Hi,
Again I have a non answer.

The point I was making was that the two scriptures I quoted, 1 Cor 1:7 & 1 Cor 13:8-13, were not limited in their reference to a limited list of gifts. What they appear to say is that all of the gifts are available till the Second Coming. I only used pretty standard rules for interpreting scripture to arrive at this conclusion. Like I read what it said and did a little bit of simple analysis using rules of English grammar.
In the context of the letter of 1 Cor they must mean that the gifts listed in 1 Cor 12 will not pass away until the Second Coming, i.e. gifts like healing, tongues, interpretation, discernment of spirits, miracles, word of knowledge and word of wisdom - and also the offices mentioned later in 1 Cor 12 - apostle, prophet etc. These are, after all, the gifts Paul is talking about in the context of 1 Cor 12-14 where ch 13: 8-13 appears.

I always thought it was of imperative importance that we interpret things in the context that they are found. I have explained how 1 Cor 1:7 fits into the context of 1 Cor 12-14 already. I shouldn't have to justify that 1 Cor 13:8-13 actually exists in the context of 1 Cor 12-14 which is primarily talking about "manifestation gifts" - to use your terminology even though I disagree with it.

I made the point that I do not agree with the distinction between "sign gifts and "other " gifts.
Nor do I agree with the distinction between offices and manifestations.
Partly because, if the "offices" still continue then we should look at the list of "offices" in 1 Cor 12:28ff.
1COR 12:28 And in the church God has appointed first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, also those having gifts of healing, those able to help others, those with gifts of administration, and those speaking in different kinds of tongues.
1COR 12:29 Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles?
1COR 12:30 Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues? Do all interpret?

i.e. If the offices remain then we have Apostles, prophets, workers of miracles, healers, speakers in tongues.

When does Paul stop talking about an "office" here" Or does he? Is it after "teachers"? Or does the fact he talks about "healers" in the same mood indicate they are an "office". Who has the right to make the call here as to when he stops naming "offices" and starts naming "manifestations"?
Paul here does not seem to make this convenient distinction between "office" gifts and "manifestation" gifts. Where you get the distinction from I'm not sure - but it is not in scripture so I have to assume you have invented it for yourself. Maybe someone else invented it for you and you have uncritically adopted its usage, but my point remains - it is not a scriptural distinction.

This respondent says: "the manifestation gifts (signs authenticating the Apostles' message) discontinued when the Apostles died."

A very confident assertion indeed - but where is the scriptural proof for that? The point I was making is that this claim, and the similar one by Edgar, actually lacks scriptural warrant, so they are a matter of opinion. 1 Cor 1:7 and 1 Cor 13:8-13 would seem to contradict that claim totally.
After all 1 Cor 1 :7 does not read:
"so that you are not lacking in any spiritual gift until the apostles die".
In my Bible it reads somewhat differently.

You also make the comment:
"the manifestation gifts (signs authenticating the Apostles' message)...."
Where does the Bible say these gifts were for this purpose?

I know all about Romans 15:18-19
ROM 15:18 I will not venture to speak of anything except what Christ has accomplished through me in leading the Gentiles to obey God by what I have said and done-
ROM 15:19 by the power of signs and miracles, through the power of the Spirit. So from Jerusalem all the way around to Illyricum, I have fully proclaimed the gospel of Christ.

But Paul does not say here, nor any Bible writer anywhere else, that this power demonstration was to be limited to the apostles ministry. In fact reading 1 Cor 12, where Paul himself says that different members of the body will be able to do these things, suggests that in no way did he see it as being limited to the super heroes.

In other words it is an assumption that the sign/manifestation gifts were for the validation of the apostles ministry - and for that alone.
I do not dispute that they were for the validation of the message being preached - where by apostles or by evangelists (e.g. Acts 6:8, Stephen) or any other ministry. What I dispute is the claim that:
(a) these gifts were for validation of the apostles ONLY (Stephen proves that wrong).
(B) they were ONLY for validation of the apostle's ministry (The fact that they are listed in 1 Cor 12, a list of gifts for ordinary church members proves this wrong.)
(c) That they were to pass away with the death of the apostles (1 Cor 1:7 & 13:8-13 prove this wrong).

There seems to me to be a case here of "blinkered seeing". Having discovered (rightly)that God validated the apostle's ministry by sign gifts then the assumption has been made (wrongly) that this was the ONLY reason for these gifts.

Could it not be that these gifts had other purposes in the mind of God, e.g. healing - people still get sick. Maybe God just has compassion on our suffering in this world and so has given a gift to the church to help alleviate that suffering. In other words these gifts could be based on some perceived need we have - perceived by God, not us.

Further you say:
"Since you have narrowed the term "gifts" down to sign gifts while curiously omitting the gifts listed in Romans 12:3-8 and Ephesians 4:10-12, then question is only "vain speculation.""

Let's be fair - I never limited the discussion down to "sign gifts" and, in the original context, the quote you have made does not mean that. The limitation of the discussion of which gifts passed away with the death of the apostles was not defined by me but by the Cessationists. My point is, and has always been, that I don't accept the distinction between "sign gifts" and any other sort of gifts.
I have this sort of dispute with Pentecostals also who like to make grandiose distinctions between "power gifts" "Ministry gifts" "Motivation gifts" and several other non scriptural distinctions that they regularly make. So I am not just getting at you about these distinctions. I just don't find them in scripture so I am not about to build a doctrine on them - a doctrine like Cessationism.

To misread my letter and then put my questions down to "vain speculation" is thus unfair to the extreme. I sounds a bit like an attempt to put me down and discredit the point of view I have put forward without actually addressing the two key scriptures in the argument I have put forward, viz 1 Cor 1:7, 1 Cor 13:8-13. I have asked some real questions about the meaning of two scriptures - and this is an important question as it is an issue in the church throughout the world. It does not deserve to be lightly dismissed.

And to lightly dismiss it is to imply that all those millions of people who do believe in and experience these gifts are all deceived - e.g. most of the church in the Third world is now Pentecostal. Are they all deceived? Or are they all really non Christians who have been sucked into a cult?
To dismiss as "deceived" millions of people around the world is a huge claim to infallibility - as much as the Pope. And all on the basis of an opinion which so far seems to have no scriptural validation - a point admitted by Edgar in his article.

You continue:
"We have no lack, nor did the Corinthian believers, because all things are summed up in Christ (Eph 1:10) and because we are complete in Him (Colossians 2:10). No one who has the Son lacks anything. Christ is the sum of all the Father's gifts, and He has set in the Church gifted men to bring His Church to full maturity. 1st Corinthians 1:7 is not a reference to signs, but to the wholeness of those who are in Christ. "

I have already argued Paul's tendency, in his letters, to touch on the subjects he wants to bring correction on later in the letter in his opening greetings and prayers. To say, then, that this passage has no "reference to signs" (a word I disagree with anyway in this discussion) seems to me to be an attempt to sidestep the obvious implication of this verse - especially knowing Paul's normal writing technique. If it does refer to the gifts of 1 Cor 12-14 then the whole cessation argument is immediately lost - I can see why you would not want it to apply to those gifts.

But my argument does not rest on 1 Cor 1:7 alone - I also put forward 1 Cor 13:8-13 - which is right in the middle of the discussion on sign/manifestation gifts. Surely it must apply?
And if it comes up with the same meaning as 1 Cor 1:7 then maybe 1 Cor 1:7 applies also.

You say that 1 Cor 1:7 does not apply to the subject Paul later brings up in the letter in Ch 12-14. But you offer no convincing reason why it does not - you just try to deflect that scripture into some other meaning - ignoring the context of the letter it is found in.

My deep point is that Pentecostal doctrine has lots of holes in it - I used to enjoy debating with them while I was at university because they were so shallow in their understanding. I acknowledge their holes. But it does not help, if we want to correct them, if we use shady exegesis methods to argue the point. They can see through that just as we can see through their arguments.

A little more intellectual honesty, and honesty with the text of scripture, is called for here.

John B