Radio Debate with David Bernard;Tongues as Evidence of Baptism of the Holy Spirit

On opposite sides of this issue, Pastor David Bernard is

Pastor of New Life United Pentecostal Church in Austin, Texas. He has become well known as a champion of defending the teachings of Oneness Pentecostalism, which holds such doctrines as the necessity of tongues as the initial sign of the indwelling of the

Holy Spirit, the necessity of water baptism in the name of Jesus only for salvation, and a denial of the doctrine of the

Trinity, among other doctrines. Pastor Bernard has written 22 books which have been translated in 25 different languages among many other literary accomplishments in the field of Oneness Pentecostal apologetics.

Today's topic of the debate, again, is the teaching held by Pastor Bernard that tongues are the necessary initial evidence of the indwelling of the

Holy Spirit. Pastor Bernard, thank you for joining us. Yes, thank you. And on the opposite side is

Dr. James White, who of course is no stranger to our audience here at WMCA. He has appeared numerous times on the

Bible Answer Man broadcast with Hank Hanegraaff, heard on WMCA at 6 o 'clock Monday through Friday evenings, and he's also heard every week on WMCA as the

Thursday host of the Voice of Sovereign Grace broadcast, which airs at 10 o 'clock Monday through Friday evenings.

Dr. White has written over a dozen books, including his very latest work, The Forgotten Trinity, which defends the doctrine of the triune nature of the

Godhead. He's also a critical consultant of the New American Standard Bible Update Version, a professor of New Testament Greek at Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary, and one of several pastors at Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church in Arizona.

James White, Dr. White, thanks for joining us. It's great to be with you again, Andy. It's good to hear your voice again, too.

All right, let me start perhaps with Pastor Bernard. Pastor Bernard will give you a first salvo here.

Maybe you can define for us exactly what it is we're talking about. What is the gift of tongues?

All right. First of all, I might want to characterize some things a little differently than you have, and we can do that as we go through.

But essentially what I want to present is that the biblical experience of salvation in the

New Testament Church is, by the grace of God, we receive it through faith. And as we respond in faith, we obey the command to repent of our sins, then we're baptized in water, and then we're filled with the

Holy Spirit. And what you are asking me to specifically deal with is that I believe that speaking in tongues is the initial evidence of being baptized with the

Holy Spirit. And by tongues, I mean as the Spirit gives utterance,

Acts 2 -4, we begin to speak in a language we have not learned. Okay.

Dr. White, what is your definition? Well, I believe that to insist that speaking in tongues is the initial sign of the indwelling of the

Holy Spirit is to go against the vast majority of the testimony of the New Testament, which is consistent in saying that any person who has been truly born again by the

Spirit of God is indwelled by the Holy Spirit. However, it is also clear that not all speak in tongues.

This is a experience in the early Church that is mentioned in two, possibly three, books of the

New Testament. It is not even mentioned in the vast majority of the New Testament writings. And to make it normative, and in fact to say that without that experience, there has been no indwelling of the

Holy Spirit, I think is to add something to the Gospel that the New Testament writers never believed and did not teach.

Okay. Pastor Bernard, is it your belief that when an individual comes to a genuine saving knowledge of Jesus Christ and is indwelt by the

Holy Spirit, that tongues is the initial evidence of that saving faith, and that that absolutely must occur?

Well, we would look at saving faith as a progressive experience, as I said, first of all with repentance and then with water baptism and the infilling of the

Holy Spirit. And we do believe that, yes, when a person is baptized with the Spirit, he will speak in tongues as an initial sign of that experience.

We wouldn't say that tongues is a saving experience, but we would say that it's an evidence of what

God does. All right. Is your belief that every believer then should be speaking in tongues?

Well, they should have received the Holy Spirit, and when they receive that Spirit as the initial sign outwardly, they will speak in tongues.

Okay. Dr. White, what is your belief on this issue? I think we need to really press on this particular issue, because I think we've already reached the heart of it, and that is, if the action of speaking in tongues is and dogmatically can be affirmed to be the sign of the indwelling of the

Holy Spirit, and we all agree that there is no salvation without the indwelling of the

Holy Spirit, that the Scriptures plainly teach that if you do not have the Spirit of Christ, you are none of His. Paul clearly taught that all believers are indwelled by the

Holy Spirit of God. He is given to us as the Arabon, the down payment, the pledge money of God finishing

His work of salvation within us. If that action is scripturally the sign of the indwelling, and without it you are not indwelled, then obviously that becomes the sign of salvation.

It becomes the evidence that a person truly has been indwelled by the Holy Spirit of God.

And again, the Bible simply nowhere describes tongues in this way. That is an inference drawn from a minority of experiences in the book of Acts, not the majority.

Nowhere does Paul or any other apostle say, you must speak in tongues as the evidence of being indwelled by the

Holy Spirit. The evidence of being indwelled by the Holy Spirit is very simple. It is the fact that a person who was once at enmity with God is now a lover of God.

That is the evidence of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, is the changed character, the fact that a person who was once an enemy of God now worships

God and loves God, and wants to live that person's life in service to God. That is the evidence of the indwelling of the

Holy Spirit, not an ecstatic speech. We would not say that it's an either -or position.

If you'll notice, I spoke of speaking in tongues as the initial evidence. We certainly believe the supreme evidence is the fruit of the

Spirit in the life of the believer. Well, I understand that, but basically, let me put this very straightly.

Can a person be truly born again, indwelled by the Holy Spirit of God, and never speak in tongues?

Well, I believe they will have an experience of speaking in tongues at some point when they're filled with the

Spirit. Take myself as an example. I've known the

Lord for over 30 years, and I believe that I am indwelled by the

Holy Spirit of God, that He has guided and directed me, that He is the source of my desire to mortify the flesh, to live in holiness, etc.,

etc. But I have never spoken in tongues. My father is older than I am.

He's lived many years in faith with Christ. He has never spoken in tongues. My grandfather before him ministered the gospel.

Likewise, a pastor on this earth without ever speaking in tongues. If that is the initial evidence dogmatically from Scripture, how can any of us actually be saved?

Well, first of all, I think what we're going to have to do, and I'm sure we will in the next few minutes, is go to the Scripture itself, because that is going to be the determining factor, not our personal experience or someone else's.

I would not deny that the Spirit of God has led you in the ways that you've described, but I would say that salvation is a progressive experience.

And just taking what you have said, obviously you and I don't know each other personally, but we will assume the best about each other and believe what each other says about himself.

I think that's a straightforward way to perceive that I would believe that you're in the same process that I am in, in that God's grace is leading you, you're responding in faith.

And all I would say is, I would urge you to complete your experience after the pattern of the Acts of the

Apostles. Would you agree? You indicated in one of your books that baptism with, by, in or of the

Holy Ghost or Holy Spirit is part of New Testament salvation, not an optional post -conversional experience.

That's right. I don't see, as some would project, that there are two different experiences of the Holy Spirit. Okay.

And another one, this writer by the name of Reynolds has indicated that anyone who has never spoken in tongues has never been baptized with the

Holy Ghost. Would you disagree with him? No, I would not disagree with that. Okay. So would you say that a person such as myself has not been baptized with the

Holy Ghost? Well, it seems that if you don't have the, if you have not received the experience, as in the

Book of Acts, then I cannot affirm that you have actually received that experience. So since a person in, according to Paul's teaching in 1

Corinthians chapter 12, that you have all drunk of the same spirit, are you saying that being baptized in the

Spirit, being led by the Spirit, or receiving the Spirit are different things, or are they all the same? Well, I think certainly anybody who comes to God is being led by the

Spirit. That does not necessarily mean they're baptized with the Spirit. I think it's possible to be in the process, and for the process not to be complete yet.

So in Romans chapter 8, when Paul says, if you're led by the Spirit, you are the sons of God, how can you be led by the

Spirit and not be one of the sons of God? Well, yes, okay, I understand what you're saying now. It depends, of course, on the context as what we're talking about.

That was written to the New Testament Church, who would, I think you would agree, the people in Rome to who you wrote had already had a salvation experience, and I would argue that he's talking about their ongoing

Christian life, that you cannot say I'm, just because I had an experience with God, say, 10 years ago, that I'm in right standing with God today unless I continue to be led by the

Spirit. So is your assumption that all the believers in Rome to whom the book of Romans was written had spoken in tongues?

Yes, I believe that when they received the Holy Spirit, they spoke in tongues. But you would admit that there's nowhere in the book of Romans the word of, this concept of tongues is mentioned by name, is it?

No, it's not mentioned in the book of Romans, but of course Romans was written during the time period of the book of Acts, and Luke is very careful to explain how

Paul administered conversion to people in the book of Acts. Um, Pastor Bernard, do you believe that every single person in the

New Testament who was a true born -again believer in Christ, without exception, spoke in tongues? Uh, yes,

I do, and I base that on the evidence of the book of Acts, because there are, as Dr.

White has said, we're going to assume that all the believers in the New Testament were baptized with the

Holy Spirit, and so if we make that assumption, we go to the book of Acts, which is the history book of the early church, and we find the accounts of people who received the

Holy Spirit, and we find that they spoke in tongues. Well, I would say it's not an assumption, uh, that every believer is baptized in the

Holy Spirit. That is direct teaching of 1 Corinthians 12, 13, where Paul says, for by one spirit, we were all baptized into one body, where the

Jews are Greeks, so the slaves are free, and we are all made to drink of one spirit. So that's a biblical teaching. Yes, I agree,

I was just saying for the purposes of our discussion, we're not going to challenge that, because it sounds like we both accept the same thing on that regard.

Right, obviously, the issue is, do we then assume that everyone who was so baptized spoke in tongues, and I don't believe that that is the case.

For example, in Acts chapter 2, the result of the preaching of Peter on the day of Pentecost was the conversion of numbers of thousands of souls.

They were added to the Church, however, there is nothing in Acts 2 about their conversion indicates they spoke in tongues.

So it seems interesting that in the key passage, where the Holy Spirit comes upon the apostles, and they do speak in a language so that the many gathered there can understand the gospel message that is preached to them, that in that context, it would be highly significant if their converts then likewise spoke in tongues, but they didn't.

And so in the very first preaching of the Church, this doesn't take place. There is no evidence that these people spoke in tongues, and yet it does say that they were added to the

Church. Now you cannot become a part of that body, 1 Corinthians 12, 13, made that we have been baptized into one body without being baptized by the

Holy Spirit. Here is a clear example, individuals baptized by the Holy Spirit, made a part of the Church, they don't speak in tongues.

Well, I would say exactly the opposite. First of all, if you go back to the beginning of the chapter,

Christ himself had sent these folks to tarry for the promise of the

Father, the baptism of the Holy Ghost. And it says, all of those who were waiting there initially, in verse 4, they were all filled with the

Holy Ghost and began to speak with other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance. So there, everyone who obeyed

Christ's command, which was approximately 120 believers according to Acts chapter 1, every single one of these people did speak in tongues.

I would challenge the assumption that it was for preaching to people in various languages, because it's clear that all these people of the various countries were

Jews who came to Jerusalem, they all knew the common tongue, whether it be Aramaic or Greek or both, and the

Apostle Peter stood up and addressed them all. And there's no indication that he used 14 interpreters to preach to them, but they all understood his message.

Now, I think what's significant is they were questioning, they were amazed about the speaking in tongues.

They wanted to know what was going on. And Peter specifically said, this is the fulfillment of the prophecy, that God said,

I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh. So he is the one that linked the phenomenon of tongues with the speaking in tongues, with the pouring out of the

Holy Spirit. And then in verse 33, he said, God has shed this forth, that Christ, receiving this promise of the

Holy Ghost, has shed forth this which you now see and hear. So he's specifically identifying it with the evidence.

And then in verse 38, just a few verses later, he says, ye shall receive the gift of the

Holy Ghost. And I would be prepared to say, he's talking about the same Holy Ghost that he himself had just received.

And I think it's very interesting, and I'll close with an analysis, when it talks about those that believed his word, that then they that gladly received his word, verse 41, were baptized, and the same day they were added unto them about three thousand souls.

That initial statement doesn't say specifically to the church, it just says added unto that company.

Unto what company? The company of those who had received the Holy Spirit. So Peter predicted they would receive the

Holy Spirit. The text says they were added to the number of those who did receive the Holy Spirit.

So I would say, yes, they did receive the Spirit, and they received it the same way the first part of the

Where, again, where in Acts chapter 2, beginning in verse 37 following, does it say that these people spoke in tongues?

Well, what I'm saying is Acts 4 sets the tone. For example, Acts 4, chapter 2, verse 4, it says that all of those who received the

Holy Ghost spoke in tongues. Peter then promises this same Holy Ghost to everyone else, and so it's obvious that they received the same experience that the earlier people received.

But don't you see that you're just making that as an assumption? No, it's not. For example, it does not say they believed, but you would assume they did.

That says they were pierced to the heart. Right. Verse 37, it says,

Brethren, what shall we do? Repent, and each of you be baptized. You know Acts 2, 38. Yes.

The promise is for you. With many other words, he solemnly testified and kept saying, Be saved, this perverse generation.

So then those who had received his word were baptized, and that day there were added about 3 ,000 souls.

That's exactly right. Again, the fact of the matter is, we have here the baptism of these individuals. You are quite correct, they received the very same

Holy Spirit that they did, but the assumption that you're reading into the text, that is not a part of the text, is the assertion that therefore they must have received the same experience that someone received in 2 .4.

Again, since we have so many instances of individuals being saved and there is no express statement, not even an intimation of that experience, it simply doesn't follow that you're giving us an exegetical account.

This is more of a, well, this is how I explain these things, but I think in a debate we have to demonstrate where we get these things before we then try explaining why we believe them.

Okay, first of all, I would say, for example, it does not say they repented.

So using your logic, we have to assume they didn't repent. No, it says they received the word of Peter.

To receive the word is to accept that. That is used many times in Scripture to refer to the acceptance of the

Gospel message. And if Paul had said to believe and repent, I'm sorry, Peter had said to believe and repent, that's what they did, but Peter never said to them, speak in tongues.

The command was believe and repent. They did so. They were baptized. They were added, and again,

I think contextually, quite obviously, to the number of the believers, which is the

Church. I'm not sure how you make a distinction there, but the simple fact of the matter is, here is one example, and we can go to others, for example, in Acts chapter 13, where the same thing happens when there, in Acts 13, they did believe, and again, no speaking in tongues.

Well, what I'm pointing out, you're trying to say, well, we've got to find the word speaking in tongues after verse 37.

Well, my point would likewise be, you don't find the word repent after that point, but in the context, it's obvious, if Peter commanded them to repent, they received his word, we can safely assume that they repented.

But there is no safe assumption that Peter says, now speak in tongues. Well, if you'll follow the chapter from the beginning, everyone who received the

Holy Ghost spoke in tongues, according to verse 4. All who were gathered in the upper room. That's right.

And so that does not follow, and this is your assumption, Dr. Bernard, it does not follow that that becomes the normative standard.

You're making it that, and that's where your exegesis is determined. I'm simply pointing out there is no reason to make that assumption.

Gentlemen, we've got a switchboard full of calls. Let me take a couple, and then we'll get back into some other specifics. Mike in New Jersey.

Mike, you're on the air. Yes. Go ahead. Thank you for letting me on with David Bernard and Mr.

White. I appreciate this discussion. I wanted to make one point that I thought was interesting, and I think

Brother Bernard was trying to make. In Acts chapter 2 and verse 11, the Bible says, we heard them speak in tongues the wonderful works of God.

They were all amazed, and were in doubt, saying, what meaneth this? Others, mocking, said, these men are full of new wine. But Peter addressed that that which they saw was the fulfillment of the prophet

Joel. What? Well, this strange action, this speaking in tongues, this going forth in that language, was what the prophet

Joel said would happen, and endorse that. And I think that's what

Peter is actually saying when he preaches in Acts chapter 2. I also feel like when he addressed

Cornelius's house, he first started out saying, I perceive that God is no respecter of persons. Then later on in Acts chapter 11, he addressed to the council that these men,

Cornelius's house, received the same gift, the like gift which God gave unto us. I was a Catholic, and then

I was in the Assemblies of God for about eight years, and then God gave me this revelation of the truth of repentance, what a baptism in Jesus' name, and receiving the

Holy Ghost. I received the Holy Ghost when I was 14 years old. Now, one question I would like to ask you, do you, what is your opinion about people that have spoken in tongues?

Mr. White, I would address. And do you believe in the perpetuity of the gifts? Do you believe that the gifts are active today?

Well, first in regards to Acts 2, again, I think that we're completely missing Peter's point in making tongues the fulfillment.

It is part of the fulfillment of the coming of the Spirit in that context, but the Acts chapter 2, verse 11, we hear them in our own tongues speaking of the mighty deeds of God, to miss that is the speaking of the mighty deeds of God that is the primary function of the

Holy Spirit in causing people to bear testimony to the Gospel, I think is one of the great dangers of what

I believe to be the imbalanced position here that makes tongues the only initial sign.

In regards to my view of tongues, no, I do not believe that. I believe that tongues are a specific gift that were given for a specific time, for a specific purpose, on the basis of 1

Corinthians chapter 14. And I do not, I would point out to everyone that I know in dealing with, in my ministry with all sorts of different groups,

I know of individuals from all sorts of religions that you and I would agree are nowhere near godly or presenting

God's truth that speak in tongues. Ecstatic utterance is not even limited to Christian groups.

Ecstatic utterance can be found in all sorts of the world's religions. Therefore, it can be faked, it can be untrue, it can be emotional in origin.

I have a friend who is a former Pentecostal that can turn on speaking tongues at the snap of a finger if he wants to, but he doesn't believe it's the

Holy Spirit of God. And my point in bringing this issue up is that if this becomes the sign, it is a sign that can be faked by non -Christian religions, it is a sign that can be demonstrated by people who claim to be

Christians but, for example, are LDS, Mormons, who are polytheists.

That cannot function as the initial sign, because it simply is not something that is quote -unquote foolproof.

But I will tell you this, a heart that once hated the justice and law of God, that hated the call to repentance, and is changed into a heart that desires to bow before God in repentance, that, my friend, is the evidence of the indwelling of the

Holy Spirit. Okay, Pastor Bernard, any response? Yes. First of all, I do want to stress, at your choice, you're focusing on tongues.

That's not my choice. I'm happy to discuss it, but we would say that these other evidences are even more important than tongues.

We would agree that tongues can be faked or demonically done or emotionally done, as can anything.

Any kind of evidence that you would bring forth, at least as far as other people can discern, can only be imperfectly discerned, and we would certainly argue that these other evidences are vitally important.

I would say there is a definite experience of receiving the Holy Ghost, however, as we find the case of Paul.

Clearly, his heart was repentant at the time he called out on the road to Damascus in response to the

Lord, but yet it's also clear that he was subsequently, three days later, filled with the

Holy Spirit when Ananias prayed for him. So I would argue there is a distinction between our initial response to the

Gospel in repentance and actually the consummation of the infilling of the Holy Spirit. I also have a number of comments

I'd like to make about Acts 2 and then Acts 10 and 11, but maybe I can weave those in if you want to go on.

All right, let me do that. Mike, thanks for the call. Let me go to John on Long Island. John? Hey, Andy.

Hey, you have a great show going on. I never thought I would agree with James White, but it shows you that even a

Baptist can be right once in a while. There's nowhere in the Bible that says that everybody who's born of the

Holy Spirit has the gift of tongues. In 1 Corinthians 12 .4,

it says there are a variety of gifts that are given by the Holy Spirit. But I'd like to comment on something that Pastor Bernard said before.

He said that the Acts is the history book of the early church, and I think that's where we come into a problem.

It is not the history book. It is one of the history books. There are many history books of the early church, the writings of the early church fathers, the

Didache, which are the writings of the apostles. If you examine these, there's nowhere that it states that everyone who received the

Holy Spirit spoke in tongues, that there's just no evidence historically or biblically for that point of view.

All right, Dr. White? Well, I think that question was more for Dr.

Bernard, especially since the caller seemed to be in such utter shock and consternation that he agreed with me on anything.

All right, I just wanted to give you an opportunity to do that. Pastor Bernard, go ahead. I'm speaking, of course, in the context of the

Bible. The book of Acts is the only inspired history book of the early church, and I would certainly not give authority to these other documents, but if you want to look at those documents, they're not histories by any means.

They're occasional letters, epistles, and you will find quite strong statements relative to speaking in tongues there.

I don't think we want to go there because we have a biblical discussion, but if we do go there, we're going to actually find that Dr.

White's position of the cessation of tongues is denied by all of these writers that speak on the issue.

But, Pastor, I think you have to go there because, in fact, it actually happened in the early church.

The Bible talks only about portions of it. You have to go to history. You can't say all of history is wrong because it's not in the

Bible. It's not inspired, I agree with that, but it's still very useful in determining what happened in the early church.

Well, I will comment on that. I think one of the grave errors is to take the book of Acts and to try to make it normative for the entire church period.

I think that's plainly seen to be an error just in looking at Acts itself and the difference in character between what's going on, say, in Acts chapters 26 through the end, what's going on in 2 through 4.

There is clearly what we have in the book of Acts is the story of the founding of the church, and the first time this happens and the first time that happens,

I think one of the errors that I'm trying to point out here is taking an initial experience and making it normative for everything else that happens.

The caller brought up 1 Corinthians chapter 12, and I know that Dr. Bernard very strongly disagrees with the assertion that Paul's statement in 1

Corinthians chapter 12, where he specifically says, not all speak in tongues, 1 Corinthians 12 .30,

that that refers to some other gift, not the initial sign of speaking in tongues. I know that that's his position.

I strongly disagree with it. But again, if we look at the New Testament as a whole, what's being said here is that the only and seemingly the only initial evidence that is consistent with everyone speaking in tongues is mentioned in only two, possibly three books of the entire

New Testament, and this one thing that should have been the outward sign that was clear to everyone isn't found in 24 out of the 27 books of the

New Testament. It's sort of like, well, we're just not going to point that out. Pastor Bernard, let me ask you, is there any evidence in Scripture that Jesus spoke in tongues?

I don't know of any evidence in Scripture. I don't think he needed to be born again, so I'm sure he was capable of speaking in tongues, but whether he did or not, it's speculative.

But I would like to follow up on this. Let me give you an example.

I think both of us would agree that justification by faith is a key, essential doctrine of Scripture.

But let me use this analogy. The earliest post -apostolic writings do not clearly teach it, and in fact, many of them implicitly or expressly deny it.

So from the time of the Apostle Paul until Martin Luther, you don't have a clear statement of justification by faith.

That's no reason to deny that doctrine. Likewise, the term justified by faith or justification by faith or some synonymous phrase appears nowhere in the

Gospels. It appears, I think, one time in the book of Acts. It appears many times in Romans and Galatians.

After that, it doesn't appear anywhere else in the epistles or the book of Revelation, unless maybe you count the quote of Habakkuk in Hebrews.

So essentially, you've got three or four books that mention it, yet that's no reason to deny that it's an essential doctrine.

You have to look at the occasion and purpose for the books, and you have to look to references that would imply it or would refer to it.

And I would make the same position, and I still want to get to giving some specific examples from the book of Acts where we can see the importance of tongues.

Well, I would disagree on numerous points there. First of all, you have entire chapters dedicated to the presentation didactically.

That is, direct teaching, not drawing inferences based upon assuming this or assuming that, but didactic, direct teaching in regards to justification throughout

Romans and Galatians. You have it in Ephesians, you have it in Titus, you have it in 1st, 2nd Timothy. It's not limited to just a couple of books.

And I would also disagree with the statement in regards to the early church. Clement of Rome said, therefore, all these were glorified and magnified not because themselves or through their own works, or for the righteous deeds they performed by his will.

And we also, being called by his will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by means of ourselves, nor by our own wisdom or understanding or godliness or works which ye have done in holiness of heart, but by that faith through which the

Almighty God has justified all those believing from the beginning, to whom be glory forever and ever. Amen.

That's section 32 of his letter. So I would disagree that there is no statement from Paul to the time of the

Reformation in regards to that either. Well, I can find isolated statements regarding tongues, but I'm talking about the overall tenor.

It's generally conceded that the post -apostolic fathers fell below, at least in their expression, the doctrine of justification by faith.

I would agree, but I don't think that there is a proper parallel between looking at that in history and looking at the fact that the assertion that I have made, and that is that there is no explicit statement that speaking in tongues is binding upon every individual.

This is derived only from examples. It is not a didactic statement, and yet you look at Romans chapter 4 verses 4 through 8, and you have clearly, propositionally, not merely by inference, but the clear assertion of justification by grace through faith.

So I do not believe that that is a proper parallel to draw between the clear presentation of the

Gospel in the Pauline Epistles and this concept of making tongues the initial sign of the indwelling of the

Holy Spirit. Well, I would respond, and certainly in making that analogy, I'm supporting the doctrine of justification by faith, as I think you understand that.

But I would further argue that doctrine is not only taught in didactic passages, that is, by propositional logic, but I would say the overwhelming method of teaching of the

Bible is, in fact, by example, historical precedent, by analogy.

Practically all the Old Testament is that way, the Gospels, the Book of Acts, and I think the historical example is equally as valid a means of teaching as using propositional logic, and I think we have to draw equally from both areas.

Well, but again, if you're going to say, specifically, that this is an activity that is the sign of the indwelling of the

Holy Spirit, and say that you must be baptized by the Holy Spirit to be saved, to be a part of the Church, and there is didactic teaching directly against your position in Paul's statement that not all speak with tongues, then you not only have to explain what

Paul was talking about and say, well, he's talking about something differently, but you also have to explain why it is that, well, we have an example here, but then we look at Acts chapter 2 and the people are converted, they don't speak in tongues, but we have to assume that they did, and we have to assume that the people in Acts 13, 48 spoke in tongues.

You have a tremendous pile of assumptions with precious little data holding them up, and that's what becomes the problem, especially, and maybe you're avoiding doing this,

I appreciate you've been very, very careful, but I've talked to a lot of, one, the Pentecostal folks who have very bluntly said, if you don't speak in tongues, you're going to hell.

Now, if you say that this is something that must happen, or there is no true salvation, then

I know you're trying to avoid making that a condition of salvation, but I'm not really sure that you're successful in being able to do so.

I feel like that what we're bound to do is speak according to the teachings of the

Scripture, and I do find very strong positive affirmations of Scripture that we are to receive the

Holy Spirit, and the example of the Scriptures is speaking in tongues. I would not like to say, if you're not speaking in tongues, you're going to hell, because I think, number one, that puts me in the realm of personal judgment, which only

God can do that. I can speak the general principles of the Word, but ultimately, God is going to judge each individual personally, and if someone is genuinely filled with the

Spirit, then they're going to be saved, and only God can ultimately judge the heart of a person.

So, I would not like to be in a position of personal judgment, first. Second, I would like to speak as the

Scriptures present the matter, and not feel forced to go in a different light than the way the

Scriptures present it, and ultimately, I think salvation is a process, which I believe that I'm in that process.

I believe that Dr. White is in that process, and I'm advocating that he take the next step, but ultimately,

I hope that both he and I end up in the same place, and so until the judgment comes, I'm not willing to close off that opportunity.

All right, that's the second time you've said that, and I don't want to lose that thought. Earlier, in the first hour, you said that he should complete the experience, and now you just said he should take the next step.

How do you do that? Well, I think once a person has repented, and they've truly expressed their faith in Jesus Christ, then they need to seek

God for the gift of the Holy Spirit, and this is one of the things that I think does support our position.

The Book of Acts talks about being baptized with the Holy Spirit, which I think both he and I will agree is to be dipped, to be plunged, to be immersed, to be overwhelmed.

It says, fill with the Spirit. Spirit poured out. Spirit fell on them. These are all dramatic, intense, exciting experiences.

Now, I'm not going to speak about Dr. White personally, because I don't know him personally, but many people, it seems like the general run of Christianity that doesn't emphasize the baptism of the

Holy Ghost with speaking in tongues, it's very common for people to say, well, I received the Spirit as a baby.

I received it when I was baptized. I don't know when I received it. I just grew up this way, or I just signed a confession, or I called on the phone, or I shook the preacher's hand, and I think

I received the Spirit. But in the Book of Acts, it's a definite, clear -cut, overwhelming crisis experience, and that accords more with the view that I'm proposing than with a view that's more commonly proposed.

I'm not sure what view is most commonly proposed. The viewpoint that is expressed, I think, by the vast majority of evangelicals, and certainly

I can only speak to the viewpoint that's expressed within my own communion, is that there is no salvation outside of regeneration.

That regeneration is the work of the Holy Spirit of God, where a spiritually dead person is brought to spiritual life.

They are granted the gifts of faith and repentance. They are justified. Justification of the past tense action is something we look back upon.

And every person who is so regenerated, who is given the gifts of faith and repentance, is baptized in the

Holy Spirit, indwelt by the Holy Spirit, and added to the Church of Christ. The statement that's being made by Dr.

Bernard is that I have not been baptized in the Holy Spirit because I have not spoken in tongues.

If you do not have the Spirit of Christ, you are none of His, is Paul's teaching in Romans chapter 8.

In Romans chapter 12, he says, for by one Spirit, this is verse 13, we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks or the slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one

Spirit. Now, if speaking in tongues must take place to be baptized by that Spirit, that means

I'm not a part of the Church, that I am not in that body, and that has to logically result in the statement that I am not saved.

If I am not saved, then that means that I am going to hell. Now, saying that salvation is a process, no,

I have been justified. Dikaiothentos is an aorist passive participle, Dr. Bernard, in Romans 5 .1.

I have been justified. I look back upon that justification, and I do not believe that when you listen to what the

New Testament teaches, that you can come to the conclusion that a person can have faith, repent, be justified, and not be baptized in the

Holy Spirit. And since that is my testimony, obviously I don't make my testimony

Scripture. But my point is that logically, that is why I said what I said at the end of last hour, and I think that's logically why one of the

Pentecostals have frequently said what they said, and that is, without this experience, you can't possibly be saved, because there's no way to separate these things out.

Dr. Bernard Malkus All right. You want to give a quick response, and then we'll take some calls, Pastor Bernard? Dr. Bernard Malkus Well, I don't like the way some things are characterized, as if speaking in tongues is what saves you.

I would draw the analogy that the basic Protestant view of salvation is by grace through faith, but faith is not real unless there is the accompanying fruit of works.

But the Protestants would not take the next logical leap and say that works saves you, or that works is necessary to salvation.

I would do the same with the Holy Spirit and tongues. It's the Holy Spirit that is the experience that puts you in the body of Christ, and I find in the

Bible that tongues is the evidence that we should expect. But I can't say that tongues is what saves you, or the lack of tongues is what sends you to hell.

God is the one who chooses to grant this sign, and that is not the salvational sign, or the salvational event, but it's the work of the

Holy Ghost. I'm not asserting that you're making it a salvational event. However, I would just draw the parallel and see how you'd respond to it.

I'm a Judaizer in Galatia, and I say, oh no, circumcision does not save, but everyone who truly believes will be circumcised.

Now, if you make it the condition that demonstrates the reality of the saving faith, how does that differ from saying, well, yes, we all agree that unless you can dwell by the

Holy Spirit of God, baptized by the Holy Spirit of God, you are not of Christ, you aren't truly saved, and so since this is the initial evidence of this, if you haven't done this, then what is that telling you about your state?

Well, tongues is not something we do. It's something the Holy Ghost bestows, so in that sense it's a work of God, apart from our efforts or our ability.

Believe me, every person I know of who believes, for example, in baptismal regeneration says baptism isn't something we do either.

It's a work of God as well, but I understand what you're saying, but please understand why it is that most of us who hear this say,

I appreciate you're not wanting to say I'm unsaved, but the only logical result of carrying your position to its end is that I'm not.

Well, let me take a couple calls here, because we have a jammed switchboard. Lucy in Manhattan. Lucy, thank you for holding on, and you're on the air.

Oh, thank you, and thank God that I'm getting on today. This is so important, because I've lived a long life, from 77 years young, let's say, and I'm going to have to face my maker soon.

Pastor Bernard, or Pastor David, if I may call you that, would you please help me understand this?

Let's say, at whatever point the person has been given the gift of tongues, is it only a one -time thing that they, if they're lucky enough to remember it, they know it, but if they aren't, they never do it again, or are they able to call upon it again, and is it something that someone with that gift can call upon?

All right, as far as I can see in the book of Acts, it is a one -time experience that happens to you.

So wait, here's my question. Have you spoken in tongues after that one first -time experience?

Were you able to? Are you able to? Yes, I have, and let me carry that further.

It's something that can happen again. It's something that can be an ongoing experience in your personal prayer life.

It's something that sometimes God uses to speak to the church, where someone will speak in tongues, and someone else will give the interpretation, and by the way, that is the context of 1

Corinthians 12, that that has been brought up a couple of times. Not everyone will be used of God in this public gift, but to answer your question,

I did receive the Holy Ghost as a child, and I spoke in tongues, and I did not for many years thereafter.

I sought the Lord regarding this matter, and as a young adult, I began speaking in tongues again.

So it's something that can continue to occur in your life. It's not something

I think that you can just call at will. It has to be by the unction of the Holy Spirit. All right, if I understand you correctly, the speaking in tongues is a one -time gift that happens to you one time, and can happen in subsequent situations?

Yes, more specifically, the baptism of the Holy Spirit is a one -time event with the accompanying sign of tongues.

Thereafter, in the life of a spirit -filled person, there can be a diversity of gifts manifested, including speaking in tongues in your personal prayer life, or in some cases, with some people, speaking in tongues as a form of public proclamation.

All right, any comment, Dr. White? Well, I would just point out that the, and it was a little difficult for him to get it out because of the caller, but I would disagree with the assertion that, well, 1

Corinthians 12 doesn't apply here, because that's only in regards to speaking to the Church. When you look at that, this is clearly,

A, it is a gift of the Holy Spirit of God. It is connected with the working of miracles.

If we look at the situations in the book of Acts, we would discover not only the same terms used, but the term miracles would be used.

Obviously, the word interpret indicates the use of another language. I think it is simply arbitrary to say, well, this simply means that not everyone speaks in the

Church in tongues, but everyone who's baptized by the Holy Spirit does, in fact, speak in tongues.

I think that's an arbitrary distinction that does not drive from the text itself. All right. Let's see Simeon in Brooklyn. Simeon, you're on the air.

Go ahead. Yeah, thank you, Andy, for having me take my call. Go ahead. There are those who say that these signs are not of the day, but I would like to ask the pastors to elaborate on Acts 2, 39, and 1

Corinthians 13, 9, and 10, and I'd like to hear their explanation of what the interpretation of those two verses represents.

All right. Dr. White, you want to start? Well, I'm not sure exactly what the caller is looking for.

In Acts 2, verse 39, you have the promises for your children, for all who are far off, as many as the

Lord our God will call to Himself. That's the promise of salvation itself. I'm not sure if you attach that to something else.

The promise is the promise that Peter has been preaching about in his sermon, and as far as 1

Corinthians 13, I know what you're referring to there. I don't accept the argument that in Chapter 13 you have there a reference to the end times or something along those lines.

I recognize there are those who make those arguments, but I don't know if that's really the firmest foundation upon which to base that.

My view in regards to the gift of tongues is based upon statements in Chapter 14 in regards specifically to verses 21 and following about the purpose of tongues and what they're supposed to do, why

God gives the gift. God always gives gifts for a particular purpose, never for any other reason.

Let me comment. You know, verse 39 of Acts 2, it's continuing on to what

Peter had said about Joel 2 .38. You know, this promise has been fulfilled, and he was elaborating on 39.

He said the promise is not for those people of those days only, but for their children, children, and to as many as the

Lord our God shall call. So the promise that was given to them then is not only for them at that time, but for us today on a continual basis.

Okay, that's the gospel message. Yeah, Dr. Bernard, you want to take a crack at that? Yes, I would say that Acts 2 .39

is speaking of the baptism of the Holy Spirit. That was the whole essence of what Peter responded to, and specifically in verse 38, that was the gift to which he referred and the promise to which he referred.

I would argue that the gifts and the miraculous signs of the Spirit continue. Dr. White's position notice would be that the miraculous accounts of the book of Acts are not the paradigm for today.

So he's thinking that I exalt Acts too much, but he is saying Acts, the churches all throughout the book of Acts, all through those years, are not normal churches.

He's also saying that much of the epistles has no application to us. First Corinthians, Hebrews, talking about the signs and wonders and gifts.

He's arguing that a bulk of the New Testament is not really written to us or for us.

Not even close. I can't let a statement like that stand. That's utterly untrue. I never made any statement even close to something that far from my real intention.

What I indicated was that God gives gifts for a particular purpose, and according to First Corinthians 14, the gift of tongues specifically, which

Dr. Bernard even tries to differentiate from what we're talking about on the subject, is specifically given as a signed gift demonstrating to the people of Israel the gospel going out to the nations, going out to the

Gentiles themselves. And that is the assertion that I made. I am in no way, shape, or form saying that there is anything in the

New Testament that is not for today. I did say that the book of Acts, by trying to make it normative, what you're basically saying is, well, you have to do the same thing, for example, that the

Mormons do in saying you always have to have apostles. There were apostles in Acts, so we always have to have

No, they laid the foundation. They built the foundation upon which the Church is built. That's why

I ask Mormons all the time, how many foundations does a building have? It only has one foundation, then you build it.

Well, the Church is built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief cornerstone.

In the same way, the apostles raised the dead. Now, are we going to take that and make it normative for the

Church? Are we going to say that if you're going to be a leader in the Church, you have to raise the dead? Open blind eyes?

If so, I guess I'm going to have to ask Dr. Bernard, have you raised anyone from the dead recently? Well, it's interesting that you would make that claim.

We don't see in the book of Acts that that is a normative sign. We do believe that miracles such as that still happen.

Exactly, and we don't see in the book of Acts speaking in tongues. If you want me to give you an example, yes, we had a man who fell over for all intents and purposes dead, and we prayed for him, and he was raised up, and I can go more into detail in that testimony, but I don't want to get too far afield, but we do believe in those things.

But I guess what I'm pointing out is in 1 Corinthians, when it says, forbid not to speak with tongues, and covet the gifts, and so on and so forth, you're really relegating that to the first century and not to today.

Okay, let me take some more calls here. Let me thank Simeon for the call. Henry on Long Island, go ahead, you're on the air.

Okay, I think what has helped me to have a conclusion to this controversy is that the word of God is complete, and the book of Revelation at the last chapter, it emphasized that if anyone had to take away,

God would add the plagues. Now, if a person is experiencing extra revelation, or revelation from God, as far as tongues, healing, and so on, for example, if someone's interpreting tongues, and that is from God, then that is the very word of God, or if someone's having prophecy today,

God directly speak to him, and he would say exactly what God said to him, then the

Bible is not completed. What you have is the very inspired word of God.

Now, this movement of the signs of wonderful movement, which I believe has been predicted in time for Jesus' warning, is not only unscriptural, but it's very dangerous and damnable, because it is saying that the word of God is not satisfying.

It's not satisfying like the call here of the pastor here from the

Assembly of God, he used the word excitement. See, if we don't just trust the word of God, and trust the word of God alone for our sanctification, and the gifts that it's given as far as teaching and preaching, hospitality, and all these things,

Ephesians chapter 4 is saying, if we're not satisfied with that, then we're going to be looking for these extra signs.

See, the Bible is complete, but if you're saying there's more extra revelation, or God continually bringing direct revelation, and tongues and visions, then you're denying that the canon is closed.

All right, Dr. Bernard, do you agree with that? No, I absolutely do not. I do not believe in any authoritative revelation after the

New Testament. I do believe the canon is closed. I'm not speaking of extra biblical revelation, but if you take the logic of the caller's position, then anyone who feels a call to preach, for example, you would have to say that's not of God, because they felt something from God.

We would identify, to use an analogy that maybe he could relate to, we would identify prophecy, tongues, interpretation, dreams, visions, signs, wonders, as a means of God speaking personally to us in directing our lives.

Much like most, he would speak of the illumination of the Holy Spirit in reading and understanding the

Bible, in getting personal direction for callings to ministry, or calling to service, or even such things as God speaking to a person's heart to bring them to repentance.

And we would not argue for infallible, authoritative things, the equivalent or additional to Scripture whatsoever.

I would like to follow up, because it's been mentioned several times, I haven't had a chance. 1 Corinthians 12, for exegetical reasons, is speaking of something a little bit different from the book of Acts, because Paul says, in the church, and then he proceeds to give guidelines, and he says, speak in tongues at the most two or three, let one interpret, and if there's no interpreter, let him keep silent.

Well, in the book of Acts, 120 received the Holy Ghost in Acts 2. In Acts 10, the whole household of Cornelius, they didn't do it two or three, or ask for interpretation, so they did not follow those rules in 1

Corinthians. Why? Because Acts was dealing with the initial accounts of conversion and receiving the

Holy Spirit, and it wasn't talking about in the regular church service, as 1

Corinthians 14 is giving guidelines for how to deal with tongues as a part of your public worship service.

Well, I think right there, I think right there, my position was just stated. That is,

Dr. Bernard just said, well, in Acts, we have these initial things going on, but here in 1

Corinthians, we have regulation within the church. In other words, again, as I've been saying, I think we've got going on here, and I want to make this clear, is we have taking of initial situations and saying, well, if it happened once, or if it happened twice, then it becomes normative.

And I'm simply saying, that does not follow, because of the fact that you can find numerous places in the book of Acts, and you keep saying, well, the book of Acts says this, the book of Acts says that.

The book of Acts records many people being indwelt by the Holy Spirit, and never says anything about tongues.

The assumption is made, well, they did, it just doesn't say anything about it. But again, you can't create a dogma where you say, this is the sign, this is the sign, the initial sign of the indwelling of the

Holy Spirit. You can't create a dogma based upon assuming that it must have happened in places where the

Scriptures plainly tell us, these people were indwelt by the Holy Spirit, but they did not speak in tongues as a result.

That's the danger. Well, let's look at the evidence. There are five specific statements in the

New Testament of people being baptized with the Holy Spirit, only five. They're in the book of Acts.

Acts 2, they were all filled with the Spirit, began speaking with tongues. Now, I know Dr. White has made the case that those later in the day didn't, but Peter promised the same experience to them, and I'm persuaded that they received it.

No, no, no, no, Dr. Carter, you keep saying you promised the same experience. He promised the same Spirit. You assume that receiving the

Spirit results in the same experience. That's what you can't assume, you have to... Well, he said it's what you see and hear, and so he's telling them.

But anyway, let me summarize. Acts 10, Cornelius and his household, and the Jewish Christians were very skeptical, but they were forced to admit it, because Acts 10, 46, how did they know the

Holy Ghost had come upon him? For they heard them speak with tongues. And then Acts 11,

Peter reports back to Jerusalem, he says, they received the like gift as we did, who believed on the

Lord Jesus Christ. He explicitly links it, and he says, as we did at the beginning.

So he's very specific in saying, these people have believed on the Lord just as we did.

They received the same experience in the same manner that we did, specifically linking the tongues.

Acts 19, same thing. Acts 8, there is no mention of tongues, but there's an unnamed, miraculous occurrence.

And then the Apostle Paul, we know he spoke in tongues. Those are the only five accounts that actually refer to someone receiving the

Holy Ghost, and far from tongues being in the minority, tongues is the common link. Well, one thing really quickly, one of the callers had referred to Dr.

Bernard being part of the Assemblies of God, and I'm sure he would want to correct as well that misapprehension, because if you have anyone from the

Assemblies of God on the phone right now, they're probably beating on the wall and doing very similar things to say, so I'm sure that that's probably the issue.

Again, when we're dealing with what the New Testament teaches, we have to take a look at all of what

Scripture presents. And when Scripture presents the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit and talks to Christians about what it means to be indwelled by the

Holy Spirit, what we're hearing is that what you have to do is you have to take what is said in a particular part of the

Bible, only the book of Acts, you have to extend, and this is what being said was being the problem we have here, and the presentation was made was, well, if you limit it only to the phrase baptized in the

Holy Spirit, then these are the situations. The problem is, baptized in the Holy Spirit, receiving the

Holy Spirit, being indwelled by the Holy Spirit, so on and so forth, all mean the same thing. And when you allow those in, all of a sudden, there's this much broader situation.

And so I don't know if Dr. Bernard has dispensational tendencies or not, but there are all sorts of folks in the

New Testament that were indwelled by the Holy Spirit that did not speak in tongues. You have Mary, you have

Elizabeth, Zacharias, John the Baptist, Jesus was indwelled by the Spirit, but again, the issue is not that he didn't speak.

You have many of the situations in the book of Acts where Dr. Bernard is assuming they did so, even though the text does not say they did, and then when you go into all the passages where the

New Testament writes to Christians about what it means to be indwelled by the Holy Spirit and what he represents, tongues never appears.

It's just not there. You have to assume it to find it. And I'm simply saying there's two ways of doing theology.

There's one to derive it out of the text, there's another to have an overriding system and force it onto the text.

We have to be careful to test our traditions by what the text itself says, and I think the problem

I have with limiting it only to that phrase, baptized, is clearly Paul and the other apostles did not say that baptism of the

Holy Spirit and being indwelled by the Holy Spirit, so on and so forth, are different things. I think that's an arbitrary distinction.

Okay. Let me go to Mack in Brooklyn. Mack, you're on the air. All right, thanks a lot, Andy, for having me. I have a question,

Pastor White. When you talk about speaking in tongues, the key word that we keep using here is tongues, but if we change the word to speaking with the

Spirit, because as you see, Paul stated in Ephesians, he said, pray in the

Spirit, and you confirm that, pray in the Spirit. And Paul states again in Corinthians 14, he said, when

I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays. He continued to say it's spirit, but then his mind, which is our thought, will understand it.

He states again that he that prays in a tongue edifies himself. But when you pray in tongue in the church, let one person interpret that God may be glorified.

The key is, in Acts, those who spoke in tongues, everybody heard them speaking in tongues, edifying and glorifying

God. When a person speaks in the congregation, in the church, everyone hears and glorifies

God as one is interpreting. Now, I do agree with you. Everyone don't have to speak in tongues to be saved, but it is an experience that when a person has that intimacy with God, Paul states in Ephesians, pray in the

Spirit, sing in the Spirit. You confirm that by saying, build up yourself, praying in the

Holy Ghost. So this is something that we do need to have. Is it the continuation or the pivot point for salvation?

No, when a person is saved, repentance is the only thing that's required. Well, I don't believe the passage is referring to tongues.

I pray in the Spirit. We pray in the Spirit within the church. We pray in the Spirit when we pray personally.

I don't think a Christian can pray in any other way, though I guess from, we'll have to ask

Dr. Bernard, I would guess that he would believe I can't pray in the Spirit because I haven't been baptized in the Holy Spirit to receive the

Holy Ghost. But I do not believe that either of the two passages you cited are referring to speaking in tongues.

So why do Paul say, in Corinthians 9, he said, therefore when I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays?

He himself says that. Well, how would you pray outside of the

Spirit? How would you pray outside of the Spirit? Well, praying in the Spirit is praying for a person saved.

I'm sorry, I can't hear what you're saying. What? Praying in the Spirit is when you pray, when you're praying to the Father. But Paul emphasizes a specific language.

He says tongue. What you're trying to do is... Not in Ephesians or Jude, he doesn't. Not in Ephesians. He says pray in the

Spirit. Why do you believe that means tongues? Why do I think it means tongues? For the simple fact, he refers back to himself in Corinthians.

He says, I speak in tongues more than you. He didn't refer to anything in Ephesians back to Corinthians. I think he's just reading that in.

Dr. Bernard, is the Spirit and tongues one and the same? Well, no, the

Spirit and tongues are not one and the same. But the caller is talking about 1 Corinthians. I will pray with the

Spirit and I will pray with the understanding. I will sing with the Spirit and I will sing with the understanding.

Clearly, in that passage, he is contrasting praying with choosing the words in his mind, in his native language, with letting the

Spirit flow through him and choosing the words. So to that extent, the caller is certainly accurate in that context.

Paul is extolling both praying in tongues and praying in the known language. Well, Dr. White just made the point that since he has not spoken in tongues, you probably would say he could not pray in the

Spirit. No, he can't. I'm not saying that because I do believe... No, no, I'm asking Dr. Bernard.

Okay, well, in the context of 1 Corinthians, I think it is talking about praying in tongues.

I think in the context of Ephesians and Jude, it's far broader in that it can include tongues, but it's not limited to tongues.

It's any prayer that's directed by the Spirit when you allow yourself to be used by the

Spirit. But I would say it is possible to pray not in the Spirit. And let's take a

Jew, for example. He can pray to the one true God. That doesn't necessarily mean he's praying in the Spirit. I think it is possible for a sinner when he's coming to God.

He is not justified. But he can pray, Oh, God, I'm a sinner.

I repent of my sins. Forgive me. Well, let me ask you, what about a person like myself? A person who has not spoken in tongues.

I have not been baptized in a Jesus -name -only formula. I was baptized in the

Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. I have not received a quote -unquote gift of tongues as you refer to it.

In the Ephesians 5 context, can I pray in the Spirit or not? Well, I think it's possible for your prayers to be led by the

Spirit, yes. I don't think in 1 Corinthians it's merely referring to that. It is indeed referring to speaking in tongues.

Fran in New Jersey. Fran, you're on the air. Go ahead. Yes, good afternoon. In 1

Corinthians chapter 12, Paul is speaking to the church at Corinth, and he's telling us concerning spiritual gifts and which tongues is one of.

I just wanted to make a comment in regards to tongues. Tongues is one of the spiritual gifts.

It's not something that is required to be saved, nor is there a process of salvation. The process is sanctification.

Salvation comes with your justification by faith. And I just thank you for listening. All right.

Do you agree with that, Dr. Bernard? Well, I don't think I really have much to add other than what

I've said, that I do understand that the Bible says we have been saved.

It says we are saved. It says we shall be saved. It presents past, present, and future. I think, yes, justification is a past tense event in the life of a

Christian, but there still is the ongoing process of sanctification. And since I do not believe in the idea of unconditional eternal security,

I believe it's a genuine process that has a terminal point when the

Lord comes for His church. All right. Dr. White? Well, I guess I'd have to ask, if I have been justified, how can

I be justified and yet not be indwelt by the Holy Spirit of God? Basically, it sounds like the position that Dr.

Bernard is taking introduces the idea that there can be a person who has been justified, is right with God, and yet is not indwelt by the

Holy Spirit of God. Have I missed your position on that? No. I believe in 1 Corinthians 6, 11, it says we are washed, sanctified, and justified in the name of the

Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God. So I think justification involves both the name of Jesus and the

Holy Spirit. So if I haven't been indwelt by the Holy Spirit, I'm not justified. That's correct. And if I'm not justified,

I'm going to hell. Well, you're in the process, and so it's to be determined by how you choose the course of your life and how you continue to respond to the gospel.

I'm sorry, Dr. Murdoch. I don't mean to be hard -headed and not understand what you're saying, but you just said that justification is a past tense experience.

Right. And so if I haven't experienced it, I'm not a Christian. No, you're in the process.

How can I be? Until I'm justified, I'm the enemy of God. How can I be in any process? Justification is before any of the process that you could talk about.

No, it's not necessarily before any of the process. If you look at the historical examples in the

Bible, you have, for example, the disciples of John at Ephesus. You have the example of Apollos.

They weren't believers yet. Well, Apollos, it says he was fervent in the Spirit. He was mighty in the

Scriptures, but he knew only the baptism of John. And I think perhaps he was a pre -Pentecost type of believer.

And so he was following the Lord, serving the Lord to the extent of his knowledge, but he needed to go on to complete that experience.

Okay, but today, well, I would disagree with that, but today, if a person has not spoken in tongues, and from your understanding, you are saying they have not been justified.

I would say, I'm saying that justification attaches to repentance, to water baptism, and the baptism of the

Holy Spirit. And there is, I think, both, there are two sides of justification.

There is the negative aspect, in which your sins are taken away, and there is a positive aspect, in which the righteousness of Christ is imputed to you.

And Peter said, in Acts chapter 2, verse 38, repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins.

So I believe that at repentance and water baptism, there is the taking away of the sins. But then he went on to the positive side, and you shall receive the gift of the

Holy Ghost. And so there is where the Spirit of the living Christ comes to dwell in you.

And so there's that side of justification as well. So repentance, water baptism, and I would assume you'd say, in Jesus' name only, that if it's done in the name of the

Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, it's not valid. And speaking in tongues, those are all things that your understanding of the

New Testament teaches. If you haven't experienced those, you're not saved. You don't have the

Bible experience of full salvation, as presented in the New Testament Church. I've never seen the phrase full salvation in the

New Testament. You're either saved or you're not. Wouldn't you agree? Well, I think yes, but there is a process, and there is also a fullness of experience.

But those are the start of the process, aren't they? There's an example in the New Testament. I can give other examples. The Samaritans, before Peter and John came to pray for them, they believed, they were baptized.

We can be quite convinced that Philip would not have baptized them had they not expressed repentance.

There was great joy in that city. There was experience of spiritual gifts, yet it specifically stated that the

Holy Spirit had not fallen on them. So they are in this same position that I would assume that you are, in the sense you do confess faith and repentance, but you have not received this experience, at least not with the evidence that attended the book of Acts, and have not been justified.

Well, again, I would say it's a process. Let me take a break here, but let me ask a question quickly.

The thief on the cross that Jesus said, today you shall be with me in paradise, did he speak in tongues?

No, that is a very good example, by the way, in two regards. First of all, he lived before the

New Testament church. We're speaking here, I think you would agree, with the experience of the

New Testament church. We're not arguing that Old Testament people were baptized, for example. We wouldn't expect the thief to be baptized.

My second point would be, here is Jesus as the judge. This man did not follow the regular, you might say, conditions even of the

Old Testament. You would expect him to offer his sacrifice before the priest, and follow the teachings of the law in order to express his faith.

But Jesus was able, in essence, to say, I will be your sacrifice this day, I will accept you at this point.

And so that is why I feel quite comfortable doing the same with those who ask me this question. I can give you the principles of the

New Testament church, but ultimately, you're going to stand alone before God in judgment, and he's going to decide based on the condition of your heart.

I can give you what the New Testament says. I can testify to my own experience. But after that,

I must leave the rest between you and God. Gentlemen, I want to give each one of you an opportunity for a final thought or a final statement.

And Dr. Bernard, if you'd like to begin, go ahead. All right. I want to just summarize by saying, I don't offer a message of condemnation, but a message of hope.

And I simply want to say that all of the New Testament applies today. The book of Acts is an example of what a local

New Testament church should be like today. Every one of us, according to Acts 238, should repent of our sins, be baptized in Jesus' name, be filled with the

Holy Spirit. And we can know we have the same experience as in Acts chapter 11,

Peter said, they received the Holy Ghost just as we did at the beginning. He was talking about speaking in tongues.

I don't think that speaking in tongues is our savior or the element that saves us.

I think it is a sign, not the most important sign, by the way, but a sign that does take place when a person is filled with the

Spirit. Thereafter, they live a godly life by the power of the Spirit. And I encourage everyone not to be satisfied until they receive that same experience, which is still being offered today.

Okay. Dr. White? Well, I would say that the thief on the cross did exactly what Abraham did back in Genesis 15, 6.

He believed in the Lord and was counted to him for righteousness, and that is the way that anyone is going to be saved. He didn't speak in tongues, and the vast majority of all those who have believed in Jesus Christ have not done so either.

What we have going on here is taking a few instances in one book, assuming them in the rest of the instances in that book against the context and against what the text itself says, and then inserting them into the rest of the

Christian theology. We will not find this teaching in the books that specifically teach us about what salvation is.

It is an assumption forced upon the text, and as such, it becomes something to where you've heard, even

I, myself, am not truly justified because of this particular experience. I think that becomes very dangerous.

Pastor David Bernard, pastor of New Life United Pentecostal Church in Austin, Texas, and Dr. James White, Protestant Greek at Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary and the host every

Thursday evening on The Voice of Sovereign Grace, broadcast at 10 o 'clock on WMCA.