Book of Acts: When did the Christian miracles cease?

[Shermana]

According to the book of Acts, the very reason why the Church spread so fast...was because of straight up miracles.

Modern "Liberal Christianity" may try to assert that they never happened in the first place....but then how do they explain the drastic expansion of the Christian religion? And if such writing is mere "poetry" and didn't happen, what was the "poetry" supposed to mean? Does the very basis of what happens in Acts refute the positions of "Liberal Christianity?"

And "Conservative Christians" who maintain that they did happen....don't exactly have miracles happen in public like in Acts or as Paul supposedly described in Corinthians (another difficult issue for Liberal Christians to explain why Paul was talking about miracles and prophecying).

Some "Charismatic" movements may have "gift of tongues" events, but they go completely against what the "gift of tongues" is supposed to be, it was meant to be a miraculous showing that enabled believers to actually communicate with others of a foreign tongue, not just babbling away. Paul even forbade using the gift of tongues if there was no interpreter.

Paul was even apparently to raise people from the dead and heal the sick just like Jesus. In fact, according to the Gospels, Jesus said that the disciples would be able to do works greater than him. What happened since?

According to Acts, there is indeed supposed to be an actual showing of who is a "True Christian", in the form of miraculous happenings. What happened? When did they cease?

Did the early church spread so fast because of the word of these miracles? If not, what caused the Christian religion to spread so quickly?

Were the NT scriptures indeed saying that true believers would be able to perform miracles on a scale like Jesus did? Does it not say that all church members will receive some kind of gift, including prophecy? If believers don't have these gifts, are they, in scriptural terms, lying when they say they have the Spirit then? Is Christianity supposed to be a miracle-based religion in its original form? Are those who claim to believe in Christ but don't perform such miracles therefore not filled with the Spirit and thus not true members of the church? Or is there an explanation why there are no raisings of the dead and healings of the sick like in the days of Paul and the disciples (faith healing shows don't count).

Is it fair to conclude that the original point of the scriptural "Church" was to be a part of an organization that actually performed amazing miracles? When did the healing of the lame and raising of the dead cease and for what reason?

(Note: This thread is in discussion of the scriptural definition, there is no need to establish that said miracles are possible or that the events actually happened, it is a discussion of the relevance of such to modern and historical "Christians".)

[Moses Yoder]

What I am reading here is that most of you, if you saw a young boy fall asleep in a window at a Christian convention and fall down 3 stories to his death, only to have the preacher at the assembly lay on top of him and bring him back to life, still would not believe in God. That's fine, it's your right. Now keep in mind that only a small portion of the people there would have actually seen it happening, and the rest would only have hearsay.

So what caused people to convert by the thousands in Acts? I have never been at an assembly where thousands turned from unbelief to belief. It seems to me it would be an amazing experience. Maybe by the time Acts was written there were large numbers of Christians, 75,000 or whatever, but at the time of these stories where thousands were converted you are saying there were only about 5000 Christians, so the numbers in one day would have increased by a very large percentage.

Acts 2:41
Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.

Acts 5:14
And believers were the more added to the Lord, multitudes both of men and women.)

[ThatGirlAgain]

So what caused people to convert by the thousands in Acts? I have never been at an assembly where thousands turned from unbelief to belief. It seems to me it would be an amazing experience. Maybe by the time Acts was written there were large numbers of Christians, 75,000 or whatever, but at the time of these stories where thousands were converted you are saying there were only about 5000 Christians, so the numbers in one day would have increased by a very large percentage.

Acts 2:41
Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.

Acts 5:14
And believers were the more added to the Lord, multitudes both of men and women.)

If we take the Gospels at (roughly) face value there would have been thousands of people who gathered to hear Jesus speak on at least several occasions. Presumably some proportion of them would have been favorable to what Jesus said. Peter and company are baptizing people and accepting them into a specific community. They are not necessarily converting them from scratch. It is not unreasonable that they might have picked up thousands of new members who were already on board mentally, especially with that resurrection story going around.

So the numbers being given in Acts should not be ruled out on grounds of likelihood, even if they do come to us via Luke the Storyteller.

[ThatGirlAgain]

Concerning the growth rate of Christianity, does anyone know what the death rate was in the old Roman Empire? And the death rate among Christians who were periodically pruned by the powers that were was presumably higher. That is, what might the addition rate might have been? Of course there is the side issue of how many children Christians had who lived long enough to have progeny themselves and what portion of those children stayed Christians. Hiding inside all of these issues is the actual conversion rate, a potential figure of merit.

[Moses Yoder]

So what caused people to convert by the thousands in Acts? I have never been at an assembly where thousands turned from unbelief to belief. It seems to me it would be an amazing experience. Maybe by the time Acts was written there were large numbers of Christians, 75,000 or whatever, but at the time of these stories where thousands were converted you are saying there were only about 5000 Christians, so the numbers in one day would have increased by a very large percentage.

Acts 2:41
Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.

Acts 5:14
And believers were the more added to the Lord, multitudes both of men and women.)

If we take the Gospels at (roughly) face value there would have been thousands of people who gathered to hear Jesus speak on at least several occasions. Presumably some proportion of them would have been favorable to what Jesus said. Peter and company are baptizing people and accepting them into a specific community. They are not necessarily converting them from scratch. It is not unreasonable that they might have picked up thousands of new members who were already on board mentally, especially with that resurrection story going around.

So the numbers being given in Acts should not be ruled out on grounds of likelihood, even if they do come to us via Luke the Storyteller.

If you read Galations one might assume Paul and the Apostles were preaching salvation by grace through Faith in Christ. I am reading a book now called "The Gospel According to Jesus" by John MacArthur which is going to explain a lot of things to me, but salvation through faith is not something that can exactly be gleaned by Jesus' teachings. Maybe by His private conversation with Nicodemus, but that was not widely known until later.

Perhaps it is the combination of the two messages that became a kind of epiphany to people who believed.

[JoeyKnothead]

From the OP:

According to the book of Acts, the very reason why the Church spread so fast...was because of straight up miracles.

There's the problem there. Without establishing the accuracy of this'n, seems like we're gonna hafta rely on it to sort out the rest here...

Modern "Liberal Christianity" may try to assert that they never happened in the first place....but then how do they explain the drastic expansion of the Christian religion?

I'm no Liberal Christian, but I chalk it up to PT Barnum.

And if such writing is mere "poetry" and didn't happen, what was the "poetry" supposed to mean?

If y'all all just be good to one another, wouldn't none of this mess occur?

Does the very basis of what happens in Acts refute the positions of "Liberal Christianity?"

How might'n one dispute a myth?

I thought that's what we was getting into up there at the start - where we just hopped on ahead and said these miraculous events occurred. Then here we are extrapolating from that unproven, what we now set out to prove.

And "Conservative Christians" who maintain that they did happen....don't exactly have miracles happen in public like in Acts or as Paul supposedly described in Corinthians (another difficult issue for Liberal Christians to explain why Paul was talking about miracles and prophecying).

In a time when talk of miracles and prophecy were rampant, I find no surprise in hearing another doing him a bunch of it himself.

Some "Charismatic" movements may have "gift of tongues" events, but they go completely against what the "gift of tongues" is supposed to be, it was meant to be a miraculous showing that enabled believers to actually communicate with others of a foreign tongue, not just babbling away. Paul even forbade using the gift of tongues if there was no interpreter.

And if we ask that bunch of 'tonguers', they'll be apt to say it's you and Paul who have it wrong.

Which of y'all are we s'posed to believe?

Which assumption are we to now make in order to know which assumption either of y'all make is the assumption worthy of the most assuming?

Paul was even apparently to raise people from the dead and heal the sick just like Jesus. In fact, according to the Gospels, Jesus said that the disciples would be able to do works greater than him. What happened since?

Them folks set it up so's all that "exponential growth" you was so proud about back there would occur?

According to Acts, there is indeed supposed to be an actual showing of who is a "True Christian", in the form of miraculous happenings. What happened? When did they cease?

There you go again, assuming something just cause it's written.

Theology, Doctrine & Dogma.

Holding onto the assumption, I propose these miracles quit happening because the things that were called miracles in the first place were grossly misidentified (what with Merriam-Webster not coming on the scene for a good spell, we might ought not pick on 'em too much about it though).

Did the early church spread so fast because of the word of these miracles? If not, what caused the Christian religion to spread so quickly?

It offered something, whether power and riches, or easing of a burdened mind.

Theology, Doctrine & Dogma.

Were the NT scriptures indeed saying that true believers would be able to perform miracles on a scale like Jesus did? Does it not say that all church members will receive some kind of gift, including prophecy? If believers don't have these gifts, are they, in scriptural terms, lying when they say they have the Spirit then?

I can't much say what the Bible's trying to say, what with so many contradictory clauses.

Is Christianity supposed to be a miracle-based religion in its original form?

It always amuses me when I hear Christians carry on about Christianity in it's "original form". And there sit all them millions of Jews.

Are those who claim to believe in Christ but don't perform such miracles therefore not filled with the Spirit and thus not true members of the church?

They ain't filled with it anymore'n the Scotsman who wears no kilt.

Theology, Doctrine & Dogma.

Or is there an explanation why there are no raisings of the dead and healings of the sick like in the days of Paul and the disciples (faith healing shows don't count).

Here ya go with that assuming again.

If you're just gonna assume the parts of the Bible you're so proud about are the only parts worthy of trust, then you look kinda goofy carryin' on about how others go about their assuming.

Theology, Doctrine & Dogma.

Is it fair to conclude that the original point of the scriptural "Church" was to be a part of an organization that actually performed amazing miracles? When did the healing of the lame and raising of the dead cease and for what reason?

How might'n something cease that has never been reliably documented to have ever occurred?

(Note: This thread is in discussion of the scriptural definition, there is no need to establish that said miracles are possible or that the events actually happened, it is a discussion of the relevance of such to modern and historical "Christians".)

Theology, Doctrine & Dogma.

Note: My response to this OP is in relation to Christianity and Apologetics and does not assume anything in order to bring comfort to any claimant or to the OPer himself.

I propose this OP has been placed in C&A in an effort, devious or not, conscious or not, to give this argument the gravitas of a C&A discussion - by using this section's stricter standards to assume the OP's claims, while attempting a purely and obvious theological discussion. I contend it seeks to establish the primacy of one theological doctrine over another theological doctrine. Neither of which can be properly analyzed when we start off assuming one of those theological doctrines is the right'n to begin with.

Where in this OP is it established these miracles occurred?

Lacking such substantiation, I propose this OP is an attempt to assert they did, while arguing how wrong folks are for thinking they didn't - but starts off saying such as, "but don't challenge me on my assumption there, ya know, that assumption I'm gonna point to to show how goofy a good bunch o' y'all are".

It says, essentially, "Since all these miracles did occur, how goofy is that bunch that don't think much about 'em?"

But I'm no mod.

[micatala]

Moderator Comment


Based on comments above and a report, I did want to provide a clarifying moderator opinion.

The OP does specifically allow that the issue is not whether miracles actually occurred or not, but the extent to which stories of such miracles are important to Christianity.

Thus, I think I will leave the thread here in C&A. However, this does mean that while the Bible can be used to clarify what Christian doctrine is, that does not settle all interpretive questions, nor does it imply the Bible is necessarily to be accepted as any more authoritative than other ancient writings. It is certainly OK to prefece comments with "according to Acts" as long as one does not assume that such statements must be accepted as factual or are beyond challenge.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster.

[ThatGirlAgain]

So what caused people to convert by the thousands in Acts? I have never been at an assembly where thousands turned from unbelief to belief. It seems to me it would be an amazing experience. Maybe by the time Acts was written there were large numbers of Christians, 75,000 or whatever, but at the time of these stories where thousands were converted you are saying there were only about 5000 Christians, so the numbers in one day would have increased by a very large percentage.

Acts 2:41
Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.

Acts 5:14
And believers were the more added to the Lord, multitudes both of men and women.)

If we take the Gospels at (roughly) face value there would have been thousands of people who gathered to hear Jesus speak on at least several occasions. Presumably some proportion of them would have been favorable to what Jesus said. Peter and company are baptizing people and accepting them into a specific community. They are not necessarily converting them from scratch. It is not unreasonable that they might have picked up thousands of new members who were already on board mentally, especially with that resurrection story going around.

So the numbers being given in Acts should not be ruled out on grounds of likelihood, even if they do come to us via Luke the Storyteller.

If you read Galatians one might assume Paul and the Apostles were preaching salvation by grace through Faith in Christ. I am reading a book now called "The Gospel According to Jesus" by John MacArthur which is going to explain a lot of things to me, but salvation through faith is not something that can exactly be gleaned by Jesus' teachings. Maybe by His private conversation with Nicodemus, but that was not widely known until later.

Perhaps it is the combination of the two messages that became a kind of epiphany to people who believed.

Having read the Gospels (I mean really read for content without preconceptions) before reading Paul, it never seemed to me that Paul ever meant that salvation came through some mysterious state of mind called faith or belief as these words are meant today. In The Case for God Karen Armstrong makes the point that these words really meant commitment to practicing the precepts of a belief system and were not ends in themselves. Here is a review that explains that point at length. Viewed in this light, to have faith or to believe was to do what Jesus said to do: avoid sin, follow the commandments, love your neighbor and so forth. To Paul what was being believed was that the end of the world was imminent and that Christ would shortly return to render judgment on the good and the evil. So hang on and keep faith in the teachings of Jesus so you will end up on the good side. This message also lies at the heart of the Gospels.

[Moses Yoder]

So what caused people to convert by the thousands in Acts? I have never been at an assembly where thousands turned from unbelief to belief. It seems to me it would be an amazing experience. Maybe by the time Acts was written there were large numbers of Christians, 75,000 or whatever, but at the time of these stories where thousands were converted you are saying there were only about 5000 Christians, so the numbers in one day would have increased by a very large percentage.

Acts 2:41
Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.

Acts 5:14
And believers were the more added to the Lord, multitudes both of men and women.)

If we take the Gospels at (roughly) face value there would have been thousands of people who gathered to hear Jesus speak on at least several occasions. Presumably some proportion of them would have been favorable to what Jesus said. Peter and company are baptizing people and accepting them into a specific community. They are not necessarily converting them from scratch. It is not unreasonable that they might have picked up thousands of new members who were already on board mentally, especially with that resurrection story going around.

So the numbers being given in Acts should not be ruled out on grounds of likelihood, even if they do come to us via Luke the Storyteller.

If you read Galatians one might assume Paul and the Apostles were preaching salvation by grace through Faith in Christ. I am reading a book now called "The Gospel According to Jesus" by John MacArthur which is going to explain a lot of things to me, but salvation through faith is not something that can exactly be gleaned by Jesus' teachings. Maybe by His private conversation with Nicodemus, but that was not widely known until later.

Perhaps it is the combination of the two messages that became a kind of epiphany to people who believed.

Having read the Gospels (I mean really read for content without preconceptions) before reading Paul, it never seemed to me that Paul ever meant that salvation came through some mysterious state of mind called faith or belief as these words are meant today. In The Case for God Karen Armstrong makes the point that these words really meant commitment to practicing the precepts of a belief system and were not ends in themselves. Here is a review that explains that point at length. Viewed in this light, to have faith or to believe was to do what Jesus said to do: avoid sin, follow the commandments, love your neighbor and so forth. To Paul what was being believed was that the end of the world was imminent and that Christ would shortly return to render judgment on the good and the evil. So hang on and keep faith in the teachings of Jesus so you will end up on the good side. This message also lies at the heart of the Gospels.

One of the things Jesus stressed constantly was that the Jews had failed to keep the law by not keeping it in their heart while pretending to practice it outwardly. He referred to them as hypocrites for this practice, much like He would the male who raised me. I have read enough of your responses to know you believe Jesus' "commands" are different from the Mosaic law, but if we aren't able to keep the Mosaic law aren't we just trading up for a different law by saying we must follow Jesus' commands in order to be saved?

The Amish in our area have set up a whole new law that they must follow in order to be saved. Where would it end?

I believe if a person is saved their life will slowly become sanctified, and in some cases suddenly, but I don't think sactification is a necessity for salvation, rather it is an indication of it. The lack of sanctification, a life of blatant sin, is an indication of the lack of salvation.

P.S. After reading you link, it seems to me the danger of following the law (or Jesus' law) to be saved would be two fold. 1) Your only motivation for doing good would be for reward, and 2) you would believe you are going to heaven for being a good person.

[Shermana]

So what caused people to convert by the thousands in Acts? I have never been at an assembly where thousands turned from unbelief to belief. It seems to me it would be an amazing experience. Maybe by the time Acts was written there were large numbers of Christians, 75,000 or whatever, but at the time of these stories where thousands were converted you are saying there were only about 5000 Christians, so the numbers in one day would have increased by a very large percentage.

Acts 2:41
Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.

Acts 5:14
And believers were the more added to the Lord, multitudes both of men and women.)

If we take the Gospels at (roughly) face value there would have been thousands of people who gathered to hear Jesus speak on at least several occasions. Presumably some proportion of them would have been favorable to what Jesus said. Peter and company are baptizing people and accepting them into a specific community. They are not necessarily converting them from scratch. It is not unreasonable that they might have picked up thousands of new members who were already on board mentally, especially with that resurrection story going around.

So the numbers being given in Acts should not be ruled out on grounds of likelihood, even if they do come to us via Luke the Storyteller.

If you read Galatians one might assume Paul and the Apostles were preaching salvation by grace through Faith in Christ. I am reading a book now called "The Gospel According to Jesus" by John MacArthur which is going to explain a lot of things to me, but salvation through faith is not something that can exactly be gleaned by Jesus' teachings. Maybe by His private conversation with Nicodemus, but that was not widely known until later.

Perhaps it is the combination of the two messages that became a kind of epiphany to people who believed.

Having read the Gospels (I mean really read for content without preconceptions) before reading Paul, it never seemed to me that Paul ever meant that salvation came through some mysterious state of mind called faith or belief as these words are meant today. In The Case for God Karen Armstrong makes the point that these words really meant commitment to practicing the precepts of a belief system and were not ends in themselves. Here is a review that explains that point at length. Viewed in this light, to have faith or to believe was to do what Jesus said to do: avoid sin, follow the commandments, love your neighbor and so forth. To Paul what was being believed was that the end of the world was imminent and that Christ would shortly return to render judgment on the good and the evil. So hang on and keep faith in the teachings of Jesus so you will end up on the good side. This message also lies at the heart of the Gospels.

Despite what I may say about Paul, I have wondered if the "faith" he refers is the faith in the teachings and obedience to the commandments as Yashua stated, but I'm still undecided on what exactly he meant about the Law itself. But I agree that Paul was saying that the "End of the age" was imminent, and it sort of was, with the impending destruction of the Kingdom of Israel and the Temple, and that faith in Jesus would get one through the tribulations to come. And I believe that it's possible that in Acts, even Paul at his trial says that he wasn't teaching Lawlessness, and that Acts 15 (and the subsequent reference to it later) may have been interpolations, since James's reaction to Paul's return doesn't fit what the council allegedly said, and it sort of contradicts with Galatians 2. But the antinomians are more concerned about reading it with their "preconceived" notions than to read it in such a way that actually takes into account what Jesus taught, let alone what it even says Paul said in the end of Acts. Do they assume Paul was lying when he denied teaching against the Law?

[ThatGirlAgain]

So what caused people to convert by the thousands in Acts? I have never been at an assembly where thousands turned from unbelief to belief. It seems to me it would be an amazing experience. Maybe by the time Acts was written there were large numbers of Christians, 75,000 or whatever, but at the time of these stories where thousands were converted you are saying there were only about 5000 Christians, so the numbers in one day would have increased by a very large percentage.

Acts 2:41
Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.

Acts 5:14
And believers were the more added to the Lord, multitudes both of men and women.)

If we take the Gospels at (roughly) face value there would have been thousands of people who gathered to hear Jesus speak on at least several occasions. Presumably some proportion of them would have been favorable to what Jesus said. Peter and company are baptizing people and accepting them into a specific community. They are not necessarily converting them from scratch. It is not unreasonable that they might have picked up thousands of new members who were already on board mentally, especially with that resurrection story going around.

So the numbers being given in Acts should not be ruled out on grounds of likelihood, even if they do come to us via Luke the Storyteller.

If you read Galatians one might assume Paul and the Apostles were preaching salvation by grace through Faith in Christ. I am reading a book now called "The Gospel According to Jesus" by John MacArthur which is going to explain a lot of things to me, but salvation through faith is not something that can exactly be gleaned by Jesus' teachings. Maybe by His private conversation with Nicodemus, but that was not widely known until later.

Perhaps it is the combination of the two messages that became a kind of epiphany to people who believed.

Having read the Gospels (I mean really read for content without preconceptions) before reading Paul, it never seemed to me that Paul ever meant that salvation came through some mysterious state of mind called faith or belief as these words are meant today. In The Case for God Karen Armstrong makes the point that these words really meant commitment to practicing the precepts of a belief system and were not ends in themselves. Here is a review that explains that point at length. Viewed in this light, to have faith or to believe was to do what Jesus said to do: avoid sin, follow the commandments, love your neighbor and so forth. To Paul what was being believed was that the end of the world was imminent and that Christ would shortly return to render judgment on the good and the evil. So hang on and keep faith in the teachings of Jesus so you will end up on the good side. This message also lies at the heart of the Gospels.

One of the things Jesus stressed constantly was that the Jews had failed to keep the law by not keeping it in their heart while pretending to practice it outwardly. He referred to them as hypocrites for this practice, much like He would the male who raised me. I have read enough of your responses to know you believe Jesus' "commands" are different from the Mosaic law, but if we aren't able to keep the Mosaic law aren't we just trading up for a different law by saying we must follow Jesus' commands in order to be saved?

The Amish in our area have set up a whole new law that they must follow in order to be saved. Where would it end?

I believe if a person is saved their life will slowly become sanctified, and in some cases suddenly, but I don't think sanctification is a necessity for salvation, rather it is an indication of it. The lack of sanctification, a life of blatant sin, is an indication of the lack of salvation.

P.S. After reading you link, it seems to me the danger of following the law (or Jesus' law) to be saved would be two fold. 1) Your only motivation for doing good would be for reward, and 2) you would believe you are going to heaven for being a good person.

Amos, the first prophet, stressed the need for social justice to receive reward and avoid punishment when the Lord comes to judge all men. In the time of Amos “the people of Israel have reached a low point in their devotion to YHVH (the God of Israel) - the people have become greedy and have stopped following and adhering to their values. The wealthy elite are becoming rich at the expense of others. Peasant farmers who once practiced subsistence farming are being forced to farm what is best for foreign trade, mostly wine and oil." (See Amos link above) Sounds rather like the time that Jesus lived in. And the message of Jesus sounds a lot like that of Amos: return to righteousness to justify salvation. And as in Amos, righteousness had to do with good action. Whether Jesus meant only the commandments he cited or was just stressing the need for action is a subject for debate (not here please). The point was that righteousness of action was the key to salvation.

Even in Matthew, the most Jewish and Law adhering of the Gospel writers, it is action is that is stressed. Remember Matthew 25? And do not forget that the sheep, those who receive eternal reward, were doing charitable works without awareness of any religious motivation. “When did we…etc?� And for that they were rewarded. It is the action that counts. And Luke makes it plain that being in "the in crowd" does not matter. Remember the Good Samaritan?

Jesus was really down on hypocrisy, adherence to the letter of the law and ignoring the spirit. It is NOT adherence to any law that does the trick. It is righteousness in the form of moral living and charitable giving that justifies.

Can you find anything that Jesus said that indicates that sanctification is the real key and that moral living results from that?