Sunday School - Teaching On Baptism (Cessationism) - Part 6

We're assembled before you, by your Spirit, as we look to your

Word, ask the Father that you would show us, Jesus Christ, more clearly, that we would be seekers, sinners, such as you have all been, ages of all age, critically treated, presented, through your preaching, through the fellowship that we have,

Father. Bless us by your presence, as Jesus did. Amen. Amen. Excuse me for a moment.

This is a light bulb. I'm not sneezing or exaggerating or anything like that. They're healthy, just a little softness left over.

We're going to have to worry about. Last week we saw that apostasy, and even apostleship, was a continual apostasy through the

Church. You recall that? There's that question, whether there were more prophets after the

Old Testament, and whether there were more apostles than just the 12 that Jesus gave personally, which would be the 12, and then minus Judas, and then add the class of his 12, and then

Paul, as one born out of time. Now those are the apostles, capital A, S, M, and O, in conclusion.

And then the question was raised a couple of weeks ago, whether those were the only apostles, and whether there were more prophets in the

New Testament during that time. Who recalls what was said? What was the conclusion?

Anybody put that in a sentence? How do we conclude that? If you're here, you can try.

Let's each know your answer. All right, now we'll put you on the spot.

The conclusion was that there were more apostles than the 12, plus Paul, one born out of time.

And there were prophets continuing that same purpose of prophecy as in the

Old Testament, very much in the same manner of speaking, the same purpose of speaking, to reveal God's will.

We didn't have words written about them like the prophetesses of Philip, his daughters were prophetesses.

We don't know what they said, but we know that they prophesied. And we showed how that was consistent with the Old Testament, and that line of revealing

God's self -evident purposes for mankind. Also, apostles. We were able to distinguish that, yes, there were more apostles than the 12, plus Paul.

We call them small apostles, following the same ordinance of Christ.

Now, how did we come up with small a apostles? Who recalls? How did we distinguish small a apostles, and that continuum of apostleship in the

New Testament times, from the catenaic apostles? Who recalls? Right, that was,

Barnabas was one of them, yeah. And how was he named an apostle? Not named by Christ.

How was he an apostle? He was named by the church.

He was affirmed by the church, set out by the church, not just in a casual way, but they laid hands on him here in Colossians 13.

They laid hands on him. And it was, that laying of hands was preceded by the Holy Spirit saying, set apart from Paul and Barnabas.

And later in Scripture, Paul distinctly names Barnabas and some others who were from other nations at the time, as apostles.

Those are small, but a continuing ministry of apostleship, still distinguishing the ones named personally by Christ, who can testify with eyewitness testimony to the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Yeah, so all apostles were prophets, not all prophets were apostles. I'm sorry,

I didn't think about it very, I didn't think we were going to have an apostle a couple years ago.

You did. Yes, I did. Tell us about that. I asked him, well, what made him an apostle?

And he said, well, he was authorized to go out and start churches.

That was their church's definition of an apostle. Okay, so like the apostles went out and started churches.

How did you feel about that? What was the material? Were they right to call him an apostle?

Well, I had never heard it before, so, you know, yeah. In a limited sense,

I can kind of shrug and go, you know, I personally, my God, want to have a pastor name anybody an apostle.

I feel that that ministry ended with the canon, as we discussed last week, when the canon was completed.

But in a limited sense, I, you know, okay, so the church sent somebody out to found a church, but that's what the apostles didn't do since then.

So in that sense, did anybody see the apostle? The greatest American actor since Humphrey Bogart was

Robert Duvall. Did you see the apostle? Probably not for the kids, but it's something, you know, you don't have to be embarrassed by any of the parts of it.

He plays a wild and charismatic subordinate. He does a fantastic job with it.

And at one point, when he has to run from the law, all this stuff happened, and he believes it's a good thing to do, he decides that he's going to go found churches.

First, he has to be an apostle. And so he finds himself sitting in a white room, all by himself, and he dips himself in water, and he names himself, he anoints himself as an apostle.

That's the kind of apostleship that we wouldn't agree with. We'd agree with him. We'd say, eh, you know,

I kind of take it. It seems well played. That's a little side point.

And I think the ability to found a church and to appoint, so usually we raise up elders.

No one comes and says, appoint you with an elder. That's a good point.

I never covered that. That's a really good point. When you talk about New Testament authoritative apostles, to 12 appointed by Christ, would appoint elders?

They have that authority. Authorities with small apostles never seem to have taken it.

That's a really good point. As we began last week, I want to cover a question that was asked.

The question was asked at the after Sunday school. We were talking about tongues last week.

And I made the point, and I said that the apostles, especially Peter, what was their native language?

It was Aramaic. And like everyone else in that world at that time, they also spoke Greek. Virtually everybody was bilingual.

Greek was the language of the day, like English. Even the Israelis in many countries, they speak their native tongue, but they also speak fluent

English. I made that point. And I was asked if that was really true.

And I have re -studied my position. I want to put that out to you, because last week we started with a question that was brought to me, and it led nicely into it.

It wasn't a non -sequitur. It was a good question. And it led into what we're doing. So I want to give you first my path, and then

I'll give you my conclusion. The question was, when I said they spoke Aramaic, and as the sound of their voice went to the many people, it was translated in their ears into their native tongue.

Okay? That's what I said. So first, Acts chapter 2, verse 4, this was really the premise of the question that came to me.

It said that the apostles spoke in other tongues, and the men from every nation under heaven heard them in their own language.

Okay? This is what the scripture says. The apostles spoke in other tongues, and they heard the native languages.

The second thing is the reversal of Babel idea. And that's true. This is not new ground.

I didn't innovate that myself. I'm very conservative. I'm a longstanding scholarship there.

That the unity of mankind by the gospel of Jesus Christ, which is really the only unified thing we have, which is unity with each other, unity with God because of Christ, is a reversal of the disunity that was brought upon man in Genesis chapter 11 at Babel.

Okay? Now, when I looked at this again, I just, and I didn't, this wasn't a question, but I just want you to understand that the reversal of the disbursement curse in Genesis 11 has a longer history than just the

Pentecostal sermon. If you read the scripture, you go to Genesis 11, you have Babel, then disperse.

God says if you don't confuse our languages, nothing will be restrained from it. You recall that?

And what's the next thing that happens? In the very next chapter of scripture,

Genesis 12, Abram is called out of his kingdom to go to the land. This is really the beginning of the reversal of that curse.

It has a long history, but it's not just at Pentecost. It is beginning with Abraham or Abram at the time because in Abram, all the families of the earth will be blessed.

So by the gift of the Holy Spirit of the seed at Pentecost, Babel and even what we have to eat are not undone so much as they are redeemed and their negative effects are nullified.

Just let me point here that this reversal of the curse of Genesis 11 has a very long trajectory.

I would not say it's the unifying hermeneutic of the whole scripture, but you can trace that line through the scripture.

Okay, and the third thing I noticed is that what I said, remember

I said they spoke Aramaic and it was translated into native language.

What I said is that it varies with some of our spiritual forebears. John Calvin, it's kind of a long quote, but bear with me because this has been a controversy

I guess for quite a long time. John Calvin wrote, quote, some think that they spoke not in diverse tongues, but that they all did understand that which was spoken in one tongue, as well as that they should hear their natural tongue.

Some think that they spoke in diverse tongues, but they were understood.

This is what I said. I was going to remember the song that John Calvin was talking about here. Therefore, they think that one and the same sound of the voice was diversely distributed amongst the ears.

Another conjecture they have, because Peter made one sermon in the audience of many gathered together out of diverse countries, who could not understand his speech and language, unless another voice should come unto their ears, and that which proceeded out of his mouth.

He's talking about that other position now. Is there anything wrong with that position that Calvin is saying some people have?

That's not Calvin's position. Did you hear anything about that? Because Peter made one sermon in the audience of many gathered together out of diverse countries, who could not understand his speech, unless another voice should come unto their ears.

The problem is, like I said at the beginning, we know from extra -biblical evidence that everybody in that world spoke

Greek. And we know that the Scythians, for example, spoke to their

Parthian neighbors. They spoke to their neighbors, spoke to their neighbors, and said, hey, we all hear this in our same language.

Now, when the Parthian said that to the Scythian, he didn't say it in Parthian, because the Scythian wouldn't have understood him.

He said it in Greek. Okay? So, they were hearing in their native tongues. It was a language that they all understood, which would have been

Greek, but they were hearing in their own language. In their own language. Okay? So, that's the, that's one of the problems with the position that some people had at the time that Calvin did this.

We must first note that the disciples spoke indeed with strange tongues. Scripture says,

Acts 2, 4. Otherwise, the miracle had not been wrought in them, but in the hearers.

So that the similitude should have been false or of, he had mentioned before, neither should the

Spirit have been given so much to them as to others. So, Calvin's making the point that the miracle is the speaking.

But they heard it in their own language. The miracle, Calvin's making the right point, is the speaking. Matthew Henry says that they all hear, they all heard the same language.

Let us refer to all that were together. They began to speak with other tongues besides their native,

I'm sorry. We all mean all the apostles. They began to speak with other tongues besides their native language, though they had never learned any of it.

They spoke not matters of common conversation with the word of God and the praises of his name, as the

Spirit gave them utterance, or gave them to speak. Okay? So those are two of our great hearers,

Calvin and Matthew Henry. Walter, on page 85 of the book that we're following through this curriculum, he would disagree with us.

So, the fifth thing, as I was going to do before, the fifth thing in my little path here, re -looking at my position.

The men from the nations spoke the common language of which I said is probably Greek. Otherwise, they could not have said to each other, and how is it that we hear each of us in our own native language?

It's chapter two for the native Acts. Okay? So, a couple of conclusions here for you.

First, the apostles, whatever language they thought they were speaking, probably Arabic, maybe

Greek, whatever they thought they were speaking, the Holy Spirit made them speak in other tongues forward to themselves.

So, Peter was speaking in Perthian, or Scythian, or any of the other languages that are out there.

So, that's chapter two listed of all those peoples, representing all nations coming together. Okay? Whatever they thought they were speaking, that's not what was coming out of their mouth.

What was coming out of their mouth were those languages, that was Arabic. My second conclusion, I won't name the person who asked me to double -check myself, but I appreciate the richness of a real -life challenge and the respect with which she brought it up.

We're not going to name names here. Thank you for bringing up the question and paying attention to me. We do have to double -check our positions.

My view made it an amazing thing, but it's too small for the miracle that God actually did that.

So, I was asked to re -look at my position. I checked my position, and I got it wrong.

They spoke whatever they thought they were speaking. It was coming out in those languages. And everybody who was hearing it heard it in their native tongue.

Greek was readily available, but it wasn't there. He speaks, and he thinks whatever he's speaking out comes another language.

That's for that guy there. But he says, okay, now I've got to repeat it for that guy there.

It doesn't make sense. It doesn't make sense, and I can't. I thought about that with Dale, and I was like, I can't explain that.

But it says they spoke in other tongues. It's plural. I double -checked it in Greek. Peter, and actually all the others, but it seems to be only

Peter speaking, and I can't quite figure that part out either. But Peter was speaking with other tongues plural.

They all were, all 12 of them. Was it coming out like a blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah,

All these Jews were passing by, we don't know if they're leaving after the pastoral festival or if they're going back for another round of something at the temple.

We don't know, but there they were. And all of a sudden, all 12 of them start speaking. It catches their attention. They know that those guys are going to go learn to God.

They can hear me in their own language. And they hear Peter in their own language. So it's a miracle.

It has to do with now. It's the culmination of years of redemptive history of bringing an end to that curse.

So we all OK with that? You understand we can't describe every jot, tittle in that?

But it was a great miracle. OK. The question we made, should speaking in tongues be normative in the church?

Walter, on page 83, he frames the discussion in four questions. He says, first, were tongues human languages?

Second, what were the rules about tongues speaking in the church? Third, are there tongues speakers today?

And fourth, how should we explain contemporary tongues speaking? So is it normative in the church?

Were tongues human languages? Now, Walter, there's something that you don't know about us.

Walter's book is on my desk there. If you can grab it, please.

Were tongues human languages? Walter gives several proofs that tongues in the early church were known human languages.

It has to do, they were clearly human languages, as we've talked about. And all those people gathered around. They heard it in their own native tongue.

They heard it in their own tongue. In Revelation 5, 9 and 7, 9,

I'm going to read this to you. And it refers to human languages. Now, this is important.

You remember what Pastor Holmes said about his early experiences in the

Episcopal Caritas Church? Do you remember what he said that was like?

I think he said that he felt bad that he wasn't getting it. Yeah, because they had a class.

They gave syllables to repeat. And it was almost like no one put him in a class.

And he couldn't quite get it. So Revelation 5, 9, they sang this song, saying, worthy are you to take the scroll and open the seals, for you were slain.

And by your blood you ransomed people from every tribe and language and people and nation. You made them a kingdom and priests to our

God, and they shall reign on earth. So tribe and language,

OK? It's referring to human language.

You can just go on here.

What about verse 11, the voice of many angels?

OK. What's the question?

I think we're going to come to that a little bit. We don't know. I looked around verse 11, and the voice of many angels and there were myriads and myriads and thousands and thousands, saying with a loud voice, worthy is the

Lamb. He's understanding it in any case, right? Is that what you're getting at?

No. The voice of the angels.

What would they speak? They would speak angel. But John understood it, because he said they were saying, worthy is the

Lamb. So he understood it. It doesn't matter what the others understood, what was being spoken.

Yeah, I don't know what to say about that, Neil. Stephen and I, after this, I look, and behold the great multitude that no one can number from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages, standing before the throne and the

Lamb, clothed in white robes with tall branches in their hands, crying out with one voice, salvation belongs to our

God, and sits on the throne and to the Lamb. Walter's point that brings us up is that these languages are human languages.

These tongues are human, known tongues. In 1

Corinthians chapter 13, verse 1, this is an interesting one.

I want to show to you what Corinthians is. It has so many practices.

Verse 13, 1. Paul says, if I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love,

I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. So the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love.

Walter makes the point, he says, that does not necessarily mean a heavenly language unknown down here.

The tongues of men and of angels. He's saying the angelic tongue does not necessarily have to be something that was only known in heaven and unknown down here.

Gabriel talked to, you know, people. I mean, it was always, there was a certain thing that was in their language.

He didn't consider the way it translates. I can hear the people in the...

And that's going to come up. It won't be anticipated something that's good. There's a sort of thinking that the angels using the babble, the language that they were still speaking.

Interesting. Yeah. That's the law school. Yeah. I want to speak to 13 .1

in 1 Corinthians for a moment. Again, Paul and Walter. He says, if I speak, and he makes a lot out of the if.

If I speak. He posits that it may be a rhetorical hyperbole. If I were to do this.

I'm not saying I'd do this. But what if I did? If I did this, here would be the consequence of it.

And that works pretty well with the Greek if you go back to that conditionless type of statement. I don't want to go into a lot of detail about that.

But it's really quite possible that the original language of the score was the same here. That Paul is giving a hyperbolic rhetorical if.

He also may be echoing a claim at the church as if to say, suppose that I myself spoke of the tongues of angels.

So the idea here is that the Corinthians thought they had some special angelic language.

That you have to do that. I don't mean to make fun of you. I can't make up a story. He's saying, well, what causes you to do what you're doing?

And he goes on to say, it's just confusion. It's not edifying. You're not following the word. God's not giving you all the confusion, but of the word.

So it's a big rhetorical if. If I were to do this.

I'm not necessarily saying he does do that. It's kind of new to me. Any thoughts about that?

Have you ever wondered, first been convinced in that way? What's that?

Go ahead. So in 13, it says, if I speak in tongues of the angels, the literary says, if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, there are a couple of ifs.

The literary line, if I give all, if I give away all I have, the ifs are not true.

Or if we want the first one to be true, we kind of say that. You're saying that's not in the information.

Yeah. And yeah, and he goes on to narrow traditional ifs. And Walter's point is well -taken,

I think it is. You know, it says, if I move mountains. Thank you for bringing that up.

Do you think if Paul had moved a mountain, there would have to be a mountain

Everest. Let's say Mission Peak. It's like 2300 feet. One -tenth the size of a mountain Everest. Let's say

Paul had said, move mountain. And mountain picked up the move 10 feet from where it was.

Do you think we would have that scripture? I think we would.

I think the problem is that Jesus touched the leper, and he became clean. Those kind of miracles we would have.

Jesus says, if you told this male bird to jump off of this tree to go into the sea.

Peter had never done that. He wouldn't have done that. He argued for silence. So that makes good sense what

Darrell's saying here. All those ifs are eternal. And if you look at the whole sense of first Corinthians, where they give so much counsel, so many reviews, it's very, very possible.

Walter's right about the first if, the 13th, the first Corinthians, the 13th. And what Darrell's saying, well, that's funny.

If I were to do this, what would be the result? It would be confusion. What if I could do mountains? What if I could do all these things that you guys are trying to do or pretending you're able to do?

And all these crazy things in Corinthians that have for centuries come from mountains.

I wouldn't be amplified. You wouldn't be loving to them. And that brings this whole thing together.

Quick excursus. I've been asked at weddings to read from first Corinthians.

And I won't do it. I won't preach about first Corinthians love chapter of the love book.

It drives me crazy. Do you know why? Who can explain why I won't do it? I'm a lousy guy.

This is part of those, right? No, because the whole thing's a review. Love is kind.

Love is patient. Love looks out for your neighbor.

What, under a few people, two people? First Corinthians 13 is a review. That was for free.

So that's first Corinthians 13. I really like all of these ideas. I like the third one, too.

The rest of those. I got them all. OK, 14 .2.

Let's start with 14 .1. It's still first Corinthians. Pursue love. We know why now.

Pursue love and earnestly desire spiritual gifts. Now, especially when you make prophesy.

Spiritual gifts we can have love, joy, peace, long -suffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self -control, that's the fruit of the

Spirit. Those are spiritual gifts. Desire the spiritual gifts from chapter 4 of Ephesians.

To be a prophet, not a prophet speaking directly from God, but prophesying people from Scripture and bringing truth to them.

That sort of thing. So it says, pursue love and earnestly desire the spiritual gifts, especially when you make prophesy.

For one who speaks in a tongue speaks not to them but to God. For no one understands him, but he utters mysteries in his spirit.

He means that without an interpreter, you're speaking not to me, but it's between you and God.

Others are passive and others are on the phone. So if you have some special language, some special little thing, you're working with God, or God's working with you a lot, and you're speaking out in a way that I can't understand, are you showing love to me?

Would I be showing love to you? No. And the reason we can say no is because it's not edifying.

It's not building us up. And that's got to be the purpose of all we do together as Christians.

Others, yeah, the observers are passive and unperforming. If someone is to interpret, as Paul insists, they must know the language.

Otherwise, no one's edifying. 1 Corinthians 12, 17, Each is given the manifestation of the

Spirit for the common good. And that would be completely negated if we don't understand the good you're trying to bring to us.

I was thinking about this a little bit. More than a little bit, sorry. I was thinking about this.

And I was thinking, well, how would that miracle work today in the church?

If it was a known language. It would be, if... Do you know who Christina is? If Christina all of a sudden was able to give glory to God in Chinese, a language that she didn't otherwise know, then we'd have an uninterpreted miracle.

But then, you know, you have to go another step. But this is just a human understanding, perhaps a reformed view that we have to know for all sinners.

I would have to trust that this language that I don't understand, that she's speaking, is being properly transmitted to me by the interpreter.

It just gets more and more complicated as you go through it. We live in the

United States of America, so we speak English and so forth. She would only do that if there was someone in here who only spoke

Chinese. Who only spoke Chinese? Otherwise, what good would it do? It doesn't seem to make sense.

I don't know about Olney, because at Pentacost, everyone also spoke the common language of Greek, so they didn't need a translation.

But you would need somebody who at least spoke Chinese to be a message to them, basically.

To glorify God today. So you need three people.

One to speak it, one to hear it, and one to translate it. But the translator doesn't sound like a miraculous thing.

God has given Christine Chinese, because it's moving to give glory to God. Who speaks

Chinese? Well, I'm not taking that into account. We get Daryl, because he understands it and he's bilingual.

We'd have that person in the church. You see how complicated it gets? By the time you figure all this stuff out, and correct all these

Corinthians mistakes, by the time you go home, you're not getting anything out of this.

But my point is, though, I've always thought that the miracle, if it works today in the church, would be someone who doesn't otherwise know the language.

Has he studied Hebrew? A little bit. Did he speak Hebrew? All of a sudden he can speak

Hebrew fluently. I remember enough Hebrew to tell you. Who would you be trusting me to... It just... I'm not for that.

It'd be a mess. What'd you say? It'd be a mess. It's got to be a mess.

Okay. We want to go on with this. The question was, are tongues normative in the church?

We've talked about all the reasons why they really wouldn't be. 1 Corinthians 14, 21.

In the law that is written, and this is referring back to Isaiah 20, 11, by people of strange tongues and foreigners will

I speak to this people and even then they will not listen to me, says the Lord. I quoted

Paul in 1 Corinthians 21 and he's quoting Isaiah 20, 8, 11. Isaiah 20, 8, 11 is a judgment against Israel.

It's speaking about the coming of Babylon as people who speak a different tongue. That's Babylon.

That's what we were talking about in Jeremiah 25 last week at the preaching. This afternoon, it's going to be

Babylon against me sort of thing, but that's that nation that came against Jerusalem and conquered them and took them into exile.

Isaiah 20, 11. 20, 11 is the prophecy of that happening. It's a judgment against Israel.

Paul just says, I quote, It is difficult to see how this citation is pertinent to Paul's argument or relevant to the subject unless the tongues spoken in Corinth were human language.

So, Isaiah 20, 11 is a judgment. He quotes it here.

Why would he quote it here to the Corinthians? Is it to promote more tongues? No. It's a judgment.

He's saying that what you're doing is really bringing judgment upon the place.

And this is consistent too if you go back to that 1 Corinthians 11 and the Lord's Table. He said, Here's the law of the way you're doing the

Lord's Table. Paraphrase. The problem is that you're eating and drinking, what? Judgment.

Judgment. Judgment is one of the themes that you find in this section of Corinthians, starting in chapter 10, where he's saying your actions are going to bring judgment upon you.

This is why some of you are sick and why some of you have died. Because of God judging you. And when he cites

Isaiah 28 -11 which is impending judgment upon Judah.

It's a judgment. So it would be difficult to understand that citation unless the tongues spoken in Corinth were human languages.

Again, quoting Paul's whole point in 1 Corinthians 14 -21 is bipartisan.

1 Corinthians 14 -23 says, if therefore the whole church comes together and all speak in tongues and outsiders or unbelievers enter will they not say that you are out of your minds?

Yes, they would. How can you like that? I'm going to go down the street where I can understand what they're doing.

If Aldrin is correct, and I think he is, Paul is warning them to discontinue practice and will bring down judgment upon them.

So what's our conclusion here in 1 Corinthians 14 -28? Thank you for grabbing my book for me.

If tongues were four languages that could be interpreted then many, if not most, claims to the gift of tongues today are invalidated.

They are not, and do not even claim to be, four languages. That Pastor Owens in where he was quote unquote taught how to speak in a tongue.

It was a symbol to world over and over and over and eventually tongues would come out.

So if tongues were four languages that could be interpreted and the scripture would support that they were languages that were known that could be interpreted then most, if not all, claims of the gift of tongues today are invalidated.

Because the tongues as they're taught today are not, and don't even claim to be, four slash known languages.

Everyone with me? I'm really proud of you because I don't see any eyes clouded over.

So we're saying it's not normal? Well Are you saying that it can't happen?

Hang on a second. I'm going to ask my next question. Tongues. Are tongues four today, and the class said

I lost your tongue after I was talking about tongues. I'd say no. Am I saying it can't happen?

I have a hard time saying it can't. Because we're in the Bible. But I would say as we talked last week about apostleship about prophethood about the purpose of tongues that no, they've come to an end.

They've fulfilled their purpose. Remember who I said about tongues in the

Bible? In every case after Acts chapter 2 not counting 1

Corinthians which we've gone through today a bit that the tongues were assigned to the apostles whether it was

Peter or Paul those were the two that testified this literally two accounts that they testified when we saw them speaking in tongues we knew the spirit had fallen upon them as it had us we knew that salvation had come to this ethnicity or this group or this tongue meaning languages, nations it was really important it was assigned to the apostles and I'm not making this up this is what the apostles themselves say that we have in scripture when

I saw that poem when I heard Cornelius in Sousa paraphrasing a little bit speaking in tongues

I knew that the gospel had gone out to the Gentiles represented by Cornelius Acts chapter 19

Paul said of the peace when he saw the spirit fall upon John the

Baptist's disciples and they spoke in tongues it wasn't we don't have to worry about what the language was what they were saying or anything like that it was assigned to Paul that those disciples of John the

Baptist had finally heard the whole gospel and were saved Tongues were assigned to the apostles not to the tongues speaker they were assigned to the one who was a servant

Paul says again and I quote the gift of tongues speakers does not exist in the church today tongues speaking was a form of prophecy while I philosophy speaking in tongues was indeed prophetic and therefore when accompanied by the gift of interpretation functionally equivalent to prophecy so that's your new testimony the prophetic gifts the apostleship was still current in that time as we discussed earlier so tongues were functionally equivalent to prophecy as we've seen there are no living prophets in the church today thus neither can there be any tongues speakers as one and I would agree with that so back to Dale's question does this mean that the churches that practice tongues are not true churches that's not where you're going at all am

I saying it here or here now yeah because he uses the word normative I did that wasn't his word that was mine that was for our discussion because of his prophecies today and how would you define that I just remember a book of Richardson in the last chapter he went through a bunch of examples where this guy said you know they've never seen a white person and they said a white person will come in years to come and listen to him he'll read the gospel and they'll listen to him now the person who said that probably wasn't a

Christian because they've never had missionaries but he was a prophet and there were many examples of things like that that happened what makes me think was it who said it is unique for one man to die for the nation and then

John goes on and says he did not say this on his own it was a very prophesied time is that the sort of thing you're yeah

I don't know was that a prophecy it could have been a prophecy in the way that we defined it in New Testament times which is to give glory to God to explain the gospel to bring scripture to completion what this man said as it came true and as circumstances unfold we say that everything is in Christ Christ received glory so that gives credibility to it this is looking true a little careful because it's not prophecy in the way that we had it happen in that general people so regardedly

I don't believe as we said when we first started this curriculum I believe that God is working to him that God is working to people that God is working to people

I have a little personal promise if anybody comes up and tells me something it's totally personal you cannot think something like that that's just I believe

God is active doing miracles as I said the first time three weeks ago

I believe we've seen them in this church great and incredible miraculous things that happen and I believe that Jesus Christ I do believe that God works

I don't deny that when I caught loosely the way you define it anybody have any thoughts about that?

what you're saying do miracles happen if there's someone who's giving the gift of tongues at some place and then there's the other side of should it be a regular practice of the church should we make this should we have slots in the worship service for people to come up and express their gift should we wait for a word from the

Lord if someone's sick should we turn to someone who would believe in us that's the normative aspect where it's like we're expecting this gift to be a regular part of Christian life and Christian worship

I think when it comes to this you see I'm older and agree on that second aspect it's done they were signing before you had scripture before you could know who was truly part of the church and who wasn't you needed these gifts to show this person's legit now we have the scriptures we can know is this church following what the scriptures are saying therefore are they a faithful church now in context where there is no church you're a missionary you're not in the field people don't know if you're truly a seed for God I can see

God using a special sign in those contexts but the moment the Bible becomes available to the people it doesn't seem like God's not using these signs to sustain the church it's just to establish it that's a good point my question then raises the word normative is if we understand where we arrive at the borders by the priesthood then

I ask okay should it be normative the reason I ask that is because in that charismatic third wave movement we discussed a few weeks ago they said that you need to speak probably part of that first wave was taught so he'd be able to do this and receive what he called the baptism of the

Holy Spirit so is there any problem with that just on the surface of what

I just said we're a church you're a Christian but you haven't received the baptism of the

Spirit yet so we're going to teach you how to speak in tongues and then we'll know that you have the baptism of the Spirit what's the problem with that theologically it's not scripture that's the big problem bingo it's not scripture this is a scholarly world it's not scripture and how can you be saved if you don't have the

Holy Spirit what does it say I'm not really saved that becomes a problem it's not even having second class

Christians Sarah said if you're saved that means you have the

Spirit Jesus says I am a father come make our home in them and he says the same thing about the

Holy Spirit so it's a triune residence within when you're saved when you believe in the gospel that's the baptism of the

Holy Spirit as someone in my office once who wasn't sure what does this experience mean to save and I went through John chapter 1 point by point the doctrines in each of the phrases it took quite a while do you believe this

I absolutely believe that I believe that Jesus died I believe that he rose again and I said that's the miracle that's the baptism of the

Spirit that's the proof that you're saved it doesn't have to be an ecstatic or emotional experience

I wouldn't deny that of anybody but it doesn't have to be it's the belief and putting your trust and that's the baptism of the

Spirit and I would agree the problem there

Christine was that John's baptism didn't give the whole picture he baptized for repentance but it didn't have the saving power yes it didn't have the saving power because it didn't have the death of Jesus for my sins and his resurrection he just went so far that he baptized

Jesus and he was sort of done he didn't know the rest of the story we don't get that until the apostles of Jesus Christ so I would argue because if you have a church that says we're a true church and we're a true church because we speak in tongues and we insist upon the baptism of the

Spirit that's proven by speaking in tongues we say no it's faith we can't both be right it's two disparate positions

I don't require you to speak in tongues before I think you're saved and I probably if you were speaking in tongues

I would probably find you another church in a kind way in a gentle pastoral way but we don't believe in this kind of church but the church down the road here says you have to speak in tongues we can't both be right one of us has a wrong view of salvation

I would take that far it's not just church life it's salvation do you agree with me?

is there anything about that question? it's got to do with is it what the fruits of the spirit are?

the relationship love, joy, peace you have a separate side and this is to two directions scripture tells us what to expect

I just want to bring up that I've been through a number of charismatic churches where the mainstream view is that they want you to speak in tongues but they don't require it but I did go into a church one time someone invited me they were taking it to that next step where if you don't speak it you're not saved that group,

I would put them outside of orthodoxy at that point I would explain to the person that invited me you're actually denying the sufficiency of Christ's death at that point sufficiency of Christ's death that becomes a problem

I probably wouldn't be as gentle with you in that first church as you were why are you promoting it?

I think it's completely wrong and it would put me in a higher if I'm able to speak in tongues

I mean if it's not a known language as and I'm just chattering away, as I would call it and I say well

I'm speaking in tongues I'm speaking in heavenly language I'm speaking in prophecy I'm speaking in prophecy loose to prove how can

I open scripture and find proof, find evidence find security it's all very humanistic all very subjective the other problem because what

I've been trying to sort out one of us the ones requiring it just as we say it's ended one of us in some sense is not a true church because it's two different views of the sufficiency of Christ and the sufficiency and completion of scripture and what's required for salvation is that important?

I'm not going to say we see a you see a charismatic church because I say there are a whole bunch of churches

I'm not trying to be pontifical that way we're going to finish this next week with the miracles are there miracle workers today?

wrap it all up God willing, Brian will be back on the 9th and 8th for Sunday school maybe we'll do some systematic theology but I'm not quite sure the time right now is

April 2nd we'll finish this April 9th and at last we'll close with prayer thank you again for this beautiful weather for a comfortable church for a place to sit in freedom and security to hear the gospel and live the gospel out once again may our

Father in heaven be exalted and honored and glorified in this place we thank you for today we pray for your attendance in Jesus' name