[Cal]

That was the proof of his apostleship but not to be taken as a rule for all time and all apostles.

Paul said that miracles were the sign of a true apostle, not just of his apostleship.

There were more apostles than Paul (at least 20 of them) and no documentation that they all worked miracles - the bible is silent.

The Bible also doesn't document every believer receiving Jesus. But it says if you are a believer you have received Jesus. Therefore we can know all true believers have received Jesus.

The Bible DOES say the sign of a true Apostle is the ability to work miracles. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to assume all true Apostles can work miracles. Why else would Paul say they were the sign of a "true apostle?"

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.

If they could not work miracles., Luther and Calvin weren't Apostles either.

Further, Luther and Calvin did not have to be Apostles for the Reformation to be God's doing.

Your whole line of argumentation about the Reformation doesn't work.

Face it, 2 Cor 12:12 was not on your radar screen. You have no way to argue around it effectively. Without another verse that negates it, you have no case.