Do the Gifts of the Spirit, Including Speaking in Tongues, Still Operate Today?

General Faith
41

Then don’t lecture me @SincereSeeker

The cessationism vs. continuationism debate centers on whether spiritual gifts like prophecy, tongues, and healing ceased after the apostolic era or continue today. Below is a concise overview of the contested data, covering biblical, theological, historical, and experiential arguments.

  1. Biblical Evidence
    Both sides rely on Scripture, but interpretations differ due to ambiguous texts.
    Cessationist Arguments:

1 Corinthians 13:8-10: Cessationists interpret “the perfect” as the completed New Testament canon, arguing that prophecy, tongues, and knowledge ceased once Scripture was finalized.
Ephesians 2:20: The church is built on the “foundation” of apostles and prophets, implying their gifts ended with the apostolic era.
2 Corinthians 12:12: Miracles were “signs of a true apostle,” suggesting they were exclusive to apostles.
Hebrews 2:3-4: Miracles confirmed the apostolic message, unnecessary after the canon closed.
Miracles decline in later New Testament writings (e.g., Paul leaves people sick, 1 Timothy 5:23), supporting cessation.

Continuationist Arguments:

1 Corinthians 13:8-12: “The perfect” refers to Christ’s return, not the canon, implying gifts continue until then (cf. 1 Corinthians 1:4-8).
1 Corinthians 14:1, 39: Paul urges believers to desire prophecy and not forbid tongues, with no time limit.
Acts 2:17-18: The Spirit’s outpouring in the “last days” includes prophecy, applicable to the entire church age.
Non-apostles (e.g., Philip’s daughters, Acts 21:9) exercised gifts, suggesting they were not apostle-exclusive.

Contested Issues:

Meaning of “the perfect” in 1 Corinthians 13:10.
Whether prophecy is authoritative (cessationist view) or fallible guidance (continuationist view).
Lack of explicit Scripture stating gifts ceased, placing the burden on cessationists.

  1. Theological Arguments
    Cessationist Perspective:

Miracles authenticated new revelation (e.g., Moses, Jesus, apostles). With the canon closed, they’re unnecessary.
Ongoing prophecy risks undermining Scripture’s sufficiency (2 Timothy 3:16-17).
Apostleship, tied to eyewitnesses of Christ, ceased, so associated gifts did too.

Continuationist Perspective:

God’s unchanging nature (Hebrews 13:8) suggests He still works through gifts.
The Spirit empowers believers for edification and mission (1 Corinthians 12:7), not just authentication.
Modern prophecy is non-canonical, not challenging Scripture’s authority.

Contested Issues:

Were gifts only for authentication, or also for ongoing church edification?
Does continuationism risk adding to Scripture, or does cessationism limit the Spirit?

  1. Historical Evidence
    Cessationist Arguments:

Miracles declined post-apostolic era, with early fathers like Augustine noting fewer signs.
Reformation cessationism countered Catholic miracle claims, arguing they were unnecessary post-canon.
Historical silence on gifts in mainstream churches supports cessation.

Continuationist Arguments:

Early fathers (Justin Martyr, Irenaeus) reported ongoing miracles and prophecy.
Institutional church may have suppressed gifts, explaining their decline.
Pentecostal/Charismatic revivals (20th century) show widespread gift experiences globally.

Contested Issues:

Does historical decline indicate divine cessation or human suppression?
Are post-apostolic miracle reports reliable?

  1. Experiential Evidence
    Cessationist Arguments:

Modern tongues/healings don’t match biblical patterns (e.g., tongues as known languages in Acts 2).
Charismatic abuses (false prophecies, fake healings) suggest modern claims aren’t from the Spirit.
Lack of verifiable miracles in many Western churches supports cessation.

Continuationist Arguments:

Global reports of healings and prophecy, especially in mission fields, align with biblical patterns.
Personal testimonies (e.g., scholars like Sam Storms) support ongoing gifts.
Even cessationists like Spurgeon reported supernatural insights, resembling prophecy.

Contested Issues:

Are modern gifts authentic, or do they differ from biblical descriptions?
How much weight should experience carry compared to Scripture?

  1. Common Ground

The Spirit remains active in the church.
Non-miraculous gifts (e.g., teaching) continue.
Scripture is the final authority.
The debate is secondary to core doctrines like salvation.

  1. Critical Analysis

Cessationist Weaknesses: No explicit biblical proof of cessation; historical decline doesn’t negate global reports; risks limiting the Spirit.
Continuationist Weaknesses: Modern abuses raise concerns; fallible prophecy risks confusion with Scripture; reliance on experience can overshadow exegesis.
Middle Ground: “Open but cautious” evangelicals accept possible gifts but scrutinize claims, though this lacks clarity on obeying 1 Corinthians 14:1.

The cessationism-continuationism debate hinges on ambiguous biblical texts, theological assumptions, historical interpretations, and modern experiences. Cessationists stress Scripture’s sufficiency and historical decline, but lack explicit proof. Continuationists emphasize ongoing Spirit activity, but must address abuses. The debate is significant but not central to the gospel. For deeper study, see Are Miraculous Gifts for Today? (Grudem) or The Moody Handbook of Theology (Enns).

J.

42

Johann, respectfully, when iron sharpens iron, sparks fly. That’s not a lecture. That’s what happens when the Word does what it’s supposed to do. Paul didn’t ask the Bereans not to fact-check him. He praised them because they searched the Scriptures daily to see if what he said was true. If you feel confronted, it’s not because I raised my voice. It’s because the Word raised the standard.

Now let’s address the substance. You say this isn’t central to the gospel. But tell that to the believers in Acts who received the Holy Spirit and immediately spoke in tongues, prophesied, and turned cities upside down. Tell that to Paul who wrote entire chapters correcting the use of gifts, not denying their presence. The same Paul who said “Do not forbid speaking in tongues.” The same Spirit that raised Christ from the dead was still healing the sick, casting out demons, and speaking through His people in Acts 28. No expiration date.

The real issue isn’t whether God can give gifts today. It’s whether we’ve become so accustomed to powerless Christianity that anything supernatural feels suspicious. Tongues don’t confuse me. A church that’s more comfortable with theological safety than spiritual obedience does.

I’m not trying to win an argument. I’m trying to stay faithful to the witness of Scripture. God hasn’t changed. His Spirit hasn’t grown silent. And the fire that fell in Acts still falls on those who ask, believe, and don’t box Him in with tradition dressed up as doctrine.

You’re not under attack. You’re being invited higher. Don’t mistake conviction for condescension. This is a battlefield of ideas, not a brunch table of polite nods.

Sincere Seeker. Scripturally savage. Here for the Truth.

43

Rightly so.

Acts and the Normativity of Gifts
Your Claim- Believers in Acts received the Spirit, spoke in tongues, prophesied, and transformed cities, suggesting gifts are normative. The Spirit’s power in Acts 28 (healing, casting out demons) has “no expiration date.”
Debunking-

Acts’ Context: Acts is a historical narrative, not a prescriptive manual. The verb elaloun (imperfect, “they were speaking” in tongues, Acts 2:4; 10:46; 19:6) describes specific outpourings of the Spirit (epipesen, aorist, “fell upon,” Acts 10:44) to mark redemptive-historical transitions: Jews (Acts 2), Gentiles (Acts 10), and John’s disciples (Acts 19). These are not normative for all believers. The phrase glōssais (“tongues”) in Acts denotes known languages (dialekto, Acts 2:8), unlike the unintelligible speech often claimed today.
Acts 28:8-9 (ἐθεραπεύοντο, “were healed”): Paul’s healings (etherapeuonto, imperfect passive) occur in a transitional period, authenticating his apostolic ministry (sēmeia, “signs,” 2 Corinthians 12:12). The absence of an explicit “expiration date” doesn’t prove perpetuity; Acts records unique apostolic acts, not a universal pattern.

The verb ekatharizeto (“was cleansed,” Acts 28:8, demon expulsion) is tied to Paul, not ordinary believers.
Greek Insight: The aorist verbs in Acts’ Spirit outpourings (epelthen, “came upon,” Acts 2:1; eplēsthēsan, “were filled,” Acts 2:4) emphasize one-time events, not ongoing norms. Normative commands for all believers (e.g., agapate, “love,” present imperative, John 13:34) are absent for tongues or prophecy.

Conclusion-Acts shows sign gifts as apostolic signs, not perpetual mandates. The Greek verbs highlight unique events, not ongoing expectations.

  1. Paul’s Instructions on Gifts
    Your Claim-Paul’s chapters (1 Corinthians 12-14) correct the use of gifts, not deny them, and his command “do not forbid speaking in tongues” (1 Corinthians 14:39) implies their continuation.
    Debunking-

1 Corinthians 14:39 (μὴ κωλύετε, “do not forbid”): The present imperative kōluete (“keep forbidding”) addresses the Corinthian church’s specific misuse of tongues (glōssais lalein). Paul regulates (taxis, “order,” 1 Corinthians 14:40), not universalizes, their use. The verb zēloute (“eagerly desire,” present imperative, 1 Corinthians 14:1) for prophecy prioritizes edification, not perpetuity. The Corinthian context (apostolic era, immature church) doesn’t mandate gifts for all time.
1 Corinthians 13:8-10 (παύσονται, καταργηθήσονται): Tongues “will cease” (pausontai, future middle), and prophecy/knowledge “will be rendered inoperative” (katargēthēsontai, future passive). The middle voice of pausontai suggests tongues self-cease, possibly earlier than other gifts. To teleion (“the perfect,” neuter adjective) likely refers to the completed canon, as to ek merous (“the partial”) includes prophecy (prophēteia), which delivers revelation. The canon’s completion (graphē, 2 Timothy 3:16) fulfills this purpose, rendering sign gifts obsolete.
Greek Morphology: The passive katargēthēsontai implies an external act (God completing Scripture), not an eschatological event (Christ’s return, as you claim). Your view of teleion as the consummation relies on 1 Corinthians 13:12 (esoptron, “mirror”; prosōpon pros prosōpon, “face to face”), but teleion’s neuter form fits an abstract concept (Scripture) better than Christ (masculine, Christos).

Conclusion- Paul’s instructions are context-specific, and the Greek verbs in 1 Corinthians 13 point to cessation with the canon’s completion, not perpetual gifts.

  1. The Spirit’s Ongoing Work
    Your Claim- The Spirit who raised Christ (egeirō, Romans 8:11) still heals, casts out demons, and speaks, unchanged by tradition. Cessationism reflects a “powerless” church suspicious of the supernatural.
    Debunking-

Romans 8:11 (ἐγείραντος, “raised”): The participle egeirantos (aorist, “having raised”) refers to Christ’s resurrection, a unique event, not ongoing miracles. The Spirit’s power (dunamis) continues (zōopoiēsei, “will give life,” future, Romans 8:11), but through sanctification and illumination (phōtizō, Ephesians 1:18), not sign gifts.
John 16:13 (ὁδηγήσει, “will guide”): The Spirit’s guidance (hodēgēsei, future active) is to “all truth” (panta tēn alētheian), fulfilled in the apostles’ writings (graphē, 2 Timothy 3:16, theopneustos, “God-breathed”). Ongoing prophēteia risks adding to this, undermining ikanē (“sufficient,” 2 Timothy 3:17).
Supernatural Suspicion: Cessationists don’t deny God’s power (dunamis, Acts 1:8) but argue sign gifts (charismata, 1 Corinthians 12:4) were apostolic tools. The verb diaireseis (“distributions,” 1 Corinthians 12:11) shows the Spirit’s sovereignty to cease distributing certain gifts. Modern claims of tongues (glōssais lalein) often differ from Acts 2’s xenoglossia, and unverified healings (iamata, 1 Corinthians 12:9) lack apostolic clarity (saphēs, Acts 4:31).

Conclusion: The Spirit’s power continues through Scripture and sanctification, not sign gifts. Greek verbs tie His work to the completed revelation, not ongoing miracles.

  1. Powerless Christianity and Tradition
    Your Claim-Cessationism reflects a church comfortable with “theological safety” over obedience, boxing in the Spirit with tradition.
    Debunking-

Ephesians 2:20 (θεμελίῳ, “foundation”): The church’s foundation (themelion, dative) is apostles and prophets (apostolōn kai prophētōn), with an aorist participle (epoikodomēthentes, “having been built”).

J.

44

Couldn’t finish my rebuttal.

J.

45

Johann, you’ve come armed with the Greek, the grammar, and the glosses. I see the structure, the syntax, the scholarly footwork. But if the house is built on the wrong foundation, all the parsing in the world won’t keep it from crumbling when the Spirit breathes.

Let’s get real. You’re treating the book of Acts like it’s a documentary about a long-dead movement, when in fact it’s the Spirit’s live broadcast of what happens when heaven invades earth. You say Acts is descriptive, not prescriptive. So is Calvary. So is the resurrection. Should we treat those as history-only too? If we applied that logic consistently, we’d shelve half the Bible and neuter the rest.

Yes, the tongues in Acts 2 were known dialects. But that is not the only kind of tongues Scripture presents. Paul distinguishes between “varieties of tongues” (1 Corinthians 12:10) and even says “no man understands” when someone speaks in the Spirit (1 Corinthians 14:2). That is not xenoglossia. That is Spirit-to-God communication. No translation app required.

You make much of the Greek tenses to prove the gifts were one-time events. But what about Paul’s command in the present imperative not to forbid speaking in tongues? He wasn’t just cleaning up Corinth’s mess. He was making sure the baby didn’t get thrown out with the bathwater. If tongues were meant to die out with the apostles, why not just say so? Instead, the Word says, “I would that ye all spoke in tongues” and “forbid not.” That is not caution tape. That is green light.

You say “the perfect” is the canon. But the canon isn’t coming “face to face” with me, and it doesn’t “know me fully even as I am known.” That is not a leather-bound Bible. That is the return of the Lamb. That is when the partial gifts pass away, not before.

You keep insisting the gifts ceased because the foundation was laid. But the house isn’t finished. The mission isn’t over. The gospel hasn’t reached every nation, and the Church isn’t spotless yet. Paul’s signs were for authentication, yes, but the Spirit’s gifts were also for edification. The Spirit did not retire. He regenerates. He convicts. He empowers. And yes, He still gives gifts “as He wills.”

The real danger here is not emotionalism or counterfeit tongues. The real danger is building a theology of safety that strips the Spirit of His present work because we’re uncomfortable with the mess of the supernatural. That’s not discernment. That’s disobedience dressed in doctrinal sophistication.

If Scripture is sufficient, then let Scripture speak. And Scripture says the gifts were poured out in the last days, not the first days only. Last time I checked, we’re still in them.

Sincere Seeker. Scripturally savage. Here for the Truth.

46

You’re not engaging in a dialogue, just repeating yourself in a one-man monologue. Engage with the Scriptures instead of adding things I never said.

My Rebuttal to You: You claim Acts is a “live broadcast” of the Spirit’s work, not a historical documentary, and equating it to Calvary or the resurrection implies its gifts are normative.
Debunking:

Acts’ Genre: Acts is narrative, not prescriptive like epistles. Elaloun (imperfect, “were speaking” tongues, Acts 2:4; 10:46) and epipesen (aorist, “fell upon,” Acts 10:44) describe unique Spirit outpourings for Jews, Gentiles, and John’s disciples, marked by aorists (eplēsthēsan, “were filled,” Acts 2:4). Unlike Calvary’s command (poieite, present imperative, “keep doing,” 1 Corinthians 11:24), no verb mandates ongoing tongues (glōssais lalein).

Calvary/Resurrection: These are salvific events (stauroō, aorist, “crucified,” Galatians 2:20; egēgertai, perfect, “has been raised,” 1 Corinthians 15:4), not repeatable gifts (charismata, 1 Corinthians 12:4). Acts’ signs authenticate apostles (sēmeia, 2 Corinthians 12:12), not all believers. 2Co 12:12 Indeed, the signs of an apostle have been done among you with all patient endurance, both signs and wonders and deeds of power.

Conclusion: Acts’ aorists show transitional events, not norms, unlike salvific imperatives.

  1. Varieties of Tongues
    My Rebuttal to You: You argue Acts 2’s dialects aren’t the only tongues; 1 Corinthians 14:2’s unintelligible speech is Spirit-to-God communication, not xenoglossia.
    Debunking–my rebuttal-

1 Corinthians 12:10 (γένη γλωσσῶν, “varieties of tongues”): Genē (kinds) may include dialects or angelic speech (13:1), but 14:10-11 compares tongues to human languages (phōnōn, “sounds”). Oudeis akouei (“no one understands,” 14:2, present) requires interpretation (diermēneuo, 14:13), unlike Acts 2’s clarity (dialekto, Acts 2:8). This suggests Corinthian tongues were still structured, not modern ecstatic speech.
Cessationist View: Tongues’ purpose was apostolic authentication (sēmeion, 14:22). Pausontai (future middle, “will cease,” 13:8) implies self-cessation, likely post-apostles, as their role waned.

Conclusion: Tongues’ biblical form differs from modern claims, and pausontai supports cessation.

  1. Paul’s Command on Tongues
    My Rebuttal to You: Paul’s present imperative “do not forbid” tongues (1 Corinthians 14:39) and “I would that ye all spoke” (14:5) show a green light, not an apostolic limit.
    Debunking:

1 Corinthians 14:39 (μὴ κωλύετε): Kōluete (present imperative, “do not keep forbidding”) regulates Corinth’s chaos, not all churches. Taxis (order, 14:40) governs use. Thelō (“I would,” 14:5, present) is hypothetical, favoring prophecy (prophēteuō, 14:1) for edification (oikodomē, 14:3). Wouldn’t you agree?!

No Explicit End: Paul doesn’t say tongues cease, but pausontai (13:8) and katargēthēsontai (prophecy, passive, 13:8) suggest cessation with to teleion (“the perfect,” 13:10), likely the canon (graphē, 2 Timothy 3:16), as to ek merous (“partial”) includes revelation gifts.

Conclusion: Kōluete is context-specific; pausontai points to cessation.

  1. “The Perfect” as Christ’s Return
    My Rebuttal to You: You claim to teleion (1 Corinthians 13:10) is Christ’s return, not the canon, citing “face to face” and “known fully.”
    Debunking:

1 Corinthians 13:10 (τὸ τέλειον): Teleion (neuter, “perfect”) fits the canon, as to ek merous (prophecy, knowledge) delivers revelation. Katargēthēsontai (passive, “will be rendered inoperative”) implies God’s act (completing graphē). Prosōpon pros prosōpon (“face to face,” 13:12) is metaphorical for clear knowledge via Scripture, not literal (Christ is Christos, masculine). Ginosko (“know fully,” future passive) aligns with graphē’s sufficiency (ikanē, 2 Timothy 3:17).

Conclusion: Teleion’s grammar supports the canon, not eschatology.

  1. Foundation and Mission
    My Rebuttal to You: You say the church’s mission continues, so gifts (edification, not just authentication) persist, as the Spirit still empowers.
    Debunking:

Ephesians 2:20 (θεμελίῳ): Themelion (foundation) of apostolōn kai prophētōn (apostles, prophets) with epoikodomēthentes (aorist, “having been built”) shows a completed role. Sign gifts (sēmeia, 2 Corinthians 12:12) were foundational.
1 Corinthians 12:7 (οἰκοδομήν): Gifts edify (oikodomēn), but diaireseis (distributions, 12:11) allows the Spirit to cease sign gifts. Dunamis (power, Acts 1:8) continues via preaching (kērusso, 1 Corinthians 1:23), not charismata.

Conclusion: Themelion and diaireseis limit gifts to apostles.

  1. Last Days and Obedience
    My Rebuttal to You: You argue gifts were poured out in the “last days” (Acts 2:17), not first days, and cessationism is disobedience to Scripture’s call for gifts.
    Debunking:

Acts 2:17 (ἐκχεῶ, “pour out”): Ekcheō (future, Joel’s prophecy) marks the church age’s start, but prophēteusousin (future, “will prophesy”) is tied to apostolic revelation (apokalupsis, Galatians 1:12). Graphē fulfills this (2 Timothy 3:16). Sbennute (1 Thessalonians 5:19, “do not quench”) with dokimazete (test, 5:21) demands scrutiny, not blind acceptance of modern prophēteias.

Conclusion: Ekcheō’s outpouring is fulfilled; cessationism tests, not disobeys.

“Dividing to every man as he will.” (diairoun idia hekasto kathos bouletai) “distributing separately or personally to each one as he (the Holy Spirit) wills.” The Spirit, as a person, was here declared to have had and exercised His judgment or discerning will in parceling gifts out to each Corinth church member, according to need. His will is always Holy, Heb_4:7; Rev_22:17.

Pun noted on the “App”

J.