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

Oneness Pentecostalism and the Debate Over Tongues as Evidence

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. Okay. 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 an 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.

Salvation, Repentance, and the Initial Evidence of Tongues

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? Well, 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 indwelt 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 indwelt, then obviously that becomes the sign of salvation.

It becomes the evidence that a person truly has been indwelt 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 indwelt by the Holy Spirit. The evidence of being indwelt 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 add, let's just put it very straightly, can a person be truly born again, indwelt 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 indwelt 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, a minister of the gospel, likewise a pastor on this earth, not 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, does 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 that 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 Greek, 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 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, 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 analysis.

When it talks about those that believed his word, it said, then they that gladly received his word, verse 41, were baptized, and the same day they were added unto them about 3 ,000 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'd 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 chapter said, namely with speaking in tongues. 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 on exhorting them, 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 message.

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 endorsed 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 light 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 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 in 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.

Tongues, the Holy Spirit, and the Problem of Counterfeit Experience

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, you have a great show going on. I never thought I would agree with the church that even a Baptist could 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, 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.

Okay, 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 in 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.

Okay. But I would like to follow up on this. Okay, go ahead. 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 of 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 we 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 letters. 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 and 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 want to, maybe you're avoiding doing this, I appreciate you've been very, very careful, but I've talked to a lot of, one, the Pentecostals, 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.