Sola Scriptura v Mysicism (signs and wonders)

Jeri Tanner said:

I think he posits a false dilemma here. Open-minded Christians are never to be convinced by anything, and are not to interpret any events, but by the word of God. A preponderance of any sort of claims is not binding on us.

Click to expand...

What he is saying is the preponderance of claims refutes the Humean principle that miracles need an insane burden of proof (which Hume thinks is impossible). Many of the claims could be dismissed, but even if a small percentage is true, then Hume is wrong. That is his point.

Jeri Tanner said:

In fact a book like this that tries to force and manipulate words to bind a Christian’s conscience is, in my opinion, “evidence” to reject out of hand.

Click to expand...

As to "interpreting everything by the word of God," I believe in miracles today and I interpret everything by my Greek and Hebrew text, so I am not sure what that actually adds to the discussion.

Can you show where Keener is manipulating words? I find it hard to imagine that Baker Academic would allow a Cambridge scholar to manipulate their editors so easily.

BayouHuguenot said:

Can you show where Keener is manipulating words? I find it hard to imagine that Baker Academic would allow a Cambridge scholar to manipulate their editors so easily.

Click to expand...

I've edited and proof read books for publishing before. I've also been systematically dismantled by magazine editors who wanted to publish my stuff. I can assure you that Baker Academic wouldn't suffer fools gladly.

i wasn’t speaking to whether of the events reported in Keener’s book are true or not. Just that the reports aren’t binding to be believed (or not believed) on a Christian far removed from the events. Therefore, the book and the reports are almost ignorable (except it’s ok to read it if you want to). Of what worth is it? “If even a small percentage are true;” well, who knows? And why waste our time on it?

I probably used a poor choice of words in “manipulation.” I don’t say he’s purposely manipulating. But the sentence,
“Keener concludes that, because of the ex-traordinary preponderance of evidence of these kinds of post-biblical miracle claims, it is hard to reject or even dispute such phenomena, if we are truly to remain open-minded people (p. 599)” suggests that folks can’t “remain open-minded people” if they reject or dispute such phenomena. I don’t know if the reviewer is quoting Keener or if that’s his own thought (he gives a page number). It’s a false dilemma anyway, given that a Christian certainly can remain open-minded yet reject or dispute reported phenomena.

Jeri Tanner said:

Just that the reports aren’t binding to be believed (or not believed) on a Christian far removed from the events.

Click to expand...

Keener says as much. He admits that many reports "from the jungle" are hard to verify given their distance from civilization. And he isn't trying to bind the conscience. I don't know where that red herring came in.

Jeri Tanner said:

Therefore, the book and the reports are almost ignorable

Click to expand...

That's a really large leap.

Jeri Tanner said:

But the sentence,
“Keener concludes that, because of the ex-traordinary preponderance of evidence of these kinds of post-biblical miracle claims, it is hard to reject or even dispute such phenomena, if we are truly to remain open-minded people (p. 599)” suggests that folks can’t “remain open-minded people” if they reject or dispute such phenomena.

Click to expand...

As I've pointed out several times, the target is David Hume. One of Hume's circular premises is that "no one has ever experienced a miracle; therefore, miracles don't happen." That's the crux of the argument. People do experience them, or what they perceive to be miracles. They could be mistaken. There could be a scientific explanation. Fair enough. All that claim does is refute one of Hume's principles.

He isn't saying "you have to believe all of them."

Jeri Tanner said:

. I don’t know if the reviewer is quoting Keener or if that’s his own thought (he gives a page number).

Click to expand...

I would ignore the reviewer then if he can't back up his claim.

Jeri Tanner said:

It’s a false dilemma anyway, given that a Christian certainly can remain open-minded yet reject or dispute reported phenomena.

Click to expand...

That has been my position on every single thread dealing with signs and wonders. I reject quite a few of them. My point has simply been to undermine the premises of philosophical naturalism

BayouHuguenot said:

Keener says as much. He admits that many reports "from the jungle" are hard to verify given their distance from civilization. And he isn't trying to bind the conscience. I don't know where that red herring came in.

Click to expand...

Remember, I’ve never said that Keener is trying to bind the conscience. But the aim of the book is to persuade on an important matter. I’m saying that a Christian’s conscience is free from feeling any pressure to believe the reports. Maybe I could still be more clear but I won’t have time to interact much more on this. Thank you for the opportunity to clarify.

BayouHuguenot said:

That has been my position on every single thread dealing with signs and wonders. I reject quite a few of them. My point has simply been to undermine the premises of philosophical naturalism

Click to expand...

It “feels” like you’re putting forth a personal position on a doctrinal matter, i.e. the ongoing nature of miracles. Simply attempting to undermine philosophical naturalism is, no doubt, a worthy endeavor.

Jeri Tanner said:

I’m saying that a Christian’s conscience is free from feeling any pressure to believe the reports. Maybe I could still be more clear but I won’t have time to interact much more on this.

Click to expand...

Of course the book is trying to persuade people. Most theology books do. If that means "binding the conscience," then perhaps no one should write books any more.

BayouHuguenot said:

Of course the book is trying to persuade people. Most theology books do. If that means "binding the conscience," then perhaps no one should write books any more.

Click to expand...

Ok I may have stated it still unclearly, will try one more time: Christians “let” their consciences be bound by various things. I know brothers and sisters in Christ who would feel guilty, as if they’re sinning, to not believe reports of healings, miracles, visions, etc. Their consciences are overly-tender that way, because their consciences are uninformed. Or, they feel compelled to push back against such reports but feel upset at doing so. I realize an author or teacher doesn’t try to bind anyone’s conscience unless it/she/he intimates that one is being faithless if one doesn’t believe what it’s reporting or teaching. Hopefully this book/author doesn’t do that.

Jeri Tanner said:

Ok I may have stated it still unclearly, will try one more time: Christians “let” their consciences be bound by various things. I know brothers and sisters in Christ who would feel guilty, as if they’re sinning, to not believe reports of healings, miracles, visions, etc. Their consciences are overly-tender that way, because their consciences are uninformed. Or, they feel compelled to push back against such reports but feel upset at doing so. I realize an author or teacher doesn’t try to bind anyone’s conscience unless it intimates that one is being faithless if one doesn’t believe what it’s reporting or teaching. Hopefully this book/author doesn’t do that.

Click to expand...

Fair enough. That's an example of binding a conscience. I read the miracle stories and think, "This could probably be true. I don't see why not." I don't see how that is a conscience issue for me. If someone then made the claim, "The miracle is true; therefore, give money to my ministry." That's binding the conscience. A Cambridge PhD publishing in Baker Academic won't be doing that.

Well, the ongoing nature of what this book (and other books and people) calls ‘miracles’ is a conscience issue because it’s a doctrinal issue. Beyond that bare statement, I’m not qualified to expound!

Jeri Tanner said:

Well, the ongoing nature of what this book (and other books and people) calls ‘miracles’ is a conscience issue because it’s a doctrinal issue. Beyond that bare statement, I’m not qualified to expound!

Click to expand...

That seems a bit simplistic. Just because we disagree on a doctrinal matter doesn't mean I am trying to bind your conscience. For example, I hold to traducianism whereas most Reformed people hold that the soul is created. I believe I am correct. In fact, a few years ago a moderator shut down a traducianism thread because it was clear where it was going. I believe Shedd properly refuted Hodge on the matter. Does that mean I am trying to bind your conscience? It's not clear that I am; you haven't produced an argument to the effect.

BayouHuguenot said:

That seems a bit simplistic. Just because we disagree on a doctrinal matter doesn't mean I am trying to bind your conscience. For example, I hold to traducianism whereas most Reformed people hold that the soul is created. I believe I am correct. In fact, a few years ago a moderator shut down a traducianism thread because it was clear where it was going. I believe Shedd properly refuted Hodge on the matter. Does that mean I am trying to bind your conscience? It's not clear that I am; you haven't produced an argument to the effect.

Click to expand...

Remember in a previous post that I said Christians “let” their consciences be bound, and I gave an example and you said “fair enough.” So I moved on from that to say that the ongoing nature of miracles is a doctrinal matter. Two different things, except that what has to do with the Christian’s conscience is always a doctrinal matter. If the Bible teaches that miracles were only for the apostolic age for a defined purpose, the Christian is bound to believe that and be skeptical of reports of miracles. If the Bible teaches that we’re to expect the continuation of miracles then we’re bound to be open to their occurrence. If one believes the Bible doesn’t clearly set out whether we’re to expect them or not, then that’s another discussion.

I said I’m not qualified to discuss the theological import of a discussion on miracles. Terminology matters, the doctrine of the continuation of miracles matters, etc. What does the Bible teach? That’s the question.

Just curious, do you know of any material from a Reformed and confessional perspective that speaks to this? By confessional, I mean someone who actually seriously holds to our confessional standards, not loosely.

Here’s a nice 26 minute talk by R.C. Sproul on the topic. He discusses the word ‘miracle’ and its origins and biblical and historical use, what constitutes a miracle, and what their purpose was in Scripture and how that relates to claims of miracles today. https://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=107131448169

Jeri Tanner said:

post that I said Christians “let” their consciences be bound, and I gave an example and you said “fair enough.”

Click to expand...

Sorry, I missed that qualifier. If someone lets their conscience be bound by every single report, then they are weak-minded and I can't help them. Yes, I believe that miracles continue today. I'm not sure how my belief

Jeri Tanner said:

If the Bible teaches that miracles were only for the apostolic age for a defined purpose, the Christian is bound to believe that and be skeptical of reports of miracles. If the Bible teaches that we’re to expect the continuation of miracles then we’re bound to be open to their occurrence.

Click to expand...

I suppose. And I can easily repeat the claim: by not offering any evidence that miracles have ceased, you are trying to bind my conscience. If someone provides reasonable warrant that a miracle occured, then to tell me I can't believe it is binding my conscience. I suppose you consider that okay and normal. Why can't I do the same?

I'm familiar with the Sproul sermon. He doesn't really add anything new to the discussion.

Jeri Tanner said:

Just curious, do you know of any material from a Reformed and confessional perspective that speaks to this? By confessional, I mean someone who actually seriously holds to our confessional standards, not loosely.

Click to expand...

Richard Cameron, for one. Most of the guys in Scots Worthies. Since I don't hold to continuing revelation (where apocalupsis is glossed in a narrow sense), I don't see myself outside the confession. Numerous Anglicans see themselves in obedience to the 39 Articles, yet consider miracles to be happening.

A vivid dream

I had a vivid dream in which I recognised Denis Prager in a hotel lobby in Lennoxtown and then again upstairs in a public room where he was part of a panel about to speak to about thirty. I approached Denis to ask if we might meet later he was extremely friendly and despite the covid crisis shook my hand. I tried to give him my name and details on a card from my office with a fountain pen from those on my desk. For some reason I knew that the hotel was where I lived. Sadly I could not write down the details correctly, the words were confused and spelt nonsense.

The interpretation God gave me (through providence)

I had gone back to sleep on Monday morning with the radio on, Dennis came on just after I dozed off.

Lennoxtown is next to my home town and in some ways an idealised version of Kirkintilloch in my head, this with the fact that I was listening to him on the radio in my house was probably part of the mix.

I have written to Dennis before but was unable to post without a postal address.

The idea of a panel with other talk show hosts such as Mike Gallagher joining him may have been because he was trailed for a forthcoming trip to Israel which Denis and Mike will host.

Aristotle
Apparently Aristotle wrote two treatises on dreams in which he explained them as primarily the senses keep working after sleep sends the body to sleep. My wee doze would fit into that pattern. The charismatic in me would ponder the significance of the meeting as prophetic and maybe that I was meant to travel to the US to meet Denis, maybe even relocate there. Fortunately I take the more rational approach to the phenomenon. So apparently what is "heard" while "asleep" can influence your thoughts! (at least in my experience)

Jeri Tanner said:

the Lord is free to do whatsoever he has predestined to do in these post-apostolic days by way of extraordinary healing or providence

Click to expand...

Jeri Tanner said:

railing against reports from sources like Keener’s

Click to expand...

I fully acknowledge that God can and may heal in response to prayer and indeed independently and sovereignly in the absence of prayer. If I was not clear on that then I apologise. I will pray for those who are ill but have no qualms about adding, "if it is Your will". When it came to the covid vaccine I rejected the offered conventional medicine because of the foetal cell line from the aborted baby girl. I knew that it was exposing me to a degree of risk but my conscience would not let me accept it. I had no assurance of an alternative - quite the opposite. Acceptance and contentment is an accepting good and bad from God's hand. A penfriend asked my to pray for them, they were not a Christian so I said yes but I would pray for their spiritual health as well as their physical health.

My concern is that God is portrayed as actively healing on a routine basis. The failures are explained as a lack of faith or as Dr R. C. Sproul explained in his sermon on Luke 5 (healing the leper) charismatic students first prayed for a fellow Christian with muscular dystrophy, then when that didn't work accused him of not believing his healing and finally suggested he was demon possessed. When reality does not live up to our theology ...

There was a suggestion that miracles regularly occur on the mission field. One faith healer was even said to Keener that if he prayed for healing in India and not the US God would have healed. A corollary of this is that we should take Joni to India where God is still doing miracles.

Railing against Keener? The most convincing documented healing which Keener led with was said to have occurred at a Kathryn Kuhlman meeting. Nobody has addressed that point. If miracles authenticate the message should I re-evaluate Kathryn? If miracles are for the purpose of making people well then why is it not a regular occurrence in the US (or UK).

My definition of railing is not to question but to assert. Were I to assert the claims were all fake that would be both unreasonable and railing. My suggestion is that there can be natural explanations. The phenomenon exist and I don't dispute it, it is how it is interpreted that concerns me.

Eoghan said:

I fully acknowledge that God can and may heal in response to prayer and indeed independently and sovereignly in the absence of prayer. If I was not clear on that then I apologise. I will pray for those who are ill but have no qualms about adding, "if it is Your will". When it came to the covid vaccine I rejected the offered conventional medicine because of the foetal cell line from the aborted baby girl. I knew that it was exposing me to a degree of risk but my conscience would not let me accept it. I had no assurance of an alternative - quite the opposite. Acceptance and contentment is an accepting good and bad from God's hand. A penfriend asked my to pray for them, they were not a Christian so I said yes but I would pray for their spiritual health as well as their physical health.

My concern is that God is portrayed as actively healing on a routine basis. The failures are explained as a lack of faith or as Dr R. C. Sproul explained in his sermon on Luke 5 (healing the leper) charismatic students first prayed for a fellow Christian with muscular dystrophy, then when that didn't work accused him of not believing his healing and finally suggested he was demon possessed. When reality does not live up to our theology ...

There was a suggestion that miracles regularly occur on the mission field. One faith healer was even said to Keener that if he prayed for healing in India and not the US God would have healed. A corollary of this is that we should take Joni to India where God is still doing miracles.

Railing against Keener? The most convincing documented healing which Keener led with was said to have occurred at a Kathryn Kuhlman meeting. Nobody has addressed that point. If miracles authenticate the message should I re-evaluate Kathryn? If miracles are for the purpose of making people well then why is it not a regular occurrence in the US (or UK).

My definition of railing is not to question but to assert. Were I to assert the claims were all fake that would be both unreasonable and railing. My suggestion is that there can be natural explanations. The phenomenon exist and I don't dispute it, it is how it is interpreted that concerns me.

Click to expand...

Just to be clear, I agreed generally with your views. Not sure if the excerpts you quoted from me show that.