Miracles in bible times versus today

[cubeus19]

I'm having some doubts and problems with the fact or at least the fact from my point of view that God doesn't seem to do any clear cut supernatural miracles since Biblical times. When I mean supernatural miracles, I'm talking about instances like in the old and new testaments where there was no possible way that natural laws, positive thinking, or coincidence could accomplish.

Things like healing blind people, turning water to wine, raising people from the dead, angels appearing and feeing people out of jail, feeding thousands of people with just a few pieces of bread and fish and so on. It seems like all of today's "modern miracles" and healing can mostly be attributed to either natural laws, coincidence, or the fact that when a person thinks positive and has deep strong inner confidence that he or she will get well from a major illness or injury many times that will trigger certain natural laws within the body to naturally heal itself.

From that fact itself and the other fact that all the "healing preachers" out there are clear cut fakes running a scam job, it is very clear to see that God may indeed choose not to do any major miracles until the rapture and or the end of time. Now here is what bothers me, from reading some Bible verses in the new testaments about the "laying of hands" and the other verses that seem to suggest that Christians today could do the same things that Jesus and the disciples could do makes me think the Bible gives the impression that we should still be able to witness the grand types of miracles that we saw during the lives of Christ and the disciples.

But if you want to be brutally honest like I am with my experience, you have to admit that we don't see anything even half way resembling a true supernatural work of God today. To simplify this if put in as a simple argument it would go like this :

(to define my terms, for this thread I'm defining a miracle as a act that is blatantly supernatural with no other possible explanation. Not all of the "miracles" in the Bible even fit under this definition only the ones that are truly supernatural such as raising people from the dead, blind people being healed, water turning to wine, and amputees being healed)

premise 1: The Bible appears to claim that Miracles and acts of God would continue after lives of Christ and the disciples all the way until today and the end times

Premise 2: But we don't see any real supernatural miracles or acts of God today at the most we only see "circumstantial miracles" or instances where one could imply or assume that God had a part.

Therefore, Bible scholars and theologians have some major explaining to do.

Now what I'm wondering is am I mistaken about the Bible claiming that supernatural miracles as I defined them are still supposed to happen today or does the Bible give indication that these things are supposed to lessen or even cease until Christ returns again? And then another thing I'm wondering about is am I mistaken in the sense that supernatural miracles as I defined them are still going on today I just haven't heard about them yet?

I do want to note that this doesn't include other "miracles" like the creation of the universe, salvation, or ndes, since many skeptics argue that the universe can come about by natural means, salvation is something that takes place in the unseen spiritual world and within a person with the most evidence being the subjective evidence of a changed and better morality and life, and ndes because they could either be natural occurrences or flat out lies by the experiences.

Now if one were an atheist they could use this as a possible way to show that the God of the Bible doesn't exist. But I assume it wouldn't do much in light of all the other counter arguments and evidences for the God of the Bible. But still it does make sense to ask if the God of the Bible is real and the Bible His word, why does it appear to say that supernatural miracles would still continue today but yet when we honestly look around for one we can't find one? (or at lead I can't find one so that's why I'm asking you all)

So in conclusion do you all get the impression from the Bible that supernatural miracles like the grandest ones (like the ones I listed) are supposed to still happen today or not, and if so why? And if you have experienced or witnessed a major supernatural miracle like a dead person raising, a amputee being healed or anything that COULDN'T BE EXPLAINED BY NATURAL LAW, POSITIVE THINKING OR COINCIDENCE could you elaborate on it and share it? I look forward to having a thoughtful discussion about this and can't wait to see your responses. Thank you all.

[Canuckster1127]

Cubeus, just interested before addressing any other elements of your post. On what basis do you presume that such miracles are not taking place? Are you familiar with all the claims and have you examined the evidence for each one?

[cubeus19]

Hey Canuckster1127, yes I'm as familiar with all the claims to the best of my knowledge, if you have anything new or anything you want me to examine feel free to share it.

[Canuckster1127]

That's a remarkable claim. I think I'll consider that for a while before responding further.

[cubeus19]

Well at least within evangelicalism especially with pentacostals they tend to be over emotional and also many people who claim to have ndes and or experience other supernatural things also tend to lie or tell half truths about them in order to sell books. You see there is a lot of people like myself who get inspired and have our faith strengthened by things like this and that creates a market niche for people to make money. Now I'm not knocking making money we all need to do that in order to live but it is also very hurtful for desperate people who want to make money so bad that they would lie to the public and make up these experiences. And let's face it we don't know if they are lying or not we are forced to take them at their word, and taking people at their word today is suicidal at best and beyond insane at the worst. I just wished that supernatural occurrences were more frequent or would produce something that we could examine for ourselves.

[Canuckster1127]

Cubeus, I am skeptical by nature as well and I don't doubt that there are manay inflated and false claims out there. That doesn't preclude genuine miracles from happening and neither you, nor I have the perspective to make absolute claims as to the frequency of miracles occuring today as opposed to the past.

It seems to me you're asserting generalities and then assuming those generalities as premises upon which to draw conclusions.

Perhaps the first step would be to examine if there are indeed reasonably well documented miracles of the nature you are looking for rather than assuming that there aren't, there can't be or that all claims are attributable to emotionalism.

[jlay]

I'm having some doubts and problems with the fact or at least the fact from my point of view that God doesn't seem to do any clear cut supernatural miracles since Biblical times.

If you've ever done a study on biblical miracles, we really start to see just how rare they are, even in biblical times. The fact is that miracles are rare, and when they happen they happen in bunches and they happen for a reason. Miracles in the bible are not random. They are intentional and have to do with revealing God's plans and purposes.

Most if not all of what we see today is bologne. Guys like Benny Hinn have been investigated and they can't document or verify a single instance of an actual healing after the fact.

What is common are acts of providence. I have had several personal experiences where I saw God's fingerprints on events in my life. Not too mention all the other testimonies I've heard from friends, etc.

Now if one were an atheist they could use this as a possible way to show that the God of the Bible doesn't exist.

They sure can, and probably do.

So in conclusion do you all get the impression from the Bible that supernatural miracles like the grandest ones (like the ones I listed) are supposed to still happen today or not, and if so why?

IMO, no. At this time we are in the dispensation of grace, the canon is closed. For there to be such miracles means that God would be revealing something new. We are in the age of maturity, when such things, as predicted by Paul, would cease. 1 Cor 13:8

[cubeus19]

Back again, those are very good points Jlay, that's exactly the perspective that I see as well. I'm still curious though if there are a few genuine miracles still happening today like the one in the Bible. Canuckster1127, do you know of any instances that you are very confident of that are genuine miracles and not something done naturally or part of a fabrication by someone wanting to use it for some kind of gain?

[Canuckster1127]

Cubeus, I spent 20 years in ministry in a denomination that has an extraordinary number of missionaries on the field. I'm aware by first-hand account of some of these missionaries in situations where what we would define as miraculous happenings taking place served to protect them in difficult situations running from in Viet Nam during the war there to primitive tribes where reports of anglic appearings blocking the way of tribes bent on killing them.

I'm well aware of things like mass hullicinations and suggestive manipulations and I even tend to agree with you that many elements of the charismatic and pentecostal movement manipulate things of this nature for baser human reasons whether it is ministry donations or personal power and fame. Shoot, I went to a university built on that and could teach a lesson on how to do it if I were so inclined. However, that doesn't preclude genuine miracles today.

I respect jlay's answer and might have given it myself in some form years ago, but I do not believe that we are dispensationally in another time to where the hand of God is limited, unable or unwilling to operate in these manners. I think the application of the typical verse from Corinthians with regard to that which is perfect is an extreme logical stretch to define that as the New Testament. It's not really an interpretation found anywhere in Church history until after the Reformation and it ties in, to my observation anyway, to Protestantism attributing something to Scripture that prior to that had popularly been attributed to the Pope. That's another issue, but my point is, that there is not to my understanding a definitive, repeatative theme in Scripture that can establish that the miraculous has ceased although I agree with jlay that they're by definition not particularly common.

Jesus Himself in His earthly ministry is noted at times to be limited in His performance of miracles because of the unbelief of many present. Jesus performed numerous miracles nevertheless but he often refused to perform them on demand when religious leaders asked him to do so to validate His claims or the claims of those following Him.

Nevertheless, Jesus told His disciples that they would perform miracles and that they would collectively exceed Him in this capacity and that's evident from the very start following Pentecost.

What I observe in terms of methodolical naturalism (which by definition excludes anything that can't be explained by cause and effect) is that there is no amount of proof sufficient in any situation to satisfy those who operate within that worldview. At best, they'll claim that there is an unknown explanation but that it cannot be God or anything outside of the physical universe. They will refer to anything that invokes God or the Spiritual to explain the unexplainable as at best a "God of the Gaps" explanation. Now, I happen to believe that there is a danger to "God of the Gaps" scenarions because in fact, historically there have been natural explanations for things previously thought to be miraculous. There's a difference however between using caution in invoking God where a natural explanation may exist, and ruling out any such intervention by God in the affairs of man and this world in universal and absolute terms.

Neither are all miracles necessarily the work of God. Scripture and Christ speak of demonic or other spiritual influences that can perform such things. In the end, miracles can be faked, can be mistaken or misidentified for unexplained natural occurances or, I believe, there can be and are legitimate acts of God intervening on behalf of His children in rare and specific instances.

We need to beware however of becoming fixated upon them as "proof" of anything. Jesus said that even if someone were to come back from or be raised from the dead, there would still be many who would refuse to believe. That's been demonstrated since Christ Himself rose from the dead. In the end that's the primary miracle we need to focus upon as believers.

Those are my thoughts anyway. If you want to examine instances in more detail, I'd suggest you do a google search on the term "documented miracles". I thnk you'll find some interesting cases particularly in the context of things like healing rates for people being prayed for as opposed to those not being prayed for as well as medical reports which even skeptics have to conclude appear to fall outside of natural explanations and all they can counter with is that there must be some unknown natural explanation. They may claim God of the Gaps, but if they're going to be consistent the most they should be saying is that these miracles are from unknown causes and not making universal or definitive statements as to what it cannot be. All that demonstrates is that they have their own worldview and faith system at work and circling back to reinforce their already existing presuppositions.

[cubeus19]

I tried googling documented miracles and so far I haven't found much. In fact alot of what I found were from atheist sources. Is there anything specific that you could suggest?

[cubeus19]

Something I did find however is this

http://1stholistic.com/prayer/hol_prayer_proof.htm

For what it's worth I don't know if it's legitimate or not but I guess it's worth a look.

[Canuckster1127]

That's the one I was thinking of. I've actually read the full study. This is a summary of it that you're found. Corellative studies like this are always arguable as to whether theres a direct relationship, confounding unidentified issues or just on particular study being focused on that may fall outside the statistical norm. Social studies like this however can never be completely replicated and so again, the presupposition of the person interpretting the data tends to be self-affirming.

[cubeus19]

Something else I was curious about does anyone know about early church history like how it was after all the disciples died? Were there any major supernatural miracles going on within the early church after the disciples were martyred? Did miracles immediately drop off the radar to about what they are today or did they keep happening quite frequently until about a couple hundred years ago due to the advances of modern science?

[jlay]

I do not believe that we are dispensationally in another time to where the hand of God is limited, unable or unwilling to operate in these manners.

With all due respect, my position has nothing to do with God's hand being limited or unable, or unwilling for that matter.
God's purposes are intentional. Working with foreign and domestic missionaries, I too am familiar with miraculous claims. Nearly all of them, I would classify as providential. The others, which are extremely rare, are not verifiable. Although that doesn't make them untrue.

It's not really an interpretation found anywhere in Church history until after the Reformation and it ties in, to my observation anyway, to Protestantism attributing something to Scripture that prior to that had popularly been attributed to the Pope.

I beg to differ with your conclusion. The age of an interpretation has nothing to do with its legitimacy. As we know from the scripture itself, the early church was littered with unsound interpretation and teaching. I do not see this interpretations of 1 Cor 13 as being such. It seems like a very clear reading of the text. The only issue is what time are we in, the 'in part', or 'complete.' Many take that text to mean in the next life. But the fact is we will not need faith or hope in that life. Only love.

"For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears.
Obviously I don't won't to liberally apply this to miracles. But, I do believe that due to the completeness of the times, we do not see certain things, and rarely see others. Also remember that my comments were specific to the question asked. The grandest ones. Raising from the dead, water to wine.
That is not to say that God does not or can not perform miracles today. I would refer to the prayer of faith in James 5.
But I am talking about specific miracles that deal with God revealing specific purposes in the world today. That I believe is currently ceased because it is reflective of God's plans on the Earth. And with all these things, I can only say this is my best understanding. And if I am incorrect, I pray for correction.

[Canuckster1127]

That's cool Jlay. I'm not looking to pick a fight with you. Just putting up some of my thoughts. I used to interpret the passage from Corinthians as you do. I've changed my mind on it. I don't believe you can attribute full will and personality to the Holy Spirit and then lock Him into a straight-jacket. I now find that interpretation of "that which is perfect" appeared in the aftermath of the Reformation and was interpretted as being Scripture (a leap in any event as it's not clear) in part because of a need within the Protestant infrastructure to positionally replace the infallibility of the pope. I've looked in Church literature before then to see if this interpretation is present before then, and maybe it is, but I haven't found it yet.

It seems to me that there is a temptation in the aftermath of the renaissance and the rise of skepticism to make Christianity more palatable by removing the supernatural to some extent and it's just my opinion, but I think the timing of the rise of that particular interpretation might just be connected to the times it arose in. Making Chrsitianity static and the Holy Spirit more of an impersonal force rather than a full member of the trinity with personality, will and volition, makes Christianity more palatable and more cerebral.

Seeing the Holy Spirit at work with miracles, signs and gifts is certainly messy and there are risks of excesses. I don't think doctrine should be about minizing risk however. Following Christ is an adventure and a relationship. That's why Christ is the ultimate revelation of God and the Scriptures are very important, but they point toward Christ ultimately. That which is perfect, if you're going to employ deductive reason is better focused on Christ than scripture in my opinion. I think when that which is perfect is better understood as the return of Christ.