is the Charismatic movement mostly Pelagian or not? When I go to, say, Andrew Strom's website, I'll get told that it is possible to be sinless. Do you agree with that? And why shouldn't I agree with that, when their visions and prophecies support it?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @ Apollo5600

      "Isn't it essential that if modern 'charismata' is true, that it ought to be, well, modern, and being practiced by somebody somewhere? So why can't we see it?"

      I don't think it's necessarily "essential." I think it need only be possible that charismata can potentially occur after whenever the cessationist cutoff happens to be (e.g. after the closing of the biblical canon). In fact, even if no charismata have ever occurred since say the closing of the canon, it doesn't necessarily imply they can't ever occur.

      Likewise, for instance, it could be God grants "modern charismata" intermittently throughout history. Whenever he chooses. Say perhaps there were charismata occurring in the early post-apostolic church, and/or the Medieval Ages, and/or in the 19th century, but not in our generation or for the last couple of generations.

      "If biblical tongues are actual languages, which they most certainly are, and they speak them all the time, it should be easy to get a recording of one and identify it for the language it is."

      This assumes biblical tongues are currently occurring somewhere, which may or may not be the case (per what I've said above).

      Also, even if they are occurring, I don't know how widespread they would be.

      Or how accessible they would be. For example, it may be the case that God grants the gift to a Christian only for a short period of time, and then no more for the rest of his or her life.

      It could likewise be the people who do speak in tongues don't wish to be recorded.

      There are other questions. But suffice it to say I don't necessarily think it would be "easy to get a recording." It depends on a number of factors.

      "Fact is, there are many such videos already, and that's the reason why people are not willing to give credence to the Charismatic claim."

      But the fact that videos of false charismata exist doesn't necessarily disprove true charismata.

      "Why is it that the idea of Charismatic exaggeration, or of outright lies, false tongues, false prophecies, etc, not a problem for you?"

      Well, who says it isn't? Speaking for myself, I would say these are problematic.

      "Another problem is that it isn't just the Charismatics who claim miraculous healings or other such miracles. It's the Oneness Pentecostals, with testimonies of alleged cancers disappearing because of their pastors praying over someone, complete with claims of medical substantiation. Now, these are a people who deny the trinity, and declare that you are damned because you have not been baptized in the name of Jesus by one of their ministers. Wiccans, Voodoo Priests, psychic vampires, all claim different supernatural phenomena. Mormons, as a matter of history, tell of 'Charismatic' events in the early days of their religion. Charismatic Catholics, who worship Mary and deny salvation by grace, and think they are earning their salvation through their works, with their proof being these miracles, are these people really filled with the Holy Spirit? Is God really working through them?"

      I think even cessationists grant the dark side can work such phenomena, no? Take demons. At least that's my understanding.

      "And is the Charismatic movement mostly Pelagian or not? When I go to, say, Andrew Strom's website, I'll get told that it is possible to be sinless. Do you agree with that? And why shouldn't I agree with that, when their visions and prophecies support it?"

      It's possible for the theology to be false, but the phenomena real.

      Delete
    2. Apollo5600:

      

"I think this is wanting your cake and eating it too."

      Actually, it's a case of being rational. There's an asymmetrical relationship between claims and events. If a charismatic makes an exaggerated claim, then the truth or falsity of his claim is contingent on what actually happens. However, the reverse is not the case. What actually happens is not contingent on the claim.

      Suppose a weather forecaster predicts that it will rain Monday-Friday. Suppose Thursday-Friday turn out to be sunny and dry.

      That falsifies his claim. But the fact that he was wrong about Thursday-Friday doesn't mean it didn't rain on Monday-Wednesday. He prediction doesn't cause the weather. And his misprediction doesn't change the weather. The weather will do whatever it will do regardless of his forecast.

      Cessationists are welcome to expose exaggerated claims by charismatics. That's a useful service.

      But the real issue regarding the status of modern miracles doesn't turn on what charismatics say and do, but what God says and does. The intelligent way to judge the status of modern miracles is not to judge the statements or behavior of charismatics, but to exegete Scripture and study the historical record. To examine what happens in real life. If you really care about the truth, then that's the proper frame of reference.

      "Isn't it essential that if modern 'charismata' is true, that it ought to be, well, modern, and being practiced by somebody somewhere?"

      You're ignoring what I was responding to. This is how Fred Butler cast the issue: "if contiuationists are correct that signs and wonders are a part of the *normal* Christian experience and they are happening with *regularity* among God’s people…"

      That's not a claim about "somebody, somewhere," but a claim about what's "normal" and "regular."

      "If biblical tongues are actual languages, which they most certainly are…"

      What commentaries have you read on Acts and 1 Corinthians?

      "Even an 'angelic language,' as many would like to feign, should still have some identifiable characteristics."

      What's your basis of comparison? An angelic language could well be sui generis. (I'm just responding to you on your own terms.)

      "Fact is, there are many such videos already, and that's the reason why people are not willing to give credence to the Charismatic claim."

      I haven't proposed that we give credence to what passes for glossolalia in most Pentecostal churches. Try again.

      "Why is it that the idea of Charismatic exaggeration, or of outright lies, false tongues, false prophecies, etc, not a problem for you?"

      Since I'm not charismatic, I'm not responsible for what charismatics do–just as I'm not responsible for what Lutherans do. I don't speak in tongues–never have.

      There is, however, evidence of genuine zenoglossy. That's rare, but not unheard of.

      In addition, your question begs the question by presuming that all modern prophecy is false prophecy–which I deny.

      "Another problem is that it isn't just the Charismatics who claim miraculous healings or other such miracles. It's the Oneness Pentecostals, with testimonies of alleged cancers disappearing because of their pastors praying over someone, complete with claims of medical substantiation."

      If you think that's real, then it torpedoes the cessationist argument that miracles are temporary sign-gifts designed to attest the messengers of the new covenant. Therefore, your example boomerangs against cessationism.

      If, on the other hand, you think the reported miracles among heretics are bogus, then how does that invalidate the reported miracles among orthodox charismatics? Your comparison is a non sequitur.

      Delete
    3. Say we read tales of the reformers receiving wondrous answers to prayers. For example, getting down on their knees and praying about whether or not a plague was coming, or, perhaps, suddenly declaring the impending judgment of God, and a Catholic promptly falls dead. Do Charismatics have THIS same power? It is one thing, I think, to believe that God answers prayers. It is quite another thing to say that God is active among the Charismatics. Another problem is this focus on visible signs and wonders to begin with. All my most stunning answers to prayer have always been those which came as a result of already believing, and these, always subtly. I was never "slain in the spirit," nor did I ever lose control and start babbling. Nor did I ever receive an exciting vision as a confirmation. I simply prayed, and God moved as silent as a mouse, but as powerful as an earthquake. The Charismatics/Pentecostals wouldn't be impressed by them, but to me, they are always quite stunning.

      Why is it that we, who are to live by faith, are so obsessed with revelatory gifts, and tongue-speaking, and all these sensual experiences?

      "What commentaries... "

      Gill, Calvin, Matthew Henry, and maybe others I cannot remember.

      "What's your basis of comparison? An angelic language could well be sui generis. (I'm just responding to you on your own terms.)"

      In that case, an angelic language would at least, no matter how unique, HAVE characteristics. Babbling, which is what passes for tongue-speak, has none whatsoever... and, surprise surprise, it's the one gift they harp on the most.

      "There is, however, evidence of genuine zenoglossy. That's rare, but not unheard of."

      I myself have heard of incidents where people have, by a rare impulse, have spoken in an actual language which resulted in a person's conversion. This is quite different, of course, from the tongues pentecostals/Charismatics practice, which aren't languages at all.

      "In addition, your question begs the question by presuming that all modern prophecy is false prophecy–which I deny."

      What do you mean by "prophecy"? There is a difference between an impulse a person might have to suddenly pray for someone else, and what goes on amongst Pentecostals/Charismatics. The type of "prophecies" I'm thinking of usually involves either something so vague that it doesn't ever have to come true; something so obvious it might as well have been unsaid; or more specific predictions which never come to pass. And within these prophecies are specific assertions about what God is saying or teaching, thus demanding from the audience a submission to their various "doctrines," or to pump themselves up.

      "If, on the other hand, you think the reported miracles among heretics are bogus, then how does that invalidate the reported miracles among orthodox charismatics? Your comparison is a non sequitur."

      An "Orthodox" Charismatic? Who are those? I've not meant them. I've met plenty of them who have been utterly ignorant about even the very basics of Christianity, who aren't even Arminian, as bad as that already is, but are outright Pelagian in their thinking. And yet they would have us believe that God speaks through them everyday!

      But as for my example, it certainly does destroy their claims and focuses us back on to the scripture. So many of them argue from the position that their doctrines are correct because they are supported by their miracles, and many are led to unfortunately believe this. But God has been known to work wonders to even outright infidels for to try the Saints (Deu 13). But even when God chooses to work in that way, these wicked people seldom have any of the power in prayer that men of God have been known to have.

      When the Charismatics embrace sound doctrine, abandon their emphasis on experience, cease all their babble, and agree to be stoned to death if they dare utter a false prophecy, then I will take their claims seriously.

      Delete
    4. Apollo5600:

"Another problem is that it isn't just the Charismatics who claim miraculous healings or other such miracles. It's the Oneness Pentecostals, with testimonies of alleged cancers disappearing because of their pastors praying over someone, complete with claims of medical substantiation. Now, these are a people who deny the trinity, and declare that you are damned because you have not been baptized in the name of Jesus by one of their ministers. Wiccans, Voodoo Priests, psychic vampires, all claim different supernatural phenomena. Mormons, as a matter of history, tell of 'Charismatic' events in the early days of their religion. Charismatic Catholics, who worship Mary and deny salvation by grace, and think they are earning their salvation through their works, with their proof being these miracles, are these people really filled with the Holy Spirit? Is God really working through them?"

      You're channeling Hume. That's a classic Humean objection to the Christian argument from miracles. Hume counters that reported miracles from rival religions cancel each other out. He deployed that argument against Christianity. You're playing right into the hands of the infidels. You need to acquire a modicum of discernment, instead of striking out blindly at all comers.

      You also jumble all claims together, as if every claim is equal to every other claim. If you were serious, you'd attempt to do some sorting. Evaluate sources and witnesses.

      Delete
    5. Apollo5600

      "Say we read tales of the reformers receiving wondrous answers to prayers. For example, getting down on their knees and praying about whether or not a plague was coming, or, perhaps, suddenly declaring the impending judgment of God, and a Catholic promptly falls dead. Do Charismatics have THIS same power?"

      For starters, I wouldn't frame the issue in terms of Christians "having power." That's a rather pagan concept. God has the power. We ask him for things. Oftentimes he does things for us before we ask.
      "It is quite another thing to say that God is active among the Charismatics."

      Since many charismatics are genuine Christians, of course God is active among them. God is active among Christians.

      "Another problem is this focus on visible signs and wonders to begin with."

      You're attacking something I didn't defend.

      "All my most stunning answers to prayer have always been those which came as a result of already believing, and these, always subtly. I was never 'slain in the spirit,' nor did I ever lose control and start babbling. Nor did I ever receive an exciting vision as a confirmation. I simply prayed, and God moved as silent as a mouse, but as powerful as an earthquake. The Charismatics/Pentecostals wouldn't be impressed by them, but to me, they are always quite stunning. Why is it that we, who are to live by faith, are so obsessed with revelatory gifts, and tongue-speaking, and all these sensual experiences?"

      And why is it that you, who claim to live by faith, spend so much time talking about yourself, flaunting your own spiritual discoveries, and invidiously comparing yourself to others? Maybe you need to be less self-absorbed.

      "Gill, Calvin, Matthew Henry, and maybe others I cannot remember."

      In other words, you do your study on the cheap. Stuff on the Internet. Old dated commentaries. That's a recipe for self-reinforcing ignorance.

      "In that case, an angelic language would at least, no matter how unique, HAVE characteristics."

      If there's such a thing as angelic language, you wouldn't have the slightest idea what that's like. It would be utterly alien. Resist the temptation to posture about things which, by definition, you can know nothing about.

      "I myself have heard of incidents where people have, by a rare impulse, have spoken in an actual language which resulted in a person's conversion. This is quite different, of course, from the tongues pentecostals/Charismatics practice, which aren't languages at all."

      It's different from the majority of charismatics. And it evinces the continued existence of the gift, albeit rare.

      "What do you mean by 'prophecy'?"

      Since I've discussed that repeatedly, if you have to ask, that means you haven't bothered to find out.

      "Who are those?"

      Evangelical charismatics.

      "I've met plenty of them who have been utterly ignorant about even the very basics of Christianity, who aren't even Arminian, as bad as that already is, but are outright Pelagian in their thinking."

      That's not a distinction between charismatics and non-charismatics, since there are many non-charismatics who are ignorant of basic Christian theology.

      And it's also revealing how you constantly make your personal, provincial experience your frame of reference.

      "When the Charismatics embrace sound doctrine, abandon their emphasis on experience…"

      Funny how you're oblivious to your own overemphasis on personal experience.

      Delete
    6. Re: Hume -- Luckily miracles do not convert in the first place. They put the world to shame, sometimes they even blind, sometimes they may be a tool for conversion, but unless one has a heart to perceive, given by God, even the mighty miracles the Jews experienced are for naught (Deut 29). Flashy miracles are inferior to the miracle that occurs within the heart, so I am indifferent. This sword of yours cuts both ways, against the infidels, but in favor of cultists, who can say what you have said just as easily.

      Re: Speaking as if every claim is equal-- If a Oneness Pentecostal speaks in tongues like a Charismatic, or claims to heal cancer like them, aren't these equal claims? Do you deny that Oneness Pentecostal miracles are of the same type and nature as yours? How do you know? And why do some Charismatics sometimes leave to join those heathens?

      Re: Commentaries -- Calvin et al. are cheap? Or am I cheap for not spending money? Actually I have Calvin in print. I have Luther in my library too. Does that make them valuable again and is your assertion undone? Or is the problem that none of these worthy men interpreted tongues as meaningless babble?

      Re: Angelic Lg -- But if it is a language, we can assume that symbols or words have a limited range of meaning, or else its not a language. Maybe the angels might have a language that is expressed through the pure transmission of emotions (lol), but you don't do that, you speak words which are then translated. Aren't you fighting me over "Angelic languages" in the first place because, deep down inside, you know your tongues are just babble with no meaning? When you go to your Charismatic church and you speak in tongues, is it possible that if you give the same message on more than one occasion, that different people may stand up and give entirely different interpretations of them? I know that happens, because I was a Charismatic once myself, and that's how these things work. And that's how I started to break free, when I realized that all their prophecies, visions, tongues and "slayings" of the Spirit, were absolutely empty and powerless. How about you record one of your sessions, and then repeat it over the course of a few months, and see how many different interpretations you can get?

      Re: Evinces continual existence of the gift -- Does it? I've never heard of such a person actually possessing the ability to do it at will, but it was a miracle wrought by God providentially and uniquely in that person's life, and in the life of the person who was touched. Certainly it proves that God still works miracles. It doesn't prove that they are owners of these miracles, or can perform them the way the Apostles used to. It also damages the Charismatics, because they cannot do it with any real power (or "substance"), even though they claim to do it every church service. Seeing as how the church no longer receives Apostles, or any men who can claim to have the "office" of a Prophet, then there is no reason to think that "gifts" in the Apostolic sense are still handed out, though God is free to do them whenever.

      Re: Personal experience - That may be true, but in the end, the Charismatics fail when we compare normal Christian experience and Biblical experience with their own experiences, which are mostly emotional and empty, whereas Christian experience is powerful and moving. If the Charismatics can thump their chest about their miracles, then I can thump my chest and say that I knew nothing of the power of God until after I left those miracle-mongers and health and wealth pimps. To hell with all those tongues I spoke! To all the times I prayed for prophecy! Or listened, intently, to some useless wretch who claimed to be a Prophet, yet whose mouth vomited forth only vain and useless things! The motto I keep today is this: "blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed" (Jo 20:29).

      Delete
    7. Apollo5600

      "Re: Hume -- Luckily miracles do not convert in the first place. They put the world to shame, sometimes they even blind, sometimes they may be a tool for conversion, but unless one has a heart to perceive, given by God, even the mighty miracles the Jews experienced are for naught (Deut 29)."

      You are using an argument that constitutes an attack on biblical miracles, by relativizing all miracle claims.

      "Flashy miracles are inferior to the miracle that occurs within the heart, so I am indifferent."

      That's just mock pious chest-thumping. One divine miracle is not inferior to another.

      "This sword of yours cuts both ways, against the infidels, but in favor of cultists, who can say what you have said just as easily."

      It cuts against all miracles, including biblical miracles.

      "Re: Speaking as if every claim is equal-- If a Oneness Pentecostal speaks in tongues like a Charismatic, or claims to heal cancer like them, aren't these equal claims? Do you deny that Oneness Pentecostal miracles are of the same type and nature as yours?"

      Since you offer no evidence, there's nothing for me to deny.

      "How do you know?"

      You haven't given me anything to know or not know. You've simply given me your threadbare assertion.
      "And why do some Charismatics sometimes leave to join those heathens?"

      Why do some cessationists become charismatics? Why do some Baptists become Presbyterians? Why do some Presbyterians become Baptists? What do some Calvinists become Catholics?

      "Or is the problem that none of these worthy men interpreted tongues as meaningless babble?"

      The problem is that you live in a bubble of prideful ignorance by shielding yourself from the counterarguments.

      "Aren't you fighting me over 'Angelic languages' in the first place because, deep down inside, you know your tongues are just babble with no meaning?"

      I discuss angelic languages because you brought it up. I don't speak in tongues.

      "When you go to your Charismatic church and you speak in tongues…"

      I don't attend a charismatic church.

      "It doesn't prove that they are owners of these miracles…"

      You think the apostles had "ownership" of miracles? At best, they were renters, not owners.

      "If the Charismatics can thump their chest about their miracles, then I can thump my chest…"

      Indeed you do. You're a play-actor, caught up in your swashbuckling role. An Errol Flynn wannabe. Don't spam my combox with any more of your histrionics. Save your vainglorious display for Facebook.

      Delete
    8. "That's just mock pious chest-thumping. One divine miracle is not inferior to another."

      What are you talking about? The miracle of conversion is many times more wonderful than, say, parting a great ocean, or wiping out 10 legions of Egyptians. There's nothing more hard than the human heart, yet God's power still makes it right. It is most certainly a superior miracle to all the rest, and the one which effects our conversion, while the rest can only be regarded as assistants. No doubt about it, all the miracles you harp about are inferior to this one. Which makes one wonder, why is it so important to you?

      "You are using an argument that constitutes an attack on biblical miracles, by relativizing all miracle claims."

      It be more accurate to say that I am "relativizing" [sic] YOUR miracles. If you recall, part of my argument is that your miracles aren't Biblical, hence the whole "your tongues aren't actual languages/your visions suck/they're a pale shadow, strutting and fretting," etc theme I've been writing about.

      "Since you offer no evidence, there's nothing for me to deny."

      There's plenty for you to investigate! But like you replied to me earlier, "if you have to ask, that means you haven't bothered to find out." Try googling "Oneness Pentecostal Healing cancer", and that should get you something right away. Or maybe try "Oneness Pentecostal tongues."

      "Why do some cessationists become charismatics? Why do some Baptists become Presbyterians? Why do some Presbyterians become Baptists? What do some Calvinists become Catholics?"

      But you miss the obvious... why does someone, who is supposedly moving in the gifts of the Spirit, joining a cult who practices "gifts of the Spirit" which we must presume are either Demonic, or designed by God to delude the reprobates? Shouldn't the quality of miracles be a problem?

      "I discuss angelic languages because you brought it up. I don't speak in tongues."

      Then I'm befuddled at your responses then, if you do not speak them at all! How can you defend Pentecostal/Charismatic tongues as being a gift given today, if you yourself don't know anything about what they are? Or have you witnessed them, at least?

      "You think the apostles had "ownership" of miracles? At best, they were renters, not owners."

      Renters, owners, or, at least, a consistent vehicle by which the Holy Spirit performs miracles. How about that? When the shadow of a Apostle heals a sick person, I would call this an instance of where he has a genuine gift of healing. This is not what those who claim to have the "office" of healers actually possess.

      If you yourself don't even attend these churches, perhaps you need to get educated first about their culture, what they actually teach, the "offices" they claim to have, and the powers they claim to possess, before you act as their enabler?

      Delete
    9. Apollo5600

:

      "What are you talking about? The miracle of conversion is many times more wonderful than, say, parting a great ocean, or wiping out 10 legions of Egyptians."

      The Bible doesn't have a rating system for divine miracles. For you to demean his miracles is impious.

      "It be more accurate to say that I am 'relativizing' [sic] YOUR miracles"

      Since "relativizing" is a real word, for you to put "sic" after my usage is a mark of your ignorance. Learn to build your vocabulary.

      "part of my argument is that your miracles…"

      I haven't made any claims about "my" miracles. You keep shadowboxing with invisible opponents.

      "Try googling 'Oneness Pentecostal Healing cancer', and that should get you something right away."

      That's not a serious way of researching miracles. But it says a lot about your nonexistent standards.

      "But you miss the obvious... why does someone, who is supposedly moving in the gifts of the Spirit, joining a cult who practices 'gifts of the Spirit' which we must presume are either Demonic, or designed by God to delude the reprobates?"

      That question piggybacks on your Google scholarship.

      "Then I'm befuddled at your responses then, if you do not speak them at all! How can you defend Pentecostal/Charismatic tongues as being a gift given today…"

      You're so inept. Instead of bothering to first acquaint yourself with your opponent's actual positions and arguments, you presume to jump into the middle of an ongoing debate, making ignorant assumptions and gratuitous imputations.

      Don't post any more comments until you inform yourself about my positions and arguments.

      "When the shadow of a Apostle heals a sick person, I would call this an instance of where he has a genuine gift of healing."

      I discussed that just recently. You're such an ignoramus. Once again, don't presume to attack someone's position before you first familiarize yourself with his position.

      "If you yourself don't even attend these churches, perhaps you need to get educated first about their culture, what they actually teach, the 'offices' they claim to have, and the powers they claim to possess, before you act as their enabler?"

      I don't need to participate in the psychodrama of your personal deconversion from Pentecostalism. Save that for the afternoon talk shows.

      Delete
  4. If anyone is interested, here's a link where I collected Steve's recent blogs on Cessationism chronologically on one blog:

    Steve Hays on Cessationism
    http://charismatamatters.blogspot.com/2013/08/steve-hays-on-cessationism.html


    ReplyDelete
  5. Steve,
    In your article you reference Matthew 19:18-26 - you meant Matthew 9:18-26. (the woman healed of hemorrhaging) (smile)

    ReplyDelete
  6. It is the arguments of continuationists which parallel those of atheists. Both demand that God prove Himself by providing extraordinary signs.

    An adulterous and wicked generation seeks a sign.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. To begin with, there are tens of millions, if not hundreds of millions, of continuationists. Many evangelical. A certain percentage are nominal Christians, but a certain percentage are devout Christians, even if you think they are mistaken. You are slandering millions of Christians, most of whom are perfect strangers to you. That's a classic example of a hasty generalization.

      What makes you think all of them are even seeking a sign? What if some of them became continuationists due to a religious experience which was unsolicited and unexpected? Do you think that never happens?

      And you've done nothing to refute my parallel. You are so focused on the enemy ahead of you that you're blind to the enemy behind you.

      Delete
    2. I know about the history of the pentecostal movement and am familiar from personal experience with the practices of several such churches. Of course you are right: I'm sure that not each and every charismatic is seeking a sign. That has never been my claim.

      I'm sure that there are some Roman Catholics who do not worship Mary. But I'm just as sure that most do. Because such is the official and common teaching of that organization. It's also what I was taught to do as a child.

      Likewise, I'm sure there are charismatics who do not seek supernatural signs and wonders. Nevertheless, it is historical fact that the roots of present-day pentecostalism and charismaticism are in movements that came together for the express purpose of seeking supernatural experiences.

      For example, in Topeka, KS, in 1901, the followers of Charles Parham vowed to remain locked in a room and to continue praying and imploring God to give them the gift of tongues—which they took to be the evidence of the infilling of the Holy Spirit—and not to leave till they received the Spirit and tongues. Which they eventually did, allegedly. Parham and his followers are considered to be the first modern Pentecostals.

      What they did is dangerous. No where does Scripture say that God will give the gift of tongues (or healing or prophesying, etc.) to everyone who demands it. Nor that tongues is the sign of the Spirit’s presence. God is at no man's beck and call. They figured He was. They forgot to pray that God's will be done, and prayed contrary to the Scriptures' explicit teaching on the gifts. This is very much like the atheists who demand a sign from God: “If God creates a constellation that spells out 'Believe in Jesus,' then I will believe.”

      I'm not saying that Parham and his followers were not true believers. I'm saying they erred (as we all do); and in a significant way. With respect to the gifts, they were acting like unbelievers. And the movement they birthed has continued the tradition of error.

      This is quite apart from the issue of whether God does miracles today. Almost all Christians would say “yes.” I would. I don't believe they are ordinarily as spectacular as the ones Jesus and the apostles did, however. Their ministries were foundational to the church. And, as the foundation we have cannot be improved upon, we don't neeed a new foundation.

      Look, if people today are raising the dead; restoring sight to the blind; growing back severed limbs; walking on water; having pornographic visions, like Mr. Driscoll; whatever; I'm open to considering the evidence. But that's not really the issue here. The issue is the seeking of signs, wonders, and supernatural experiences. It's a dangerous practise. And a lot of Christians are engaged in it. They need to be warned and called to repentance.

      Delete
    3. Pentecostalism got off to a shaky start. Believing that every Christian ought to speak in tongues, believing that tongues was the gateway gift to the other miraculous gifts, believing that if you don't have it you should seek it, invited well-meaning Christians to manufacture an experience they didn't have and couldn't have.

      This was exacerbated by the fact that Pentecostalism was originally a grass-roots movement of the underclass. Uneducated Christians are prey to ignorant theological mistakes.

      Mind you, that's a double-edged sword. If the uneducated are prone to excessive credulity, the educated are prone to excessive incredulity (at least in religious matters. The educated are quite gullible in other respects, viz. ufology, global warming).

      In fairness to Pentecostals, they didn't invent the notion that we should seek the spiritual gifts. They got that from conventional translations of 1 Cor 12:31 and 14:1. And cessationists don't generally challenge that construction. They simply think it's passé.

      Thiselton challenges that construction in his commentary on the Greek text, but that was published in 2000. His analysis wasn't available to the pioneers of Pentecostalism.

      Likewise, Pentecostals didn't invent the notion that faith and healing are linked. There are many passages in Scripture that explicitly link the two. By the same token, Pentecostals didn't invent the notion that you should be able to get whatever you pray for. There are passages of the Bible that say that. This isn't something they made up out of whole cloth.

      Of course, that suffers from selective, one-sided prooftexting. It disregards other passages that qualify those hyperbolic statements.

      Some of the abuses/excessive of the charismatic movement are inevitable in any human movement containing sinners. But some of the abuses/excesses are the fruit of root theological errors. Those excesses/abuses are ineluctable unless charismatic reinvents itself by eliminating faulty foundational assumptions, viz. that every Christian should possess one or more miraculous gifts.

      However, that doesn't mean the alternative to charismatics theology is cessationism. For that has opposite errors.

      It's simplistic for you to denounce a desire for signs. For one thing, cessationism assigns as much or more importance to signs than Pentecostalism. The whole notion that the sign-gifts are necessary to certify the messenger.

      In addition, the problem with Jews demanding signs wasn't that asking for signs is inherently adulterous, but that the Jews were always asking for *more* signs. They disregarded all the signs they already had. Take the Exodus generation. Take the Jews in Jesus' time. Jesus gave them plenty of signs.
      Their problem wasn't a lack of signs, but a lack of faith in the signs already given.

      As for atheists demanding signs, don't be naive. The signs they demand are purely hypothetical scenarios. That's a throwaway line. They propose deliberately unrealistic signs.

      Moreover, there are atheists who boast that even if they saw the stars rearrange themselves to spell out John 3:16, they wouldn't believe it. They'd say it was far more likely that they were hallucinating. Or they'd chalk it up to aliens. Take Arthur Clarke's Third Law: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

      Delete
    4. Steve,

      Good points. I agree with pretty much everything you wrote here. I'd like to clarify a couple things, though. I do not say that there is something wrong with desiring spiritual gifts or miracles. My concern is much more specific: seeking, or even demanding miraculous signs and wonders, and being dissatisfied if God doesn't deliver.

      Also, I never said there are no problems in cessationism. There are different flavors. Some actually teach that any miracles that occur today must be of the devil. I reject this.

      Delete