It is wonderful that you present your argument beginning with the objection that it is your own opinion personal opinion, being de facto cessation. While Calvinists are very quick to object as many others are as well, let me add from my perspective as a believer who does believe in it. I am a Trinitarian Pentecostal.

We assume it was only based in early church experience. But the OT very clearly states….with stammering lips and another tongues. What was this other tongue? Was it Greek already spoken in the world at that time? Was it the local various Roman languages already is use?

The purpose of the stammering lips was in fact not for our ability to learn another language…otherwise Rosetta Stone would be holy. But it was promised as a means of direct communication from God to his people and they would receive rest. This is in Isaiah, and the pure language promised in Zephaniah. This was for a future ministry.

Considering that among the gifts. it is the tongues that has brought the most attention while not addressing that fact there are 8 more gifts. Now while it would be easy to toss out the gift of tongues…should we then toss out the gift of faith? Or the gift of wisdom? Which are connected within the same verse and not at any time does Paul say they will cease to be in existence or use, until we are face to face with Jesus…as when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part will be done away with. Now I cannot think of one perfect church or people or person who has come, because the Holy Ghost is still working until that day Jesus returns in like manner.

So if we say operation of tongues has ceased and only for those early believers, then has also wisdom, knowledge and faith? Those are bound together in one verse with the tongues. We know the difference in conventional wisdom and the wisdom which comes from above. The fact the Paul himself speaks in other tongues (and not the languages he was exposed to) he very clearly teaches that it is a divine language, spoken to God by the Spirit in us, and for the purpose of divine communication, to which God desires we communicate with him. It is a gift, not an enforcement or commandment. It is not stated it was only for the early church believers because Peter says “for you and your children and those that are afar off”.

The fact that people have spoken in other tongues since then, the operation has never stopped, but simply suppressed by certain churches is indication that it is in continuation to this day.

One other thing I would like to point out is this, because I have many points I could but not time to do it. Considering when Jesus was ascending into heaven, the angels who stood by spoke to the witnesses who were Galilean…”This same Jesus you see ascending, will return again in like manner” indicating the very Jesus who had just died and resurrected. And this Jesus baptizes with the Holy Ghost and with fire. The believers were baptized and the operation of tongues is classically explained at that moment in the upper room. So if Jesus went away and sent the Holy Ghost in his place, and it is by the power of the Holy Ghost the tongues are uttered…this will continue to be the ministry of the Holy Ghost until Jesus returns. Even the exhortation to build up our most holy faith in the Holy Ghost.

Paul was not condemning the gift of tongues or it’s usage, he was making a point that our faith should not be centered on it, but that is a part of our own communication with God, who is a spirit and speaks through a spirit, to our spirit and we can speak back.

That’s another great way of shedding light on this little issue; in the mission field, is the soul half-full or is it half-empty?
On the one hand, Israel saw all kind of miracles of victory and deliverance, and God wanted them to know that it was HE who did it, not them. In fact there are many modern first-hand accounts of angelic appearances in the context of war and victory during the Seven-Day War, and probably others as well.
On the other hand, we have the marvelous apostolic miracles recorded in Acts in order to draw the lost to Jesus and be added to the Church, and again God’s word admonishes us to consider it His work through faith and through grace; it does not come about through our own efforts alone.
Also, we see in the scriptures that where there is more opposition, or where opposition to the Gospel is more violent, we also see God’s Spirit manifest in more power as well; this we see in the OT also, over and over again.
So, perhaps a survey of the numbers added to the born-again churches in Europe and in China would be a good indicator? And then let the newly saved tell of any miraculous events which led them to faith.
This is out of my scope of resources, but I hope that we can see newsreels someday of these very things.

C. Barton,

If a man grows up knowing that there’s a religion called Christianity, but has never heard the gospel, which category does he go in?

And why should the answer change if the man lives in Europe, or lives in China?

For that matter, why should a man need more proof if he lives in an area with no Christians, than a man who lives in Europe? If he hasn’t heard the gospel, what’s the difference?

The idea of hard-heartedness, though… That’s interesting.

Jugulum: (is that latin, like Nimirum?) Well, that’s a good question to explore, and I think that it will take more than a keyword search on Libronix to get good answers; however, I would liken it to the difference between:
1) Not being able to read, but you know what the alphabet is, and
2) Having no knowledge of written language and needing proof that such a thing exists.

Also, Jesus was not able to do much in some areas during His earthly ministry “because of unbelief”, and I am sure He meant that the indifference or hardness of the people prevented signs or miracles because they simply had no faith. And we know that it is spiritual openness and ultimate faith that are required for such things to take place.
I’ll keep digging, though!

C Barton,

I like that idea, but I have one nagging question about it. How do we classify a place like Europe? The gospel has been known there, but is it now? If the average person can grow to adulthood without ever having heard the gospel, isn’t that as much a mission field as China? Why should we see China as the “vanguard of evangelism,” but not Europe?

Perhaps the confirmatory gifts are more or less exclusive to the vanguard of evangelism, i.e. the front lines where the gospel is not yet known; as we know from scriptures, one of the landmark prophecies is that of the gospel preached to every person in every tongue, etc., and apparently this is not yet fulfilled.
There ought then to be news and testimony from the mission field, and this is in fact what we see.
As for the operation of the Spirit in the Church overall- many OT prophecies speak of an indwelling and empowering of the Spirit in the New Covenant, whether observed externally or not, so I believe mere empirical evidence is not enough to confirm or deny the cessation of the particular gifts in debate.

Eric,

Interesting. I’m somewhere in your vicinity, but coming from the other direction. I was raised in a non-charismatic background (though not actively cessationist), and I’m in a somewhat charismatic church. I’m more charismatic than I used to be, but I’m trying hard to keep my foot on the brakes so that I don’t pendulum swing too far into the other camp. (Hah! I count three metaphors in that sentence.)

Jugulum:

I’m in an in-between state re: charismaticism. It’s what I’ve known for most of my Christian life of 30+ years, but I’ve seen a lot of the bad and the mediocre and the mundane. I’m not cessationist, but I question and wonder and ask how much of what’s claimed to be by and from the Holy Spirit is flesh and emotion.

Er… OK… I’m glad you pretty much agree. (Though if the same things still strike you as odd, it’s not quite clear how much we do agree.)

No disagreement from me. I’m somewhat arguing for the sake of argument or discussion, not necessarily saying that this is what I firmly believe. My delivery would be better over a pint in a pub or a cup of coffee in a cafe than it is via keyboard and monitor.