Quote:
Originally Posted by Igzy
No, because Paul himself said in 2 Cor 12:12 that the proof of an Apostle was to be able to work miracles.
But he said that not all believers speak in tongues (1 Cor 12:30).
The Church is not obligated to view a person as an apostle unless he can work miracles. That is the clear meaning of 2 Cor 12:12.
As for Hinn, there is a difference between the things he does and the things Paul was able to do. It's the difference between bending spoons and bringing someone back to life.
|
That was the proof of
his apostleship but not to be taken as a rule for all time and all apostles.
There were more apostles than Paul (at least 20 of them) and no documentation that they all worked miracles - the bible is silent.
Also consider that the reformers Luther and Calvin did not work miracles and in fact may have faked them on occasion (Calvin).
This is generally why protestants do not ask for miracles for proof - if Luther or Calvin worked miracles it would certainly make it easier to prove the Reformation was God's doing. Miracles and signs were always the doings of the Catholics rather than the protestants.
Realise that the tactics you are using to say that Lee was not an apostle is the same that Catholics use against the Reformation.