The claim that miracles are the “signs of an apostle” would backfire against Paul. Many believers other than the apostles worked miracles. Some of the most spectacular visions and miracles recorded in the Bible happened to other disciples such as Stephen (Acts 6:15, 7:55-56) and Philip (Acts 8:39-40). In fact, from the first moment about 90% of those who received the miracle power of the Holy Spirit were not apostles (Acts 1:8, 15, 2:4). This percentage increased to possibly about 99.6% within a matter of hours (Acts 2:16-18, 38, 41). Since the number of the original apostles remained the same, and the number of believers who received the Spirit continued to increase, this percentage also continued to increase, so that within a very short time, practically 100% of those who could work miracles were not apostles (1 Corinthians 12:7-10).

The claim is then made that even if miracles were performed by others, they were done by those who were associated with the apostles and approved by the apostles. This is rubbish. As we noted above, right at the beginning about 90% of those who obtained supernatural power received it directly from Jesus at the same moment with the apostles and on equal footing with the apostles. God made no distinction between them. And again, since the number of the original apostles remained the same, but the number of believers who received the Spirit continued to increase, after a short time practically 0% of those who could work miracles had direct contact with the apostles. Only several of them could have received individual attention or approval from the apostles, but Paul said that in every service, every one of the believers could have operated in the supernatural powers of the Spirit for the benefit of all.

Moreover, the apostles never possessed exclusive authority to judge every prophecy or miracle. Paul acknowledged that the believers in the local assembly could judge the spiritual manifestations. He did not limit the right to judge even to the church leaders, but he acknowledged the legitimacy of those familiar with the manifestations. Thus the ones who offered prophecies in the local assembly could judge others who offered prophecies (1 Corinthians 14:29). Therefore, virtually 0% of all spiritual manifestations among Christians were monitored or judged by the apostles, but by the local leaders and the believers themselves. Any person who received Christ and who also received the Spirit could immediately join the Christians in healing and prophetic ministries without ever meeting an apostle or even knowing there was such a thing as an apostle.

The principle of apostolic association and approval is a theological scam. This line of thinking has been applied to the doctrine of the divine inspiration of Scripture. The historic orthodox formulation for the doctrine of Scripture places authorship on the apostles and the prophets, and since this immediately fails due to the fact that significant portions were not written by them, it also accepts those who are assumed to be their associates. This in fact destroys the doctrine of Scripture. The apostles and prophets never said that their associates could write Scripture. And they had many associates. Could all of them have added to Scripture? If only those who were specifically approved could do it, where are the records showing which ones were approved? Thus the orthodox theory that places divine inspiration upon the apostles and prophets – upon men – paints itself into a corner, with the result that the inspiration of Scripture itself appears to self-destruct. This is a testimony to the spiritual and intellectual incompetence of the theologians throughout history, who had reviewed this theory of divine inspiration over and over again, for century after century. Divine inspiration must be placed on God, and God alone (2 Timothy 3:16).

The standard claim of historic orthodoxy and evangelical theology about miracles would backfire against Paul. It would totally undermine his apostleship. Once it is said that miracles were signs of an apostle, but that others could perform miracles if they were associates of apostles, then 2 Corinthians 12:12 would become an absurdly fallacious assertion of apostleship from Paul, because it would mean that Paul himself could be nothing more than an associate of an apostle. In fact, it seems that he sometimes had to refute precisely this accusation, and when he did, he did not focus on his miracles as if they were signs of an apostle, but he related the history of his calling, he appealed to God as his witness (Galatians 1:11-2:10), and as he does in this letter to the Corinthians, he referred to the manner and the fruit of his ministry (Matthew 7:15-23; Galatians 2:7-8; 2 Corinthians 1:12-14, 3:1-3, 4:1-2, 5:11-20, 6:3-13, 7:2-7, 10:1-12:10). The traditional claim about the signs of an apostle is a linchpin of cessationism, but the first victim is Paul himself.

As for 2 Corinthians 12:12, it says that the signs of an apostle were worked with patience and with miracles. Along with the signs of an apostle, he had patience. Along with the signs of an apostle, he had miracles. He never said that the miracles themselves proved that he was an apostle, or that only apostles could perform miracles. And he did not say that only apostles could have patience. He wrote to the same group of believers and said that every person could operate in the powers of the Spirit in every service. He was responding to those who claimed to be “super apostles,” but were not apostles at all. They claimed to have received visions and revelations. Paul did not deny this directly, but he said that it compelled him to boast like a fool and declared that he was not inferior to them in supernatural experiences. If miracles were signs of an apostle, then Paul should have said that these experiences never happened to the false apostles; otherwise, all of them could have been apostles. And if miracles were signs of an apostle, he would not have said that he talked like a fool when he claimed that he had these experiences as well.

If supernatural experiences were the signs of an apostle, why would he say that it was futile to draw much attention to them even as he was defending his claim to be an apostle? He said it was foolishness. If it was the most relevant thing to apostleship, why did Paul say “there is nothing to be gained” by talking about it (2 Corinthians 12:1)? Paul acknowledged that false prophets could perform signs and wonders, but he said that even Satan can appear as an angel of light. How meaningful would miracles be as signs of an apostle in light of this? Of course an apostle can perform miracles, but any believer can perform miracles. An apostle should mention his miracles, for without them he could be less than an ordinary believer. He needs to say more, such as to include an account of his calling, his suffering for the gospel, the integrity of his conduct, and the fruit of his ministry. Paul argued for his apostleship by demonstrating that he was the most hard-core for the gospel (2 Corinthians 11:7-11, 23-33).

The religious charlatans who assert that miracles are signs of an apostle wish to take miracles away from God’s faithful people. However, the effect is that they have taken away Paul’s declaration of his own apostleship, and made him appear to have offered a ludicrous and self-defeating argument. This is their historic orthodoxy. This is their official consensus. This is the disgraceful level of theological competence in your heroes of the faith, who drafted your creeds and established your churches. Don’t avoid the issue. Think about what this means. Grow up. Stop boasting about religious traditions and theological pedigrees. Stop defending nonsense and fighting over rubbish. They have made hundreds of such errors, obvious errors that permeate every aspect of doctrine and conduct, and they have not detected them after centuries of studies and debates. And this is the standard by which they judge all things and by which they persecute those who disagree. They cannot notice even such a glaring blunder in their thinking, and they dare call other people heretics? They are the worst heretics. Then their followers think they can judge someone who has come to fix their mess. And this is why Christian scholarship is one big clown show.

*Adapted from Vincent Cheung, “A Thorn in the Flesh”