WWUTT 2395 Q&A Speaking Jesus Over You, Praying AI Prayers, Speaking in Tongues Part 3

What does it mean when someone speaks the name of Jesus over you? Is that a practice in the

Bible somewhere? Can we pray prayers that have been developed by AI? And what did Paul mean when he said, if I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, when we understand the text?

This is When We Understand The Text, a daily Bible commentary to help encourage your time in the word. Brought to you by Providence Reformed Baptist Church in Casa Grande, Arizona.

For more information about our ministry, go to www .tt .com.

Here once again, is Pastor Gabe. Thank you, babe. You're welcome. We're going to be talking mostly about prayer today.

So our questions seem to be centered on that theme. And being a Friday edition of the broadcast, you can send your questions to whenweunderstandthetext at gmail .com

at at gmail .com at not it. When we understand the text, it gmail .com

at or go to www .tt .com. Record us a voicemail.

We'd love to hear from you that way. First off, let's start with some scripture. We got Proverbs chapter 10.

We're up to verse 12. Awesome. Hatred stirs up strife, but love covers all offenses.

You got a person that's really contentious, seems to want to stir the conflict.

A little bit. It's because they have hatred in their heart. They aren't considerate of their brothers and sisters in the

Lord or of anybody. Seems to be that they just love conflict. Yeah.

They feed on conflict. Yeah. You known people like that? They don't feel like they're alive unless they're in the middle of a conflict.

But love covers all offenses, is not looking for the way of strife, is not trying to sow division among people.

But how do we resolve this? How do we, how do we even look for the best in one another? Not looking for those little things that are going to divide us that we can go at each other on, but we're speaking grace to each other.

Speaking peace, trying to bring, forgiving one another. Exactly that. Yes. Colossians chapter three, forgiving one another is

Christ has forgiven you. So you must also forgive. Next verse in verse 13 on the lips of him who has understanding wisdom is found.

But a rod is for the back of him who lacks sense. Ouch. I wish we were still implementing that.

Well, I mean, some households do. Yeah. Yeah. Parenting.

Definitely. Of course, as I say that there's probably some times I deserved the rod for lacking sense.

Verse 14, the wise lay up knowledge, but the mouth of a fool brings ruin near.

That kind of keeps the theme of what we're reading here. Hatred stirs up strife, but love covers all offenses.

So the mouth of the fool is, is just ruining people instead of looking for the best way, looking for the peaceful way.

How, how can we be Christ -like in our words? Yeah. They're looking for those ways that either benefit themselves or so division among one another.

And usually tearing somebody down. Yeah. Right. Yeah. Speak grace, give grace, the words that give grace to those who hear

Ephesians 4 29. All right. Let's get to some of our questions here as we talk about how we speak to God.

I've talked about this recently too, as we were in Luke chapter 11, just finished up Luke chapter 11.

And that chapter begins with Jesus teaching his disciples how to pray. Yes.

So how is it that we are to pray? How are our words to honor

God, especially when we pray or interceding for our brethren, when we lift up their needs and their requests before others.

And speaking of that folks, if you remember us in your prayers, pray for our church. Yes, please.

Like many churches, we've got a lot of things going on, but if you would just remember Providence Reformed Baptist Church in your prayers, we would greatly appreciate it.

Yes. Some good things in the future, some difficult things that are going on. I'm not talking about their strife among us or anything like that.

No, just health needs and, and, uh, different things of that nature. Yeah. So would appreciate your prayers.

This question comes from Becky and she says, hi, Pastor Gabe, my husband and I enjoyed worshiping with your church in February.

Oh, awesome. I don't remember this, Becky. I'm so sorry. This is a different Becky. Not me,

Becky. I don't recall, but I appreciate it. It's just not coming to mind right away.

So she says my question, what does it mean to speak the name of Jesus for context?

I visited a church for the baptism of my sister. And during the sermon, the pastor stopped mid sermon and said that he was speaking the name of Jesus over the congregation.

The worship team had just sang a song with that same phrase in the lyrics.

Thanks for your help as my husband and I have not heard the Lord's name used in this way.

I hope you and Becky can make it to G3 in September. If so, see you there. Oh, I'm already going to be in Georgia.

Yes. I think right before G3. Yes. So it's the, it's the white harvest conference that's going to be going on there.

And I'm one of the speakers along with Jim Osmond, Justin Peters, Tim Chalies is going to be there.

And Todd Friel of Wretched. Awesome. So I'm speaking at that conference. And then I think G3 is the next week.

So I haven't totally devoted myself to it yet. Jim has asked me the same thing.

It's like, hey, you got to stick around and go to G3. Yeah. So yeah, I might get there. We're not going to do a booth this year.

Yeah. So this is going to be the first time since when did we start doing that? 2018. Yeah, that's what

I was going to say. I think so. So this will be our first year since 2017 that we haven't had a booth at G3.

Wow. Feel like a chapter's closing or something. It's just different.

It's harder for us. I mean, we're all the way out in Arizona. Yeah. First year we did it, we were in Kansas. Right.

Then we were traveling from Texas. Yeah, we could drive. So yeah, we just can't drive and take all of our stuff with us.

Yeah. So that's kind of why. Yeah. But if I can work it out while I'm there in Georgia, I'll just stick around a little bit longer and go to G3.

Yeah. All right. So this whole thing of speaking the name of Jesus, have you heard anybody do this before?

It sounds familiar, but not. I mean, in the middle of a sermon? Yeah, so it sounds like he just stopped the sermon and said,

I want to speak the name of Jesus over you right now. Yeah. And I have seen this. You have? Yeah, because it comes from the charismatic circles that I used to run.

Yes. So there is a song that was written. Hang on, I got to look up the artist's name.

I had it in front of me before, but I've since closed it. Charity Gale. So she has this song called,

I Speak Jesus. And one of the lines in the bridge of the song is, I just want to speak the name of Jesus over every heart and every mind, because I know there is peace within your presence,

I speak Jesus. Now, this comes from, you'll see a preacher in a charismatic service do this occasionally,

I just want to speak Jesus over you, or somebody who's leading prayer or something like that.

So what does this mean? Well, you'll probably hear in the context of their prayers something like, in the name of Jesus, I want to speak the name of Jesus over every addiction, or over every illness in the room.

Right, that's what I've heard, that phrase. So you have heard that? Yeah, that, but not like stopping a sermon to say it.

Like, that's a little odd to me. Oh, this is common. Yeah, this was pretty common.

Well, I also grew up where the Catholic Church, no matter what church you go to, it's still the same thing.

Like, you can go to one in a different language, but you still have the same thing. Yeah, right. Everything's the same, in order.

Yeah, so it's pretty typical that a charismatic preacher might get a feel of something in the middle of a sermon and go, you know what?

We just got to stop right now and do this, or something. I'm just feeling right now that the

Spirit is telling me something, and then we'll go into something else. So I saw this quite a bit, yeah, in a lot of these charismatic type sermons, or they might even make a show of it.

Like, for example, they've got their sermon written out, or they've got all the notes, and then they're going, you know what?

I'm just off script now, because the Spirit's leading me somewhere else. So they'll make a show out of it. Like, I had prepared this, but now we've got to be doing this.

I was going to say, do they ever get back to, like, when they interrupt the sermon? No. Do they ever get back? Okay. I've never seen it anyway.

Okay, just curious. There was one sermon I saw that was a number of years ago, but Stephen Furtick did this.

And oh, you know what kind of hype man he is. Becky's making a face.

You can't see that, but that's what she's doing. The way he hypes stuff up, you know.

So he did have, like, this huge plexiglass pulpit, so you could see everything, right?

Everything's got to be a show. So you're able to see the notes he's got spread out on his pulpit.

And then he gets to a point where he's all, like, amped up in the middle of the sermon. Now he's throwing papers around.

He's like, I had all this, but now Jesus is preaching, or something like that. He just goes crazy.

That's what he does. That's his MO. That's so true. But anyway. I can't even.

Back to the whole thing of I speak Jesus. There's nothing about saying that or doing that that somehow brings more power onto the prayer.

Right. Or onto the service or onto the person that you're praying for. Because remember that in Acts chapter 19, the sons of Sceva were claiming to cast out demons.

Oh, right. In the name of Jesus. Right. And they were just doing it for themselves. So it was from a heart that did not really fear

God. Didn't they get paid for it or something? Well, they were sons of an itinerant preacher, is what it says.

So likely they were probably doing it for money. Oh, okay. Maybe. It doesn't say that explicitly.

Simon, the magician was the one. Maybe I just had heard that or something. It was Simon Magnus that had said, hey,

I'll pay you money for the Holy Spirit. And Peter rebuked him. I gotcha.

So that was a different thing where he wanted the Holy Spirit and was willing to pay money for it. Believing now that I have this power, look how much more impressive

I am. Oh yeah, I had forgot about that. Yeah. No, I was thinking about the sons. The sons of Sceva.

Yeah. That's what you were thinking of. Yeah. So it could be that, yeah, they were getting paid for that.

Maybe I just heard it somewhere. I don't know. So it says that, this is Acts 19 beginning in verse 11.

God was doing extraordinary miracles by the hands of Paul so that even handkerchief or aprons that had touched his skin were carried away to the sick and their diseases left them and evil spirits came out of them.

This was while he was preaching at Ephesus. So this was God showing his power there at Ephesus.

Right. Then some of the itinerant Jewish exorcists undertook to invoke the name of the

Lord Jesus over those who had evil spirits saying, I adjure you by the

Jesus whom Paul proclaims. Seven sons of a Jewish high priest named Sceva were doing this, but the evil spirit answered them,

Jesus I know and Paul I recognize, but who are you? And then he works his demon jujitsu on these guys.

I don't think that's in there. Okay. That's the Gabe translation. And the man in whom was the evil spirit leapt on them, mastered all of them and overpowered them so that they fled out of that house naked and wounded.

And this became known to all the residents of Ephesus, both Jews and Greeks and fear fell upon them all.

And the name of the Lord Jesus was extolled. But consider what these Jewish exorcists were saying.

Verse 13, again, some of the itinerant Jewish exorcists undertook to invoke the name of the

Lord Jesus over those who had evil spirits. So they were saying the name of Jesus over those who were possessed by evil spirits.

And did that do anything? Well, it got them in trouble. It did not have.

It backfired. It didn't have any power in and of itself to cast out these evil spirits.

They were doing it in a very self -serving sort of a way. Paul is getting popular out of this.

So we're going to do it too. And if we just speak the name of Jesus over people, then it's going to have the power that we invoke upon these evil spirits.

And so they're treating it like magic words. Yeah, that's what I was thinking, like it has more power.

Right. So there's nothing about that inherently that seems to add power or oomph to your prayer.

Right. But can you do that? Can you speak the name of Jesus over somebody? Sure. Sure.

Yeah, you can. And that's what we should be doing, really. I mean, when you're praying for somebody.

That's what I was thinking too. Saying God have compassion on this person. Yeah. May your power move through them that they may have the strength to overcome their addiction or something like that.

So just calling on the name of Jesus doesn't automatically give it power. But we have a heart that desires

God and that he would move or would work in the midst of a situation where humbly coming before him and acknowledging we have no power here.

Right. But you have power. And Lord, if it be your will, would you please show yourself in such a way that this person has the strength to overcome this addiction or to endure this pain or this sickness?

A lot of times when it comes to praying over somebody who's sick, we're just praying for their healing. Right. But how often do you see

Paul doing that in his letters? Right. He doesn't pray for their healing, but rather that they would continue to hold fast to Christ and endure in the midst of difficult situations.

So we pray that a person would hold fast to Christ in the midst of those things. It's okay to pray for healing. Yes. But we especially want to keep our eyes focused on God so we're not developing any unrealistic expectations of,

I know that if I pray or if I call upon the name of the Lord Jesus on this situation, then I will be healed.

Right. He's not a genie. Yeah. Like, you can't wish for it. You can pray about it.

But I also, whenever I pray for healing from an illness, I also pray that I may suffer well.

Yes. In it. And so even though I am suffering miserably in some cases, that I do it well and pleasing to the

Lord. Right. So I have a hard time with that phrase though, because usually it's not meant the way it should be.

Which phrase? The one about speaking Jesus over you. Yeah, I speak Jesus over you.

It just, it bothers me so much because people use it in such a wrong way.

And it's used in vain. It is, yes. Like if we have a self -serving desire, one that does not glorify

God even in our prayers, then we could be speaking the name of God in vain even when we're praying.

Yeah. So we have to be mindful of that. We're coming with the right kind of heart. Even James rebukes people for praying and not receiving because you pray and ask with wrong motives.

Right. So may our hearts be right before the Lord. You know, coming to God and saying,

God, make my heart right. Yes. That when I'm praying to you, I'm not praying for myself, but I desire that God would be glorified in the midst of this.

And teaching our kids, I have a hard time with them getting stuck in the rut of like, it's almost like they're doing wishes, you know?

And I'm like, God is not, he's not like a genie or he's not.

What's the other one? Yeah, I don't know. Just a father who spoils his kids or something.

I mean, I don't know what kind of term you're looking for. I'm sure there's got to be a term for that. There is a term out there,

I'm sure. But just someone that they go to and they make wishes and then the wishes come true and, you know, like it's magic or something.

And so it's just like, you know, you need to have the right approach to it.

But then how do you explain that to a child who, you know, all they hear are these things that you wish for, you know?

Right. When we pray, we're just asking God for things. Yeah. I mean, some of that is, some of that's my fault. The way

I'm leading my children in prayer, having to mindfully think of things that are like, okay, we're just,

I'm just teaching them to ask for things. What are some more biblical ways to pray? And so I'll teach them to pray psalms or pray scripture.

Yeah. In a way. But yeah. I mean, when they're little, that's just all that comes to mind.

Because like our three -year -old, when he goes, you know, and I want to go to the ostrich farm and I want to do this.

And I want to eat ice cream and cake. And I want to eat ice cream and cake and pizza. And I was like, well, you know, son.

I think I can help you out a little bit more with this. Understand why you want to go to the zoo and all this other stuff.

But there's other things to pray for. Yes. And the kids will, yeah, they'll tick down the family members.

We pray for this family member and this family member. Again, always good. But what other things can we be praying for that we have the right heart and the right mind going before the

Lord like this? And not just a habit either. Yeah. Like you said, getting stuck in a rut. So we're praying the same thing every time.

Right. So how do you get out of that mindset? And I'm not just, yeah, wishing unto

God for this. Yeah. Because then in that case, it's like we're reciting magic spells, too.

Yes, exactly. How many times have I prayed for this now that I can finally get it? Yes. But at the same time, you know, in the

Bible, it says that we are to be not repetitive, but.

Pray without ceasing. Yeah, pray without ceasing. 1 Thessalonians 5. And be persistent and, you know, come to him often with these prayer requests.

And so I think it's a matter of what you were saying earlier about it's a matter of your heart.

Like, why are you desiring these things? Like, is it for selfish reasons or is it for the glory of God?

Yeah. Being well is obviously selfish reasons, which is why I always tag on there.

You know, if it's your will, Lord, I would appreciate this. Yes, right. Exactly.

Yeah. Well, some of the things we're saying here actually go into the next question. Oh, awesome. So this is from Clinton. He says,

Dear Pastor Gabe, thank you for your recent teaching on prayer. I went back to your devotions from Matthew 6 and listened to those, too.

I have a few questions related to this. I've heard it said that Jesus just taught us to pray the

Lord's prayer as an example of prayer, but we shouldn't actually pray that prayer.

You know, I actually had a situation that happened to me when I was serving with another pastor where somebody in our prayer service had said, can we all pray the

Lord's prayer together? And it was discouraged from doing that, that we shouldn't pray the

Lord's prayer together. But then I did it anyway, and the pastor chewed me out for that afterward.

Oh, odd. Yeah, I'm dead serious. He said that that's not what that prayer is for, and we shouldn't just jump up and be ready to pray it whenever somebody requests it.

I was just baffled by that. I don't know that I had any response for him at all during that time.

I just remember getting chewed out for it. We just did the Lord's prayer. What's the problem with that? Yeah. I mean, it is true that Jesus gives us that prayer as an example of prayer.

Yes, but it's also an example. It's an example.

It's a blueprint for prayer. Yeah. You can pray that. Yeah. There's nothing wrong with praying that, and it's great.

I mean, why would it be wrong? Yeah, I know. I know. Yeah. I have no idea.

I can't get in the guy's head. I wouldn't be able to tell you, but it's still... I'll let you off the hook. Yeah, thanks.

It is something that as Jesus gave it to us to pray, we all know it so we can pray it together.

Yes. Just like we might sing the doxology together or something like that. We can pray the

Lord's prayer together. That's just fine. Right. I don't know why that would be discouraged. But it is true also that it's kind of a blueprint for prayer.

So you're looking at the parts of it. I mean, if it was the Hail Mary, then yeah, I get it.

Let's not do that. Yeah. But this one's like in the Bible. I know.

It's what Jesus... Jesus' words. What he taught his disciples to pray. And we pray scriptures all the time. So it was just odd that I...

And it is praying scripture, literally. Exactly. It really is doing that. But anyway,

Clinton goes on. That was just the first paragraph of the letter. Also, in addition to praying the Psalms, as you said, so the

Psalms are not only songs, but they're prayer lyrics. Yeah. So we can pray those unto God. He says, what do you think about something like the prayers that are found in the valley of vision?

Some people are coming up with prayers generated by AI. Even though a computer came up with them, would such prayers be meaningful to God if people prayed them from a heart that truly loves

God? Thank you for your devotion to teaching the word. I still have a lot to learn. I appreciate your email.

So valley of vision. Yeah. I mean, books like that, that teach you prayers, teach you how to pray.

I've prayed with the kids, the Charles Spurgeon prayers that will come in my Spurgeon devotional.

Yeah. So we've done those together. And that's another way, like you said, about getting in a rut. Yes. And getting out of that rut.

Well, let me get somebody else's prayer in here. Because maybe this will help us and guide our thinking into what else we can be setting our hearts upon when we lift up our hearts in prayer to God.

So the, so valley of vision, very good with that. Of course, you're talking like Puritan prayers and their hearts were way better at thinking about that than mine is.

So I appreciate that about the valley of vision. They also went through a lot different circumstances too.

Other circumstances, which is great too. So you're listening to the prayers that people prayed through the suffering that they went through.

That's a level of suffering I haven't gone through. Right. So yeah, those kinds of things are great too. Right. That's a great teacher in helping understand prayer, but even relating to brothers and sisters in the

Lord and what they've gone through, what God has brought them through. Yeah. And showed his grace to them in the midst of those circumstances.

So this next one's real interesting. Prayers are being generated by AI, even though a computer came up with them.

Can such prayers be meaningful to God? I mean, yes. Yeah. And I would respond exactly like that.

I mean, yes. It's not like you're asking the

AI to pray for you, you know, I mean, literally you're not asking the

AI to pray to God for you. You're just asking AI to formulate a prayer.

But the danger in asking AI to formulate a prayer is that it might not be sound because it's gathering all the information from the internet, from all sorts of different sources that you need to make sure that it is, you know, legit.

Right. And above board, not anything shady in there. Above board. I don't know what you want to call it.

Back to 1 Thessalonians 5, you mentioned a moment ago, test everything. Yes. So even if you're creating a prayer through AI, you're still going to have to test it.

Right. But I nonetheless, can you pray such a prayer and it be genuine unto

God? Yes. Absolutely. Should you? I would discourage it. Yeah.

I don't go to AI asking for it to generate prayers for you. The Bible has the blueprints.

So. Yes. That's a good place to start. We want to learn how to pray. Go to the word.

Right. That's where we go first. Yes. Yes. An AI prayer can be, I mean, from the bits and bytes of a computer, it's meaningless.

Right. There's no heartfulness unto God at all. And lest anybody say, well, the heavens declare the glory of God, then why not computers?

No, don't do that. There is no heart in the computer.

It's just a tool. Giving glory to God. It's a tool. Right. And a tool, like if you don't have, if you can't come up with words, like me,

I get stuck and I'm like, you know, then maybe you do need a little bit of advanced preparation if you're doing like a public prayer or something like that.

And so you want to like write it out. But I wouldn't ask it to formulate the whole prayer. AI is artificial intelligence.

So you're talking about something artificial. Right. But yeah. Anyway, to say that scripture is our teacher here, the

Holy Spirit teaching us through the scriptures, you add a computer to that and you're just adding another element that needs to be tested, needs to be sifted through.

Am I getting this right? Yeah. And now you're even asking questions of, okay, well, I prayed this prayer that came from a computer.

So was it genuine? Then eliminate that. Right. Eliminate that question from your mind by not praying a prayer that a computer came up with.

And again, come to the word, look for those books, teaching prayer, like Donald Whitney, I think is one of the guys came up with or he wrote a book on praying the scriptures.

Okay. So a book like that might be helpful in how you can perfect your prayers.

How can I pray things that are going to be more honoring to God and really even express my heart in such a way that desires the will of God to be done in my life?

Yes. So next I have a voicemail and we're out of time for this half of the program.

So this is a voicemail I'm going to answer in the second half, in the second half hour. If you listen to us on the radio, you only get a half hour, but if you listen online, you get the full podcast, go to WWU TT and subscribe.

Here is this voicemail from Kenneth. Hello, Gabe and Becky.

My name is Kenneth Coleman. I'm from Bartleman, Mississippi. In reference to speaking in tongues, what is the verse 1

Corinthians 13 in one talking about? It talks about speaking in the languages of men, which

I thought was tongues, but then it talks about speaking in the language of angels also.

So how do you interpret that? Thank you. And I love what you're doing there.

Bye. Thank you, Kenneth from Mississippi. Yeah. I'll get to your question in the, in the next half hour here.

So once again, you can send us questions to when we understand the text at gmail .com. And we appreciate everybody who emailed this week or send us a voicemail by going to WWU TT .com

and click on that voicemail tab, record it from your phone or your laptop. Thank you, babe, for blessing me with your beautiful face.

Aw, you're welcome. God bless you guys. God willing, we'll talk to you next week. In my review of the animated movie,

The King of Kings, my main criticism was that the filmmakers changed the words Jesus said often in subtle ways.

That might seem like a small thing, but it has big theological ramifications. One example is that in Mark 10 45,

Jesus said that he came to give his life as a ransom for many. But in the movie, he said he came to give his life as a benefit for the multitudes, removing from Jesus teaching that he died to pay the price for our sins.

That's huge. Many people in the comments said something like, it's a kid's movie. They're trying to make it understandable for kids, not be theological.

First of all, if you're talking about God, you're being theological. Second, I don't see how giving his life as a benefit for the multitudes is more understandable than giving his life as a ransom for many.

Third, the character of Charles Dickens serves to explain to his son and to us, the viewer, the meaning behind what

Jesus said or did. So quote Jesus as it's recorded in scripture. And if you think that's over anyone's head, use the commentator character to explain it.

But even the commentary fell short. The Dickens character said, our sin makes God sad.

Not that our sin is an offense to God. And Jesus gave his life to pay our sin debt and save us from God's wrath.

If you change that Jesus came to give his life as a ransom for many, you change the mission. It wasn't just a line.

It had everything to do with the way they presented the gospel. If you think you heard the gospel in this film, maybe you don't understand the gospel.

Or you may have experienced something I like to call Mad Lib Theology. You know Mad Libs, right?

A fun word game that presents a story filled with blanks. You ask someone to name a noun or a verb or a color or some other adjective to fill in the blanks and complete the story.

These ecumenical Jesus shows and films change things, leave things out, and give a watered -down gospel at best.

You may think you heard a good presentation of the gospel because in your mind, you're filling in the blanks they left with what you know.

I understand. I've been there too. Nonetheless, be responsible to test the spirits and try to discern what is pleasing to the

Lord. The gospel is the power of God for salvation to all who believe. Changing it is deadly when we understand the text.

Kenneth from Mississippi asked, how do we understand speaking in the tongues of men, but also speaking in the tongues of angels, according to what

Paul says in 1 Corinthians 13 1? Well, Paul is actually speaking hyperbolically here.

If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love,

I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. It's not that we can speak in all the tongues of men or in the tongues of angels.

But if I could, if I were so endowed with the spirit that I could speak in all the known languages of men and even unknown languages only spoken by angels.

But if I don't have love, I'm just making a bunch of noise. This is being said in the context of the instructions that Paul has been giving about spiritual gifts in chapters 12 and then in chapter 14.

Chapter 13 sits right in the middle to show the Corinthians a more excellent way. And that is the way of love, no matter how spectacular the spiritual gift might be.

It's nothing if you're not exercising it out of love for God and for the edification of your brothers and sisters in the

Lord, in his church. That's the purpose of the spiritual gifts. Do the angels speak in another language?

Well, I'm not actually sure. Every time in scripture, someone witnesses angels speaking, they're always able to understand the language.

So whether that means they're speaking known human languages like we speak, or we're just able to understand them in a heavenly realm, because perhaps we're hearing it in spirit and not with our physical ears.

I suppose we'll find that out when we get to the other side. In 2 Corinthians 12, Paul talks about having a vision of heaven.

And he says in verse 4 that he heard things that cannot be told, which man may not utter.

Does that mean that he heard things in other languages that men who are still in flesh do not know?

Or was he just speaking of the fact that he heard things that he wasn't permitted to repeat?

I have my own theories about that, but I'm not going to delve into that for now. But on the subject of the gift of speaking in tongues, let's come back once again to responding to the video from Remnant Radio in which they critique the comments that I made in the documentary

Cessationist, which came out in the fall of 2023. This is part three of my response.

You can listen to parts one and two in episodes 2375 and 2380, respectively.

When Remnant Radio defines the gift of speaking in tongues, they begin 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. And the way they interpret that verse is saying, see, no one understands him.

He utters mysteries in the spirit. So he must be praying a private prayer language.

No one can understand except between him and God. And we call that speaking in tongues.

That would be their definition of the gift. It can be either real human languages or indecipherable utterances.

But as I've argued, you can't begin in 1 Corinthians 14 2 and then work out from there as Remnant Radio does.

You have to begin in Acts 2, where the gift is originally given and clearly described for us in the narrative.

Jews from all over the Roman Empire were gathered for Pentecost. The Holy Spirit came upon the apostles, and they began testifying of God in all the languages which were spoken by the people who were present.

In Acts 2 11, they said, we hear them telling in our own tongues.

The mighty works of God. That is the gift of speaking in tongues. It's not a private prayer language.

It's never presented that way in scripture at all. As I've argued, if you think that's what speaking in tongues is, you're imposing that on to the text.

You do not draw that from the text, imposing on to the text, your ideas onto scripture.

That's called is a Jesus drawing out from the text. It's true meaning what the Holy Spirit means to communicate to us through this text.

That's called exegesis. Now, I find it necessary to say again that no true cessationist believes the miraculous works of God have ceased.

We still believe God does miracles. I still pray for healing all the time. In fact,

Becky and I prayed for a friend who was on death's doorstep hanging on to life by a thread before I started recording this.

If it is God's will to heal and restore that man, he will. And I've seen

God do amazing things such as that in my years as a pastor. What I do not believe is that there are modern day apostles.

Paul was the last apostle appointed. He even said so in first Corinthians 15, eight and the age of apostleship ended when

John, the last living apostle died at the end of the first century. There's no new revelation. And we do not see miracles performed to the degree and with the regularity that they were performed in acts.

History and scripture are very much on my side with that statement. In second Corinthians 12, 12,

Paul told the Corinthians that the signs of apostleship were clearly performed among them.

These more miraculous gifts were signs of apostleship, not exclusively performed by only the apostles, but certainly in confirmation to apostolic ministry in the first century.

Hebrews 2, 4 says that God affirmed the preaching of the gospel during the time of the apostles by signs and wonders and various miracles and by gifts of the

Holy spirit distributed according to his will. Continuous or charismatics believe that those gifts are still happening the way that we see them in acts.

But as I've presented in previous responses, continuous often have to change or diminish the meaning or the interpretation of either these miracles or the spiritual gifts in order to make that argument in order to make their arguments about continuism qualify.

This is especially the case when it comes to speaking in tongues. Many, if not all charismatics argue for what they, what they might sometimes call a private prayer language, but really the terminology they most often use is speaking in tongues.

Yes, speaking in tongues is the speaking of other real human languages in acts two, but it can also be this private prayer language, which they will argue as described in first Corinthians 14.

If you haven't heard anyone do this before, this kind of speaking in tongues, this private prayer language sounds like this.

I have argued that is not speaking in tongues. That's just babbling or praying in gibberish, which scripture never describes nor instructs, nor I believe even permits.

There is no description or allowing of a private babbling prayer language.

That's just between you and God. In fact, I've made the argument that based on what Jesus says in Matthew six, seven, he is discouraged praying that way.

And if you rightly exposit first Corinthians 14, you have to conclude that there is no value to praying this way.

If you exposit first Corinthians 12 through 14 in light of acts two, then you have to acknowledge that babbling prayers are not speaking in tongues.

Anyway, I made the argument for Matthew six, seven in the documentary cessationist, but the remnant radio guys completely misrepresented my argument.

I demonstrated this in part one of my response, but we're finally going to come to that portion this time in their video when

I'll give a lengthier reply. The first thing you'll hear is my voice from the documentary, and then Joshua Lewis will chime in with his response.

We'll also get to arguments from Michael Miller and Michael Roundtree, his co -hosts. So here we go.

But I read in Romans chapter eight that the spirit speaks with groanings that are too deep for words.

Maybe that verse is what is meant by this. I feel this overwhelming urge from the spirit to utter something, and that's what comes out.

There is no given permission in scripture to speak some gibberish nonsense that no one is going to understand.

But think about what Jesus said when he taught us how to pray. In Matthew six, seven, he said, don't heap up empty phrases like the pagans do.

And then he says, pray then like this. And Jesus taught us to pray clear prayers.

He was never praying anything that was some other language. And if there was anyone who was going to pray in such a language, it would certainly be the one who was sent down from heaven,

Christ himself. Interesting is Matthew six telling us not to speak in tongues is the fact that Jesus never spoke in tongues evidence that we shouldn't speak in tongues.

These seem like bad arguments. There is no record that Jesus spoke in tongues. And yet there's a record that Peter spoke in tongues.

His argument is, well, if anyone was going to do it, it better be the son of God. That doesn't even work with your understanding of the gift of tongues.

Why is that even an argument that's being stated? It's self -contradictory. Now, if we were having a roundtable discussion and I was sitting with these guys in person, this would be my honest response to what

Lewis just said. Do you not understand the argument that I'm making?

Or do you understand it and you're deliberately misrepresenting what I said? I played this for about half a dozen people.

This segment of this video here, including both of my fellow elders. Not all of those who saw this clip were cessationists either, by the way.

And they all had the same reaction to it. They all said it's like he wasn't even listening to what you were saying.

And this has been this has been my chief criticism of Remnant Radio's critiques of the cessationist documentary.

It's like they're responding to an argument that isn't even being made. In listening to these

Remnant Radio guys and listen to several videos now, there are occasions when they're probably on to a good argument, like a claim in the cessationist documentary may not be a good argument.

It's a perfect opportunity for Remnant Radio to expose the weakness of the argument, point to what the scriptures say and make a defense for continuism.

But almost every time it's like they turn the gun around and shoot themselves in the face by completely misrepresenting the argument.

Even as they play it in real time and they still don't get it.

I wish I could say they're hearers. The viewers of these videos are on to it and they're calling them out on it.

Unfortunately, when I look down in the comments under the video, they just eat up whatever Remnant Radio is feeding them as an honest representation of cessationism.

One gal in the comments named Rachel said of my clip, ouch, this exegesis is painful.

So what is Remnant Radio getting wrong here? I said this in part one of my response.

I was not talking about speaking in tongues in that clip. I didn't even use the phrase speaking in tongues.

I don't believe the private prayer language practice that charismatics call speaking in tongues is speaking in tongues.

And by the way, I remind you that I'm speaking as a former charismatic, as someone who is in these churches for a decade and in that mindset for longer than that.

All I'm addressing here in this clip is the concept of having a personal, private prayer language between the person praying and God.

And by the way, the Remnant Radio guys use exactly that term. They used it earlier in the video and they're going to use it again in this response as well.

Before they even played my clip, they have addressed the concept of a private prayer language.

So they believe in the practice and they call it the spiritual gift of speaking in tongues.

And they impose that on me, even though I didn't call it that. By this point in the documentary, it's already been established what speaking in tongues is.

So that when it gets to the part of addressing the concept of a private prayer language, it's presented that this is not the gift of speaking in tongues as we observe it in Scripture.

Nonetheless, the Remnant Radio guys are going to go on arguing with me as if that's what I'm talking about.

We're on completely different wavelengths here. They're not even trying to understand the cessationist argument and represent it accurately.

They're imposing on me their definitions. None of these arguments that they will make actually work against what

I just said, but I'll address them anyway. Here we go. So here's Michael Miller.

Yeah, he's totally failing to recognize the polemical aspect of tongues as it was in Acts 2.

This is a reversal of Babel. So the Tower of Babel event hadn't been reversed because the

New Covenant hadn't been made available for all flesh. So the idea that other nations would be coming in, that hadn't happened yet.

Not until after Jesus died on a cross, rose from the dead, ascended to heaven and poured out the Spirit and thereby giving the baptism of the

Spirit to unite all flesh. For by one Spirit, we have all been baptized into one body, as 1

Corinthians 12, 13 says. So it's like he's just completely throwing away the polemic nature of why tongues was given in Acts 2 as opposed to,

I mean, I don't know, it makes no sense to say that. He's just chopping in whatever verse of Scripture he can get to fit his argument.

Well, also, he's making the argument that Jesus should have been able, if you can do this, if Michael Miller is able to speak in tongues,

Jesus should have been able to speak in tongues. The problem with his argument is Peter spoke in tongues and Jesus didn't speak in tongues.

Like even if you want to take the category of like real tongues and fake tongues, well, your tongues is fake and Jesus didn't do that.

Therefore, what you're doing is not real. Do it with the real one. It doesn't work that way. They're laughing and delighting in what they think of as smashing my nonsense argument when they don't even realize that they just defeated their own argument.

What was going on at Pentecost in Acts 2? Not prayer.

It was very clearly not prayer. So when Miller said that I'm ignoring the polemical aspect of tongues as it was in Acts 2, the reality is that's what they're doing.

They are actually ignoring the purpose of tongues in Acts 2 and 1 Corinthians 14, which

I'll get to because speaking in tongues is not a private prayer language. The point that I was simply making is that Jesus clearly taught his disciples and us how to pray.

And in those instructions on prayer, he said, don't heap up empty phrases as the

Gentiles do or as the pagans do. What is it when you pray meaningless gibberish?

They are empty phrases. And as I've said in a previous response, pagans all over the world do this.

One of the most common examples is the Hindu practice of Kundalini, where they do this gibberish praying in tongues.

There's nothing specific to the Holy Spirit praying in a gibberish nonsense prayer language.

That's what pagans do. Where in Jesus teaching on prayer, is there any kind of hint that we will be able to pray in some heavenly language?

If there was anyone who was going to demonstrate that, who was going to demonstrate that there even is some language of heaven that is different than any language that we speak on earth, and that we would be endowed with such tongues to pray words that angels speak, it would have been

Jesus who showed us that, who came from heaven, and he gave no such teaching and no such example, period.

That was my argument. It's specifically addressing the private prayer language argument.

I'm not talking about speaking in tongues. They call that speaking in tongues. I don't call it that.

If they're going to address my argument, they need to address my argument. They need to understand what

I'm saying. They took the clip out of context. So what was the rest of what was going on in the cessationist documentary before they pulled my clip out of context?

They also spliced it up because there were other things in the middle of what I was saying there. I wasn't the only one speaking at that part in the documentary.

So they've singled this out and made it a straw man so that they could easily kick it over, completely misrepresenting my argument.

There is not a private prayer language in the Bible. And if the Remnant Radio guys stop for a moment and listen to their own arguments, they might understand that as well.

These next comments are from Michael Roundtree. Yeah, well, in fact, even the way the

Book of Acts portrays it, we see Jesus in Acts 1, 9 to 11, ascending into heaven.

And then in Acts 2, they hear a loud sound coming down, a mighty rushing wind coming down out of heaven.

Luke is using geography to say that the pouring out of the Holy Spirit actually comes from Jesus, which is precisely what

Peter will explain in his sermon in Acts 2, 29 to 36, that because Jesus has ascended into heaven at the right hand of God, he is now poured out which this which you see and hear.

He literally explains that the gift of tongues is here in Acts 2 because of Jesus.

He gives Jesus the credit who, by virtue of his life, death, resurrection, now ascension pours out the

Holy Spirit upon the church. So to say like Jesus didn't do it, therefore you shouldn't do it. Well, but Jesus gave the gift of tongues.

Jesus gave tongues. So maybe you should do it. I mean, hey, I'm not one of those who thinks every

Christian can speak it. I look at 1 Corinthians 12, do all apostles or all prophets or do all speak in tongues is one of the questions he asked.

And the implied answer is no. But you shouldn't forbid speaking in tongues, 1 Corinthians 14, especially on a terrible argument like this.

So also Matthew six, come on, dude. Yeah. Matthew six. Yes. He's teaching the

Lord's prayer. I mean, this is just a very different thing. Yes. The Lord's prayer says to pray in this way.

Is that the only way we pray? Are we limited to the words that Jesus gave us in the Lord's prayer? Is that what you're trying to communicate?

Is that what I'm trying to communicate? They seem so certain of everything that I said.

Why don't they tell me? Where did I say that this is the only way that we are to pray?

Just pray the words of the Lord's prayer. Where did I say that? What did Lewis say? Come on, dude. My point was simply that Jesus taught us how to pray.

And every example of prayer we have in the Bible is in a real understandable human language.

We're not limited to the words, nor are we limited to the language of the

Lord's prayer. The Lord's prayer is a model of how we should typically pray. But Paul also says,

I'm glad I speak in tongues more than all of you. But in the church, I'd rather speak five intelligible words. Well, if he's glad he'd speak in tongues, but not in a public place.

Well, what is that? It's prayer. It's eisegesis. They're reading the ability to pray in a nonsense gibberish prayer language into the text as if that's what

Paul was talking about. They're looking for a place to insert this practice that I love so much, even though no instruction on it has been given anywhere else in the

Bible. Not one demonstration of it being practiced. I can point to Jesus teaching in Matthew 6 that we should not be praying an empty, meaningless gibberish.

What are you pointing to in Scripture to say? Yeah, we can. The best you've got is to read that into 1

Corinthians 14. So let me start here in verse 13. I'll read it since they won't.

This is 1 Corinthians 14, beginning in verse 13. Therefore, one who speaks in a tongue should pray.

What? What should he pray? That he may interpret. One who speaks in a tongue should pray that he may interpret.

So if you're going to speak in a tongue, pray that you may be able to interpret it for everyone else.

Verse 14. For if I pray in a tongue, if, if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful.

That's not a good thing. So how does Paul resolve this? Verse 15. What am

I to do? I will pray with my spirit, but I will pray with my mind also.

In other words, I will pray words that even I can understand. This is not acting out of the ecstasy of my spirit.

This is sound, reasoned, meditative practice in the

Holy Spirit to pray in both mind and spirit that you may understand what you are praying.

Still verse 15. I will sing praise with my spirit, but I will sing with my mind also.

In the charismatic churches that I attended, they also sang in gibberish. Paul is saying here, even talking about the real gift of speaking in tongues is demonstrated in acts, pray and sing words that everyone can understand.

Even you can understand. Verse 16. Otherwise, if you give thanks with your spirit, how can anyone in the position of an outsider say amen to your thanksgiving when he does not know what you are saying?

So addressing again that it's actually the remnant radio guys who don't understand the purpose of the gift of speaking in tongues.

The spiritual gifts are for edifying and building up the church. Speaking in tongues in the corporate gathering doesn't accomplish that.

Verse 17. For you may be giving thanks well enough. Like in your spirit, you are thankful to God, even if you don't understand the words you're saying, but the other person is not being built up again because the purpose of the gifts is for building up the church.

Verse 18. I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you.

What kind of tongues, Paul? Still the same kind of tongues that we saw in Acts 2.

The definition has not changed. Nowhere has the meaning of this spiritual gift transitioned to mean something else.

Acts 2 11 again. We hear them telling in our own tongues the mighty works of God. Paul had been blessed by the spirit to speak other languages over the course of his missionary journeys.

Verse 19. Nevertheless, in church, I would rather speak five words with my mind in order to instruct others than 10 ,000 words in a tongue.

That's the context. Is Paul talking about prayer there? No, he is not.

Michael Roundtree misquoted the verse. He conveniently left out that Paul said,

I would rather speak five words with my mind in order to instruct others than 10 ,000 words in a tongue.

The point is teaching. It's not a private prayer language going on.

That's why we call it. This is why, like, informally, we might use the we might say it's a prayer language because he says he speaks in a tongue speaks between himself and to God, not in a public assembly.

He speaks in tongues more than everybody else. So the apostle Paul prayed in tongues.

He said, if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful.

That was not encouragement to pray in tongues. This was a rebuke because the

Corinthians were misusing the spiritual gifts, especially the gift of speaking in tongues. This was the gift that they could look the most impressive with.

They may not be able to heal anyone. If you're going to say that you're going to heal somebody, you need to show evidence of that healing.

So you can pick up real quick if someone is not actually miraculously healing anybody. And what's with the ability to distinguish between spirits in first Corinthians 1210?

That one's just not showy enough. So what spiritual gift can be the most showy that people can look at and go, oh, wow, that guy's got the

Holy Spirit. Look at that. If they could fake speaking in another foreign language, they can make it at least look like they had a gift of speaking in tongues.

The only problem is that no one in the church has a clue what you're talking about. So Paul rebuked them for abusing the spiritual gifts to benefit themselves rather than the church.

And and first Corinthians 1213 and 14 do not contain instructions on praying in tongues.

Again, Roundtree is imposing that onto the text. He is not drawing that from the text. He's practicing is a

Jesus, not exegesis. They actually do very little of reading the scriptures here. I hope you can pick that up.

So, well, I'm going to go with. I mean, if all did it, it's probably a good thing to do. You probably should also follow me as I follow

Christ. So maybe maybe you should speak in tongues. I will say this on Romans eight. I agree with him.

That's not about the gift of tongues, whatever it talks about, like groaning. I'm on the same page. I agree.

But but that's not like every charismatic believes that's about tongues. I think it's an overreach and a grasp to suggest that that is about tongues.

But that's what I heard in charismatic churches for years. So these guys should not dismiss that as claiming that it's not a common argument among charismatics.

It is a very common argument. I heard it just like a month ago. In case you're not familiar with this argument, it's where Paul says in Romans chapter eight.

Likewise, the spirit helps us in our weakness for we do not know what to pray for as we ought.

But the spirit himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words.

So charismatics will take that verse. That's that's Romans eight. Twenty six. They'll take that verse and say, see there.

So it's in the spirit that we can have these groanings or these utterances that may not be understandable to anyone else.

But the spirit knows what we are praying. And you look at that verse in context. That's not what that's about at all.

So, as I said, I've heard charismatics make this argument many times.

I don't know that a year of my life has gone by where I've not heard somebody using that passage as an argument for having a private prayer language.

So respectfully to these guys, they should recognize that and address it. It's way more common in their circles to say

Romans eight is about having a private prayer language than for people to actually have a right understanding of Romans eight, as it sounds like they do.

I can't say that I agree with him there, but on the other stuff, it's just it's really bad argumentation.

And it's actually it's discouraging that that sort of argument actually made it into a documentary.

Like it says something about like the person who made this documentary and thought this was a good enough argument to air. Like, I can imagine like you got the camera rolling, you're filming some guy and he makes like just a really bad argument.

You're like, as the charismatics are going to tear this one up, let's let's not put that one in.

She went ahead and threw that argument. I'm kind of like, man, and that is just mean.

I mean, I have tried to give these guys the benefit of the doubt, but they are not being charitable at all.

And what what Lewis does here next is it just compounds on on on their their foolishness, really.

Michael, he brought up Matthew six to say that when you stand in the marketplace, right, you're not to lift up like repetitious and big lofty prayers so that you may be seen.

He uses that verse to say, well, this is clearly saying that God wants us to not pray these big, long winded prayers of tongues.

Right. But to but to pray in such a way that's intelligible. That's not what Matthew six is about.

It's not about intelligibility and unintelligibility. In fact, it's the intelligible words that are like highly lofty.

They're there to impress others. He's just straight up misrepresenting me here, ascribing to me arguments

I did not make. I was absolutely not saying that Matthew six, five through six was about speaking in tongues or or even a private prayer language.

I used Matthew six, seven, where Jesus specifically addressed the way the

Gentiles prayed. Matthew six, five through six is about how the hypocrites prayed there.

Jesus said, and when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites, for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners that they may be seen by others.

Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. But when you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your father who is in secret, and your father who sees in secret will reward you.

I did not say that has anything to do with a private prayer language. I was using the next verse,

Matthew six, seven, not verses five and six. Now, I don't think that Lewis is deliberately trying to lie about me here, but it's still not charitable.

The way he so carelessly handles my argument this way and then attributes to me saying things that I never said.

Now, fortunately, one of the remnant radio guys is going to come to my defense here in a moment, but it still doesn't change the fact that this entire spiel has been a misrepresentation of my initial argument.

Whereas the gift of tongues, if it's to be practiced biblically, is probably one that is done personally, privately, unless accompanied by interpretation, which, again,

I think that we're broad brushing here when we're talking about the charismatic movement. He'll play Sam Storms, he'll play

John Piper, and then he'll say, and then we go into these large rooms and everyone speaks in tongues. None of them do that.

The charismatics that they highlight in this documentary, and they say that, well, they're all basically the same, it's so absurd.

In fact, the Pentecostal charismatic movement, there are certainly groups amongst them who will say, hey, everyone, let's build ourselves up in our most holy faith, let's all pray right now in tongues, and there is babbling that takes place and their unbelievers are present going, what's going on here?

We don't see the whole fruitfulness of that. We would condemn that. We would, as a community, say, hey, that's wrong.

You shouldn't be doing that. If there is a gift of tongues, there ought to be an interpretation that goes along and accompanies along with it.

So, like I said, I attended several charismatic churches over the course of 10 years, and I was still charismatic in my beliefs for another eight years after that.

I haven't been a cessationist for even a decade yet. By the way, a lot of the guys who were interviewed in the cessationist documentary were former charismatics, even raised in Pentecostalism.

So many of us spoke out of not only what we know, not only what we know the scripture says, but even what we had experienced ourselves as formerly part of the charismatic movement.

I heard many times what Joshua Lewis just said, if anyone is going to speak in a tongue, there must be an interpreter or else he must be quiet.

I heard that all the time, but I never saw it implemented, not one time.

I attended charismatic churches that didn't go all barrel of monkeys crazy in the middle of worship, but even though they would say you shouldn't speak in tongues unless they're an interpreter, they almost all did it.

I had a chat with a deacon at one of the largest Pentecostal churches in our community. This was in Kansas, and he told me this.

He said, we don't let anyone speak in tongues unless there's someone who can interpret, and there must be only one or two or at the most, three, the way that Paul says it in first Corinthians 14, no more than that.

That's what he told me. We were actually sitting in the middle of McDonald's having this conversation. I still remember that, but then

I had the chance to visit their church and their worship services were absolutely nuts.

So he said what he told me. And the funny thing is he said that knowing what first Corinthians 14 says about how this is to be properly practiced, but also knowing full well that his church did not practice it.

So again, this is all to say that I heard this a lot, but I never saw it implemented.

I heard a lot of people say, we don't let speaking in tongues happen unless there's an interpreter.

But then I saw a lot of tongue speaking with no interpreter. In fact,

I can't remember there ever being an interpreter. It was more rare to have somebody there to interpret than it was to have people just jump up and start speaking in tongues.

I'm just speaking out of my experience there, and I digress. But to make the argument that Matthew six is somehow pointing us to tongues is a horrible misuse of the text of scripture.

That has to do with Pharisees wanting to be puffed up by their intellect and to be puffed up and to be seen in the public square.

If tongues is practiced appropriately, it's the exact opposite of that. The verse he's quoting is actually not the one you're referring to, although that's in the exact same passage.

He's talking about how the Gentiles pray with repetition, and he's saying that basically that's what tongues is.

It's just a bunch of guys uttering a bunch of stuff that's in repetition, which Jesus told us not to do in Matthew six, like the

Gentiles. I don't think he's referring necessarily to the Pharisees, but in either case, the argument doesn't work.

People speaking in tongues, they're not offering up a bunch of repetitious things for no reason.

People who pray in tongues are doing so because they want to pray, and they often don't know how to. And God himself sees the state of mankind and our inability to pray as we should.

And though he gave us the Lord's prayer, he's also now also given the gift of tongues so that people can pray so they don't feel like they're being repetitious.

But that's exactly what it is. It is repetitious nonsense. It's uttering the same syllabic nonsensical phrases over and over again.

Listen, I've been in dozens and dozens of prayer circles where this was going on, and I heard it with my own ears, this constant repeating nonsense babbling that didn't mean anything.

And if you honed in on one person doing it, you heard them repeating the same patterns over and over and over again.

I don't know if you've seen that clip of the supernatural guy, Sid Roth, where he's telling people to pray in tongues, and he's telling them to repeat things over and over and over again.

So you repeat that again and again and again until finally it just it takes hold of you, and you just start doing it.

And you start speaking in tongues, these repetitious, meaningless phrases. The example clips that I played you at the beginning of the thing,

I just played you a small part because the whole thing is just the same repetitious babbling repeated over and over again for minutes upon minutes on end.

This is not the practice of prayer that God gave us. We have a whole book of prayers called the

Psalms. As Becky and I said in the previous segment, they're songs, but they're also prayers.

He actually is undercutting the whole purpose of giving the gift of tongues, which I don't even think he understands why

God gave that gift at all. I don't think these guys understand why God gave that gift at all. Their entire paradigm has been operating out of one verse, like 1

Corinthians 14 2, and not what we see happening in Acts 2. And then

Paul actually says in 1 Corinthians 14 what the gift of tongues is for, and it's not prayer.

1 Corinthians 14 verse 20. Brothers, do not be children in your thinking. Be infants in evil, but in your thinking, be mature.

In the law, it is written by people of strange tongues and by the lips of foreigners will I speak to this people, and even then they will not listen to me, says the

Lord. Thus tongues are a sign not for believers, but for unbelievers.

Remember, going back to Pentecost. While prophecy is a sign not for unbelievers, but for believers.

If therefore the whole church comes together and all speak in tongues and outsiders or unbelievers enter, will they not say that you were out of your minds?

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. The gift of speaking in tongues was not for corporate worship, and there's nowhere that it's called prayer.

So they don't understand this. And I'm just going to the scriptures and reading it, which they're not doing.

They're really, they're responding out of their emotion. They are not reasoning from what the scripture says.

None of these guys actually care to take their listeners to the text and walk them through it, which is why

I say again, this is is a Jesus. Imposing their meaning onto the text. It's a lot easier to do that when you don't actually open up the text in front of you and read it.

Now, even though Miller corrected Lewis misrepresenting my argument, Lewis is going to come back and say, no, that is what

I was saying. Again, it's just so unbelievably uncharitable. But what can

I do? So that's the next part here. I don't mean to. I don't want me to correct it.

I think they're all the same text. Matthew six, he says repetition. He's not referring to Pharisees, referring to the

Gentiles. This is not about being seen. It's about repetition. Does that make sense?

It's in the same text either way. Like we have to even understand, like, what is

Jesus's issue with repetition? Because praying the same thing over and over again, there's nothing sinful about that.

I mean, have you read the Psalms? Like there are some of them that will be like, praise the Lord with symbols.

Praise the Lord with tambourines. Praise the Lord, blah, blah, blah. Praise the Lord. Praise the Lord. And it just goes back and forth, back and forth, saying the same thing over and over and over and over and over again.

So there's nothing wrong. And this is what is putting into the mouths of his people to pray and to sing.

So there's nothing wrong with repetition. I suppose what he's talking about is Psalm 150, which is the very last

Psalm. It's at the end of the Psalms, closing out the Psalter. And it's only six verses long.

It uses the phrase, praise him, or it starts every line with praise him. So that comes up like 11 times in the

Psalm. But it's not actually as repetitious as he just made it sound. The most repetitious

Psalm is without question Psalm 136. It's 26 verses. And the phrase for his steadfast love endures forever comes up 26 times.

It's used in all 26 verses. But after those two Psalms, and again,

I don't think Psalm 150 is even as repetitive as he said it did. The Psalms are really not all that repetitive.

However, I never said there was anything wrong with repetition. I never said that.

Go back and listen to my original answer. I did not say anything about repetition. I didn't even use the word.

And neither did Jesus in Matthew 6, 7. I use the wording that he used. Do not heap up empty phrases as the

Gentiles or the pagans do. I mean, this just further elaborates on their uncharitable line of argumentation.

They are so into their own arguments here. They don't even remember what I said. I never said anything about repetition.

So this is just a silly argument that these so these guys can listen to themselves.

Talk, I guess. That what he's going after is the Gentiles who don't know they have a heavenly father.

They think that they have to twist the arms of the gods, so to speak, through this repetition.

And he's going after their non -relational approach to God where they're trying to earn through their devotion to repeating things in prayer to get their way.

And and and he says, no, that's that's not what this is about. This is about a relationship with your heavenly father.

And so anyway, so it's not it. It's a non sequitur.

What he says is it does not follow that. Therefore, tongues doesn't work because Matthew 6 like it.

If we want to interpret scripture in context, we should understand that this verse had absolutely nothing to do with tongues.

And that's really the point that all of us made on our point from Matthew 6. And it was kind of hard to discern what point he was trying to make from Matthew 6.

That's probably why the confusion. I agree that Matthew 6, 7 has absolutely nothing to do with speaking in tongues.

Once again, having a private prayer language is not speaking in tongues.

Jesus discouraged speaking in empty phrases. So stop praying in empty phrases.

It's not a heavenly language. It's not anything at all. Pray how

Jesus taught us to pray. Pray how the apostles and the prophets prayed.

Pray how the scriptures teach us to pray. And it's not in meaningless babbling.

Period. Now, because this has already gone rather long. I'm going to end right there.

I do think there's one more line of argumentation in here that's worth addressing.

And if this comes up at another time, maybe I'll pick it back up again. But if I never come back to this video again,

I'm content to leave it right here. Honestly, with all the clips that I've seen them do in responding to cessationists,

I think the way they treated my argument was the worst. They misrepresented every argument that I've heard them play.

Mine just took the cake. I mean, this was amazing. That's all

I can really say about it. Appreciate you guys listening. And as always, you can send questions and comments to whenweunderstandthetext at gmail .com

or send us a voicemail going to wwutt .com and click on that voicemail tab.

Let me close out here with prayer. And by the way, you can pray this with me. Since Becky and I talked about this in the previous segment, and we've said it so many times in this one as well.

Let me conclude with the Lord's prayer. Our Father, who art in heaven, hallowed be your name.

Your kingdom come, your will be done on earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread.

And forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one.

For yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen.