The suppression of public worship

Fred Butler responding to this post:

https://triablogue.blogspot.com/2020/03/will-you-revolt-if-they-shut-yours-down.html

Just a preliminary point of logistics: this is a very inefficient means of communication. I'm not signed up for Twitter. The Triablogue Twitter account exists to notify the Twitterverse of our blog posts. As far as I'm concerned, it's not a debate forum. As the risk of stating the obvious, Twitter is not an intelligent medium for serious intellectual and theological engagement. It's inefficient when Fred leaves snippets on Twitter while I respond at Triablogue. 

@Fred_Butler

Replying to 

@triablogue

You couldve just tweeted yes, if you were a senior pastor. Or begrudgingly no since you're a lay person. So will you write furious blog articles against your local church leadership if they decide to obey government authorities, or just grin and bear it?

What a loaded question!

i) I don't write furious blog articles. I mostly write analytical blog articles, along with some devotional posts, or satire, or fiction. 

ii) The question does go to my blogging philosophy. I don't write "furious" blog articles because I don't feel the need to persuade anyone or control the outcome. It's God's world, not mine. In terms of blogging, my sense of duty begins and ends with defending the Christian faith, presenting my arguments, and fielding objections. Beyond that, I'm not responsible. If I have no influence, so be it. I don't live for my work. 

iii) If my local church leadership decides/decided to suspend public worship services, I don't have to target them on my blog. This goes to another consideration in my blogging philosophy. There are different ways to make the same point. As a rule, I prefer to aim at a big target than a little target. 

The question of canceling church services is a general issue. In principle, that's something I could discuss without using any particular church as an example, since the same issue confronts churches in general at this time. Or I might choose a representative example or spokesman as a foil. 

iv) I happen to think the suppression of public worship by the state is a big deal. I'm struck by how many evangelical leaders react with indifference or toadyism. That exposes the amount of dry rot in evangelicalism. If my local church leadership has/had so little faith in the spiritual efficacy of public worship, why would I continue to attend a church like that? 

v) In reference to Fred's church, this was originally billed as a 2-week suspension of public worship. But the CA governor has now imposed a statewide lockdown/curfew with a minuscule list of "authorized necessary activities".  And even when venturing out to perform "authorized necessary activities," Californians must "at all times practice social distancing". 

Does that sound to you like the 250-person limit will be lifted two weeks after the ban was issued? Sounds to me like the duration has been extended indefinitely. Likewise, the scope has been extended to prohibit any social events beyond the "authorized necessary activities." Not to mention mandated social distancing. So that's not just a numerical cap on the size of Christian worship services, but a ban on public worship across the board. All that's now permitted is virtual worship. If so, where does that leave the original defense of the policy by Phil Johnson and Fred Butler?

Will you revolt if they shut yours down?

@Fred_Butler

Replying to 

@triablogue

If the church where you currently attend is told by the state to close down for a couple of weeks, will you all do it, or are you gonna resist and rebel?

Fred is responding to this post:

https://triablogue.blogspot.com/2020/03/can-state-cancel-church-services.html

His question is confused at multiple levels:

i) A layman can't decide for anyone else. 

ii) Depending on the polity, the only folks in a position to close it down are the (senior?) pastor, church board, and/or bishop. If it has a congregational polity, the congregation could overrule the pastor. 

That's unless the authorities board it up. In that case it's out of the hands of the clergy and parishioners alike, although churches can file class action suits. 

iii) If I was the pastor, and it was up to me, I'd defy the order. 

iv) Whether other parishioners attend or stay home is up to them.  

Counterfeit miracles

Like I said last night. I have friends who are there that never see this happen. Additionally, a missionary chimed in last night to say the exact same thing. They actually warn the people there against folks like Chan.

— Fredman (@Fred_Butler) February 13, 2020

1. Fred Butler doesn't stop to consider that the Burmese missionaries he happens to know or interact with may not necessarily be representative of Burmese missionaries in general.

2. What if there are missionaries who have in fact witnessed miracles but Butler doesn't know or interact with them? After all, how likely is someone who is a dyed-in-the-wool cessationist as Butler is likely to interact with missionaries who aren't like-minded cessationists?

3. Or is Butler suggesting it would come down to a "my missionary friends" vs. "your missionary friends" debate over the possibility of miracles? Yet wouldn't Butler simply dismiss counter-testimony open to miracles if it's strictly an issue of testimonial evidence?

4. Indeed, based on what I've seen from Butler, he readily accepts testimonial evidence from missionaries who "never see" miracles occur (as he does here), but he dismisses testimonial evidence to the contrary. If so, I would presume that's because Butler believes the default position is the negative position. That the negative position is the default position unless the positive position can be justified. In our case, the negative position is the claim that no miracles occur today.

However, that would lead to an extreme skepticism if the position is consistently applied. For example, how do we know we have physical bodies? If the default position is the negative position, then we are not justified to believe we have physical bodies unless it can be proven that we do have physical bodies. But one can always argue that it's possible we are brains-in-a-vat and hence without physical bodies. That perhaps what we experience is entirely computer generated but we can't tell the difference from what's computer generated and reality itself. Sure, it's absurd to believe we are brains-in-a-vat, but can the possibility be completely ruled out? If not, and if the negative position is the default position, then we are not justified to believe we have physical bodies.

If the presumption that the default position is the negative position is only applicable to miracles, then (as it stands) that would seem to be special pleading.

5. Why does testimonial evidence about miracles have to be solely from Christian missionaries? Why can't testimonial evidence about miracles be from non-Christians? Even heretics?

After all, the Bible itself includes accounts of pagans and heretics working miracles. For example, Jannes and Jambres. Likewise Balaam. And Acts 8 records that many people paid attention to Simon Magus "because for a long time he had amazed them with his magic" (Acts 8:11). Presumably Simon Magus wasn't merely doing cheap parlor tricks.

Now, I don't think Francis Chan is a heretic. However, let's suppose he is. If so, why couldn't a heretic work genuine healing miracles?

6. There's also a unique danger to the cessationist Christian. If, for instance, a cessationist Christian came across a bona fide miracle, say a healing miracle, but the miracle was worked by a pagan (e.g. an African witch doctor), then it could potentially challenge the cessationist Christian's faith in a way that it wouldn't challenge the faith of the Christian who believes pagans could work healing miracles.

However, if the cessationist Christian accepts that the dark side can work miracles through people (e.g. healing miracles, making accurate prophecies), but believes God doesn't work miracles through people today, then why not? God allows the dark side to work miracles, but God binds himself or his people from performing miracles?

7. Not to mention, on certain interpretations of Revelation, or on certain eschatological beliefs, the beast and the false prophet can work miracles. The beast is resurrected. The false prophet calls down fire from heaven like Elijah did with the prophets of Baal. The false prophet can breathe breath into an image to make it come alive. And so on. The false prophet does all this in order to "deceive those who dwell on earth". See Rev 13.

I don't know Butler's eschatological beliefs, or more to the point how he would interpret Revelation, but if he believes the beast and the false prophet can work genuine miracles, why exclude the possibility that non-Christians such as heretics can work miracles too? Is miracle-working only possible in a future eschatological period? Why think people could work miracles only before the biblical canon was completed and after we reach a future eschatological period but not in-between?

Or would these so-called miracles in Revelation only have the appearance of the miraculous, but in truth they're non-miraculous scientific or technological marvels that the beast and false prophet made to appear to be miracles? (By the way, is cessationist miracle detection akin to atheistic design detection of the Dawkins variety? There's always a naturally explicable reason for the appearance of the miraculous.)

8. As an aside, in general, I prefer to use the name Burma rather than Myanmar.

Burma is the name for the nation under British rule as well as after its independence when the nation was a democracy. However Myanmar is the name the militarily-controlled and dictatorial socialist government has designated for the nation.

To my knowledge, the UK doesn't recognize Myanmar as the official name of the nation. Neither does the US, though the US sometimes straddles the fence by using both Burma and Myanmar at the same time, viz. "Burma (Myanmar)" or "Myanmar (Burma)". Most nations in the United Nations do recognize Myanmar as the official name, but I wouldn't recognize the UN's recognition, let alone its authority on this (and many other matters)!

To be fair, a colonial name based on the majority ethnic group (i.e. Burmans) isn't necessarily ideal either. However, I'd accept Myanmar if the people were able to have a free and fair vote and elected to change the name to Myanmar (or maybe more likely Myanmaa which is somewhat closer to the true pronunciation).

Wingnut cessationism

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

http://biblethumpingwingnut.com/2018/11/05/the-man-in-white-appearing-in-muslim-dreams/

David Platt gave a missions report to the IMB. The highlight, when the audience erupted in thunderous applause, is when he told of how Muslims are having spiritual dreams that allegedly bring them to salvation. The story Platt recounts tells how a Muslim man had a dream over the course of three nights of a man wearing white who told him he knew the way to salvation for his family. The Muslim man then encountered some SBC missionaries the next day,

When GTY hosted the Strange Fire conference back in 2013, attendees were given the opportunity to write out questions for the presenters to answer during the Q&A times. One of the frequently asked questions was about the alleged reports of Muslims all across Islamic countries who were coming to faith in Christ after having a dream about a man in white (or in some cases, Jesus Himself) directing them to a missionary who presents the Gospel.

Those dream testimonies are offered as evidence that God is actively working among Muslims in Islamic nations where Christianity is strongly opposed or completely outlawed and where Christian missionaries are in grave danger with the threat of death. But are those dreams legit? What is a biblically-minded Christian to think of them? Is God really bringing revival to Islamic lands in this fantastic manner, outside the means He ordained to bring the Gospel?

The New Testament consistently teaches the God-ordained means of proclaiming the Gospel is through human preaching [Mt 28:19-20; Rom 10:14-15; 1 Cor 1:21-24]...Those texts indicate that God has ordained the proclamation of the Gospel message by human preachers who declare biblical and theological truth from Scripture.  Those who hear the message choose either to reject it or to believe it by God’s grace.  

Fred is doing a bait-n-switch. They aren't converted by revelatory dreams rather than the Gospel. Revelatory dreams don't take the place of the Gospel. Instead, revelatory dreams make them receptive to the Gospel. 

If a man in white was directing appearing to Muslims in dreams and visions to direct them to the Gospel, would not God be contradicting what He has clearly ordained in Scripture regarding the legitimate means of Gospel proclamation in this age?

No, because Fred's argument is fallacious. This is Fred's inference:

If Scripture says X is the case, that means X is only the case.

Compare that to: if a Gospel says one angel appeared at the tomb of Jesus, then only one angel appeared at his tomb. But Fred needs to show that his prooftexts are logically exclusionary. As it stands, his inference is invalid.  

To say God has ordained the human preaching of the Gospel to save sinners doesn't entail that God only uses the human preaching of the Gospel to save sinners. 

If we trust that God is sovereign over all nations (cf. Acts 17:26) and is the author and finisher of salvation (cf. Hebrews 12:2), then is it biblical to believe He is able to accomplish His will in those Islamic nations according to the ordained means of human preaching?

Consider the Book of Acts. That's the official record of NT evangelism and missions. How the NT church was initially planted. Is it just through the human preaching of the Gospel? I don't think so. 

Peter's miracles and exorcisms (Acts 3; 5; 9).

Paul's miracles and exorcisms (Acts 13; 14; 16; 19; 20; 28).

Ananias, Sapphira, and Herod Agrippa struck dead (Acts 5; 12)

Miraculous jail breaks (Acts 5; 12; 16)

Angelic apparitions (Acts 5; 8; 10; 12)

Christophany (Acts 9)

Revelatory dreams and visions (Acts 2; 7; 10; 16; 18)

Prophets/prophetesses (Acts 11; 21)

In Acts, God employed a variety of supernatural means to enable evangelism and to provide a supernatural witness to the Gospel. Consider the angelic apparition to Cornelius. That was instrumental in his conversion to Christianity. 

Even if we say the supernatural accoutrements to evangelism and missions are now defuncts (a la cessationism), they don't contradict God's ordination if he employed supernatural accoutrements to further the Gospel in the 1C. 

Suggesting that God must now resort to sending mysterious dreams to Muslims implies God’s power to save certain sinners is curtailed by evil men and His chosen method of evangelism revealed in Scripture now needs adjusting because of the unforeseen problem of radical Islam. 

The Bible is chock-full of dreams and visions, miracles and angels. Does the fact that God resorts to a diversity of supernatural means and agents to convey or certify the message impugn his omnipotence or omniscience?  

That also raises the question, does God only give dreams and visions to Muslims? What about Hindus and Buddhists or other members of world religions that live in countries hostile to Christianity? Or those in China, or North Korea who are are so utterly anti-religious the government kills them? Do people in those closed cultures have similar dreams that bring them to a missionary who gives them the Gospel? Maybe they do, but I am unaware of their stories.

i) North Korea is a closed country, so I wouldn't necessarily expect reports to leak out.

ii) By Fred's logic, we ought to deny that God was doing supernatural things in ancient Israel and the 1C Roman Empire unless he was doing similar things in other parts of the world. 

What do Bible-believing Evangelicals like Platt do with Catholics reporting similar events happening with their missionaries? Many Catholics claim Muslims have dreams of a man in white, or in their case, the virgin Mary, that supposedly brings the Muslims to encounter priests or missionaries. See HERE for example. That raises the serious question as to why God would reveal Jesus to these individuals only to bring them to a false Gospel.

Folks should also understand that Muslims don’t necessarily have a problem with Jesus. He is a large part of Islam and even has an important role to play in their eschatology according to Islamic theology.  What matters is the right Jesus — the True and Living Jesus who rose from the dead and is the only way to God and who is God Himself, the Second Person of the Trinity. Is that the Jesus Muslims are directed toward when they see the man in white appear in their dreams?  Why would God send dreams to Muslims that only converts them to a false form of Christianity?

i) That's a legitimate issue. Again, though, it parallels Hume's objection that reported miracles in one religion cancel out reported miracles in another religion. By Fred's logic, if we discount Marian apparitions, then we should discount biblical reports of angelic apparitions, theophanies, or the risen Jesus. 

ii) Keep in mind that Protestants exist because early "Catholic" missionaries proselytized Europe and Great Britain. Their theology was defective, but further down the line that made the Protestant Reformation possible. 

If many Muslims are having dreams and vision that bring them to Jesus, why aren’t their immediate cultures changed by their conversion? In other words, I would think that with scores of Muslims having dreams that brings the Gospel to them, there would be an “awakening” of sorts taking place in these hostile places like Yemen, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan; but there isn’t really. Where is the visible proof of the revival that should be taking place if Christ is breaking into the hearts and minds Muslim people through their dreams?

Did miracles in the 1C church instantly transform the Roman Empire? 

Why the need to resort to subjective dreams and visions? How are modern day Islamic cultures (or any anti-Christian culture, for that matter) any more hostile than the pagan ones encountered by first century Christians and then later when missionaries took the Gospel to remote areas like Briton, Norway, and India?

i) Miracles and exorcisms in the ancient church were instrumental in the conversion of pagans to the Gospel. And that pattern is often replicated on the mission field. So Fred's objection boomerangs. 

ii) Does Fred think dreams and visions are inherently subjective? Are biblical dreams and visions subjective. What about veridical dreams and visions? Corroborated dreams and visions? 

Suicide-bomber cessationism

I'll make a few observations on this post and some of the ensuing comments:

https://hipandthigh.wordpress.com/2016/04/26/continuationism-is-not-a-non-essential-doctrinal-issue-2/

i) I appreciate the fact that people like Fred expose hucksters and heretics in the charismatic movement. We need more of that. 

ii) That said, both here and in his initial post, Fred's entire objection to continuationism is an argument from experience. The experience of hucksters and heretics in the charismatic movement.

Problem is, the argument from experience cuts both ways. If an argument from experience is legitimate to falsify continuationism, then an argument from experience is legitimate to verify continuationism. 

ii) Keep in mind, too, that the burden of proof for the continuationism is infinitely lower. Cessationism denies the occurrence of a single continuationist miracle. It doesn't deny the occurrence of modern miracles, per se, but the occurrence of miracles consistent with continuationism.

Therefore, it only requires one good example of the contrary to falsify cessationism. 

edingess on April 27, 2016 at 2:52 pm said:
Hey Fred…spot on my brother! I simply ask these people to put up or shut up. When a Charismatic/Pentecostal starts talking about this nonsense, I simply say, okay then, lets go down to the hospital or the morgue. That is where this debate will take place. Show me what you’ve got or just shut up. The claims made by these people are empirical claims in my opinion. So, lets see you raise the dead, open blind eyes, empty wheelchairs, etc. Unless you are willing to show me, then please don’t waist [sic] my time. That shuts them up every time.

i) And atheists raise the mirror image of that very objection. Why doesn't God heal children with cancer? Because there is no God! If there were a God, he'd clean out the cancer ward at a children's hospital. 

ii) Apropos (i), doesn't Jesus have the ability to heal? He still exists, right? So why doesn't Jesus go down to the hospital, nursing home, or morgue, raise the dead, cure cancer patients, empty wheelchairs, &c? By Ed's logic, Jesus doesn't have what it takes. 

iii) Fact is, healing everyone has downsides as well as upsides. A person who was healed may become the father of a murderer. Atheists, as well as people like Ed, treat it like a self-contained issue. But reality isn't that compartmentalized. 

iv) Now, I don't object to calling the bluff of self-styled faith-healers. But it doesn't take a hundred miracles to prove one miracle. 

edingess on April 28, 2016 at 3:05 pm said:
Ken, your claim to having witnessed a genuine miracle needs documentation. Name, contact information, doctor certification of an illness, doctor certification of restoration, media story reporting the event, eyewitnesses, name of the healer by whom the miracle was performed, etc. Thanks for the information.

i) First of all, people like Ed demand documentation, then turn their back on the documentation. 

ii) We need to draw distinctions. If someone I know, someone whose judgment I trust, tells me about a miracle he experienced, I don't require corroboration. 

iii) That said, it's good to demand solid evidence for reported miracles. However, Ed raises the bar artificially high. He raises the bar so high that his standard discredits every miraculous healing in the Bible. This is suicide bomber cessationism. They are so fanatical that they will blow up the Bible in order to blow up continuationism. 

iv) And it won't do for Ed to hold biblical miracles to a different standard. According to cessationism, the function of biblical miracles is to attest the messenger. In that event, you can't invoke the authority of Scripture to validate the miracle. Rather, the miracle validates the authority of Scripture. That's the structure of the cessationist argument. That's how miracles figure in the argument. The messenger doesn't authenticate the miracle; rather, the miracle authenticates the messenger. 

So according to cessationism, a Scriptural miracle must be credible independent of Scripture. Yet Ed's criteria rule out every miracle in Scripture. It would really behoove cessationists to avoid suicide bomber tactics. 

Wild-eyed doctrines

I'm going to use two statements by Fred Butler as a launchpad to discuss several related issues:

I think the difference would be that dispensationalism alone doesn’t lead people to wild-eyed doctrines. 

But, the defining, unifying factor is that both groups are continuationists. Meaning, they both adhere to the same view regarding the actions of the Holy Spirit in this day and age. 

https://hipandthigh.wordpress.com/2016/04/19/continuationism-is-not-a-non-essential/

i) It's arguable that dispensationalism leads to date setting. Dispensationalism believes there are signs of the endgames. It believes that developments in the Mideast will be central to the fulfillment of endtime prophecies. That leads dispensationalists to correlate modern events in the Mideast with Bible prophecies about the Second Coming. And that, in turn, leads to failed, "It's the end of the world!" predictions. 

Now, I don't think that's a reason to discount dispensationalism. But that's endemic to dispensationalism. 

ii) Take another example: Catholics say sola Scriptura is a "blueprint for anarchy". When Catholics looks a Protestantism, they see what cessationists see when they look at the charismatic movement. It as much or more a question of what you're looking for as what you're looking at. 

iii) Fred does, however, draw a valid distinction. But if anything, his distinction needs to be even more discriminating. 

In the nature of the case, there are errors and abuses distinctive to continuationism. By definition, cessationism won't be prey to the same errors and abuses. 

There is, however, a difference between what is distinctive to a position and what is essential to a position. For instance, there are forms of sexual misconduct distinctive to heterosexuality, viz. heterosexual fornication, adultery, rape, and incest. However, no orthodox Christian would contend that that's essential to heterosexuality. 

Or to take a comparison that's closer to the issue at hand, there are errors and abuses distinctive to messianism. A messianic religion opens the door to messianic pretenders. A religion that denies messianism avoids that particular error or abuse. But, of course, Christianity is unavoidably messianic. The attendant errors and abuses go with the terrain. 

Likewise, there are errors and abuses distinctive to a religions founded on prophecy and miracles. That opens the door to charlatans. A religion that denies prophecy and miracles avoids that particular error or abuse. But, again, Christianity is unavoidably committed to prophecy and miracles. The attendant errors and abuses go with the terrain. 

iv) Both cessationists and continuationists must distinguish between true and false prophets, true and false miracles or miracle-workers. That's hardly a challenge unique to continuationism.

The main difference is that cessationism considers that to be more an issue in the past–although many cessationists do make allowance for modern miracles (just not modern miracle-workers). 

Yet by accepting the Protestant canon, cessationists are required to distinguish between true and false revelatory claimants. So it's a difference of degree rather than kind between cessationists and continuationists. 

v) Apropos (iv), three groups raise the same basic issue:

Critical scholars regard the traditional canon of Scripture (whether Tridentine, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, or Protestant) as an arbitrary selection. They think the cutoff between canonical and extracanonical books is ad hoc. That's because they believe both the OT and the NT contain pseudepigrapha. By the same token, they think some OT books chronologically overlap intertestamental literature while some NT books chronologically overlap some 2C literature. So, for instance, they think it's ad hoc to canonize Daniel but exclude 1 Enoch. Either canonize both or exclude both. Likewise, they think it's ad hoc to canonize Jude. 2 Peter, John, or 1 John, but exclude the Gospel of Thomas. 

Likewise, Catholic apologists contend that Protestants can't justify the cutoff for their canon. And in similar vein, cessationists say continuationists can't justify the cutoff for their canon. 

Of course, an obvious problem with this line of argument is when competing groups raise the same basic objection, that ricochets on their own position. Cessationists are using an argument against continuationists which Catholic apologists use against cessationists. And Catholic apologists are using an argument which critical scholars use against Catholic apologists. 

Indeed, contemporary Catholic Bible scholars are critical scholars. They think Trent unwittingly canonized many books under false auspices. 

vi) To be sure, cessationists deny that the Protestant canon contains pseudepigrapha. But then, continuationists say the same thing. Both groups use the same arguments in that regard. 

vii) Cessationists make the apostles or their immediate successors the cutoff. However, St. Paul poses a dilemma for their position. He isn't connected to the historical Jesus the way the Twelve were. If God could raise up Paul, even though Paul wasn't a regular companion of Christ, and received crucial information, either by revelation or tradition, then the cessationist cutoff is makeshift. Conversely, if Paul is anomalous, then continuationists can draw the same line.  

viii) Another problem is how their objections to continuationism and the canon have a parallel respecting the OT canon. Even if cessationists say the death of the apostles or their immediate successors demarcates the NT canon, that doesn't work for the OT canon. When cessationists say continuationists have no principled cutoff for the canon, aren't cessationists in the same situation respecting the OT canon? 

By that I mean, is there an a priori objection to the production of Scripture during that 400 year interval? Sure, it's called the Interestamental period, so, by definition, that's in-between the OT and the NT. But that's a conventional designation. Is there in principle a reason to deny that God might have raised up new prophets or inspired new writings during that period? I can't think of any.

Seems to me the reason evangelicals deny it is not because that's antecedently inadmissible, but because there are no good candidates for that period. When we look at the evidence, when we look at the record, we have no reason to think God did it that way. Our conclusion is not a matter of principle, but a matter of fact. 

So even if (ex hypothesi), continuationists are unable to furnish an a priori cutoff for the canon, cessationists are in the same boat. And by the same token, there can be a posteriori arguments for the closure of the canon.

ix) Mind you, it would be extremely destabilizing if God were to raise up figure like St. Paul at this late date. So that of itself might be an priori argument–which cessationists and continuationists alike could invoke. 

Heaven Tourism

Now certainly I will have Pentecostal believers accuse me of being unfair. The examples I cite are in the fringe elements of charismatics and Pentecostals. I got that a lot back when I wrote on the Strange Fire conference. Some may even vehemently insist their churches do not promote such nonsense. Great! I am definitely encouraged by those assertions.
The reality, however, is rather stark. Thousands of people purchase the books and flock to hear the testimonies of heaven tourists, and the main culprits who devour them are charismatic and Pentecostals. Why is that?
Rather than getting all defensive that someone pointed out that obvious problem among charismatics and Pentecostals, I would think a better response would be to consider why they gravitate to heaven tourism stories. I don’t typically see the problem among Presbyterians, Reformed Baptists, or any of the Bible Fellowship style churches. If a Pentecostal or charismatic is seriously opposed to heaven tourism, they’d evaluate the reason why.
I suggest that is because Pentecostal and charismatic believers are doctrinally imbalanced when it comes to so-called supernatural manifestations. They are led to an experience driven theology that in turn causes them to be way more susceptible and undiscerning with these fantasies. It then becomes difficult to distinguish between a flim-flam hustler and a sincere, but confused person who exaggerates odd dreams he had after having a dangerous surgery, as traveling to heaven.
https://hipandthigh.wordpress.com/2015/01/22/the-pestilence-that-is-heaven-tourism/

I agree with Fred that there's undoubtedly lots of smoke and mirrors in the charismatic movement. However, he tries to superimpose a preconceived theory on the phenomenon, and from what I can tell, his theory is a poor fit with the facts. Let's take four representative titles: 

Heaven is for Real: A Little Boy's Astounding Story of His Trip to Heaven and Back

by Todd Burpo with Lynn Vincent

W/Thomas Nelson

90 Minutes in Heaven: A True Story of Life and Death

by Don Piper with Cecil Murphey

Revell

The Boy Who Came Back From Heaven: A True Story

By Alex Malarkey, Kevin Malarkey

Tyndale House Publishers

Proof of Heaven: A Neurosurgeon's Journey into the Afterlife

by Eben Alexander

Simon and Schuster

i) Consider the publishers: One is secular publisher. The other three are evangelical. To my knowledge, not one is a charismatic publishing house.

ii) Consider the authors. Don Piper is a Southern Baptist pastor. Todd Burpo is a Wesleyan-Arminian pastor. Kevin Malarkey says he attends a nondenominational evangelical church. And I don't believe Eben Alexander is even a professing Christian. To my knowledge, not one of them is charismatic.

Likewise, look at all the Baptist churches Don Piper is invited to speak at. That's not a charismatic audience.

iii) Consider the consumer. LifeWay have been criticized for stocking this genre. However, LifeWay is a Southern Baptist book distributor.  

Isn't the Heaven Tourism genre retailed by evangelical bookstores generally? If so, where's the evidence that it's charismatics in particular who are buying these books? Isn't this really a problem for evangelicalism in general rather than the charismatic movement in particular? 

How would you even track the specific theological persuasion of consumers who purchase literature at LifeWay or Family Christian stores? Or purchase Christian literature online (e.g. Christianbook.com)? 

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. 

Correcting Fred's falsehoods

I'm going to briefly comment on some accusations Fred Butler made on Facebook:

• Fred Butler I know Phil has interacted with Steve via personal email on this. Steve is getting his info filtered through the ramblings of a notorious JMac critic/troll.
• But let's say JMac does make 2 million a year. Ummm. So what, exactly? How is his salary have any bearing on the reputation of his ministry? How exactly would his salary of such an amount keep him from honestly criticizing the emperor decadence of the charismatic tv preachers? I happen to know someone who is extremely close to Benny Hinn, and he doesn't live modestly at all and the criticism about the money he fleeces from his followers is spot on. 
• BTW, do all of us who actually work for the guy, who have been watching him pastor for now 20 years (as for me) Phil who has been working for the guy 30 plus year have any credibility when we say the nonsense that Steve raises is grossly exaggerated? Or are we part of the money machine covering our treasure box? That of course would then cast dispersion on our own Christian reputation,
• Fred Butler You're not reading the documents accurately. Phil explained this all to Steve when they corresponded.

• Fred Butler He doesn't make 2 million a year. Stop embarrassing yourself. Steve has been told this stop parroting his nonsense. I thought you all didn't believe in vows of poverty.
• Fred Butler John doesn't make 2 million a year.
  
• Brian Wagnon Ok. What does he make? If there is nothing wrong with it then it shouldn't be a problem disclosing it, right?
  
• Fred Butler I have no idea. His salary is set by the board of directors of the various ministries in which he serves. I just know the man gives away a lot of it. My family has been blessed by his generosity.

i) I never put a figure on JMac's total income. I never said JMac makes 2 million a year. Can Fred quote me saying that? No. 

ii) I'm not getting my info "filtered through the ramblings of a notorious JMac critic/troll." My primary source of info. is Phil Johnson. Phil contacted me, and I asked him some questions. I then posted my correspondence. 

iii) One of the basic problems is that Phil doesn't know how much JMac makes from the combined ministries (or book royalties). And Phil doesn't want to know. He doesn't think that's anybody's business. And Fred admits that he doesn't know how much JMac makes. 

Needless to say, they're in no position to say how much he doesn't make if they don't even know how much he does make. 

iv) I realize Fred is playing the role of the loyal employee who sticks up for the boss. Like the White House press secretary who defends whatever the boss says or does. A company man. A classic apparatchik. But that's no excuse for Fred to level demonstrably false allegations and misattributions. 

Tinfoil hat eschatology

Now, just as an aside, I am mystified Christians have tied all sorts of evil plotting to the United Nations.  Among conspiracy theorists, the U.N. is primarily identified with the final, one-world government of the end times.  But the reality is quite the opposite. The U.N. has only demonstrated a general incompetence and impotence in unifying any nation under a so-called “one world government.”  In all honesty, they are only good for eliminating hook worms in 3rd world countries, not organizing a “one world government” with the Antichrist as its head. 

http://hipandthigh.wordpress.com/2014/06/26/tin-foil-hat-theology-3/

I agree with Fred, but here's the catch. Doesn't dispensationalism foster the conspiratorial outlook he deplores? Isn't the expectation of one-world gov't headed by the Antichrist something dispensationalism cultivates? Why wouldn't dispensationalists been on the look-out for signs of that impending development? 

Maybe he thinks the UN is a bad candidate, but it's the same mindset that fingers other candidates, viz. the Vatican, the Trilateral Commission, Jewish bankers, Jewish media moguls, Skull and Bones, Henry Kissinger, &c.

Incidentally, the UN is a vehicle for advancing a radical ideological agenda through international law which trumps national sovereignty and the democratic process. Consider, for instance, how the Convention on the Rights of the Child overrules parental rights. CPS on steroids. Or take universal jurisdiction. The UN is not as ineffectual as it appears to be. 

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