Family dies holding hands, praying

[_Chap]

So far as I can see your basic position is that miracles ceased very soon after the death of Jesus.

Um, after His resurrection, and it depends on what you mean by very soon, but yes, this is a position that explains why there are no more miracles of the kind described.

(You seem to leave the door open to the possibility of exceptions, but let that pass for the moment).

I do indeed.

Is there not a problem here, in that there is no sign at all that the Christians of the early Church had noticed this?

Absolutely there is some controversy on what the ecf believe regarding continuation of miracles. I take the testimony of the ecfs very, very seriously but that does not mean what they have to say rises to the level of scripture.

If your account is true, it must have been quite obvious at some time in the first century that the leaders of the church could no longer do more show than sympathy when faced with a dying child, whereas a little while before they could pray and bring it back to health.

Considering just the gist of your point, yes.

But nowhere in the writings of the Fathers of the Church is there a sign of this cessation of miraculous power being noticed. They continue to record miracles as the result of Christians praying.

They do indeed. But according to the Bible, the purpose of miracles was to establish the church. That leaves a lot of wiggle room, I know.

Were they just over-credulous? But if you can say that of them, why not of their predecessors?

I'm not sure that's the only option. I take their words as presented, given that it took some time for the church to be firmly planted. Yet, it would seem that all of Christianity today are cessationists - closed cannon, gift of apostleship - so as a practical matter, and a biblical perspective, cessationalism is on fairly firm ground. I'll grant that this is a matter that I haven't spent a great deal of time on, so, yes, I'm kind of hedging here. Still, the thread is about why these intercessions into the natural world do not occur with frequency (assuming that's true) - cessationalism does a nice job of explaining that.

I also agree that my RCC friends will disagree, and that's fine. A wonderful debate I say, because either stance has no impact on core doctrine that we share.

Thanks. This makes your view about as clear as it is reasonable to ask on a discussion board.

You do seem to acknowledge that you have a major problem in the complete lack of evidence of any sign during the first few centuries of the church's existence of anyone remarking on the fact that there simply weren't any more miracles like there used to be. Did nobody notice this very striking change?

I am a bit puzzled by your claim that all Christians today are 'cessationists', since this a 'cessationist' is normally taken to mean 'someone who believes that miracles no longer occur', and large numbers of Christians continue to pray for miracles and expect them. Perhaps by 'Christians' you mean a more limited group than most would understand by that term?

[_Chap]

I wouldn't like Hoops to miss anything:

So far as I can see your basic position is that miracles ceased very soon after the death of Jesus.

Um, after His resurrection, and it depends on what you mean by very soon, but yes, this is a position that explains why there are no more miracles of the kind described.

(You seem to leave the door open to the possibility of exceptions, but let that pass for the moment).

I do indeed.

Is there not a problem here, in that there is no sign at all that the Christians of the early Church had noticed this?

Absolutely there is some controversy on what the ecf believe regarding continuation of miracles. I take the testimony of the ecfs very, very seriously but that does not mean what they have to say rises to the level of scripture.

If your account is true, it must have been quite obvious at some time in the first century that the leaders of the church could no longer do more show than sympathy when faced with a dying child, whereas a little while before they could pray and bring it back to health.

Considering just the gist of your point, yes.

But nowhere in the writings of the Fathers of the Church is there a sign of this cessation of miraculous power being noticed. They continue to record miracles as the result of Christians praying.

They do indeed. But according to the Bible, the purpose of miracles was to establish the church. That leaves a lot of wiggle room, I know.

Were they just over-credulous? But if you can say that of them, why not of their predecessors?

I'm not sure that's the only option. I take their words as presented, given that it took some time for the church to be firmly planted. Yet, it would seem that all of Christianity today are cessationists - closed cannon, gift of apostleship - so as a practical matter, and a biblical perspective, cessationalism is on fairly firm ground. I'll grant that this is a matter that I haven't spent a great deal of time on, so, yes, I'm kind of hedging here. Still, the thread is about why these intercessions into the natural world do not occur with frequency (assuming that's true) - cessationalism does a nice job of explaining that.

I also agree that my RCC friends will disagree, and that's fine. A wonderful debate I say, because either stance has no impact on core doctrine that we share.

Thanks. This makes your view about as clear as it is reasonable to ask on a discussion board.

You do seem to acknowledge that you have a major problem in the complete lack of evidence of any sign during the first few centuries of the church's existence of anyone remarking on the fact that there simply weren't any more miracles like there used to be. Did nobody notice this very striking change?

I am a bit puzzled by your claim that all Christians today are 'cessationists', since this a 'cessationist' is normally taken to mean 'someone who believes that miracles no longer occur', and large numbers of Christians continue to pray for miracles and expect them. Perhaps by 'Christians' you mean a more limited group than most would understand by that term?

[_Hoops]

I wouldn't like Hoops to miss anything:

I'll try to keep up.

You do seem to acknowledge that you have a major problem in the complete lack of evidence of any sign during the first few centuries of the church's existence of anyone remarking on the fact that there simply weren't any more miracles like there used to be.

No, not really. I would fully expect that miracles (we'll stipulate that we are always talking about the same KIND of miracles for now) would continue until the church is firmly rooted.

Did nobody notice this very striking change?

I know you are aware that Augustine was a cessationist - until later he changed his mind. Luther and Calvin were cessationists I believe. But one would not expect the cessation of miracles until, as I mentioned above, the church is firmly planted and we have a generally uniform canon of scripture - as we believe both of these events are Inspired.

I am a bit puzzled by your claim that all Christians today are 'cessationists', since this a 'cessationist' is normally taken to mean 'someone who believes that miracles no longer occur', and large numbers of Christians continue to pray for miracles and expect them.

Then let me try and be more clear. As a practical matter, Christians today are cessationists. No one expects revelation to produce scripture, no one is claiming the same kind of authority as the apostles, no expect another church to be instituted. Absolutely Christians expect answer to prayer and often pray for miracles of the kind described above.

Perhaps by 'Christians' you mean a more limited group than most would understand by that term?

No, I mean that as expansively as possible.

[_Chap]

I think it would help focus the discussion a little better if you could indicate at roughly what date you believe that miracles did effectively cease.

I am looking for an answer in the form "250 AD plus or minus 50 years" rather than in the form "once the church was firmly established".

(Let's drop the term 'cessationist', since we seem to want to use it in different ways, and it is likely to become a distraction.)

[_Hoops]

I think it would help focus the discussion a little better if you could indicate at roughly what date you believe that miracles did effectively cease.

I am looking for an answer in the form "250 AD plus or minus 50 years" rather than in the form "once the church was firmly established".

(Let's drop the term 'cessationist', since we seem to want to use it in different ways, and it is likely to become a distraction.)

effectively cease? 350

[_Jersey Girl]

Chap

I think it would help focus the discussion a little better if you could indicate at roughly what date you believe that miracles did effectively cease.

What kinds of miracles?

[_Chap]

I think it would help focus the discussion a little better if you could indicate at roughly what date you believe that miracles did effectively cease.

I am looking for an answer in the form "250 AD plus or minus 50 years" rather than in the form "once the church was firmly established".

(Let's drop the term 'cessationist', since we seem to want to use it in different ways, and it is likely to become a distraction.)

effectively cease? 350

Thanks for the clarification. I can't unfortunately continue this discussion at the moment, but may be able to come back later.

[_Jersey Girl]

Hoops,

What kind of miracles?

[_Hoops]

Hoops,

What kind of miracles?

I think we've stipulated that we're talking about where God intervenes in the natural order. Verifiable supernatural miracles.

[_Hoops]

Thanks for the clarification. I can't unfortunately continue this discussion at the moment, but may be able to come back later.

Ok. See ya then.