Why have the Sign Gifts Ended

I'm not your friend.

I'm not your friend.

I'm not your friend.

I personally know the sign of speaking in tongues is alive and well today, a sign to those that don't believe

Mark 16:17KJV
17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;

1 Corinthians 14:22KJV
22 Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe.

You said............
"I disagree. I believe that the rest of Joel's prophecy referred to the end of the age, 70 AD. With regard to 1 Cor. 13:8, as others have mentioned on this thread, we do not yet know as we are known, and we do not yet see clearly rather than in a poor mirror. "

And right there is the reason why your posts and comments are so far from the norm of Biblical understanding.

You are a "Preterist".

I am not calling you anything but many others have correctly said that Preterism makes a liar out of the Author of the Bible; therefore, preterist is a false doctrine at best and has even been labeled a heretical doctrine by many.

Preterist denies the resurrection of the body. Scripture teaches the resurrection of the body and that is the exact reason why so many people are at odds with what you post.

They wouldn't. If it were supposed to be fixed, it would be fixed already; Nothing ever breaks down unless it was supposed to from the very beginning. If it broke down it's YOUR FAULT!

You do realize that this would make Salvation of works and not grace. If one does not have the judicial work that Christ provided imputed to their account, then that one is lost. His/her human faith will not save him/her. Keeping the commandments is a proper way for the believer to lead his/her practical life but these same commandments brought death onto all men and cannot be kept in both thought and deed. .......

Correct Bible exergies says that the "Antecedent" of the word "THEM" in Marl 16:17 is the "ELEVEN" in verse #14. That means linguisticcally your opinion is just that and is not Bible factual theology.

You of course free to accept which ever one of those you think is valid.

The CONTEXT of 1 Corinthians 14:22 is that tongues are NOT TO BE SPOKEN by the church.

In the Scripture you posted, Paul now returns to the gift of “tongues” in the Church, and introduces the teaching regarding this gift suggested by the CONTEXT is that in Israel unintelligible tongues, uttered in their hearing, were for a sign to unbelieving Jews.

The gift of tongues as 1st seen in Acts were not that they were SPOKEN BY THE APOSTLES but the fact that those present WERE JEWS WHO HEARD WHAT THE APOSTLES SAID IN THEIR OWN LANGUAGE.

This is just not as difficult as you guys are making it.

Acts 2:6..........
"And at this sound the multitude came together, and they were bewildered, because each one was hearing them (Apostles of Mark 16, the ELEVEN) speak in his own language. 7 And they were amazed and astonished, saying, “Are not all these who are speaking Galileans? 8 And how is it that we hear, each of us in his own native language? "

And by so doing, cessationists forbid them.


Honestly, I think you're contorting Scripture to justify your position. Peter's quotation was clearly an explanation that what they were witnessing was a fulfillment of the prophecy, for Peter said, "This is what was spoken of through the prophet Joel". Had he been speaking of a yet-future event, he would not have used a near indicative that is an obviously reference to the disciples' speaking in tongues in the hearing of the people.

I disagree with the foretaste view. Jesus said repeatedly that the Kingdom was then present. We as believers have been transferred from the kingdom of darkness to the kingdom of light. We just don't experience the fullness of it in this life.


I disagree. I believe that the rest of Joel's prophecy referred to the end of the age, 70 AD. With regard to 1 Cor. 13:8, as others have mentioned on this thread, we do not yet know as we are known, and we do not yet see clearly rather than in a poor mirror.

I would caution you against using such phrases as "by any logical thought process"; that's a fallacy called poisoning the well, which makes discussion impossible because you have ruled out any consideration of alternatives. I can respect someone who disagrees, but not someone who dismisses.


The edification of the assembly is greater, but that does not make the edification of the individual meaningless. There is no possible way you can rightly interpret Paul's message to mean "Just don't speak in tongues".

Herein is where the difference in our two views truly diverge. You are professing an A-millennial point of view in your Eschatology and I am a Pre-milliennialist. Pre's do not believe that any of the end time prophecies, such as Joel's, were fulfilled nor were even pointed at 70AD.

Salvation is by grace, but if a person commits adultery that means they don't have the grace of God.

James 4:7 - Resist the devil, and he will flee from you.

Salvation is not in our hands, but we must always be willing to do God's will. If we don't care, we will probably lose grace.

When you remove the gifts of the Spirit from the Body of Christ, like you (unsuccessfully) try to do, you end up with a dead formal tradition without a Living Christ, and like the Scribes and Pharisees of old, persecute those who do have a living faith and manifest the gifts of the Spirit to glorify a Living Saviour! Mark 3v28-30

Ascribing the gifts of the Holy Spirit to the Devil, which is the usual thing cessationists like to do (to deal with the reality of them being in the Body of Christ throughout the whole of the age of Grace), you go FAR down the road to committing the unforgivable sin!

Such a lie will have to be answered for before the Throne of Christ at His Second Coming! 2Cor 5v10

I wonder why you put so much effort into attacking tongues. I defended speaking in tongues because that was the gift under attack. If it were prophecy or interpretation of tongues or some other gift, I would defend that, too.

I can see contrasts drawn by Paul in the epistle, but I think you are missing the overall argument. Paul is not against tongues. He wants the Corinthians to interpret tongues so that others can be edified, and to engage in other edifying speech, such as prophesying, but also teaching, etc. I get the impression that Paul probably valued prophesying slightly higher than tongues and interpretation, maybe even teaching also, considering how he ranked certain gifts. You seem to be reading the epistle with a prejudice against tongues and with a preconceived idea that certain gifts are not for today.

Herein is where the difference in our two views truly diverge. You are professing an A-millennial point of view in your Eschatology and I am a Pre-milliennialist. Pre's do not believe that any of the end time prophecies, such as Joel's, were fulfilled nor were even pointed at 70AD.

You sure have demonstrated that you have a hair trigger when it comes to insulting other's spirituality. Have you seen a doctrinal statement? Do you have any reason to think that this fellow scratches itching ears?

There is a nonspiritual aspect to understanding Greek grammar as well. Grammar is not the same thing as doctrine.

Did a Christian invent the wheel? Do you use wheels?

Once Grace, as in the new birth of John 3:1-10, is received and the believer puts his/her trust in Jesus Christ, this saving Grace can never be lost. If that were possible, it would make Christ a liar. For what God begins, He will bring to conclusion.

As a way of explaining this further -- I presume our Eschatological beliefs differ also. Are you an A-millennialist?

A non Christian understanding of Greek is just a non Christian understanding of Greek. The whole of the matter is that many many folks have a corrupted gospel and are not Christian. The Holy Spirit does not abide in a defiled temple. That remains a terrifying reality.

And that's why I don't, and probably never will, hold to any eschatological "position". I have no interest in having my reading of Scripture pigeonholed by the preconceived biases of others.

When do you place the fulfillment of Joel 2?

Doesn't Peter place that for us in Acts 2?

Doesn't Peter place that for us in Acts 2?