I've run across the following strategies which MacArthurites use to deny modern miracles:
i) They say we have is no objective evidence for modern miracles. For instance, we have no medical verification. All we have are reports from dark-skinned, beetle-browed Third-World primitives.
You then ask what literature the MacArthurite has studied in modern miracles. Oftentimes, they act as if that's an outlandish demand.
ii) When confronted with evidence countering their denial (e.g. medical verification), one fallback strategy is to distinguish between mediate and immediate miracles. They deny the occurrence of modern miracles involving human agency.
Now, there are certainly cases in which that's a valid distinction. However, there are other cases where that distinction breaks down. Take Jas 5:15-16. To say that doesn't involve human agency is special pleading.
Of course, a MacArthurite could add further caveats to exempt a Jas 5:15-16 case, but that would be evasive. In that event they are devising ad hoc criteria to preemptively screen out any evidence which would falsify their claims. It parallels methodological atheism. Whenever your demand is met, move the goal post.
iii) Another fallback strategy is to admit the miracle, but say it's the wrong kind of miracle. It doesn't rise to the level of a Biblical miracle. So the admission becomes a throwaway concession.
There are problems with that maneuver. Biblical miracles are not all of a kind. Is the floating ax-head or the coin in the fish's mouth on the same plane as raising Lazarus or surviving in a furnace?
Anyway, isn't the issue whether an event rises to the level of a miracle, not whether it rises to the level of an extra special miracle? The contrast is supposed to be between modern miracles and their nonoccurence, not between different kinds of occurrent modern miracles.
iv) A related fallback is to admit the miracle, but discount it because it's not an "undeniable" miracle.
One problem with that strategy is the ambiguity of the key term. Does "undeniable" mean:
a) A miracle which no one should deny?
or
b) A miracle which no one would deny?
A MacArthurite can't mean (b), because that would discredit every Biblical miracle at one stroke. After all, there are millions of unbelievers who deny Biblical miracles.
So that leaves (a): A miracle which no reasonable person will deny. A miracle which nobody ought to deny.
If so, a MacArthurite needs to explain why it's reasonable for him to deny the miracle in question.
v) A final fallback strategy is to admit the miracle, but classify it as a demonic miracle. There is some biblical precedent for that category.
However, there also happens to be biblical precedent for misattributing the work of the Spirit to the work of the devil (Mt 12:22-32). If a MacArthurite is so bent on denying modern miracles that he'd always opt for a demonic attribution over a divine attribution, then he'd attribute a miracle to the devil even if God is its source.
In addition, God is behind some demonic miracles (e.g. 1 Sam 16:14). So those aren't always mutually exclusive attributions.
I don't think many MacArthurites deny miracles entirely. God does miracles regularly. But we don't see specific people who are consistently able to do miracles.
ReplyDeleteOne difference with modern miracles is that the person praying doesn't know beforehand if their prayer will be answered. In the bible we see people like Elijah and Peter who knew that a miracle was about to occur. They were never wrong. Saying “I have no silver and gold, but what I do have I give to you. In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, rise up and walk!” is completely different from praying and sometimes having my prayers answered.
We can disagree about whether the gift of healing is the first, the second, or both. But they are different things.
Eric
Delete"I don't think many MacArthurites deny miracles entirely."
I didn't say they did.
"God does miracles regularly."
The MacArthurites I've seen don't go that far.
"But we don't see specific people who are consistently able to do miracles."
That's a nice example of a makeshift distinction.
"One difference with modern miracles is that the person praying doesn't know beforehand if their prayer will be answered. In the bible we see people like Elijah and Peter who knew that a miracle was about to occur. They were never wrong. Saying 'I have no silver and gold, but what I do have I give to you. In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, rise up and walk!' is completely different from praying and sometimes having my prayers answered."
That's another makeshift distinction. Moreover, it's unscriptural. The prophet David prayed to God to spare the life of his unborn son. God refused. Elijah prayed to God to take his life. God refused. Jonah prayed to God to take his life. God refused. Paul prayed to God three times to remove the thorn in his flesh. God refused.
The distinction isn't that miracles always occurred one way in the bible and another way today. There were two ways miracles could occur. Sometimes miracles were prayed for as we pray for them today. Those prayers were only sometimes answered. But other times the person performing the miracle knew beforehand that it was going to occur. When Elijah says "If I am a man of God, let fire come down from heaven" or Peter say "rise up and walk" they knew what was going to happen. If Peter had said to someone "In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, rise up and walk" and it hadn't happened he would have discredited himself and brought shame on Jesus Christ.
DeleteThe distinction is that people today claim to be in the second category when they're really in the first.
And how is that distinction relevant to the general question of whether the charismata ever occur today?
DeleteIf we define prophecy as the direct words of God as in the old testament, tongues as speaking an unknown human language, and healing as my second definition above. That's what we don't see today.
DeleteMost charismatics argue for fallible prophecy, tongues as speaking in a heavenly language, and healing as praying for healing.
I believe that the gifts as defined by charismatics are not the biblical gifts. Charismatic prophecy and tongues are false gifts and charismatic healing is a real thing wrongly defined.
Eric
Delete"If we define prophecy as the direct words of God as in the old testament…"
Why should we define prophecy that way? What about dreams and visions (e.g. Acts 2:17)?
You see, you're not getting your definition from Scripture. Rather, you're beginning with a preconceived definition which you picked up from some cessationist writer, and using that to frame the issue, even though your definition fails to distinguish between verbal and visionary prophecy.
"tongues as speaking an unknown human language…"
Why should we grant that interpretation? What commentators have you read on Acts and 1 Corinthians?
…and healing as my second definition above."
Which I already evaluated and found wanting. You're just repeating your tendentious definition, while ignoring my counterargument.
"That's what we don't see today."
Since you rigged the key terms of the debate, that's a foregone conclusion.
"Most charismatics argue for fallible prophecy…"
They do? That's Wayne Grudem's argument. Do you have polling data that most charismatics have read his argument and agree with him?
"tongues as speaking in a heavenly language…"
Let's see. Noncharismatic scholar E. E. Ellis defines tongues that way while charismatic scholar Craig Keener doesn't.
"…and healing as praying for healing."
Once again, where's your evidence that that's how "most charismatics" define healing?
"I believe that the gifts as defined by charismatics are not the biblical gifts."
What charismatic scholars have you read?
BTW, the theological claims of charismatics is not the best starting point. What ultimately matters is what actually happens…or not. The theological claims of charismatics and cessationists have no bearing on reality. They don't prove or disprove what takes place. In that respect, testimonial claims are far more relevant than theological claims. Are there well-attested examples of certain phenomena. That's a better starting point.
The theological claims matter allow us to evaluate what happens. If Deuteronomy 13 and 18 are still in force then it invalidates any prophet who errs no matter what happens.
DeleteI've read Wayne Grudem and a few others, but I certainly need to continue to study.
I'm curious how your position differs from mine. In http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2007/01/miracle-of-sun.html you call yourself a semicessationist. "Somewhere in the middle is the semicessationist position, according to which miracles continue, but not miracle-workers." That seems very close to what I'm trying to articulate.
It invalidates their claim to speak for God.
DeleteAs I've said, there are cases where we can distinguish between miracles and miracle-workers. But we can't use that distinction to steamroll every case in defiance of the specifics.
It doesn't rise to the level of a Biblical miracle.
ReplyDeleteJesus had to pray for a blind man twice. Given some cessationist criteria, the first prayer and healing didn't rise to the level of a Biblical miracle. *g*
BTW, I suspect that the reason it took two miracles is because not only was it necessary for the man's eyes to be healed, but also the wiring in his brain. See this Breakpoint ARTICLE (HERE) for a scientific explanation. One may ask, didn't God know that two things needed to be healed in the person? Couldn't God have healed both at the same time? Sure. As the 2nd person of the Trinity, Jesus could and sometimes did perform miracles by His own power and authority. However, I suspect that normally Jesus had to exercise His own faith for a person's healing. He grew in wisdom and stature (Luke 2:52) and sinlessly learned ever increasing obedience (Heb. 5:8). I suspect He had to grow in faith too as the Author/PIONEER of our faith.
That's because:
1. He needed to refrain (for the most part) from exercising His power and authority according to Phil. 2:6-9. That's how I understand the "emptying" of kenosis. He didn't literally cease to be God. Rather He voluntarily veiled it.
2. As the Messiah, He was meant to be a model of how spirit-filled Christians are supposed to be like (or strive/aim to be like). " A pupil is not above his teacher; but everyone, after he has been fully trained, will be like his teacher" (Luke 6:40//Matt. 10:24-25 cf. John 14:12-14).
Another possibility for why two prayers and healings were needed was that in His humanity, Jesus thought the only thing wrong was with the man's eyes, so He prayed for only that. Not knowing that the man's brain also needed to be healed. That's why Jesus had to pray a second time. I'm not denying that in Jesus' divine nature He was omniscient, since there are some Christian theologians who affirm a unique formulation of the incarnation where Christ has two minds or centers of consciousness whereby each nature has it's own mind, and the human mind is a kind of subset of the divine mind. For example, Thomas Morris' book The Logic of God Incarnate. William Lane Craig seems to endorse a similar view (but I'm not sure).
It bugs me when Macarthurites or others state with conviction that the Apostles were able to do miracles when ever they wanted to. I was reading the story in Acts where the lame man was healed by Peter and John. Peter clearly says.. hey guys, pull your head in. It had nothing to do with me.. it was all God having mercy on this poor guy.
ReplyDelete