WingsOfFidelity quoted John MacArthur,
Tongues "Will Cease"The gift of tongues was a divinely bestowed supernatural ability to speak in a human language that had not been learned by the one speaking. According to the Apostle Paul, when believers exercised the gift of tongues in church, they were to speak one at a time, and only two or three were to speak in a given service (1 Cor. 14:27). Furthermore, when tongues were spoken in the church, they were to be interpreted by someone with the gift of interpretation so that the others might be edified by the God-given message (1 Cor. 14:5, 13, 27). In this way, tongues did not serve as a private prayer language, but rather—like all spiritual gifts—as a means by which one might serve and edify the body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:7; 1 Pet. 4:10).
This is a much more coherent and respectful-of-scripture interpretation than one of the sermons still on his site, attributed to him, in which he considers the tongues of the Corinthians to be pagan tongues in I Corinthians 14, and to be related to the speech of the oracle of Delphi. That interpretation was actually along the lines of an old 19th century liberal interpretation, if not downright blasphemous. It was still on his site the last I checked. He is not someone to go to for exegesis on spiritual gifts passages.
I Corinthians says whether there be tongues, they will cease. It doesn't say 'the gift of tongues' will cease. That is JM's interpertation.
Historically, there are references to various spiritual gifts mentioned in I Corinthians. Irenenaeus mentions them around 200 AD, including speaking in tongues. He thought it was important that a church be able to raise the dead, something he had experienced. This is one of the historical champions of orthodoxy. Historically, the early church was not cessationist. This is post-Reformation doctrine, not a doctrine found in scripture or in early church writings.
Evidence from Scripture
What biblical or theological evidence is there that tongues have ceased? First, the gift of tongues was a miraculous, revelatory gift, and the age of miracles and revelation ended with the apostles. The last recorded miracles in the New Testament occurred around A.D. 58, with the healings on the island of Malta (Acts 28:7-10). From A.D. 58 to 96, when John finished the book of Revelation, no miracle is recorded. .
That's a lame argument. John predicts future miracles, the two witnesses would prophesy and shut up the heavens. There has to be a last miracle mentioned in the Bible.
I Corinthians 12 says the Spirit gifts members of the body of Christ with spiritual gifts. The Bible never cancels that teaching. The Bible commands, 'earnestly desire spiritual gifts,' 'covet to prophesy', and 'despise not prophesyings.' The church should obey these commands.
Miracle gifts like tongues and healing are mentioned only in 1 Corinthians, an early epistle. Two later epistles, Ephesians and Romans, both discuss gifts of the Spirit at length—but no mention is made of the miraculous gifts. By that time miracles were already looked on as something in the past (Heb. 2:3-4)..
John 3:16 is not quoted in the book of Revelation. Does that mean it is no longer true? How many times does the Bible have to teach something before we believe it?
Apostolic authority and the apostolic message needed no further confirmation. .
Man-made doctrine. Where does the Bible say that miracles were about confirming apostolic authority? Non-apostles did miracles, too. Philip, Stephen. I Corinthians 12 lists 'apostles' and 'miracles' as different ministries, so there were some non-apostle miracle workers.
Before the first century ended, the entire New Testament had been written and was circulating through the churches..
Yet second century writings refer to the gift of prophecy being active in the church, and there are references to miracles throughout history.
The revelatory gifts had ceased to serve any purpose. And when the apostolic age ended with the death of the Apostle John, the signs that identified the apostles had already become moot
Man-made doctrine, and not part of the 'faith once delivered to the saints' that we are taught to contend for.
Second, tongues were intended as a sign to unbelieving Israel (1 Cor. 14:21-22; cf. Is. 28:11-12). They signified that God had begun a new work that encompassed the Gentiles. The Lord would now speak to all nations in all languages. The barriers were down. And so the gift of languages symbolized not only the curse of God on a disobedient nation, but also the blessing of God on the whole world.
Is this replacement theology from a dispensationalist? He has a hodge-podge theology when it comes to spiritual gifts, drawing from liberals and replacement theolgians. It's like anything to argue against spiritual gifts.
Paul quotes the verse and applies it to the unbeliever who comes into church. He doesn't specify
the man has to be a Jew.
Third, the gift of tongues was inferior to other gifts. It was given primarily as a sign (1 Cor. 14:22) and was also easily misused to edify self (1 Cor. 14:4). The church meets for the edification of the body, not self-gratification or personal experience-seeking. Therefore, tongues had limited usefulness in the church, and so it was never intended to be a permanent gift.
.
Faulty reasoning. None of these arguments back up his conclusion that tongues wasn't supposed to be a permanent gift. Paul doesn't say it was given 'primarily' as a sign either. Tongues is a sign to them that believe not. To them that believe, it is one of the gifts that edify. It edifies the church if interpreted.
The Evidence from History
The evidence of history also indicates that tongues have ceased. It is significant that tongues are mentioned only in the earliest books of the New Testament. Paul wrote at least twelve epistles after 1 Corinthians and never mentioned tongues again. Peter never mentioned tongues; James never mentioned tongues; John never mentioned tongues; neither did Jude.
Peter, James, and Jude never quoted John 3:16. Does that mean it isn't true. How many times does the Bible have to teach something before we believe it? Two books mention speaking in tongues clearly. Why do all the other books have to mention it for it to be true? Certain books do not mention elders, church discipline, or marriage. Does that mean we reject what the Bible does teach on the subjects?