A Critique of Cessationism’s Objections to the Supernatural Pt.1

If one is attempting to form a relationship with God beyond the static one-sided world of simply reading the scriptures and offering up prayers with no spiritual reciprocation from the spiritual God that is being addressed, then it is necessary to trim back the nearsighted criticisms of the heresy hunters at large.  One such heresy hunter is Richard L. Mayhue, who has argued in seemingly persuasive manner against modern day supernatural workings of God, spiritual gifts, etc. in Jack Deere’s books, Surprised by the Power of the Spirit and Surprised by the Voice of God.  This will be the first installment in a series of parts that I will deliver.

I want to state from the beginning that I hold the scriptures in highest regards and consider them to be the infallible Word of God.  Where I would part ways with Mayhue is that I do not consider them to be the end of all things considered but a means to a greater end, which is God.  I do not wish to add anything to them nor take anything away but to use the scriptures as a blueprint for life with God; precious love-letters that give insight about the God we serve.  However, these are not one-sided love-letters in which one party writes and another party reads but both are in contact with the other.  If God is real, then I should know him as the living reality that he is.

Mayhue begins his critique with this introductory statement: “This reviewer has concluded that Deere unfortunately attempts to make too much out of too little and thus fails to present a convincing case for his own Third Wave convictions when Scripture, not experience, is the arbiter.”  All too often throughout Mayhue’s critique, he tends to provide lop-sided arguments that are glaringly imbalanced.  In this case, experience should work hand-in-hand with the scriptures, it should never trump the authority of the scriptures but neither should it ever be dismissed.  For instance, many can recount the day of their salvation and what their experience was like.  Their experience should not nullify the scriptures stance on salvation but should verify it in the world of reality and testify to the joyous experience of the saving power of God in reality.

What follows is the classic pigeonholing argument of cessationists that Deere is amongst the Neognostics of the mystical world.  I cannot for the life of me ever figure this one out.  As G.K. Chesterton once said, “We have educated ourselves into imbecility.”  Gnosticism, accurately defined, is a secret knowledge of salvation.  In other words, if you want to be set free, you must come to me and I will give you the secret prescription to free you of your sinful malady so that you can separate yourself from the dark matter of the flesh and into the light of the spiritual world.  What is always key is that Gnosticism is a knowing of secrecy that is not shared by others.

If I follow Mayhue’s argument, then I would have told Jeremiah that his “prophecy” concerning the destruction of Israel was unfounded based upon the secrecy in which it was known and declare him a gnostic at heart.  Since I was not told of these matters and cannot objectively verify them myself, they should not be accepted.  As a matter of fact, had I read the book of Revelation, I would have said that this must be thrown out as well due to the secret manner in which it was delivered.  Most cessationists would probably digress and say that these arguments would not be valid due to the period of the open canon in which they were asked.  The only problem then is that we would be straining away from an absolute definition of the term “secret.”  This is tantamount to saying that what would be considered as secret to Jeremiah or John would be different from what we would know as secret by modern standards.  Surely, the definition can be held to an absolute standard for all times.

If the cessationist would desire to still hold his ground and say that this is subjective argumentation, then I would have to inquire, “How would it have been any more or less subjective to Jeremiah or John?”  In addition to this, I could also appeal to Abraham and his sacrifice of Isaac.  If Sarah had been a little more suspicious of Abraham and his strange trip with Isaac, she could have asked, “What are you intending to do with the boy?”  Had Abraham answered, “God told me to sacrifice the boy to him,” would Sarah have been any less shocked than you or I by his response?  I could say that this is clearly a case of subjectivism and even argue a posteriori that his response runs against the grain of scripture.  The only problem is that the scriptures were in the process of being written.  Therefore, Sarah’s only defense to save the life of her son would be to claim that her husband’s response is much too subjective.  Again, why would this be any less subjective to Sarah than to us?  She certainly could have appealed to her husband’s madness if the subjectivist appeal had not worked.  Something or anything would have been done to stop this because of the love of a mother to her child, that is, human nature.

What then could you do?  The scriptures tell us to “test the spirits” (1Jn.4:1), therefore, Sarah could have ventured down this path even if it would have been a difficult pill to swallow.  This scripture would have to be thrown out the window as well by cessationists due to its subjective methodology.  The cessationist’s arguments are only logical, well-reasoned diatribes that must pass through the infallible gatekeepers of the human mind, after all, reason is always premium.  Sure.  Ask Eve how that worked.

To actually “test the spirits”, one must actually exercise the spirit in oneself in which the Holy Spirit has taken up residence so that one might know the spiritual nature of something that dwells in a spiritual realm.  A continuous working of the mind is akin to coercing the inherent nature of a given sense to something that it has not been designed to know.  It would be like trying to taste the scent of a rose or smell the taste of a pickle.  Neither organ has been fashioned to do so.

It is a strange phenomenon to read the cessationist’s position and read their warnings on the dangers of spiritual deceit (Acts 17:11) because it is only an active engagement of the mind alone with no room left for “spiritual discernment.”  If they argue that they are in the midst of a spiritually engaging discernment via well-thought rationalism, then why not substitute mind for spirit?  What would be the difference between the well-thought atheist and his objections to God? Is he using only his mind or is it merely interchangeable semantics?

Mayhue’s objections to the writings of Jack Deere not only borders on silliness but only provides the what and not the why in the following statement: “Deere’s carefully crafted case might be convincing to many at first glance because: (1) he claims to champion the real biblical cause (26-27); (2) frequent personal illustrations seem to undergird his teaching; and (3) citation of Scripture appears to validate his case.”  I can easily apply every point listed to Mayhue himself!  His claim is to validate all three points as the opposition to Deere’s!

He objects to modern day visions or hearing the voice of God: “…several unusual features of Deere’s teaching and ministry should warn one to examine carefully the contents of his latest book first before embracing the conclusions. First, Deere makes some bizarre statements and affirmations. For example, God allegedly spoke to Deere, while he was exercising, through a country western love ballad (128-29). Further, he recounts that Paul Cain, his mentor, supposedly received a message(s) from God via a huge TV screen in the sky (352-53).”

This may quite possibly be one of the most interesting objections of Mayhue’s critique.  It is objected on the basis of bizarreness!  How bizarre!  The scriptures are chocked full of bizarre stories.  Was Balaam’s talking donkey not bizarre (Nu.22:28)?  And what about floating axe heads (2 Kings 6:1-7)?  Surely these are bizarre instances but the cessationist will more than likely apply a double standard of logic.  It was perfectly logical that something like this should occur “back then” but it is not so logical now in our post-modern world.  The cessationist would also argue against the atheist for the plausibility of miracles “then” but would object to the church that they should occur now.  Perhaps the real issue is that God is powerless to speak through a country/western song.  Perhaps this is God’s kryptonite.  He could speak through a donkey but c’mon now, a country western song?  Now that’s absurd.  Right?  The cessationist’s argument is incoherent, illogical, childish and just plain silly to object to God’s sovereign ability to work through ignoble means.  At the end of the day, the only thing that really mattered was that God transformed Deere’s heart and the barrier that previously separated had been removed.  The intention of the story was to indicate that his heart had been transformed by God.  The enemy is not in the business of changing the hearts of men for goodness’ sake.

In addition to this, I might add that Philip Yancey in his book, The Jesus I Never Knew, cited a conversation in which a Russian formerly living under the strains of communist U.S.S.R. described the real reason why many converted to Christ despite the destruction of Bibles.  He said that they forgot to destroy the novels of Tolstoy and Dostoevsky.  Why is it so crazy to conclude that God could speak through a means other than the Scriptures?

As for Cain’s vision in the sky, “what is so unbelievable about that?”  This is where it seems to get strange for me.  The atheist will argue that a vision is a subjective experience (as was claimed by Antony Flew that the disciples experienced a subjective hallucination of the risen Christ) and must be explained away or de-mythologized.  The cessationist will also argue that it is a subjective experience but will appeal to the validity of the subjective experience on the basis of witnesses in this circumstance or any other and the objective authority and consistency of the Scriptures.  But how can the cessationist appeal to objective claims due to the subjective nature of so many of the witnesses’ claims?

For instance, when Paul speaks of his visit into the third heavens, “who could validate his subjective claims of such an experience?”  Why should the logic that is used in denying such claims today not apply to any person living in the first century church?  I think that part of this thinking has infiltrated the church through both the French and German Enlightenment periods where one would explain away the “silliness” of supernatural claims.  It is perceived to be synonymous with stupidity and imbecility.  Those who have been enlightened seem to have attained a superior knowledge of childish lunacy.

The logic of the first century church was that dreams, visions or other supernatural claims were a normal part of life and that it would have been illogical, silly and stupid to reject such claims.  Where do we find a multitude of instances where supernatural claims were rejected on the basis of logic?  Again, why do we assume that there are two different forms of logic, one for “then” and one for “now?”

C.S. Lewis, referring to the virgin birth, said in Miracles, “When Joseph discovered that his fiancée was going to have a baby, he naturally decided to repudiate her. Why?  Because he knew just as well as any modern gynecologist that in the ordinary course of nature women do not have babies unless they have lain with men.  No doubt the modern gynecologist knows several things about birth and begetting that Joseph did not know. But those things do not concern the main point -that a virgin birth is contrary to the course of nature. And Joseph obviously knew that.”

Even in the first century, men were not so stupid that they did not appeal to the logic of pregnancy.  The objective evidence was in but a subjective persuasion by an angel convinced Joseph to stay with Mary.  This is the end of the first installment in this series.  The entire reading of Mayhue’s Alarmed by the Voice of Jack Deere can be found here (after clicking, click refresh button).

**Free e-mail subscription**

**If this article has been a blessing to you, please take a moment and share with others. Thank you.**