Evidence for God from Science

PeteSinCA wrote:[sarcasm] Just thought I'd amplify a comment made by John MacArthur, either in his recent book or at the "Strange Fire" conference:

“The (Pentecostal/charismatic) movement itself has brought nothing that enriches true worship.”

Those of you who disapprove of speaking in tongues, Pentecostals, and charismatics who live in English-speaking countries and whose churches use hymnals need to look at the authors index at the back. If you see any song(s) written by Andrae' Crouch, Chuck Girard, Kenn Gulliksen or Jack Hayford, need to speak to your pastoral team. They are all Pentecostals or charismatics. And if you use modern worship music from Hillsong in Australia (or the US), . [/sarcasm]

[sarcasm 2] On the modern worship music side, I forgot to mention Maranatha! Music, Vineyard, and Integrity/Hosanna. [/sarcasm 2]

Philip wrote:

However if someone feels compelled to utter gibberish and say that brings them closer to G-d. Who am I to judge that? It's only when someone says that is the only way to know someone is spirit filled is where I have the problem.

Scripture teaches us to test false spirits speaking through false prophets: "Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world." (1 John 4:1)

When I see a church consumed with speaking gibberish, chaotically, doing many bizarre and unedifying things, it is disturbing. The source is potentially demonic. We ARE to judge, righteously, and to test ALL things. I see that we are to do no differently when it comes to tongues.

I know I've pointed this out before, but Scripture goes a bit farther - or broader - than that. 1 Corinthians 14:29 instructs believers to "evaluate what is said" (NET). 1 Thessalonians 5:21 instructs believers, "But examine all things; hold fast to what is good," (NET). The NASB translates, "pass judgment, and, "examine everything carefully, respectively.

In much of what we know as 1 Corinthians 14, Paul instructed the church in Corinth on using the gifts of speaking in tongues and prophecy properly. Looking at the chapter from a slightly different angle, Paul points out three possible characters of a purported message in tongues or of prophecy: the genuine gift of the Holy spirit, properly used; the genuine gift of the Holy spirit, improperly used; the believer's flesh (entirely or in part, whether motivated by pride, rooted in ignorance, or whatever). That Paul did not speak to the fourth possible character, demonic, as John did, is, IMO, due to that not having been a problem in Corinth (1 Corinthians is among the more specifically corrective of a particular church's problems of Paul's letters), not a lack of awareness of that possibility (see, e.g., Acts 16:16-18, which happened before Paul came to Corinth).

So, absolutely, purported prophecies and speaking in tongues should be evaluated/examined. For that matter, the same principle applies to other purported manifestations of gifts of the Holy Spirit: healing; miracles; words of wisdom and knowledge; teaching; giving; serving. You know, apply Scriptural principles consistently? And if you think Paul didn't evaluate and praise or criticize other teachers or apostles or evangelists, consider how many times in his letters he condemned false teachers and apostles, or pointed out some teachers' and evangelists' false motives.

What I find interesting - and wryly humorous, sometimes - is how selective some people are in "evaluating" purported speaking in tongues or prophecy. Of the four possible sources mentioned in Scripture that I listed above - the genuine gift of the Holy spirit, properly used; the genuine gift of the Holy spirit, improperly used; the believer's flesh; demonic - they seem only able/willing to see/acknowledge and accept/apply two. Whether explicitly or implicitly (denying in practice a possibility they acknowledge hypothetically), "genuine gift of the Holy spirit, properly used" is rejected a priori. "Genuine gift of the Holy spirit, improperly used" may not even be recognized, even though that is something Paul dealt with at length, but those who do recognize and acknowledge it for Paul's time still reject it as a possibility in modern times. So they call for "evaluating" purported speaking in tongues or prophecy and "testing the spirits", but their "evaluation" and "testing" are not genuine, because their "examination" and "testing" are rigged. To chop, slice and dice mixed metaphors, they are "evaluating" and "testing" with loaded dice. Let me be clear, without being challenged, I am not questioning such person's honesty or integrity! I am saying they have a very large blind spot where the gifts of the Spirit are concerned.

Do some/many Pentecostals and charismatics have a complementary inverted blind spot? I have not heard such credulity taught or advocated (and have heard/seen the kind of caution I've posted about occasionally taught and practiced), but I'm willing to stipulate it. The human who says (s)he has no blind spots demonstrated one by so saying. As you can tell from my posts along this line, the possibility of such a credulity is something I am careful of in myself; I also show and speak of the need for such caution among other believers, as appropriate.

Finally (for this post ... maybe ...) I return to a question I asked in the other thread. Do we (note the first person plural!) have the understanding of Scripture, the objectivity, the understanding of what a church "service" was intended to be, and the experience base necessary to be excellent at evaluating purported prophetic or tongues messages? Paul and John neither assumed such a message was genuine, nor that the evaluations would always be correct. In regard to the latter, is this not equally or more so today? I think a long, hard, look in the mirror is regularly necessary in discussions such as this one and before evaluating purported manifestations of any gift of the Spirit.

Gman wrote: ... Miracles or signs are not always a way to discern the presence of the Holy Spirit. Christ rather tells us when we practice "lawlessness" is a way to tell..

Matthew 7:21-23 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. 22 Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’

Do you think these "practicers of lawlessness" are along the lines of Acts 19:13-16? Or along the lines of Philippians 1:15-17? Or both?

I concur that apparent (including real) miracles, etc. are not, of themselves, proofs that one is a genuine believer. I should point out, for fans of the TR and KJV, Mark 16:17 starts out, "These signs will accompany those who believe ..."; my jury is out on the genuineness of that section of Mark, but those sorts of things certainly did "accompany" (or, in the KJV, "follow") believers in the book of Acts. But as I've said before, genuine and properly used gifts of the Spirit are not badges of spirituality or maturity. They are tools to build up and serve the Body of Christ. The odd, even perverse, thing - to me - is that some Christian believers seem to regard/reject manifestations of obviously miraculous gifts of the Spirit (i.e. speaking in tongues, prophecy and healing, in contrast to teaching, giving and serving) a priori as iniquitous (= lawless) and/or demonic.

The wryly humorous picture I have in my mind is that some "day" ardent Cessationists and teachers of Speaking-in-Tongues-is-Necessary-for-Salvation are going to meet each other in heaven, and say to each other, simultaneously, "What are you doing here?!"

Gman wrote:

PeteSinCA wrote:Not sure why this thread was started when very similar thread was begun several days earlier. I posted a series of posts surveying Scriptures relevant to this and related topics, which seem to have gone unnoticed. But I'll ask folks who have posted in this thread, why would Satan counterfeit a three dollar bill?

Sure.. What I'm saying here however is that someone claiming to be speaking in tongues (which I believe can be either the tongues of men or just chanting to G-d) as an all means to the presence of the Holy Spirit. I think it is much more complicated than that such as knowing a person by their fruits as record in Matthew 7:16. In other words, I wouldn't marry something just because it is a sign.. There are signs all over the place.. It is our duty to discern if it is of G-d or not.

From my post it that other thread (time/date stamped "Sun Dec 15, 2013 6:58 am"):

At times I think that the chapter-and-verse reference system – not part of the original texts – that aids in referring to and finding specific Scriptures – can be distracting or misleading. It is visually tempting to perceive each verse in 1 Thessalonians 5:16-22 as a separate and distinct statement. While Paul was winding up his letter, giving brief instructions, they are interconnected, forming a unified context. Thus, the instruction not to quench the Spirit is linked to the instructions not to despise prophecies and to think about such prophecies and retain what is good. Taking these verses from 1 Thessalonians 5 together, four things are worth pointing out. First, Paul would not forbid despising prophecy unless that were an actual problem in the church at Thessalonica. 1 Thessalonians being in part a corrective letter – addressing problems in a church – it's a reasonable to infer that these verses were intended to be corrective. I think that very correction is relevant and needed today! Second, despising prophecy would have the effect of quenching the work of the Holy Spirit. Besides discouraging prophecies, it would also tend to hinder the expression of other Spiritual gifts and the work of the Holy Spirit in the congregation, generally. Third, utterances purporting to be prophecies were to be considered carefully and judged. These are the two errant extremes: reflexive rejection; credulous acceptance. Persons “prophesying” could be mistaken (or worse, of course); what was done in such a case, beyond rejecting the message, is not mentioned (a prophet judged to have been mistaken or wrong would not, of course, have been killed, as in the Old Testament). My guess is that the character and severity of the mistake/error and the character of the person would have been key considerations in what would be done. Fourth, a prophecy judged to be true prophecy was to be treated as very important (though not as Scripture, as I pointed out above).

Emphasis added.

Pete, all that is great, your scriptural analysis. And I'm not saying that tongues are DEFINITELY not for now/modern times. But I AM saying that, for those without the gift of interpretation, we have no idea of either the source, the message, or the truth of the message, or the trustworthiness of any supposed interpretation. And so we would have to trust what WE (the rest of the Church/those non-tongue speaking) can't/don't presently know. And, clearly, God has left the vast majority of the church without an understanding of those speaking in tongues, or their message, or whether any such interpreter is trustworthy.

And I don't think it is anywhere near adequate to refer to the far-larger, non-tongue speaking church, by saying, "some Christian believers seem to regard/reject manifestations of obviously miraculous gifts of the Spirit (i.e. speaking in tongues, prophecy and healing, in contrast to teaching, giving and serving) a priori as iniquitous (= lawless) and/or demonic." I mean, if we can't KNOW and be certain of the source, the message or the interpreter, and well knowing the huge possibility of counterfeiting by the devil, what else are we supposed to do, but to remain highly dubious and cautious?

Also, I don't believe you have adequately addressed the question as to why, as opposed to ALL of the OTHER spiritual gifts - found throughout ALL other Christian churches, tongues are not found or practiced amongst the vast majority of them. Combined with the problem of not being able to discern or know for sure (source, message, interpretation), I would think it only prudent of those not knowing the truth of this gift, to remain tremendously cautious and skeptical about them - unless shown by God, otherwise. And it is far from the case that many in the rest of the church don't WANT to know, or that many wouldn't gladly embrace ANY spiritual gift they KNOW to be given by God. But for the vast majority of us, He hasn't. But WHY? As it would appear that until He does, we're going to be at an impasse over this issue. I don't believe a satisfactory answer is that, "God has distributed the gifts as He so willed." Because He not only didn't distribute the gift of tongues near as widely as the other gifts, but He also apparently didn't distribute to those non-tongue speaking that modern tongue usage is, obviously, OF HIM. As it is FAR from obvious for those of us not understanding of them.

Philip wrote:I see the supposed Scriptural explanations that tongues are supposedly a spiritual gift still given by God today. But what I'm not seeing are any answers to my biggest questions: Why, if GOD STILL gives the gift of tongues, and as He has abundantly sprinkled the other Scripturally listed gifts throughout Christians in ALL true, Jesus-believing churches across the world - then why are tongues totally missing from Christians in the vast majority of Jesus-following/honoring churches? This is a HUGE redflag for me.

"supposed Scriptural explanations"?! "supposedly a spiritual gift still given by God today"?! "But what I'm not seeing are any answers to my biggest questions ..." Are you seriously suggesting the Scriptures are not abundant and clear on this topic? Are you seriously suggesting that your "biggest questions" outweigh or are of equal weight to the clear teaching of Scripture?! But to repeat my answer - subsequent to this post I quoted - you are using the argument the minions of Pope Leo X or Clement VII would have used against Luther and Zwingli (or Pope Paul III against Luther and John Calvin). You are using the argument Catholics, Lutherans, Anglicans, Prebyterians, etc. used and use against those who believe in baptizing only professed believers. Truth remains true, even when men decline to accept and follow it.

Philip wrote:And this absence of or practice of tongues is significantly correlated along denominational lines. WHY and WHY? Pete, etc - no one is answering this key question! This just doesn't make any sense to me. Add in the large number of those churches that DO manifest tongues - chaotically and bizarrely - well, it makes me ever more wary. IF tongues are a spiritual gift, then no church or denomination simply chooses to have or pursue them. And so I'd just like some answers to these questions.

Thanks.

Denominations are human organizations, ptc, and their divisions are not binding on God. If you look at the history of Pentecostal denominations, you'll find the earliest ones were formed about a decade after the events at Azusa Street (and there were precursors to Azusa Street). IOW, Pentecostal denominations were formed after people had been driven out of their various existing denominations. In short, you have the history inverted: revival events that included speaking in tongues preceded the formation of Pentecostal denominations; you can easily verify this using Wikipedia or your preferred historical resource of choice. And there are similar denominational divisions regarding: infant vs. believer's baptism (ever heard of trine immersion baptism?); Transubstantiation vs. Real Presence vs. symbolic remembrance in Communion; episcopal (sub-divided between those who claim apostolic succession and those who do not) vs. regional presbyterian vs. representatives/districts vs. congregational (I'm sure I missed a couple of styles or sub-sub-sub-sub-distinctions) governance; Abortion; same-sex marriage; foot-washing; more issues than I care to try to remember. The point is, there are dozens or scores of similar doctrinal divisions that fall along denominational lines. Why do you see that as an argument against speaking in tongues being a gift of the Holy Spirit and that this gift is still for today?

nuthajason, in his OP stipulated that he wanted some one, "to sit with a bible and give me a good hermeneutical exposition". Appropriately so! That is what I believe I have done, at some length, in two threads. Where is the "good hermeneutical exposition" from Scripture proving that speaking in tongues is not a gift of the Holy Spirit? Alternatively, where is the "good hermeneutical exposition" from Scripture proving that speaking in tongues ceased operation at the end of the First Century (the timing most commonly claimed by Cessations) or some or point in past history? Why the double-standard?

Denominations are human organizations, ptc, and their divisions are not binding on God.

And yet God, if we're to believe so, has distributed tongues mostly along denominational lines (Self-imposed denominational distribution?). I don't care about the history of where tongues have been historically come from. If true, then God has definitely posted this gift, and ONLY this gift, TODAY - to people alive now - to a tiny minority and largely along denominational lines. This is unquestionable! And it makes no sense to me that ALL the other gifts have been distributed differently, without there being something totally unique about tongues - or the individual believers or churches they have been distributed to. And if you look at the focus on feelings and emotions most churches practicing tongues exhibit - well, it's just another reason for concern and caution.

Plus you are confusing differences between beliefs and PRACTICES with something (the gift of tongues) THAT GOD supposedly HAS DISTRIBUTED today. If a true spiritual gift given by God, then NO denomination, church or individuals have them because of their doctrinal beliefs. This issue has nothing to do with what PEOPLE/CHURCHES/DENOMINATIONS choose to practice It's nothing, like, differences in beliefs over the Lord's Supper or Baptism, or how such belief differences are played out. No, we're talking about something, if it truly is of God, is GIVEN. Of course, we can use or not use gifts. But if we're saying that the majority of the church doesn't speak in tongues because they just don't CHOOSE to use the gift - that's ridiculous. And remember, when discussing the majority of Christians not practicing tongues, we're not only talking about an aggregate number across all churches, but also WITHIN individual churches - not just within denominations. Vast millions of Christians belong to churches where NOT ONE MEMBER has the gift of tongues - or at least do not practice them.

Do we see widespread healings, demons removed, miracles that were common amongst the apostles, done TODAY? No! Not saying their aren't miracles now, but as for these being common as amongst the apostles - NO! So why are tongues any different? Pete, you're attempting to use Scripture to explain why tongues would not have ceased, but you have a lot more to explain if you get dogmatic about that. Because, obviously, there are MANY things the Apostles had abilities to do that aren't obvious now.

We're told in Scripture that no gift is superior and that no practitioner of them is. We're also told that tongues INTERPRETED build up the church. But yet the majority of the church has not been given them - which is quite strange. Why would God deprive the majority of the church a gift meant to build her up? Are we to believe those practicing tongues are any more spiritual than ones skeptical of them? And, to me, it's far more than just that God might have very sparsely distributed tongues, largely amongst today's practicing denominations, but that the majority of Christians and churches are clueless about them, don't understand them, and don't recognize them as being of the Lord. That would appear to be a very strange-looking Body - a very dysfunctional one - at least when it comes to this issue. Why the great mystery and inconsistency?

Just wanted to say that this is a great discussion. And thanks to all involved, for keeping the conversation respectful. I know how difficult it can be to not get too emotional about topics we are passionate about.

PeteSinCA wrote: Do you think these "practicers of lawlessness" are along the lines of Acts 19:13-16? Or along the lines of Philippians 1:15-17? Or both?

Let me ask you a question.. If I spoke in tongues and said "yins, hiba, dona, cael, wins, zavacba" or went out and helped the poor, which act do you think might be a greater act in G-d's eyes?

PeteSinCA wrote:I concur that apparent (including real) miracles, etc. are not, of themselves, proofs that one is a genuine believer. I should point out, for fans of the TR and KJV, Mark 16:17 starts out, "These signs will accompany those who believe ..."; my jury is out on the genuineness of that section of Mark, but those sorts of things certainly did "accompany" (or, in the KJV, "follow") believers in the book of Acts. But as I've said before, genuine and properly used gifts of the Spirit are not badges of spirituality or maturity. They are tools to build up and serve the Body of Christ. The odd, even perverse, thing - to me - is that some Christian believers seem to regard/reject manifestations of obviously miraculous gifts of the Spirit (i.e. speaking in tongues, prophecy and healing, in contrast to teaching, giving and serving) a priori as iniquitous (= lawless) and/or demonic.

The wryly humorous picture I have in my mind is that some "day" ardent Cessationists and teachers of Speaking-in-Tongues-is-Necessary-for-Salvation are going to meet each other in heaven, and say to each other, simultaneously, "What are you doing here?!"

Let's not forget that when a person spoke the occasion of Speaking in Tongues on Pentecost was done by the Holy Spirit (supernaturally)...One voice, but everyone heard it in their own language it cannot be duplicated or manufactured by mere mortal men Acts 2:4. When a person spoke in tongues (a certain language of people) someone might not understand what they were saying because they didn't know that language, therefore an interpreter was needed.

I think people are paying way too much attention on this and are forgetting many other important functions of the Holy Spirit such as walking in love..

PeteSinCA wrote: From my post it that other thread (time/date stamped "Sun Dec 15, 2013 6:58 am"):

So? Look at this one time stamped Mon Feb 25, 2008 1:33 am

At times I think that the chapter-and-verse reference system – not part of the original texts – that aids in referring to and finding specific Scriptures – can be distracting or misleading. It is visually tempting to perceive each verse in 1 Thessalonians 5:16-22 as a separate and distinct statement. While Paul was winding up his letter, giving brief instructions, they are interconnected, forming a unified context. Thus, the instruction not to quench the Spirit is linked to the instructions not to despise prophecies and to think about such prophecies and retain what is good. Taking these verses from 1 Thessalonians 5 together, four things are worth pointing out. First, Paul would not forbid despising prophecy unless that were an actual problem in the church at Thessalonica. 1 Thessalonians being in part a corrective letter – addressing problems in a church – it's a reasonable to infer that these verses were intended to be corrective. I think that very correction is relevant and needed today! Second, despising prophecy would have the effect of quenching the work of the Holy Spirit. Besides discouraging prophecies, it would also tend to hinder the expression of other Spiritual gifts and the work of the Holy Spirit in the congregation, generally. Third, utterances purporting to be prophecies were to be considered carefully and judged. These are the two errant extremes: reflexive rejection; credulous acceptance. Persons “prophesying” could be mistaken (or worse, of course); what was done in such a case, beyond rejecting the message, is not mentioned (a prophet judged to have been mistaken or wrong would not, of course, have been killed, as in the Old Testament). My guess is that the character and severity of the mistake/error and the character of the person would have been key considerations in what would be done. Fourth, a prophecy judged to be true prophecy was to be treated as very important (though not as Scripture, as I pointed out above).

So the Holy Spirit is just knowledge? Squelching the Holy Spirit is just saying words?

PeteSinCA wrote:

Gman wrote:And remember.. Love speaks louder than words...

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyAJa2J9xQ4[/youtube]

Or maybe more to the point,

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m535OdDhFcY[/youtube]

I like the words in your clip better than mine.. But the beat and the rhythm is weak and reminds me of being in an elevator. Sorry. Al is better...

Philip wrote:Yes, the 1 Corinthians 13 verses would explain the abuse of the gift of tongues, but they in no way explain why the vast majority of Christians in today's Christian churches exhibit the distribution of ALL of the other gifts EXCEPT tongues. What is different about the gift of tongues that God has not distributed it with equal generosity across the church as He obviously has the other gifts?

So, I can walk into St. Peter's Catholic Church, St. Paul's Lutheran Church, Trinity Episcopalian Church, Westminster Presbyterian Church, First Baptist Church, Aldersgate United Methodist Church, etc. (fictitious but very realistic names, obviously) and hear a prophecy? See a healing? Hear an interpretation of a message in tongues (I know, you forgot that gift, which is intrinsically linked to speaking in tongues)? Hear a word of knowledge or wisdom (which 1 Corinthians 12 clearly indicates are gifts of the Spirit, not knowledge or wisdom generally)? People for whom these are their spiritual gifts (and are not charismatics)? The premise of your question is not founded on fact.

Philip wrote:And largely along denominational lines?

As I've posted before today, the chicken-egg sequence in this is known, and you have sequence reversed. Pentecostal people were, initially, in a wide variety of denominations, but were rejected and driven out. Pentecostal denominations were founded about a decade (and sometimes decades) later.

Philip wrote:Why would God be so "stingy" as to how He has given such a small percentage of His Church the gift of tongues?

"(S)mall percentage is an ambiguous term. It could mean .1% of a larger whole; it could mean (with a lot of stretching) 49.9% of a larger whole. The tone in which you've posted this idea, a couple of times, suggests to me that you might think the percentage of Pentecostals and charismatics among all Christians to be, perhaps, 15% or less. To be frank, had you half an hour ago asked me what percentage of people who say they are Christians are Pentecostals and charismatics, I would have guessed 10%-15%. According to this Pew Research study the actual percentage is more than 25% (and it lumps nominals and groups such as Jehovah's witnesses together with actual, practicing, believers). You might still say 26.7% is small - it'd be a bit of a stretch.In my (me, personally) ordinary usage, 25% (or slightly more) of a group is a significant minority.

Philip wrote:Especially, as He clearly knew that amongst the ones (supposedly) given this gift, such a large number of them would greatly abuse it.This is clearly what we see - extremely limited distribution and abuse.

There is still no evidence - let alone Scripture - in all this that would support an argument that God ceased using speaking in tongues. And in fact, your words assume what you argue against. "Abuse" intrinsically entails the existence of proper use,. Therefore "abuse" cannot be used to argue against the existence of proper use.

Philip wrote:So, what's up with this ENORMOUS distribution disparity?

As pointed out above, the disparity is much less than you seem to think, and shrinks considerably if nominal Christians (those who don't really believe in much of anything) are subtracted from the total number of Christians.

Philip wrote:Why the withholding to the far greater majority?

Why do you assume "withholding", as if it were God's action? Are Christian believers robots onto which God attaches whatever sort of arm or leg or ear He chooses? Let me suggest another word, one borne out by history, one consistent with Christian believers not being robots: Rejection. Do I need to explain this? Let me suggest a phrase, that also is a clear factor: lack of knowledge. I was raised in a theologically conservative Lutheran body. Readings from the Old Testament, Gospels, and Epistles are a part of every worship service, according to a set calendar, and sermon texts may not be from the day's readings. In 18 years I do not believe I ever heard portions from 1 Corinthians 12 or 14 that speak of the gifts of the Spirit read, let alone be mentioned in a sermon. Nor were they ever mentioned in Sunday School, mid-week religion classes, or Catechism classes. I think it very likely that my experience is far from unique in that respect.

Philip wrote:Why the distribution only to specific churches and largely along denominational lines? And why are these the cases with ONLY the gift of tongues, and not with the other gifts?

Already spoken to above and, regarding denominations in previous posts.

Pete,

I see Philip's point. If tongues is a gift in place now, then why is it a gift given by God, only to believers in a certain few denominations?

For example, the following gifts are given to believers regardless of if they are affiliated with a denomination or not:

Administration / Ruling
Encouraging / Exhorting
Giving
Serving / Ministry
Showing Mercy
Teaching

Why are believers in only certain "charismatic" denominations, the ones who claim the gift of tongues?

RickD wrote: I'd like to hear answers to philip's questions.
Hebrews 13:8 no more backs up tongues being for today, than it does believers following the law today. We don't follow the law today. That doesn't mean Christ has changed. If tongues aren't for today, that also doesn't mean Christ changed.

I was working my way through this thread, so while I had not responded to ptc's questions when you posted this, I did later on. I doubt you or he have found my responses satisfying. But the standard nuthajason set forth is correct: the conclusive evidence, if there is any, for the claim that God ceased using the gift of speaking in tongues must come from the Bible; I would add that the ones making the claim (that God ceased using the gift of tongues) are the one who have the burden of proof. That I, for example, cited Acts 2:39, For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself, and commented,

Verse 39 gives the “limit” God placed on this gift – the Holy Spirit, as verse 38 states – all believers, wherever, for all time.

does not alter that burden of proof.

That I, for example, cited 1 Corinthians 13:8-12 8Love never fails; but if there are gifts of prophecy, they will be done away; if there are tongues, they will cease; if there is knowledge, it will be done away. 9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part; 10 but when the perfect comes, the partial will be done away. 11 When I was a child, I used to speak like a child, think like a child, reason like a child; when I became a man, I did away with childish things. 12 For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I will know fully just as I also have been fully known, and commented,

Verses 8-12 show where Cessationists are correct, and where they are incorrect. Faith, hope and love are enduring, will last into eternity; spiritual gifts will cease (you know, Cessationist). The question is, when. Verses 10-12 answer this clearly: the gifts of the Spirit will cease when they are no longer necessary, when Jesus' return makes spiritual gifts unnecessary.

does not alter that burden of proof.

Pete,

How does the gift of the Holy Spirit, spoken of in Acts 2:38-39 prove that tongues is for all time? Those verses aren't even talking about tongues. Unless you weren't using that text to try to back your point. If the latter is the case, I'm confused about why you mentioned those verses.