A Critique of Cessationism’s Objections to the Supernatural Pt.2

It is somewhat of an odd argument to dismiss the validity of any theological claim based on the strangeness of an individual in question.  I say this because of Mayhue’s claim that Deere’s association with Paul Cain and William Branham is enough to admonish believers about the “theological company he keeps.”  Again, I would have to agree that not everything that they did was in perfect keeping with the scriptures but I would still follow up this argument by another appeal to logic.

Neither Mayhue nor Hank Hanagraaff, whom he quotes, are on the perfect end of the theological spectrum.  I would not conclude that they are not believers in Jesus Christ but are certainly misguided souls cruising through heresy lane.  However, the same system of logic applies to Cain and Branham.  I might also conclude that God himself is in danger of the theological/moral company he keeps when he chose a fornicator as a Judge over Israel in the form of Samson or an adulterer and conspirator to murder in the form of David.  The point is this: their lives were far from perfect but so is everyone’s to some extent.  This is not enough to dismiss the validity of modern-day miracles entirely because of some moral/theological shortcomings.

Mayhue paints a picture of character assassination due to Deere’s claims of 1) cessationism’s deist inclinations towards idolatry 2) Pharisaic attitudes 3) pride of heart 4) similarities to liberalism.  There is an undercurrent of pride on Mayhue’s part when he claims, “I suppose if I believed that other Christians who thought differently than I did were liberal, proud, Pharisaic idolaters, then I would be no more gracious or generous to those in my past than is Jack Deere.”  The only problem is that the very nature of his critique of Jack Deere is based upon the fact that Deere is different and that he has a genuine problem with some of his claims.

The deist and liberal claims are of especial importance because they do accurately portray a theology that has absolutely no interaction with God by steering clear of the “extremities” of subjectivist knowledge.  They only allow the scriptures to be read as a piece of literature, that is, the end of all things rather than the means.  These are genuine points that should be given a sound biblical answer; however, Mayhue does not say why Deere’s points are wrong, only that they are.  What is the difference between the God of the cessationist, deist and liberal and no God at all?  If there is no actual interaction with this God (apart from mere one-sided praying), how is it any different than merely reading a piece of literature?  In fact, what is the difference between cessationism’s demands of objective criteria and the empiricism of science?

Deere’s “mind-set” is not faulty simply because he claims similarities between Phariseeism, liberalism, deism and tendencies towards idolatry and pride.  This is where objective criteria is no longer of much use and “subjective knowledge” commences.  Behind every argument lies either a hidden virtue or vice.  It is the driving force that steers reason, including my own.  It becomes a necessity to know whether a person’s reason has become corrupted due to their own sin and because labeling sin as sin becomes a subjective interaction and is often times perceived as a hypocritical interaction, it is thrown out the door on the basis of which an empirical verification cannot be met.  “Who are you to judge me?” becomes the shield by which any debate will continue ad infinitum until one party concedes and finds peace in the humility of an admittedly flawed argument.

I do not think it would be excessive to say that even if empirical data were present in order to validate its presence, it would still be tossed aside because of its “invisible” qualities.  Anyone who has stood on the receiving end of a belittling diatribe knows all too well that our emotions can witness a wrongdoing and, as a result, function as a judge in a subjective courtroom.  Even if the victim of the attack accuses the other of pride, sin, anger, etc., it can still be dismissed on the basis that reason becomes a weapon to hide the weaknesses that may have leaked out.  Any defensiveness testifies to the vice for it is now shielded by reason.  Sin can be preserved through many errant theologies.  The scriptures tell us so.  If the lessons learned concerning the Pharisees are of no use and have no practical application in our own lives, then what is the relevance of theses narratives at all if there are no consequences apart from their lessons?  I want to be on the lookout for the yeast of the Pharisees so that my own relationship with God does not become corrupted.

Therefore, even a purely empirical methodology can be turned on its head and cast aside.  When this happens, interestingly enough, the individual who has formerly cast his ballot in favor of an objective criteria will now use the subjective knowledge that was once despised to shield himself from any retaliation by claiming that one cannot know his motives and what was truly meant.  If subjective knowledge is still rejected, consider this, what about the feeling of conviction towards sin?  This in itself is a subjective experience, therefore, if God speaks to us through his Holy Spirit, is this information received, objectively known by all or simply the subjective interior courts of the individual?  That being said, should conviction be dismissed on the grounds of subjective neognosticism because the experience cannot be objectively verified?

This is the end of the second 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.**