WWUTT 2380 Q&A Disqualified Pastors, Is Empathy Biblical, Part 2 of Speaking in Tongues

What sorts of things could make a man permanently disqualified from being a pastor?

Is empathy a Biblical concept and how is it different from sympathy? And what was the star of Bethlehem?

The answers to these questions when we Understand the Text. This is

When we Understand the Text, a daily Bible commentary to help encourage your time in the Word. A production of Providence Reformed Baptist Church in Casa Grande, Arizona.

Tell all your friends about our ministry at www .utt .com. Here once again is

Pastor Gabe. Thank you, Becky. You're welcome. I started Proverbs chapter 10 without you last week.

Oh, sad. Here's the next few verses in Proverbs 10. The Lord does not let the righteous go hungry, but he thwarts the craving of the wicked.

A slack hand causes poverty, but the hand of the diligent makes rich.

He who gathers in summer is a prudent son, but he who sleeps in harvest is a son who brings shame.

So the one who is wise and who seeks after the will of God is going to work.

He's going to work and do well. Yeah. And those who do so in the righteousness of Christ, God blesses.

He does not let the righteous go hungry. But as I had mentioned last week, opening with those first two verses of Proverbs, we who are in Christ Jesus, wear his righteousness, and now desire to do those works that are pleasing unto the

Lord. Amen. This is the end of the week edition of When We Understand the

Text. And we take questions from the listeners. You can send those questions to whenweunderstandthetext at gmail .com

or send us a voicemail. Go to www .utt .com, click on that voicemail tab, and then you can record a message either from your phone or from your laptop, from your computer.

I've got some emails I'm going to get to here. Babe, do we have any voicemails today? We do.

We have a voicemail from John in North Carolina. Ooh. And he has a comment about something you said on the podcast on Wednesday.

All right. Let's hear it. Hey, Pastor Gabe and Becky. This is John from North Carolina. Really enjoy the podcast.

Don't get to listen to it as much because I'm not driving over the road anymore, but I still love it. On the

Wednesday podcast, when you were going through Luke chapter 10 and you were talking about how God is sovereign over time and exists in eternity, about halfway through you had mentioned something about how just because God started everything in the beginning doesn't mean he took his hands off of it.

I know you've already referenced in this area in Colossians before, but it really sounds like Colossians 1, 16 and 17 would be the perfect way to describe that because God did not start us like a watch and let us wind down.

He keeps his hands on us lest the entire universe fly apart. God bless you guys.

Continue with the good work, and a lot of us out here are praying for you guys. Bye -bye now. Oh, thank you so much,

John. Aw, thanks. Yeah, so Colossians chapter 1, I mentioned verse 15. He is the image of the invisible

God, the firstborn of all creation. So talking about how God has given all things to Christ and he has authority over all.

John referenced verses 16 and 17. If I had just kept reading, kept going there. For by him all things were created in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities.

All things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

Mm -hmm. So yes, as we reference Jesus Christ, who has authority over all, even he is holding all things together.

Yes. He who created all things holds it all in his hands. And thankfully, because if it were in my hands, it'd be a total disaster.

He keeps you from flying apart, babe. Yes. Yes, he does. Coming apart at the seams.

So thank you for that reminder, John. Yes. That was wonderful. And praying for you too, brother, because we know you've been listening for a long time.

Yeah. And we appreciate your encouragement. This next question comes from Adam in Canada.

He says, Dear Pastor Gabe, I know your position on a pastor who commits adultery, that he is permanently disqualified from his office.

And I think you've explained that well. I'm in agreement. I have a question about two other scenarios.

You're going to know about whom this question applies, but the who is irrelevant. I'd like to get an answer regardless of recent events.

Okay. So not everybody may know where this is coming from, but I do understand what inspired him to ask this question.

If there is a pastor who is single and he fornicates with a woman in his congregation who is also unmarried, but they do not get married.

Is that pastor permanently disqualified from being a pastor? What if he sleeps with a woman in his congregation outside of marriage, but then they get married as in Exodus 22 16?

This was not an offense punishable by death in ancient Israel. Surely there must be discipline of some kind.

But do you think that man could still be a pastor again sometime in the future? Well, you've got two different questions going on here.

Adam, two different scenarios. I appreciate you sending us this email and asking this question.

So you have a pastor who is single. He sleeps with a woman in his congregation. We call that fornication.

They are both unmarried. So we wouldn't call that adultery because that's sleeping with someone else's spouse.

Or if you're married and then you sleep with somebody else, that would be adultery. These two are not married.

They're not married to each other. They're not married to anyone else. That pastor sleeps with a woman in his congregation.

Is he permanently disqualified from being a pastor? The answer is yes. Most definitely, yes.

And on the same grounds that we would say a pastor who has committed adultery is also unqualified.

As said in Proverbs, he who commits adultery lacks sense. He who does it destroys himself.

He will get wounds and dishonor and his disgrace will not be wiped away. That's Proverbs 6, 32 to 33.

So that is to say that there is something about sexual sin that is different than any other sin.

Even in 1 Corinthians 6, that sexual sin is sin you commit against your own body.

Every other sin you commit outside the body, but sexual sin is a sin that is committed against your own body.

And so on the same grounds that we would say a pastor is permanently disqualified who commits adultery, so it is the same as if he fornicates with somebody in his congregation or outside his congregation, either way.

It's sex outside of marriage. And he is now no longer above reproach.

Right. That even among unbelievers, even unbelievers are aware of the sin that he's done.

And even unbelievers understand there's something about that that's not right. And here you have a

Christian man, a pastor, and you Christians say that sex is meant only for marriage. Well, your pastor has had sex outside of marriage, and you don't seem to think that's any big deal.

Yeah. He's not above reproach. And that's the first qualification of a pastor in 1 Timothy 3 and in Titus 1.

So he has to be above reproach, and he's no longer there. And he's, I mean, he's no longer trustworthy.

Yeah. At that point. Exactly. Is he going to like give everybody the okay to do that in his congregation?

Yeah, right. And then that just leads to more and more sin. How can he sit in that seat and issue judgment or church discipline when he himself is guilty of the same sin?

Right. Now, can he be forgiven that sin? Of course. Oh, absolutely. No question about it. He should undergo church discipline.

Yes. He should be restored to the body, but that doesn't mean that he can be a pastor again.

Right. That's different. And I've had those kinds of conversations with people. Like, if you're saying that he can't be a pastor again, are you therefore saying that he is not forgiven?

No, that's not what I'm saying. Yeah. He just can't hold the office. Right. He's not qualified. Right. There are plenty of people who aren't qualified.

And they aren't qualified for any number of reasons. It may not be because of sin.

You know, I'll tell you, this would have been over 10 years ago. Uh -huh. There was a friend of mine in our church in Kansas that we approached to become a deacon.

Uh -huh. Because he was such a great servant in the church. Served in all different kinds of ways. And so,

I came up to him and I said, hey, what would you think about becoming a deacon? And he said, can't do it. I've been married three times.

And so, he withdrew his name from consideration. Yeah. By his own conviction in his heart.

Right. That he could not hold that position, hold that office, and be a good witness in the church.

Uh -huh. And I sure appreciate that. That that was his conviction and he decided to withdraw his name on his own.

Uh -huh. And so, that didn't mean that he couldn't be a servant anymore in the church. Right. Of course not.

He just wasn't going to hold that office position. Uh -huh. And so, a pastor who is guilty of this, who has done this, and it is known, and he is therefore no longer above reproach, then he is disqualified from his office.

Uh -huh. Again, still can be forgiven, still should be restored to the church.

Yeah. But just can't be in that position as a pastor anymore. Now, what if they get married?

What if the two that have the... Relations.

Relations. Outside of marriage end up getting married? Right. Because what does

Exodus 22, 16 say? If a man seduces a virgin who is not betrothed and lies with her, he shall give the bride price for her and make her his wife.

If her father utterly refuses to give her to him, I'm going on to verse 17, he shall pay money equal to the bride price for virgins.

So, the father can refuse. Okay. Can say, no, you don't get to have her. Or I guess in that scenario, even she can say, no,

I'm not going to marry this man. Yeah. So, again, they have had sex outside of marriage, but they do get married.

And that seems to go along with Exodus 22, 16. If a man seduces a virgin, not betrothed, lies with her, he shall give the bride price for her and then make her his wife.

So, they haven't done an offense that's punishable by death. Whereas adultery is an offense that's punishable by death.

Right. But here in this scenario, when you're talking about a person who is a pastor, I would still say in that circumstance, he's unqualified.

Yeah. Now, there's somebody that's probably going to disagree with me on that because it's not the same level of offenses, adultery.

But again, you're still looking at this from the standpoint of, is he above reproach? Yeah. And he's used his position as a pastor and has seduced a woman in his congregation.

If we're going to go with Exodus 22, 16. Right. Right. Because that's the scenario.

He seduced her. Right. And even though they get married, he's just not trustworthy anymore.

Yeah. That's what I was going to say. He doesn't have enough self -control to wait for them to get married.

Even if it was like, what do you call that? Eloping. Eloping, yeah. Or flash marriage or whatever you want to call it.

They just suddenly get married. Here, I've reconciled the problem. Yeah. I've gone ahead and married her.

There you go. Yeah. And then, I mean, there's so many ways that you can make it better before it goes worse.

Yeah. Right. You can whitewash it. Yes. Maybe that's kind of what you're looking for. I mean,

I still don't know if I would go to a church with a pastor.

Right. Who had eloped. Yeah. Didn't have the patience to wait for a real marriage unless that was like their choice.

Well, you're talking wedding here at this point. Yeah. Yeah. Wedding. I said marriage. I meant wedding. They're both real marriage.

But I mean, just waiting for the process of inviting guests and making sure family meets and easing the family into it.

And that's the whole purpose of a wedding is just easing your family into gaining a new person.

Yeah. It's to exchange these vows before God and witnesses. Well, that too.

But I mean, the long process isn't just to spend money. Oh, yeah.

Definitely not. It's for the family. The night before Becky and I got married, we're like, let's just go elope.

Serious. We're done with this. We were done. We were so done. But at the same time, we had waited until the wedding night, night before wedding night or night before the wedding.

I said that wrong. To say that we were going to go elope. To say that we were going to go elope. Yeah. Right. And that was just because of how crazy everything was in the planning process.

But anyway, yeah, that's off subject from this. Yes, it is. No, I mean, what

I was saying is that if the pastor does not have the patience to wait for a marriage.

The self -control. Or for a wedding to happen. The self -control. Then what's to say he's not going to make another decision that's rash?

Well, yeah. He's brought a reproach upon himself and upon his office. How is anybody going to trust him in that position?

It's still sin. You reconcile right away. I would certainly agree that it's not as bad as adultery.

Right. But he still brought a reproach upon himself. And he's no longer above reproach. Right. So that makes him unqualified.

And therefore, I mean, he's given up the opportunity to be able to hold that kind of position. And make a good witness out of it.

Right. And again, he can be forgiven. He can be restored to his church. Yes. He's just not going to have the opportunity to hold that position as a pastor again.

This next question is anonymously submitted. But given the name Distant Observer.

Okay. Hey, Pastor Gabe, what are your thoughts on empathy? I'm sorry.

Let me read this another way. What are the thoughts on the empathy, sympathy, and biblical compassion debate that is going on?

It seems to be a fight over semantics. Or like you're just arguing over the meaning of words.

But I wanted to get your insight on this. I believe Doug Wilson and others went over this a couple of years ago.

But it seems to be making the rounds on social media. For example, Chorus in the Chaos. And I guess

I know what Chorus in the Chaos is. But appreciate your question. So you have empathy.

I guess where they come back around to the same arguments. Chorus in the Chaos? Yeah. Well, it has capital letters as if it's the title of something.

Oh. I'm not sure then. I don't know what that means. So the difference between these words.

You have empathy, sympathy, and biblical compassion. Or just simply compassion. Now the latter two words, sympathy and compassion, are actually in the

Bible. The first word, empathy, is not in the Bible. Correct. In fact, this is a very ambiguous term.

It is a word that did not even exist in the English lexicon until the beginning of the 20th century.

And it was a psychologist that came up with this word, empathy. Mainly what empathy means is that you have the ability to feel what someone else feels.

Which is impossible. You can't do that. It's impossible for you to feel what someone else is feeling.

Even if you go through the exact same scenario. It's different. As someone else.

You're still going to feel and handle it differently. It might be relatable. Sure. But you're still experiencing that on a different level than somebody else experiences that.

Yeah, because all of your past comes into play on that event.

So what you've experienced in the past is much different than what somebody else has experienced in the past, too.

Or even differences in the sexes. Say you and I were in a car accident together.

We're both going to process that accident differently. Much differently. And even though we were in the same accident, who was in the driver's seat and who was in the passenger's seat?

Right. Or God forbid, a much more morbid scenario. Let's say you and I lost a child.

We lost the same child, but you and I are still going to process that differently.

We're going to experience that differently. Right, for sure. There are things we're certainly sharing with one another, but we can't actually know what the other one is feeling.

Right. And here in a marriage, we're constantly asking each other, what are you feeling? Yeah. What do you think about this?

Married for 15 years, and we're still trying to figure that out. So this thing of empathy is really kind of made up.

The way that it's used in society right now, it's almost kind of trying to victim shame somebody else.

Like, you need to be able to feel what I feel. Is that where the silent treatment comes into play? Like, is that when that started?

I don't know. You should know what I'm feeling right now. I'm sure that's been going on in marriage long before the 20th century.

I don't think that's only a century old. If you read fantasy fiction or science fiction or something like that, sometimes there will be a character that is an empath.

Okay. And they have the ability to know what someone else feels. Not the same thing as reading their mind.

Yeah, exactly. Right. It's not the same thing as telepathy or mind reading. Okay. I think in Star Trek The Next Generation, wasn't

Deanna Troi an empath? Yeah, I think so. She had that ability to feel someone else's feelings.

So, that's a thing of fiction. That's not something that we can actually do. Now, was that just emotional feelings?

Or was that like, I'm hurting physically, you know? No, that's emotions. Okay. Being able to sense somebody's emotions.

Okay. Not, I can tell your arm hurts today, you know? Yeah, I was just curious, you know? Yeah, we're just talking about -

Just they're in a bad mood. Okay, I think we all got that. Just read the room, you know? Yeah, that's right. Very good.

Sometimes you just need to be able to read the room, guys. That's not empathy. It's just common sense.

Sorry. I got tickled. Okay. So, with the latter two words, with sympathy and compassion, these two are almost synonymous with one another.

But these, again, are words that we find in the Bible. So, for example, as we're going through a study in Luke, it was a few weeks ago, we were in Luke chapter seven.

And when Jesus came upon a certain town, there was a funeral procession that was coming out of that town.

And there was a man that was on the beer, which is that thing they're carrying out with the body on it.

And his mother, who was a widow, is walking alongside the beer.

So, she no longer has a husband, and she doesn't have her son anymore. Right. And it says in Luke 7, 13, when the

Lord saw her, he had compassion on her and said, do not weep.

He feels for her, but he doesn't feel what she's feeling.

Right. Which are two different things. We're about to come up on the parable of the good

Samaritan, which is the parable I'm going to be reading on Monday. So, in Luke 10, remember, as the

Samaritan comes along the beaten man on the side of the road, it says that when he saw him, he had compassion.

He doesn't feel what that man is feeling. The man's unconscious. Right. But he has compassion for him.

He feels for him. He is moved to help him and love him. Right.

And so, treats his wounds, puts him on his donkey, takes him to the inn where he can rest and get well, pays for his lodging.

Yes. And so, this is compassion. And then we also have the word sympathy that's used in scripture.

Consider the words of Peter in 1 Peter 3, 8. Finally, all of you have unity of mind, sympathy, brotherly love, a tender heart, and a humble mind.

So, we are instructed to sympathize with one another, but there's nothing in the Bible that says empathize.

And I think, Distant Observer, like you said, there are some semantic arguments that go on with this. Because a lot of times when somebody uses the word empathy, what they really mean is sympathy.

Right. Definitely. They're saying something that's more along the lines of compassion, rather than feeling what somebody else feels.

And so, in that case, if you know somebody who uses the word empathy, don't just automatically go, oh, well, you're using a word that the

Bible doesn't even use anyway. In context, figure out what they're talking about. Right. Have some grace.

Sympathize with them a little bit. Show them grace and compassion. That's right. And understand what they mean when they use that word empathy.

I remember - And then if they're using it correctly, then maybe there can be a little lovingly correcting.

Yeah, right. Correct their use of the word, application of the word. I remember somebody presenting this scenario as a good way to distinguish between empathy and sympathy.

Okay. So, if somebody fell over the side of a cliff, and they're holding on for dear life, and you run over to help them up, but you don't have the strength to be able to pull them up, but you'll stay there with them until help can arrive.

Okay. That's sympathy. Okay, yeah. That's having sympathy on that person or having compassion on them.

Empathy would be that you get down off the cliff and come down alongside them so that you're both hanging there together.

That would be more like empathy, but now you're both in trouble. In trouble, yes. And you're less likely to be able to help the other person because you've now put yourself in a position that is unable to help the other.

Yeah. So, like the Samaritan doesn't beat himself up and lay down with the beaten man on the road. That would be awkward.

He has sympathy for him and helps him and provides aid for him.

Amen. So, that would be kind of a way that you could distinguish between the two. Anybody have any other opinions that they would like to share on that, feel free to send me an email.

Yeah. I'll take any correction on that if you need to offer it when we understand the text at gmail .com.

This next one is from Mike in Tennessee. Greetings, Pastor Gabe and Babe.

It's been a while. We haven't heard that one in a while. I appreciate your ministry and gain insights from your podcasts.

I'm sorry this note is so long. You may not want to share the whole thing. I'll cut a part of it out, but we'll get to most of this here.

My daughter gave me your book, 25 Christmas Myths and What the Bible Says, and I learned a few things

I had not thought about. One that I did not agree with was that the star of Bethlehem was a special appearance pointing to the exact home where Jesus lived and not an astronomical occurrence in the heavens, like up there in space, out in the universe.

He says, I was wondering if you saw the 2007 documentary by Rick Larson about the star of Bethlehem.

Larson used a program called Starry Night and nine criteria for the star that appeared in the

Bible, and he found evidence of star convergences that fit the nine criteria.

The one area that you had mentioned that you had an issue with is the location of the star over Bethlehem.

In reading Matthew 2, 10 through 11, it appears that the star pointed to the house Jesus was in.

Larson takes it to mean that the star was over Bethlehem, and they rejoiced in knowing that they were on the right track.

Again, thank you for your ministry, Mike from Tennessee. Well, I appreciate it, Mike. Well, one of the jokes that I've made in a

What video, and I'm pretty sure I included this in the book as well, but the idea of star convergences as being an explanation for the star of Bethlehem, whether you're talking about a star convergence or like two planets get real close to each other so they appear brighter in the night sky.

One of the jokes that I made about this is that it's not a very bright idea, because they're literally not very bright.

Yeah, well, that's true, yeah. They're not too much brighter in the sky than like the

North Star. Yeah, they just sparkle a little bit brighter. That's about it. Yeah, there's no way that could point.

Right, how does that point to something? How does that have light? Like a spotlight kind of thing.

And when you're going from Jerusalem to Bethlehem, which is a distance of like four miles, I mean, how are the stars above really gonna change their location that much that you finally arrive at the house in Bethlehem and you go, oh, here we are, because the star is right there overhead.

Yeah, it was over your head when you were in Jerusalem. I also have a hard time with people questioning that it's like making sense of it out of science -y things, because it's a miracle.

Yeah, it was. And so to like, I don't know, I feel like it's almost downplaying a miracle, you know, trying to like explain it in our terms, in our world, and it's

God, you know? Yeah, right. He can do anything. Exactly. Now, as I said in the book, what was the star of Bethlehem?

We don't know for sure. Right, of course not. You know, some people like to portray it as an angel that was shining a light.

Or was it just a light that God set in the sky? Interesting. We don't know, but it would not have been high enough in the heavens to be an astronomical occurrence.

Otherwise, the king would have known. Well, the king would have known. It would have been recorded even among other civilizations.

That's true. At that time, and we really don't have any record of that. Interesting. Okay, I hadn't considered that part.

So the Magi were definitely looking for a star, and they saw one, but it was unusual. Yes. It was an unusual star for a particular time and place, and God used that star to guide them into the place where they found the

Christ child, and they bowed down and worshiped him. Amen. So even the Magi came to understand that by faith in Jesus Christ, we can be forgiven our sins and have everlasting life with God.

Amen. They read the scriptures to know who they were looking for when they came looking for the Christ child in Bethlehem.

And so, my friends, that is the gospel message. He who died for our sins, rose again from the dead. Whoever believes in him will not perish, but we will live forever with God.

And we want to leave you with that message today. So if you want to pick up the second part of what

I had talked about last week with regards to the spiritual gift of speaking in tongues, responding to a video that was put out by Remnant Radio, that's going to be in the second part of this podcast.

If you're a podcast listener, just hang tight, and that part's coming up. If you're listening to us on the radio, you can find the podcast online at www .utt

.com, or just look for WWUTT on whatever podcast app you like to use. Babe, thanks for joining me this week.

You're welcome. God bless you guys. In Matthew 2, we read about wise men known as Magi following a star from Persia to Judea in search of the

Christ child. The Magi were king makers who studied many ancient writings. 600 years earlier, the

Jews had been exiled into Babylon and then Persia. So these Magi had the Hebrew prophecies foretelling the birth of the king.

Moses said, a star shall come out of Jacob and a scepter shall rise out of Israel. And Daniel, a prophet revered by the

Persians, wrote about when this would happen. The Magi came to Jerusalem and said, Where is he who has been born king of the

Jews? For we have seen his star in the east and have come to worship him. Since the prophecies were

Hebrew, they assumed any Jew would know where to go. But Israel was so far from God, King Herod had to consult his own wise men to know what the

Magi were talking about. The Magi followed the star until it came to rest over the place where the child was.

And they found Jesus in Bethlehem, just as the scripture said. The Magi worshipped him with gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh.

Much speculation has been made about the star of Bethlehem searching history for some kind of astral phenomena.

The most popular theory is that the star was a conjunction of Jupiter and Venus in August of 3

BC and again in June a year later. But that's not a very bright idea. According to Matthew, the star was always ahead of them and it moved, stopping over the house where Jesus was.

Clearly there's no natural explanation. The Magi were led by something supernatural. And so are we to worship

Christ the Lord when we understand the text. That's the video that I did on the star of Bethlehem, which we referred to in the previous segment.

So last week I talked about the history of speaking in tongues as it's been understood within the modern charismatic movement.

And I talked about a guy named Charles Parham whom I knew of because of my close proximity with the ministry that he started in Topeka, Kansas.

And then going out from there it was what Charles Parham taught that eventually led to the Azusa Street revival on Azusa Street in Los Angeles that happened in 1906.

So it started with Charles Parham in Kansas. Well since talking about that, one of my elders at church handed me a book called

The Life of Edward Irving who was the forerunner of the charismatic movement. So if Charles Parham is the father of it,

Edward Irving is the forerunner of it. And I didn't know much about Edward Irving, so I'm happy to have this book and I'm going to give it a read.

Although I haven't started it before today. We're going to come back to my response to Remnant Radio about the spiritual gift of speaking in tongues.

I had been shown that Remnant Radio responded to comments that I made in the documentary

Cessationist where I refuted the idea that the Bible talks about us being able to have a private prayer language.

Instead of just responding to that part though, I decided to take a longer look at their comments and also what the

Bible says about this spiritual gift called speaking in tongues. In the last episode,

Remnant Radio responded to comments made by Nathan Busnitz in the documentary. He's a professor at Masters University and he talked about the history of speaking in tongues within the charismatic movement as it began at the start of the 20th century.

Even the charismatics understood then that speaking in tongues was a supernatural ability to speak another real human language they did not previously know.

That's how it was defined at the beginning of the charismatic movement. But when the gift did not manifest itself that way as they wanted, the understanding of speaking in tongues changed to this idea of praying in random nonsensical gibberish which was also seen at the

Azusa Street revival. That definition of speaking in tongues has since become so ubiquitous that whenever we talk about this topic you're most likely thinking about that being speaking in tongues.

Strange nonsensical mutterings and prayer not speaking another known human language as seen at Pentecost in Acts 2.

When Michael Miller of Remnant Radio gave his explanation of this spiritual gift as the ability to pray gibberish, he began with 1

Corinthians 14 2 which says for one who speaks in a tongue speaks not to men but to God for no one understands him but he utters mysteries of the spirit.

I'm just reading it to you as it is out of context however you cannot begin there you have to begin with the gift as it was first given in Acts 2 and there the disciples in the

Holy Spirit spoke the testimony of God in the languages of the people that were there from all over the

Roman Empire gathered in Jerusalem for Pentecost as Acts 2 .10 says we hear them telling in our own tongues the mighty works of God as we pick up the discussion today this is from the

Remnant Radio video entitled Responding to the Cessationist Documentary Part 8 by the way they changed the name of the video it was part 9 as I said last week and since last week they've changed it to part 8

I don't know why they did that I can prove that I read it correctly it wasn't just me reading the wrong number because I took a screenshot of it and I went back and looked at it yep sure enough it says part 9 but they've since changed it to part 8

I don't know why that change had to have been made just this past week it's kind of odd anyway last week we listened to Michael Miller make comments about speaking in tongues and I started with those comments this time we get to the other two guys who are going to share their thoughts first up is

Michael Roundtree who is a pastor of a charismatic church in the Oklahoma City area and also

Joshua Lewis host of Remnant Radio and a pastor in Ada, Oklahoma all of their arguments now are from the position that speaking in tongues can be just random gibberish if you need an example of this here it is once again alright now defending this practice as biblical here is

Michael Roundtree then what is it?

if you think there's a strong exegetical case for it then make it and by the way exegesis means to expose to expose what the text says you're looking at the bible and you're exposing the true meaning of the text this is contrary to eisegesis which is imposing your own meaning onto the text so exegesis is exposing the true meaning we might also call this exposition or expository eisegesis is imposing your meaning exegesis exposing the true meaning eisegesis imposing your own meaning alright so in the last episode

I very handily made an exegetical case starting with Acts 2 at the day of Pentecost for speaking in tongues being only other human languages not blabbering gibberish there's no passage in the bible anywhere that ever describes speaking in tongues as anything other than that speaking known human languages that the speaker did not previously know this is a miraculous gift as given by the

Holy Spirit so if Roundtree thinks there is an exegetical argument for being able to just pray gibberish and that's called speaking in tongues well then he needs to make it and these guys don't ever make it in this video going on I think we can also say like you know what maybe they are earthly languages or something like I think that we just need to have a theological humility about us and that's where like you know where he's saying things like this is the clear teaching of the bible

I would say actually no it's not so crystal clear they do appear to be human languages in Acts 2 and had

I never heard of anyone speaking in tongues and all I had was 1 Corinthians 14 I would

I think that I would come to the conclusion that this was speaking of some other kind of tongue like maybe heavenly or angelic or something like that because it says that this is a language only understood between God and man.

No it doesn't say that this is a language only understood between God and man. That's not what it says

Roundtree is imposing that interpretation onto the text. That's not what it says. Does he know what exposition is?

Does he know what being exegetical means? Open up the text and walk us through it.

How do you get to that? And requiring someone with a spiritual gift of interpretation not just somebody from a nationality who happens to speak that other language as we see in Acts chapter 2 so I think that a strong exegetical case can be made the other way from him and he lacks the theological humility to acknowledge that so that's what

I think is the bothersome thing about his tirade if you will His tirade?

Nathan Busnitz went on a tirade? That's incredibly uncharitable for him to say that Busnitz's professorly explanation of speaking in tongues and the history of it in the charismatic movement was a tirade

A tirade is a long angry speech and that's not what Busnitz did. You have to go back to the previous segment to hear his delivery exactly or go look for that video responding to the cessationist documentary part number eight now not part nine anymore

The gift of interpretation of tongues so he made a reference to the gift of interpretation that's what we see

Peter doing in Acts chapter 2 in that chapter we see both the gift of tongues and the gift of interpreting tongues.

Tongues are other human languages and the interpretation means not only translating interpreting doesn't just mean translating but telling the hearer what is meant by what is being said.

Interpretation is not translation. That's what Roundtree misunderstands interpretation is also making sense of what is being said in a foreign tongue.

Again going back to Acts 2 I'm reading verse 11 these Jews from all these different lands and languages said we hear them telling in our own tongues the mighty works of God and then what's the very next verse and all were amazed and perplexed saying to one another what does this mean but others mocking said they are filled with new wine so they could not understand the words like they knew what the words were in their own language anyone could have translated the words as they heard it in their own tongue but they still didn't know what it meant then verse 14 but Peter standing with the eleven lifted up his voice and addressed them men of Judea and all who dwell in Jerusalem let this be known to you and give ear to my words for these people are not drunk as you suppose since it is only the third hour of the day but this is what was uttered through the prophet

Joel so first he's telling them why this is happening it's a fulfillment of prophecy pointing to the book of Joel so that ultimately verse 21 everyone who calls upon the name of the

Lord shall be saved from every tribe tongue and nation on earth that's what's being shown here that's what this means that you're seeing happening before you and then beginning in verse beginning in verse 22

Peter explains what is being said to them so first why and now what men of Israel hear these words

Jesus of Nazareth a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst as you yourselves know this

Jesus delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men

God raised him up loosening the pangs of death because it was not possible for him to be held by it so Peter gives them the gospel he gives them he tells them what they're hearing about the mighty works of God and then he explains it to them this is interpreting what it was that all these people heard being said in all these different languages including their own language round tree claims if all

I had was 1st Corinthians 14 then I would conclude that okay maybe speaking in tongues is speaking gibberish or some kind of heavenly language first of all that's subjective that you think that if all you had was 1st

Corinthians 14 that's the conclusion that you would come to he's speaking out of a certain paradigm okay but secondly this is exactly why

I said last time that you cannot start with 1st Corinthians 14 you have to start in Acts 2 and interpret every other mention of speaking in tongues from there but all they've read up to this point is 1st

Corinthians 14 2 that's the only verse they've quoted in the stuff that we've been looking at in their response in this video that's the only verse of scripture that they've read aloud and like I said when

I was charismatic I committed the same error I read my charismatic understanding of speaking in tongues into 1st

Corinthians 14 2 and then read that verse out from there into every other mention of speaking in tongues this is not the definitive verse on speaking in tongues that's the verse you go to when you want tongues to be speaking gibberish and you take it out of context and then interpret every other verse on tongues according to your understanding of that one this is a horrible handling of the text and yeah this is what

I was doing it once upon a time I was horribly handling the text what round tree is doing is not exposition he's hardly even quoting verses he's just making scant references and telling you what he thinks they mean which all you'd have to do is open up the verse and read it and read the verses around it and see that it doesn't say what he's saying it means

Nehemiah 8 8 says of the Levites who were helping people understand the law they read from the book from the law of God clearly and they gave the sense so that the people understood the reading and that's not what these guys are doing this is not exegesis this is is a

Jesus he's giving you his view not what the text actually says let's keep going this is now

Michael Miller jumping back in let's just be honest they just don't like to get the tongues at the end of the day that they just don't like it and so they're going to explain it away however they can because they're already starting off with the premise that tongues doesn't happen today and that's it well so much for theological humility that is that is such a subjective and uncharitable accusation by this same standard of argumentation

I could say let's just be honest they just don't like that the miraculous sign gifts are not in regular use today they don't like that God had a time and a purpose and a place for these gifts and so they force it by ignoring both the text and the obvious and explain it however they can by speaking gibberish and claiming this is the

Holy Spirit causing them to speak in tongues and that's it would that be fair for me to say that what

I don't like is that a great miraculous sign gift such as speaking in tongues and make no mistake when the disciples spoke in tongues at Pentecost in Acts 2 or when the

Gentiles spoke in tongues at the home of Cornelius in chapter 10 that was miraculous the people knew they were witnessing a miracle it was not a bunch of ecstatic worshippers uttering gibberish nonsense

I don't like that this gift is being diminished and abused as something less than what it really is and then dividing the body of Christ over your own subjective interpretation of the text speaking gibberish nonsense is not speaking in tongues as these guys claim and they have yet to show otherwise from the text

Miller continues so it's not us changing the meaning of scripture it's actually them to begin with with cessationism which is a non -biblical doctrine

I'm still waiting to hear how speaking gibberish nonsense is a miraculous gift of the

Holy Spirit and where that is in the Bible as I've said responding before to this controversy cessationism and continuism are both systematic doctrines both of them are now what does that mean to call them systematic doctrines that means that we're coming to our conclusions looking at what all of scripture says about this and organizing what the

Bible teaches in a logical and coherent way the cessationist does this as well as the continuous

I'm willing to admit that it doesn't sound like these guys are willing to admit that he's just saying now sensationism is just a non -biblical doctrine it is not theological humility which these guys are calling for to say well our doctrine is in the

Bible but yours is not nonsense they keep saying there's an exegetical case for this

I'm still waiting to hear it now Roundtree jumps back in in this next part but he doesn't make any further argument exegetically so let me skip ahead this is to Joshua Lewis who is making some summary points here and let's also not pretend that like tongues yeah there's a lot here and let's walk through some of those just as a recap for people who are just now tuning in tongues is not always known human languages a couple arguments for that can be there's no interpreter with Cornelius right so we don't know what language that they're speaking in only they're speaking in another language okay so this reference to Cornelius in Acts chapter 10 the

Apostle Peter is led by Christ to go to the home of a Roman centurion named Cornelius to share the gospel with him and with his household

Peter preaches the gospel with them and then the Holy Spirit comes upon them and the

Jews who are with Peter who came with Peter know that the Holy Spirit has come upon this household because as said in verse 46 they were hearing them speaking in tongues and extolling

God Lewis is making the argument that because Acts 10 doesn't tell us what language they were speaking unlike Acts 2 and there was no interpreter then maybe this is evidence that they weren't really speaking a real human language they were speaking gibberish nonsense friends

I don't know how how much I can emphasize this speaking gibberish is not a miracle

I can do it right now Baska lahama na peshi no futa del tikamash sini van makafeshu okay

I just made all that up it was nonsense and if I were to have done that in the throes of passionate prayer a charismatic would have said

I was speaking in tongues no that's not what that was there was nothing miraculous about what

I just said and there are people from all kinds of religions all over the world who do that a common comparison is the

Hindus and their practice of Kundalini these people in Cornelius's house were not speaking gibberish nonsense they were speaking something the

Jews who came with Peter understood what was happening the remnant radio guys are assuming that everyone in that room at Cornelius's home knew only one language because there was not an interpreter of this unknown language then maybe it was gibberish well then the

Jews would not have been impressed they would not have been amazed and convinced that the

Holy Spirit just fell on these people they would have said oh good grief they're acting like pagans because speaking in ecstatic nonsense utterances was a practice among the pagans the

Jews who were with Peter knew what was happening probably even understood what it was that these men were saying who did not previously know this language they're suddenly speaking what reason did they need to have an interpreter to interpret to them it was so that the

Jews would see that the Holy Spirit has come to the Gentiles as well you don't start in 1st

Corinthians 14 2 and read out your understanding of speaking in tongues from there which is what Remnant Radio is doing they admitted that's exactly what they're doing you start in Acts 2 and then every occasion that you see of speaking in tongues you understand it from the way the text has clearly and plainly explained it to us sorry

Michael Roundtree but yes the text is clear what this miraculous gift is now continuing on we have 1st

Corinthians 14 chapter 2 you're speaking to God not to man which when you read that verse in context you understand that's not a good thing

Paul is rebuking this church for their abuse of spiritual gifts the purpose of the gifts is to edify the church if what you're saying is only understood by God then you're not doing it right that's the point look at the very next verse 1st

Corinthians 14 3 on the other hand the one who prophesies speaks to people for their upbuilding and encouragement and consolation that's the point if your spiritual gift is not edifying the church you're not doing it right and I gave an exposition of 1st

Corinthians 14 last time well verse 2 everything surrounding verse 2 even looking at it in light of Acts 2 so I'll digress from going any further you have the accounts in 1st

Corinthians 12 and in 14 they give you both a description of the gift of interpretation and the need for an interpreter and Paul who says

I speak in tongues more than you all but I would still rather speak to you in a known human language that you can understand that would edify you build you up and encourage you all of them again this is not exposition nor is it even good teaching the guys at remnant radio are not teaching you they're just reacting to arguments that they say that they don't like and telling you their opinion and that's all they've really been doing here now this next argument this is really wild listen to this seem to point to the fact that this could be an unknown human language or maybe a human language it's not known at that time or to that immediate audience

I'm still think it's open for interpretation to say that you know maybe every form of tongues is a known human language but a known human language that isn't present at that time part of the argument from the cessationist is well you know the

Babylonians were to come and conquer Israel and that would be an unknown tongue so it would have been gibberish and a sign of judgment unto them we're just saying yeah so maybe all tongues is a known human language but a known human language that's not known maybe within our time like maybe it's an old human language or maybe it's a language that's maybe not present within that current congregation like maybe it is

Portuguese but there's no Portuguese speaker present it would merely sound like gibberish so I think the argumentation stands on it's own

I think it's biblical Wow so that's it our argument just stands on it's own

I think it's biblical how much text have they actually read have they opened their bibles and walked through the text with you and shown you how

Lewis or the rest of the guys came to any of these conclusions it's like they have this attitude of I don't need to do any of that work our argument just stands on it's own unbelievable now about the argument that Lewis just made maybe we are speaking in actual known human languages but they're just languages that are so old they don't exist anymore or they're from another part of the world and you can't tell you can't tell me that's not unknown human languages guys come on you cannot be serious as I said

I spent over a decade in charismatic churches and what those people were saying when they spoke this gibberish that they called speaking in tongues was not another human language you know that and this just sounds like reaching first of all what would be the point of that why would god do that why would he give you some dead language to pray in that neither you nor anyone else would understand what would be the point and again where is this in the bible you know what is in the bible for god is not a god of confusion but of peace first Corinthians 14 33

Lewis said part of the argument from the cessationists is well you know the Babylonians were going to come and conquer

Israel and that would be an unknown tongue so it would have been gibberish and a sign of judgment unto them where is he getting that how is that and how is that a cessationist argument

I'm not saying it's not I'm just saying where is he getting that from why doesn't he explain this they don't represent the text well and they don't represent cessationists well at all listen to first Corinthians 14 beginning in verse 20 brothers do not be children in your thinking be infants in evil so inexperienced in evil but in your thinking be mature in the law it is written by people of strange tongues and the lips of foreigners will

I speak to this people and even then they will not listen to me says the lord what is

Paul referencing there if you have a bible with reference notes then you'll you'll follow your references and you'll see that it's pointing you to Isaiah 28 11 to 12 let's read that from Isaiah 28 for by people of strange lips and with a foreign tongue the lord will speak to this people to whom he has said this is rest give rest to the weary and this is repose yet they would not hear what does this mean what's going on here the people of Israel had rejected

God's clear message of rest and the instructions that he gave to them rest in God was promised to them who knew and kept the law and the prophets so since the people did not listen to God's clear message now he will speak to them by the foreign tongue of those who will come and conquer them the

Assyrians will conquer Israel the Chaldeans or the Babylonians will conquer Judah and when this foreign enemy comes in the people won't understand that it will be terrible and frightening they will be judged by God through a foreign people whom they will not understand and it's through this that some will that some will learn their lesson and repent the hard way instead of the easy way though many would come into judgment and again the

Assyrian and Babylonian languages were known human languages they were real human languages

Lewis is saying well maybe that's what we're saying when we pray in these unknown tongues maybe we're speaking some dead language like Assyrian and Babylonian which is absurd there's no point to that what is the point how does this apply to what

Paul says about tongues in 1st Corinthians 14 let's go to the next verse verse 22 thus tongues are a sign not for believers but for unbelievers while prophecy is a sign not for unbelievers but for believers pardon me for saying so but this instantly kills the notion that the point of speaking in tongues is to have a private prayer language tongues are a sign in other words they are a miraculous sign gift exactly what cessationists have been calling it and it's a sign not for believers but for unbelievers that God's judgment is upon unbelievers it is not a positive sign through which a person is led to faith it cannot be that because no one understands it back to 1st

Corinthians 14 2 no one understands him but he utters mysteries of the spirit this was also Acts 2 12 and all were amazed and perplexed when they saw the disciples speaking in other languages saying to one another what does this mean it was not the speaking in tongues itself that converted these

Jews to Christianity but then when Peter explained it to them and clearly presented the gospel so let me go on to the next verse this is 1st

Corinthians 14 23 now if therefore the whole church comes together and all speak in tongues which by the way would not be a good thing that is not edifying that's the point that Paul has been making through this chapter speaking in tongues is not a gift that edifies the church he says here it's a sign for unbelievers and being a sign does not mean being a sign does not mean that it's salvific so he says again if the whole church comes together and all speak in tongues and outsiders or unbelievers enter will they not say that you are not out of your minds well what was the reaction of the

Jews in Acts 2 13 so we read and all were amazed and perplexed saying to one another what does this mean next verse but others mocking said they are filled with new wine they were saying you're all out of your minds and what were the apostles speaking at Pentecost in Acts 2 they were speaking in other real human languages not gibberish nonsense going on to 1st

Corinthians 14 verse 24 but if all prophesy and an unbeliever or outsider enters he is convicted by all he is called to account by all the secrets of his heart are disclosed and so falling on his face he will worship

God and declare that God is really among you so what is the point speak words that make sense speak in a speaking in a foreign tongue does not edify anyone for no one understands him it does not bring them to a knowledge of their sin and need for a

Savior pointing them back to Christ who is that Savior and that should be our desire when we speak not to not to seek after these unknown gibberish language that you yourself don't even know what that means it doesn't edify you now somebody might push back on me and say well in 1st

Corinthians 14 Paul says do not forbid speaking in tongues what could that possibly mean well because of all of these instructions that he gives here about speaking in tongues if anybody among you is going to speak in tongues there has to be an interpreter and if there's not an interpreter then you just need to sit down and go over there so with all these instructions there was likely going to be somebody in the church that was going to say so then we shouldn't do it at all and Paul is going to say no

I do not forbid speaking in tongues and tells them that's the instruction that's the exhortation do not forbid speaking in tongues verse 39 but all things should be done decently and in order and speaking random languages that everybody doesn't know just sounds like chaos we're not even talking about the gibberish aspect here we're just talking speaking known human languages because that's what speaking in tongues is when you go all the way back to Acts 2 and there's never been anything in the text that's led us to believe that it could be anything otherwise that's just chaotic to be doing that it was never intended for that to be part of corporate worship whenever you see speaking in tongues in Acts which by the way there's only three passages that mention speaking in tongues in the book of Acts and every time it's done it's public it's not in the corporate gathering of the church so it was never intended that for a corporate worship service there's going to be someone who's going to stand up and speak something in tongues or that you can go over there by yourself and pray in your private prayer language that's not corporate worship practice but Paul says don't forbid speaking in tongues if somebody is going to speak a real human language then the

Holy Spirit is doing that don't stop the Holy Spirit's work you're observing something miraculous happen here the spirit has a reason why he's doing this but this is not intended for the corporate worship service among believers and so there are very tight restrictions on the practice of these spiritual gifts it's better for you to prophesy people understand what you are saying when you prophesy and again explaining what prophesying means it means that you are bringing some revelation or knowledge or prophecy or teaching verse 6 so all of that falls under the category of prophesying and by the way every week when

I preach I'm prophesying that's what's going to be the benefit to the church that's what's going to be edifying and will build up the body speaking in tongues is not of any benefit so Paul puts these restrictions on it in 1st

Corinthians 14 but so that it would not be understood that he was saying forbid speaking in tongues he says do not forbid speaking in tongues my brothers earnestly desire to prophesy and do not forbid speaking in tongues but all things should be done decently and in order and this explanation of speaking in tongues that Remnant Radio is giving it's not orderly we're going to stop there when

I come back to this next week we will finally get to the comments that Remnant Radio made about what

I said in the documentary cessationist that's the very next part we're getting to and we will continue this discussion as we go

I appreciate you listening if you have any questions or comments you can send them to when we understand the text at gmail .com

or submit a voicemail by going to www .tt .com and click on that voicemail tab we would love to hear from you my friends it is the gospel of Jesus Christ that we believe and herald the whole reason why