I'm going to comment on the latest delusional statements by Ed Dingess.
I have argued in previous posts that those who accuse John MacArthur's "Strange Fire" of painting the mainstream charismatics (whatever that is) with a fringe brush do so without any evidence whatever. In fact, I have argued that all the evidence suggest that men like Carson and Grudem are the ones on the fringe while the mainstream is busy speaking gibberish, barking like dogs, and singing the praises of Benny Hinn and Joel Olsteen. Well, Fred Butler has shared a post by Mennoknight over at "Watch Your Life and Doctrine Closely" that I think you might find enlightening. The argument from bloggers like Hays simply does not comport with the facts.
Here we see a legend in the making. This is how legends are born, as well as how legends are perpetuated. And, unfortunately, it's a hallmark of a cult mentality. Cults create legendary histories about their theological opponents. Cult members get their "facts" from the cult leaders. Their knowledge of the outside world is mediated through the writings of the cult leader. They accept his version of the facts as undoubtedly true. They don't to back to read what their opponents firsthand.
The legendary history goes unchallenged within the cult, both because of the general groupthink mentality as well as because questioning the in-house legends would render you suspect in the eyes of your fellow adherents. That would be disloyal. Mustn't express skepticism about what your elders and better tell you.
One legendary meme which MacArthurites are perpetuating is the attribution that cessationists should judge continuationism by its best representatives because we think the charlatans aren't truly representative of the charismatic movement. We think that's just the lunatic fringe, whereas the reputable spokesmen reflect the mainstream. MacArthurites keep drilling this meme into the minds of their dutiful followers.
However, I've never said that someone like Benny Hinn is just a fringe figure in the charismatic movement. Dingess imputes to me an argument I never use, then proceeds to disprove the argument he imputed to me. The exercise is circular from start to finish.
To begin with, there's an elementary difference between judging a movement and judging its ideology. Whether the ideology is true or false is something we ought to judge by considering the best arguments of its most sophisticated exponents.
If these freaks were not the mainstream, how is it that they have such large followings, live such lavish lifestyles, and are able to sell so many books and have so many people watching their programs? The only way this many Charismatic leaders can rise to such prominence and live such lucrative lifestyles is because they are supported by the mainstream of the Charismatic movement. There is no other plausible explanation.
As noted above, he's attacking an argument I never made. The whole post is an exercise in misdirection. But since he brings it up, let's consider his argument.
There are estimated to be around 500 million charismatics worldwide. Of course, that's a loose figure. But let's grant the figure for the sake of argument. If someone has a more accurate figure, feel free to mention it.
Now, as a statistical share of the overall movement, it only takes an infinitesimal fraction to support a lavish lifestyle. Let's take some comparisons. The Bhagwan Rajneesh had a fleet of 93 Rolls Royces, private jets, and diamond-studded Swiss watches. Yet there were only a few thousand members of his commune. Fewer than many megachurches.
Or take Joel Gregory, short-lived successor to W. A. Criswell. He became disillusioned when he discovered all the perks of being senior pastor of the SBC flagship: the mansion, the expense account, free airfare, memberships in exclusive country clubs, luxury box seats at Dallas Cowboy games. He wrote an exposé of his experience: Too Great A Temptation: the Seductive Power of America's Super Church.
It didn't require a wide following to foot the bill. Just the members of his local church. A big church, to be sure, but a church is not a movement.
Unfortunately, there's a perpetual appetite for schlockmeisters. Hal Lindsey and Tim LaHaye made a killing off of their pulp Dispensational bestsellers. So we could turn Ed's argument against Dispensationalism. But even if Lindsey and LaHaye reflect the Dispensational "mainstream" of the movement, it wouldn't be intellectually honest to judge the truth or falsity of Dispensationalism by that sociological phenomenon.
But I am sure Steve Hays will do his best to find one...even if it costs him what little remains of his credibility at this point.
I didn't realize that Dingess was the Tooth Fairy Godmother of my credibility. Who knew that Ed Dingness confers or withholds credibility?
Hi Steve,
ReplyDeleteI went to Ed Dingess's blog to see what's up. I came upon the following, and wanted to obtain a clarification:
(Dingess) "Finally, the autonomous nature of Charismatic theology, coupled with its rejection of male leadership, has much more in common with liberal denominations than it does with orthodox Christianity. The number of female pastors in the movement is indicative of its interest in following humanistic notions of service rather than the God-ordained roles for the men and women. Non-cessationists, like Steve Hays, ought to be called to account for their support of a movement that is responsible for just about as much heresy and error as any other single denomination in the history of the Christian Church. While Hays and others may be having fun carrying out their intellectual lusts, and arguing for the sake of argument, the sad truth is that millions and millions of souls are being destroyed indirectly and directly by teachings that owe their existence to a variety of Charismatic theologies. At a minimum, before we lend our support to a movement, we should consider the consequences. After all, this is not a debate class."
My clarification question is this:
I remember seeing a post by Annoyed Pinoy and he said you were a semi-cessationist. Yet Ed says that you're a non-cessationist.
Who is right?
Meh, labels are for jars. :-)
DeleteTUAD,
DeleteI've explicated my position on several positions, as well as discussing the ambiguities of the current terminology.
Insinuating that MacArthur has spawned a cult is a bit over the top. It is really hard to take you seriously on this issue. Keener offered a reasoned and even handed critique without harsh invective and that commands respect. You mix your critiques with shrillness that lacks grace and is unbecoming of Christian debate, especially inner-Christian ones. I am sure you will come back to me with some clever jab and unanswerable pinpoint logic to make me look like a fool, but that is okay because you appear to have made yourself immune to such admonishment. I have been preaching thru Eph. 4:25-32 and I firmly believe this sort of biting dialog grieves the Holy Spirit. You do not give grace to those who hear. I wish you would find some useful (even minor) admonishment here because I do believe you have important arguments to advance, but your invective sours the whole conversation.
ReplyDeleteMacArthurites routinely impute a cultic mentality to charismatics. I don't see you grieved by that. So your partisanship is showing. You need to become more self-aware of your own bias.
DeleteMoreover, I didn't simply level the charge. I substantiated the charge. Your emotive affront does nothing to refute the evidence.
As a pastor, you need to drop the "It's hard to take you seriously" line. That's just emotional manipulation, as if what people say or do should be with an eye to you taking them seriously. That's an egotistical standard. Stick to objective criteria.
DeleteWhen someone employs invective in their critique they have violated the objective criteria of Scripture that indicates our communication should be edifying and impart grace to the recipients. You don't really invite the opposition to be favorably inclined to consider your positions because you treat them with no dignity. You seem to think that as long as you've made an air-tight argument from logic that you have won. Won what? More of your own followers? Is not the idea behind such debates to win the opposition? If you were concerned to advance this debate in a way that is effective, you would present your arguments in a winsome manner seasoned with grace which is a unique distinctive of Christian engagement. For example, missiologists tell us that more Muslims are won to Christ by the love of Christians and the winsome way they proclaimed the gospel than by Christians that merely attacked the errors of Islam and Mohammad. IOW, they employed the specific commands of 1 Pet. 3:15-16 and Col. 4:5-6 in which genuine concern is shown for them and not simply to make logical arguments for the truth. If that is how outsiders should be treated, how much more those who are of the household of God? If I understand what you have said before, you seem to think that only propositional truth is important, whereas loving one's neighbor is not important. Win the argument at all costs even it means smearing the opposition and poisoning the well. I happen to believe that violates what Jesus taught His followers. If Christians think that defending propositional truth claims is all that is important and showing loving concern for your neighbor is unimportant they may be in danger of having an intellectual brand of Christianity that is devoid of real power and substance. In fact, I think some charismatics have accused cessationists of that sort of brand of Christianity (wrongly so of course).
DeleteNow it may be true that the so-called MacArthurites have done the same, I am not defending them. I think the way MacArthur and some of his defenders have framed their arguments deserve critique as well as the arguments themselves. But I have yet to see any of them use the sort biting, unwholesome communication you have. That is my observation which you are free to dispute, but I hope you give consideration to the substance of what I am saying instead of weighing in with more invective.
Hey MSC,
DeleteI hope you don't mind if I interrupt the conversation!
I appreciate your comments on edification. There are ways of presenting the truth that all but guarantee that the listener rejects the proposition at hand. I think mercy should limit mercy when it comes to dialogue; cutting or harsh remarks are sometimes necessary when the situation reaches a certain critical stage (much how Paul became almost rude in Galatians given the conventions of ancient letter writing). (Another model I look to is Nathan confronting David's sin.) Apologetics/ministry is much harder on the Internet, as faceless as it is, especially when culturally diverse ways of engaging argument are initially masked. That said, I don't always agree with the way Steve makes his case, but with the amount of reading he does, it's worth considering much of what he writes.
If you want discourse that is winsome and full of grace, you might need to take a longer look at the behavior of the MacArthurites--at least the usual suspects. The Pyros, for example, have unashamedly defended calling Steve a four-year old, even without maintaining intellectual arguments against his posts. They make sarcastic, unfair snipes from Twitter on more than a regular basis. Their blog comments are regularly filled with condescending assertions and insinuations. Etc. I know, from others at seminary and elsewhere, that this turns people off to their arguments and thoughts. Some have stopped reading them altogether because of their exceedingly abrasive manner.
btw., it's encouraging to see a pastor with a heart for these issues in apologetics.
(By "edification" I meant a term like "dialogue" or "conversation." Sorry for any confusion!)
DeleteMSC
Delete"When someone employs invective in their critique they have violated the objective criteria of Scripture that indicates our communication should be edifying and impart grace to the recipients."
i) First of all, your claim is preposterous on the face of it. Many Bible writers use invective. Take Jude. So your claim amounts to saying that Scripture violates its own criteria.
ii) Second, the allegation that I used "invective" in my post is just you projecting your rankled impressions onto me. You seem to be all bent out of shape because I said some MacArthurites betray a "cultic" mentality. Do you classify all occurrences of the word "cultic" as "invective"? If a discernment ministry uses the word cultic, is that invective?
iii) But I didn't simply use the word "cultic." I proceeded to give an example–an example which you continue to ignore.
And that's not the only example I could give. Take another MacArthurite meme: the charge that charismatics "reinterpret" what the Bible says about tongues and prophecy. This is something MacArthurites routinely allege. Problem is, there is no scholarly consensus on the definition of Biblical prophecy or tongues. Moreover, you don't have to be a charismatic or continuationist scholar to disagree with how MacArthurites interpret prophecy or tongues. If MacArthurites bothered to study the exegetical literature, they'd know that. But they don't make a good faith effort to inform themselves.
Therefore, MacArthurites who constantly say this are confabulating and perpetuating a false narrative about their theological opponents.
In addition, I've read enough comment threads on various blogs to see that many MacArthurites rely exclusively on hostile, second or thirdhand sources about charismatics and continuationists rather than reading them for themselves. They get all their information from Cripplegate or the Strange Fire conference or some other in-house source.
And that, too, reflects a cultic mentality. A studied refusal to do your own independent reading, to consult both sides of the argument. To rely, instead, on your religious leaders for all your information about the opposition, is a cultic mindset.
You act as if I use that term "cultic" as an epithet or putdown. No, I use that term as an accurate descriptor.
As a pastor, you need to learn how to put yourself in someone else's shoes rather than putting everyone else in your shoes. In your exchanges with me, you have a bad habit of imagining that I must mean what you would mean if you were me and you said what I said. That evinces a lack of critical sympathy and critical detachment on your part. An inability to relate to another on the other's terms. Don't go around assuming that when somebody says something, they must be motivated by the same outlook you'd be if you said the same thing. Don't make yourself the standard of comparison, as if everyone is like you, as if everyone sees the world the way you do.
Matthew,
DeleteNow your response was quite edifying and I appreciate the manner in which you wrote it. I agree that some of the so-called MacArthurites employ similar invective, but not all. I enjoy the writings of those at Cripplegate and I think they have engaged this particular conversation/ debate with a greater deal of decorum, respect and dignity that may be lacking in other corners. However, Steve seems to lump all MacArthur defenders together. Hmmm, isn't that one of the accusations that continuationists have made about MacArthur, et. al. - i.e. lumping all charismatics together?
Cont. "If I understand what you have said before, you seem to think that only propositional truth is important, whereas loving one's neighbor is not important. Win the argument at all costs even it means smearing the opposition and poisoning the well."
DeleteIt's funny that in the name of charitable discourse you launch into malicious, unrecognizable caricature of my position. You have a real problem relating to people who don't agree with you, or relating to different personality types. Not only don't you know much about other people, you don't know much about yourself. You need to stop making your own temperament, your own baggage, the frame of reference for everyone else.
"Now it may be true that the so-called MacArthurites have done the same, I am not defending them. I think the way MacArthur and some of his defenders have framed their arguments deserve critique as well as the arguments themselves."
Unless you've been leaving comments like that at Cripplegate, Hip & Thigh, Menn0Knight, Reformed Reasons, Pyromaniacs, the GTY blog, &c., that's just a disingenuous throwaway line.
"But I have yet to see any of them use the sort biting, unwholesome communication you have."
In which case you haven't bothered to inform yourself of how and what they say. Don't go off half-cocked.
Steve,
DeleteIn normal Christian parlance 'cultic' conjures images of Mormons, JW's, David Koreshes, Jim Jones', etc. I understand 'cultic' can have a wide semantic range. But somehow I get the sense that you use the term as a way to subtly identify defenders of MacArthur as no different than those that peddle a false gospel. I suspect you know this, but since you don't clarify the difference what reason do your readers have to not think you are making such subtle associations?
BTW, the use of invective seems to be the exception when NT writers (or Jesus himself) use it against those who purposely peddle a false and damning gospel. So I accept those exceptions. But here is my question to you, do the passages I have cited with regard to gracious and wholesome interaction apply in debate, especially among fellow believers? In what way do those passage apply to such debates or do they at all? In other words, is it okay to use invective against fellow believers? Does the use of invective in Jude and elsewhere have certain limitations? What does wholesome speech and dispensing grace look like in these interactions or do you believe in 'no quarter' for your Christian opponents?
"It's funny that in the name of charitable discourse you launch into malicious, unrecognizable caricature of my position. You have a real problem relating to people who don't agree with you, or relating to different personality types. Not only don't you know much about other people, you don't know much about yourself. You need to stop making your own temperament, your own baggage, the frame of reference for everyone else."
DeleteI'll let others decide who is being malicious here. I wonder how many people who had this screed tossed their way would think that they were treated with graciousness, understanding and respect. You don't know me from Adam, yet you presume to know all sorts of things about me from a few exchanges on your blog as if you had some sort of omniscience and preternatural wisdom. You really seem to enjoy cutting anybody down who would dare to question anything you say or the way you say it. I am sorry to say it, but that is sad. This level of discourse is destructive to Christian unity and truth, not in anyway constructive as far as I can tell.
MSC
Delete"Steve, In normal Christian parlance 'cultic' conjures images of Mormons, JW's, David Koreshes, Jim Jones', etc. I understand 'cultic' can have a wide semantic range. But somehow I get the sense that you use the term as a way to subtly identify defenders of MacArthur as no different than those that peddle a false gospel"
That's your problem, all right. You get this seat-of-the-pants "sense" of how I use the term. You blank out my actual explanation, and instead wander off on imagined connotations. You skip over my actual explanation, and try to read between the lines.
"I suspect you know this, but since you don't clarify the difference what reason do your readers have to not think you are making such subtle associations?"
I explained exactly what I meant. I illustrated what I meant. I didn't say anything about cultic theology. Rather, I discussed a cultic mentality, and demonstrated the meaning of my usage.
You gloss over all that, and tune your ears for dog whistle frequencies which pick up "subtle associations."
A pastor is supposed to be a good listener. You're a lousy listener. You disregard my specific explanations, and act as if I'm sending messages in code language which you must decrypt.
"BTW, the use of invective seems to be the exception when NT writers (or Jesus himself) use it against those who purposely peddle a false and damning gospel. So I accept those exceptions."
You accept it after I had to correct you.
"What does wholesome speech and dispensing grace look like in these interactions or do you believe in 'no quarter' for your Christian opponents?"
You mean the way speakers at the Strange Fire conference gave "no quarter" to any and all charismatics and cessationists? You mean, they way the way MacArthur brands the charismatic movement in toto as worse than any "cult"? Why are you so oblivious to your lurid double standard?
MSC:
Delete"I'll let others decide who is being malicious here. I wonder how many people who had this screed tossed their way would think that they were treated with graciousness, understanding and respect."
Here's your idea of "graciousness, understanding and respect":
"If I understand what you have said before, you seem to think that only propositional truth is important, whereas loving one's neighbor is not important. Win the argument at all costs even it means smearing the opposition and poisoning the well."
Once again, you have a tin-ear for your own rhetoric. Not to mention how tone-deaf you are to the way MacArthurites engage in wholesale smear-tatics and well-poisoning about all things charismatic.
"You don't know me from Adam, yet you presume to know all sorts of things about me from a few exchanges on your blog as if you had some sort of omniscience and preternatural wisdom."
This coming from a guy who'd rather read the tea leaves: "But somehow I get the sense that you use the term as a way to subtly identify…"
"You really seem to enjoy cutting anybody down who would dare to question anything you say or the way you say it."
That's passive-aggressive hyperbole. If someone doesn't instantly capitulate to your psychological leverage ("It is really hard to take you seriously…"), you respond with the "anyone who would are to question anything you say" cop-out.
This is curious. I say you did not treat me with graciousness, understanding and respect. I ask whether that is a valid and biblical virtue to uphold in inter-Christian debates and you turn around and insinuate that I don't address you with graciousness, understanding and respect. Is this an admission that you don't either? You say I am tone-deaf to MacArthurites that engage in smear-tactics, but I did not deny that some do. Yet this all seems beside the point. What I hear in these responses is something like the accusation of the pot calling the kettle black. Perhaps that is true, but it doesn't deny that the kettle is in fact black.
DeleteI would still like to hear how you think the Scriptures I cited apply to inner-Christian debates, but so far you appear to be evading that question in order to further your attack on my motives and apparent irrational responses. In the end, you are conveniently avoiding the substance of my concern from the very get-go, that you have conducted your arguments against the so-called MacArthurites by employing the same smear tactics you accuse them of. I will agree some of the them have used smear-tactics, but I don't see how your tactics have risen above the same gutter.
Perhaps you are upset that I have not brought these concerns up to any of them. I once did in previous unrelated matters some years ago and got the same kind of condescending responses you are giving me now. As Matthew said, many are turned off by their tactics and quit listening to them. Unless you deny that you use the same tactics, why should anyone keep listening to you? Is it because the logic of other aspects of your argument are more important than the use of invective by which to make them? That is the substance of my concern and question. Inside of giving me a reasoned response, I am mercilessly attacked as if I am an enemy. I don't know any other way to voice my concern without myself being called ungracious and disrespectful.
The only curious thing is how you keep reinventing your standards at every turn. Your latest tactic is to fall back on your moral equivalence canard, which overlooks the fact that I'm merely responding to you on your own every-shifting grounds. It's a tu quoque argument. That's not the pot calling the kettle black inasmuch as I never accepted your false premise, which you keep changing–so you don't believe it yourself.
DeleteIt's hardly "smear tactics" when MacArthurites supply the material. But does that mean you think MacArthurites are operating in the "gutter"?
You then fall back on your tendentious "invective" canard, after you yourself resorted to a scurrilous attack ("you seem to think that only propositional truth is important, whereas loving one's neighbor is not important. Win the argument at all costs even it means smearing the opposition and poisoning the well").
You then finish it off by playing the victim card. What a moral charade from start to finish.
People should listen to what's reasonable and true–not who said it. If that's not good enough for them, then that's their problem.
This conversation is becoming increasingly unedifying. I will bow out now.
DeleteHi MSC,
DeleteYou asked me a question earlier:
However, Steve seems to lump all MacArthur defenders together. Hmmm, isn't that one of the accusations that continuationists have made about MacArthur, et. al. - i.e. lumping all charismatics together?
Given the evidence, I do not see that as sufficiently analogous. The pool of MacArthurites that Steve has engaged and about which he posts is significantly smaller than the total number of charismatics being characterized. Roughly, Steve has probably critiqued at least half of the major posts/blogs of those who would qualify as a MacArthurite (which he has defined here and there). That would be representative of the small population in question. MacArthurites want to characterize somewhere around 500,000,000 people; I doubt MacArthur has .even 01% of that number of people following (or, more accurately, publicly defending) him on this issue. It's significantly easier to generalize about cessationist MacArthurite hardliners, and it seems Steve has done the necessary work to make that generalization.
MSC
Delete"Steve, In normal Christian parlance 'cultic' conjures images of Mormons, JW's, David Koreshes, Jim Jones', etc. I understand 'cultic' can have a wide semantic range. But somehow I get the sense that you use the term as a way to subtly identify defenders of MacArthur as no different than those that peddle a false gospel. I suspect you know this, but since you don't clarify the difference what reason do your readers have to not think you are making such subtle associations?"
That's part of your problem. If you imagine that only outright heretics are susceptible to a cultic mentality, that sense of superiority leaves a Christian susceptible to a cultic mentality. He double-bolts the frontdoor but leaves the backdoor unlocked. By supposing that only the heretical other is susceptible to a cultic mentality, from which he himself is inoculated by his orthodox vaccine, he lets his guard down. He disarms his self-critical faculty. He becomes prey to the very thing he reserves for others.
MSC:
Delete"However, Steve seems to lump all MacArthur defenders together. Hmmm, isn't that one of the accusations that continuationists have made about MacArthur, et. al. - i.e. lumping all charismatics together?"
That's a sloppy accusation. If you were paying attention, you'd observe that what I actually faulted MacArthurites for is their defiant refusal to engage the best representatives of the charismatic (or cntinuationist) movement. I, by contrast, have gone out of my way to engage the best representatives (such as they are) of the MacArthurite outlook, viz., Nathan Busenitz,Fred Butler, Ed Dingess, John MacArthur, Conrad Mbewe, Mike Riccardi, Phil Johnson, Tom Pennington, Dan Phillips, Frank Turk, Lyndon Unger.
In addition, I'm not the one who's lumping them together. They lump themselves together by their shared agreement in MacArthur's position on the charismata, as well as his supporting arguments.
For me personally, cessationist antics of late have lost them credibility. Sure, there are plenty of nutty and heterodox Charismatics/Pentecostals around, but that doesn't mean that you can just throw out exegetical arguments of respectable and orthodox charismatics and other continuationists. I think this debate has caused both extremes to adopt untenable and ridiculous positions, but right now the ridiculousness of radical forms of "cessationism" are on display. The MacArthurite cessationists seem to hold to a reactionary theology built more off opposition to some rather shady figures rather than Biblical exegesis.
ReplyDelete"For me personally, cessationist antics of late have lost them credibility."
DeleteCurious. What antics might that be?
Arguing about what charismatic preachers are more popular than another, rather than dealing with real continuationists. Sweeping up all charismatics and even more open but cautious people with the prosperity gospel teachers is unjustified. Furthermore, the reactionary unbelief in reported miracles is, as was being argued much earlier in the current dialogue, sounded more like Humean skepticism rather than Christian caution.
DeleteIt would be fine to talk about such things having already established a solid basis for believing cessatonist exegesis, but they just don't seem to exist. I've taken a more "open, but cautious" position since beginning academic theological studies because of the simple dearth of good cessationist argumentation and exegesis. I really wanted it to be there considering I'm very strictly Reformed, and that's the majority report in that camp, but after a while I had to admit that those open to "charismatic" spiritual gifts seemed to have the better arguments. On the other hand, it seems to me the cessationist position is based more off reaction to the chaos of many (if not most) charismatic circles than any rational look at Biblical data.
MacArthurite mythmakers
ReplyDeleteHi Steve,
I don't know if you regard Frank Turk as a MacArthurite, but if you do, have you read his posted online debate with Dr. Adrian Warnock:
A Cornucopia of Good Will.
You analyzed and commented upon the Brown-Waldron debate. Will you analyze and comment upon the Turk-Warnock debate too?
Why would I waste time on that? Warnock is a psychiatrist. I wouldn't expect him to be a very astute defender of charismatic theology. And it wouldn't surprise me in the least if a bright guy like Turk can argue circles around Warnock. All it proves is that Warnock doesn't know his limitations.
Delete"Why would I waste time on that?"
DeleteI don't know if it'd be a waste of your time. You took some time with Ed Dingess's post, and didn't think it was a waste.
Sometimes Ed is a useful, albeit unwitting, foil.
DeleteThanks Annoyed Pinoy.
ReplyDeleteI noted the following which was dated, "August 16, 2013":
"In a matter of a few short weeks apologist Steve Hays has been able to post multiple blogs critiquing some cessationist arguments against continuationism. Hays has described himself as a semi-cessationist in the past. At the time of this blog posting Hays does not consider himself a continuationist."
Steve, is this assessment still accurate at this time?
The Archangel Michael tells me the answer is classified.
ReplyDeleteSteve's nuanced views probably don't fit in any usual category. Especially since they've probably developed even further after interacting with both cessationists and continuationists. But if you read Steve's blogger profile, he does say he's a semicessationist. It says,
ReplyDelete.........I’m a Calvinist, creationist, inerrantist, semicessationist, classical Christian theist, and amil (with postmil sympathies). I'm a low churchman with a sympathy for a certain amount of high church symbolism.........
Steve may eventually change his profile in the future, but for now it says what it says. Steve has also said he's a semicessationists in past blogs (e.g. here).
More blogs where Steve has indicated (at least in the past) he's (or was) a semicessationist.
ReplyDeletehttp://triablogue.blogspot.com/2012/11/is-koran-prophetic.html
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2013/10/deflecting-miracles.html
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2007/01/miracle-of-sun.html
Oops, Steve didn't actually say he was a semicessationist in Deflecting Miracles. But he did in the other three blogs I linked to (and in his blogger profile).
ReplyDeleteThanks Annoyed Pinoy.
ReplyDeleteWith a recent slew of anti-cessationist posts, some folks might find it hard to believe that Steve regards himself as a semi-cessationist.
With a recent slew of anti-cessationist posts, some folks might find it hard to believe that Steve regards himself as a semi-cessationist.
ReplyDeleteHow does it follow that refuting the fallacious arguments of some cessationists entails that Steve's self-reporting is in doubt? (Are you suggesting he is a closet charismatic?) Seeking out the best arguments on an issue often involves cutting through a lot of bad arguments, but it doesn't tell you where someone stands. It's only at a superficial level--such as that of American political discourse--where a steady stream of criticism of one position is given as evidence that someone must be part of the opposite side, because, really, there are only two sides to every issue, for or against. (E.g., Krauthammer being called a RINO or a closet liberal for criticizing Cruz on a tactical level.)
Who are the "some"? Is that journalism code for "the author of this statement"?
TUAD said:
ReplyDeleteWith a recent slew of anti-cessationist posts, some folks might find it hard to believe that Steve regards himself as a semi-cessationist.
Sorry, TUAD, but in addition to what Matt has pointed out this reflects slipshod reading at best, and is in any case quite an unfair way for you to characterize what's been happening! For instance, just because it seems "recent" to you doesn't mean this is in fact "recent." Heck, you should know better since Annoyed Pinoy links to posts from 2012 and 2007. Plus, as you're well aware, you can always check out the archives or do a search.
Also, just because you may "find it hard to believe" does not necessarily mean other "folks might find it hard to believe." Again, sorry to say, but it's not as if you can speak for others, at least not in such an offhand manner as here. At a minimum there should be a bit more substance to your remarks.
I was just conjecturing that some of the targets of Steve's anti-cessationist posts might be surprised if they were informed that Steve considers himself a semi-cessationist.
ReplyDeleteThat's why I used the word "might". I don't know that for a fact.
BTW, I don't think I was "outing" Steve. He has never hid the fact that he's a semicessationist in the past. He's been very open about it. He included it in his blogger profile(!). If he "hid" it, it was "hidden" in plain sight.
ReplyDeletePatrick Chan said...
ReplyDeleteHeck, you should know better since Annoyed Pinoy links to posts from 2012 and 2007.
Actually, it goes as far back as March of 2006. My first link (which was after the abbreviation "e.g.") was to Steve's blog titled Old Business. There Steve wrote:
I’m a semicessationist—like Frame and Poythress. I believe that God sometimes heals and sometimes guides. But that’s not the norm.