Do we live in an age of the miraculous?

[plainguy]

The answer to this question will be dependent upon each of us individually. I might reword this question to ask, "Do you live in an age of the miraculous?" I say this because what we believe, our faith, and our actions will determine the answer. You see, the skeptic and doubtful who don't step out to lay hands on the man in the wheelchair or the blind woman standing before them, profess that this age is not miraculous, and they are correct in so far as their experience is concerned. They do not believe it is for today, and what does their faith give them? Exactly as they believe, nothing!

Are we to understand that a cripple has taken up his mat (wheelchair) and walked and a blind woman has received her sight after you laid your hands on them ?



Now, go to the bold. The courageous, those willing to go beyond their comfort zones. The Lord speaks and they do! What do they see? The love of God manifest, the love of God piercing the hearts of men and women in miraculous ways. The Creator of all that is willing to take a moment to look upon His creation, and give them an embrace. These people, have faith. They believe that God is the same yesterday, today, and forever. For this reason their answer to this question will be a resounding yes. Their faith has done it unto them. More importantly, their faith has done it unto another as the centurion had faith for another.

Do we live in an age of the miraculous? Yes, if you will only believe.

Are people dying because they lack the faith to be healed ?

 

[presidente]

The OP reminds me of the approach some new atheists take to the topic of the existence of God; they are staunchly opposed to the idea no matter what the evidence from the get-go.

Plenty of people have experienced supernatural healing. Before commenting on the topic, it makes sense to do some research. I haven't had a chance to read it yet, but a new book by respected Bible commentator Craig Keener has come out. It is over 1200 pages long. It started out as a footnote he was writing to debunk the assertion that the miracles in one of the Gospels were added as later embellishments by showing that it is normal for people to tell accounts of miracles that occur in their own contemporary times. There are historic examples and I believe he has recent examples as well. Like i said, I haven't read it yet. But it does make sense to read some scholarship on the issue before claiming such things do not exist.

Again, many people have experienced these things. An opinionated poster claiming they do not exist isn't going to convince someone who has experienced it.

Biblically, those who say God won't do miracles, even do miracles through people these days, doesn't have a leg to stand on, and is being rather presumptuous. I Corinthians 12 teaches that the Spirit gives individuals in the body with 'the working of miracles' as He wills. It is rather presumptuous to tell the Spirit what He may and may not will. No poster on this forum has that authority.

 

[presidente]

Faith without sight is most certainly not tripe. It is the foundation of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Thomas refused to believe Jesus rose without seeing, but he saw, and believed, and he still had faith. But he missed out on a blessing, because blessed are they who have not seen, and yet have believed. The other 10 apostles had faith after they saw the risen Christ.

Thomas refused to believe in the resurrection without seeing it. But there is no reason to think that someone who sees God heal someone or answer a prayer and then believes must have illegitimate faith, or even that he misses out on the blessing of 'blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.' They haven't seen Christ risen from the dead.

It is ironic that some people refer to these passages, but refuse to believe that God does the miracles these days that the Bible teaches that God does unless they see it.

 

[DJ2]

This is the second thread you have made on this topic just to try to prove God don't work miracles no more.
Ever heard of Israel? You know that little piece of land in the middle-east that got attacked by 5 bigger armies and defeated them in six days? Thats a miracle right there. The fact that the Jewish people exist today is a miracle, where are all the canaanites, edomites and hittites at?

What about the people who have been healed of asthma? Deafness? Spinal damage? What about the people who have been poisoned and it didn't affect them, but affected others who consumed the same water? There are many miracles out there, not all of them are genuine, some of them are, but to deny God working miracles is just silly.

Btw: Usually these guys who deny the power of God are minions of MacArthur.

The thread is simply about our current age. The world which we live in is not one of the miraculous. Those who insist it is are either watering down its true meaning or are so trusting in the claims of others as to accept anything as true. You seem to fall into the former.

Military battles can be won or lost for many reasons, without God's miraculous intervention. God may have helped Israel in this war. But not in a miraculous way, such as He did against Pharaoh's army in the Exodus and the sun standing still when Joshua defeated the five kings of the Amorites. There was no miraculous events during the 6 Day War. When God performs the miraculous there is no debate.

Someone being healed of asthma, deafness or spinal cord injury may be caused by God but it is not necessarily miraculous. The miraculous exists to prove, not to be proven. Defending the existence of the miraculous is a oxymoron. Claiming to live in an age of the miraculous and using non-miraculous events as proof is silly.

Please do not label me as a "minion of MacArthur", my comments are my own. I assume you would not welcome the label of a minion of Benny Hinn.

 

[resurrection33]

Yes, if your understanding of the word "miraculous" is that loose. Labeling the mundane as miraculous is akin to calling evil good.

Hillary, I believe, would have continued Barack Obama's policy of forcing girls to shower with boys at school, if the boys said they wanted to be girls. Were you okay with that?

 

[DJ2]

The OP reminds me of the approach some new atheists take to the topic of the existence of God; they are staunchly opposed to the idea no matter what the evidence from the get-go.

Plenty of people have experienced supernatural healing. Before commenting on the topic, it makes sense to do some research. I haven't had a chance to read it yet, but a new book by respected Bible commentator Craig Keener has come out. It is over 1200 pages long. It started out as a footnote he was writing to debunk the assertion that the miracles in one of the Gospels were added as later embellishments by showing that it is normal for people to tell accounts of miracles that occur in their own contemporary times. There are historic examples and I believe he has recent examples as well. Like i said, I haven't read it yet. But it does make sense to read some scholarship on the issue before claiming such things do not exist.

Again, many people have experienced these things. An opinionated poster claiming they do not exist isn't going to convince someone who has experienced it.

Biblically, those who say God won't do miracles, even do miracles through people these days, doesn't have a leg to stand on, and is being rather presumptuous. I Corinthians 12 teaches that the Spirit gives individuals in the body with 'the working of miracles' as He wills. It is rather presumptuous to tell the Spirit what He may and may not will. No poster on this forum has that authority.

Though I have never seen the miraculous, I most certainly believe it exist. I do not need to see the miraculous to believe the miraculous.

My issue is how people defend its existence as if it is upon us today with non-miraculous evidence. Surely if the miraculous was upon us we could see it. Is this not the purpose of the miraculous, to be seen? Would you accept the notion that Jesus has returned to earth based on hearsay and anecdotal banter? Attempting to prove the existence of the miraculous with non-miraculous evidence is a sure sign of a spurious concept.

When the miraculous truly returns there will be no debate and those who label the mundane as works of the Holy Spirit will be called to account.Attempting to prove the existence of a current miraculous age with a 1200 page discourse is folly. The miraculous does not need such defending.

"An opinionated poster claiming they do not exist isn't going to convince someone who has experienced it."

Presidente, your statement is true. Those who have "experienced" Bigfoot, space aliens and the Loch Ness monster cannot be convinced that their experience was not real either. Welcome to their club.

 

[Issachar92]

There was no miraculous events during the 6 Day War. When God performs the miraculous there is no debate.

I aint just believing blindly what others claim i've witnessed it myself and have been healed myself.
And as for the Six day war, there was a bunch of miracles during that war! Look it up, even the enemies of Israel the invading armies saw it, some of them backed off after the angels they saw. Perhaps it was the Archangel Michael, but who knows. Why would they all lie and further humiliate themselves?

It is what it is, so you don't believe in miracles, let us who have faith have faith. I'm done with this topic.

 

[Dino246]

The world which we live in is not one of the miraculous. Those who insist it is are either watering down its true meaning ...

What makes you think that your definition of "miraculous" is the "true meaning"? I haven't seen any dictionary definitions quoted yet.

Someone being healed of asthma, deafness or spinal cord injury may be caused by God but it is not necessarily miraculous.

Wow... "caused by God but is not necessarily miraculous"... exactly what is your definition of "miraculous" anyway?

The miraculous exists to prove, not to be proven. ... Is this not the purpose of the miraculous, to be seen?

The purpose of the miraculous is for God to accomplish His purposes. If the purpose were only to be seen, why then did Jesus refuse to perform signs and wonders for the Pharisees? Did God take away Elijah in a chariot of fire to prove anything? Did he heal the blind beggar just to prove something? Did He stack up the waters of the Red Sea and the Jordan just to prove something? Not at all... He accomplished His purposes through these acts. Part of His purpose in each case may have been to demonstrate His power, but to conclude that His only purpose in every case was to demonstrate His power is grossly misunderstanding and underestimating Him.

Attempting to prove the existence of the miraculous with non-miraculous evidence is a sure sign of a spurious concept.

Incorrect; your logic is faulty. You may not accept the evidence, but that is no proof that it is spurious.

Your position seems to be similar to that of the Pharisees... if certain events happen exactly the way I expect them to happen, then and only then will I believe. I would call that blind arrogance!

 

[DJ2]

I aint just believing blindly what others claim i've witnessed it myself and have been healed myself.
And as for the Six day war, there was a bunch of miracles during that war! Look it up, even the enemies of Israel the invading armies saw it, some of them backed off after the angels they saw. Perhaps it was the Archangel Michael, but who knows. Why would they all lie and further humiliate themselves?

It is what it is, so you don't believe in miracles, let us who have faith have faith. I'm done with this topic.

Miracles are not for those who have faith but for those who do not. Think about this when you are surrounded by all your miracles.

 

[DJ2]

What makes you think that your definition of "miraculous" is the "true meaning"? I haven't seen any dictionary definitions quoted yet.



Wow... "caused by God but is not necessarily miraculous"... exactly what is your definition of "miraculous" anyway?



The purpose of the miraculous is for God to accomplish His purposes. If the purpose were only to be seen, why then did Jesus refuse to perform signs and wonders for the Pharisees? Did God take away Elijah in a chariot of fire to prove anything? Did he heal the blind beggar just to prove something? Did He stack up the waters of the Red Sea and the Jordan just to prove something? Not at all... He accomplished His purposes through these acts. Part of His purpose in each case may have been to demonstrate His power, but to conclude that His only purpose in every case was to demonstrate His power is grossly misunderstanding and underestimating Him.



Incorrect; your logic is faulty. You may not accept the evidence, but that is no proof that it is spurious.

Your position seems to be similar to that of the Pharisees... if certain events happen exactly the way I expect them to happen, then and only then will I believe. I would call that blind arrogance!

Must such a simple word as miraculous be defined? Its root word is miracle, which is defined as an extraordinary event in the physical world that surpasses all known human or natural powers and is ascribed to a supernatural cause.

The purpose of miracles is not at issue. The issue is are these events happening today, regardless of why.

My lack of acceptance of the "evidence" is simple. You do not present non-physical evidence to prove a physical event is happening, you but witness the event.

If I claim to be able to fly, I do not show a picture of me flying or point to a textbook on aeronautics. You will not even need to ask for proof, you will simply see me fly.

Your position is similar to that of the Pharisees, convinced of what must be and not seeing what truly is.

 

[Stephen63]

We do not live in an age of the miraculous.

In the scriptures, the periods of physical supernatural phenomenon were few and far between.

When they were active the "world was turned upside down". An honest and open-minded exam of the "proof" of our living in such an age will show that we are not.

All the tongue talking and back/headache healings will not change this fact.

Was the miraculous active during the time of the Jesus and the Apostles, of course. The Bible well documents this. The Word of God both teaches and convicts our hearts of this truth (Hebrews 4:12, Romans 10:17). Have these acts ended, of course. Not because the Bible tells us but because the same senses that looked upon the first miracles with awe now tell us those same events have ended. Appealing to accounts of the miraculous in the New Testament does not prove these events are happening today.

No appeal to even the most scholarly discourse will change this fact. No amount of anecdotal banter will prove otherwise. The evidence presented as proof of the miraculous is on par with that presented as proof of bigfoot or space aliens. None are convincing, except to those who wish it to be true.

Those who insist that the miraculous is upon us do a great disservice to Jesus's call for faith apart from sight. Pentecostals and charismatics are but making bogus claims of the supernatural instead of what Jesus really taught. Faith, not faith by miracles but faith without. It is long time for them to admit their emperor is naked.

We all know the scriptures I am speaking of:

Hebrews 11:1, Romans 1:17, & 8:24, 2nd Corinthians 4:18 & 5:7

We should not fear this lack of the miraculous but rejoice in the blessings of our faith being strong without it.
(John 20:24-29)

Unless of course your faith is based on these claims of the miraculous being true.

[h=3]THE GREATEST OF ALL MIRACLES[/h]

Squire Parsons

I wasn't there by the shores of Galilee
When Jesus touched those blinded eyes and made them see
And though I did not see the empty tomb that day, I still believe
For I know what Jesus did for me

I believe there is power in the blood of the Lamb
And I believe there is healing in the touch of His hand
But the greatest of all miracles was when my Jesus saved me
Yes, I know what Jesus did for me

Now I have seen the lowest sin-sick soul
Have life anew be made pure, pure and whole
And I have felt Him loose the chains of sin and set my spirit free
For I know what Jesus did for me

I believe there is power in the blood of the Lamb
And I believe there is healing in the touch of His hand
But the greatest of all miracles was when my Jesus saved me
Yes, I know what Jesus did for me

I would definitely question a person's salvation who says miracles don't exist.

 

[DJ2]

THE GREATEST OF ALL MIRACLES



Squire Parsons

I wasn't there by the shores of Galilee
When Jesus touched those blinded eyes and made them see
And though I did not see the empty tomb that day, I still believe
For I know what Jesus did for me

I believe there is power in the blood of the Lamb
And I believe there is healing in the touch of His hand
But the greatest of all miracles was when my Jesus saved me
Yes, I know what Jesus did for me

Now I have seen the lowest sin-sick soul
Have life anew be made pure, pure and whole
And I have felt Him loose the chains of sin and set my spirit free
For I know what Jesus did for me

I believe there is power in the blood of the Lamb
And I believe there is healing in the touch of His hand
But the greatest of all miracles was when my Jesus saved me
Yes, I know what Jesus did for me

I would definitely question a person's salvation who says miracles don't exist.

What is the point of your poem? I must ask, did you really read the OP?

I too would question a person's salvation who says miracles don't exist.

 

[Dino246]

Must such a simple word as miraculous be defined? Its root word is miracle, which is defined as an extraordinary event in the physical world that surpasses all known human or natural powers and is ascribed to a supernatural cause.

Unless you can give a quote of a complete dictionary definition (an objective standard), I dismiss your definition as subjective. You have already dismissed events which fit your definition, but not your standard.

My lack of acceptance of the "evidence" is simple. You do not present non-physical evidence to prove a physical event is happening, you but witness the event.

If I claim to be able to fly, I do not show a picture of me flying or point to a textbook on aeronautics. You will not even need to ask for proof, you will simply see me fly.

Exactly... unless you see "miracles" (within your narrow frame of reference) yourself, you won't believe they happen. That was Thomas' error. No amount of evidence will convince you of what you have determined not to believe. What a pitiable condition! I don't need to see "miracles" (by your definition) to believe they happen today. However, my faith is not stunted by such a narrow definition.

 

[DJ2]

Unless you can give a quote of a complete dictionary definition (an objective standard), I dismiss your definition as subjective. You have already dismissed events which fit your definition, but not your standard.



Exactly... unless you see "miracles" (within your narrow frame of reference) yourself, you won't believe they happen. That was Thomas' error. No amount of evidence will convince you of what you have determined not to believe. What a pitiable condition! I don't need to see "miracles" (by your definition) to believe they happen today. However, my faith is not stunted by such a narrow definition.

Use whatever dictionary you want, it still means the same.

My not believing the "claims" of the supernatural is not the same as not believing the supernatural itself.

Do you believe all claims? Of course not. You like myself filter through a set of hopefully reasonable and logical understandings of what is true and false. This is common among us all. We all judge claims both great and small this way. The spiritual should be no different. God is not a god of confusion and expects us to reason this out. (1st Corinthians 14:33 & Isaiah 1:18)

The claims of modern day miracles do not pass this test.

 

[DJ2]

There's no point discussing this with you because even in your original post you have declared, no banter, no appeal, no evidence as proof would be considered. You have closed your mind and reduced the abilities of the Holy Spirit to an "I can't" or "I won't".
No where have I said my hope and faith is in miracles, that is your supposition. How do you know I have not boldly spoke of what I saw?
And no man declares to me what blessings I do or not receive.

Good day.

Both my mind and certainly my eyes are open to witnessing the physical supernatural acts of the Holy Spirit. This is the problem with second hand claims, anyone can make them and useless as evidence. The miraculous does not need defending, when it comes all these debates will be moot.

By your own claims of being a "been a witness of too much" you have removed yourself from these blessings.

Not my words, yours.

 

[DJ2]

. . there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we exist. And there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we exist.
(Colossians 1:16)
​

if all things exist through Him and for Him -- how can their existence be anything but supernaturally prevailing, and if existing is good, how can it be anything but heaven-sent, since we know every good gift comes from heaven?

we call things 'mundane' when we cease to wonder over them. to my son, lunch is a boring routine. to my cat, it is amazing. take a man who struggles half or more of every day to find potable water just in order to survive, and show him how much of it typical 1[SUP]st[/SUP] world family daily wastes, and you'll see the difference.
it is like the word, 'weed' -- there is no such biological classification of plants. a weed is simply any plant, flowering or not, that a person doesn't desire in their lawn. existing may be 'mundane' to anyone that takes it for granted: it is purely subjective, and a matter of how much one does or does not appreciate it for what it is or what it doesn't necessarily have to be.

some view existence as though it is their inalienable 'right' and go further still as though it is prerogative. i see it is mercy & favor. you say i'm debasing a connotation; i say i'm standing forever in awe of His grace.

If all things are supernatural, what is natural? If all things are miraculous, what is mundane?

I suggest you look up the meaning of these words. They are not to be taken lightly.

 

[Dino246]

Use whatever dictionary you want, it still means the same.

Dodge. Try stepping up with an actual definition.

 

[DJ2]

Dodge. Try stepping up with an actual definition.

Dodge?? What are you talking about?

Pick whatever dictionary you want.

You keep asking for a definition and I give you one from dictionary.com.

Do you not have a point to make?

 

[Dino246]

Dodge?? What are you talking about?

Pick whatever dictionary you want.

You keep asking for a definition and I give you one from dictionary.com.

Do you not have a point to make?

Two points: one, you did not cite dictionary.com with your definition; and two, you did not include the entire definition. I give you item 2: "such an effect or event manifesting or considered as a work of God" (dictionary.com; emphasis added).

Hmm.. I guess if it appears that God is involved, calling it a miracle is quite legitimate by the definition you chose.

Have a blessed day.

 

[DJ2]

Two points: one, you did not cite dictionary.com with your definition; and two, you did not include the entire definition. I give you item 2: "such an effect or event manifesting or considered as a work of God" (dictionary.com; emphasis added).

Hmm.. I guess if it appears that God is involved, calling it a miracle is quite legitimate by the definition you chose.

Have a blessed day.

I still don't know your point.