Pages

Thursday, October 31, 2013

Comical Ali


Ed Dingess has made some characteristically delusional comments:

Abstract arguments only serve to muddy the waters and cloud the issue. If you don’t think this is so, check out the haze manufactured by Steve Hays over at Triablogue. Steve offers nothing of any substance to support the claim that genuine miracles are still taking place in the church. Instead, he has latched onto what he considers to be an inferior argument from cessationism and like a Pit Bull, he refuses to let go. Somehow, Hays thinks this argument is confined to the abstract. It seems to slip his notice entirely that even if he were to construct a superior argument in the abstract, he still faces the uncomfortable and in my opinion, the unsurmountable burden of authentic documentation and evidence in support of his claim.

i) So it's unfair to judge cessationism by the quality of the arguments they offer in defense of their position. Does Ed apply that same excuse to failed Darwinian arguments? 

ii) I've suppled many documented examples. 

a) To begin with, there are entire monographs on the subject, viz. 

Rex Gardener, Healing Miracles: A Doctor Investigates (Darton, Longman and Todd, 1986)

Craig Keener, Miracles: The Credibility of the New Testament Accounts (Baker Academic, 2011)

b) I've cited specific candidates, viz., Peter Bide, Bernard of Clairvaux, Alexander Peden, George Müller, &c. 

c) I've cited specific cases, viz. 


Ed is fond of pulling his Comical Ali, Baghdad Bob impersonation. He turns a blind eye to documentation, as if no evidence was ever presented. Is he incorrigibly dishonest? Is that Ed's problem? 

d) Finally, I think Scripture itself encourages us to expect charismata in the course of church history (Acts 2:17ff; 1 Cor 13:8-10). And I've presented supporting exegesis for the prootexts. 
At the same time, that doesn't predict for when, where, or how often that will occur. So the pious attitude is to wait and see what God will do. 

Steve Hays continues his fascinating attempt to convince us that the Pentecostal-Charismatic miracles today are genuine. He has implied on numerous occasions that we are wrong not to take them at their word. According to Hays, if we dare not question the miracles of Scripture, then we must extend the same respect to the "Benny Hinns" of the world today and resist the evil temptation to examine modern claims of miracle workers. Steve Hays' argument continues to place modern phenomena on par with the divine revelation of Scripture. Whatever principle I have for doubting modern claims of miracle workers and faith healers, I must also apply to Scripture, according to Hays. If I doubt the claims of Benny Hinn, then for consistency's sake, I must also doubt the claims of Jesus. If I doubt that Oral Roberts actually raised people from the dead, something he claimed to have done, then I must be soul mates with the skeptic Gotthold Lessing.

i) Ed is misrepresenting his own argument. Ed staked out the principle that reported miracles are incredible unless you personally witness them. And, yes, that's Lessing's argument. 

ii) In addition, Ed imputes to me a position that I explicitly repudiate:


Is Ed incurably dishonest, or is he so blinded by his reactionary partisanship that he can't even see the truth? 

The problem with Hays' current rebuttal is that he once again thinks Scripture is on par with modern claims of supposed miracle workers. 

Is Ed incapable of following the actual argument, or does he purposely misunderstand his opponent's argument so that he can then falsely accuse them? As I already explained, I'm responding to cessationists on their own grounds. Cessationists contend that the charismata ceased because the charismata were miraculous signs designed to authenticate God's spokesmen. According to that cessationist argument, Scripture doesn't authenticate miracles; rather, miracles authenticate Scripture. So it's the cessationist argument which, as a matter of principle, places modern miracle claims on a par with Biblical miracle claims. 

Ed may demur, but in that event he's not taking issue with my argument, but with a key supporting argument for cessationism. My argument is a tu quoque argument. 

Hays points out that several miracles of Scripture are private events with no outside witnesses. He then says that we have no right to demand that the PC miracle workers perform the sort of miracles that we can verify. Why? Because no one can verify that God spoke to Moses from the burning bush but Moses. So if we take Scripture at face value, we must take Benny Hinn at face value as well. If we demand that Benny Hinn perform the sort of miracles that can be verified, then we must also make the same demand of Scripture. This is the basic thrust of Hays' argument. Now he does not use the name Benny Hinn and for good reason. It would be embarrassing. I use it for good reason: logically it is impossible not to make this conclusion if one accepts Hays' faulty premise. 

Once again, is Ed really that obtuse, or does he intentionally misunderstand his opponent's argument so that he can then falsely accuse them?

I was explicitly responding to Fred Butler on his own terms. That's how Fred framed the issue. Fred says things like:

And third, it was made evident to all who dwell in Jerusalem, so everyone was talking about it. The miracle wasn’t confined to a small number of witnesses, or a small congregation of people, or to the subjective evaluation of two sets of X-rays. 
When we turn to the NT, all of the miracles Jesus performed were done openly in view of the public. Everybody could verify their authenticity…Those were not miracles done in private or in the confines of a tent revival. They were done publicly, in full view of a great multitude of believers and unbelievers alike.
Observe that this isn't my argument, but Fred's argument. My argument is a tu quoque argument. 
I then documented from Scripture that if we apply Butler's criterion to Scripture, many Biblical miracles won't make the cut. Many Biblical miracles weren't "public" in the way Fred defines his own terms. Many Biblical miracles weren't witnessed by unbelievers. So Fred is using a filter which would screen out many Biblical miracles. 
In addition to the short rebuttal on Moses, we should also understand that no miracle of Scripture comes to us without a witness. The events of Scripture did not happen in isolation of a greater concern. They are included in Scripture for all of us. In other words, no miracle of Scripture is private. God has published them to us all. In every single case, the miracles of Scripture come with the witness of the Holy Spirit.

That's the reductio ad absurdum of Ed's position. And notice that Ed is really taking issue with Fred's argument, not mine.

But there's a further irony. Joseph Smith would love Ed's principle. "Hey, seeing the Golden Tablets wasn't a private event. The Holy Spirit was there to witness the event!" Muhammad would love Ed's principle: "Hey, the angelic apparition wasn't a private event. The Holy Spirit was there to witness Gabriel speaking to me!" 

18 comments:

  1. Not that I think Dingess has much of anything to offer here, but I do think that he has a point at the last.

    Your response, Steve, namely:
    Joseph Smith would love Ed's principle. "Hey, seeing the Golden Tablets wasn't a private event. The Holy Spirit was there to witness the event!" Muhammad would love Ed's principle: "Hey, the angelic apparition wasn't a private event. The Holy Spirit was there to witness Gabriel speaking to me!"

    doesn't seem to be right to me.
    The Scriptural witness is a given even according to Smith's and Mohammed's own affirmations. What is in doubt is whether these OTHER miracles that are not attested by Scripture are real.
    We can know that the HS witnessed those other miracles, b/c they're in the Scripture. We can't know that the HS witnessed those other ones, b/c they're not.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Since Ed refuses to distinguish between public and private miracles, miracles with human witnesses and miracles without human witnesses, his "point" could be redeployed to validate false prophets and cult leaders.

      Likewise, as I've pointed out on two occasions, the classic cessationist argument isn't:

      Scripture>miracles

      But

      Miracles>scripture

      In the classic cessationist argument, Scripture doesn't prove miracles–miracles prove Scripture.

      That's the function of miracles: to divinely attest divine messengers. That's what makes them "sign" gifts.

      From a cessationist standpoint, you have it backwards.

      Delete
    2. i) No, he doesn't have a point. You're repeating the same mistake Ed made, even after I explained the mistake. To begin with, try to remember the argument I was responding to. Fred Butler makes a big deal about the public nature of certain NT miracles. Lots of witnesses. He makes that a necessary condition for the "undeniability" of real miracle.

      Unfortunately, he does that by cherry-picking a few Biblical miracles to illustrate his contention, at the expense of other Biblical miracles which don't measure up to his a priori criterion.

      ii) On a related note, you're failing to distinguish between the audience for a miracle and the audience for Scripture. Fred's argument was indexed to the former, not the latter.

      Delete
  2. Steve, I know you distinguish between a first-stage and second-stage of prophecy, where the first stage is a revelation and the second is the communication thereof (if I've understood you correctly). Is there any reason in principle, on your continuationism, that there could not be new inscripturation, and why prophecies could not have the same binding authority on the Christian conscience as Scripture?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The fact that someone has a revelatory experience doesn't ipso facto make that binding on anyone else. Take this example:

      When Gideon came, behold, a man was telling a dream to his comrade. And he said, “Behold, I dreamed a dream, and behold, a cake of barley bread tumbled into the camp of Midian and came to the tent and struck it so that it fell and turned it upside down, so that the tent lay flat” (Judges 7:13).

      Is that binding on Christians? In what sense? It's not a divine command. Rather, it's a very topical premonition.

      Likewise, there's no presumption that a revelatory experience would be inscripturated. Take the dream of Pilate's wife. We know she had one. But Matthew doesn't record the content of the dream. Matthew doesn't tell us what she saw in her dream.

      There are references to prophets of God in the OT whose revelations were never written down.

      Delete
    2. I suppose that, being inscripturated, it is binding on us to believe Judges 7: 13. But granting all that (prophecy may not necessarily be binding or inscripturated), do you believe it to be theoretically possible that someone could receive a binding divine command for other Christians? Do you think it possible that someone could receive new inscripturated revelation? Why/why not?

      Delete
    3. i) As a rule, there's no presumption that someone who says he had a revelation in fact had that experience. Since a second-party isn't privy to his experience, a second-party can't ordinarily vouch for his experience. Suppose he says he had a vision. The onus is not on me to disprove his claim. Rather, the onus is on him to prove his claim.

      ii) Your objection doesn't really single out continuationism. Cessationists also need to explain why revelation terminated when it did. After all, John says there was, in principle, lots more raw material (Jn 20:30). So why did God stop with the 27 books of the NT? Any cutoff is someone arbitrary, in the "theoretical" sense that God could have inspired another book of the NT, had he so chosen. The NT doesn't exhaust everything that could have been said.

      But as John goes on to explain–in the very next verse (Jn 20:31), that was sufficient for the purpose at hand. Even then he adds another chapter.

      Delete
    4. i) I agree that there is no presumption in that direction, but surely we could imagine that there are ways in which that person could validate their claim- a track record of prophetic accuracy, or accompanying miracles. In that case continuationism would be uniquely adding another possible authority over the believer beyond inscripturated revelation.

      ii) I don't have to posit a definitive end-point as such (though it would easy to suggest one, such as the death of the last apostle), simply that these things won't happen now, whilst surely uniquely to continuationism they can (in principle at least) still happen. Why think they won't?

      Delete
    5. Also, on a question of practice, what is your view of how church should work in the light of the continuation of the spiritual gifts, especially prophecy? How do we view it especially in view of 1 Cor 14- should we all expect to prophesy, or to have a large number of prophets, like the church in Corinth? Paul eagerly desires the Corinthians to prophesy, so what should our church services look like in that respect?

      Delete
    6. "i) I agree that there is no presumption in that direction, but surely we could imagine that there are ways in which that person could validate their claim- a track record of prophetic accuracy, or accompanying miracles."

      True…insofar as that goes.

      "In that case continuationism would be uniquely adding another possible authority over the believer beyond inscripturated revelation."

      It's only "another authority" if you equate prophetic phenomena with divine commands. But as I've documented on multiple occasions, that's a simplistic and reductionistic view of prophecy.
      It's striking how cessationists are so conditioned by what they've read other cessationist say about prophecy that they don't bother to compare that with the diversity of prophetic phenomena in Scripture. It's quite wide-ranging.

      "I don't have to posit a definitive end-point as such (though it would easy to suggest one, such as the death of the last apostle), simply that these things won't happen now, whilst surely uniquely to continuationism they can (in principle at least) still happen. Why think they won't?"

      And charismatics can posit a definitive end-point for canonical prophecy for the same reason cessationists posit a definitive end-point for canonical prophecy. Since continuationism denies the continuance of canonical prophecy (both in practice and principle), that doesn't present a special problem for continuationism.

      "Also, on a question of practice, what is your view of how church should work in the light of the continuation of the spiritual gifts, especially prophecy?"

      I'm not a continuationist. As I've said repeatedly, the fact that the charismata don't cease until the Parousia creates no presumption regarding their frequency at any particular time and place. Likewise, I don't think we are enjoyed to "seek" or persue the spiritual gifts.

      "How do we view it especially in view of 1 Cor 14- should we all expect to prophesy, or to have a large number of prophets, like the church in Corinth?"

      I don't agree with the Pentecostal interpretation of 1 Cor 14. According to Paul, the distribution of the spiritual gifts is subject to the sovereign discretion of the Holy Spirit. That's unpredictable.

      It's important to Pauline theology that the gifts be represented in the universal church. That's a corporate perspective. It's not individualistic. It's not a claim that every Christian should reproduce the same gifts. Just the opposite. A body with many members. Different gifts corresponding to different members. That's distributed over time and space.

      "Paul eagerly desires the Corinthians to prophesy, so what should our church services look like in that respect?"

      You seem to be combining cessationism with Pentecostalism. You seem to agree with the Pentecostal interpretation of 1 Cor 12-14, but agree with cessationism that it came to an end.

      I don't share your premise. In particular, I don't agree with the Pentecostal interpretation of 1 Cor 12:31 and 14:1. Rather, I agree with Anthony Thiselton's analysis in his commentary on the Greek text.

      Delete
    7. “It's only "another authority" if you equate prophetic phenomena with divine commands. But as I've documented on multiple occasions, that's a simplistic and reductionistic view of prophecy.
      It's striking how cessationists are so conditioned by what they've read other cessationist say about prophecy that they don't bother to compare that with the diversity of prophetic phenomena in Scripture. It's quite wide-ranging.”

      It doesn’t require an equation of prophetic phenomenon with divine commands, it only requires that divine commands be part of that wide-ranging diversity, unless there is some non-ad hoc reason for excluding that particular element of Biblical prophecy from modern day prophecy.

      “And charismatics can posit a definitive end-point for canonical prophecy for the same reason cessationists posit a definitive end-point for canonical prophecy. Since continuationism denies the continuance of canonical prophecy (both in practice and principle), that doesn't present a special problem for continuationism.”

      But why does canonical prophecy stop? How does that follow from continuationist proof-texts? If anything it requires an exception to be made from proof texts- certain types of prophecy stop whilst others continue. But what NT basis is there for this?

      “You seem to be combining cessationism with Pentecostalism. You seem to agree with the Pentecostal interpretation of 1 Cor 12-14, but agree with cessationism that it came to an end.

      I don't share your premise. In particular, I don't agree with the Pentecostal interpretation of 1 Cor 12:31and 14:1. Rather, I agree with Anthony Thiselton's analysis in his commentary on the Greek text.”

      Can you give me the cliffnotes version of Thiselton’s conclusion?

      Delete
    8. Thomas Keningley:

      

"It doesn’t require an equation of prophetic phenomenon with divine commands, it only requires that divine commands be part of that wide-ranging diversity, unless there is some non-ad hoc reason for excluding that particular element of Biblical prophecy from modern day prophecy."

      It's no more ad hoc than the fact that God inspired 27 books of the NT canon rather than 26 or 28. In principle, there could always be more or less. But in practice, God restricts the scope of revelation. That's true on cessationist and continuationist premises alike.

      "But why does canonical prophecy stop?"

      That's as much a question for cessationists as continuationists.

      "How does that follow from continuationist proof-texts? If anything it requires an exception to be made from proof texts- certain types of prophecy stop whilst others continue. But what NT basis is there for this?"

      Both cessationism and continuationism are "exceptional." Both positions draw lines between what God used to do, what he continues to do, and what he no longer does.

      For instance, cessationists typically grant that there were both direct and indirect miracles in the past, while there are still miracles at present, but only direct miracles. Is that "ad hoc"? Does that require an "exception to be made"?

      What kind of dreams and visions occur in Acts? What does Paul mean by "prophecy"? I've discussed that. That's a start.

      Ultimately, this is out of our hands. It's up to God what he reveals, when and where he reveals it. That's only a problem if you think God makes it a problem for us.

      "Can you give me the cliffnotes version of Thiselton’s conclusion?"

      Use the search function of the Amazon.com edition.

      Delete
    9. “It's no more ad hoc than the fact that God inspired 27 books of the NT canon rather than 26 or 28. In principle, there could always be more or less. But in practice, God restricts the scope of revelation. That's true on cessationist and continuationist premises alike.”

      But how do we know, on continuationist premises, that he has indeed done so, and that there is no more scripture that has been written or is to be written?

      “That's as much a question for cessationists as continuationists.”

      Well cessationists would say canonical prophecy is a special case of prophecy in general, and that because all prophecy has stopped, canonical prophecy has also stopped. But this does not work for the continuationist, since he does not say that prophecy in general has stopped.

      “Both cessationism and continuationism are "exceptional." Both positions draw lines between what God used to do, what he continues to do, and what he no longer does.”

      That is true. The question is whether our exceptions are warranted from the text; is the exception of canonical prophecy warranted? Is the exception of prophecy in general warranted? Cessationists would at least claim that there is textual warrant for the cessation of prophecy. But I’ve never heard a continuationist claim that there is textual warrant for the cessation of canonical prophecy in particular.

      “For instance, cessationists typically grant that there were both direct and indirect miracles in the past, while there are still miracles at present, but only direct miracles. Is that "ad hoc"? Does that require an "exception to be made"?”

      Yes, I think that is ad hoc and doesn’t have a New Testament warrant, and think that you have sufficiently demonstrated that. The distinction doesn’t hold. The question is whether there are prophecies *at all*, and whether there is xenoglossia *at all*. As to the question of healing, I see no NT reason to believe that it has stopped. So I’m not a full cessationist in that sense.

      Delete
    10. Thomas Keningley said:

      But how do we know, on continuationist premises, that he has indeed done so, and that there is no more scripture that has been written or is to be written?

      Well cessationists would say canonical prophecy is a special case of prophecy in general, and that because all prophecy has stopped, canonical prophecy has also stopped. But this does not work for the continuationist, since he does not say that prophecy in general has stopped.

      That is true. The question is whether our exceptions are warranted from the text; is the exception of canonical prophecy warranted? Is the exception of prophecy in general warranted? Cessationists would at least claim that there is textual warrant for the cessation of prophecy. But I’ve never heard a continuationist claim that there is textual warrant for the cessation of canonical prophecy in particular.


      I'll just add that at least as I understand it many cessationists such as the MacArthurites believe Revelation's two witnesses will again prophesy (Rev 11:3). Hence, if this is a problem and we can't draw further distinctions or exceptions regarding canonical prophecy, then it seems it's also a problem for these cessationists. If so, it's not only a problem on continuationist premises, but it's likewise a problem on these cessationist premises.

      Delete
    11. Thomas Keningley:

      

"But how do we know, on continuationist premises, that he has indeed done so, and that there is no more scripture that has been written or is to be written?"

      Since the continuation of canonical prophecy doesn't follow from continuationist premises, there's no valid inference to block. You need to show why the continuation of canonical prophecy is a premise of continuationism.

      Even in OT and NT times, not all or most prophetic phenomena were canonized.

      "Well cessationists would say canonical prophecy is a special case of prophecy in general, and that because all prophecy has stopped, canonical prophecy has also stopped."

      That fails to give a reason for why prophecy in general ceased. It only pushes the same question back a step for the cessationist.

      "Cessationists would at least claim that there is textual warrant for the cessation of prophecy."

      Which is circular, inasmuch as cessationists take their prooftexts from the NT, which they treat as a finished product.

      "But I’ve never heard a continuationist claim that there is textual warrant for the cessation of canonical prophecy in particular."

      It's partly a burden of proof argument. Continuationism carries no presumption that canonical prophecy is an ongoing phenomenon.

      Continuationists begin and end with the NT just as cessationists do. That's our historical frame of reference. That's what came down to us by God's providence.

      "The question is whether there are prophecies *at all*…"

      Depends on how you define or delimit prophecy. Are premonitions prophetic? Or should all premonitions be dismissed out of hand? Take this example:

      "Before her illness took its fatal form, before, indeed, I believe it had at all declared itself – my aunt dreamed one of her foresight dreams, simple and plain enough for anyone's interpretation; – that she was approaching the ford of a dark river, alone, when little Jessie came running up behind her, and passed her, and went through first. Then she passed through herself, and looking back from the other side, saw her old Mause approaching from the distance to the bank of the stream. And so it was, that Jessie, immediately afterwards, sickened rapidly and died; and a few months, or it might be nearly a year afterwards, my aunt died of decline; and Mause, some two or three years later, having had no care after her mistress and Jessie were gone, but when she might go to them," John Ruskin, Praeterita: And, Dilecta (Borzoi Book, 2005), 63.

      Has the hallmarks of a revelatory dream. "Revelatory" in the sense of a premonition of death: in a specific sequence. A premonitory dream that came true.

      But that doesn't make it a candidate for inscripturation or canonization. It concerned some of Ruskin's relatives, who died in the 19C. It doesn't concern you and me. It wasn't for our benefit.

      "and whether there is xenoglossia *at all*."

      As I've pointed out elsewhere, Keener documents cases of contemporary xenoglossy in the first volume of his commentary on Acts.

      Delete
    12. FWIW, I posted these a couple of years ago. They may constitute other examples.

      Delete
  3. Steve: Okay, I see what you mean, continuationists and cessationists are in the same boat as regards the canon, so I concede that point.

    However, since I imagine you would grant that prophecy includes the phenomenon of receiving and passing on divine commands, do you believe this form of prophecy has ceased as well? Even if they are not canonical, they could include commands that bind the conscience of the believer, could they not? Do you believe that this happens?

    Also, I wonder about prophecies being revelatory dreams (for example)- do you think that in Joel 2:28 a distinction is being made between prophecy and visionary dreams or whether that is a parallelistic recapitulation of the same idea?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thomas Keningley:

      

"However, since I imagine you would grant that prophecy includes the phenomenon of receiving and passing on divine commands, do you believe this form of prophecy has ceased as well?"

      "Prophecy" includes divine commands in the sense that "prophecy" is an umbrella term that covers different types of related phenomena. But that catch-all category doesn't predict for what aspects will be represented.

      For instance, the theophanic aspects of Pentecost (like a miraculous fire devil) seem to be unique. There's no carryover in the rest of Acts.

      Likewise, even some noncharismatic scholars think there are discontinuities between OT and NT prophecy. For instance:

      "When one compares prophecy under the old covenant with prophecy under the new, it is apparent that God has not given new covenant prophets the kinds of visions that he gave Daniel, Isaiah, and Jeremiah that led to inscripturated revelation…Prophecy under the new covenant is on a smaller scale and relates directly to the establishment and edification of local churches." C. Arnold, Ephesians (Zondervan 2010), 258. 

      "[Prophets] in Paul's own time were prompted by the Spirit to speak a particularly relevant message to an individual (1 Cor 14:24-25) or to the church (Acts 11:27-30; 15:32; 21:10-11). These messages that prophets communicate seem to come at particularly critical moments in the lives of people or in the history of the church." F. Thielman, Ephesians (Baker 2010), 274.

      "Even if they are not canonical, they could include commands that bind the conscience of the believer, could they not? Do you believe that this happens?"

      The question is ambiguous and somewhat loaded:

      i) Suppose (ex hypothesi) I had a vision in which the angel Gabriel commands *me* to become a foreign missionary.

      To begin with, there's the question of distinguishing between veridical and inveridical religious experience. Do I have good reason to think this is, in fact, a bona fide angelic apparition?

      ii) Suppose (ex hypothesi) I relate to you that I had a vision in which the angel Gabriel commands *you* to become a foreign missionary.

      On the face of it, you have no particular reason to credit the veridicality of my alleged vision. God command me and God commanding you through me are different claims with different burdens of proof.

      iii ) Uncertainties regarding the veridicality (or not) of any particular religious experience should be offset by other considerations. What's the risk if the vision is false, but I obey it? What's the risk of the vision is true, but I disobey it?

      If I'm a single, unattached male, I'm freer to drop everything and run off to the mission field than if I have prior obligations.

      God is aware of our epistemic limitations, so unless he made his will unmistakably clear, I don't think this "binds the conscience of a believer," even if we grant that hypothetical situation.

      

"Also, I wonder about prophecies being revelatory dreams (for example)- do you think that in Joel 2:28 a distinction is being made between prophecy and visionary dreams or whether that is a parallelistic recapitulation of the same idea?"

      I think dreams and visions are epexegetical of prophecy in that passage. In addition, there are examples in Acts of how that cashes out. They illustrate and thereby help to delimit the nature of the "prophetic" phenomena.

      Delete