I'll comment on the latest deluded claims by Ed Dingess. He's a guy who likes to make stuff up.
In this blog, I am going to attempt to point out the fallacious reasoning for the continuationist argument employed specifically by Stave Hays over at Triablogue.
Dingess is the Don Quixote of cessationists:
Just then they came in sight of thirty or forty windmills that rise from that plain. And no sooner did Don Quixote see them that he said to his squire, "Fortune is guiding our affairs better than we ourselves could have wished. Do you see over yonder, friend Sancho, thirty or forty hulking giants? I intend to do battle with them and slay them. With their spoils we shall begin to be rich for this is a righteous war and the removal of so foul a brood from off the face of the earth is a service God will bless.""What giants?" asked Sancho Panza."Those you see over there," replied his master, "with their long arms. Some of them have arms well nigh two leagues in length.""Take care, sir," cried Sancho. "Those over there are not giants but windmills. Those things that seem to be their arms are sails which, when they are whirled around by the wind, turn the millstone."
Here are some of the windmills he charges after:
Repeatedly, Hays refuses to draw any line of demarcation between the special revelation of Scripture and the general affairs of everyday life.
Steve has continually argued what is good for Moses is good for us.
If Paul could heal the sick, then we should be able to as well.
He has gone so far as to adopt the causative-faith argument of charismatics, asserting that James 5 teaches that any prayer of faith ought to be able to produce healing. To my knowledge, he has not qualified God’s will in the process…
In addition to this, Hays has consistently accused cessationists of employing the argument’s of atheist merely on the ground that we contend that such claims ought to be subjected to rigorous examination and proof.
Steve has reasoned that Jesus and the apostles performed miracles. Scripture does not say that miracles will cease after the apostles, therefore we should expect miracle workers to continue.
Hays has also made the uncharitable argument that atheists deny miracles, and cessationist denies miracles, therefore cessationists argue like atheists.
What kind of claim then is the claim that miracle workers are still present? What kind of claim is it to say that God is performing miracles today? Steve Hays and other continuationists seem to think it is an exegetical claim. They are wrong. It is not an exegetical claim. There is nothing in Scripture that provides the clear teaching that miracles will continue right up into the Parousia. Hence, this claim cannot be justified on purely exegetical grounds.
Truth by assertion.
In principle, these are the logical alternatives:
i) Scripture teaches the continuance of charismatic miracles
ii) Scripture teaches the discontinuance of charismatic miracles
iii) Scripture is silent on their continuation or discontinuation
If you opt for (iii), that, in turn, generates two more logical alternatives:
a) Absent Scriptural statements to the contrary, there's a presumption to the continuity
b) Given the silence of Scripture, we should suspend judgment. Be open to their continuance or discontinuance
Burden of proof arguments shift the issue to which side shoulders the onus. Is there a presumption to overcome? Or should we withhold judgement, barring confirmatory or disconfirmatory evidence?
What are we observing? Are we actually observing miracles? We hear some reports, but what we need is something we can actually verify.
Ed simultaneously demands and disregards evidence.
Jesus healed in such a way that His miracles were self-verifying. He didn’t sneak off to someplace else, claim to perform a bunch of miracles and then come back with fancy stories about it all.
Many Biblical miracles occur in private settings.
A basic Christian belief is that the Bible and all it contains is the self-justifying word of God. Hence, belief that all the contents of the word of God are true is a self-justifying belief. All biblical miracles are infallible records contained in the Bible and given by God Himself. Therefore, belief in Biblical claims of miracles is a self-justifying belief.
Unfortunately for Ed, he has the cessationist argument exactly backwards. According to cessationism, biblical claims are not self-justifying or self-verifying. Rather, biblical claims must be justified or verified by miracles. Miracles are necessary to verify the claimant. The Bible doesn't verify reported miracles. Rather, miracles verify Biblical reports.
You may disagree, but if so, you disagree with the classic cessationist argument.
Plantinga tells us that any proposition is properly basic for an individual if and only if such proposition is incorrigible for the individual or self-evidence.
Really? To my knowledge, that's not at all how Plantinga defines a properly basic belief. Rather, a properly basic belief is a defeasible belief which enjoys prima facie justification. You can find yourself in an epistemic situation where it's reasonable to believe something without benefit of argument. That's warranted, but it can be overcome by counterevidence.