Justin Peters recently had an interview with John MacArthur. They touched on the subject of faith and miracles.
The first thing MacArthur says about the Charismatics is that their miracle-seeking is “doubt looking for proof” and “looking for a sign to validate it.”
This is calling good evil, and evil good. It’s saying black is white and white is black—like a magician’s sleight of hand, but without the applause. This is a sleight-of-hand fallacy to shift blame from oneself to something else. In the Bible, it wasn’t those doing miracles and seeking to do more miracles that Jesus said, “an evil generation seeks a sign” about; it was said against those who did not believe or do miracles and were asking Jesus and His followers to perform more signs for them.
MacArthur and Peters are the same Pharisees today. They do not believe, and they are the ones who keep asking for a sign (which is empirical evidence) to give proof if a doctrine is true or false. The Charismatics already believe; they do not seek signs, just as much as Jesus and the New Testament church did not seek signs, because they already believed. Paul said that Jesus was raised not on empirical evidence, but because the Scriptures say so. Empirical evidence can never give proof if any biblical doctrine is true or false; it cannot make a truth claim about any aspect of reality. People who ask for a sign not only show themselves to be spiritual perverts and unbelieving, but it also reveals they commit spiritual harlotry with empiricism as a starting point of knowledge over Scripture. Thus, when they say “sola scriptura,” what they really mean is “sola empiricism,” or “sola David Hume”—because nothing says “Bible alone” like outsourcing your epistemology to an 18th-century skeptic.
I would recommend these essays by Vincent Cheung for more reading on this issue of who is really seeking a sign, and who is not. (I am not affiliated with Cheung, only recommending his material). The Reformed have it in reverse order. Their doctrine is a 180-degree contradiction to scriptural doctrine—like trying to drive a car backward and calling it progress.
Another issue brought up was the sufficiency of Scripture. I agree it is an important issue, but for the opposite reason they state. Peters said, “A growing battle today is not inerrancy of the Bible but the sufficiency of the Bible.” MacArthur then responds, “The Bible gives you everything.” Other things don’t give you this, such as “philosophy or politics, or waiting around for a prophecy.”
Interestingly, considering how sufficient the Bible is, the remark is then given by Peters: “The charismatic prophets do not have a good track record.” Yet, this is an appeal to a human starting point (empiricism) and the fallacy of attacking the person, not the argument. What it is not is an appeal to the “sufficiency of Bible” and the Bible as their epistemology. Like I said before, “sola scriptura” really means “sola empiricism.” It is a natural reflex for them to be stupid and sinful by appealing to empiricism rather than the Scripture, because they are reprobates. This is who they really are: men centered on men, like a bad selfie that forgets the landscape.
With straight faces, similar people have asked me, “Why do we not see so many miracles today, unless God does not want it?” They are like the people from Jesus’ hometown who said, “This is Joseph’s and Mary’s son,” and then in unbelief demand He prove by miracles who He claims to be. But their unbelief made that impossible. These people did not start with God’s revelation; rather, their starting point for knowledge was their human observations. Scripture records it was due to their lack of faith, and not the lack of Jesus being willing and able to heal. With such people, I am asking myself, what happened to starting with God’s revelation for knowledge? Where did God go? Why is it so automatic for them to start with a “human” speculation and “human” superstition—like defaulting to GPS when you’ve got a perfectly good map from the Creator Himself?
If they only mean to do a personal attack (a logical fallacy) by saying, “Oshea (or Johnny), how many miracles have you done,” then why do they default to argumentation that politicians use? Is it because politicians are such shining examples for how to argue for truth? (Spoiler: They’re not; they’re more like debate club dropouts.)
They are like the religious leaders who slapped Jesus and demanded He prove His claim as God by prophesying. They harlot themselves with David Hume’s empiricism in the open streets, and then march back into their pulpits, and after wiping off their sweaty faces, they say with a straight face, “sola scriptura.” Maybe if they could stop humping on empiricism for just a few seconds, they might wake up and realize the disgrace they are committing against their own souls—and against those who hear them, who deserve better than this philosophical slapstick.
For a detailed explanation of how Scripture is sufficient to condemn Peters and MacArthur, read the following essays:
Scripture: Sufficient Against Cessationism
Lastly, MacArthur responds with this,
“If God gave miraculous gifts, why would He give it to people with such bad theology?”
I remember a quote from Vincent Cheung that gives a reason why God does such things.
“Christian ministers who teach this are often far from perfect, and subject to many criticisms, but this does not invalidate the point. Why do you think God allows many of these teachers to be so flawed and unrefined? He places a stumbling block to trip up those who walk in religious pride, who thumb their noses at those who do not present the promises of God in the way they like. God will put his blessings right in front of them, and they will fail to receive. This is his way to withhold the gospel from the unbelieving and hard-hearted.”[1]
——END NOTES——-
[1] Vincent Cheung. “God’s Extravagant Blessings.” Fulcrum. 2017 pg.33
Oshea Davis 