A Critique of Cessationism’s Objections to the Supernatural Pt.4

It is a strange sort of thing to observe the hermeneutics of Richard Mayhue.  I do not wish to be disrespectful but it appears to be akin to childish naiveté.   I wish I could say “child-like” but somewhere along the way of life, that seems to have been choked out.  The innocent belief of a child has been replaced with the cold, austere and gray-filled skies of an “adult.”  

His critique of Deere’s hermeneutics is summed up in two ways: 1) generalization and 2) experientialization.  Deere assumes that since there is nothing in scripture that would indicate that miracles should cease, we should expect that today.  Mayhue disagrees with this approach by arguing through the lens of uniquely miraculous events such as the virgin birth.  He concedes to Deere’s “generalization” approach to scripture and concludes that since nothing in scripture says that a virgin birth cannot happen again, we should expect that it would.

This borders on silliness.  The scriptures may not be explicit that it will not happen again but they are explicit that the sacrificial system was inadequate and the need for a greater sacrifice was implied in the person of the Christ, thus necessitating the birth of a “spotless” lamb.  This is a concession for the sake of silliness.  Certainly Mayhue would not argue that another virgin birth would be necessary because the shed blood of Christ was inadequate the first time.  This miracle was specifically brought into history to fulfill the biblical pattern of sacrifice.  The Old Testament sacrificial system was a foreshadowing of a greater sacrifice yet to be “virgin birthed.”  The lamb slain before the foundation of the world needed to be clothed in mortal flesh so that death could be defeated (Rev.13:8).

It is interesting that Mayhue should describe Deere’s errant hermeneutical approach as “generalizing.”  It is the simple assumption that since miracles took place in the past, they should also take place today.  The argument proceeds from general to specific but Mayhue proceeds by combining what he assumes to be like terms.  Mayhue, who has argued previously, that Deere engages in veiled syllogisms now takes part in this bad logic himself and as a result “draws faulty exegetical/theological conclusions!”

The following is an example of a correct and incorrect syllogism:

Correct

Major premise: All men are mortal.
Minor premise: Socrates is a man.
Conclusion: Socrates is mortal.

Incorrect

Major premise: All horses are animals.
Minor premise: Dogs are animals.
Conclusion: All horses are dogs.

In the correct syllogism, men (general) are combined with mortal (specific) in the Major Premise.  Socrates (specific) is combined with man (general) in the Minor Premise.  The Conclusion is a specific statement.

In the incorrect syllogism, horses (specific) are combined with animals (general) in the Major Premise.  Dogs (specific) are combined with animals (general) in the Minor Premise.  The conclusion is faulty because two specific categories have been assumed to be on equal terms in an attempt to reach a specific conclusion.  Dogs and horses are both animals but they are mutually exclusive from one another on the basis of difference in species.

Mayhue’s syllogism takes the following course:

Major premise: A virgin birth is a miracle.
Minor premise: A floating ax-head is a miracle.
Conclusion: A virgin birth is a floating ax-head.

A virgin birth and a floating ax-head are miracles but not the same type of miracle.  A floating ax-head can be repeated while a virgin birth is unnecessary.  Let’s not miss the specifics of what is actually taking place with a floating ax-head: a heavy object floats rather than sinks and therefore suspends a known law of gravity.  Where else does this occur?  How about Peter and Jesus walking on water?  I suppose that it is well within the power of God to duplicate a second virgin birth (with Christ alone and not others to constitute a fourth person of the Godhead ad infinitum) but is unnecessary on the basis of historical/theological fulfillment of prophecy.  Therefore, the virgin birth would fall under a sub category of miracle as a mutually exclusive miracle for a specific purpose.  Floating ax-heads and virgin births are both miracles but are mutually exclusive from one another on the basis of difference in species.

He assumes that God is now under some sort of obligation to repeat any miracle performed.  If this is the approach to take, then I could argue that an event like Balaam’s talking donkey should repeat itself somewhere in scripture during the course of the open canon.  I can even argue from silence that it does not repeat itself; however, God is not under some strange contractual obligation to repeat any given miracle.  He can if he so chooses but the point to be taken must not be missed: God can suspend the known laws of the universe at any time.  In addition to this, I do not know if there were other instances of talking donkeys/animals in scripture; it is the only instance of which I am aware of having been recorded either then or now.  This brings us to his second argument, experientialism.

Mayhue continually validates his own position from his lack of experience.  Experience should count for something.  As believers, I am sure that we have shared in the experience of the conviction of the Holy Spirit.  The experience does not validate the authenticity of scripture as if to say that it is not telling us the truth but the scriptures do provide the believer with a truthful description of what is taking place in our experience so that we have an understanding of what is happening.

Mayhue concludes that “If Deere’s thesis of normalization is true, then miracles of Scripture should be occurring today. People would be taking trips to the third heaven like Paul (2 Cor12:1-6); only like Paul they shouldn’t tell the details.”  Whose to say that they haven’t?  Because Mayhue’s own experience is drastically silent on these matters, he concludes that others are as well and even if modern day miracles are documented, he explains away the occurrence.  He is much like David Hume who said that even if Jesus Christ rose from the dead right before his very eyes, he would still not believe.  So the reader can see, Mayhue’s paradigm of normalizing the uniqueness of the unmiraculous tragically trivializes the extraordinary and essentially emasculates its powerful impact and purposes for today.

This is the end of the fourth 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.**