Another non-answer. Your question is based on invalid assumptions and has been answered - though not what you want to hear - in the several articles referred to.

I think it's easier to get in trouble when we keep reaching for new ways to express the arguments. And of course, we risk being accused of "shady" exegesis and intellectual dishonesty when we disagree. Which is why you won't find many people willing to fight these old battles all over again.

The distinction between sign gifts and office gifts is made by the Scripture itself, not by those trying to justify a position. While on one hand "all do not speak with tongues do they (1st Cor 12:30)," yet "I wish you all spoke in tongues, but more that you would prophesy (14:5)" and "when you assemble each one has ... a tongue, and interpretation (14:26)," if they refer to offices (functions) and signs as if they were one and the same, then the statements are contradictory.

I would argue that 14:26 is a reference to each one's known native language rather than some supernatural utterance (every one has their own language, understanding, and songs to offer), but there's obviously a distinction between "all are not prophets (12:29)" and "seek to prophesy (14:1)" or "all can prophesy one by one (14:31)."

In one instance he describes tongues in terms of a function (12:30), and in another as a sign (Paul's word, not mine) in verse 14:22 to unbelievers. Such as those in Acts 2 who heard the gospel in their own language (when was the last time you heard an unbeliever "interpret" one of those spontaneous manifestations of "tongues" in a church service?). Prophecy is described as a "body function" in 12:29 but as a sign for believers in 14:22.

Further: Paul describes his preference for prophecy (14:5) because of it's function to edify the whole assembly, but also because of its power to confront, expose, and convict an unbeliever (14:24-25) yet it is intended "for a sign, not to unbelievers, but to those who believe (14:22)." It is for use in the assembly, while tongues is discouraged in favor of prophecy in the assembly. I believe that this only makes sense in the light of Isaiah's prophecy (quoted in 1st Cor 14:21) and compares to Matthew 13:11-17 where Jesus describes how the truth was plainly told to, yet hidden from the non-elect. What appears to be a contradiction really is one - the truth is revealedto those "with ears to hear" but hidden from others to whom it is told. That describes Jesus' parables as well as the sign gifts.

If the charismata were still extant today they wouldn't look anything like what we see passed off as "gifts of the Spirit" in churches today. Yet office gifts remain to serve the King and administer His kingdom.

We still see "through a glass darkly," so therefore you want to conclude that the gifts must still be valid.

But "perfection" (completion, not sinlessness and incorruption) did come and was fully realized in the first century when God dealt with the single generation that rejected Christ and saw the end of the Old Covenant.

Now you will likely continue to assert that your question was not answered. I would assert that the question has been answered, but the answer was not what you wished to hear.