Hi Robin,
Let me continue to engage with you because I think you are still avoiding the force of what I have said. But to engage
I will respond to parts of your letters:
I will number your points and respond to them immediately after.

(i) "The distinction between sign gifts and office gifts is made by the Scripture itself, not by those trying to justify a position."

It is not that I don't agree that there is a "offices" in the church and that these are determined by the gifts of the people who end up in the offices, e.g. pastor, teacher, etc.
I do agree that there are such offices and gifts determining them. I grew up in an "office-less" denomination and have long since come to see the fallacy of that approach.
Nor am I debating that some gifts are called "a sign" for one reason or the other - the reasons being unimportant in the context of this discussion.
What I am debating is that:
(i)They are "only a sign" and so when the necessity for that sign passed then they passed away also.
The scriptures seem to have a much wider view of the use of the gifts than "just a sign". The letter to Corinth list several gifts in Ch 12 - most of which are presumed to have "passed away" by the Cessationists - but only one of which is actually said to be a "sign" - tongues.
Prophecy, Healing, discernment of spirits and miracles are not there said to be "signs" though I suppose one could argue a case for that by inference from Romans 16. But prophecy, as you noted, is "for the believer"
To quote you:
"Prophecy is described as a "body function" in 12:29 but as a sign for believers in 14:22."

But in actual fact Paul does not say here that prophecy is a "sign for unbelievers" - the word "sign' does no appear a second time.
By implication it is not a "sign" because "signs" are for outsiders.
Yet the Cessationist argument demands that prophecy has also passed away. This position is derived from 1 Cor 13 where it says tongues and prophecy will cease and there seems to be no justification for applying a different time of ceasing for each.
To follow the Cessationist argument for a moment:
(i) Tongues and prophecy along with other things will cease.
(ii) This happenned, according to Cessationism, at the end of the first generation of the church.

Thus the meaning of "prophecy" here cannot mean "preaching" as some try to interpret it to mean as "prophecy" is going to pass away at the same time as "tongues".

Why should something that is "for believers" and "edifies, encourages and comforts believers" pass away at the end of the first century?

It becomes then, very poor exegesis to run through a list of gifts in 1 Cor 12 and pick and choose which ones are still with us and which ones are not. It sounds more like a matter of opinion.

(ii) Also I query the assertion that they were signs "ONLY for the Jews". This is the obvious implication of your statement:

"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."

I know Paul says "Jews seek a sign", but the fact is everyone likes "signs" if by that one means "supernatural acts". The Greeks were just as sign conscious in this way.

If they were signs "ONLY for the Jew" then why did Paul bother to "fully preach the gospel... with signs... "throughout the Gentile world. (Rom 16)
It was simply not the case that there were Jews in each town, and Paul did not seem to limit his "sign" activity to only the Jews. Like in Malta he healed all the sick. There is no indication that this was only "the Jewish sick".

Another Question:
Why is "perfection" defined as when "God dealt with the single generation that rejected Christ and saw the end of the Old Covenant"?

Such a definition suits a Cessationist theory - but nowhere does the Bible say this. What the Bible says is that "when the perfect comes" these gifts shall cease we shall and see "face to face" (1 Cor 13).
What was the "face to face" seeing that occurred at the end of the 1st Century that necessitated the passing away of the gifts?
How did the end of the 1st Century bring us to a point where we "know fully"?
How did the destruction of Jerusalem and the Jewish state bring about this "perfect knowledge" and "face to face" seeing?

These points remain very unclear to me as to why they should be so. There is no scriptural basis that says it is so, it is only a matter of your opinion (and, I am sure, the opinion of many others) but I don't have to agree with it if there is no scriptural support.


(2) "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'm not sure how this proves any cessationist point, but I do agree that there is a distinctions here:
You can have a gift but not be an "office holder" of that gift. e.g. there are many lay people who are excellent bible teachers and pastors and churches around the world are using them as home/small group leaders. But they are not the Pastor, or Minister, of the Church.
Similarly with any of the gifts mentioned here. In other words there are levels of operation of gifts in the church. you can have an apostolic gift and not be an apostle in the full sense of the word. A prophetic gift and not be a fully fledged prophet. Have a gift of healing that God uses in many small ways but not be a recognised Healer. There is here a clear distinction between someone who is just moving in the gifts a little and someone who is tried and tested in a gift and regularly comes up with the goods , hence can be said to have an "office" - even if it is not a room in the back of the church building.

A second thing this suggests is that, at a basic level, every Christian can use every gift listed here on occasion if God desires. We can all pray for the sick - and sometimes see someone healed - I have several times. But I wouldn't go
as far as to say I had a "gift of healing" or was "a Healer".
Everyone can be inspired by God to bring a prophetic word on occasion - in fact it happens to most of us a lot of the time and we don't recognise it is God prompting us - but that does not mean we have a gift of prophecy or are a "prophet".
I presume the same is true of all of the gifts mentioned.

I have spoken in tongues, interpreted a tongues message, moved a lot in many of the aspects of prophecy listed in this chapter, prayed for the sick and seen healings, discerned evil spirits on occasion -and less often - had the courage to cast them out, moved in word of knowledge and wisdom (no matter how you want to define them I have done it - and often) - even seen a few small miracles. But primarily I am a teacher and pastor.
Teaching and Pastoring are my gifts - the others I move in, on occasion, when God wants me to. But even teaching is not as natural gift to me. I became aware on day God was calling me to be a teacher in the church, then he gave me a small group to teach. Then I have to learn how to use th gift of teaching he gave me - I'm still learning!
I have also been used to help plant a couple of churches (the apostolic gift).
In fact out of the 27 (I think it is) gifts actually named in scripture I have been used by god on occasion in more than 21 of them. But I don't think I have 21 "gifts". I have just been open to God and when I looked in scripture I found that what I have done was move in a particular gift.

So I agree - there is a distinction here between basic gifts
and offices - but this does not justify the idea that the "non office" gifts have passed away. Such a justification has to be proven on other grounds.


(3) "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),"

I understand why you would want to understand it that way - but it seems to me to violate the idea of interpreting in context. The rest of the references to "tongues" in 1 Cor 12-14 obviously refer to something else - to the gift of tongues. Of course you are welcome to hold a different view - but I find that there would be no justification for such a view other than your own opinion. In the context of the chapter it is to suddenly introduce another meaning to "tongue" without explanation and this seems to me to be an odd thing to do. I don't think you would get any followers on that one. Of course anyone who is desperate to prove Pentecostals wrong will probably agree with it, but it would still remain a very strange exegetical methodology.

Your interpretation seems doubly confusing to me as Paul has
already said about tongues in church that "no man understands him" and so he should "pray for the gift of interpretation" so they can. These statements would be meaningless if it simply meant "in your own language".


(iv) "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."

I have already discussed this above. In general I agree with your statements here though I would still be unhappy to use the word "sign" here with respect to prophecy.

(v) "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."

Again, in general I cannot fault your argument here, and I have no wish to. The passage in Isaiah is full of possibilities but we don't need to go there.


(vi) "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."

A very bold claim. But who says? You say! It is a matter of your personal opinion.
But the fact is that what the gifts actually "looked like" is not described in scripture anywhere - so we don't know if today's versions are the same or not. For sure, you cannot produce proof that today's versions are vastly different from what happenned in Corinth. You weren't there to see!

My own feeling on why we are not told what they looked like or how they "happenned" in a person is because if the Bible did describe one way it happenned we would get all legalistic and say, "This is the only way!"
And to describe a variety of ways would lead to the Bible being to vast to handle.
But the reality is that the Spirit moulds himself to the personality of the person he is ministering through and this is, in turn, governed by the culture the person lives in. We all agree with this when it comes to preaching and the ministry gifts, so there should be no problem extending the principle to other gifts.
In other words: Yes! "The gifts of the Spirit in NT times would have looked much different to what we see today" - but that would have been purely a cultural and personal difference of expression. We cannot say anything more than this. To argue that the manifestations today are not the same and so are not the real thing is a real step of faith - again a matter of opinion because it cannot be proven.

Again it ends up implying Charismatics/Pentecostals are deceived "big time" - but there is no proof for the implication.

(vii) "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. "

You are so right. I will assert that my question has not been answered. But it is not simply because it is "not the answer I want to hear", it is because the arguments put forward so far do not stand scrutiny and do not have scriptural support.

And because I have put forward reasonable interpretations of scripture in my letters, using standard evangelical methodology, that have not actually been addressed. Your short comments at the end of your last letter on 1 Cor 13 don't actually answer the question: What do we see face to face now the perfect has come?

In your first post/response to me you said there were many articles available on the site. I know. You said they might "help" me.
The question is "help me what?"
I grew up in an anticharismatic church. The standard line was this:
(i) Tongues have ceased - with the death of the apostles.
(ii) Therefore any manifestation of tongues today is "of the Devil", i.e.the person is demon possessed.
The implication was then" "all Pentecostals/charismatics are demon possessed." This was the inevitable conclusion.
(iii) No Christian can be demon possessed.
The inevitable conclusion of this is that no Charismatic/Pentecostal can be a Christian.

Then I went to university and met thousands of charismatics/pentecostals - who loved God, had made a commitment to Christ just like I had, were keen on prayer and evangelism, having worship times, and so on - keener than I was in fact.

So I had to front the issue. These people were obviously not demon possessed and did not show signs of great deception or cultish activity. Just good regular Christian kids.

I used to go to the chapel library where we could sit and talk, and if there were charismatics there I would take an anti view. If there were antis there I would take a pro view. No one knew for sure where I stood - and still don't know - because they want to force me into one camp or the other. But I stand in the middle - I see there is truth on both sides and error on both sides.
I read widely books on both side of the debate - as well as other books on theology and doctrine of a more general nature - to try and help me reach a conclusion. So I have not been sucked into one side or the other.
I do not need help to understand the subject - I have a pretty good handle on it thank you. That is why I can skim a series of articles like on this site very quickly and know what is there. I really only have to identify something new in the debate to have to stop and think it out. The old arguments I know pretty well.
I do have degrees in theology too.
I don't need "help" to understand the correct exegetical methods or the historical-sociological and religious backgrounds to the question - I'm pretty well up on that too.
To try to "help" me is to be condescending - when what I am asking is real questions about a real subject that I think is being wrongly handled.

My point is that most of the arguments against the Pentecostals don't hold water and I don't think it is good for theological masters to be putting up shonky arguments - especially when there are better ones.

If you like I will gladly read your article on the subject and subject it to critical analysis. It's up to you.

John B