A middle category

Pastor Dan Phillips’ second session began by repeating the statement that hit home from Session #2: “Scripture only knows 2 categories: Word of God, and not-Word-of-God. There is no middle category.” 

https://the4thdave.wordpress.com/2015/02/06/sufficient-fire-fallout-session-5-this-word-and-no-other-tell-me-how-by-dan-phillips/

i) Unfortunately for Dan, his statement isn't self-evident or self-explanatory. So many counterexamples spring to mind. Isn't regeneration from God? Weren't Adam and Eve from God? Were the plagues of Egypt from God? 

ii) Perhaps, though, in context, Dan is referring to communication. Maybe he's attempting to distinguish between God's word and man's word. If so, this seems to be his uncouth way of saying “Scripture only knows 2 categories of communication: inspired words and uninspired words. There is no middle category.”

If, however, that's what he's trying to get at, then it's blatantly false. In Scripture, divine communication includes nonverbal communication. Wordless revelatory dreams and visions. For instance, take Pharaoh's dreams (Gen 41). 

That's a middle category: inspired, nonverbal communication. 

It's funny how Christians who pride themselves on their uncompromising fidelity to Scripture can, in the very act of defending Scripture, ignore and misrepresent Scripture. Such is the blinding power of a reactionary agenda.

Beating a dead hobbyhorse

http://wenatcheethehatchet.blogspot.com/2014/11/a-new-proof-that-lessons-learned-about.html

Taking belated credit for someone else's sleuthing

Now while the Team Pyro folks have surely been consistent in their public critique of Driscoll, and they have gotten some credit for having said "We told you so" about Driscoll in the last decade, no, they didn't.  Let's put it this way, were they on Driscoll's case over the last ten years about how carefully he gave credit where credit was due?  Nope.  They didn't say jack about plagiarism or the consolidation of power in the executive wing behind the scenes because it wasn't about those things for that crew, it was about Mark cussing and about Mark being too charismatic.  

http://wenatcheethehatchet.blogspot.com/2014/09/a-nod-to-alastair-roberts-ad-mans_13.html

Bad blood

I notice every so often that Dan Phillips and Fred Butler like to take all the credit for warning the evangelical community about Mark Driscoll. If only we had heeded their prescient admonitions, we would not have been snookered by Driscoll's snake oil. 

Now I even see them touting articles from The Stranger. There is, however, a reason why evangelicals might regard The Stranger as a suspect source. For instance:

http://www.thestranger.com/personals/

It's precisely biased sources like that which cause people like me to take what they say with a grain of salt. It's like CNN covering the Israel/Gaza conflict. 

Before the MacArthurites and Pyromaniacs completely rewrite history, Soviet style, let's set the record straight.

i) Driscoll has had a bevy of critics for a long time now. It's not as if MacArthurites and Pyromanics were in the vanguard of the movement. So their back-patting conceit is misplaced.

ii) One reason the MacArthurites and Pyromanics haven't gotten their due, as they see it, is because their criticisms are motivated by barely-concealed partisanship. This isn't disinterested criticism. Rather, this is, in part, sour grapes between two rival megachurch pastors, with competing visions, and their respective supporters. Likewise, it's part and parcel of a running vendetta against The Gospel Coalition. From what I can tell, the MacArthurites and Pyromaniacs harbor an implacable animosity towards TGC because it's not consistently cessationist and premillennial. 

iii) This isn't to deny that the MacArthurites and Pyromanics raise some valid criticisms. For instance, a few years ago, Phil Johnson did a post on Driscoll's "pornographic divination." It was written in a somewhat sensationalistic style, but then, it was an expose of Driscoll's sensationalistic antics. I thought Johnson provided some useful documentation. 

iv) Long-standing critics of Driscoll include ex-church members, former associate pastors, &c. They were also in the lead. That, however, reveals a certain irony in MacArthurite indictment of Driscoll. For Fred Butler is a critic of survivor blogs. Therefore, a major source of information about Mars HIll Church comes from a source that Fred preemptively discredits.

v) Just as Driscoll has critics on the right, he has critics on the left. That's one reason some objections were discounted. Consider the source. They had their own agenda. The Rachel Held Evans wing of the party. Offended feminists and "Gay christians."

vi) Speaking for myself, I was never a fan of Driscoll. I rarely read anything by him. I did think he occasionally said something useful. 

vii) In addition, I happen to be personal friend's with one of Driscoll's leading critics. I've known this critic for over 20 years. He's very well connected. Has lots of inside information. So it's not as if I needed the Pyromaniacs to give me the dish on Driscoll. In fact, I have it on good authority that there's much worse stuff on Driscoll that's yet to hit the fan. 

I for one can do without self-serving, self-congratulatory comments by Dan Phillips about how Pyromanics was a voice in the wilderness, about how the evangelical community failed to heed his sagacious foresight on the impending downfall of Driscoll. Has Dan always suffered from this inflated pride? Does he like to cast himself in the role of Jeremiah? The underappreciated prophet? Driscoll has a big enough ego without Dan adding to the net egotism. 

The Monsters On Maple Street

Let's spend a little more time on the parallel between MacArthurites and secular debunkers. As I've documented in the past, MacArthurites resort identical arguments. I'll give back-to-back examples at the end of this post. Unfortunately, the MacArthurites are matching the atheists move for move.

Before discussing that, let's back up a step. In my experience, MacArthurites are so transfixed by errors and abuses in the charismatic movement that that fills their view screen. They are oblivious to the danger which they themselves are fostering in their overreaction to the charismatic movement.  

Their attitude reminds me of the classic Twilight Zone episode ("The Monsters Are Due On Maple Street") in which alien invaders successfully deflect attention from the real threat by making neighbors turn on each other in a self-destructive witch hunt. 

Secular debunkers deploy these arguments to discredit miracles in general. MacArthurites ape the same arguments to discredit postapostolic charismatic miracles in particular. The obvious problem is arbitrarily restricting the force of their arguments to all and only postapostolic charismatic miracles. They act as if their arguments, like smart bombs, will only target just those reported miracles which happen to conflict with cessationism, why allowing biblical miracles, and the subset of postapostolic miracles consistent with cessationism, to escape unscathed. 

Unfortunately, MacArthurites are conditioning Christians who've imbibed their brand of cessationism to commit apostasy if they ever encounter atheists who use the very same arguments to discredit biblical miracles. Imagine teenagers who attend Grace Community Church (or students to attend the Master's College or Master's Seminary). Teenagers (or students) who've dutifully mastered the objections to modern charismatic miracles offered by MacArthurites like Fred Butler, Ed Dingess, Lyndon Unger, et al. 

Imagine, when surfing the web, they are suddenly exposed to atheists who use the identical arguments to discredit biblical miracles? Not only have MacArthurites left them defenseless against this line of attack, MacArthurites have predisposed them to lose their faith on contact the moment they encounter direct, parallel arguments against the miracles of Scripture. The proverbial accident waiting to happen. Instant apostates: just add water. 

MacArthurites are giving atheists a huge opening to begin picking off Christians. Of course, that's not their intention. But when they are warned, they angrily denounce the warning. Obviously, MacArthurites aren't equipping Christians on how to field this challenge, for they don't even acknowledge the problem they've nurtured. The MacArthurite is safe so long as he remains in his freeze-dried condition, sealed in a waterproof container. 

Mind you, MacArthurites who turn to someone like Mennoknight for intellectual leadership are going to be pretty impervious to arguments one way or the other. Keener's two-volume monograph on miracles is no match for Unger's muppet show. Who wants to slog through Keener when you can watch Unger don a propeller-cap and make animal balloons. Adult preschool for readers who've been held back 12 grades. 

My concern is for smart young MacArthurites whose one-sided indoctrination leaves them vulnerable. It's a lot easier to protect something from breakage than to wait until it breaks, then try to fix it. That's often too late. The damage is irreparable. If you wait until kids raised on MacArthurite cessation lose their faith when they discover atheistic counterparts, you waited too long. 

Now, perhaps a MacArthurite would respond by saying, "Well, the same arguments don't apply to Biblical miracles because Biblical testimony is special." Indeed, I've read MacArthurites who do respond in that vein. Problem is, that reflects a failure on their part to understand cessationism, even though that's their own position. 

In cessationism, the Bible doesn't start out special. That's the conclusion of a multi-staged argument. In cessationism, the Bible is in the same initial position as the Koran, the Book of Mormon, Swedenborg's Arcana Cœlestia, &c. In cessationism, Isaiah starts out in the same position as Oral Roberts. 

At this preliminary stage of the cessationist case, the Bible is simply one of several rival revelatory claimants. Out of the starting gate, it has no lead over the competition

In the cessationist argument, what makes the Bible special is the argument from miracles. Apostles and prophets preform miracles which validate their divine commission. "Sign-gifts."

However, there's a complication. The source of this information comes from the Bible itself. The Bible attributes miracles to OT prophets and NT apostles. But unless the Bible is special, it is viciously circular to cite reported miracles in Scripture to furnish miraculous confirmation for the reporters. At this preliminary stage of the cessationist argument, we have yet to establish that Biblical testimony is special.  

At this preliminary stage, the argument from miracles must, in turn, fall back on the general reliability of testimonial evidence. But unfortunately, the cessationist must impugn the general reliability of testimonial evidence to discredit any and all reported miracles which conflict with cessationism. They have to say testimonial evidence is only trustworthy when it just so happens to coincide with reported miracles consistent with cessationism. Whenever it bears witness to miracles inconsistent with cessationism, it suddenly becomes totally unreliable. MacArthurites need to explain how their procedure isn't an egregious case of special pleading. 

MacArthurites attack charismatics for compromising the sufficiency of Scripture, and some charismatics are guilty, but MacArthurites are so mesmerized by the dangers of the charismatic movement that they can't take their eyes off that long enough to reflect on the internal tensions in their own position. In cessationism, Scripture is insufficient. In cessationism, Scripture does not stand on its own. Rather, Scripture occupies the second floor, which rests on the first floor of miraculous attestation, which rests on the foundation of testimonial evidence. 

i) Now, there are alternative ways of defending Scripture. In principle, you could mount a presuppositional argument for Scripture. However, the presuppositional authority of Scripture is inconsistent with cessationism. Although a presuppositional argument could incorporate some of the same elements (e.g. argument from miracles, testimonial evidence), they will be rearranged. For instance, the argument from miracles lacks the foundational role in presuppositionalism that it occupies in cessationism. 

An argument for the presuppositional authority of Scripture would discuss how biblical creation and providence are necessary to underwrite memory and sense knowledge, as well as the possibility of miracles. It begins with Biblical theism, as a precondition for testimony and miracles. God is the metaphysical starting-point, but at the level of epistemology, one can reason from miracles to God.

a) The order of being: God>miracles

b) The order of knowing: miracles>God 

ii) In principle, you could also appeal to postapostolic Christian miracles to furnish collaborative evidence. But that poses a dilemma for cessationism, since it must reject the general reliability of testimony (see above). 

Let's now sample some parallel arguments by atheists and MacArthurites:

If God existed, there'd be no need to prove it

Something as significant in the universe as God could hardly be overlooked.  The ultimate creator of the universe and a being with infinite knowledge, power, and love would not escape our attention, particularly since humans have devoted such staggering amounts of energy to the question for so many centuries.   Perhaps more importantly, a being such as God, if he chose, could certainly make his existence manifest to us.  Creating a state of affairs where his existence would be obvious, justified, or reasonable to us, or at least more obvious to more of us than it is currently, would be a trivial matter for an all-powerful being. So since our efforts have not yielded what we would expect to find if there were a God, then the most plausible explanation is that there is no God.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/atheism/#SH4f

 

If continuationism were true, there'd be no need to prove it

Dan Phillips January 23, 2014 at 10:43 am #Once again: it doesn’t matter how strong Storms’ arguments are. It’s TOO LATE to establish the “continuationist” position by argument. If the position were true, there would be no argument.

http://www.dennyburk.com/friendly-fire-tom-schreiner-and-sam-storms-debate-cessationism/#comment-130232

Atheists on ETs

These are just some of the reasons why we cannot trust extraordinary reports from that time without excellent evidence, which we do not have in the case of the physical resurrection of Jesus. What about alien bodies recovered from a crashed flying saucer in Roswell, New Mexico? Many people sincerely believe that legend today, yet this is the modern age, with ample evidence against it in print that is easily accessible to anyone, and this legend began only thirty years after the event. 

http://infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/resurrection/lecture.html

In Matthew, the women “suddenly” see Jesus. He says the disciples will see him in Galilee, and it does not sound as if he will be walking. In Luke, he disappears before the eyes of the disciples he met on the road to Emmaus. In John, he appears out of nowhere in a house whose doors have been shut against the Jews.
All of this is suggestive of hallucinations. There is one other point that should be made, which comes from Robert Sheaffer, who has writ- ten many magazine articles and one book on UFO reports. He has also written a book on the origins of Christianity called The Making of the Messiah. It gets off track in relying heavily on anti-Christian polemic from the second century and later (does Sheaffer imagine such works can be treated as contemporary debunkings?), but his comments on the similarity between UFO reports and the resurrection appearances are worth listening to. 

C. Hallquist, UFOs, Ghosts, and a Rising God: Debunking the Resurrection of Jesus, 109.

MacArthurites on ETs

Fred Butler @Fred_Butler1hPls explain how the hysterical claims of UFO activity in this video http://bit.ly/1g2LvoY  differ frm those regarding modern miracles. 

I had twittered out a link to a documentary trailer on UFOs in which wide-eyed enthusiasts passionately testify to the overwhelming evidence that extraterrestrial vehicles dominate our skies. How can thousands of eye-witnesses be wrong? Well, of course they can’t be; the evidence is just too powerful. 

I merely noted that the eye-witnesses to UFO activity are just as confident and absolute certain that UFOs exist (because they saw them) as Pentecostal/charismatics are certain modern day miracles happen (because they saw them). Watch that video. Switch the word “UFO” with “miracle” or “healing” and the testimonies are so similar it’s uncanny. 

http://hipandthigh.wordpress.com/2013/12/09/ufo-continuationism/

Atheists on amputees

So what should happen if we pray to God to restore amputated limbs? Clearly, if God is real, limbs should regenerate through prayer. In reality, they do not. 

Why not? Because God is imaginary. Notice that there is zero ambiguity in this situation. There is only one way for a limb to regenerate through prayer: God must exist and God must answer prayers. What we find is that whenever we create a unambiguous situation like this and look at the results of prayer, prayer never works. God never "answers prayers" if there is no possibility of coincidence 

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/important.htm

MacArthurites on amputees

When people were healed, it was an undeniable, extraordinary work of the Spirit healing an individual (Acts 4:16). Something the “Amazing” Randi could not deny. Think Iraqi war veterans getting their limbs back completely whole or the late Christopher Reeves having his spinal cord injury reversed. 

https://hipandthigh.wordpress.com/2013/08/16/hunting-benny-hinn/

It is nice to hear about a person having her hip pain taken away and his flu-like symptoms disappearing, but those miraculous healings, even if they are occasionally supernatural healings (and I am not saying they aren’t) are no where near the kind of supernatural healings recorded in the Bible. I want to see people with the gift of healing going into burn wards, veteran’s hospitals with soldiers who have lost limbs, and hospitals that specialize with spinal cord injuries.  

 http://hipandthigh.wordpress.com/2013/10/24/my-concerns-with-bloggers-concerned-about-strange-fire/

[ Ed Dingess] Name one that is biblical. To claim that false healings and miracles and gibberish are the works of the Holy Spirit is a dangerous practice. That is MacArthur's point. Produce one person that has been healed of congenial blindness, one amputee who's limb has grown back, one legitimate resurrection...just one. Show me someone who speaks in the tongues Luke describes in Acts 2...just one.  

http://thegospelcoalition.org/book-reviews/review/strange_fire#comment-1100570585 

Atheists on cancer

Also, he [God] could say, "Folks, I'm going to do you a favor: make you immune to cancer," where from that day on no cancers are observed in anyone. It would put the oncologists out of business, but it would please everyone else, but more importantly: it would provide excellent evidence that God exists.  

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theodore_drange/drange-interview.html

Someone tells us that God loves us as a father loves his children. We are reassured. But then we see a child dying of inoperable cancer of the throat. His earthly father is driven frantic in his efforts to help, but his Heavenly Father reveals no obvious sign of concern. Some qualification is made -- God's love is "not a merely human love" or it is "an inscrutable love," perhaps -- and we realise that such sufferings are quite compatible with the truth of the assertion that "God loves us as a father (but, of course, ...)." We are reassured again. But then perhaps we ask: what is this assurance of God's (appropriately qualified) love worth, what is this apparent guarantee really a guarantee against? Just what would have to happen not merely (morally and wrongly) to tempt but also (logically and rightly) to entitle us to say "God does not love us" or even "God does not exist"? I therefore put to the succeeding symposiasts the simple central questions, "What would have to occur or to have occurred to constitute for you a disproof of the love of, or of the existence of, God?"  

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/antony_flew/theologyandfalsification.html

MacArthurites on cancer

All of that to say, if contiuationists are correct that signs and wonders are a part of the normal Christian experience and they are happening with regularity among God’s people, then there should be gifted individuals who should do extraordinary signs and wonders with their laying on of hands.  Their ministry should be public — I would suggest a children’s cancer hospital or special ministries department at a local church.  And their ministry should be witnessed by believers and unbelievers alike and those signs and wonders should be both undeniable and verifiable.  

http://hipandthigh.wordpress.com/2013/07/08/the-continuationists-signs-and-wonders-problem/

Continuationists would easily smash the cessationist position if any one of the thousands of people who claim to have the spiritual gift of healing would simply clean out a cancer ward on camera with verification by medical staff (and Jesus did this repeatedly – Matthew 4:24, 8:16; Luke 4:40), but the fact that nobody ever tries to attempt this is suggestive.  

http://mennoknight.wordpress.com/2013/03/27/cessationism-and-continuationism-and-strange-fire-oh-my-part-1/

Atheists on biased sources

We have many of Caesar's enemies, including Cicero, a contemporary of the event, reporting the crossing of the Rubicon, whereas we have no hostile or even neutral records of the resurrection until over a hundred years after the event, which is fifty years after the Christians' own claims had been widely spread around.  

http://infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/resurrection/lecture.html

MacArthurites on biased sources

I would even add, verified by unbelievers who knew the person before he or she was healed and now know of the person’s healing. 

http://hipandthigh.wordpress.com/2013/10/29/the-resurrection-schtick/

Atheists on secondhand testimony

[Lessing] Miracles, which I see with my own eyes, and which I have the opportunity to verify for myself, are one thing; miracles, of which I know only from history that others say they have seen them and verified them, are another. 
I live in the eighteenth century, in which miracles no longer happen.
The problem is that reports of fulfilled prophecies are not fulfilled prophecies; that reports of miracles are not miracles. 

MacArthurites on secondhand testimony

I too have read many accounts of modern miracles. I find them to be mostly hearsay and apocryphal. 

http://hipandthigh.wordpress.com/2013/07/28/why-wont-faith-healers-heal-amputees/

[Ed Dingess] You will reply that you personally don't know of any faith healers to whom we can turn for healing. Have you ever witnessed an indisputable, certified genuine miracle? One for which there were no natural explanations?

Atheists on Third-World testimony

[Hume] It forms a strong presumption against all supernatural and miraculous relations, that they are observed chiefly to abound among ignorant and barbarous nations; or if a civilized people has ever given admission to any of them, that people will be found to have received them from ignorant and barbarous ancestors, who transmitted them with that inviolable sanction and authority, which always attend received opinions. When we peruse the first histories of all nations, we are apt to imagine ourselves transported into some new world; where the whole frame of nature is disjointed, and every element performs its operations in a different manner, from what it does at present. Battles, revolutions, pestilence, famine and death, are never the effect of those natural causes, which we experience. Prodigies, omens, oracles, judgements, quite obscure the few natural events, that are intermingled with them. But as the former grow thinner every page, in proportion as we advance nearer the enlightened ages, we soon learn, that there is nothing mysterious or supernatural in the case, but that all proceeds from the usual propensity of mankind towards the marvellous, and that, though this inclination may at intervals receive a check from sense and learning, it can never be thoroughly extirpated from human nature.    It is strange, a judicious reader is apt to say, upon the perusal of these wonderful historians, that such prodigious events never happen in our days.   The advantages are so great, of starting an imposture among an ignorant people, that, even though the delusion should be too gross to impose on the generality of them (which, though seldom, is sometimes the case) it has a much better chance for succeeding in remote countries, than if the first scene had been laid in a city renowned for arts and knowledge. The most ignorant and barbarous of these barbarians carry the report abroad. None of their countrymen have a large correspondence, or sufficient credit and authority to contradict and beat down the delusion. 

MacArthurites on Third-World testimony

Dan Phillips ‏@BibChr 21h 
EVERY time someone challenges this, the story starts, "I knew/heard about someone who was in the Philippines/Mexico/Uganda once, and..." 

Fred Butler
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. 

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2013/11/hiding-behind-girl.html?showComment=1383851428186#c1838578720377491666

Of course, far away examples in distant lands in the backwaters of the jungle are usually provided, but if miracles and healings are prevalent among God's people, then they should happen here where they can be witnessed firsthand…Again, anecdotal stories are provided from Nepal or India… 

http://thecripplegate.com/authentic-fire-review-chapter-4/#comment-1417530754

Hays’ argument is really an argument from silence. What I mean by that is that Hays’ argument appeals to claims of miracles far, far away, in a distant land in order to defend his position. 

http://reformedreasons.blogspot.com/2013/10/responding-to-hays-responding-to-butler.html

Life in the compound

Fred Butler ‏@Fred_Butler 2hRT @triablogue: Steve Hays defends the guy who props up the cranks who gave us Todd Bentley. 
Fred Butler ‏@Fred_Butler 11hIt truly is a tragedy to see Triablogue become shills for the likes of Sid Roth & Heidi Baker,
Frank Turk ‏@Frank_Turk 1h@Fred_Butler @BibChr What do you think has happened there, Freddy?
Fred Butler ‏@Fred_Butler 1h@Frank_Turk @BibChr It's mystifying. I have no idea. Maybe Steve was pulled up into heaven recently.

Within the paranoid compound of MacArthurville, Craig Keener is the enemy. 

Imagine that. Keener has become the premier apologist for the historical Jesus, NT miracles, and the historicity of the gospels. But from the paranoid viewpoint of MacArthurville, he's the real enemy. He's dangerous. They must impeach his credibility at all cost. 

Hence, anyone who offers even a partial defense of Keener against ankle-biters like Lyndon Unger is the enemy, too. 

If Michael Kruger writes a positive review of Keener's defense of miracles, that makes him a shill for Todd Bentley. If Craig Blomberg writes a positive review of Keener's defense of miracles, that makes him a shill for Sid Roth. If Richard Bauckham or Craig A. Evans endorse Keener's defense of miracles, that makes them shills for all the worst charlatans. 

This is how the world looks when you peer out the shuttered windows of the MacArthurville compound.  

Now, a reasonable person would be more judicious and discriminating. For instance, a reasonable person reading Keener's defense of miracles might say: "Keener has marshaled a tremendous amount of evidence. Some of his examples are stronger than others. Overall, he makes a credible case."

However, because MacArthurites are doctrinaire cessationists, they must find some way to destroy Keener's defense of miracles. Even if they're theoretically open to some kinds of modern miracles, they can't allow for that in practice because that would also allow the wrong kinds of miracles to slip through the sieve. Even if Keener frequently defends the right kinds of miracles, that's inadmissible because it leaves the door ajar for the wrong kinds of miracles to creep in. 

So they cast about for any way to discredit his monograph in toto. Their philosophy is: better to discard a 1000 genuine miracles than to admit a single miracle, however well-attested, that's incompatible with cessationism. 

Their tactic is to hunt for what they deem to be Keener's weakest examples. They then use the weakest examples (in their estimation) to discredit the strongest examples. 

Dan Phillips 2 hrs · Twitter ·

Retweeted Fred Butler (@Fred_Butler):It truly is a tragedy to see Triablogue become shills for the likes of Sid Roth & Heidi Baker, http://t.co/dmnYuIi2xb
Triablogue: Fragging Craig KeenerMary Elizabeth Palshan I actually thought Triablogue was sound at one time. Then I see an article endorsing the book Heaven Is For Real. What's up with that?

Presumably, she's alluding to this post:

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2014/01/heaven-is-for-real.html

Did I endorse the book? Just the opposite: I was very critical of the book. 

But MacArthurites see the world through their tinted glasses, so a critique of Heaven is For Real becomes an endorsement. 

Dan Phillips It was sound at one time. It was dedicated to opposing enemies of the Christian faith. Now it's something different.

I've been consistent in my defense of miracles. What I've noticed is that MacArthurites recycle the same objections used by the atheists I've debated over the years.  

"Gutless enablers"

I'm somewhat puzzled by why John MacArthur and his entourage appear to be snubbing Michael Brown. Brown has repeatedly and publicly requested a face-to-face meeting. Why is he rebuffed? Given the fact that MacArthur and his entourage are ardent "Zionists," I don't know why they'd snub such a prominent Messianic Jewish leader. But maybe appearances are deceiving. Perhaps there's more to it than meets the eye.

I  do have theory. MacArthurites seem to subdivide charismatics (and continuationists) into two groups: bad bad charismatics and good bad charismatics.

On the one hand, you have the bad bad charismatics. These are the charlatans. The TBN types. 

On the other hand, you have the good bad charismatics. These are the respectable charismatics. 

However, the good charismatics are bad in a different way. You see, the good charismatics are the "gutless enablers" (to quote Dan Phillips) of the bad charismatics. The reputable charismatics cover for the disreputable charismatics. The mere existence of reputable charismatics confers virtue by association on the disreputable charismatics. So, in their own way, even the good charismatics are just as bad (or worse) than the bad charismatics.

This furnishes a striking parallel with the way militant Darwinians like Richard Dawkins, Jerry Coyne, and PZ Myers treat Michael Ruse and Stephen Jay Gould. Even though Ruse and Gould are just as committed to Darwinian dogma as Coyne, Myers, and Dawkins, they are still treated as traitors to the cause because they refuse to demonize the critics of Darwinism. It's not enough to be for the cause. You must be against whoever is against the cause. It's personal. The friend of my enemy is my enemy. 

Who's redefining what?

I'm going to comment on this post:

http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2013/08/the-gift-of-parbar.html

So look, here's my modest proposal: If we aren't going to start with sound exegesis of the Bible and be content with that…

Well, when is Dan actually going to start with sound exegesis? We keep getting his token reverence for the sufficiency of Scripture, absent the exegesis to back up his claims. Less genuflecting and more spadework would be appreciated. 

Same thing for all their other redefinitions. If they wanted some holy status for their errant feelings and hunches and "leadings," they should never have assaulted the well-known and well-defined Biblical phenomenon of prophecy, and embarrassed themselves by trying to redefine it to suit their experiences. 

i) First of all, notice that Dan doesn't tell us what the definition of the this "well-defined" phenomenon is. This is yet another example of Dan's routinely perfunctory performance. Make pious gestures towards the authority of Scripture, but don't follow that up with the goods. 

ii) Also, let's compare his claim to David Aune's conclusion in his standard scholarly monograph on prophecy:

Prophetic sayings and speeches preserved in early Christian sources exhibit a wide variety of forms and styles. Even though we have somewhat overconfidently proposed a typology of six types of basic forms of prophetic speech and three kinds of complex forms, it is apparent that only the presence of formal framing devices betrays the possible presence of Christian prophetic speech…There is therefore no such thing as a distinctively characteristic form of Christian prophetic discourse that is recognizable apart from the presence of formal framing devices. The only real exception to this generalization is the apocalyptic vision report, a literary form which we have not considered in any detail and which requires careful study in its own right. D. Aune, Prophecy in Early Christianity and the Ancient Mediterranean World (Eerdmans 1991), 337-338.

Hmm. Seems like the phenomenon is far less monolithic than Dan purports to be the case. 

See, that's where the modern inventors of Charismaticism/"continuationism" went wrong. Parham and his poor dupes were originally seeking the Biblical gift of tongues. That is, they expected to be able to speak in unlearned human languages supernaturally. And when they started babbling and gobbling, they were convinced it had to be that, that Biblical gift, that falsifiable gift with defined contours and edges. So they went off to mission fields, expecting to be understood by the Chinese... but, yeah, you know how that went. Natives shrugged and, in effect, made little circular gestures by their temples. Incomprehensible babble.
So here's where the first-gen errorists went afield. They were sure their experience was valid (Charismaticism 101), so then took some large hammers and saws to the Bible, and eventually changed the interpretation of what "tongues" meant from, well, what it meant, to what they were doing. They took a well-understood gift and invented something that gave cover to their experience.

As with prophecy, Dan dictates a received definition of glossolalia–which he equates with xenoglossy. He then accuses Pentecostals of redefining the phenomenon to retrofit their actual practice. Let's compare Dan's claim with some standard scholarship on the issue:

The ambiguous evidence regarding the exact nature of tongues raises the question of whether even Paul himself or the other earliest Christians knew the exact nature of the phenomenon. R. Ciampa & B. Rosner, The First Letter to the Corinthians (Eerdmans 2010), 586. 

From the way Paul speaks of this phenomenon [tongues] in the rest of this chap. [12] and in chap. 14, however, it seems best to recognize it as some form of noncommunicative utterance or incoherent babbling.
The phenomenon cannot mean speaking in foreign tongues…it denotes here [14:2] some sort of utterance beyond the patterns of normal human speech. J. Fitzmyer, First Corinthians (Yale U. Press 2008), 470, 510. 

Second, Paul understands these utterances to be addressed to God (14:2,14,28) and not to humans (14:2,6,9). It is not a language of normal human discourse, but something mysterious and "other," which may give it its appeal. It consists of "mysteries in the Spirit" that are unintelligible to humans (14:2 ) and that benefit only the speaker (14:4). It communicates with God through prayer and praise (14:15) in ways that analytical speech do not…This rules out the view that tongues refer to the miraculous ability to speak in unlearned languages or to speak in one's native language. D. Garland, 1 Corinthians (Baker 2003), 584. 

Edwards declares: "It is evident that the Corinthians did not use their gift of tongues to evangelize the heathen world. They spoke with tongues in their Church assemblies, and not once does the Apostle urge them to apply the power to the purpose for which it would be so eminently serviceable." 
If there were any hint of this use, Paul could not have said "the person who speaks in a tongue speaks not to people but to God" (14:2), let alone, "the person who speaks in a tongue builds up only himself (14:4). But we saw that insofar as Chrysostom, Cyril, Thomas, and most especially  Theodoret and Calvin were concerned, the whole point of using foreign languages was strictly to serve the proclamation of the gospel as part of the mission to the world. But if we decontextualize the gift from mission (as Paul clearly does in 1 Cor 14), the basis for the gift has disappeared. 
Tongues may then be viewed as "the language of the unconscious" because it is unintelligible (unless it is "interpreted") not only to others but also to the speaker, A. Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (Eerdmans 2000), 977, 988. 

The weight of the textual evidence, however, does not support this understanding of tongues as real human languages. The Pentecost story does emphasize the intelligibility of the tongues spoken, but a careful reading indicates that the miracle occurred in the hearing rather than in the mode of speaking. The bystanders do not ask, "How can they all be speaking our native languages?" but rather, "Since all who are speaking are Galileans, how is it that we hear them in our own native languages" (Acts 2:8).
As for Paul,he could hardly emphasize more strongly that in his view–and he was a speaker in tongues himself (14:18)–glossolalia is an intrinsically noncommunicative form of utterance (1 Cor 13:1; 14:2,4,7-9,16-17,23).
In summary, the convergence of evidence suggests that glossolalia is a verbal expression of a powerful emotional state. It is not a real language but a kind of structured or ordered babbling, "Glossolalia and the Embarrassments of Experience," L. T. Johnson, The Princeton Seminary Bulletin (1997), 117-118, 121.

Now, it's not the purpose of this post to give my own definition of glossolalia. I don't quote these scholars to endorse their interpretation. Rather, I quote them to document the patent falsity of Dan's assertions.

i) To my knowledge, not one of the scholars I quoted is Pentecostal or charismatic. Therefore, Dan can't say they were motivated to reject the foreign language interpretation to ex post validate their personal commitment to contemporary Pentecostal practice.

ii) In addition, their analysis gives the lie to Dan's claim that there's a received definition of tongues, such that anyone who rejects the foreign language definition is "redefining" the NT phenomenon. 

And frankly, it's examples like these which raise questions about Dan's integrity. He makes willfully ignorant public claims. For some reason, he feels no duty to make a good faith effort to inform himself before he sallies forth about the Bible or people who disagree with him. As a pastor, he ought to have more sense of responsibility. Don't tell your people what the situation is before you've done some basic fact-checking. 

Every time we're trying to talk God's Word, someone is sure to ask, "So, what about when X happens? or when Y happened in 1843? How do you explain that, huh?" As if this is what really should consume the Christian, because we already have so well mastered all that actually-in-the-Bible stuff.

Questions like that are quite germane when Dan and other MacArthurites deny that things like that ever happen. Does Dan really think his sweeping historical claims should be immune to empirical falsification? If he said something never happens, his denial invites potential counterexamples. Why does Dan imagine that he's entitled to operate with a double standard which allows him to issue blanket denials, but exempts him from ever having to consider any evidence to the contrary? What does that say about his character? 

But then again, really, since the whole point is that we've got this imperative (we must validate the Charismatic's experience and his special powers)…

I agree with Dan that that's a problem in Pentecostalism. Problem is, Dan has the same methodology. Dan is the mirror image of what he faults in Pentecostalism. Dan also begins with experience. He's a disguntled former Pentecostal. He had a bad experience. And because his experience with Pentecostalism left him emotionally damaged, he automatically rejects charismatic claims, as well as "contiuationist" interpretations. In Dan's case, you can take the Pentecostal out of Pentecostalism, but you can't take the Pentecostalism out of the Pentecostal. Because Dan burned his fingers playing with strange fire, he's now a crusader against matches. 

Finally, a word about the commenters at Pyromaniacs. They are very quick to recognize cult personality psychology on the part of folks who hang onto every word of some TBN televangelist, but oblivious to their own personality cult psychology when their MacArthurite heroes come under scrutiny. 

Will the real Dan Phillips please stand up?

Case studies matter!

Dan Phillips @BibChr 

Ppl supposedly have been spkg in tongues all over for 100 yrs. Still, EVERY study has failed to find ONE verified NT-type case 

1:52 PM - 15 Aug 13

Case studies don't matter!

Dan Phillips ‏@BibChr 

There's always a latest-greatest-book-you've-just-gotta-read trying to put some error on life-support. ALWAYS. 

6:49 AM - 16 Aug 13

Clueless in MacArthurville

mennoknight 

"So, who exactly is doing this stuff? Dan Phillips? Frank Turk? Phil Johnson? Fred Butler? Myself? Who dismisses miracle reports from the third world BECAUSE they're from the third world? Nobody that I'm aware of." 

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2013/08/the-church-of-hume.html?showComment=1376074891926#c5834091825749300732

Perhaps you need to turn up your hearing aid:

Dan Phillips ‏@BibChr 21h 

EVERY time someone challenges this, the story starts, "I knew/heard about someone who was in the Philippines/Mexico/Uganda once, and..." 

1:53 PM - 15 Aug 13 

Ghost Hunters

I'm going to comment on this post by Fred Butler:

http://hipandthigh.wordpress.com/2013/08/12/coast-to-coast-christianity/

My internet pal, Steve Hays, has been busting my chops as he is championing charismatic claims of the miraculous against the cessationist claims of fraud.

Let's just say I think that description reflects a certain amount of poetic license.

I guess what surprises me about Steve’s commentary is that I believe he knows better. Take for example when he states, “I think part of the problem is that many members/followers of the MacArthur circle don’t seem to have much experience debating atheists.”  What sort of debating is he looking for? If he means a formal  Bahnsen/Stein style debate, then yes, I can’t think of any right off hand that involves a “MacArthurite” and any well-known atheist evangelist in a public forum.If he means, on the other hand, interactions with atheists in general in which they challenge our Christian faith and we challenge their atheist faith, then that is one of the most gratuitously ignorant statements I’ve ever read from Steve. He genuinely believes us MacArthurites are that out-of-touch?

First thing I'd note is that Fred doesn't present any counterexamples. And unless I'm mistaken, "MacArthurites" like the Pyromaniacs and the speakers at the Strange Fire conference haven't had anything approaching the frequency or depth of engagement with atheists that I've had, both in my book-length reviews of atheist literature as well as impromptu debates.

But perhaps Fred has something else in mind. He doesn't say.

I’m fairly confident James White is a cessationist in the same fashion as we MacArthurites, and I don’t recall his cessationist understanding of spiritual gifts being a factor when he has debated atheists in the past. I don’t recall David Hume being a factor, either.  I bet K. Scott Oliphint is a cessationist, also; and he just wrote the newest, popular treatment about Van Til’s apologetic theology. Would Steve say he is arguing like an atheist? Heck, I’d bet Van Til was a cessationist. What am I supposed think about his apologetics in light of Steve’s claim of atheism?

i) I'm struck by how quickly Fred segues from MacArthurites to non-MacArthurites. The logical connection isn't obvious.

ii) But since he brings it up, we need to distinguish between Christians who happen to be cessationists and cessationistis who write detailed defenses of cessationism. (Same thing with charismatics.) In the nature of the case, I can only judge a cessationist by the arguments he uses. If he doesn't argue for cessationism, there's nothing more to say in that regard.

iii) There are also differences in how different cessationists make their case. For instance, you have "high altitude" cessationists like Richard Gaffin and O. P. Robertson. They don't discuss the charismata at ground level. They don't investigate or evaluate testimonial evidence for modern miracles. Rather, they bomb the target from 40,000 feet in the air. They approach the issue from the abstract framework of redemptive-historical theology.

iv) By contrast, a cessationist like Warfield does approach the issue from a church historical perspective. And, as a matter of fact, his naive reliance on Conyers Middleton does fall afoul of my criticism. He seems unaware of the fact that Middleton was probably a closet Deist.

v) To my knowledge, Oliphint hasn't studied the evidence for modern miracles. But if he took the dismissive attitude towards testimonial evidence that some MacArthurites do, then, yes, I'd have the same criticism. 

Steve chides our skepticism, insisting that we argue exactly like all the internet atheists trying to debunk the claims of Scripture. He goes on to challenge our skepticism by saying we haven’t read such-and-such book, author, or testimonials and thus it is concluded our opinion is misinformed, or lacking any real knowledge to be a well-rounded, meaningful criticism of charismatic claims of healing and the supernatural.But do I really need to read Craig Keener’s two volumes on miracles and every charismatic commentary on 1 Corinthians 12-14 in order to offer a biblically informed critique of what is passed off as speaking in tongues and healing the sick in charismatic/Pentecostal circles? Why?

I've already answered that question, but to repeat:

i) Cessationism posits a universal negative. It's not confined to debunking sensational claims in Charisma magazine. So the scope of the research needs to bear some correspondence to the scope of the claim. 

ii) In my experience, MacArthurites often reason like this:

"There is no credible evidence for modern prophecy, faith-healers, &c. It's all thirdhand reports."

When, however, you ask them for their sources, when you ask them if they've read more scholarly monographs on the subjects, they respond by exclaiming:

"How dare you suggest I need to read Craig Keener, Rex Gardner, et al.!"

The obvious problem is that MacArthurites are guilty of circular reasoning. On the one hand they say there's no good evidence. On the other hand, when you ask them if they've studied the best sources, they take umbrage at the question and assure you that they don't need to since there's no good evidence. Well, how do they know that there's no good evidence if they studiously avoid the best sources?

Sorry, but that's exactly like Dawkins. Reading sophisticated, erudite defenses of Christianity is a waste of time because Christianity is bunk. And he knows that because…? 

That argument can cut many ways. I can offer the same response to those who may deny the existence of a vast underground network of high velocity bullet trains that travel at 10,000 mph and can transfer top secret military personnel from LA to DC in 30 minutes.  Or those who claim the earth is hollow or extraterrestrials are abducting human women in order to harvest their ovaries to produce human-alien hybrids.I mean, has Steve read all of Whitley Strieber’s books? Has he examined ALL of Richard Hoagland’s photographic evidence from the Apollo missions that show mechanical alien debris strewn across the surface of the moon? Has he watched ALL of the Ghost Hunters TV series? If you haven’t, why should anyone be so dogmatic that those individuals are kooks? Does Steve not realize how he is aping the arguments that are straight from the pages of the Skeptical Inquirer?

Several issues that need to be disambiguated:

i) Life is short, so we have to prioritize our time. We make snap judgements about what is worth studying.

ii) Some positions are so intuitively implausible that there is no best representative to study. They attract kooks. Take Scientology. Take L. Ron Hubbard. 

iii) I'm entitled to have an opinion about ufology without having done much reading on the subject. If, however, I pose as an expert witness at a conference, then it is incumbent on me to do some in-depth research. To acquaint myself with how ufologists argue for their position and field objections. 

iv) If you want to examine whether or not hauntings are for real, Ghost Hunters is hardly the most reliable source of information. That's pulp entertainment. I've never said you should bone up on everything the other side has to say. To the contrary, I've always said you should focus on the most able exponents. So Fred's example backfires. 

v) The problem with Fred's analogy is whether a position that's espoused by scholars of the caliber of Craig Keener, Gordon Fee, Graham Twelftree, and Max Turner (among others) can be honestly compared to Ghost Hunters. 

Dan Phillips on August 12, 2013 at 7:34 am said:
I’m just surprised you continue to engage him so seriously. He’s “arguing” like a four-year-old. I don’t see the percentage in engaging him as if he’s not. I mean I admire you, but I just don’t see it ending well. A few proverbs come to mind.

Dan's attitude is a good example of why many young people walk away from the church and never look back.