On Matters of Tongues

Let's let's pray we're gonna get into it.

Heavenly Father Almighty and Everlasting God we come before you in humble awe.

You are the one true God.

There is none like you come.

We pray bless our hearts our minds as we study your word.

Send us your Holy Spirit so that we may grow in love and grace and that we may go forth

into all the world Proclaiming your gospel so that others may learn of your saving grace in Jesus

name.

We pray.

Amen.

All right.

We're gonna we're gonna begin with the firing squad portion of the Sunday school lesson.

So.

Are there any questions as a result of the sermon, you know, yes, I see that hand

over there.

Yes.

Here comes.

In the sermon you said that the promise of birth

yep was for them alone,

correct.

But this is in the same.

Yeah, this is the same audience.

Uh -huh.

The same same speaker same audience and the same the same time even uh -huh as

these promises that we applied everybody.

That are Foundational comforts without which our faith goes.

Yeah, so.

Could you say that again.

It goes what I.

Like that.

Just so you know everyone listening it goes yeah that yeah, that's a technical term.

Correct.

Show me how I can believe in my weak times.

The other.

Okay, another that's a that's a Hebrew very specific word, yeah.

I.

Go to prepare a place for you.

I will never leave.

Yes.

All right.

So the the answer to the question is is that it's the context is not going to help you here.

Because the context is is in this sense Christ is promising the Holy Spirit and we see

in the fulfillment of it that it's being poured out on everybody and.

To even make the case even further Peter preaching has made it clear that this is the fulfillment of Joel.

That that the God is going to pour out of the Spirit on all flesh.

So we know that the the broader promises there in this discourse and John are

Clearly being applied to all of us as the church now within the midst of that.

That does not mean that every promise that is being given is to be universally understood.

And so the context and the specifics are going to come to mind so I side with those exegetically

who see within these broader promises a specific promise that relates to the inspiration of

Scripture and.

And so, you know, we had the opportunity to talk about it just a little bit.

But I want to read this out these things I've spoken to you Jesus says while I'm still with you, but the helper the

Holy Spirit whom the Father will send in my name He will teach you all things and bring to you remembrance all that I have

said to you.

Now that is a specific promise in the midst of a broader promise and over and again I've heard people

say that somehow that this is some promise that God's going to bring to my mind.

And my remembrance the things that Jesus has said and taught but the thing is is that I have no

I have no experience at all of the things that Jesus said have taught apart from what the Apostles have

written and.

So what you know, I see in this a specific promise in the midst of universal promises.

Specifically to the Apostles for the purpose of inspiration of Scripture.

I see it fitting into that category.

And so they truly had remembrances of Jesus, you know.

And so when you look at like the skeptical arguments put out by agnostics and so -called you know

Christian scholars and stuff like this where they are challenging the inspiration of Scripture and.

So.

You know, they'll basically say listen, we all know how this works.

You remember playing telephone when you were a kid, right?

Yeah, it's it's a fun party game, you know, it starts off with the Gettysburg Address.

You know in you know with person number one, you know four score and seven years ago.

And by the time you get to the last person in the line, it begins with the Minnesota Vikings

lost.

To you know to the Minnesota Twins four score and seven, you know in seven innings, you know.

It's weird how it all plays out.

And so they'll say something to this effect and the if and the impact is is that you can't trust

Scripture because it's like the game of telephone and plus the disciples didn't even write

till the end of their life.

Their claim is because always and again, you know, John, you know, John writes at the end of his life we know but we

with there's no way that any of the Gospels were written before 70 AD

and the reason why it couldn't have been written before 70 AD is because Jesus prophesied of the destruction of the temple.

Right, and they deny the miraculous so you have the gospel writers writing late and so then what happens is is that you

have no confidence in their ability to Properly recall these things because now

Jesus has gone from the historical Jesus to the Jesus of legend and myth.

Right, and this is how they'll argue.

Now, let me give you a better analogy because this one you'll get all right.

You are into martial arts.

I cannot remember the name or pronounce the name of the current martial art that you are studying.

All right, but I would say I have absolute

confidence.

That the martial art you're being taught today.

That it is a faithful Teaching that you've received and that

other black belts and masters within your school that they Practice the same moves same

techniques same tactics same strategies same everything.

That that you've been taught and that their masters taught them.

How do I know this?

Well back in the day when I was skinny, you know and younger, you know I was studying Taekwondo and I

remember Taekwondo being taught to me as you know.

There's different levels and you have to master these techniques these moves these kicks these blocks

these punches.

You know all of this stuff prior to you moving to the next level and if you show no mastery.

You don't you don't advance you were black belt.

Okay, and so Christianity is more like martial arts.

It's taught in that way.

It should be taught in that way.

Now all that being said then this specific promise He will teach you all things

and bring to your remembrance all that I've said to you

if this is applying to us.

My immediate question is.

Okay.

What does this then look like?

What is the Holy Spirit promising you individually?

Yeah.

He might see now you're falling back on what I said, so yeah, I've clearly influenced you in a bad way.

You fail in exegesis and okay if this is a universal promise to us.

My question is what is the cash value of this promise?

What exactly is being promised because I see the charismatics using this.

In a way that now they're being guided by the Holy Spirit in a way that not even the Apostles claimed.

This is most certainly true and there's other passages

for that.

Yeah, there's other passages for that.

Apart from the Holy Spirit.

We can't even probably understand the Word of God period.

Okay.

So what do you mean by that?

Because here's the thing I can tell you for a fact the Holy Spirit was working today.

All right, but Let me let me let me fact let me pull this up and log us real quick

because I think this will help.

My apologies.

We're gonna hear some noises here from my computer.

Let me see if I can.

No, I can't.

Okay.

Hang on.

It's it's gonna make this.

My question is gonna be if it is both in what sense are we talking then because now we're talking is Something that's

that's gonna be functionally different for the Apostles than for us.

Okay, and I exegetically I don't see that I see a very specific promise he will bring to

remembrance to y 'all all the things that I said and taught I

Told you it was gonna sing to us.

All right, let me let me show you another thing small called articles in the book of Concord

small called articles the article number eight on confession and this

is an important little note that that Luther has in here and When we would be good to pay

attention to so it says this in these matters which concern the external spoken word

We must hold firmly to the conviction that God gives no one his spirit or his grace

Except through or with the external word which comes before.

Thus we shall be protected from the enthusiasts that is from the spiritualists who boasts

that they possess the spirit without and before the word and Who therefore

judge interpret and twist the scripture or the spoken word according to their pleasure?

Moonser did this and many and many still do it in our day who wish to distinguish sharply

between the letter and the Spirit without knowing what they say or teach.

The papacy too is nothing but enthusiasm for the Pope boasts that all laws are in the

shrine of his heart and he claims that whatever he decides and commands in his churches

is spirit and law.

Even when it is above and contrary to the scriptures or the spoken word and all of this is the old

devil and the old serpent who made enthusiasts of Adam and Eve he led them from

the external word of God to Spiritualizing and to their own imaginations

and he did this through other External words.

So even so the enthusiasts of our day condemn the external word yet they do not remain silent, but they fill

the world with their chattering and their scribbling as if the spirit could not come through the Scriptures or the

spoken word of the Apostles but must come through their own writings and words

and I'm gonna say this almost to a person.

The public teachers that I've heard use John 14 as a universal promise

their enthusiasts.

There may be there may be an application.

Over there and God the Holy Spirit brings up one of the

right going that plan.

Yeah, so so here here's what I'll make.

The distinction is is that the Apostles have the promise of the Holy Spirit for the purpose of

Actually preaching what is the Word of God and to end to

proclaim and to document and write down The words of Christ and I think that

this promise is specifically referring to that.

Now we on the flip side of this.

All right, and I would go to clearer passages not to this one.

I would go to clearer passages like Psalm 119 that I might hide my work your word in my heart so that I may

not sin against you as Christians and we are in the discipline of recognizing that the Holy Spirit works

Through the external word and then when that external word is memorized and put in and hidden in

our heart.

That that whole that the Holy Spirit then continues to work through his word in Connection with it

now no longer written and external but now internal because I have in a

sense Ingested it and it has become part of my heart my psyche my mind and the Holy Spirit

pulls on that which is one of the reasons why I am a big fan of the ancient liturgy because there's so much

scripture that's sung and taught in the Liturgy that it's fascinating how those texts end up

becoming your own, you know, because you've sung them so many times.

So.

So I'm a you know.

So let's we're going to talk about the Spirit working and the Spirit is only always going to be connected with the word.

And when that word goes from the written page now to memorized in my heart.

That the Holy Spirit then pulls on that word and is speaking back the written Word of God that is now hidden

within me.

Yeah.

Well, yeah, he was the one abnormally born.

Yeah.

Correct, and I would even point to then in this regard.

Although it seems like a strange place to go what Peter writes in second Peter as he's getting ready to go to his death.

He's not pointing people to experiences or spiritualizing or even their own in their hearts.

He's putting them back to the written Word of God.

As as even being more sure than any experiences.

And so, you know now.

So coming back to you know, the original question personally, I see that this is

a specific promise to the Apostles in the midst of universal promises and

For us then we do not.

I don't I will not approach the Holy Spirit or believe that the Holy Spirit is Approaching me apart from the Word of

God.

All right.

So so that you know because the Spirit has chosen God has chosen in a sovereignty to work

through means.

Just I think the phrase bring to your remembrance.

Yeah, and this is most certainly true because those that's another promise that is then Universalized then in other

passages when in doubt you pull in the you pull in the cross references scripture interpreting scripture.

Yep, that is and so that and that's the idea.

Exactly, you know that see there's there's more to it now and so I approach this discourse by

the way.

Similarly to the way I approach the Olivet discourse.

Are you familiar with the Preterist view by the way?

Have you heard of Preterism?

You know.

Preterism is this fascinating eschatological view that basically says that the Olivet

discourse and the book of Revelation have already been fulfilled in history and.

That it's all specific to something that took place in the first century and has no bearing for future eschatology.

Now that's a very broad and sweeping way of putting it.

But I I get I I get emails from Preterists on a semi regular basis.

Who who want to challenge me the way I'm using the book the way I'm using Matthew 24.

And so in Matthew 24 the disciples asked Jesus because Jesus says, you know.

They they're at the temple complex and the disciples look at this massive Amazing place right and

Jesus.

I'll listen.

There's not gonna be a stone left upon another, you know.

This is all coming down and they're freaked out.

And so they connect this with two things.

They said when will these things happen and what will be the sign of your coming if the temple is gone?

They would they're thinking it's like the end of the world Jesus is coming back if this is destroyed then that has to be connected to

the coming of Christ.

So Jesus doesn't Doesn't correct their question, which is they're asking about two things.

Instead what he does is he kind of braids together.

You know two streams of thought and holds them connected to each other.

So there is an aspect then when you can you that you can say in Matthew 24.

There are specific prophecies that Christ gives that were fulfilled in 70 AD.

Does that mean the Olivet Discourse has nothing to say regarding Christ's coming in the end of the world?

No.

He connected them together and wove them together and it's up to you to sit there and chew on it and pull them apart.

Good luck.

Okay, because the two are kind of are held together very tightly and so on the one hand.

You'll get you know, like the preterist to say the whole thing has been fulfilled.

There's nothing in Matthew 24 that relates to anything coming in the future.

And you sit there and go what?

What all right and.

Then you you know on the other side of it.

It's like well, this was actually written after the fall of the temple.

So it's not even a prophecy.

It's like lean into this.

That's correct, that is.

It's a big deal.

It's such and that's one of the things that Good conservative scholars keep pointing out, you

know is that how come?

None of the New Testament writings reference the destruction of the temple.

Answer because it was still up when all of the New Testament was, you know.

It was kind of the exception of like the book of Revelation that one we have we have we have some you know.

We know the dating on that one's a lot later.

You know, so yeah, it's just doesn't work out that way.

So so anyway personally I think this is referring to inspiration of Scripture.

I'm convinced by those exegetical arguments.

So there's a specific promise in the midst of universal ones in the same way and you have to tease it out and prophecy

Oftentimes works this way, by the way.

You think back, you know to the the ink in the blood is that's been spilled regarding Alma, you

know.

You know it well, it's a young maiden of marriageable age, but it doesn't necessarily mean virgin,

right?

Yeah, what you just did okay.

But so My seminary profs.

I mean this is this is and I agree with the concept is that there they call it proleptic prophecy.

Where the when a prophecy is given oftentimes there is an immediate fulfillment in the time of the person.

So you think about the context there, you know going at you know, it's God says ask of sign of

me.

You know make it, you know high as the heavens or as low as Sheol it and you know, and he says oh, I

Wouldn't put Yahweh to the test.

I wouldn't do that.

Fine the Lord himself is going to give you a sign right and you know.

The Amal would be with child.

This is how this says and so there's an immediate fulfillment in the time of Isaiah

that was a sign to the king and Then the prophecy lies dormant because there's

there's a there's a long fulfillment then of it in Christ.

So that you know, the Virgin is now with child and you can see how that works.

It's a strange Phenomenon when it comes to Scripture and Christ himself being the author of Scripture, you know

being God in human flesh He does some of the similar things He kind of braids together things

which makes you make kind of causes our brains to hurt, you know, it's like.

Yeah.

Well Jews today don't.

Well, I would say this Matthew was a Jew and He was the one who then finds the ultimate fulfillment

for that text in the birth of Christ, you know and weaves that into His

you know into his gospel under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

Yeah, I Must confess in you know in my limited reading of like Jewish

midrash and you know The Talmud I've never seen anything to that.

That does not mean it doesn't exist.

I don't.

I am NOT as well versed in how somebody in the ancient world would you know?

Who's a Jew prior to the birth of Christ would have seen the text?

Yeah, it's kind of like it's it's kind of like Chuck Norris.

He can hit 11 targets with nine bullets, it's just.

You.

Didn't know that.

All right, all that being said I want to come back to our text in Acts 2.

We spend a little bit of time talking about the Holy Spirit and Some of the

modern confusion that's out there regarding it.

Especially it relates to the gift of tongues and we'll do a little bit of work in 1st Corinthians 12

just to kind of put a bow on this if you would because This being Pentecost.

It's always important to make sure that we properly understand what the work of the Holy Spirit is now.

It's not in this text.

But Christ says that when he sends the Spirit that the Spirit would convict the world of sin and unbelief

in our day in our time.

There are people who claim that the manifestations of the Holy Spirit include

include Writhing on the ground and convulsing uncontrollably.

Getting down on all fours and barking like a dog

laughing uncontrollably cackle kind of laughing uncontrollably and

Getting drunk in the Holy Spirit so that the Holy Spirit overcomes you and the manifestation of it

is.

You know this right.

It does sound demonic right, but the question is biblically

how would you Know what is and is not a valid manifestation of the Spirit

and then there's a whole group of people who will say that That

water baptism.

God does nothing in it.

What do we confess?

One baptism.

For the forgiveness of sins, right?

It's one baptism.

How many baptisms are there?

One in fact Paul makes that point in Ephesians.

There's one Lord one faith one baptism one God and

Father of all.

One Lord one faith one baptism but there's a whole group of people within the visible church who say

that there's water baptism and then there is spirit baptism and

That there are two different baptisms.

Yeah, so so for instance my My friend my and I and I love him

dearly and you know, he's just you know, we disagree on so many things you know, I have a Baptist

minister friend of mine and You know, so if anybody comes to him who

was baptized as an infant in the Lutheran Church.

And they've decided to become a Baptist.

He basically says that was you just got wet that didn't that did nothing.

So you need to be baptized again before you can become a member of our Baptist Church.

So then you ask him.

All right, so you don't think that when they were baptized as an infant as a Lutheran that that meant anything.

So what is God doing when they're baptized by you?

Oh nothing.

They're still just getting wet.

But they're doing it in obedience to Christ.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Why does it matter if.

Yeah, I don't know it's it's weird so, you know, but he definitely vehemently against this idea that God does anything

in baptism.

But let's take a look at the back end of of our text from today.

This gets into like next week's pericope at the end of the sermon that Peter

preaches on the day of Pentecost and by the way I think that you can make the argument that the great miracle was the preaching of the

sermon.

That's the great miracle because now the Word of Christ is going out.

God the Holy Spirit.

Recalling to mind, you know The Apostle Peter all that Christ said and taught and his words

are being the very oracle of God.

It says this in verse 37 now when they heard this they were all cut to the heart and they said to Peter and the rest Of the Apostles

brothers.

What shall we do?

What did Jesus say he sends the Holy Spirit the Holy Spirit is gonna convict the world of sin and unbelief.

Is the Holy Spirit working on the crowd who heard the preaching on Pentecost?

Absolutely, they're cut to the quick brothers.

What shall we do?

I am absolutely terrified.

I am guilty.

Look, what do I do?

What do we do?

Right.

Hmm and here it is repent and Be baptized passive voice.

Passive voice.

Baptism is something done to you by God.

It's not a work that you do to earn anything.

Again, I always like to point out if I were to say to my wife in the active voice I cut my hair.

She would rush me to the emergency room or something.

You know, it would it would turn out very poorly.

All right, anybody who says that they cut their own hair in the active voice.

That's you know, we know that the the results are going to be bad even if they have a phloby.

So.

Especially if they have a phloby, but when we go to get a haircut We understand that's a

passive act.

So, you know I go visit Nikki and Nikki she cuts my hair and I sit there.

She tries to engage in chit -chat and conversation.

Convince me that paraffin wax is a thing that I really need to be enjoying and stuff like this, right?

All the.

Yeah, they put the hot mitts on anyway.

But the entire time the entire act is 100 % passive.

I am Receiving a haircut.

I am NOT giving a haircut to myself.

Same with this passive voice here.

Be baptized.

It's being done to you.

You're just receiving in the same way.

You receive a haircut.

That's the idea.

So repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ.

Ice.

Athos in tone ha marty on.

Into the forgiveness of sins.

So what do we confess in the Nicene Creed?

I believe in one baptism.

For the forgiveness of sins.

What's baptism for if I were to say to you?

I know this is gonna sound like rocket surgery.

But work this out with me if I were to say to you baptism is for the forgiveness of sins.

Would I be saying the exact same thing in Scripture?

Exactly.

Okay.

So baptism is for the forgiveness of sins.

Well, they were given.

Faith and everything the thing is is that as Lutherans we do not believe that you're that somebody

who has faith cannot apostatize and so the idea here is is that faith is a gift

given by God just like life is and You steward and take care of that gift by caring for your

faith by availing yourself of the Word of God in the sacraments.

And so it's through them rightly taught and through the sacraments that God continues to strengthen to feed and

maintain our faith.

And if you're feasting on false doctrine and apostasy or you're neglecting to Receive the Word of God to

hear it and neglecting to come to the sacraments Then what happens is you're endangering your faith itself.

So Paul says to the churches in Galatia you who would be justified by the law.

They've been listening to the Judaizers you who would be justified by the law.

You have been alienated from Christ and you've fallen from grace.

That's a text.

And so, you know, we sit there and go the idea then is is that what we're looking for.

Baptism is necessary and God is faithful in what he does in baptism.

Now as a Christian, do you have faith or not?

Do you have faith?

Do you believe so somebody can say?

Well, I was baptized as an infant.

But I think that Jesus is dirty rotten scoundrel and how dare he make exclusive claims and there's no way I'm gonna

Attend a church where they don't affirm gay marriage and stuff like this.

I said, well your baptism doesn't mean anything.

You've walked away from it.

But they were already determined or they were saved before they were even brought to pass before they were even born.

Well, we're all.

We're all born dead in trespasses and sins.

But.

Those infants that are taking baptism.

It's already determined.

Before the back.

Oh see now see now you're kind of working in the reform doctrine of election.

All right.

So we never talk about election apart from the means of grace.

And so we understand that there is a very true aspect in which you know that you can talk about God predestining.

But we talk about God predestining and electing through the means of grace.

So that you know.

The idea here is we don't believe that there's a select group of people before the foundation of the world.

They were chosen by God and predestined for damnation.

Instead we say scriptures clear that God does not will that any should perish that all should come to a

knowledge of the truth that Christ died for the sins of the whole world and it is will it's as

will that they would all repent and believe.

This is most certainly true.

So the idea here is is that We disagree with the Reformed on this and in this way

because we deny that God predestined anybody to hell.

Okay, so that's not how that works.

So we talk about election through the means of grace and if you want a clear example of

what it is that Lutherans believe in this regard.

Give me a second to pull this up.

If you go to book of concord org book of concord

dot org.

Let me see here there.

This is not part of the book of concord, but it's on this website and there's a particular document

worth reading in this regard and It is called the the

Saxon visitation articles 1592 Saxon visitation articles and this

was written as a means of kind of distinguishing what's the difference between Lutheranism and Calvinism

or you know, those who call themselves Reformed and so.

So it talks about the Lord's Supper the person of Christ baptism on predestination so

here's here's the affirmative that The pure and true doctrine of our churches in this article regarding

predestination and the eternal providence of God that number one Christ Died for all

men as the Lamb of God who took away the sins of the whole world.

We have texts that say that all right now that God created no man for condemnation.

He wills that all men should be saved and arrive at the knowledge of the truth.

That should sound familiar to you because that's straight out of Scripture.

He therefore commands all to hear Christ his son in the gospel and he promises by his hearing the

virtue and the operation of the Holy Ghost for conversion and salvation.

Now the idea then is is that the Holy the Holy Ghost is intimately connected to the preaching of the gospel and he Promises

that the Holy Ghost is going to be working through it.

So that so also then we confirm that men by their own fault then they perish.

They perish some who will not hear the gospel concerning Christ some who again fall from

grace.

Either by fundamental error or by sins against conscience.

So the idea then is as Lutherans we say Scripture teaches apostasy

and grievous sins against conscience like basically allowing yourself to be re -enslaved to sin

that that works against the operation of the Holy Spirit and Causes your faith to die and to wobble and to fall away.

So those two, you know, so apostasy and rank sin are things that work against salvation.

And then for that all sinners who repent will be received into God's favor.

None will be excluded though whose sins are as red as blood since the mercy of God is greater than

the sins of the whole world and God has mercy on all of his works.

Now in the in the erroneous doctrine then talking about Predestination at the bottom of this

this doctrine or this article.

It says we deny that Christ did not.

We okay the false and ruins doctrine of the Calvinist on predestination of God that Christ did not die for all men.

But only for the elect we deny that Scripture is very clear that Christ died for all.

In fact, I would point to a fascinating text in this regard and it's found in 2nd Peter.

2nd Peter chapter 1.

Here's what it says a chapter 2 verse 1 false Prophets also arose among the people just as

there will be false teachers among you who will secretly bring in destructive Heresies even denying

the master who bought them bringing upon themselves swift destruction.

Here's a text where Christ has died even for heretics who deny him and that they and they're destined

to destruction but Christ even bought them through his death and his resurrection and then you think of.

You think of 1st John and let me get the last

part of this in here 1st John.

I'll start at 1 verse 8 if we say we have no sin We deceive ourselves the truth is not

in us if We confess our sins God is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

So if we say we have not sinned we make God out to be a liar and his word is not in us.

So my little children I'm writing these things to you so that you may not sin.

But if anyone does sin we have an advocate with the Father Jesus Christ the righteous.

He is the propitiation for our sins and not for ours only but also

for the sins of the whole.

World.

So Christ didn't die for just some he died for everybody.

Okay.

And then we deny that God created the greater part of you of mankind for eternal damnation and

Wills not that the greater part should be converted and live.

And unfortunately There are some Calvinists who talk this way that God literally made, you know A large swath of humanity for the only

the purpose of glorifying himself in their damnation, which is not taught in Scripture We also deny that the

elected and the regenerated cannot lose faith Scripture again is clear on this and the Holy Spirit

or be damned though they commit great sins and crimes of every kind.

And so, you know, God works repentance in us and gives us faith and Apostasy

and you know rank sin threatens your your faith and.

That we also deny that those who are not elect are necessarily damned and cannot arrive at salvation though they be

baptized a thousand times and receive the Eucharist every day and Lead as blameless a life as ever can be

led.

And so you'll note then that you know we have a very distinct difference between the Calvinists as far as what we

believe regarding predestination and Then the working of the means of grace.

So that being the case God is faithful in Promising the operation of the Holy Spirit

granting forgiveness of sins Christ circumcising our hearts in the waters of baptism us being united

with him in his death and his resurrection all the clear text say this.

And that baptism itself is a washing of regeneration.

This is most certainly true.

It's God's work that being the case human beings Because of their own

foolishness because of their own evil despise these gifts that God has given to their own eternal

damnation or neglect the Word of God To their own eternal damnation or

worse imbibe in apostasy to their own eternal damnation.

So that's that's how we read the text.

Does that make sense?

Yeah.

Yes, so you're making a distinction that Lutherans make and the Calvinists don't have this distinction.

So we talk about Universal atonement.

Universal objective atonement is a category for us and that when it comes to somebody who's

individually saved now we talk about individual subjective Justification.

So Christ's death on the cross is a universal objective

Justification and atonement for the sins of the whole world.

That does not mean that everybody is saved.

But that everybody is bled for and died for.

So the idea then is we have this category of universal objective justification and then

when it comes to those who are saved.

Those are the ones who have Individual subjective justification and that's worked in them

by God through the means of grace.

Does that make sense?

Correct so.

It's a gift it's not given to everybody so how can it be.

Determined by the individual himself if he hasn't gotten the gift of faith.

Okay, you're you're asking the question that the Apostle Paul asks in Romans 10.

So let's take a look at the text because we dare not answer these questions apart from them.

I'm not authorized to do that as a pastor if you want to catch me when I'm not wearing my uniform, we want to speculate we can do that over a

beer, but.

But here's what Paul says Romans 10 14, how will they then call on him whom

they have not believed?

How are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard.

And.

How are they to hear without somebody preaching.

And how are they to preach unless they are sent as.

It is written how beautiful the feet of those who preach the good news.

But they have all obeyed.

They have not all obeyed the gospel for Isaiah says Lord whom has believed what he has heard from us.

So faith comes from hearing and hearing through the

Word of Christ.

You'll note then that it's the preaching of Christ.

That the Holy Spirit is intimately connected to and so this is why we don't talk about election apart from the means of grace.

And so you sit there you go.

But yeah, but what about.

What about you know, Raji who lives in some, you know Island out in the middle of the South Pacific

and has never even heard the gospel.

I'm not authorized to tell you about him.

I can't.

All right, I can tell you he hasn't heard the gospel unless somebody goes and preaches the gospel to him he's not going to believe.

Yeah in some part it is because Christ said to go and proclaim repentance

of sins in his name to the whole world starting in Jerusalem and.

We're off doing all kinds of other nonsense, right?

Yeah.

That's put so well, that's

like

yeah,

okay.

The devil is always trying to confuse us now.

Let me let me let me come to Luther's defense a little bit here.

Luther had a kind of a love -hate relationship with James.

This was that this was a text that was used to abuse him when he believed that he was saved by his works.

And yet Luther, I mean he preaches and teaches on James a lot.

Okay, and so it's actually wrong to say it's it's like a misquote of his to say that he wanted it

out of the Bible.

That's not a correct way of looking at it.

Luther recognizes that when it comes to the canonization of the of

the New Testament.

That there are a whole group of books that were immediately Accepted

without question.

Everybody knew that these were written and they were Apostolic.

All right, and so every one of the Pauline epistles in.

Okay.

Matthew Mark Luke John in Acts in Romans in right and then

there is a small set.

They they are called the homily.

What was that.

The cot.

Yeah, the cattle it's spoken.

Yeah, that's right.

They caught it.

Yeah, they're spoken against.

Okay.

So these are these are texts that were spoken against they were ultimately accepted as apostolic.

The you know, the people who defended them as being apostolic Prevailed but because they were spoken

against.

They they they stay within a particular group.

Let me give you the list.

It's gonna include.

2nd Peter James the book of Hebrews the book of Revelation.

I want to say 3rd John is in is in the mix and there's two more.

Jude is in there and.

Yeah.

They're the antilog omen, that's what they're called the antelope antilog omen they're spoken against.

Okay, and there's one of the seven total in the group.

And so Luther recognized that James is antilog omen that does not mean it's not

apostolic it is and So we as Lutherans then we have an interesting thing that we do

when it comes to Christian doctrine and that is is that we kind of have a several rules put in

place in order for a Doctrine to be biblical number one.

It has to have a core text that specifically teaches the doctrine

in all in a text that isn't antilog omen a and That clear text

governs the other texts and so we will call that central text.

We call it the CDs doctrine a.

It's the seed or the seat of the doctrine so for instance for us technically.

Our CDs doctrine a regarding baptism is actually Defined for us by church

history and the Nicene Creed one baptism for the remission of sins.

That's our core doctrine.

Regarding our core text regarding baptism and we work everything out from there now.

And so in order for a text for a doctrine to be true It has to be explicitly taught and

it can't have it CDs doctrine a in the antilog omen a.

Antilog omen a could be used to support it but antilog omen a cannot be used as a primary text

for a doctrine.

Now that we're not saying it is it's not apostolic.

We're just saying that because of the doubt cast on the apostolic Authorship of

these texts so Luther oftentimes would pick up in his own pen

Some of the arguments against these Against the antilog omen a that he had heard through church history and he

shared some of those same misgivings.

He did not like 2nd Peter at all.

And I say Luther.

You're you're just totally wet on this.

You're absolutely wrong 2nd.

Peter is a vital text for us today vital and I'm in complete agreement with

the church fathers who said this is Apostolic and it came from the pen of

Peter now all of that being the case is that The fathers the church

fathers really and I mean this we're very careful in putting together the canon

Extremely careful and although there was debate on that everything that we have you can

point to very early on Church fathers in the very late part of the first

century and early in the second who are quoting all of our New Testament books as

Authoritatively the Word of God and as being apostolic and that was one of their major arguments.

Yeah, I would point you to The epistle that was written to the Corinthian Church

Clement of Rome writing to the Corinthian Church It's a great text and he I mean he

quotes so much a huge swath Of the New Testament and that's late first century.

That's late for centuries.

So the idea then is is that the church?

Really.

Sober -mindedly asked the question what is Apostolic what can we say was written by the

Apostles or is so enriched and steeped in the apostolic teaching

That it belongs in the canon.

Now, I would point out neither Luke nor acts were written by an apostle.

Luke is a physician.

How is it in the canon.

Answer?

Luke was just the guy who interviewed all of the Apostles and all of the early church and

Documented everything and he was an eyewitness to many of the events in the book of Acts and he's writes in first

-person in those sections.

And so the idea here is although he was not an apostle He correctly documented the Apostles doctrine.

Who wrote Hebrews.

Well early on the church thought Paul did.

But there's actual textual exegetical reasons why in the book of Hebrews, it's probably not Paul.

So who wrote it.

My personal belief?

I used to think Paul wrote it.

I'm of the opinion now it it may have been Barnabas who wrote it.

Does it matter?

If it wasn't written by Paul.

Answer no.

Because it's steeped in the apostolic teaching.

Okay.

Correct.

And then mark.

Yes, right now that now you bring up a great point worth me kind of

reiterating and elaborating on Within your Gospels.

Okay.

If you were to look at the at the Mark 15 at the very end of the Gospel of Mark you get to a section that

says the oldest and most reliable Manuscripts do not contain the following

verses.

And it's in that long ending of Mark.

And in the long ending of Mark you have the Supposed promise that you can handle

serpents and not die.

Poisonous serpents and not die.

That becomes the core text for a group of Pentecostals up in the Appalachians who

believed that it's a sacrament to handle rattlesnakes.

Okay, and then you get the story of the woman caught in the act of adultery.

Already, there's a problem.

How does one catch somebody in the act of adultery and not bring both part?

You know both parties to bear.

Okay, so what's interesting is is that the story of the woman caught in the act of adultery in the long ending of Mark are

Two texts that within your Bibles say that the ain't most ancient and reliable manuscripts do

not contain these texts.

Why are they still there?

Because if you get rid of them, then everybody screeches and says you're you're you're you're eliminating

whole portions of the Bible and.

So we recognize that there are two sections here that they cannot be validated as

Actually being authentic to the up to the Apostles and we confess that something

is not scriptural.

Unless it is from either so the Torah the

writings the historical writings or the prophetic writings of the Old Testament and.

Or.

Apostolic and if something cannot be validated as being part of the original of what the

Apostles wrote.

We're not bound by those texts.

Does that make sense?

So and you ask the question.

Well, why do you limit then in the Old Testament to the Torah the writings and the

prophets, you know the Tanakh?

Why not the Apocrypha?

Answer.

Christ never quoted from the Apocrypha.

He never quoted from it.

He never quoted anything from it as being.

Scriptural.

Christ quoted from the Torah.

He quoted from the prophets.

He quoted from the writings and in each case he said that that was God's Word

That God was speaking in there.

So we have Christ's stamp of approval on the Tanakh.

There's no evidence that the the ancient church believed that the Apocrypha was the Word of God.

They didn't really they didn't quote it at all as being from God and

Then come to the New Testament.

It has to be a apostolic and So I forget the name of the book Mike.

I'm gonna have to look this up and go into my library.

There's a good book.

That's that that it's not very long that talks about How how the New Testament

canon was put together and it's a good short history worth right, you know worth reading in this

regard and and you can see that the ancient church was quite meticulous and

Very careful as to what they ultimately Considered to be canon.

So.

Okay, and and and you know again the question came down to is it either in the Tanakh or

is it apostolic?

Those are your questions.

Yeah.

Yeah, okay.

So coming back to this distinction then antilegomena, okay.

You you pointed out an interesting thing and that is is that heretics always seem to quote these Spurious

texts and that becomes their core central doctrine.

We've noticed a similar thing and I'm talking in a bigger we here as far as like Lutheran scholarship.

Has noted a similar instance when it comes to eschatology, you know.

So you look at kind of the you know, the four blood moons wingnut wackerdoodle people who are out there trying to crack the The

Revelation Code that their eschatology all of their core texts are in the book of Revelation

but for us that that Revelation cannot be the core place to go to regarding

eschatology.

The core place has to be in one of the books that was never questioned.

So our core texts when it comes to eschatology are going to be Matthew 24 and 25.

You think of 2nd Thessalonians?

Specifically like chapter 2.

That you know, that's a core text for us.

And these are these are like our central eschatological texts is.

It's in the in that corpus.

And so one of my seminary profs he had this interesting way in which he talked about it is is that The core text the

clear texts that are in the passages that were never challenged.

They create the body of the car that is eschatology and the book of Revelation is

the really hot paint job.

I.

Okay, it's awesome, you know ten -headed dragon and you know this and see this thing driving down the road.

Yeah, you know.

And and so.

But we don't we don't get our outline of eschatology from the book of Revelation we get the outline from what Christ says,

you know, so you got Luke and and Matthew and then the writings of Paul in

particular and then I would even you know.

So then second Peter because it's antilagomena.

Has to be interpreted through Matthew 24.

Not the other way around.

Does that make sense?

Yeah, and then for instance, let me give you another set but teaching on the Sabbath.

I think one of the best texts of teaching on the Sabbath is Hebrews 4.

Can't be my core text.

Okay, what's my core text?

Colossians 2.

That these were types and shadows.

All right, so then that being the case them being types and shadows that's clearly taught by Paul in a

non -disputed text Hebrews 4 and in fact, he was for Hebrews 10.

They all then serve.

The governing text which is going to be in the non -disputed portion of it and they are interpreted through that not the other way

around.

Does that make sense?

Oh, yeah, nobody attends when they think is inaccurate.

You know what?

There's gonna be people saved from all denomination.

This is most certainly true.

Okay.

So for this is gonna seem like the most unsatisfactory answer ever.

But this is how we Lutherans are gonna argue.

It's gonna come down to grammar.

It really is gonna come down to that because the best way I can say it as you know.

Somebody who is I like to say I'm a Lutheran against my will.

And and I think that's a good way of putting it.

I was drug into Lutheranism and I was forced to it because the

Lutherans are rightly handling the biblical texts and I saw it in the grammar.

I saw it in their use of words in the proper in the way they exegeted and that they didn't they didn't come up with.

These clever ways of getting rid of what clear text says as an evangelical over and again

I would read biblical text and I would see a text that flat -out contradicted what I

believed in what I was taught and In my mind, I would say well that

can't mean that because pastor Lee Told me that this is what the Bible

teaches.

Okay, and so my appeal was always outside of the text to somebody else and

It could be philosophy it could be your own reason it could be whatever.

But what the Lutherans do is they come across a text and they sit there and go.

This is what the text is.

This is what the text is saying and this is what it means this is what God intended for it to say and to mean and we know this because of the

grammar and how this all works and.

And that's the case.

So you look at somebody, you know, look at Rome for instance.

And if you haven't read this document, let me let me make this huge recommendation.

If you want to see how this kind of plays out in action historically, have you read the Apology of the Augsburg

Confession?

Okay, you have a book of Concord.

No.

Okay.

Talk to talk to him.

Okay, this is our church copy.

Take this home.

There's a document you want to read and it's called the Apology of the Augsburg Confession.

Specifically what I'd like you to read is article 5 on justification.

Article 5 on justification and Melanchthon who is

who is the author of the Augsburg Confession and Granted he and Luther, you know really

co -wrote that document.

You know, this was the document that was presented at the at the Diet of Augsburg, but

there was a document that was put out by Rome called the Confutation and you can find it online if you want to

look for it and this thing is just abysmal and Basically, what happened is is that the Lutherans

were told Rome has provided a confutation, you know against the Augsburg Confession.

Do you?

Submit to their to their document and and and claim that you admit that you got

it wrong.

We haven't even heard it.

And so they were allowed to hear it, but not take notes.

Okay to actually write it down and and then they were basically told to basically.

You've been defeated admit it no, and so Melanchthon

came up with a surreptitious copy of the Confutation and.

And so from memory and from this weird surreptitious copy, which we're not even exactly sure if I know where

how he got it.

He wrote then the the defense the apology of the Augsburg Confession and

what you can see there very clearly is that Rome twists texts

out of context and Melanchthon takes their arguments and says no this can't be.

Because you're appealing out here or your appeal doesn't fit.

Consistently because when we put the text back in context and you can see then how the Lutherans were coming back

to the biblical text.

And then Melanchthon does a really good job of then going so primarily into the text doing acts of

Jesus and then showing that the doctrine of Justification as taught by the Lutherans is not an

innovation.

But is exactly what the earliest church fathers also said and confessed and he does a good

job of bringing that to bear.

So primary is going to be in the text.

Secondary is going to be in the writings of the church fathers and ultimately it comes back down to what does

the text say?

Ultimately, that's what it comes down to and so, you know, I always find it fascinating.

You know as part of my study I'll come across an argument that I've never heard before and

so, you know.

The the temptation for me as a Lutheran and I'll just talk about Psychologically where the temptation for me the temptation for

me as a Lutheran is to sit there and go.

Can I continue to maintain my integrity as a Lutheran and as a pastor and not

become Eastern Orthodox or Roman Catholic?

That's that's that's where the pole is for me because there's no pull towards the charismatic movement or evangelicals.

They're just completely out to lunch and so the guys who get under my skin and force me to even to research

further are the Eastern Orthodox guys in the Roman Catholics and Over and again, I

come back to all right.

Well, here's what they're saying.

Can this be squared with what the Word of God says?

Answer no.

It doesn't square and so the one thing I know with certainty is that God's Word is true.

And I can know that I'm hearing God's voice in these texts that being the case

you know that you know for me the temptation has always been to go Easter or go to Rome and You

know the thing that keeps me where I'm at is the Word of God.

So.

You know, that's best way I can put it.

So.

All right, we're gonna end there so

I want to set the record.

Just so you know and I want this on the audio record is that it's it the the reform guys.

They show their hoots by taking the longest to get through the book of Romans.

I'm doing this as a Lutheran through Leviticus.