According to Philip Bence, author of Acts: A Bible Commentary in the Wesleyan Tradition,
God may choose to perform fewer miracles now than in the New Testament era; God may have had special reasons which required greater frequency of miracles at critical points in biblical history. Perhaps the church today is responsible; we might not be asking or believing for miracles as God’s previous servants did. Or maybe the church today overestimates the frequency of first-century miracles, or underestimates the frequency of miracles in our time. There might be truth in all of these answers.
John Stott, author of The Bible Speaks Today: Acts, writes,
If, then, we take Scripture as our guide, we will avoid opposite extremes. We will neither describe miracles as ‘never happening’, nor as ‘everyday occurrences’, neither as ‘impossible’ nor as ‘normal’. Instead, we will be entirely open to the God who works both through nature and through miracle. And when a healing miracle is claimed, we will expect it to resemble those in the Gospels and the Acts and so to be the instantaneous and complete cure of an organic condition, without the use of medical or surgical means, inviting investigation and persuading even unbelievers. For so it was with the congenital cripple. Peter took his miraculous healing as the text of both his sermon to the crowd and his speech to the Council. Word and sign together bore testimony to the uniquely powerful name of Jesus. The healing of the cripple’s body was a vivid dramatization of the apostolic message of salvation.