Featured Have Any Spiritual Gifts Ever "Died Out"?

1Cor.13:8 said they would cease and they have. You don't like that interpretation so you go to great lengths to distort it.

If the above premise is true, then that makes the command to "forbid not to speak in tongues" moot. It doesn't apply because they have ceased. Use some logic here.

It means use your brain.
You do not find that in scipture! Just the opposite! He said in vs. 4 he said he would rather that YE (you) prophesy! Talking about taking things our of context??? YOU even add your own words![/quote]
I have added my own explanation to those who are hard of understanding. The verse was a rebuke. He was telling them that prophesy was a better gift. They were speaking in tongues without translation and the end result was just nonsense.

First, the problem was: there was no interpretation.
Second, it was not as profitable as those who had the gift of prophecy. Paul made that clear plenty of times. It was an inferior gift. Look in 1Cor.12:28ff. In importance it is listed last of all the gifts.

But they weren't using interpretation. Context!

The gifts have ceased according to 1Cor.13:8ff. They had other purposes as well. Accordingly they have ceased. They serve no valid purpose. Forbid not in the first century when they served a purpose. It is like the Ten Plagues of Moses. They can't be repeated.

This is utter foolishness. Show me once in all of Eph.4, where the command is found, where tongues are mentioned. It is nowhere in the context. Talking about taking Scripture out of context. I suppose Abraham quenched the Holy Spirit because he never spoke in tongues either. He lived about 2,000 years before Pentecost just as we live 2,000 years after. There is no difference.

What was prophesied and how do you know it came true.
I suppose if you prophesy that the sun will rise tomorrow, it may come true. You have a bunch of charlatans if you think they have the gift of prophesy. Everyone who goes to the horse races thinks they have the gift of prophesy too, but most of them lose the money that they "prophesied" they would win. Did they prophesy correctly who would win the lottery?

The only ones that could do that were the ones that were giving Scripture that one day would be added to the Word of God. They were prophesying Scripture that was not written down yet. You are telling me that what they are saying is inspired and should be added to the Bible, that what they are saying is the actual word of God. That is heresy.

It says what it means. You wan to allegorize the passage like Origen taught the people to do. Origen was a heretic, even considered to be a heretic by the RCC. He was the Father of Arianism. You can throw your lot in with him if you wish, but I take the Bible for what it is. Go drink your Draino.

But they don't follow you do they. In that alone you prove they have ceased.

 

There have been no documented gifts of miraculous wonders, signs, miracles, gifts of healings, gifts of miracles or the Biblical gift of speaking in other languages since the first century. There is no evidence anywhere of that happening. Yet you say they are still for today. You can't provide the evidence. You blindly put your faith in this so-called "manifestation of the Spirit" which you never see. No evidence. But you claim they are in operation, but have never seen it.
Why should anyone believe you any more than they should believe there are cheese-eating aliens on Pluto that will take care of you if you eat cheese too.

 

I believe the Word of God, but it is apparent you don't. I took the last part of your post to disprove the whole of what you said. If the gifts were in existence today they would be here. But they are not.
Who exercises the gift of miracles?
Who exercises the gift of healing as Peter did in Acts 5:16?
Who exercises the gift of languages as Paul was able to, and speak in foreign languages as God gave him the ability to?
All you have is gibberish which isn't even a gift.

 

It is called blind faith (on your part).
It is the same faith that Muslim extremists have when they strap a bomb on and blow themselves up. They blindly believe (without evidence) that they will go straight to Paradise. But why? What evidence do they have?

Why? What evidence do you have?
None of the gifts mentioned are in existence. You have blind faith. You life is no better than that of a Muslim extremist. You blindly believe something that doesn't exist and yet affirm that it does. You are the one that remains in unbelief--unbelief in what the Bible says is true--

1 Corinthians 13:8 Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.

They were promised to cease, and they have.

 

Faith is always grounded on evidence.
Will that Muslim extremist end up in Paradise with 72 virgins catering to his every wish? No. He will end up in eternal torment in Hell. He has no foundation for his faith. It is blind faith.

The foundation for my faith is the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The resurrection of Christ is the cornerstone of Christianity. Because he lives we also live. The object of my faith is Christ. Faith has a foundation and faith has an object.

1 Corinthians 15:13 But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen:
14 And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.

Without the resurrection all of what I believe is vain; my faith is vain.
The Word of God is true because the resurrection is true, and what Christ said about the Word is true.
I don't blindly believe in gifts or the present reality of miraculous gifts without evidence. They aren't happening because they have ceased. They ceased 2,000 years ago.
They ceased according to the Scriptures.
They ceased according to history.
They ceased according to present day evidence.

But you go along in your imaginary world believing they exist even though you have no evidence. That is a shame.

 

No you don't. You believe your interpretation of the word of God, but not the Word itself. There is a big difference there. You ignore 1800 years of those before 1905 and tell us that they are all wrong even though hundreds of them were highly educated and Spirit-filled Christians. You just flippantly dismiss them all--1800 years of Biblical history, missions, revivals, etc. Amazing! Yet, none of them believe in YOUR interpretation.

Sure, you believe the gospel, but the gospel is not the foundation for believing that the gifts of the Spirit are operable today.
You misunderstand still about faith.
I know my great grandfather lived. I have never seen him, but I have evidence that he lived.
I know that Shakespeare lived; that Nero lived, and that Christ lived.
I didn't have to see them. I have the evidence. I also have the evidence of the resurrected Christ. But there is no evidence in the last 1900 years of the sign gifts taking place. There is none. There is no foundation for believing this.

I didn't have to. I have evidence.
But there is no evidence of the sign gifts. There is a difference.

Your experiences are more important to you than the word of God.
Like I pointed out to you before, you base your doctrine on your experience, rather than on the Word. Your experience is your foundation which you build upon. That is why you are confused.

My foundation is the Word of God. It is my final authority on all matters of faith and doctrine. That is the difference between you and I.

 

As I mentioned your interpretation throws away 1900 years of Biblical scholarship, those that believed and studied the Bible far more than you will ever do in your lifetime and never came to the same interpretation that you did over a period of 1900 years. How, therefore, can you claim your interpretation to be right.
Furthermore you seem ignorant about the beginnings of the beliefs and origin of the doctrines that you now practice. Here is how it began:

http://www.christianfallacies.com/articles/forsyth/historyOfCharismaticMovement.html
Your beliefs are rooted and grounded in the Occult.

Faith is not faith. What kind of definition is that? Look it up in a dictionary if you don't know what it means.
Faith is confidence in the word of another.
Here is a definition right out of the Bible.
Romans 4:20 He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God;
21 And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform.
--Faith is being fully persuaded that what God has promised he will do.
It is based on evidence. Look at verse 20 What evidence did Abraham have? He had the direct promise of God? That is the foundation of his promise. The object of his faith was God himself.
You simply say faith is faith; have blind faith, not understanding what faith really is.

I have faith in what the Bible teaches is for today; not that which the Bible declares is not for today. I don't believe Moses is going to come knocking on my door today and ask me if I would like to see a miracle today. But you say faith is faith. It is a typical occultish Charismatic response.
There is no basis for for faith in the coming of Moses today.
There is no basis for a demonstration of the sign gifts today, and hasn't been for the last 2,000 years, and yet you blindly believe that anyway. It is blind believe. You have never seen them. It is just blind belief. Why not believe in the coming of Moses as well? Blind belief! No basis in reality. No foundation.

It is based on a misguided misinterpretation of the Word based on the occult. You really haven't studied this out, have you? It is not based on the Word. Why do you dismiss 1900 years of scholarship and some of the greatest spiritual movements and the working of the Spirit ever seen? You say they didn't have the Spirit, or fullness of the Spirit, but revivals swept Europe and America that you haven't even read about. You just dismiss it all.

It is not I that has a lack of faith.
You don't even know what faith is, as demonstrated in this very post.
You don't know it. You experience something started in the Occult.

Read more about it here.
http://www.christianfallacies.com/articles/forsyth/historyOfCharismaticMovement.html

http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/Psychology/char/more/hist.htm

 

I am not in the business of taking away a person's walk with God.
I have total belief and faith in the Word of God.
You can live out your Christian life in the way you know how, but even according to your own testimony you cannot:
1. perform miracles.
2. do not have the gift of healing as in Acts 5:16,
3. do not have the Biblical gift of languages.

So, what do you have, but hypocrisy--saying you have something that you don't. You say you have the "manifestation," but you can't demonstrate it.
Isn't that living a lie??

What promises?
Miracles? Healings? Languages?
You say you have them but you can't demonstrate them. Pleeeeeeaaase!!!
Give me a break!!! Why are you telling me you have something you don't have. There is such a thing as evidence which you cannot provide. I believe the promises of God--those promises that God has promised to us.
But not every promise in the Bible is directed to us:
For example:
Genesis 12:2 And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing:
3 And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.
--Is this your promise, directed to you?

Genesis 17:16 And I will bless her, and give thee a son also of her: yea, I will bless her, and she shall be a mother of nations; kings of people shall be of her.
--Is this promise directed to you?

Judges 6:21 Then the angel of the LORD put forth the end of the staff that was in his hand, and touched the flesh and the unleavened cakes; and there rose up fire out of the rock, and consumed the flesh and the unleavened cakes. Then the angel of the LORD departed out of his sight.
22 And when Gideon perceived that he was an angel of the LORD, Gideon said, Alas, O Lord GOD! for because I have seen an angel of the LORD face to face.
--Will the Lord give you a sign just like this one awaken?

And so the sign gifts; the gifts of the Spirit are not for today either.
The Bible teaches it; History verifies it; Lack of current evidence is further proof.

This is not a definition as some think. It is a description of faith. Learn the difference. To see your error just take a simple dictionary and look up the word "faith." Then you will understand how it fits with the definition I gave you: trust, confidence--in another person, in the word of another. Faith is not blind.

You also have foolishness if it is not based on facts. Blind faith is nothing but foolishness--the equivalent of blowing yourself up and thinking you will go to Paradise.

You are right. I may never see God heal thousands at one time, and every one of them without exception healed like Peter did in Acts 5:16. However, by your own testimony, neither will you.
I may never experience the gift of tongues. I wish God had given me that gift since I am a missionary to a nation that speaks many languages. But he didn't give me the gift of languages, and to my knowledge hasn't given it to anyone for the last 1900 years. I am not saying it is impossible, but it is not something that would be very common, as it was in the first century. It is not a common gift of the Spirit. In fact it is unheard of.
I may never experience the gift of miracles, and neither will you. According to your testimony you haven't. Of course not. That gift has ceased. You can't point to anyone that has that gift.
This has nothing to do with my belief/faith or yours.
It has to do with God's will and purposes for this day and age.

Neither are gifts of the Spirit.

God spoke to Moses through a burning bush.
Moses divided the Red Sea via the power of God.
It is in the Word...I believe it. But I don't live out those miracles in my life.
They aren't for me.
Neither are the sign gifts are for you. And you can't perform them, can you?

Learn what you are doing then; don't be ignorant of these things.
A wise man once said:
"One thing we never learn from history is that we never learn from history."

First, you can't back up your beliefs with Scripture as so many here have told you. You are wrong. Others have told you and showed you from Scripture where you are wrong. You just don't want to listen.
Second, you need to listen to the history, such as I have posted for you.
Third, my time is not wasted by posting truth.
It is not a personal walk I am attacking; it is a belief system tainted by the occult from which it originates. It something that originated in 1905 and was embraced by a sect of Christendom at that time, but was never a part of Christendom before that time. For 1900 years it was unknown to Christianity but only among paganism. Why would any serious thinking Christian accept it now?

 

Excerpts from an article on glossolalia:

Linguistics

In 1972 William J. Samarin, a linguist from the University of Toronto, published a thorough assessment of Pentecostal glossolalia which became a classic work on its linguistic characteristics.[6] His assessment was based on a large sample of glossolalia recorded in public and private Christian meetings in Italy, The Netherlands, Jamaica, Canada and the USA over the course of five years; his wide range included the Puerto Ricans of the Bronx, the Snake Handlers of the Appalachians and Russian Molokan in Los Angeles.

Samarin found that glossolalic speech does resemble human language in some respects. The speaker uses accent, rhythm, intonation and pauses to break up the speech into distinct units. Each unit is itself made up of syllables, the syllables being formed from consonants and vowels taken from a language known to the speaker:

It is verbal behaviour that consists of using a certain number of consonants and vowels[...]in a limited number of syllables that in turn are organized into larger units that are taken apart and rearranged pseudogrammatically[...]with variations in pitch, volume, speed and intensity.[7]

[Glossolalia] consists of strings of syllables, made up of sounds taken from all those that the speaker knows, put together more or less haphazardly but emerging nevertheless as word-like and sentence-like units because of realistic, language-like rhythm and melody.[8]

That the sounds are taken from the set of sounds already known to the speaker is confirmed by others. Felicitas Goodman, a psychological anthropologist and linguist, also found that the speech of glossolalists reflected the patterns of speech of the speaker's native language.[9]

Samarin found that the resemblance to human language was merely on the surface and so concluded that glossolalia is "only a facade of language".[10] He reached this conclusion because the syllable string did not form words, the stream of speech was not internally organized, and – most importantly of all – there was no systematic relationship between units of speech and concepts. Humans use language to communicate but glossolalia does not. Therefore he concluded that glossolalia is not "a specimen of human language because it is neither internally organized nor systematically related to the world man perceives".[10] On the basis of his linguistic analysis, Samarin defined Pentecostal glossolalia as "meaningless but phonologically structured human utterance, believed by the speaker to be a real language but bearing no systematic resemblance to any natural language, living or dead".[11]

Practitioners of glossolalia may disagree with linguistic researchers and claim that they are speaking human languages (xenoglossia). Felicitas Goodman studied a number of Pentecostal communities in the United States, the Caribbean and Mexico; these included English, Spanish and Mayan speaking groups. She compared what she found with recordings of non-Christian rituals from Africa, Borneo, Indonesia and Japan. She took into account both the segmental structure (such as sounds, syllables, phrases) and the supra-segmental elements (rhythm, accent, intonation), and concluded that there was no distinction between what was practised by the Pentecostal Protestants and the followers of other religions.[12]

Further excerpt:

The admittedly fraudulent preacher Marjoe Gortner described in a 1977 interview how people learn glossolalia in a highly emotional religious setting.

"Tongues is something you learn," he emphasized. "It is a releasing that you teach yourself. You are told by your peers, the church, and the Bible -- if you accept it literally -- that the Holy Ghost speaks in another tongue; you become convinced that it is the ultimate expression of the spirit flowing through you. The first time maybe you'll just go dut-dut-dut-dut, and that's about all that will get out. Then you'll hear other people and next night you may go dut-dut-dut-UM-dut-DEET-dut-dut, and it gets a little better. The next thing you know, it's ela-hando-satelay-eek-condele-mosandrey-aseya ... and it's a new language you've got down."[72]

That glossolalia can be learned is also seen in the traces left behind by teachers. An investigation by the Lutheran Medical Center in Brooklyn showed that the influence of a particular leader can shape a group's glossolalia: where certain prominent glossolalists had visited, whole groups of glossolalists would speak in his style of speech.[73]