Fred Butler @Fred_Butler
I find it amusing that continuationists conveniently ignore Justin Peters and Joni Erickson. They dont fit the narrative. #StrangeFire
What continuationist narrative does Fred imagine that Joni doesn't fit? Does he mean MacArthur's statement that if anyone has the faith to be healed, it must be her? Is that the continuationist narrative? Or is that the straw man that MacArthur imputes to continuationism? Does continuationism take the position that lack of the faith is the only reason some people aren't healed?
I mean, sure, there are faith-healers who use that as a get-out-of-jail-free-card to explain away all their failures. They shift blame from themselves to the patient. "You didn't have enough faith!"
But it's inaccurate to impute that to a "continuationist narrative," as if that's entailed by charismatic theology.
Or does Fred mean that unless a healer can turn it on and off like a light-switch, he doesn't have the gift of healing?
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.
http://hipandthigh.blogspot.com/2005/12/cessation-of-spiritual-gifts-there-has.html#115081296962098592
Is that the continuationist narrative. Or is that Fred projecting his own mechanical concept of the the charismata onto continuationist? As if God abdicates control over the outcome.
As for "conveniently ignoring" Joni, why was she there in the first place? How was her presentation relevant to disproving continuationism?
There are two objective criteria for assessing continuationism. One is the exegetical argument. Is it taught in Scripture? Is it at odds with Scripture?
The other is the historical argument. If true, continuationism has real-world consequences. So does the historical record bear that out?
However, Joni's not a trained exegete, and she's not a church historian.
The closest thing they had to a church historian was Nathan Busenitz. Look as his résumé:
- B. A., The Master’s College
- M. Div., The Master’s Seminary
- Th. M., The Master’s Seminary
- Th. D., (in process) The Master’s Seminary
Not as if he's put himself in a situation where his assumptions are going to be seriously questioned.
According to the summary by Challies, Joni gave an inspirational testimony. Well, what's that if not an argument from religious experience? Indeed, what's that if not a naked appeal to emotion? Tugging at the heartstrings of the audience. She and JMac even did a duet. Very sweet. But is that the way to gauge continuationism?
Don't Macarthurites keep faulting charismatics for judging theology by experience? Faulting charismatics for basing theology their personal experience? Faulting charismatics for going by feelings rather than facts? Don't they deride faith-healers who work the audience? Manipulate their emotions?
But if Joni's personal testimony is an argument for cessationism, why aren't charismatic and Pentecostal testimonies probative for continuationism? If Joni can offer a testimonial for cessationism, why can't J. P. Moreland offer a testimonial for continuationism? Or Jerome Hines? Or Hugh Montefiore?
Indeed, it almost looks like a cynical ploy to use Joni as a human shield for cessationism. Hiding behind a girl. "You wouldn't hit a girl, would you? Much less a girl in a wheelchair! I dare you! I double dare you!"
About 8 PM tomorrow (Eastern time, USA) Michael Brown and Sam Waldron will be debating whether the New Testament charismatic gifts have ceased. Here's the YouTube link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFpqVPhWt2Y&feature=share
ReplyDeleteI wish someone other than Dr. Brown would do these debates.
DeleteYeah, me too. I really like Dr. Brown, but he's not the best person to debate the issue because his expertise is in Biblical Hebrew not Biblical Greek. Maybe someone like John Piper, or Wayne Grudem, or Sam Storms. I all three of them are Calvinistic Baptists like Sam Waldron. Or a young Gordon Fee, or even Matt Slick (padeobaptistic Calvinist).
Deletetypo correction: "I all three of them" = "All three of them"
DeleteGordon Fee is a very well respected Biblical exegete and textual critic who is also a Pentecostal. Unfortunately, he's not a Calvinist and he's almost 80 years old. Dr. Brown was a Calvinist briefly for a while (5 years?) before eventually rejecting it.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis post put into words much of what I have been thinking about that whole episode with Joni at the conference. Thanks.
ReplyDelete"Is that the continuationist narrative. Or is that Fred projecting his own mechanical concept of the the charismata onto continuationist? As if God abdicates control over the outcome."
ReplyDeleteSeems to be the continuationist narrative, no?
Based on what?
DeleteGift possession?
DeleteI've discussed that on several occasions. Don't waste my time raising objections I already dealt with.
DeleteSomeone gifts you a car. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. That's the continuationist narrative?
DeleteThat isn't the narrative that Fred imputed to continuationism. Try again.
DeleteSomeone gifts you a car. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. That's the continuationist narrative?
DeleteA father giving his son a car (which the son cannot afford) doesn't necessitate that the son has money to purchase the gas. A father giving his 13 year old son a rifle doesn't necessitate that the father gives the son all the ammo he may ever want to use for his own childish purposes. The father will give the son the necessary ammo at the right time for the right purposes. For example, when they go out hunting or when the family is under attack, or for target practice etc.
Without question there "was" (or "is", given continuationism) a human element in the operation of the charismatic gifts since they were to be used in proportion to faith and experience/skill (Rom. 12:6b, 3; 1 Pet. 4:11b; Matt. 17:19-20). That's also why they could be abused (e.g. the gift of tongues in Corinth) and why they could be regulated (in a sense) by the possessor of the gift (e.g. 1 Cor. 14:32). Sometimes it might have been the case that the degree of manifestation of some of the gifts occasionally depended on the faith of the recipient or prayee not just the pray-er. Since even though there were times when Jesus healed people irrespective of the presence or degree of faith of the recipient, at other times Jesus said, "according to your faith be it unto you" and "if you can believe, all things are possible to him who believes" (i.e. the faith of the recipient was a factor in the degree of manifestation). There are other similar statements of Christ in the Gospels. In one instance Paul healed someone on the basis of the faith of lame person rather than his own faith (Acts 14:8-9; cf. Luke 8:46). Gal. 3:5 might refer to the faith of both pray-er and/or prayee.
Yet at the same time, their proper and full use was ultimately dependent on the Sovereign God who gave the ability (Rom. 12:6a; Luke 5:17d; 9:54-56; Acts 4:29-30; 14:3d; Heb. 2:4; 1 Cor. 12:11b,6b). Did no one in Timothy's congregation have the gift of faith by which to heal him? Would God allow the "sons of Thunder" to rain down fire on a city at THEIR will? Even in Jesus ministry there were times when God the Father was especially willing and the Holy Spirit especially present to heal the sick (Luke 5:17).
Annoyed Pinoy: "That's also why they could be abused (e.g. the gift of tongues in Corinth) and why they could be regulated (in a sense) by the possessor of the gift (e.g. 1 Cor. 14:32)."
DeleteYour bold-face italicized part may be what Fred Butler is addressing in the latter-half of his comment:
"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."
Annoyed Pinoy: "Yet at the same time, their proper and full use was ultimately dependent on the Sovereign God who gave the ability"
And this statement may be what Fred Butler is addressing in the first-half of his comment:
"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."
What is my narrative? I'm lost. Both Peters and Tada sought to be healed by continuationists. A particular continuationist that your hero Keener even documents in his book. Both Peters and Tada left their encounter with the continuationist unhealed. Along with a scores of other individuals who were in their same condition. What happened? Why? Oh sure, some third world kid somewhere dipped in the river and was healed of her cholera, so you can't deny the continuation of the gifts.
ReplyDeleteFred,
Deletei) What makes you think continuationism has a single narrative on this issue? What makes you think continuationism is that monolithic?
ii) You're evidently taking the position that if the "gift of healing" continues, then a healer can heal any patient the healer tries to heal.
if so, what makes you think that's the continuationist narrative rather than your own interpretation of what the "gift of healing" entails?
Some continuationists stress the sovereignty of God. Others claim the sick must exercise faith. On either interpretation, a healer would not be able to heal every patient they lay hands on.
So that's something you're putting into the continuationist narrative rather than something you're getting out of the continuationist narrative.
iii) Since you allude to Keener's discussion of Kathryn Kuhlman, Keener furnishes documentation of medically verified healings. So that's not "some third world kid somewhere dipped in the river and was healed of her cholera."
"On either [continuationist] interpretation, a healer would not be able to heal every patient they lay hands on."
ReplyDeleteCurious, do continuationist/charismatic folks make this clearly known to folks, so as to set expectations accordingly of the "spiritually gifted" healer?
Well, this obviously depends on the person in question. Some "continuationist/charismatic folks" may do so, while others may not.
DeleteAre you deliberating changing the subject to divert attention away from Fred's actual argument? When Fred says "continuationists conveniently ignore Justin Peters and Joni Erickson [because] they dont fit the narrative," his accusation implies that he's judging continuationism on its own grounds. That the experience of Peters and Joni Eareckson Tada is inconsistent with the continuationist narrative. That would be an internal critique. Is the continuationist claim at odds with the empirical outcome? Does it predict for a different result?
DeleteIn reality, he seems to be judging continuationism by his own standards. How *he* defines the "gift of healing." It's a fundamental distinction.
Steve: "Is the continuationist claim at odds with the empirical outcome? Does it predict for a different result?"
DeleteHence the suggestion to qualify and nuance continuationist claims so as to set expectations accordingly.
"Fallible healing. With this spiritually gifted healer, you folks may or may not get healed."
Then there's no prediction of a miraculous healing, there shouldn't be an undue expectation of a miraculous healing, and there's no binding claim that there will be a miraculous healing by the allegedly gifted healer.
You keep changing the subject. Why is that? The question at issue is whether Fred accurately depicted "the continuationist narrative." The question at issue is whether Fred is foisting his own interpretation of the "gifts" onto continuationism, then alleging that "the continuationist narrative" is contradicted by the facts. Is Fred surreptitiously judging continuationism on his own terms even though he claims to be judging continuationism on its own terms? That's the issue.
DeleteYou need to acquire the critical detachment to accurately represent a position you disagree with. You also need to acquire the mental discipline to focus on the actual argument, as stated, rather than recasting the issue according to your own agenda.
I'm not going to spend all day correcting you. Before you can evaluate a position, you must understand it.
This isn't a question of whether continuationism is true or false. We haven't gotten to that stage of the argument. Not in this post.
Rather, we're at the preliminary stage of identifying what the position actually amounts to. Focus on one thing at a time.
What is the official or formal continuationist narrative that all or nearly all continuationists/charismatics stipulate to?
DeleteWith regards to the comment directly above, I re-read the thread, and saw that you wrote this:
Delete"Fred,
i) What makes you think continuationism has a single narrative on this issue? What makes you think continuationism is that monolithic?"
So you're saying that since continuationism is non-monolithic, there's no single narrative. But whatever continuationist narrative that Fred is addressing, he's got it wrong. Is that your argument?
There's been discussion of a lack of nuance, a lack of qualification in the conversations between cessationists and continuationists/charismatics.
ReplyDeleteWouldn't it be helpful if continuationist/charismatics offered carefully nuanced statements like:
o Fallible healing. With this spiritually gifted healer, you folks may or may not get healed.
o Fallible tongues. With this spiritually gifted tongue-speaker, the tongues you hear may be an authentic language, it may be private prayer language, or it might be yammering gibberish.
o Fallible prophecy. With this spiritually gifted prophet, the foretelling prophecy that's uttered may or may not come true.
Setting expectations appropriately would be helpful, don't you think?
Hi TUAD,
DeleteYes, of course, clarity, nuance, qualifications, and so forth would be helpful here.
But this assumes there hasn't been clarity, nuance, qualifications, and so forth here. However, Steve's posts have been quite clear, nuanced, qualified, and so forth.
What's more, this cuts both ways. Are you leaving these sorts of comments over on the Pyros' blog as well? I hope so!
Well, TUAD, what charismatics have you studied? Gordon Fee? Craig Keener? Max Turner? Don Codling? Graham Twelftree?
DeleteJack Deere.
DeleteSo you accuse charismatics of not offering nuanced statements, yet you've read virtually none of their best scholars.
DeleteSorry that you see it as an accusation. I'm merely hoping to bridge the distance between cessationists and continuationists/charismatics.
DeleteI simply think it would be helpful if all or nearly all continuationist/charismatics offered carefully nuanced statements like:
o Fallible healing. With this spiritually gifted healer, you folks may or may not get healed.
o Fallible tongues. With this spiritually gifted tongue-speaker, the tongues you hear may be an authentic language, it may be private prayer language, or it might be yammering gibberish.
o Fallible prophecy. With this spiritually gifted prophet, the foretelling prophecy that's uttered may or may not come true.
Calling it "yammering gibberish" is burning bridges, not building bridges.
DeleteOkay. I'll rephrase. Substitute "unintelligible speech" for "yammering gibberish."
DeleteActually, I think the ensuing discussion shows that the distance between Fred and Steve are not as far apart as first appears.
ReplyDeleteFred: "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."
Steve: "On either [continuationist] interpretation, a healer would not be able to heal every patient they lay hands on."
With Steve's stipulation above and Fred's observations about "spiritually gifted" messengers, there looks to be broad agreement here.
What in the world are you talking about? Fred's position is the polar opposite. According to Fred, the gift of healing means God delegated to the healer the autonomous power to heal at will. If they don't heal someone, that's because they didn't try, not because they tried and failed.
DeleteFor Fred, if someone claims to be a healer, but fails to heal each and everyone he lays hands on, then he doesn't have the gift of healing. He's not a genuine healer. He could have a 99% success rate, but a single failure is sufficient to invalidate his claims.
Fred takes that position because it's a short-cut argument for cessationism. It shifts the burden of proof. Fred can summarily discount every successful healing, since, for him, the only evidence that counts is the ability to heal everyone, not the ability to heal anyone, or some rather than others. It's a way of rendering cessationism unfalsifiable by definition.
I did not understand Fred to be saying what you say he's saying. Of course, he may very well be. And I'll let him affirm or disaffirm your characterization of his argument.
Delete(Me) "With Steve's stipulation above and Fred's observations about "spiritually gifted" messengers, there looks to be broad agreement here."
ReplyDelete(Steve) "What in the world are you talking about?"
Wouldn't both of you agree that alleged "divine healers" don't heal every patient they lay hands on?
This is Fred's position:
Delete"Peter and Paul healed people because Jesus delegated to His apostles such abilities. See again Matthew 10. So yes, they could heal anyone at will, and did so on a number of occasions in Acts."
http://hipandthigh.wordpress.com/2013/07/28/why-wont-faith-healers-heal-amputees/
Wouldn't both of you agree that alleged "divine healers" today don't heal every patient they lay hands on?"
DeleteSo yes, they could heal anyone at will, and did so on a number of occasions in Acts.
DeleteWhat about Matt. 17:19-20 or Mark 9:17-18? The apostles were unable to cast out a demon "at will" for lack of faith. The more consistent instances of healing in Acts may have been due to a combination of 1. the development of their faith beyond what they had for the deaf-mute demoniac; 2. the faith of the prayees (e.g. Acts 14:9); 3. God's sovereign intention to heal on those occasions.
Hi Annoyed Pinoy, would you agree that alleged "divine healers" today don't heal every patient they lay hands on?
DeleteFully? No. But maybe healing was begun or progressed further in an imperceptible (or perceptible) way similar to how the fig tree Jesus cursed either didn't show any immediate signs of death but eventually in the (next?) morning it had withered from the roots. Or the tree immediately showed signs of withering, but it didn't wither fully from the roots till a new (next?) morning (compare Mark 11:12-25 & Matt. 21:18-22).
DeleteI believe it's God's revealed will to always heal, even though it's not always God's intention and will of decree to heal. Therefore, there is a possible situation (i.e. one possible situational permutation) where God doesn't intend to heal a person of cancer (say a person named Homer). His neighbor Ned doesn't know God doesn't intend to heal Homer because it's God's hidden will of decree. Nevertheless, Ned who believes in divine healing, attempts to exercise his developing "grace of faith" (per George Mueller's distinctions) for Homer's healing. But Homer doesn't get better in any obvious or apparent way. In fact, he eventually dies of the cancer. In times past God granted Ned the "gift of faith" (in distinction from the use of the "grace of faith") to heal other people of cancer, but in this case Homer died. Does that mean that healing wasn't begun in Homer's body or spirit? Not necessarily. It may have begun imperceptibly because God is faithful to honor genuine faith, but in this instance God didn't intend for Homer to get well so God didn't grant Ned "the gift of faith" nor allow his exercise of the "grace of faith" to finish the job. Nor did God allow pastor Lovejoy to fully exercise the gifts of healing he has to get Homer well. Lovejoy's ministering added to and progressed the partial healing accomplished by Ned's prayers so that Homer lived long enough to "get his house in order" and to say goodbye to his family. If Ned and Lovejoy hadn't ministered in the way they did, Homer would have died earlier. But in God's sovereignty, He orchestrated the means of Ned's and Lovejoy's faith and ministering to bring about Homer's death at the right time.
BTW: George Mueller would not have said that one could use the "grace of faith" for healing with strong confidence or expectation for healing since he believed there was no promise of guaranteed healing (i.e. he didn't believe that God's revealed will is always to heal on the condition of faith). So, I used Mueller's distinction of the "grace of faith" in the case of Ned differently than Mueller would have himself. Mueller would say that ONLY if one had the "gift of faith" (which comes upon a person on and off as God grants) could one rightly expect guaranteed healing. Something which he sometimes (but not always) received from God for people's healing.
Remember too that even Jesus had to pray for one blind man twice (Mark 8:22-26). That's a case of progressive healing. Also, the 10 lepers were healed "on their way" to the priests. That's another case of "delayed" healing. Depending on the translation, some passages in the Gospels seem to imply that some of the people Jesus healed weren't healed immediately because they "began to amend" or were healed "in the same hour" (e.g. Matt. 8:13; 9:22; John 4:52-53 ASV, NKJV, NET). James appeals to Elijah's prayer for rain as an example of fervent prayer in the context of prayer for healing. When we look at Elijah's prayer for rain, he repeatedly prayed and persisted in praying until there was evidence of an answer. Seven times Elijah tells one of his servants to go and check the sky to see if it looks like it's going to rain (1 Kings 18:42-44). Evidently, James is saying that sometimes praying for healing might require persistence. Jesus also taught persistence in prayer in many places (e.g. Matt. 7:7-8ff; Luke 11:5-10ff; 18:1-8).
DeleteOh, and it goes without saying that some sincere Christians may believe they have certain charismatic gifts which they may not actually have. Also, that there are self-conscious frauds and con men out there too.
One of the demoniacs in the area of the Gerasenes was healed progressively since it says in Mark 5 that the demons were pleading with Jesus not to torment them AFTER Jesus had begun to command the demons to come out. Apparently, Jesus didn't heal the man instantly (Mark 5:6-10). It took time to cast out the demons, even if only 5 minutes (which would be about the time it would take for the conversation recorded to have taken place). One blind man's healing was delayed because he had to wash off the mud Jesus placed on his eyes (made with Jesus' spittle) at the pool of Siloam (John 9). The blind man had to walk to the pool. On another occasion, two blind men were following and calling out to Him by repeatedly saying "Have mercy on us, son of David". It was only when Jesus reached the house that he was he willing to heal them. Apparently Jesus was testing their faith and persistence since He obviously heard the blind men but kept on walking away from them till He reached the house (Matt. 9:27-31). Same thing with the Syrophoenician woman whom Jesus initially declined and refused to heal her daughter. Namaan had to dip in the Jordan river 7 times (2 King 5). Regarding Zarephath's widow, Elijah had to stretch himself on the child three times before the child was resurrected (1 Kings 17). Regarding the Shunammite woman's son, Elisha walked in the house "to and fro" and then eventually went up and stretched himself on the child. The child didn't open his eyes until after he sneezed seven times (2 King 4). Walking to and fro suggests to me that Elisha was praying. Similar to how Elijah prayed:
DeleteAnd he said to her, "Give me your son." And he took him from her arms and carried him up into the upper chamber where he lodged, and laid him on his own bed. And he cried to the LORD, "O LORD my God, have you brought calamity even upon the widow with whom I sojourn, by killing her son?
I cited all these passages to show that sometimes healings took time, or was delayed, or was progressive. Or that the answer was delayed, or that God or Christ tested people's patience and persistence.
There's a sense in which you can say that God "healed" Abraham and Sarah from barrenness since Sarah was past the age of child bearing and Paul says Abraham's body "was as good as dead" (Rom. 4:19). Yet, Abraham's persistent faith in God's promises was rewarded. The delay of their "healing" and the fulfillment of God's promise of a child took around 25 years. :
"In hope he believed against hope, that he should become the father of many nations..........He did not weaken in faith when he considered his own body, which was as good as dead (since he was about a hundred years old), or when he considered the barrenness of Sarah's womb.20 No distrust made him waver concerning the promise of God, but he grew strong in his faith as he gave glory to God,21 fully convinced that God was able to do what he had promised." Rom. 4:18-21
Me: "Hi Annoyed Pinoy, would you agree that alleged "divine healers" today don't heal every patient they lay hands on?"
ReplyDeleteAnnoyed Pinoy: "Fully? No."
Thank you. I believe that you and Fred Butler are in agreement on that score.
Annoyed Pinoy: "Oh, and it goes without saying that some sincere Christians may believe they have certain charismatic gifts which they may not actually have. Also, that there are self-conscious frauds and con men out there too."
Thank you for saying so.
Annoyed Pinoy: "But maybe healing was begun or progressed further in an imperceptible (or perceptible) way similar to how the fig tree Jesus cursed either didn't show any immediate signs of death but eventually in the (next?) morning it had withered from the roots."
Supposing so. All the more reason to urge truth-in-advertising for continuationist/charismatic claims to contain nuance, qualification, and caveats.
"Fallible healing. With this spiritually gifted healer, you folks may or may not get healed. Further, maybe healing was begun or progressed further in an imperceptible (or perceptible) way similar to how the fig tree Jesus cursed either didn't show any immediate signs of death but eventually in the (next?) morning it had withered from the roots. We continuationists/charismatics want to set expectations accordingly. Thank you."
Supposing so. All the more reason to urge truth-in-advertising for continuationist/charismatic claims to contain nuance, qualification, and caveats.
DeleteAgreed. I've always believed that. Not all continuationists make exaggerated or false claims of the supernatural.