Must all dispensationalists believe in cessation of miracles?

[Tim416]

Some it seems only get their opinions, or most of their opinions through reading books, such as 'Destined to Reign' for example. Something not right there

 

[Tim416]

I should explain. When you are young in the faith, it is natural reading books can help you understand the bible, the scriptural message. But it appears, some read books, such as destined to reign and all of a sudden believe they have more, or superior understanding than most others of the bible. They insist Pauls letters take precedent, but they are only interested in a select amount of what Paul wrote. They centre on one thing. The Christian is not under the condemnation of the law. That's ok for new Christians I guess, but if you want to mature you have to remember that, but move on to greater understanding. If you only want to preach a cosy message that lets you off the hook for all your imperfections you are not truly preaching Pauls or anyone elses message in the NT, for they preached far more than that, including warnings for wrong behaviour.
And, some in their youthful exuberance in the faith then scream 'legalism' everytime law or works is mentioned. But they still believe they know more than everyone else. It is far from mature Christianity, which explains why, they keep liking to tell you they know more than most others

 

[TheLearner]

Seems there are quite a number here who believe in "rightfully dividing the word of truth". I am a "mid-dispensationalist", meaning that I believed the dispensation of grace began only with the salvation of the Apostle Paul in mid Acts, the mystery program, the church where Jews and Gentiles are equal, began only then at Acts chapter 9.

One thing I am still trying to decide is whether miracle signs of healing have indeed ceased at this age of the church. It appears that many dispensationalists, such as C R Stam, Les Feldick, and the owner of the blog doctrine.org, all share the view that there is no more miracles of healing for today.

Is that necessarily the case? I am in a church where apparently, there are people who testify about miracles of healing. We were also taught that, in Paul's epistles, the word save, saved, or salvation, comes from the greek word "Sozo", which also includes health.

So my question is, can you be a dispensationalist and yet still believe that miracles of healing are for us today? What do the rest think?

Google pentecostal dispensationalism there are some.

 

[Absolutely]

Not only do many churches today show a distinct lack of the more miraculous gifts of the spirit but, many of those that do, have vastly exaggerated these gifts. As has been shown there is little or no question that while healings and prophecy do happen today, there are no bona fide "faith healers", nor miracle workers. God no longer grants any individuals the ability to perform miracles at will, and no one fills the office of a prophet. The modern world has seen not miracles that even remotely resemble the miracles of the Old Testament, nor the 'sign gifts' of the first century.
But, sadly, neither side seems to come to the table untainted by preconceived ideas and denominational bias..
Much of the charismatic movement is anti-intellectual, with people literally being told not to think or study, but to simply feel and experience. They believe that God supernaturally guides them through their lives and that the only part of His Word that they actually need is the occasional verse with scant regard paid to whether the verse is in context or no Using any level of discernment, or even comparing what is being said and taught with the Scriptures is seen as 'quenching the Holy Spirit' and 'putting God in a box'. They have completely forgotten that the gifts of the Spirit are to build up and encourage the church, not to provide any one person with ecstatic experiences, benefit them financially, or prove they are more spiritual than any one else.
On the other hand, let us not attempt to replace the fluff that all too commonly emanates from modern pulpits with doctrine that, equally, finds no place in the Scriptures..
Although it is true that charismatics often give a higher priority to experience over knowledge, orthodox Christians have all too often done exactly the opposite in giving a higher priority to knowledge over relationship. One is reminded of Jesus' words to the scribes and Pharisees, when He told them that they enter not into the kingdom of Heaven themselves and neither allow anyone else to enter. [Matthew 23:13]. Like the Sadducees of old, they know not the Scriptures, nor the power of God (Matthew 22:29).
A God who works only through the structures set in place by the early church and no longer directly intervenes in our affairs, is a far cry from the Biblical image of a living God, who not only upholds the world day by day through his sovereign power, but who also listens to the prayers of his people, and works all things for the good of those who love him (Romans 8:28). With the establishment of the early church, God the Father and God the Son did not go into temporary retirement, waiting for the time for the Son to come back to earth.
It is a secularized version of Christianity which merely give lip-service to God's providence. As said by Daniel B. Wallace
Exegesis and apologetics are not the sum of the Christian life. Evidence alone cannot bridge the gap between us and God. [11]
The truth lies in between the two camps. There is a middle ground between
"expecting daily revelations on the one hand, and basing decisions solely on logic and common sense on the other". [11]
We are not 'thinking machines' but people created with emotions and feelings who cannot always (or even very often) separate our heads from our hearts. The facts alone can not satisfy the longings of the human psyche, and it sometimes takes more than the
written word to handle a crisis or despair. On the other hand, emotions alone can be very deceptive and can not be allowed to control what we believe.
Emotion is neither to be avoided nor feared provided it is coupled with a good dose of head knowledge.
If we wish to continue safely on the narrow path and use to the fullest whatever gifts God chooses to give us, we have to compare what is being taught and practiced in many many churches to day (on both sides of the debate) with the evidence of the Scriptures...
But, that is what is so tragically missing. inplainsite.org

Ironically your view is skewed and is based on condemnation before investigation.

 

[Absolutely]

I disagree with this, God uses the Word of God mainly, sometimes he use trials like persecution, but he will never use illnesses to teach us. But I certainly know of many Christians who have a similar view as yours.

Simple reason for my belief is that in Deut 28, even under the law, sickness was never seen as a blessing, and always a curse. What's more under grace.

Its the devil that came to kill steal and destroy. 1 John 3:8 says He that commits sin is of the devil; for the devil sins from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.

For once we agree.

 

[AvidReader1]

When you consider miracles, there are many factors to be looked at. For example, does God do the kind of miracles today which are reported in the Scriptures? Does he do "private" miracles, where one prays for the healing of a sick person, etc.? If we have not personally observed miracles, does that mean He is not doing them?

I am a Baptist and many of my Baptist friends believe miracles ceased with the giving of the book of Revelation. There is good Biblical support for that position. Yet, many (myself included) have observed what we believe have to be miracles, which seems to put us at odds with much Biblical text. For most of my many years of being a Christian, I have held to the "God stopped doing miracles with Revelation" group. Here's the question: what if our interpretation of Scripture is simply adherence to the old norms - because we've been taught them and they seem so reliable?

While we never want to abandon well-based systems of Biblical hermeneutics, it is always good to challenge the limits of our thinking. A solid Christian is one who considers his sources of information carefully, while at the same time realizing that his world-view and his view of God may be minimal simply because he has limited his own thinking to what has been comfortable. There is a good resource at thru-the-bible.com, which approaches the Scriptures very thoroughly. While not on the subject of healing, it does present a Christian world view which will challenge a person to think beyond his present experience, while at the same time definitely upholding the complete authority of the Scriptures.

All through Scripture, God has continually revealed Himself, giving us more complete parts of the picture we call God. It took many thousands of years for God to paint that picture. How correctly have we gotten it?

I watched an older lady (mid 60's) contract serious cancer in 4 or 5 bodily locations and, after much prayer by several very close Christian friends, all of the tests suddenly were showing no signs of cancer at all. At all! She wasn't given any medication nor received any treatments, but it was all gone. Can that be anything but God?

At nearly the same time (just a few months later) a man in the same Sunday School class retired and within 2 months was found to have a very serious brain tumor. Those same people have been praying in the very same way for this man as they had for the lady, but no signs of improvement are present, and actually it looks like his time left is very short.

Now, the point is this. How well do we really understand God and His ways? How well do we really know Him? We often think we have it nailed down because we have all of our standard theological arguments in line. It's not about being smart. It's about character development.

Just saying!

 

[Guojing]

Now, the point is this. How well do we really understand God and His ways? How well do we really know Him? We often think we have it nailed down because we have all of our standard theological arguments in line. It's not about being smart. It's about character development.

Just saying!

Well said, I have seen a few healing testimonies and I have to agree that miracles are still happening today.

 

[Absolutely]

Well said, I have seen a few healing testimonies and I have to agree that miracles are still happening today.

I have noticed most "pauline only" adherants ,in my little travels, are cessationists.
I personally dismissed it as a causation due to their diminishing of Jesus earthly ministry. ( where we find the bulk of healing verses.)

Do you also find that most are cessationists?

 

[Guojing]

Do you also find that most are cessationists?

I don't know many of them. As far as my church is concerned, we believe in dispensations but we have frequent healing sessions and testimonies, so no, they are not.

 

[Absolutely]

I don't know many of them. As far as my church is concerned, we believe in dispensations but we have frequent healing sessions and testimonies, so no, they are not.

Maybe it is 50/50 or so here on the forum.
I can see where dimenishing The gospels would make them anti Holy Spirit.

 

[presidente]

Saul led the Jews to stone Stephen, who was full of the Holy Spirit, for preaching Jesus. So you could say that Saul committed the blasphemy of the HS.

But you would be wrong if you said that. Stephen was full of the Holy Ghost. He wasn't the Holy Ghost. Unless they were speaking against the Spirit by which he was doing what he did, they weren't blaspheming the Holy Spirit. Who says he led them? He was a young man, and he held their garments.

 

[Guojing]

But you would be wrong if you said that. Stephen was full of the Holy Ghost. He wasn't the Holy Ghost. Unless they were speaking against the Spirit by which he was doing what he did, they weren't blaspheming the Holy Spirit. Who says he led them? He was a young man, and he held their garments.

There are different ways to interpret the stoning of Stephen, but do you agree that it was a significant event that led to the age of Grace for the Gentiles?

I see it simply as this,

-Jews rejected God the Father in the OT
-Jews rejected God the Son in the 4 Gospels
-Jews rejected God the Holy Spirit with the stoning of Stephen.

The entire Trinity is now rejected by the Jews, this usher in the dispensation of Grace that all of us Gentiles can now rejoice in, for we are now included in the covenant. (Romans 9-11, Ephesians 2-3.)

 

[garee]

Seems there are quite a number here who believe in "rightfully dividing the word of truth". I am a "mid-dispensationalist", meaning that I believed the dispensation of grace began only with the salvation of the Apostle Paul in mid Acts, the mystery program, the church where Jews and Gentiles are equal, began only then at Acts chapter 9.

One thing I am still trying to decide is whether miracle signs of healing have indeed ceased at this age of the church. It appears that many dispensationalists, such as C R Stam, Les Feldick, and the owner of the blog doctrine.org, all share the view that there is no more miracles of healing for today.

Is that necessarily the case? I am in a church where apparently, there are people who testify about miracles of healing. We were also taught that, in Paul's epistles, the word save, saved, or salvation, comes from the greek word "Sozo", which also includes health.

So my question is, can you be a dispensationalist and yet still believe that miracles of healing are for us today? What do the rest think?

Grace began when God gave Abel his faith which comes by hearing him not seen to believe our invisible God . He looked at Abel with favor but did not have mercy of Cain . The mystery was defined more adequately at Pentecost to show the world it not a Jewish religion or after the flesh of any nation.

Miracles happen every day . When men hear the gospel and believe they arisee from the dead to new life having a new spirit that will be raised on the last day .. The unseen sign points to a person has been healed of a eternal debt .We walk by faith hearing the word of God and believing the unseen... not by sight after the temporal.

John 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

 

[Absolutely]

Seems there are quite a number here who believe in "rightfully dividing the word of truth". I am a "mid-dispensationalist", meaning that I believed the dispensation of grace began only with the salvation of the Apostle Paul in mid Acts, the mystery program, the church where Jews and Gentiles are equal, began only then at Acts chapter 9.

One thing I am still trying to decide is whether miracle signs of healing have indeed ceased at this age of the church. It appears that many dispensationalists, such as C R Stam, Les Feldick, and the owner of the blog doctrine.org, all share the view that there is no more miracles of healing for today.

Is that necessarily the case? I am in a church where apparently, there are people who testify about miracles of healing. We were also taught that, in Paul's epistles, the word save, saved, or salvation, comes from the greek word "Sozo", which also includes health.

So my question is, can you be a dispensationalist and yet still believe that miracles of healing are for us today? What do the rest think?

Since many are operating in the gifts and we see many miracles it seems to me to be silly that someone would take a cessationist position.
Especially since no ceasing is in the bible.
The book of acts has a miracle on most every page.

 

[Lanolin]

God Healed me...saved me, delivered me and set me free. He did through prayer and laying on of hands. Hed given the gift to one of his servants and it was through this man that the power of God flowed for healing and miracles.
I dont know what dispensarionalism means...seems like another of those vain philosphy...the man-made isms that people get caught up in.

I remember visiting a few churches that were very anti-gifts, one preacher told me never to speak about tongues to his daughters I think he came from a very pentecostal church background but left it and became what you call a fundamental(ist) and they homeschooled all their children and lived on a farm...and they were very strict but they seeemd to have faith like those old amish people do. Another was KJV only to the point that only english speaking people were allowed in their church and they had the british flag on their altar
If you were actually healed miraculously you werent allowed to attirbute it to Jesus you had to have gone to the doctor first, I know people like that who are so skeptical and says God heals through the medicine well actually I had been taking medicine for over 15 years and was never healed by any of it nor any doctors God actually got me OFF the medicine.

 

[Guojing]

God Healed me...saved me, delivered me and set me free. He did through prayer and laying on of hands. Hed given the gift to one of his servants and it was through this man that the power of God flowed for healing and miracles.
I dont know what dispensarionalism means...seems like another of those vain philosphy...the man-made isms that people get caught up in.

Amen, thanks for sharing your testimony.

 

[presidente]

There are different ways to interpret the stoning of Stephen, but do you agree that it was a significant event that led to the age of Grace for the Gentiles?

I see it simply as this,

-Jews rejected God the Father in the OT
-Jews rejected God the Son in the 4 Gospels
-Jews rejected God the Holy Spirit with the stoning of Stephen.

The entire Trinity is now rejected by the Jews, this usher in the dispensation of Grace that all of us Gentiles can now rejoice in, for we are now included in the covenant. (Romans 9-11, Ephesians 2-3.)

I do not see where the scriptures teach that the stoning of Stephen was a crisis moment in Israel, in part, rejecting the Gospel and getting to the state described in Romans 11. It may have been, but I do not see where the Bible makes this point.

 

[Diakonos]

There are different ways to interpret the stoning of Stephen, but do you agree that it was a significant event that led to the age of Grace for the Gentiles?

I see it simply as this,

-Jews rejected God the Father in the OT
-Jews rejected God the Son in the 4 Gospels
-Jews rejected God the Holy Spirit with the stoning of Stephen.

The entire Trinity is now rejected by the Jews, this usher in the dispensation of Grace that all of us Gentiles can now rejoice in, for we are now included in the covenant. (Romans 9-11, Ephesians 2-3.)

I am open to this, but I would prefer more Biblical support before teach it from the pulpit

 

[Hevosmies]

I have noticed most "pauline only" adherants ,in my little travels, are cessationists.
I personally dismissed it as a causation due to their diminishing of Jesus earthly ministry. ( where we find the bulk of healing verses.)

Do you also find that most are cessationists?

Hi

Im not one of these Paul's epistles only people, but I know plenty, and in fact I consider some of the best precher i've ever heard dispensationalists, yet I disagree!


I would classify it like this: You got the KJV-Only dispensationalists and the ishellreal.com dispies and hyper-dispies <- This group is USUALLY cessationists.
Then you got the charismatic/pentecostal/non-denominational kind of dispensationalists <- these groups are USUALLY continuationists.

I would also like to add that, many pentecostal dispies that I know would never dismiss something from James or hebrews or the gospels as "to the jews" only.

I might as well just quickly refute this "Paul's epistles only" idea: Here we got Paul talking to GENTILES and telling them to consent to the words of our Lord(That would be Jesus):

1Tim 6:3 If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness;

 

[Angela53510]

Google pentecostal dispensationalism there are some.

Every Pentecostal Assemblies Church I went to in Canada was dispensationalist. It's right in their statement of belief for the whole denomination. And anyone who is not dispensationalist is clearly labeled a "heretic!"

No wonder I left the whole pentecostal/charismatic movement! Bad theology from start to finish!