One view says miracles were performed to give credibility to the good news of Christ; and to testify that His apostles had His authority.
Increasingly however, many have started teaching that miracles are integral to the gospel itself. In other words, if there are no miracles there is no gospel. Those who deny miracles are teaching a false gospel.
For example, Charles Fox Parham, in A Voice Crying in the Wilderness, writes: "The healing of the sick is as much part of the gospel as telling them of Heaven."—pg. 46
And: " You, dear friends, who are neglecting to teach, preach, and give of your substance to the spread of this gospel—attended with signs, wonders, mighty deeds, divers miracles and the gifts of the Holy Ghost—are in danger of standing in utter condemnation before the judgment bar of God."—Ibid.
Another example is from The Essential Guide to Healing by Bill Johnson and Randy Clark. Clark writes: "For cessationists, the gifts of healing and the working of miracles no longer exist in the sense of someone having these gifts. Their argument is based on their belief that healings and miracles were given to prove correct doctrine and to vindicate the apostles’ ministry as writers of Scripture. If healings and miracles could still happen, then the canon of Scripture would not be closed and new doctrines could be given. This is the basis of cessationism.
The problem with this position is that miracles were not meant primarily as evidence of correct doctrine. Instead they were part of the Gospel, the good news that the Kingdom of God was at hand, that in Jesus’ ministry the Kingdom had been inaugurated and would continue until it was consummated in His Second Coming."—pg. 99
So how 'bout it: Are miraculous signs as much a necessary part of the gospel itself as Jesus dying for our sins and rising from the dead? If we don't preach the continuation of miracles are we preaching a false gospel?
Increasingly however, many have started teaching that miracles are integral to the gospel itself. In other words, if there are no miracles there is no gospel. Those who deny miracles are teaching a false gospel.
For example, Charles Fox Parham, in A Voice Crying in the Wilderness, writes: "The healing of the sick is as much part of the gospel as telling them of Heaven."—pg. 46
And: " You, dear friends, who are neglecting to teach, preach, and give of your substance to the spread of this gospel—attended with signs, wonders, mighty deeds, divers miracles and the gifts of the Holy Ghost—are in danger of standing in utter condemnation before the judgment bar of God."—Ibid.
Another example is from The Essential Guide to Healing by Bill Johnson and Randy Clark. Clark writes: "For cessationists, the gifts of healing and the working of miracles no longer exist in the sense of someone having these gifts. Their argument is based on their belief that healings and miracles were given to prove correct doctrine and to vindicate the apostles’ ministry as writers of Scripture. If healings and miracles could still happen, then the canon of Scripture would not be closed and new doctrines could be given. This is the basis of cessationism.
The problem with this position is that miracles were not meant primarily as evidence of correct doctrine. Instead they were part of the Gospel, the good news that the Kingdom of God was at hand, that in Jesus’ ministry the Kingdom had been inaugurated and would continue until it was consummated in His Second Coming."—pg. 99
So how 'bout it: Are miraculous signs as much a necessary part of the gospel itself as Jesus dying for our sins and rising from the dead? If we don't preach the continuation of miracles are we preaching a false gospel?