Furthermore, it is critical that we make distinctions between the outpouring of the Holy Spirit in the those days and the effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man (James 5:16).   The position that the outpouring was a first century phenomenon neither denies the power of God, nor the power of prayer today.   The position only states that the miraculous measure of the Spirit in those days is not the same thing as asking God to intervene, today.   Today, services are held in which people will pray, laying their hands on the sick for long periods of time, while beseeching God for healing.   At some point, everyone arises from their knees, feeling renewed and encouraged that God has been invoked to give healing.  The fact is that the sick may or may not show immediate signs of healing.  In some cases, they may show some signs of improvement but soon relapse into the same infirmity.   In other cases, remarkable improvement and complete removal of a cancer is experienced.    Either way, what is not seen is a sudden miraculous event that leaves the unbeliever stunned and left in awe of God’s power. But, while the result of healing is seen,  the connection between the human instrumentation (eg. laying on of hands/healer) and the immediate result is missing in today’s claims.  God may give healing, while believers give God thanks and praise.  Herein, lies the difference between a miracle and providence.   Both are interventions in the chain of cause and effect, but miracles are instantaneous in its effect and cause so that the connection is immediately observable and qualifies as a “sign”.  In addition, providence is easier to recognize in hindsight than at the moment, but always we should be humble in our supposed identification, for we may be mistaken.