"He didn't deserve to die"

Over at Pyromanics, Frank Turk has an oddly reasoned post on the Ferguson affair:

http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2014/11/in-no-particular-order-redux.html

You can't have it both ways: either the system is working, or it is not working. 

Actually, I can have it both ways. Sometimes the system works, and sometimes it doesn't. It would be simplistic and inaccurate to stake out a uniform position on whether or not the system works. I can point to instances where it works as well as instances where it doesn't. 

What if we start here: it doesn't matter what Trayvon Martin  Michael Brown was doing in that neighborhood.  He didn't deserve to die. He wasn't putting anyone's life in danger; he didn't deserve to die.  Until and unless you are willing to say that out loud -- and I don't care which side of the argument you are on here -- if you can't say that Trayvon Martin Michael Brown did not deserve to die, you frankly have no place in this discussion. Your moral compass and your real empathy for other people are both broken.  You can't do anything to make this or the future better until you deal with that.

Whether or not he "deserved" to die is a red herring in this situation. The question of just deserts is only germane to punishment. 

But according to the defense, Wilson's action wasn't punitive. Wilson didn't shoot Brown to mete out justice. 

Rather, according to the defense, Brown was trying to seize Wilson's gun. Assuming that's true, Wilson acted in self-defense. 

In that situation, the moral justification for potential use of lethal force isn't predicated on whether the assailant deserved it. Maybe he did and maybe he didn't. That has no bearing on the moral justification.

Rather, when an assailant puts someone else's life in jeopardy, he puts his own life in jeopardy. By his action he forfeits the prima facie right not to be harmed by another. If he commits a life-threatening action without due cause, the would-be victim has a right to repel the attack by any means at his disposal. The assailant has forced his hand.

Keep in mind, too, that he has forced the would-be victim to make a snap decision. You can't put someone in that situation, then blame them for making a split-second judgment call. It's your fault for putting them in that predicament in the first place. 

So Frank's argument is morally confused. 

If you're going to challenge Wilson's action, the proper way to do so is to challenge the facts of the case. Did he have good reason to fear for his life and safety? 

Now, in response to comments, Frank amplifies or amends his original claim:

Michael Brown, whilst walking down the street, was not putting anyone's life in danger.
That is where this incident started. Officer Wilson did not come upon a fight or a robbery: he came upon two men walking in the street. That's where this started, and to see it otherwise is not excessively clever.

i) I agree with Frank that police shouldn't accost citizens engaged in lawful conduct. 

ii) However, that's a euphemistic description in this case. Hadn't Brown just committed strong-armed robbery? Wasn't that caught on the security camera? 

iii) He wasn't shot because he was walking in the street. According to the defense, he was shot because the situation rapidly escalated to the point where the officer's life was in danger. That's why he died. 

You can try to challenge Wilson's version of the events. But that's a different issue. 

Beating a dead hobbyhorse

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

Getting our ducks in a row

• Frank Turk I'm not sure the entertainment stars in the media are for Christ, either.
  
  Frank Turk Let's be clear on my statement - I don't doubt Phil's faith in spite of his dubious denomination. I doubt he's on A&E for the Glory of God or the promulgation of the Gospel. His job, if we can say it that way, is to make duck calls and make us laugh -- and make money.
• In that, he's neither a theologian or a missionary: he's not reformed (small "r") like you and me, Michael. He doesn't have a theology of vocation -- or even, it seems to me, a decent ecclesiology. With all of that stacked up, I can't see how his "preaching" (or maybe more accurately: punditry) is "for Christ." It's "for Phil".
• I have to admit that I am also not a fan of dehumanizing people to tell them they are sinners. I agree with the statement that homosexuality is a sin, but let's face it: is it a sin simply because of plumbing issues? I think that's actually the culture-loser and the person-loser.
  
  Michael Foster Where is this dehumanizing? Did I miss something (seriously)? Robertson's focus on body parts and how they work is in line with Scripture consist abominating of homosexuality as unnatural.
  
  Frank Turk I agree that homosexuality is unnatural. Reducing it to body parts is dehumanizing.
  
  Aaron Snell Wait, Frank, I'm confused. I thought you said Thabiti nailed it in his gag-reflex post. Isn't Robertson's interview merely an application of that argument?
  
  Frank Turk a bad application of that argument, but one application.
• just because the used a principle I would endorse doesn't mean he did out well. he chose poorly.

We need to sort out a number of issues here:

i) One can raise legitimate issues about some of Phil's theology:

http://hereiblog.com/few-more-things-should-know-duck-dynasty/

ii) One can also raise issues about his mixed motives. Is he in it for the money? Of course, making money is not inherently sinful. He's a businessman. That's how he supported his family. A more charitable interpretation is that he does the show for the money, but once it became a hit, he seized the opportunity to use it as a Christian witness. 

iii) One could object that cast members have a worldly lifestyle. One could also object that the show reinforces the Hollywood stereotype of Southerners as redneck buffoons. 

iv) But all that misses the point. If the homosexual lobby is attacking him because, rightly or wrongly, they perceive him to be a Christian, then an attack on Phil is an attack on Christians:

"Phil and his family claim to be Christian, but Phil's lies about an entire community fly in the face of what true Christians believe," said GLAAD spokesman Wilson Cruz.

Whether or not he's a true Christian representative, if that's what he symbolizes to the homosexual lobby, then they are attacking Christian sexual morality in the person of Phil Robertson. Even if their perception is off-target, that's what they are aiming for. It doesn't matter what he is, but what he represents (from the viewpoint of GLAAD et al.). 

Now, if he said something essentially wrong, that would be different. But since he said something essentially right, we should support him. 

v) I don't know why Frank takes issue with the "plumbing" comparison. Seems to be that Phil's comparison is just a graphic illustration of Paul's natural law argument in Rom 1. 

Was Martyn Lloyd-Jones a cessationist?

I'm going to comment on a few statements by Frank Turk:

http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2013/11/a-cornucopia-of-good-will.html

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:

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2013/08/the-supernatural-in-medicine.html

Was Spurgeon clairvoyant?

I'm going to comment on a statement by Frank Turk. But before I get to that, let's put the debate in context by furnishing some background information:

While preaching in the hall, on one occasion, I deliberately pointed to a man in the midst of the crowd, and said, `There is a man sitting there, who is a shoemaker; he keeps his shop open on Sundays, it was open last Sabbath morning, he took nine pence, and there was four pence profit out of it; his soul is sold to Satan for four pence!' A city missionary, when going his rounds, met with this man, and seeing that he was reading one of my sermons, he asked the question, `Do you know Mr Spurgeon?' `Yes,' replied the man `I have every reason to know him, I have been to hear him; and under his preaching, by God's grace I have become a new creature in Christ Jesus. Shall I tell you how it happened? I went to the Music Hall, and took my seat in the middle of the place: Mr Spurgeon looked at me as if he knew me, and in his sermon he pointed to me, and told the congregation that I was a shoemaker, and that I kept my shop open on Sundays; and I did, sir. I should not have minded that; but he also said that I took nine pence the Sunday before, and that there was four pence profit; but how he should know that, I could not tell. Then it struck me that it was God who had spoken to my soul through him, so I shut up my shop the next Sunday. At first, I was afraid to go again to hear him, lest he should tell the people more about me; but afterwards I went, and the Lord met with me, and saved my soul.' 

While preaching in the hall, on one occasion, I deliberately pointed to a man in the midst of the crowd, and said, ‘There is a man sitting there, who is a shoemaker; he keeps his shop open on Sundays, it was open last Sabbath morning, he took ninepence, and there was fourpence profit out of it; his soul is sold to Satan for fourpence!’ A city missionary, when going his rounds, met with this man, and seeing that he was reading one of my sermons, he asked the question, ‘Do you know Mr. Spurgeon?’ ‘Yes,’ replied the man, ‘I have every reason to know him, I have been to hear him; and, under his preaching, by God’s grace I have become a new creature in Christ Jesus. Shall I tell you how it happened? I went to the Music Hall, and took my seat in the middle of the place; Mr. Spurgeon looked at me as if he knew me, and in his sermon he pointed to me, and told the congregation that I was a shoemaker, and that I kept my shop open on Sundays; and I did, sir. I should not have minded that; but he also said that I took ninepence the Sunday before, and that there was fourpence profit out of it. I did take ninepence that day, and fourpence was just the profit; but how he should know that, I could not tell. Then it struck me that it was God who had spoken to my soul through him, so I shut up my shop the next Sunday. At first, I was afraid to go again to hear him, lest he should tell the people more about me; but afterwards I went, and the Lord met with me, and saved my soul.' 

“I could tell as many as a dozen similar cases in which I pointed at somebody in the hall without having the slightest knowledge of the person, or any idea that what I said was right, except that I believed I was moved by the Spirit to say it; and so striking has been my description, that the persons have gone away, and said to their friends, ‘Come, see a man that told me all things that ever I did; beyond a doubt, he must have been sent of God to my soul, or else he could not have described me so exactly.’ And not only so, but I have known many instances in which the thoughts of men have been revealed from the pulpit. I have sometimes seen persons nudge their neighbours with their elbow, because they had got a smart hit, and they have been heard to say, when they were going out, ‘The preacher told us just what we said to one another when we went in at the door. 

The Autobiography of Charles H. Spurgeon (London: Curts & Jennings, 1899), 2:226-27.

Let's compare that with some biblical examples:

But a man named Ananias, with his wife Sapphira, sold a piece of property, 2 and with his wife's knowledge he kept back for himself some of the proceeds and brought only a part of it and laid it at the apostles' feet. 3 But Peter said, “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back for yourself part of the proceeds of the land? (Acts 5:1-3). 

24 But if all prophesy, and an unbeliever or outsider enters, he is convicted by all, he is called to account by all, 25 the secrets of his heart are disclosed, and so, falling on his face, he will worship God and declare that God is really among you (1 Cor 14:24-25). 

But when Naaman had gone from him a short distance, 20 Gehazi, the servant of Elisha the man of God, said, “See, my master has spared this Naaman the Syrian, in not accepting from his hand what he brought. As the Lord lives, I will run after him and get something from him.” 21 So Gehazi followed Naaman. And when Naaman saw someone running after him, he got down from the chariot to meet him and said, “Is all well?” 22 And he said, “All is well. My master has sent me to say, ‘There have just now come to me from the hill country of Ephraim two young men of the sons of the prophets. Please give them a talent of silver and two changes of clothing.’” 23 And Naaman said, “Be pleased to accept two talents.” And he urged him and tied up two talents of silver in two bags, with two changes of clothing, and laid them on two of his servants. And they carried them before Gehazi. 24 And when he came to the hill, he took them from their hand and put them in the house, and he sent the men away, and they departed. 25 He went in and stood before his master, and Elisha said to him, “Where have you been, Gehazi?” And he said, “Your servant went nowhere.” 26 But he said to him, “Did not my heart go when the man turned from his chariot to meet you? Was it a time to accept money and garments, olive orchards and vineyards, sheep and oxen, male servants and female servants? (2 Kgs 5:19-26). 

8 Once when the king of Syria was warring against Israel, he took counsel with his servants, saying, “At such and such a place shall be my camp.” 9 But the man of God sent word to the king of Israel, “Beware that you do not pass this place, for the Syrians are going down there.” 10 And the king of Israel sent to the place about which the man of God told him. Thus he used to warn him, so that he saved himself there more than once or twice.11 And the mind of the king of Syria was greatly troubled because of this thing, and he called his servants and said to them, “Will you not show me who of us is for the king of Israel?” 12 And one of his servants said, “None, my lord, O king; but Elisha, the prophet who is in Israel, tells the king of Israel the words that you speak in your bedroom.”32 Elisha was sitting in his house, and the elders were sitting with him. Now the king had dispatched a man from his presence, but before the messenger arrived Elisha said to the elders, “Do you see how this murderer has sent to take off my head? Look, when the messenger comes, shut the door and hold the door fast against him. Is not the sound of his master's feet behind him?” (2 Kgs 6:8-12,32).

These are Biblical examples of prophetic clairvoyance, involving extrasensory knowledge of what people are thinking or planning. Private conversations. That sort of thing. Compare that with Spurgeon's self-reports. 

Now for Frank's statement:

Your question assumes Spurgeon gave up his “experiences” without any comment or reference to what we should make of Charismatic outbursts.
In fact, as I read the evidence on the internet, you are the person who invented the argument that Spurgeon was, in fact, some kind of cautious Charismatic – and for that, you should be hung out to dry. Only Sam Storms has had the temerity to say that even if we accept the reports with no comment, Spurgeon himself did not see them as “charismatic gifts,” but the army of people foisting this argument on the world cannot see this glaring problem. In the same way we should interpret Isaiah’s view of Isaiah as normative, we should see Spurgeon’s view of Spurgeon as normative and not make the man into some sort of imbecile who cannot detect the presence of God. We should interpret Spurgeon’s experiences the way Spurgeon did and not the way you (conveniently) frame them.
Spurgeon rejected the idea of ongoing Apostolic, miraculous gifts. Saying he didn’t because he had some experiences of intuition or wisdom is like saying that there are more prophets in the past we ought to be looking for because they had words from God --but because they denied they were actually God’s words, we may have lost them. That is: we can’t really trust people to know if God spoke to them or not. If I were looking to score points, I’d say, “but of course, that’s actually how you frame modern prophecy,” but I am not looking to score points. I’m trying to answer this question in spite of its lopsided and (it seems) self-ignorant biases.
Spurgeon rejects your argument here. I’ll let him speak for himself about his own life and experience.
http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2013/11/a-cornucopia-of-good-will.html

i) Frank is recasting the issue in tendentious terms. The issue isn't how to classify Spurgeon's theology, but how to classify his experience. Whether Spurgeon would classify himself as a charismatic is a red herring. The real question is how we should classify his experience. This is not, in the first place, a question of how to classify the man, but how to classify his experience. Do these cases qualify as prophetic knowledge, or even the "gift of prophecy," according to Biblical exemplars? Frank's reply is evasive. 

To take a comparison: suppose a patient goes to the doctor. Not only does he describe his symptoms, but he tells the doctor that he's sure he was suffering a heart attack. 

However, the doctor disregards the patient's self-diagnosis. He's only interested in the patient's symptoms. Based on the symptoms (and other tests), the doctor will perform his own diagnosis. The fact that the patient interprets his symptoms as angina is irrelevant to his actual condition. Maybe it's just heartburn or acid reflux. There's an elementary distinction between the patient's self-reported symptoms, and the patient's self-diagnosis. 

ii) Spurgeon's experience is cited because he's a prima facie credible witness. So what's the best explanation for his apparently supernatural insights? In theory, these are the possibilities:

a) The primary or secondary sources were forged. These attributions are spurious.

I can't disprove that. However, Spurgeon was a famous man who lived in the 19C. The primary source material is extant. He's widely studied by church historians and other scholars. Is there any evidence that the sources were forged? The onus is on the skeptic.

b) It was just coincidental. 

Given the detailed specificity of the cases, it's implausible to chalk it up to coincidence, especially when the examples are cumulative. That's a last-ditch explanation, if you had an a priori commitment to a naturalistic explanation.

c) Spurgeon was mistaken.

It's hard to see how he could be mistaken about anything that specific. Where's the ambiguity?

d) Spurgeon was lying.

That's possible. However, Spurgeon didn't make his reputation as a clairvoyant. And it comes down to the question of which is more plausible: was Spurgeon a conman or a devout Christian? If you're an atheist, then a naturalistic explanation is always preferable. But why would a Christian opt for that explanation in Spurgeon's case? 

e) Spurgeon was a demoniac. 

If (d) is implausible, (e) is even less plausible. 

Brown v. Turk

Frank Turk offers an equivocal comparison:

Dr. Brown obviously belongs to the school of Charismatics who think that their cautious and pious version of the movement represents most practitioners, but it doesn't by a longshot.  Let's assume for a second (and this is a mightily-generous assumption) that all the US congregations of the AOG, the Apostolic Church, COG and COGIC, International Foursquare, and International Pentecostal Holiness are all wholly and fully inside what someone might call the "cautious Charismatic" camp.  That is: let's say they never have anything happening inside them that looks like barking like a dog, or prayer for healing that looks like a slap fight, or preaching which equates personal prosperity to the objective of the Gospel, and they never have a substantially-false prophecy which harms anyone.  According to ARDA, a generous headcount there is 5 million people.
Globally, TBN reaches 100 million people.  In Sub-Saharan Africa, there are over 500 million sociologically-Christian people (PEW research says 517 million)-- and of that number, 15% self-select as "Pentecostal." (source: ARDA)  That's 75 million Charismatic adherents who, frankly, are not as cautious as Dr. Brown are.  My suggestion here is that it turns out that the cautious fellows have, for so long, merely sighed heavily when someone is exposed as a fraud that now they are in the tiny minority of people in their own theological camp. 

http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2013/10/what-lutherans-have-done-for-5-centuries.html

Problem with that comparison is that it really involves a distinction between the laity and Bible scholars or theologians. Yes, I expect many or most lay charismatics are less cautious than Keener, Fee, Turner, Twelftree, &c. 

Needless to say, it's easy to parallel that with other lay/"expert" comparisons. A good theologian will have a more refined formulation of the Trinity or the hypostatic union than the average layman. A good commentator will have a more accurate understanding of Romans or Ephesians than the average layman. A good Christian philosopher will have a more sophisticated grasp of the cosmological argument than the average layman. So Turk's argument boomerangs on lay cessationists. 

MacArthurite preterists

I'm going to comment on this post:

http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2013/08/showing-spirit-by-da-carson.html

Notice the position which Frank imputes to critics of MacArthurite cessationists. Notice how he frames the issue. How he assigns the burden of proof. 

1996 was a very good year for the Charismatic, since that is the year Wayne Grudem came out with his book, Are Miraculous Gifts for Today?  However: I have been recently told that this book is actually far inferior to D.A. Carson's book, and refuting it is rather a pedestrian effort.  The real academic cherry is to prove that Carson may be toppled from his as yet unassailable position because let's face it: D.A. Carson.
So in 1996, Carson also published a lengthy treatise on 1 Cor 12-14, entitled Showing the Spirit. Over the last 3 weeks, it has found new life among those who demand the necessity of the apostolic spiritual gifts, and the word on the street is that this book has never properly been reviewed or refuted by anyone of a Cessationist disposition, therefore Check and Mate: start speaking in tongues.  Roll into that the fact that the book is still in print (in Kindle format no less), and that Carson has never offered a revision, and perhaps the rest of us -- the ones who think that miraculous signs and wonders are not pedestrian but exceptional, and that God is not a blatherer who predates Twitter with his affinity for daily murmurings but in fact speaks first through the Prophets and then through His Son -- ought to simply apologize for our impertinence for raising an eyebrow, and the occasional meat chub.
…I think what Carson does for/to charismaticism in this book is far worse for them than the people waving this book around would admit (methinks: if they had read it themselves).
One thing Carson refuses to do is to settle the question of continuation vs. cessation. 

• The last hope for the modern Charismatic is Carson's treatment of what Paul means by the relationship between "perfection" and the "imperfect."  Carson concludes that Paul must mean that all things will be made perfect at the parousia -- that is, the return of Christ.  Therefore, Carson is saying, the sign gifts will not cease until the return of Christ.  He says it this way:

• "Two conclusions follow from this exposition. The first is obvious: there does not appear to be biblical warrant, at least from this chapter, for banning contemporary tongues and prophecies on the grounds that Scripture anticipates their early demise. This does not mean, of course, that everything that passes for prophecy or the gift of tongues is genuine. I shall say more about the nature of these gifts in the next chapter.

• After all his justifications of so-called spirit gifts today, Carson lays out quite a devastating historical critique of such a thing:

• "What can be safely concluded from the historical evidence? First, there is enough evidence that some form of “charismatic” gifts continued sporadically across the centuries of church history that it is futile to insist on doctrinaire grounds that every report is spurious or the fruit of demonic activity or psychological aberration.

Here's my rebuttal: if this is the best you can do -- that is, a book that agrees with any tenable natural reading of 1 Cor 12-14, leaves open the door to the possibility that daGifts still exist, but somehow downplays the entire operation for the sake of good order, maturity, and the defining virtue of Love -- then you had better reassess what you think you're trying to convince the rest of us to agree with.
If this is your go-to book, explain to me how it justifies any of the things Dan and I have been objecting to for the last 8 weeks.
And: keep it civil.  Those who simply want to cast me off as a bomb-throwing waste of time should simply go do something else rather than waste their time, and mine.  

Now, let's compare Frank's imputation with how I myself have actually stated my position:

If you're going to make an honest case against charismatic theology, you need to critique the best representatives as well as the worst representatives. And you need to critique arguments. It's morally and intellectually incumbent on you to engage the best exegetical case for charismatic theology, viz.  Craig Keener, The Spirit in the Gospels and Acts: Divine Purity and Power; The Gift and the Giver: The Holy Spirit for Today; Gordon Fee, God's Empowering Presence: The Holy Spirit in the Letters of Paul.
Likewise, you need to engage important mediating positions, viz. D. A. Carson, Showing the Spirit: A Theological Exposition of 1 Corinthians, 12-14.And this brings us back to the burden of proof. Dan's cessationism involves a universal negative. That means he's assuming a very high burden of proof. For it would only take a single exception, just one credible counterexample, to disprove his ironclad cessationism. All you'd need is one bona fide prophet or healer or miracle worker between the death of St. John and today, to disprove his contention. 
iv) There are credible reported cases of modern xenoglossy. Cf. Craig Keener, Acts: An Exegetical Commentary: Introduction and 1:1–2:47 (Baker 2012), 829. So that would be consistent with continuationism. Denying cessationism doesn't entail the belief that every Christian throughout church history must be a miracle worker. This isn't an all-or-nothing proposition. 
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. 
i) I'm curious as to how Carson got classified as a "continuationist/cessationist." This is the second time I've run across that designation applied to Carson from a MacArthurite. Yet in his contribution to Power Religion, Carson was extremely critical of Third Wave theology (a la John Wimber and the Vineyard Church)–as he understood it. So why do some MacArthurites (e.g. Fred Butler, Nathan Busenitz) classify him as a continuationist/charismatic rather than a critic thereof? This appears to be a legend that's taking on a life of its own.ii) Speaking for myself, I haven't said the MacArthurites need to engage Piper or Grudem. I typically mention Fee and Keener. I've also mentioned Carson, as an important representative of a mediating position. And I've made passing reference to two other distinguished charismatic scholars: Graham Twelftree and Max Turner. 
v) If glossolalia isn't xenoglossy, then we can't say if modern tongues in the same as Corinthian tongues. We have no recordings of 1C Corinthian tongues to furnish a comparative sample. 
vi) By the same token, if glossolalia isn't xenoglossy, then it may resist linguistic analysis. It may be incommensurable with human language. You also have the code language explanation of Vern Poythress.
Now, I happen to think the modern practice of speaking in tongues is generally bogus. It's usually the result of coaching or crowd psychology. 
Put another way, what's the logical alternative to cessationism? Dan seems to think the logical alternative is a regular occurrence of miracles, miracles of a certain kind occurring at a certain rate. But that's not the logical alternative to cessationism. Logically, the alternative to cessationism doesn't select or predict for any particular outcome. Minimally, it simply allows for exceptions to Dan's universal negative. These could be few or many. Frequent or infrequent. Clustered or isolated.
Moreover,  why is is necessary to predict what kinds of miracles may or may not occur in the course of church history? Why do we have to stake out a position on that in advance of the facts? Why can't we take a wait-and-see attitude? Is that something we need to prescribe ahead of time? Why can't we discover what God is prepared to do? 
The debate between cessationists and charismatics is typically polarized between two absolute, opposing positions:i) On the one hand, cessationists take a proscriptive position. The "spiritual gifts" don't continue at all during the church age. There are no genuine Christian healers, prophets, exorcists, or thaumaturges during the church age. God may still work miracles, but not through human agents.ii) On the other hand, charismatics take a prescriptive position. The "spiritual gifts" ought to continue throughout the church age. The "spiritual gifts" are available to every Christian. Every Christian ought to have one or more of the "spiritual gifts."Both sides hammer the Bible to squeeze out their position. Both sides standardize the divine modus operandi. iii) I'd simply point out that, logically speaking, that's a false dichotomy. For these two options don't exhaust the logical alternatives. On the face of it, there's a mediating position. A Christian could say the NT is open-ended on the status of the "spiritual gifts." It doesn't prescribe or proscribe what God is prepared to do in the future. It's largely silent about the course of church history in that respect. Maybe God raises up a healer at a particular time and place, but doesn't do so on a regular basis. Perhaps we don't know in advance if Christians can still exorcise demoniacs. Maybe that's something we have to discover. Maybe God is not as predictable as we'd like to make him. Perhaps he resists our efforts to domesticate his field of action. Now, a logical alternative may not be correct. It's something we have to test against Scripture and church history. But this rather obvious mediating position seems to be totally overlooked by both sides. 

i) If you compare Frank's characterization of what we say with what we actually say, Frank's characterization is a tissue of blatant falsehoods from start to finish. I never made the exclusive claims for Carson that Frank imputes to critics of MacArthurite cessationism. I never placed the burden of proof where Frank alleges that critics of his position assign it. 

Now, Frank doesn't name his targets. It's quite possible that  his "rebuttal" wasn't meant to single me out in particular. However, it's hard to avoid the assumption that he's including me in his diatribe. I hardly think he's talking about every critic except me. But if I'm one of his unnamed targets, then his characterization of my position is systematically false. 

I just wonder why it's so hard for Frank to be truthful. Frank may not be a theoretical antinomian, but to judge by his hit piece, Frank is a practical antinomian. In practice, Frank feels no moral obligation to truthfully represent what the critics actually say. 

Now let's make a few substantive observations:

ii) In his chapter on 1 Cor 13, Carson says (quoting from my 1987 edition):

If this point is located at the parousia, then there is nothing in this passage to preclude a valid gift of tongues or prophecy today. This would not necessarily mean, of course, that each contemporary claim of a particular gift is valid. Nor would it necessarily mean that a charismatic gift or gifts could not have been withdrawn earlier than the parousia. But it does mean that Scripture offers no shelter to those who wish to rule out all claims of charismatic gifts today (70).
None of this, of course, suggests Paul is interested in establishing the ideal relative frequency of prophecy in the church; nor have we yet mentioned historical objections that argue the gifts of prophecy and tongues actually did cease. At the moment, such matters are irrelevant. In these verses Paul establishes the end of the age as the time when these gifts must finally be abolished (72).
Under this [third] interpretation, there is no reason why gifts such as prophecy and tongues cannot be thought to continue in principle until the parouisa. In  my view, the third interpretation is largely right and may be supported and slightly modified by the following considerations (73).
Two conclusions follow from this exposition. The first is obvious: there does not appear to be biblical warrant, at least from this chapter [1 Cor 13], for banning contemporary tongues and prophecies on the grounds that Scripture anticipates their early demise. This does not mean, of course, that everything that passes for prophecy or the gift of tongues is genuine (75).

iii) Now, if Carson's interpretation of 1 Cor 13 is correct, then that automatically falsifies cessationism on exegetical grounds. Paul allows for what MacArthurites disallows. And observe that in his "review," Frank doesn't take issue with Carson's exegesis. Frank doesn't show, or even attempt to show, that Carson's exegesis is mistaken. 

Yet cessationism posits a universal negative with respect to postapostolic era charismata. And it only takes one exception to falsify that blanket denial. What cessationism predicts for is diametrically opposed to what 1 Cor 13 predicts for. Cessationism predicts for the total discontinuance of any and all charismata after the apostolic age whereas 1 Cor 13 predicts for their total discontinuance at the end of the church age. If anything, Carson has understated the problem which this text poses for cessationists. 

iv) So this generates a dilemma for MacArthurite cessationists. If they insist that church history in fact falsifies the reoccurrence of the charismatic to any degree, then that logically commits them to saying that church history falsifies Paul's expectation to the contrary. They can salvage their cessationism by ditching inerrancy.

One other fallback position would be to renounce their premillennialism for preterism. They could then say the charismata terminated in the 1C because Christ returned in the 1C, appearances to the contrary not withstanding. 

Hypocrites chiding hypocrites

I'm going to comment on a self-interview by Frank Turk:

http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2013/08/an-interview-with-frank-turk.html

Permit me to lead with a disclaimer. I don't have a personal stake in this issue. I'm not Pentecostal. Likewise, I don't claim to be a healer,  prophet, or exorcist. I don't speak in tongues. I've witnessed no angelic apparitions.  

I do think their approach is very destructive to apologetics, which concerns me. But that's a different issue. 

FT: Well, it's Twitter.  You have to gauge the method by the medium.  Should DJP have rather posted a series of TwitLonger pieces on the faults of Charismatics and their theology so he was fully nuanced and well-measured?  Should that have been the trend?
What I think is this: when the so-called serious and sober Charismatics start policing their own and teaching their followers that one of the real gifts of the Spirit is discernment, and we don't charm the Holy Spirit by being gullible any more than we grieve Him by being critical of people using His name to get rich, I'll be more worried about being nuanced toward them.  I don't think it's unkind in the least to tell someone, however sincere, that they are at best being undiscerning and sloppy -- and at worst, they are actually harming other people with gullibility and spiritual chaos.
TPSP: how about we clean up a few items quickly to close here as a sort of speed round.  I'll give a topic or concern, and you give me the 50-word response.
FT: So, like Twitter?
TPSP: {glowers}
FT: I'm not bothered.
TPSP: There are a lot of credible men who are committed Charismatics. 
FT: I'd say that their commitment to Charismaticism -- especially their silence and acceptance of the rampant hooliganisms in the movement -- calls into question the rest of their track record.  Their otherwise-orthodox views don't make their approach to this stuff somehow rubber-stamped for acceptance.

Several problems:

i) There's a fundamental difference between attacking an individual representative, and attacking the belief-system he represents. If the Strange Fire conference wants to attack Benny Hinn, Todd Bentley, et al., more power to them. However, that no more disproves charismatic theology or hermeneutics than the example of Paul Hill disproves Presbyterian theology.

In this respect, Frank Turk and Dan Phillips are just as dishonest as Joseph Smith and Paula White. Dishonest in a different way. They are cutting corners on the truth by acting as if they can discredit charismatic theology by discrediting some Pentecostal charlatans. That tactic is glaringly fallacious. 

If you're going to make an honest case against charismatic theology, you need to critique the best representatives as well as the worst representatives. And you need to critique arguments. It's morally and intellectually incumbent on you to engage the best exegetical case for charismatic theology, viz.  Craig Keener, The Spirit in the Gospels and Acts: Divine Purity and Power; The Gift and the Giver: The Holy Spirit for Today; Gordon Fee, God's Empowering Presence: The Holy Spirit in the Letters of Paul.

Likewise, you need to engage important mediating positions, viz. D. A. Carson, Showing the Spirit: A Theological Exposition of 1 Corinthians, 12-14.

Dan and Frank keep doing this bait-n-switch, as if attacking a charlatan is any substitute for engaging serious charismatic scholarship. 

ii) What does Frank mean by "policing their own?" Has Gordon Fee been "silent" on the excesses of Pentecostalism? Is Frank even aware of Fee's classic exposé: The Disease of the Health and Wealth Gospels? Isn't that a good example of "serious and sober Charismatics" policing their own? 

Once again, it looks as if Frank and his cohorts suffer from self-reinforcing ignorance. They accuse the "serious and sober Charismatics" of failing to police their own, but seem to be willfully uninformed of what "serious and sober Charismatics" have actually done in that respect.

If so, then this is just another instance of how Frank and his cohorts are no more honest than the charlatans they deride. Hypocrites chiding other hypocrites. 

What makes hypocrisy an insidious sin is that hypocrites don't view themselves as hypocritical. That wasn't the self-image of the Pharisees. They were only hypocritical to outsiders. Hypocrisy can blind you to your own hypocrisy. 

iii) "Policing" is a catchy metaphor, but it's not as if the "serious and sober Charismatics" can place a gag order or stop-work order on the antics of charlatans. 

iv) Finally, the church has always been a mess. The NT church is no exception. Just read 1-2 Corinthians, 1-2 Thessalonians, 1-2 Timothy, Galatians, Colossians, Hebrews, 2 Peter, Jude, 1 John, Rev 2-3, &c. 

The church will always be a mess, both because Christians are sinners, and also because the visible church is, to some ineluctable degree, a mixed multitude of true and nominal believers. 

Unjust authority

I'm going to comment on some more assertions by Ed Dingess. Ed suffers from a persistent problem. He raises an objection. I draw attention to a flaw in his reasoning. He then repeats the same objection. He fails to engage the counterargument. 

Specifically, Steve’s statement implies that the command for Christians to obey and submit to their elders was given only until such time as the canon was completed. Once we had the canon, well, we could read it for ourselves. Therefore, according to this line of reasoning, we no longer need elders conferred with authority to whom we should submit.

No, that's not an implication of my position. However, you can't just quote a Biblical command in a vacuum. You must make allowance for the implied situation. Take my example of Deut 22:8. What should we do with that command? Should we say: "We can't fence our roof unless we have a flat roof; therefore, Christians are required to build houses with flat roofs., regardless of where they live."

No, the command is implicitly conditional. It doesn't literally apply to Christians in Alaska. It doesn't mean Alaskan Christians are mandated to build houses with flat roofs rather than gabled roofs. Rather, it means that if you have a rooftop terrance, then you're obligated to fence your roof.

In addition, Steve has argued vociferously that there are numerous false churches and false elders in existence today and this leaves the Christian with little choice, than to be their own self-attesting authority regarding which session of elders they should obey.

I didn't predicate my argument on a layman's "self-attesting authority."

Contrary to this line of reasoning, there were false elders, preachers, pastors, and prophets in antiquity as well. This did not deter the NT authors from commanding believers and instructing Christian communities to obey and submit to one another and to their elders.

So is Ed saying the NT enjoines the laity to obey "false elders?" 

If Hays is right, then not only are we under no obligation to obey a session of elders, we are not obligated to obey the local Christian community either.

I don't have a problem with church authority or church discipline. I have a problem with a free-floating authority structure that's detached from what is right and true. 

The entire principle of loosing and binding in Matt.18:15-20 is founded on the idea that the authority of heaven is bestowed on the Christian community in matters of sin and forgiveness.

As I've pointed out before, that's not a prooftext for elder authority. That text doesn't distinguish elders from laymen. 

Does the presence of false elders invalidate the NT command for Christians to obey and submit to elders? There were false elders everywhere in the NT world. Nearly every NT project was written to deal with false teachers in some way. The existence of false teachers would be all the more reason for us to submit to godly elders, and to one another. It does not follow that false paths produce a state of affairs that lead to individual self-determination and sufficiency. Exactly the opposite is true. The last thing the NT authors had in mind was that Christians would eventually become, as in America, islands unto themselves. But this is precisely where the hermeneutics of Hays leads us. At the end of the day, in Hays logic, I will determine for myself what Scripture teaches and I have no obligation to submit to anyone with whom I disagree, to include my pastor, my elders, and my Church.

Notice that Ed is oblivious to the glaring inconsistencies of his position. If, by his own admission, laymen must distinguish between "false elders" and "godly elders," in order to confine their submission to "godly elders–in contrast to "false elders," then that's something the layman "just determine for himself." Who else would make that determination? Elders can't determine that for him since that determination presumes a prior distinction between "false" and "godly" elders. Ed's appeal is viciously circular. A second party can't make that determination on the layman's behalf unless the party in question is qualified (i.e. a "godly elder"). So the layman must make a preliminary judgment regarding which elders are godly and which are false. 

In addition, even "godly elders" are fallible. Both elders and laymen are fallible. So it's not as if the judgment of an elder is presumptively correct, binding, or authoritative. 

Finally, what are the consequences of a Christian community without authority? 

Notice how Ed always frames the issue of "authority" in the abstract, without regard to whether the exercise of authority is right and true. 

I need to say one final thing about the consequences of Hays’s view. One of the single greatest challenges confronting the contemporary Church in America is the complete lack of accountability. The nature of sin that continues to confront the Christian after conversion demands that we be held accountable for everything from our beliefs, and our thinking, to our daily behavior. Accountability furnishes the indispensable structure required for spiritual growth. 

Accountability to what? Accountability to authority figures, or accountability to truth? 

Ed constantly about the duty to submit to your elders even if you disagree with your elders. But that ignores the basis of the disagreement. What if the elder is wrong? Ed keeps ducking that issue, even though he also talks about a plethora of "false elders." 

A Christian has a standing duty to be faithful to the truth. He is directly accountable to God. He doesn't have a right to delegate his Godward obligations to a second party. That's the essence of Roman Catholicism. You put your brain in the blind trust of Mother Church. You let your religious superiors do your thinking for you. 

A brief survey of biblical texts that show that genuine Christianity would collapse absent the authority paradigm. Matt.18:15-20 sets out the guidelines for when the Church must act to remove the impenitent from her community. You see, without some sort of authoritative structure, the Church is lacks the mechanism necessary to keep leaven from the body.

As I've pointed out, that doesn't suggest a Christian should submit to church sanctions even if the Christian was falsely accused. To the contrary, that text grounds church sanctions in a true allegation. Ed keeps disregarding the clearly qualified force of the passage. 

The authority paradigm is anchored, not only in Scripture but is everywhere present in the context of group thought in Mediterranean cultures. The idea was indispensable to the social setting of that time. The authority of the collective group was one each person willingly submitted to in that culture. This is true to a very large degree even to this day. The idea is radically antithetical to the extreme individualism we witness in American culture. This is why it is so difficult for us to appreciate and understand. The group would police its own. The group had inherent authority to shame and excommunicate anyone who insisted on not identifying with it by living up to its values. The Christian group’s authority is derived from Scripture. As such, it has the authority to excommunicate anyone who is not actually part of the group by dealing harshly with obstinate behavior.

Let's take a concrete illustration of Ed's groupthink authority paradigm:

Amish Woman 4: My mom was a very gentle soul. She was always a servant to everybody else. She always made sure everybody was taken care of, except mom. She always tried to be the submissive woman. And already then I wasn't sure about that word "submissive." And then I married an abuser, and then the word "submission" just became a monster.I was so proud of my first child. But I also remember, I would sit at the window rocking my baby. And sitting there alone, and I cried a lot. I knew things were not as they should be, but I kept telling myself, it's okay, it'll be all right. But I would cry a lot. I talked to my husband, and he'd say, "We're married, and I'm the head of the house." I'd say, "You know, the Bible says the father is the head of the home as Christ is the head of the church. But we also need to remember that Christ was not up here like a master with a big whip." Well, that didn't work well, because I was confronting him, and I was doubting his words of wisdom. I soon learned not to say those things.  They always say that we need to go to the church first, which I did. I went to the church and I asked for help. The very first thing that the minister said to me when I said, "We've been struggling with a lot of abuse, and I need help," he looked at me and he said, "So what did you do that caused your husband to treat you this way?" That was such a blow. That was such a blow. In fact it came to the point where the church actually had both of us not be able to go to communion until we can see where we have failed. And I felt like an outsider looking in.Finally I reached the point where spiritually I just said, "I'm just done. I've just had it, Lord. I don't know what to do. But I have to be connected with the church again." I told my husband, "I'm going to go back to the ministers, and I'm just going to lay myself out and say, 'Here I am. I'll take any punishment you give me. I'll do anything. I just need -- I need the church so bad.'" And he said, "Well, if you do, you're on your own because I'm not going to do it that way." And so that's what I did. I went back to the ministers, and I just cried, and I just said, "I'll just do anything you tell me to." I acknowledged anything and everything that I could think of under the sun. And yeah, say yes to things that I didn't really think were maybe exactly right to say yes to. But I did it out of obedience because I felt God nudging me that way. And I got back in the church, without my husband. Obedience is not easy. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/transcript/amish-transcript/

That's what Ed's authority paradigm leads to. Raw authority. Unjust authority.