I'm going to comment on a few statements by Frank Turk:
The problem with your question, however, is that is stands on one faulty assertion: that if I have experienced any of the ordinary outworking of the Holy Spirit, I have to concede all on-going extraordinary outworkings of the Holy Spirit. I don’t have to do any such thing – especially when they are allegedly presented to me for my personal “amen,” what I find is a list of hunches, anecdotes, oceans of people who cannot be accounted for, and not anything that looks even like the moment in Acts 3 when Peter and John healed the Lame Beggar – let alone Lazarus or Eutychus.
Are the examples of Spurgeon's clairvoyance just lucky" hunches"? How does that reflexive, dismissive attitude differ from Paul Kurtz, James Randi, or Martin Gardner? And that's just one set of examples. What about examples from the Covenanters? Are those just lucky hunches?
What's wrong with anecdotal evidence? Remember, cessationism posits a universal negative. Although you can't extrapolate a general pattern from anecdotal cases, you don't need to. It only takes one good counterexample to disprove a universal negative.
On the one hand, MarArthurites say church history disproves noncessationism. On the other hand, if they are going to summarily discount every counterexample as "anecdotal" or a lucky "hunch," then the appeal to church history is just a sham. They don't really care about testimonial evidence from church history.
You think Spurgeon would endorse the so-called Charismatic ministries today? Or that Lloyd-Jones was somehow commending the Pentecostals when he was condemning them?
This is another example of Turk trying to win the debate by controlling the terminology. The question at issue isn't if Lloyd-Jones was Pentecostal, but whether he was a cessationist. Commenting on demonic possession, Lloyd-Jones says:
So the work of healing is done by means of prayer but, secondly, there is also exorcism, which is the casting out of evil spirits. It may be that this is a subject that we have neglected, not only on the mission field, but, perhaps, in this country of ours as well. Clearly, power to cast out devils is available to those who are spiritual. Not Against Flesh and Blood (Christian Focus Publications), 89.
And here's a more extensive exposition of his position, including more examples:
"Remember, cessationism posits a universal negative."
ReplyDeleteCessationism pivots more on the statement or aphorism, "I believe in divine healing, I just don't believe claiming to be spiritually gifted divine healers."
Oops. Missing a few words in the above statement. Should be:
Delete"Cessationism pivots more on the statement or aphorism, "I believe in divine healing, I just don't believe those folks claiming to be spiritually gifted divine healers."
I've done at least three posts exploding that facile distinction. If you keep parroting refuted objections, you will be shown the door.
DeleteIn addition, there's more to cessationism than the current status of faith-healers, so your aphorism is patently false even on its own terms. Stop acting like a troll unless you wish to be treated accordingly. Tblog is not the place for you to play cessationist cheerleader with simplistic slogans and deflective comments.
Sorry, didn't know you had posted a refutation. Can you point me to the post that best refutes that distinction?
DeleteIt seems like you are saying cessationism is merely a personal belief of skepticism towards some claimants. Which is fine I guess if anyone cared about such feelings. I am also skeptical of people that make such claims so that cannot be the issue at hand.
DeleteSo the issue must be about something more universal, in fact it is, the issue is: "What does Scripture teach explicitly or by good and necessary consequence?"
So to get back to what this post is about; it is pointing out how Frank Turk appeals to history and yet dismisses other historical data (namely statements made by MLJ). This is textbook special pleading.
TUAD, why not do a search? You're a long time commenter and well acquainted with us, no? Or at least click on some of the labels (e.g. here)?
DeleteBesides, why focus on "the post that best refutes that distinction"? If a refutation hits the mark, then it doesn't need to be the "best" to be a refutation. And Steve just gave you a refutation in his comment.
Given his past behavior, I assume TUAD is looking for a "best" article so he can go over to other sites to link it (to cause additional debate? drive up conflict?). As you said, he has been around for years, and at this point he needs to do his own homework.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteHi TUAD,
DeleteSorry but this isn't at all responsive to what I've said:
1. As I've already said, if Steve's less than "best" argument has already sufficiently refuted your distinction, then there's no need to search for the "best" argument. There's no compelling reason to use nukes to exterminate mice when mousetraps will do just fine.
2. Plus, I hate to burst your bubble, but please realize your aphorism "I believe in divine healing, I just don't believe those folks claiming to be spiritually gifted divine healers" is hardly on such an extraordinary level that it necessitates marshalling "the best arguments" to refute it.
In fact, you didn't even try to provide supporting argumentation for what you said; you just made a statement is all.
Anyway I'm afraid you're thinking much too highly of your aphorism.
3. Moreover, the "principle" that someone should examine the best arguments for or against a position doesn't discount arguments which aren't the "best" but which are still reasonable and sufficient to defeat the position in question.
By comparison, for example, I highly doubt Steve is implying the MacArthurites should not examine arguments which fall short of being the "best" but which are still reasonable and sufficient to argue for a position.
4. Besides, and as I've already said, you could always search or click on the labels to try to find what you're looking for. As Matt pointed out, you should do your own homework. Please don't expect others to do your own thinking for you. Why don't you peruse and read Steve's past posts to see which arguments of his you find the "best" if that's what you really want to know?
As a side note, authors sometimes have a different sense than audience members as to which one of their writings is the best or worst for instance (e.g. I could be mistaken but didn't C.S. Lewis think The Screwtape Letters was one of his worst, whereas at least at the time he first published The Pilgrim's Regress I seem to remember Lewis thought it was one of his best pieces of writing).
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteTUAD, honestly, this is getting tiresome. You keep missing the point. And I've already responded to you in more than sufficient detail. See what I've written above.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteTUAD said:
DeleteI humbly requested to examine the refutation to see if it was indeed sufficient, and thereby convincing, but I still haven't seen it. I just want to examine the all-sufficient silver bullet that's being extolled as having slain the cessationist werewolf distinction.
Sorry, but this is mock "humility" at best, for behind your "humble request" lies quite a bit of arrogance. You ignore my repeated remarks. You evidently take the time to search for and read Bauder, but don't do the same for Steve's posts, yet you have the audacity to allege you "still haven't seen" anything on the topic. You don't read comments carefully enough to see they've already been answered (e.g. "'If' is the operative word here. Which argument of Steve's do you think has sufficiently refuted this distinction?"). So despite using phrases like "I humbly requested" it's not as if you're actually going about all this in a humble manner. It's just lip service to "humility."
Look, TUAD, bottom line is you're currently not arguing in good faith. It's as if you're wearing blinders when it comes to this topic. I don't know why this is. Maybe you're far too prejudiced to consider this rationally. However, if you continue to do this, I'll have no problem agreeing with banning you.
TUAD,
DeleteWhy don’t you click on the tags Cessationism or Miracles to find the posts on healing? This archiving will supply you with a quick list of relevant posts.
Steve,
ReplyDeleteLloyd-Jones didn't fit neatly into the boxes that many have tried to fit him. While he may have criticized pentecostals and charismatics of his day, he also rejected the cessationism of Warfield in Joy Unspeakable, interpreting "the perfect" as end of age/coming of Christ, and rejected that the gifts ceased with the apostles saying that miracles had undoubtedly occurred since then.
While Lloyd-Jones was not a charismatic, while he did criticize the movement and pentecostalism at points, neither was he a cessationist. The two posts below shows he rejected cessationism.
ReplyDeleteSteve, please forgive the length of the first post below but it is worth the quote.
In Chapter 8 of The Baptism and Gifts of the Spirit, a chapter titled “Gifts that Authenticate”, Martyn Lloyd-Jones tackles the issue of the gifts of the Holy Spirit:
ReplyDelete“It has certain inherent difficulties, which often arise because of our ignorance of the spiritual realm, but at this time it is a very important matter for two main reasons. The first is that we need some supernatural authentication of our message; and secondly, it is important because of the danger attending it, because of the enemy, who can counterfeit to such an extent as almost to deceive, according to our Lord and Saviour, ‘even the very elect themselves” (152).
After a brief rehearsal of the New Testament passages showing God attesting the message by miraculous deeds (152-155), he asks:
“Now I believe I am right in saying that everyone who is a Christian in any sense at all is prepared to believe and to accept that these things happened, but it is here that the vital question arises—do we accept it as being only true of the early church? Was it only meant to be true of the early church? This is the question to which we must now address ourselves” (155).
He then addresses the arguments of “people who say, ‘Of course I accept everything that I find in the New Testament. I am sure it is historical and that these things actually happened. But that really does not apply to us now, it was only meant for that time’” (156), outlining the arguments of those who believe these extraordinary activities were meant to convince unbelieving Jews (156), that they were intended for the beginning of the Christian church to get the church going (156-157), and that they occurred only until the New Testament canon was completed, with their appeal to 1 Corinthians 13.8-10 (157-159).
(Cont...)
ReplyDeleteLloyd-Jones rejects this cessationist argumentation:
“There, then, is an outline of the argument that is being put forward at the present time, and which has been put forward very largely during this present century. Let me begin to answer it by giving you just one though at this point. It is this: the Scriptures never anywhere say that these things were only temporary – never! There is no such statement anywhere. ‘Ah but’, says somebody, ‘what about that passage from 1 Corinthians 13?’ Well, I would have thought that that chapter is sufficient answer in and of itself to this particular criticism. You see what we are asked to believe by that kind of exposition” We are told that the coming of the New Testament Scriptures puts us into a place of perfection; whereas if you look at verse 12 it actually says: ‘For now we see’ – that is the apostle and others. The apostle is included with all other Christian believers before the New Testament canon, much of which was written by Paul himself, had been completed. We read: ‘Now we see through a glass, darkly; but then’ – when the Scriptures have come and are complete – ‘face to face: Now I know in part; but then’ – which they say means the completion of the Scriptures – ‘shall I know even as also I am known.’
“You see what that involves? It means that you and I, who have the Scriptures open before us, know much more than the apostle Paul of God’s truth. That is what it means and nothing less, if that argument is correct. It means that we are altogether superior to the early church and even to the apostles themselves, including the apostle Paul! It means that we are not in a position in which we know ‘face to face’ that ‘we know, even as also we are known’ by God because we have the Scriptures. It is surely unnecessary to say more.
“What the apostle is, of course, dealing with in 1 Corinthians 13 is the contrast between the highest and the best that the Christian can ever know in this world and in this life and what he will know in the glory everlasting. The ‘now’ and the ‘then’ are not the time before and after the Scriptures were given, because that, as I have said, puts us in a position entirely superior to the apostles and prophets who are the foundation of the Christian church and on whose very work we have to rely. It is inconsistent, and contradictory – indeed, there is only one word to describe such a view, it is nonsense. The ‘then’ is the glory everlasting. It is only then that I shall known, even as also I am known; for then we shall see him as he is. It will be direct and ‘face to face’. No longer, as Paul puts it again in 2 Corinthians 3:18 – as an image or a reflection, but direct, absolute, full and perfect knowledge.
“So you see the difficulties men land themselves in when they dislike something and cannot fully understand it and try to explain it away. All things must be judges in the light of the Scriptures, and we must not twist them to suit our theory or argument. Let me finish with this general statement – there is nothing in the Scripture itself which says that these things are to end, and further, every attempt to make the Scriptures say that leads to the same dismal, impossible conclusions that we have already seen in the case of 1 Corinthians 13.
“My friends, this is to me one of the most urgent matters at this hour. With the church as she is and the world as it is, the greatest need today is the power of God through his Spirit in the church that we may testify not only to the power of the Spirit, but to the glory and the praise of the one and only Saviour, Jesus Christ our Lord, Son of God, Son of Man” (159-160).
- D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, The Baptism and Gifts of the Spirit, Baker Book, 1994
FAITH HEALING AND JAMES MAYNARD
ReplyDelete“My Dear Gerald,
“Many thanks for your most kind letter. Strangely enough an almost identical one arrived from the authorities of the Sudan Interior Mission except that they had no reference to Maynard James’s booklet.
“With regard to the latter my attitude is this. He belongs to ‘The Church of the Nazarenes’ and they are very good people with whom I am in agreement apart from one thing, namely, that they believe the Baptism with the Holy Spirit confers entire sanctification. In other words they are really the followers of the teaching of John Wesley on holiness. When Maynard James originally sent me this booklet I pointed out of course our disagreement at this point but was able to say that I thought his terms of ‘tongues’ was excellent and balanced.
“On this question of faith-healing I certainly agree with him. I expressed my disagreement with the view put in the Christian Medical Fellowship publication at the time. I think it is quite without scriptural warrant to say that all these gifts ended with the apostles or the apostolic era. I believe there have been undoubted miracles since then. At the same time most of the claimed miracles by the Pentecostalists and others certainly do not belong to that category and can be explained psychologically or in other ways. I am also of the opinion that most, if not all, of the people claiming to speak in tongues at the present time are certainly under a psychological rather than a spiritual influence. But again I would not dare to say that ‘tongues’ are impossible at the present time.”
(D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones: Letters 1919-1981, Banner of Truth, 1994, pp. 201-202)
LLOYD-JONES DISAGREEMENT WITH WARFIELD ON CESSATIONISM: MIRACULOUS HEALING
ReplyDelete“There was a measure of different between Dr Lloyd-Jones and other members of the Christian Medical Fellowship on this subject [miraculous healing]. The tendency of these colleagues, in his opinion, came too near to excluding any expectation of the supernatural or, at least, to excluding the possibility of gifts of healing on the grounds of Warfield’s argument that being the ‘accompaniments of apostleship’ they ceased with the apostolic age. A Memorandum on Faith Healing, published ‘for private circulation’ by the CMF in 1956, argued for the cessation of such miraculous gifts but although the committee which produced this Memo was chaired by ML-J he did not accept that part of the argument....”
“In passing it is important to note that the strength of B. B. Warfield’s influence in UCCF and CMF circles was related to ML-J’s advocacy of his writings. It was ML-J who had done most to re-introduce Warfield’s writings in England with the testimony that for conservative evangelicals probably no works have ‘proved to be of greater practical help and a greater stimulus’ than those of ‘the greatest exponent, expounder and defender of the classic Reformed faith in the 20th century’ (Introduction to Biblical Foundations, IVF, 1958). This explains why ML-J in his addresses to CMF colleagues made such a point of disagreeing with the Princeton divine whose influence, in all other respects, he rejoiced to see extended”
Iain H. Murray, D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones: The Fight of Faith 1939-1981, The Banner of Truth Trust, 1990, p. 786