I met someone who was a missionary in Haiti after the earthquake. Shortly after arriving, she met a girl out there and asked her what she was doing. The girl replied that she was a slave (a restavek) to a family that lived nearby, and she was out doing errands for them, and they had a conversation. The woman found the girl later, and it turned out that she didn’t speak any English at all. The woman had spoken creole to her without realizing it, a language she had never known. She ended up rescuing and adopting her from that family.
I wish someone who had actually HAD that experience would speak up. I've heard stories like this countless times, and it always "happened to someone I met." I don't doubt that God can do this, and I wouldn't be surprised if He did. But can I be forgiven for wondering, HAS He?
Yes, that’s exactly where the gift of tongues comes in at. Not the insane ravings in a congregation where there is no interpreter and no real language going on.
My wife and I attended a Full Gospel Business Men's Association meeting where we were instructed how to obtain the "gift" of tongues. We were instructed to just babble and make strange noises until we received the gift. It's good no one was standing between us and the door as we beat it out of there.
And Christians are shocked that statistics paint Christians as dumber than the rest of the population. It's all 19-20th century phenomena that are dumbing Christians down. It's not the fault of mere Christianity.
I once attended an Pentecostal service where someone in front of me spoke in tongues. After laughing I asked a friend about it and she said it was an unknown language which promoted me to ask, then how can anyone be sure it isn't just made up?
One time some Pentecostals invited me to pray with them and I realized that the leader was just speaking incoherent French and everyone thought he was speaking some spiritual language
You forgot the part where about a dozen people "filled with the spirit" stand around you, laying hands on you, praying in various tongues until you start to babble with them.
"For by grace you have been saved through faith. And it is not your own doing; it is a gift of God, not a result of works, so that none may boast." Ep 2:8,9 ESV Nothing is required for salvation other than faith in the finished work of Christ on the cross. Tongues are your own doing, tongues are something that are boasted of, tongues are nowhere required for salvation in scripture, indeed they are ruled out as a necessity, if not by this single passage, than by countless others that echo it. Paul said that one who speaks in tongues is less than one who prophesies, unless there is someone there to interpret it. (1Cor14:5) Since prophesy is not required for salvation, this reinforces the fact that tongues is not required for salvation. It also reinforces that fact that REAL TONGUES MUST BE INTERPRETABLE. If no one can interpret the "tongues," than it is just gibberish brought on by psychological peer pressure applied to be part of the group, to be "saved." Unfortunately, this will not lead to salvation, since this whole movement is based on the lie that tongues are required. And we know who the father of lies is.
Pentecostals agree with you on this (I think charles parham does as well) not all of them are apostolic pentecostals there are 4 types of pentecostals Works based salvation oneness pentecostalism Holiness Pentecostalism Baptistic/Finished Work Pentecostalism Regular Protestant Oneness Pentecostalism
Luther was well taught, being a Catholic priest, monk and Professor of Theology. He realized some things had to change in Rome (and a lot have!) But he never tried to invent new stuff
Two questions: 1. When did knowledge pass away? 2. When did the perfect arrive? Love never ends. As for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away. (1 Corinthians 13:8-10)
***** So when did "the perfect" arrive? If your interpretation of Hebrews 1:1 is correct that would contradict the Joel prophecy (Acts 2:16-21), also it would contradict the works of the Apostles, including Paul.
Ha ha ha very funny video. But all straw men aside, lets look at the next few verses: "but when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away. 11 When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I gave up childish ways. 12 For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known" (1 Corinthians 13:10-12 ESV) Knowledge in this context is referencing a "word of knowledge", believed to be an intervention in a believer's life where God tells them information about someone or some situation. What is the perfect? Why would Paul be including himself in the recipients if the perfect would not come until after his death? Many theologians believe Paul's writings about the perfect is referencing the return of Christ and the resurrection of the dead. Just because a theological teaching is old or widely accepted over time does not mean it is true. True, not many accepted tongues and gifts of the spirit during a vast period of church history, and it is also true that for centuries the church authorities refused to let people read and study scripture for themselves. So it is entirely possible they could have been wrong given those circumstances. There are hypocrites and charlatans in all religions and denominations, pentecostals included. Later on in 1 Corinthians Paul gives more guidelines concerning tongues and even references different kinds of tongues and their appropriate use.
Actually the context does not suggest "words of knowledge" as prophecy is already listed. Knowledge most probably refers to the current knowledge we currently possess. As Paul said, I count everything else excrement in the place of knowing Christ. The perfect refers to the return of Christ and when seeing Christ face to face all irrelevance will pass away.
you assume in a question that something has, so by definition you are making an assertion. so I will return you a question. what and why is the the perfect?
@Phillip Hickman "the dead can't make a decision to accept Christ through water baptism" TRUE! Neither can the "living". The fact that we do NOTHING in baptism makes it the perfect example of conversion. 100% grace.
Was the thief on the cross baptized? If baptism saves, and if Paul said in Phillipians 2, that if someone falls away from grace, that he labored in vain, why would he not immediately baptize the new converts in Corinth? (1.corinthians 1) If baptism is necessary, why would he not baptize them immediately and secure their soul and his reward in heaven? Why does he say in Ephesians 1:13, that we got the Holy Spirit, and therefore have been saved(Romans 8), when we heard and believed? How was John the baptist saved? Please answer me, I really want to know, because I have not been yet baptized, although I am trying to arrange it. If I die, will I go to hell?
@@PlavitPOi90 read Romans 10:9-13 summarized, believe in your heart God raised Christ from the dead, confess this openly, you shall be saved. Was Jesus not the Son of God until He was baptized by John? Or, was He born the Son of God that got baptized? The latter, just as we are saved through faith in Jesus Christ, becoming a child of God, grafted in, adopted; that get baptized later. To say the thief was not saved is to deny the power of God through the words of Jesus. He looks on the intent of the heart, not whether a person was sprinkled or dunked.
I partially agree with you about the first half of the video. Our assurance of faith should come from God's promise of salvation in His word, not through spiritual gifts. But I have a bone to pick with you on the second half. I'm no expert, but I'm pretty sure you're taking 1 Cor. 13:8 way out of context. Should we also say that knowledge will cease or has ceased? No! The passage is talking about how in comparison with love, the other spiritual gifts are inadequate. RUclips comments are not really the best place to argue something like this, but I think it's important enough that I speak up.
Sad how blind arrogant professing Christians are at pretending to be biblical in forbidding tongues when Paul forbids them to do so in 1 Cor 14:39. They also forget Jesus and his Matthew 7|Luke 6 warning of the mote in the brother's eye vs the beam in one's own. There are counterfeits in every group; it's actually an argument in favor of considering how there's a genuine being counterfeited. I'm a charismatic reformation (=Lutheran+Reformed) tongues speaker who doesn't know which is a greater danger, the gullible charismatic without a biblical or rational basis for his actions, or the gullible anti-charismatic without a biblical or rational basis for his opposition, but God's in control and has ordained it all.
1 Cor13:8 Love never fails; but if there are gifts of [a]prophecy, they will be done away; if there are tongues, they will cease; if there is knowledge, it will be done away. So knowledge has been done away with too or are we picking and choosing what scripture tells us? I get that most charismatics have abused the gifts like the Corinthians (ironic no?) but is our irritation towards them really not going to allow us to see what God is really saying about the gifts just so that we can shut them up?
Because most reformists assume the text is saying "passed away" means in a current world era, and not when we step into eternity. We really don't know that the text means that, it's assumed because some church fathers said so, so we place our faith in mans interpretations. I don't speak in tongues, and I think it's a bit strange, but to say we know certainly it's passed is kinda foolish. Just me.
Speaking in tongues is actually being able to speak another world language previously unknown to you. Not speaking gobbledygook, which sounds like gibberish even to God. You honestly sound like your demon possesed when you're doing it.
If one reads tyndale, he has a note in the beginning of the next chapter (1 Corinthians 14) that says that "prophesying is here taken for expounding". And another in the same chapter : "to speak with tongues or with the spirit, is to speak that others understand not, as priests say their service. To speak with the mind is to speak that others understand, as when the preacher preacheth."
I'm Non-Denominational (but I find I lean towards Wesleyanism), but the Lutherans are correct in saying that baptism saves you they just seem to overlook that John said that, while he baptized with water, the Messiah would baptize with the Holy Spirit. (John 1:33)
+Brandon Hanners (BDog) yeah, but the Holy spirit decides whether anyone gets to speak in tongues and a gift is not something you learn to do like schools for prophets and suchlike in charismaticism. you just do it. tongues allowed people to hear the Gospel in their own language. the Corinthians had lots of this but were carnal and even immoral, a GIFT is not a FRUIT a change of nature and production of fruit showing you are in Christ showing resemblance to Him like a family member, etc.
Ironic the arrogant, ungodly religious hypocrisy that makes fun of Parham conveniently forgets that ungodly religious hypocrisy made fun of the first disciples/apostles (Acts 4:13 ASV Now when they beheld the boldness of Peter and John, and had perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men, they marvelled; and they took knowledge of them, that they had been with Jesus.), foolishly arrogant in pretending that God will not bring Matthew 7 judgment for it. Matthew 7:1-4 ASV Judge not, that ye be not judged. 2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured unto you. 3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? 4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me cast out the mote out of thine eye; and lo, the beam is in thine own eye? The ungodly criticism of Parham conveniently doesn't tell the whole story, of how much he suffered for the faith, the sin of bearing false witness against him while falsely claiming to serve the God of truth, certainly suffering far more than most, having no shame for so mistreating a devout Jesus believer even if he and his theology weren't perfect, as with all of us, for God says there are only two kinds of people: those who admit and grieve their hypocrisy, and those who don't. Which are we? God save us.
@@russedav5 simply because two sets of people were made fun of doesn't make them right,just because one of them was right. similarity is not identity. theapostles did not tech parhm's crap and some of the tongues have been identified as hindu paganfalse god praises and worse. most is gibberish. the tongues manifestation was an earlyway of geting everyone's attention. the holy spirit testifies of jesus not himself. Trsf ejsy Krdud dsif inm the promise of the giving of the paraclete
Re: Step 3 I've faked speaking in tongues before...or once just started babbling out of nowhere, not because of any spirit. It was only in front of a few people, people who meant very well and who were fundamentalists/Southern Baptists like I used to be. They're good people, but frankly the dancing around and speaking in tongues scares me.
AdinoEznite Yes..not right at that moment but I did in general. I felt pressured to prove my faith...I suffered from depression and, while some people understand that it's not a sin, others think that you're "missing something" in the faith department. That wasn't the case at all with me.
Shannon R Regardless of what theological views one holds, to despise someone b/c of what they are going through is *not* love. Are we not supposed to weep with those who weep, rejoice with those who rejoice? In other words, be *with* those who suffer. One of the Roman emperors noted the love of Christians was so great, they went and ministered to the plague victims, knowing they too would catch it and die from it. Did those Christians lack faith? No, they chose to love, even to death, those that Christ died for that were suffering the most. I used to believe the hype that psychologists were bad, all they did was get people hooked on meds so they'd have a non-ending cash flow. The reality is, good psychologists give good wisdom. They can provide meds that can be very helpful. Like all things, some are good, some are bad.
Why would you speak tongues to a Southern Baptist? That's not our thing. We are the denomination that are generally thought of as anti-everything the world considers "fun" (drinking, smoking, dancing, rock music, card games, gambling, sex even within marriage, etc.). Not that I'm endorsing all of those activities. Some of them foolish and others can be okay or sinful depending on the context (i.e., sex within marriage is good, all sex outside marriage is sin). The stereotype also includes being extremely reserved (dressing up in a suit/dress for church; no taping feet, clapping hands or raising arms during the worship music, etc.).
You don't get your assurance from baptism or the supper either. Baptism doesn't save. It signifies and seals the gospel promises. The Lord's supper reminds us of the sacrifice of Jesus in the place of us. We get our assurance by looking to Christ and to Christ alone. Our assurance comes from the gospel promises.
I know they are. Sorry I should have reworded that. Assurance does come from the sacraments because they strengthen our faith, not because they save us. Baptism and the Lord's supper are visible signs and seals of the gospel promises that are received by faith.
Well to be clear, Baptism now saves you are words that are in the Bible. However, the question then arises how baptism saves us are important. It's because we are given God's grace in baptism because was are saved by grace through faith.
I know those words are used in 1 Peter 3:21, and they are often taken out of context. Baptism does not work ex opere operato though. Baptism is an effectual means unto salvation but only when it is received by faith. Because baptism is a means of grace, God uses it to save His elect. But the efficacy of baptism is not tied to the moment it is administered. God can regenerate someone before, during, or after baptism. Baptism is a sign and seal of God's promise to justify sinners by faith alone.
Ben: Please do not take my words to be condescending, but I have to tell you that you are speaking like a rationalist when you say, "the efficacy of baptism is not tied to the moment it is administered." You justify that statement by saying that God can regenerate someone before baptism. And although that is true, to use that to justify your previous assertion is rationalism. Both are true. Does God actually saved in baptism? Yes. That is exactly what 1 Pe. 3:21 says. "Baptism . . . now saves you." Baptism is the subject of the verb saves. And since we are bound to the hermeneutical principle that all interpretations of Scripture are to be faithful to the grammar (since God gave us His truth in human language, in this case Koine Greek), to deny that God does, in fact, save IN and THROUGH baptism is to deny His Word. Of course, as Luther so faithfully pointed out that it is not the water that does the saving but the Word connected with the water. However, without the water it is not a baptism. You seem like someone who is sincerely trying to be faithful to the text but you are making statements that, albeit unintentionally, are rationalistic in nature. Baptism can and does create faith. Can this faith be rejected by means of one's sinful reason? You bet! That, however, does not deny the efficacy of the baptism. The baptism is still valid, even when rejected. If it is rejected by the person receiving it, they have removed themselves from its promises of salvation. If they later repent of their sinfulness, are they to be baptized again? No. Eph. 4:4. They simply repent of their previous sin and receive the blessings previously promised and given in baptism.
I've read that Montanus back in the 2nd century noticed that the gift of tongues was gone and tried to bring it back. Also Mormon founder, Joseph Smith, in the early 19th century urged tongue speaking in his restored gospel, but Mormons eventually dropped the idea.
@@lorenzomurrone2430 It's no bother at all. Due to time I'll have to keep my list succinct, but I'll give it to you in a nutshell of bullet points. 1.) Never actually seeing the miracles supposedly happening. I'm not talking about just praying for people (even now as a Lutheran I believe that); I mean seeing the people who came around claiming healing via apostolic signs a la Benny Hinn (which many in the Assemblies of God, though they were not completely comfortable with people like him, also wouldn't stand up and denounce him for the most part, save for very rare exceptions). I had this very thing happen in a Nazarene church, where a man by the name of Dan Bohi visited, claiming the gifts of the spirit. He has said publicly that he has raised three people from the dead, but has not produced medical records for verification, even though it's been asked of him more than once (for a paper on this man, please check enterthevein.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/a-return-to-azusa-street4.pdf ) 2.) Speaking in tongues. Tongues were earthly languages (Acts 2; yes, I know about the reference in I Cor 13 about tongues of angels, but Paul's point there is not a doctrinal statement about whether or not angels have their own language, but that speaking in tongues by itself, without Biblical, godly love, means nothing). Also, tongues were to have an interpreter (I Cor 14), and I remember only one time in which an actual interpreter was used. Tongues were not to be chaotically uttered in church; Paul says that doing so is a bad witness (I Cor 14:23), yet I saw this frequently. In addition, there is no suggestion in Scripture that all believers have a "prayer tongue" that is somehow different from the tongues Paul is talking about; reading I Cor 14, it's very clear that tongues were meant for a sign before men, not a necessity for prayer before God. Also, in tandem with this point, I learned that the same sort of ecstatic "glossolalia" can occur in pagan religions as well; meaning that tongues is no guarantee that the spirit working it (assuming it is a spirit at all) is the Holy Spirit. 3.) Putting far more attention on my own emotional state than the Word of God. I noticed that every feeling and inclination was automatically considered to be "a move of God." A former pastor I sat under went to the Brownsville "revivals" and came back making all of these changes that he "felt" God was telling him to do. Truth be told, very little of what he did actually had any spiritual edification, and I wasn't the only one who noticed it. For example, he began to have these drawn out altar calls and would refuse to close the service unless SOMEBODY came forward. Eventually, people would come forward, but it was basically to shut him up and end the service. He was making crass statements about "Nobody should be making plans on Sunday afternoons" because he believed God was telling him this. Or another trick (yes, I'll call it a "trick") was that a minister would come to the pulpit and believe that God "put a different message on his heart" just then. To tell the truth, I suspect that either 1.) the ministers who did this were too susceptible to their own emotional states, 2.) the ministers were lax in actual sermon preparation, or 3.) the "God told me to tell you" line was a gimmick to get people's attention better. As a Presbyterian minister once wryly remarked, Why can't the Spirit be leading me on Thursdays when the services and sermons are being planned? Why do we assume that the planned things aren't done by the Spirit, especially when the whole routine of worship conducted by the Israelites in the Old Testament was VERY ritualistic AND of the Spirit as well? When you start looking for God in your feelings and thoughts and make that as "inspired" as His written Word, you're asking for trouble. You're basing your Christianity on your emotional state and somehow assuming that God is behind it, instead of trusting in the promises of God which are objectively laid out in the Bible. What's more, when you feel nothing while everybody else around you seems to be, you'll fake it. You'll start trying to stir up your own emotions and your own pseudo-spirituality because you think that you're somehow not a "really spiritual" Christian; or worse yet, you start basing your salvation on whether or not you have those emotions (and I have heard charismatic/pentecostal preachers suggest as much more than one time). 4.) The phenomena which had nothing at all to do with God. The constant asking for of money by charlatans such as Robert Tilton and Jim Bakker (who IMO has not really repented of his doctrine). The "Holy Laughter" of Rodney Howard-Browne, the chaotic "stripping in the spirit" seen in the Toronto Vineyard church, the strange shifts dealt out at Brownsville (followed by a false prophecy put out there), the false spirituality and over-the-top teachings of people like Copeland, Hagin, Hinn, etc. It was not found in the Bible, period. And linked to that... 5.) The reluctance to discern. If you called into question anything, many people would call you a Pharisee, even if you had Scripture on your side. It was all about "feeling the Spirit move." At best, biblical exposition was a side note; at worst, it was twisted to bolster the charismatic experiences. You dared not "quench the Holy Spirit," as if somehow the Bible was opposed to the Work of the Spirit. 6.) Reading of authors who document these issues well. I tell anybody who wants to talk to me about Charismatic issues to read the following books first. These are well-documented volumes that oftentimes take the actual words and positions of the charismatic leaders themselves and compare them carefully to the Bible: John MacArthur: Charismatic Chaos and Strange Fire Hank Hannegraaff: Christianity in Crisis Douglas Judisch: An Evaluation of Claims to the Charismatic Gifts
@@Outrider74 I can understand many of the things you said. My first months in Christianity were under the influence of a fundamentalist Pentecostal preacher (not ordained by any church, unaffiliated to any group), who had this strong emphasis on emotions, but was also supralapsarian and had the kindness of the WBC. This resulted in months of emotional imbalance (I think I might have been through some real bi-polar phases), OCD, nightmares, and so on-all of this faced on my own, since I am the only Christian in my household. When I knew Lutheranism, the distinction between Law and Gospel, etc., it was peace like a river for me. I still have scars from my former Pentecostal experience, but thankfully I've been led to peaceful shores now.
@@Outrider74 The gross hypocrisy and arrogance and flat out proven FALSEHOODS of charismatic critics grieves and angers me. Only one aspect of the matter is addressed, conveniently avoiding/ignoring things like the refutations of MacArthur and how Hank's abandoned the Reformation to be Orthodox, the legalist always showing himself lawless. Having been in dear Mike Bickle's "Kansas City Prophets" church I was amazed to read MacArthur's bogus "Charismatic Chaos" recognizable account of a meeting I myself attended that was manifestly FALSE. As John Piper has well said, those attacking charismatics would be better off addressing their own sins in their midst, like dead formalism as Jesus sternly warned in Matthew 7 and Luke 13. Only the gullible and Biblically illiterate buy the overwhelmingly refuted, antiBiblical (e.g. 1 Cor 14:39) ungodliness many antiCharismatic/Pentecostals are selling. We all have beams/logs of sin of which we need to repent of long before we'll be able to worry about the mote/speck in our brother's eye. The ground is level at the foot of the cross.
Great response! Well-intentioned people mis-cite this verse, and remain inconcsistent when asked, "If tongues passed away, when did or will knowledge pass away?" The "face to face" is spot on! Thanks.
actually, even though there is more to baptism and partaking of Holy Communion than just showing your obedience to God, showing your obedience to God is a way of being assured of your salvation because Jesus Christ is our King and you obey The King Jesus Christ, right?
I think it might be the other way around (i.e., everyone who is saved shows obedience, but not sure if everyone who shows obedience is saved--in particular, those who publicly put on a show of their supposed piety instead of praying and fasting and almsgiving in secret). But you're certainly not completely wrong--not everyone who cries "Lord, Lord," but the one who does the will of the Father.
To add to your Biblical evidence for "Speaking in Tongues;" "7 When you pray, *don’t babble like the idolaters*, since they imagine they’ll be heard for their many words. 8 Don’t be like them, because your Father knows the things you need before you ask Him. Matthew 6:7-8 HCSB
Just referring to the debates aspect of saying ,1 Corinthians 13:8 has already occurred, because knowledge is also a part of what is going to pass away in 13:8. I suspect Paul was saying that when Christ comes again, prophesies, knowledge and tongues will pass away, but Love will not pass away. It seems quite a stretch to insert that tongues has passed away but knowledge has not. Note: I'm not defending the theology of speaking in tongues, just addressing the scriptural argument.
And the gift of knowlege and prophecy ends when the complete comes Tongues will end is in the middle voice and there is no condition listed meaning they'll stop on their own
Agreed, the verse also says languages will pass away, so until we all stop communicating entirely, I think we can safely assume that 1 Cor 13:8 has yet to occur. Not saying I'm able to speak in tongues, but that doesn't make it Biblically impossible.
Not only that but 1 Cor 14:39 forbids the forbidding, a verse antiCharismaticism conveniently ignores while falsely pretending to be Biblical, typical for religious hypocrisy.
True it does say that it will pass away, but if you continue down it says that "For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away." In other words, only half the prophecies in the Bible have been fulfilled and therefore these things will only pass away once the prophecies of God (i.e. parts of Daniel and the whole of Revelation) will be fulfilled.
Beth G Also, I do agree that tongues are not meant to be inane babble. In fact, it says earlier in 1 Cor. 14:6 "If with your tongue you utter speech that is not intelligible, how will anyone know what is said?...." and again in 1 Cor 14:23 "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?" However, if you read the previous verses it says 1 Cor. 14:21 "In the Law it is written, "By people of strange tongues and by the lips of foreigners will I speak to this people, and even then they will not listen to me thus tongues are a sign not for believers, but for unbelievers..." In other words, the gift of tongues is the ability to speak in foreign languages and is not meant for Christians. So I can only conclude that the reason we don't see people speaking in tongues in our own country and our own churches today is because this gift is for missionary work in foreign countries.
...and we all know the Bible can sometimes seem contradicting, so quoting what supports his arguments (and then making other position sound ridiculous) is another example of what I meant. The idea that Baptism is an act of obedience doesn't seem very stupid if we read those same passages in a different light. John MacArthur said: You can go through all the water you want and not be saved. And, I have to confess that you can be saved and not be baptized, but you're in a condition of disobedience.
I agree with the 2nd half of this video denouncing tongues, but the 1st half is twisting scripture claiming baptism & the Lord's Supper are necessary for salvation. That is works-based salvation (see Eph. 2:8-9). The 2nd half of I Peter 3:21 states it isn't the work of baptism that saves, but the appeal to God for a good conscience through the resurrection of Jesus Christ (putting your faith in Christ). In Titus 3:5, they latch onto the word "washing", assuming it meant water baptism rather than "regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit" as specified in the verse & ignoring the beginning of the verse, which says that it is according to God's mercy, not anything we have done. Romans 6 is clearly using baptism as a symbol illustrating our dying to our old life of slavery to sin & rebirth to our new life of freedom from sin. I Cor. 11:24-26 says the Lord's Supper is memorial of what Christ has done.
You are misunderstanding baptism and the Lord's Supper to be works of men. Whenever baptism is spoken of it is passive - "You were baptized" it's something that is being done to a person. Plus, if believing that Christ promises forgiveness in baptism and the Lord's supper is work righteous then isn't it the same to believe that a man preaching the gospel can bring faith is work righteous? What about looking to works, or an inner feeling or your own decision as proof of forgiveness? (though I'm not saying you necessarily say those things, just possible that you do).
David Ude If someone receives water baptism or partakes in the Lord's Supper because they think that performing those actions is necessary for salvation, then that would be works righteousness. If you have already been saved (past tense) and then do those things because you are identifying yourself as a Christian, then that is different. The act of being baptized by water does NOT cleanse you of your sins. That takes place the moment your repent and put your faith in Christ. On the other hand, if someone says they are a follower of Christ yet disobeys Christ's command to be baptized by outright refusing to be baptized, that would seem to suggest that they may not really be a follower Christ after all. Preaching the gospel does not cause anyone to suddenly gain faith. The Holy Spirit working on a person's heart breaks down their defenses and shows them their need for a savior, though God uses the Bible, preaching, witnessing and other means as tools in this process. Salvation does not come from any of outward actions (works). It comes from repentance (recognizing and turning away from your sins) and faith (in Christ alone to rescue you from the penalty of those sins), which are internal changes in the heart. AFTER this internal change takes place, it becomes manifest immediately in changes in that person's actions such as obedience to Christ's command to be baptized and through continual sanctification (exhibiting less deeds of the flesh, and more fruits of the Spirit) (see Eph. 2:1-10; Gal. 5:13-6:10; James 1:19-27 & 2:14-20). Basically, there is no work that we can do to save ourselves. However, if we have true faith, then our action will prove it. We should be continuously examining our good/bad works and our inner motivations for our actions as evidence for whether or not we are truly saved (see 2 Cor. 13:5; 1 Cor. 11:27-31; Gal. 6:1-5).
Jeff, Where in scripture does it say that conversion is a process? The bible says that there are only two conditions, spiritual death and spiritual life. Faith or unbelief. You are either entirely dead or entirely alive. It never describes anything else. One may certainly grow in faith once one has it but the person with a tiny weak faith and the one with a great faith are both saved the same, because the power of faith is not in the person but in the object: Christ. The scriptures speak of conversion as an instantaneous act. 2 cor 4:6 compares it to when God created light. He commanded it to be and suddenly it was. There is no process. It just happens. And you cannot contradict the clear scripture which says that the preaching of the gospel produces faith - "faith comes by hearing and hearing through the word of Christ." This word of God stands against all human arguments. The same in 1 cor 1:18 where the gospel message is said to be the "power of God" the same as in romans where it is written "I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ for it is the power of God for salvation." Baptism is one way that the gospel is preached, one specific, visible, tangible, object gospel-act where Christ seals the promised of His cross to us and by that promise calls us to faith. You can't contradict these clear scriptures either - baptism saves you...it saves you by the resurrection of Christ from the dead, through baptism we are buried with Christ into death. And looking to your own works for proof of salvation is a denial of the clear teaching of objective justification in so many many passages - Romans 3, John 3:16, 2 Corinthians 5 for starters. Looking to your own works will either lead you to despair that you aren't good enough or to hyporcritcally think you are. The writer to the Hebrews tells us to look to Jesus (12:1-2) and to have full assurance of faith (10:22) not because of works but because of Christ!
Cosmic Dopefish Jesus said 'UNLESS' one is born of water & the Spirit, he CANNOT enter the kingdom of Heaven. The words 'UNLESS' & 'CANNOT' are exclusive words in the Greek. So, 'if' Jesus is referring to the waters of baptism (despite Jesus NEVER bringing up baptism 'during' His conversation with Nicodemus), then Jesus is saying that the ONLY way to enter Heaven is to be baptized IN WATER, which would mean 'everybody' who is NOT baptized IN WATER would end up in Hell, which would include unbaptized babies who die. Titus 3:5-6 is talking about the baptism of the Holy Spirit that John the Baptist talked about, not water baptism (which again this verse NEVER mentions baptism). In Scripture baptism 'in water' is a command that is given to people who are 'already' Christians & 'already' saved - not a 'means' of salvation. BTW, I agree that speaking in 'non-sensical gibberish' is NOT speaking in tongues, but rather known foreign languages (Acts Ch.2).
BornAgainRN I'm not one who has the gift of tongues (to my knowledge), nor do I attend a church that practices it, but I would like to disagree on the foreign language assessment of tongues. I used to hold the same view, but I believe scripture implies otherwise. In 1 Corinthians 14, Paul talks about a need for an interpreter of the tongue. If this was the same as the event in Acts 2, where each heard it in their own language, it seems there wouldn't be a need for interpretation. In fact, in 1 Corinthians 14:2, it specifically says "no one understands him" because he is "uttering mysteries of the Spirit." Perhaps there's different types of tongues?
James Reynolds There are different types of tongues. Mine has changed numerous times over the years. It is the purpose of God that determines what the Tongues type is. Is it for foreigners who are unbelievers? Perhaps God will give their own language in a Tongue, as happened with a young uneducated man in our church who was speaking perfect French when some people from France started attending our church. He'd never studied French. If its a mystery Tongue, the interpretation is given by God, either to the speaker or someone else. The wild thing is, I was in Florida when I received Tongues (a gift). A year later, my brother, in Hawaii, received Tongues. I'd never told him what mine sounded like, but when he told me what his was like, they were identical. He had no knowledge of what mine was, yet they were the same.
BornAgainRN, what do the Scriptures state about what the languages in Tongues are? Does it give a specific definition by stating, for example, "when a Tongues is given it is ONLY in a foreign language unknown to the speaker"? It does not.
James Reynolds Paul asking for an interpreter probably means that there needs to be someone around to verify that the language being spoken is real (and that whoever is speaking is speaking the truth). Why, isn't that what intepreters usually do? Interpret foreign languages? As for 1Cor.14, read the whole chapter. Tongues or no tongues, they are not to be used in corporate worship.
1 Corinthians 13:8 was taken out of context. you should read on : "8 Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. 9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10 but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears." so has completeness come t so that what is in part (speak in tongues) had dissapeared?
The basic argument is because we can't understand something we will take a passage out of context and quote just a portion of a passage and can't any other passage in the New Covenant that speaks of tongues ceasing and build our entire argument on that. 1 Cor 13:8 says prophecy will fail and knowledge will vanish away. Yet Daniel prophesied in the last days knowledge will increase. Which prophecy has failed? What knowledge has vanished? The gifts of the Spirit have never ceased in the Church, just the faith for these gifts.
No, that is incorrect! Paul wrote in his epistle [he had the sign gifts up to a point] that those gifts; prophecy (speaking/writing the Word of God) tongues. knowledge, wisdom would pass away once the perfect (complete) revelation of the Word of God arrived. His last letter to Timothy perfected the Word and no other scripture may be added to it, nor can any more prophesies be spoken, or unknown (not learned) languages (tongues) be spoken. The supernatural "gift of knowledge" has ceased, not knowledge itself. That should be obvious, no?
Thomas Fryxelius Give this man a medal. What a simple truth. My little sermonette: We got to be careful not to become like the church at Corinth, but we just don't stop using spiritual gifts due to others abusing them and the fear of what other think about us. I don't know, for me when I got saved it was a great experience. Completely delivered from sin, but of course the temptation was there and if I sinned I got it right. But when I was baptized in the holy spirit with the evidence of speaking in tongues, I had such a boldness to go proclaim the gospel.
+TimboSlice083 It is not scriptural to conclude that the baptism of the Holy Spirit is the determinant of receiving the gift of tongues. We are all baptized into the Body of Christ by "...One Spirit..." as per 1 Cor. 12:13. Yet not all who receive Jesus Christ as Saviour are enabled to speak/pray in tongues. I think it more plausible that you were "filled" with the Holy Spirit at which time He granted you that gift ministry. Note that the promise of our Lord was that the early Church would receive the baptism in the Spirit (Acts 1:5) "...not many days hence..." i.e. on the Day of Pentecost .Yet when we read Acts 2:4 there is a filling that seemingly accompanies the first Spirit baptism - a "double blessing." I doubt if it is true that everyone who today speaks/prays in tongues were enabled to do so at their regeneration (their Spirit baptism) but discovered that gift at a later filling.
@dar'man beskar Ordo Re : Your paragraph #1 I never stated that tongues would cease. Where do you find that in my comments? " " " #3 What "strawman fallacy " have I attempted to devise? " " " #4 Wrong! Speaking in tongues is a gift manifestation of the Holy Spirit, distributed according to His will. Nowhere in 1 Cor. 12:1-11 is there any mention or intimation that the Holy Spirit Baptism equates with the giving of tongues. What it does state is that all believers have been baptized into the Body of Christ by the Holy Spirit baptism (vs. 13) and SOME have received the gift of tongues. None of us have all of the listed gift manifestations enumerated in that section of Scripture -- otherwise we wouldn't need each other and the Church of Jesus Christ would cease to exist in dependence on one another. The Holy Spirit Baptism given on the day of Pentecost is clearly the birth of the empowered Church. Those in the upper room received both the Baptism as per Acts 1:5,8 ; and the filling of Acts 2:4 with the evidence of speaking in tongues. This was an extraordinary occurrence for those days. I have been a Christian for many years having been saved under a Pentecostal ministry. I have witnessed many people coming to saving faith through my evangelism ministry; but never have I seen one receive the gift of tongues the very same moment as they have believed/confessed Jesus Christ as their Saviour and Lord. They were all "baptized" into the Body of Christ as per 1 Cor. 12:13 but they did not receive the infilling with the evidence of speaking in tongues at that moment. Some later did but most never received the gift of tongues. So please don't try to equate the baptism with the filling and receiving of the gift of tongues (if that is what you are attempting to do) .
I don't know if you're objecting to what I said or simply adding to clarify my statement was maid for the sole purpose of this video and how it explains that the gifts are no more when in fact they are as for after weather in heaven or clouds or paradise there will be no need that's not me giving you an opinion that's the word but ether way I thank you for your comment and God bless you brother
Assurance is not found in baptism, tongues or communion. The one whom Jesus loves tells us in 1 John 2:3-6 (ESV): And by this we know that we have come to know him, if we keep his commandments. Whoever says “I know him” but does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him, but whoever keeps his word, in him truly the love of God is perfected. By this we may know that we are in him: whoever says he abides in him ought to walk in the same way in which he walked.
1 Cor. 3:10 says that "when perfection comes, the imperfect passes away." Paul says that "we know in part and we prophecy in part" (1 Cor. 3:9). When will everything listed in 1 Cor 3:8 cease? If tongues have ceased as you claim, then has also prophecy and knowledge ceased too? And if tongues are to cease when perfection comes , what perfection has come and when? I think it comes at Christ's return which hasn't happened yet. The CPH ESV Lutheran Study footnotes agree; it's at His return.
My point is the use of the WORDs, for example "Baptism". This applies to a lot of his references but let me pick the first one: 1 Peter 3:21: While Peter did say "baptism that now saves you"... he also clarified right after "-not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God". So the water does nothing really. So a "sacrament", from what Ive observed in "religion", just becomes something you gotta do, instead of the actual meaning of what you are doing.
Thank you. Nicely written, a well presented argument. I won't press the point here but I wanted to make sure you knew I saw it and read it and was thankful for your efforts in writing it :D God Bless.
Yes, baptism is by the Spirit...water baptism only shows that the spiritual baptism was done and a chance to give testimony to the fact. As Colossians 2 points out, the Baptism of the Spirit is done when the Holy Spirit circumcises our soul from our body, making our soul no longer corrupt by the body & under penalty of sin even though at times we still sin (yet should seek a holy life, not to enter Heaven, but because we ARE seated in Heaven with Christ [Ephesians 2]). Ah, it's good to be saved!
This video took 1Corinthians 13:8 out of contacts when it said that tongues would cease. Here is a larger portion of scripture rather than a isolated verse. out-of-context If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give away all I have, and if I deliver up my body to be burned, but have not love, I gain nothing. Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never ends. As for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away. When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I gave up childish ways. For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known. So now faith, hope, and love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love. 1 Corinthians 13:1-13 ESV bible.com/bible/59/1co.13.1-13.ESV
I’ve enjoyed the Lutheran satire videos till I saw this one. Other videos seemed to be strong on being saved by the Blood of Christ. This video seems to be saying you’re saved by Baptism. It’s the “ like figure” whereby baptism saves. It’s a picture not a sacrament imparting saving grace. That is a heresy. If Paul condemned trusting in the rite of circumcision for salvation, what makes you think that the rite of baptism plays an important part in the salvation of your soul? For by grace are ye saved….
Matthew 3:15 Jesus insisted that even John's baptism was fitting for them to fulfill all righteousness. A servant is not greater than his Lord. Matthew 3:16 In baptism, the Father claims the Son. The Spirit rests on the Son. Matthew 21:25 Mere water baptism is a gift from Heaven. Matthew 28:19 Make disciples by baptizing in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit and by teaching. Mark 1:4 Mere water baptism repentance grants the forgiveness of sins. Mark 16:16 *Baptized believers are saved, unbelievers condemned.* Luke 7:29 Even water baptism is a public declaration that God is righteous. Luke 7:30 *Rejecting even mere water baptism = rejecting God's purpose for you.* John 1:31, 33 John knew beforehand that God would reveal the Christ through baptism. Acts 2:38 *Repentance and water baptism in the name of Jesus = forgiveness and the Spirit.* Acts 2:39-41 3000 bachelors, virgins, wives, husbands, and children of all ages *received forgiveness and the Spirit in baptism.* The smallest can't have decided to repent in a mature way, but they were not excluded. Acts 8 Many early church Bible readers saw a distinction between the Spirit's invisible gift of repentance/forgiveness and the Spirit's visible gift of leadership/ordination. Philip the Evangelist could baptize but not bestow spiritual authority. Only the apostles could do that. Acts 10:47-48 *Baptism in the name of Jesus is water baptism.* Acts 22:16 *Baptism washes away sins.* Romans 6:3-5 *Water Baptism (which buries) is death to sin, death with Christ, newness of life in Christ, and resurrection with Christ.* 1 Corinthians 1:13 Baptism must not turn into hero worship, cliques, and factionalism. 1 Corinthians 12:13 On the contrary, baptism is unity in the one Holy Spirit in Christ. 1 Corinthians 15:29 Even heretical baptism declares the resurrection of the dead. Galatians 3:27-28 Baptism clothes every member of the body of Christ in equality. Ephesians 3:5 There is one Spirit, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all. Ephesians 5:26 *Baptism sanctifies the Church because it is the washing of water with the word.* Colossians 2:11 Water Baptism is the Spiritual circumcision, the circumcision of Christ. Colossians 2:12 Christ was buried. You were buried with Christ *in water baptism.* God raised Christ from the dead. You believe God raised Christ from the dead. Therefore, God raised you with Christ *in baptism.* This is all *God’s powerful work.* Hebrews 6:1-2 *Baptism is a basic foundational teaching. You can't say you believe in Jesus while rejecting his basic teachings.* 1 Peter 3:20 Noah was saved by water, not from water. The flood waters washed away much evil. 1 Peter 3:21 Baptism now *saves you!* Baptism is assurance/demand of a good conscience before God through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. This verse summarizes all that has been said above.
@@Mygoalwogel Note: Mark 16:16 says it’s the person who does not believe that’s damned. In Acts 2:38 it’s the repenting and trusting Christ that saves not baptism. It’s important to understand that Mark 16:15 and Acts 2:38 are descriptive rather than prescriptive. In other words baptism describes what a saved person has done , not what he needs to do in order to be saved. This view is consistent with salvation by grace. If you are trusting something you did, rather than what Christ did you probably are not truly born again.
@@robertszontagh1297 Concerning the Thief of the Cross cliche: ruclips.net/video/6p7a-kTcSZo/видео.html Concerning Acts 2:38 being descriptive, you are factually incorrect. βαπτισθήτω (baptisthētō) Verb - Aorist *Imperative* Passive - 3rd Person Singular. Imperative is prescriptive. Connecting salvation to baptism is not trusting something you did but trusting something God does to you. Isaiah 6:7 What is God doing? Forgiving sins. How is He doing this? By his word. To whom is this word spoken? To the person whose lips the coal touches. How can that person believe his sins are forgiven? Because it is spoken by God directly to him as indicated by a physical sign. 2 Kings 5:14 What is God doing? Healing the sick. How is He doing this? By his word. To whom is this word spoken? To the person whose flesh the Jordan touches seven times How can that person believe his flesh will be healed? Because it is spoken by God directly to him as indicated by a physical sign. Acts 2:38 What is God doing? Forgiving sins. How is He doing this? By his word. To whom is this word spoken? To the person who is baptized. How can that person believe his sins are forgiven? Because it is spoken by God directly to him as indicated by a physical sign.
1 Peter 3:21: "Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you-not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience-through the resurrection of Jesus Christ" - is this heresy?
The gifts will be done away with but not until that which is perfect has come (Jesus) for he alone is perfect and when he comes we will be changed and ascend to Heaven were the gifts will have no use. Love on the other hand will hence the emphasis on love in this chapter. As a child is referring to this life as a man is referring to the next life. Praise God!
+Christian Woods we don't ascend very far, just up to the cloud level where Jesus is until He finishes raining down wrath on the antichrist and on the antichrist's followers. We stay with Jesus Who is.....where? after that descending to earth to rule on earth. THE SCRIPTURES BEING COMPLETED THERE WAS MUCH LESS NEED FOR GIFTS. they also helped jump start the Church the remaining less spectacular gifts still go on, they help maintain the church.
tongues had faded away for some time before the Montanist upsurge started with this and went onto extreme heresies. prophesying to judge by Paul's statements is not just predicting or getting audible and visual in put from God, but also some brief God inspired preaching word of wisdom and word of knowledge might come under this heading. the problem with the Pentecostal idea is that the miraculous should be normative and the showier gifts are sought, while teaching and administrating and helping are also gifts that Paul describes. These are more relevant to maintaining the church and individual believers and might include occasional healing and occasional dreams, but not the kind of scene in the Pentecostal and charismatic groups. A "healing ministry" would be a nonstarter. any kind of miracle focused ministry is a non starter. the daily miracles of personal increase in godliness and wisdom and odd little events of timing that make a difference are ignored.
There is no difference between a man who is 25 and an infant 8 days old when it comes to salvation. Each is equally unable to chose God in any way shape and form, Each equally needs a solid affirmation that they are saved, outside of themselves and resting in the promises of God. Namely, that baptism now saves, not the water alone, but the water with the words of promise. Namely, that by the power of the Father, Son, and Spirit, that person is a claimed child of God and saved.
If in 1 Corinthians 13:8 Paul said that the gift of tongues would cease, and it has, does that also mean that knowledge has ceased as well? Because he said that in 1 Corinthians 13:8 as well. (For the record, I don't think the gift of tongues should replace any of the sacraments, and I think a lot of people place way more importance on tongues than they should.)
The word order in John 3:16 is of little impact (if you take Greek, you'd better understand it with this verse), but who says you can't raise a child in discipleship after it is baptized? Didn't Christ come to save us from our inability to choose? Did He not come to bring dead sinners, unable to choose, unable to act, unable to live, unable to follow, to bring them back to life? Is not salvation that life and therefore those actions are a reflection of that salvation already given?
But in all fairness, most Pentecostal denominations do not deny the Trinity. The LCMS webpage points that out in a compare/contrast document with other churches/denominations.
1 Corinthians 13:8 was taken out of context in this video. One must read the cessation of tongues, upon the death of St. John, into the Scriptures; since is taught no where in the canon of Scripture.
An individual claiming to have the gift and using it in private, I will not question (even though I have my doubts). We mainly take issue with the church bodies that teach this is a common spiritual gift, or a great one (despite Paul saying it is the least, and despite its pretty much complete disappearance from the Church after the 1st c.), or who teach it as a sign that you have been filled with the Holy Spirit.
One can reject salvation. One can rejects one's baptism. I can't say I know how. Scripture doesn't give the answer but describes the phenomena. Does this mean that the baptism was ineffective? No. Does this mean that if the child returns to the faith that need to be re-baptized? No. One baptism for the remission of sins Eph 4:5 & Nicene Creed. Baptism is (not symbolically, but is) being baptized into the death (and resurrection) of Christ Rom 6:3.
+Michael Caza-Schonberger "He came to save all persons by means of Himself - all, I say, who through Him are born again to God - infants, children, boys, youth, and old men." St. Irenaeus, "Against All Heresies," c. 180 A.D. "Baptize first the children; and if they can speak for themselves, let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them." Hippolytus 215 A.D. "In respect of the case of infants, you say that they should not be baptized within the second or third day after their birth - that the law of circumcision should be regarded. So you think that one who has just been born should not be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day. However, we all thought very differently in our council.... Rather, we all believe that the mercy and grace of God is not to be refused to anyone born of man.... As far as we can, we must strive that no soul be lost, if at all possible. For what is lacking to him who has once been formed in the womb by the hand of God?" St. Cyprian of Carthage, "Epistle 58," c. 250 A.D. "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit he cannot enter the kingdom of God. No one is excepted, not [even] the infant." St. Ambrose, "Concerning Repentance," c. 387 A.D. "Do you have an infant child? Allow sin no opportunity; rather, let the infant be sanctified from childhood. From his most tender age let him be consecrated by the Spirit. Do you fear the seal [of baptism] because of the weakness of nature? Oh, what a pusillanimous mother and of how little faith! `Well enough,' some will say, `for those who ask for baptism, but what do you have to say about those who are still children, and aware neither of loss nor of grace? Shall we baptize them too?' Certainly [I respond], if there is any pressing danger. Better that they be sanctified unaware, than that they depart unsealed and uninitiated." St. Gregory Nazianzus, "Oration On Holy Baptism," c. 388 A.D.
+Darrell Jordan I'll take your Matthew 28:16 and raise you a Mark 16:15-20. There is a direct correlation between the gifts of the Spirit and evangelism. In fact if you study the history of Pentecostalism you will see this lived out. If you study the book of Acts, you will see this lived out. People were baptized in the Spirit, and went off to do mission work. However nowhere in Scripture will you find an argument supporting your Roman Catholic tradition of infant sprinkling! In the second wave of Pentecostalism (AKA the Charismatic movement which had its beginnings in the 40s and 50's) You will see Episcopal's such as Rev. D. Bennett and Jean Stone, as well as Lutheran Harald Bredesen at the forefront of the Charismatic Renewal Movement. I remind you of what Scripture says in Eph. 5:30 "Do not grieve the Ruach ha-Kodesh of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption." (TLV) Even Luther in his beautiful hymn "A Mighty Fortress Is Our God" in verse 4 wrote "the Spirit and the gifts are ours, thru him who with us sideth.", which is the most common translation of the German "Mit seinem geist und gaben". It should be mentioned that the Mormons believe that the gift of tongues are the languages they learn for their mission trips.
The only thing I disagree that this video presents is the use of 1 Corinthians 13:8. This verse also states that knowledge will pass away. So has knowledge passed away with tongues and prophecy? Obviously it has not. The following verses 9 and onward emphasize that Christ's return or "when completeness comes" and "shall see face to face" is the time when tongues and prophecy pass away.
Is the The Three Amigos reference that fardy fardy thing that the lady said while speaking in tongues? It sounded like what either Lucky Day or Dusty Bottoms said when they were trying to summon the Invisible Swordsman when they found the Singing Bush.
Barnes, Tertullian, 42: The orthodox dubbed the Montanists ‘Cataphygians’ or ‘the Phrygian Heresy’. Yet they had to confess that they were orthodox in all matters of Christian doctrine. Only in the fourth century could polemical writers accuse the Montanists of purely theological error, and then the accusation patently relied upon a perverse and anachronistic interpretation of an utterance of Montanus himself.”
1 Corinthians 13:8 states that no one will ever speak in tongues again? I mean, I don't like evangelicals and their whishy washy theology but certainly such a statement can't be made from that verse alone...
Thomas Fryxelius Actually that is not accurate. It says the gifts will cease when the perfect comes. In the Greek the word perfect is neuter. Through out that chapter, as well as the whole New Testament Jesus is never referred to as an it.
Todd Riordan I agree that "the perfect" in itself does not refer to Jesus. In the context we are said to be face to face though and also that we will know fully as we are fully known. So explaining away one word does not really change anything. I don´t think he means Jesus by "the perfect" but that he is talking of the fullness of knowledge and love that will make the partial unnecessary. All this seems to refer to the glorified state which we will experience at Jesus return. There is no indication this is about Scripture.
I was wondering about using the quote from 1 Corinthians 3:8. In context, it seems that Paul is talking about the ephemeral nature of the things of this world - even those things that are directly inspired by God such as prophecies - as a way of showing how great Love is, being the one thing that can never pass away? Whilst you could say no argument would dissuade a die-hard speaker of tongues (too true, from experience!), I'm doubtful on the efficacy of using that particular verse.
Jeremiah 8:10 Therefore I will give their wives to other men and their fields to new owners. From the least to the greatest, all are greedy for gain; prophets and priests alike, all practice deceit
verse 9b above that: "behold, they have rejected the word of the LORD, so what wisdom is in them?" puts it in context. We're not talking about a people who have rejected the word of God here, rather people who claim it and study it deeply and love it. So what exactly do you mean by your quote? Who is practicing deceit here. You're calling someone a liar, but lack the courage to say who.
Watch this: Eph 4:5 1 Peter 3:21 Eph 5:26 (about what Christ has done for the church using water) Mark 1:4 (just noting how baptizing was meant as John the Baptist did it) Matt 28:19 (the institution of holy baptism, note that infants and and everyone else falls among the nations unless you view them as less than one another, which then one asks how we argue against abortion :P) So, one baptism, by water and the word for all nations instituted by Christ. Sounds like the making of a sacrament
We still do what the apostles did when they laid hands on the Samaritans and called down the Holy Spirit on them in the laying-on of hands. It is expected that converts should speak with new tongues." This quote is attributed to Augustine of Hippo, but it is not. Yet I could not find any article exposing it as fraudelant, can you help me?
I noticed something when I read 1 Corinthians chapters 12 to 14. No expiration date was given for the ceasing of the gifts of the spirit, just like the fruit of the spirit. Just saying. Since the scripture says Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever, and He is the one who "will baptize you in the Holy Spirit" maybe all you deniers of this fact have missed something.
As for the second half of 1 Peter 3:21, the clarification is to show that the water, by itself, does basolutely nothing. However, the water with the Word of Christ, namely the pronunciation that one is baptized in the name of the Father and of the and of the Holy Spirit into the forgiveness of sins for adopted sonship into eternal peace with God, that is what saves. Why would anyone deny that to an infant?
+Andrew Hoffer The whole passage is about God's love and how it's eternal. v8 says that things of this world (like language and knowledge - which are important things for now but not later) are temporary and will pass away, but God's love will not pass away. Therefore we must put more focus onto love than the other things. Simply, that's what the passage is about.
Mario Stacy I think it's clear that in it's full context 1 Corinthians 13:8-13 is speaking that prophecies, tongues and knowledge will cease to exist when we are face to face with Jesus. For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. If you take the interpretation like you are, then it is also saying that knowledge with cease. Has knowledge ceased? Not yet, but when we are with Jesus it will.
newidentity316 I perfectly agree. But just because continuationism is true doesn't mean that the "speaking in tongues" in most Pentecostal and charismatic churches are biblical either.
FlappyDogman, not quite so (John MacArthur is ignoring the clear text and message of these verses); Rom 6:4, Col 2:12, 1 Peter 3:2, John 3:5, Gal 3:27, Titus 3:5, Acts 2:38-39
I have yet to hear a person speak in tongues who speaks only English in the flesh in a fully German Spanish danish speaking church of mixed languages (only) and have them all hear them in their native tongue. It doesn't happen.
How many churches have you been to? I have a few Russian friends in my church. While a man who is not Russian was praying, one of them overheard him in the prayer room saying "Praise God". It's not much, but definitely not something to discount. I was encouraged having learned this.
Look closer. Paul said, speaking about the gifts in comparison of Love, "Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels,..." 1 Cor.13:1. There are two types of tongue here. The tongue of angels can not be understood by man, unless of course it is interpreted by another gift, gift of interpretation. Paul admonished in 1 Cor. 14:5, "I would that you all spake with tongues,..." Why?. because, verse 4, "He that speaks in an unknown tongue (tongue of angels) edifies himself." This is praying in the holy spirit 1 Cor. 14:14, which relates to Jude 20. Let him that has ears understand! May the Lord be with you!
I met someone who was a missionary in Haiti after the earthquake. Shortly after arriving, she met a girl out there and asked her what she was doing. The girl replied that she was a slave (a restavek) to a family that lived nearby, and she was out doing errands for them, and they had a conversation. The woman found the girl later, and it turned out that she didn’t speak any English at all. The woman had spoken creole to her without realizing it, a language she had never known. She ended up rescuing and adopting her from that family.
I wish someone who had actually HAD that experience would speak up. I've heard stories like this countless times, and it always "happened to someone I met."
I don't doubt that God can do this, and I wouldn't be surprised if He did. But can I be forgiven for wondering, HAS He?
He said she said
@@michaelowens5394 yes you can be forgiven only unbelievers can commit blasphemy of the Holy Spirit
Yes, that’s exactly where the gift of tongues comes in at. Not the insane ravings in a congregation where there is no interpreter and no real language going on.
This is what we here in the sane world call horse shit
My wife and I attended a Full Gospel Business Men's Association meeting where we were instructed how to obtain the "gift" of tongues. We were instructed to just babble and make strange noises until we received the gift. It's good no one was standing between us and the door as we beat it out of there.
And Christians are shocked that statistics paint Christians as dumber than the rest of the population. It's all 19-20th century phenomena that are dumbing Christians down. It's not the fault of mere Christianity.
He's a schismatic weirdo with no theological education.....
So he obviously knows what he is talking about.
PRICELESS!!
I once attended an Pentecostal service where someone in front of me spoke in tongues. After laughing I asked a friend about it and she said it was an unknown language which promoted me to ask, then how can anyone be sure it isn't just made up?
Exactly!
One time some Pentecostals invited me to pray with them and I realized that the leader was just speaking incoherent French and everyone thought he was speaking some spiritual language
You forgot the part where about a dozen people "filled with the spirit" stand around you, laying hands on you, praying in various tongues until you start to babble with them.
"For by grace you have been saved through faith. And it is not your own doing; it is a gift of God, not a result of works, so that none may boast." Ep 2:8,9 ESV
Nothing is required for salvation other than faith in the finished work of Christ on the cross. Tongues are your own doing, tongues are something that are boasted of, tongues are nowhere required for salvation in scripture, indeed they are ruled out as a necessity, if not by this single passage, than by countless others that echo it.
Paul said that one who speaks in tongues is less than one who prophesies, unless there is someone there to interpret it. (1Cor14:5) Since prophesy is not required for salvation, this reinforces the fact that tongues is not required for salvation. It also reinforces that fact that REAL TONGUES MUST BE INTERPRETABLE. If no one can interpret the "tongues," than it is just gibberish brought on by psychological peer pressure applied to be part of the group, to be "saved." Unfortunately, this will not lead to salvation, since this whole movement is based on the lie that tongues are required. And we know who the father of lies is.
Well said
Pentecostals agree with you on this (I think charles parham does as well) not all of them are apostolic pentecostals
there are 4 types of pentecostals
Works based salvation oneness pentecostalism
Holiness Pentecostalism
Baptistic/Finished Work Pentecostalism
Regular Protestant Oneness Pentecostalism
Evidently you know the father of lies since Paul forbids your erroneous view in 1 Cor 14:39.
@@crisole ~ thanks, I knew of 2, didn't know there were 4!
As a Catholic, I love this
Luther was well taught, being a Catholic priest, monk and Professor of Theology. He realized some things had to change in Rome (and a lot have!) But he never tried to invent new stuff
@@Dilley_G45What had to change?
@@petros-petra read the original Augsburg Confession
There have been some preachers that go to relatively unknown parts of the world and the people there can miraculously understand them.
What's your point? There's still rare miracles.
Two questions:
1. When did knowledge pass away?
2. When did the perfect arrive?
Love never ends. As for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away. (1 Corinthians 13:8-10)
*****
So when did "the perfect" arrive?
If your interpretation of Hebrews 1:1 is correct that would contradict the Joel prophecy (Acts 2:16-21), also it would contradict the works of the Apostles, including Paul.
*****
The only way you could know that...
:)
Ha ha ha very funny video. But all straw men aside, lets look at the next few verses:
"but when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away. 11 When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I gave up childish ways. 12 For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known" (1 Corinthians 13:10-12 ESV)
Knowledge in this context is referencing a "word of knowledge", believed to be an intervention in a believer's life where God tells them information about someone or some situation.
What is the perfect? Why would Paul be including himself in the recipients if the perfect would not come until after his death? Many theologians believe Paul's writings about the perfect is referencing the return of Christ and the resurrection of the dead.
Just because a theological teaching is old or widely accepted over time does not mean it is true. True, not many accepted tongues and gifts of the spirit during a vast period of church history, and it is also true that for centuries the church authorities refused to let people read and study scripture for themselves. So it is entirely possible they could have been wrong given those circumstances. There are hypocrites and charlatans in all religions and denominations, pentecostals included. Later on in 1 Corinthians Paul gives more guidelines concerning tongues and even references different kinds of tongues and their appropriate use.
Actually the context does not suggest "words of knowledge" as prophecy is already listed. Knowledge most probably refers to the current knowledge we currently possess. As Paul said, I count everything else excrement in the place of knowing Christ. The perfect refers to the return of Christ and when seeing Christ face to face all irrelevance will pass away.
you assume in a question that something has, so by definition you are making an assertion. so I will return you a question. what and why is the the perfect?
"Baptism now saves you"
Doesn't get much clearer than that
@Phillip Hickman True. Faith given to you. Through baptism.
@Phillip Hickman "you were dead in your transgressions and sins"
...a dead man cannot hear
@Phillip Hickman "the dead can't make a decision to accept Christ through water baptism" TRUE! Neither can the "living". The fact that we do NOTHING in baptism makes it the perfect example of conversion. 100% grace.
Was the thief on the cross baptized? If baptism saves, and if Paul said in Phillipians 2, that if someone falls away from grace, that he labored in vain, why would he not immediately baptize the new converts in Corinth? (1.corinthians 1) If baptism is necessary, why would he not baptize them immediately and secure their soul and his reward in heaven? Why does he say in Ephesians 1:13, that we got the Holy Spirit, and therefore have been saved(Romans 8), when we heard and believed? How was John the baptist saved? Please answer me, I really want to know, because I have not been yet baptized, although I am trying to arrange it. If I die, will I go to hell?
@@PlavitPOi90 read Romans 10:9-13 summarized, believe in your heart God raised Christ from the dead, confess this openly, you shall be saved.
Was Jesus not the Son of God until He was baptized by John? Or, was He born the Son of God that got baptized? The latter, just as we are saved through faith in Jesus Christ, becoming a child of God, grafted in, adopted; that get baptized later.
To say the thief was not saved is to deny the power of God through the words of Jesus. He looks on the intent of the heart, not whether a person was sprinkled or dunked.
Paul also said "where there is knowledge, it will pass away..."
I partially agree with you about the first half of the video. Our assurance of faith should come from God's promise of salvation in His word, not through spiritual gifts.
But I have a bone to pick with you on the second half. I'm no expert, but I'm pretty sure you're taking 1 Cor. 13:8 way out of context. Should we also say that knowledge will cease or has ceased? No! The passage is talking about how in comparison with love, the other spiritual gifts are inadequate. RUclips comments are not really the best place to argue something like this, but I think it's important enough that I speak up.
@Quantum Passport I wrote that comment so long ago that am no longer a Christian haha but thanks for the reply
It's talking about the gift of knowledge not all knowledge in general, context matters
What’s sad is that there’s actually “tutorials” on how to speak in tongues made by Charismatics.
Sad how blind arrogant professing Christians are at pretending to be biblical in forbidding tongues when Paul forbids them to do so in 1 Cor 14:39. They also forget Jesus and his Matthew 7|Luke 6 warning of the mote in the brother's eye vs the beam in one's own. There are counterfeits in every group; it's actually an argument in favor of considering how there's a genuine being counterfeited. I'm a charismatic reformation (=Lutheran+Reformed) tongues speaker who doesn't know which is a greater danger, the gullible charismatic without a biblical or rational basis for his actions, or the gullible anti-charismatic without a biblical or rational basis for his opposition, but God's in control and has ordained it all.
1 Cor13:8 Love never fails; but if there are gifts of [a]prophecy, they will be done away; if there are tongues, they will cease; if there is knowledge, it will be done away.
So knowledge has been done away with too or are we picking and choosing what scripture tells us?
I get that most charismatics have abused the gifts like the Corinthians (ironic no?) but is our irritation towards them really not going to allow us to see what God is really saying about the gifts just so that we can shut them up?
Amen brother!
well said
Because most reformists assume the text is saying "passed away" means in a current world era, and not when we step into eternity. We really don't know that the text means that, it's assumed because some church fathers said so, so we place our faith in mans interpretations. I don't speak in tongues, and I think it's a bit strange, but to say we know certainly it's passed is kinda foolish. Just me.
Speaking in tongues is actually being able to speak another world language previously unknown to you. Not speaking gobbledygook, which sounds like gibberish even to God. You honestly sound like your demon possesed when you're doing it.
That's speaking of the spiritual gift of knowledge...
If one reads tyndale, he has a note in the beginning of the next chapter (1 Corinthians 14) that says that "prophesying is here taken for expounding". And another in the same chapter :
"to speak with tongues or with the spirit, is to speak that others understand not, as priests say their service. To speak with the mind is to speak that others understand, as when the preacher preacheth."
I'm Non-Denominational (but I find I lean towards Wesleyanism), but the Lutherans are correct in saying that baptism saves you they just seem to overlook that John said that, while he baptized with water, the Messiah would baptize with the Holy Spirit.
(John 1:33)
+Brandon Hanners (BDog) yeah, but the Holy spirit decides whether anyone gets to speak in tongues and a gift is not something you learn to do like schools for prophets and suchlike in charismaticism. you just do it. tongues allowed people to hear the Gospel in their own language. the Corinthians had lots of this but were carnal and even immoral, a GIFT is not a FRUIT a change of nature and production of fruit showing you are in Christ showing resemblance to Him like a family member, etc.
+infowolf1 I wasn't even talking about that tho
I love that description of Charles Parham.
Ironic the arrogant, ungodly religious hypocrisy that makes fun of Parham conveniently forgets that ungodly religious hypocrisy made fun of the first disciples/apostles (Acts 4:13 ASV Now when they beheld the boldness of Peter and John, and had perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men, they marvelled; and they took knowledge of them, that they had been with Jesus.), foolishly arrogant in pretending that God will not bring Matthew 7 judgment for it. Matthew 7:1-4 ASV Judge not, that ye be not judged. 2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured unto you. 3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? 4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me cast out the mote out of thine eye; and lo, the beam is in thine own eye? The ungodly criticism of Parham conveniently doesn't tell the whole story, of how much he suffered for the faith, the sin of bearing false witness against him while falsely claiming to serve the God of truth, certainly suffering far more than most, having no shame for so mistreating a devout Jesus believer even if he and his theology weren't perfect, as with all of us, for God says there are only two kinds of people: those who admit and grieve their hypocrisy, and those who don't. Which are we? God save us.
@@russedav5 simply because two sets of people were made fun of doesn't make them right,just because one of them was right. similarity is not identity. theapostles did not tech parhm's crap and some of the tongues have been identified as hindu paganfalse god praises and worse. most is gibberish. the tongues manifestation was an earlyway of geting everyone's attention. the holy spirit testifies of jesus not himself. Trsf ejsy Krdud dsif inm the promise of the giving of the paraclete
@@russedav5 adding to what i said, just check the scriptures cited in the video and see for yourself, parham wa wrong. his position was not biblical.
Interesting... I thought we were saved by grace... (Ephesians 2:8)
Oo ee oo ah ah,
Ting tang
Walla walla bing bang.
Heresy
Re: Step 3
I've faked speaking in tongues before...or once just started babbling out of nowhere, not because of any spirit. It was only in front of a few people, people who meant very well and who were fundamentalists/Southern Baptists like I used to be. They're good people, but frankly the dancing around and speaking in tongues scares me.
I can understand the need to fake it. Did you feel pressured to be "apiritual"?
AdinoEznite
Yes..not right at that moment but I did in general. I felt pressured to prove my faith...I suffered from depression and, while some people understand that it's not a sin, others think that you're "missing something" in the faith department. That wasn't the case at all with me.
Shannon R
Regardless of what theological views one holds, to despise someone b/c of what they are going through is *not* love. Are we not supposed to weep with those who weep, rejoice with those who rejoice? In other words, be *with* those who suffer. One of the Roman emperors noted the love of Christians was so great, they went and ministered to the plague victims, knowing they too would catch it and die from it. Did those Christians lack faith? No, they chose to love, even to death, those that Christ died for that were suffering the most.
I used to believe the hype that psychologists were bad, all they did was get people hooked on meds so they'd have a non-ending cash flow. The reality is, good psychologists give good wisdom. They can provide meds that can be very helpful. Like all things, some are good, some are bad.
Why would you speak tongues to a Southern Baptist? That's not our thing. We are the denomination that are generally thought of as anti-everything the world considers "fun" (drinking, smoking, dancing, rock music, card games, gambling, sex even within marriage, etc.). Not that I'm endorsing all of those activities. Some of them foolish and others can be okay or sinful depending on the context (i.e., sex within marriage is good, all sex outside marriage is sin). The stereotype also includes being extremely reserved (dressing up in a suit/dress for church; no taping feet, clapping hands or raising arms during the worship music, etc.).
You don't get your assurance from baptism or the supper either. Baptism doesn't save. It signifies and seals the gospel promises. The Lord's supper reminds us of the sacrifice of Jesus in the place of us.
We get our assurance by looking to Christ and to Christ alone. Our assurance comes from the gospel promises.
The gospel promises are in the Lord's supper and Baptism you nitwit.
I know they are. Sorry I should have reworded that. Assurance does come from the sacraments because they strengthen our faith, not because they save us. Baptism and the Lord's supper are visible signs and seals of the gospel promises that are received by faith.
Well to be clear, Baptism now saves you are words that are in the Bible. However, the question then arises how baptism saves us are important. It's because we are given God's grace in baptism because was are saved by grace through faith.
I know those words are used in 1 Peter 3:21, and they are often taken out of context. Baptism does not work ex opere operato though. Baptism is an effectual means unto salvation but only when it is received by faith. Because baptism is a means of grace, God uses it to save His elect. But the efficacy of baptism is not tied to the moment it is administered. God can regenerate someone before, during, or after baptism. Baptism is a sign and seal of God's promise to justify sinners by faith alone.
Ben: Please do not take my words to be condescending, but I have to tell you that you are speaking like a rationalist when you say, "the efficacy of baptism is not tied to the moment it is administered." You justify that statement by saying that God can regenerate someone before baptism. And although that is true, to use that to justify your previous assertion is rationalism. Both are true. Does God actually saved in baptism? Yes. That is exactly what 1 Pe. 3:21 says. "Baptism . . . now saves you." Baptism is the subject of the verb saves. And since we are bound to the hermeneutical principle that all interpretations of Scripture are to be faithful to the grammar (since God gave us His truth in human language, in this case Koine Greek), to deny that God does, in fact, save IN and THROUGH baptism is to deny His Word. Of course, as Luther so faithfully pointed out that it is not the water that does the saving but the Word connected with the water. However, without the water it is not a baptism. You seem like someone who is sincerely trying to be faithful to the text but you are making statements that, albeit unintentionally, are rationalistic in nature. Baptism can and does create faith. Can this faith be rejected by means of one's sinful reason? You bet! That, however, does not deny the efficacy of the baptism. The baptism is still valid, even when rejected. If it is rejected by the person receiving it, they have removed themselves from its promises of salvation. If they later repent of their sinfulness, are they to be baptized again? No. Eph. 4:4. They simply repent of their previous sin and receive the blessings previously promised and given in baptism.
The Swedish chef thing was just too funny
I've read that Montanus back in the 2nd century noticed that the gift of tongues was gone and tried to bring it back. Also Mormon founder, Joseph Smith, in the early 19th century urged tongue speaking in his restored gospel, but Mormons eventually dropped the idea.
That was funny. As a former pentecostal/charismatic I can nod my head with approval at this.
If this doesnt bother you, may I ask what turned you away from charismaticism? You can also tell me in private conversation if you want
@@lorenzomurrone2430 It's no bother at all. Due to time I'll have to keep my list succinct, but I'll give it to you in a nutshell of bullet points.
1.) Never actually seeing the miracles supposedly happening. I'm not talking about just praying for people (even now as a Lutheran I believe that); I mean seeing the people who came around claiming healing via apostolic signs a la Benny Hinn (which many in the Assemblies of God, though they were not completely comfortable with people like him, also wouldn't stand up and denounce him for the most part, save for very rare exceptions).
I had this very thing happen in a Nazarene church, where a man by the name of Dan Bohi visited, claiming the gifts of the spirit. He has said publicly that he has raised three people from the dead, but has not produced medical records for verification, even though it's been asked of him more than once (for a paper on this man, please check enterthevein.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/a-return-to-azusa-street4.pdf )
2.) Speaking in tongues. Tongues were earthly languages (Acts 2; yes, I know about the reference in I Cor 13 about tongues of angels, but Paul's point there is not a doctrinal statement about whether or not angels have their own language, but that speaking in tongues by itself, without Biblical, godly love, means nothing). Also, tongues were to have an interpreter (I Cor 14), and I remember only one time in which an actual interpreter was used. Tongues were not to be chaotically uttered in church; Paul says that doing so is a bad witness (I Cor 14:23), yet I saw this frequently. In addition, there is no suggestion in Scripture that all believers have a "prayer tongue" that is somehow different from the tongues Paul is talking about; reading I Cor 14, it's very clear that tongues were meant for a sign before men, not a necessity for prayer before God.
Also, in tandem with this point, I learned that the same sort of ecstatic "glossolalia" can occur in pagan religions as well; meaning that tongues is no guarantee that the spirit working it (assuming it is a spirit at all) is the Holy Spirit.
3.) Putting far more attention on my own emotional state than the Word of God. I noticed that every feeling and inclination was automatically considered to be "a move of God." A former pastor I sat under went to the Brownsville "revivals" and came back making all of these changes that he "felt" God was telling him to do. Truth be told, very little of what he did actually had any spiritual edification, and I wasn't the only one who noticed it. For example, he began to have these drawn out altar calls and would refuse to close the service unless SOMEBODY came forward. Eventually, people would come forward, but it was basically to shut him up and end the service. He was making crass statements about "Nobody should be making plans on Sunday afternoons" because he believed God was telling him this.
Or another trick (yes, I'll call it a "trick") was that a minister would come to the pulpit and believe that God "put a different message on his heart" just then. To tell the truth, I suspect that either 1.) the ministers who did this were too susceptible to their own emotional states, 2.) the ministers were lax in actual sermon preparation, or 3.) the "God told me to tell you" line was a gimmick to get people's attention better.
As a Presbyterian minister once wryly remarked, Why can't the Spirit be leading me on Thursdays when the services and sermons are being planned? Why do we assume that the planned things aren't done by the Spirit, especially when the whole routine of worship conducted by the Israelites in the Old Testament was VERY ritualistic AND of the Spirit as well?
When you start looking for God in your feelings and thoughts and make that as "inspired" as His written Word, you're asking for trouble. You're basing your Christianity on your emotional state and somehow assuming that God is behind it, instead of trusting in the promises of God which are objectively laid out in the Bible. What's more, when you feel nothing while everybody else around you seems to be, you'll fake it. You'll start trying to stir up your own emotions and your own pseudo-spirituality because you think that you're somehow not a "really spiritual" Christian; or worse yet, you start basing your salvation on whether or not you have those emotions (and I have heard charismatic/pentecostal preachers suggest as much more than one time).
4.) The phenomena which had nothing at all to do with God. The constant asking for of money by charlatans such as Robert Tilton and Jim Bakker (who IMO has not really repented of his doctrine). The "Holy Laughter" of Rodney Howard-Browne, the chaotic "stripping in the spirit" seen in the Toronto Vineyard church, the strange shifts dealt out at Brownsville (followed by a false prophecy put out there), the false spirituality and over-the-top teachings of people like Copeland, Hagin, Hinn, etc. It was not found in the Bible, period. And linked to that...
5.) The reluctance to discern. If you called into question anything, many people would call you a Pharisee, even if you had Scripture on your side. It was all about "feeling the Spirit move." At best, biblical exposition was a side note; at worst, it was twisted to bolster the charismatic experiences. You dared not "quench the Holy Spirit," as if somehow the Bible was opposed to the Work of the Spirit.
6.) Reading of authors who document these issues well. I tell anybody who wants to talk to me about Charismatic issues to read the following books first. These are well-documented volumes that oftentimes take the actual words and positions of the charismatic leaders themselves and compare them carefully to the Bible:
John MacArthur: Charismatic Chaos and Strange Fire
Hank Hannegraaff: Christianity in Crisis
Douglas Judisch: An Evaluation of Claims to the Charismatic Gifts
@@Outrider74 I can understand many of the things you said. My first months in Christianity were under the influence of a fundamentalist Pentecostal preacher (not ordained by any church, unaffiliated to any group), who had this strong emphasis on emotions, but was also supralapsarian and had the kindness of the WBC. This resulted in months of emotional imbalance (I think I might have been through some real bi-polar phases), OCD, nightmares, and so on-all of this faced on my own, since I am the only Christian in my household. When I knew Lutheranism, the distinction between Law and Gospel, etc., it was peace like a river for me. I still have scars from my former Pentecostal experience, but thankfully I've been led to peaceful shores now.
@@Outrider74 The gross hypocrisy and arrogance and flat out proven FALSEHOODS of charismatic critics grieves and angers me. Only one aspect of the matter is addressed, conveniently avoiding/ignoring things like the refutations of MacArthur and how Hank's abandoned the Reformation to be Orthodox, the legalist always showing himself lawless. Having been in dear Mike Bickle's "Kansas City Prophets" church I was amazed to read MacArthur's bogus "Charismatic Chaos" recognizable account of a meeting I myself attended that was manifestly FALSE. As John Piper has well said, those attacking charismatics would be better off addressing their own sins in their midst, like dead formalism as Jesus sternly warned in Matthew 7 and Luke 13. Only the gullible and Biblically illiterate buy the overwhelmingly refuted, antiBiblical (e.g. 1 Cor 14:39) ungodliness many antiCharismatic/Pentecostals are selling. We all have beams/logs of sin of which we need to repent of long before we'll be able to worry about the mote/speck in our brother's eye. The ground is level at the foot of the cross.
Great response! Well-intentioned people mis-cite this verse, and remain inconcsistent when asked, "If tongues passed away, when did or will knowledge pass away?" The "face to face" is spot on! Thanks.
That's talking about the gift of knowledge spoken of in 1 Corinthians 12, maybe try reading in context
actually, even though there is more to baptism and partaking of Holy Communion than just showing your obedience to God, showing your obedience to God is a way of being assured of your salvation because Jesus Christ is our King and you obey The King Jesus Christ, right?
I think it might be the other way around (i.e., everyone who is saved shows obedience, but not sure if everyone who shows obedience is saved--in particular, those who publicly put on a show of their supposed piety instead of praying and fasting and almsgiving in secret). But you're certainly not completely wrong--not everyone who cries "Lord, Lord," but the one who does the will of the Father.
To add to your Biblical evidence for "Speaking in Tongues;"
"7 When you pray, *don’t babble like the idolaters*, since they imagine they’ll be heard for their many words. 8 Don’t be like them, because your Father knows the things you need before you ask Him.
Matthew 6:7-8 HCSB
Just referring to the debates aspect of saying ,1 Corinthians 13:8 has already occurred, because knowledge is also a part of what is going to pass away in 13:8. I suspect Paul was saying that when Christ comes again, prophesies, knowledge and tongues will pass away, but Love will not pass away. It seems quite a stretch to insert that tongues has passed away but knowledge has not. Note: I'm not defending the theology of speaking in tongues, just addressing the scriptural argument.
It's talking about the gift of knowledge... Not general knowledge
And the gift of knowlege and prophecy ends when the complete comes
Tongues will end is in the middle voice and there is no condition listed meaning they'll stop on their own
Agreed, the verse also says languages will pass away, so until we all stop communicating entirely, I think we can safely assume that 1 Cor 13:8 has yet to occur. Not saying I'm able to speak in tongues, but that doesn't make it Biblically impossible.
Not only that but 1 Cor 14:39 forbids the forbidding, a verse antiCharismaticism conveniently ignores while falsely pretending to be Biblical, typical for religious hypocrisy.
It's safe to say it has
@@russedav5do you babble in gibberish ?
True it does say that it will pass away, but if you continue down it says that "For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away." In other words, only half the prophecies in the Bible have been fulfilled and therefore these things will only pass away once the prophecies of God (i.e. parts of Daniel and the whole of Revelation) will be fulfilled.
Beth G Also, I do agree that tongues are not meant to be inane babble. In fact, it says earlier in 1 Cor. 14:6 "If with your tongue you utter speech that is not intelligible, how will anyone know what is said?...." and again in 1 Cor 14:23 "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?"
However, if you read the previous verses it says 1 Cor. 14:21 "In the Law it is written, "By people of strange tongues and by the lips of foreigners will I speak to this people, and even then they will not listen to me thus tongues are a sign not for believers, but for unbelievers..." In other words, the gift of tongues is the ability to speak in foreign languages and is not meant for Christians. So I can only conclude that the reason we don't see people speaking in tongues in our own country and our own churches today is because this gift is for missionary work in foreign countries.
That's not what that means...
The giving of a prophecy is not the fulfilment of a prophecy 🤦
...and we all know the Bible can sometimes seem contradicting, so quoting what supports his arguments (and then making other position sound ridiculous) is another example of what I meant.
The idea that Baptism is an act of obedience doesn't seem very stupid if we read those same passages in a different light.
John MacArthur said:
You can go through all the water you want and not be saved. And, I have to confess that you can be saved and not be baptized, but you're in a condition of disobedience.
I agree with the 2nd half of this video denouncing tongues, but the 1st half is twisting scripture claiming baptism & the Lord's Supper are necessary for salvation. That is works-based salvation (see Eph. 2:8-9). The 2nd half of I Peter 3:21 states it isn't the work of baptism that saves, but the appeal to God for a good conscience through the resurrection of Jesus Christ (putting your faith in Christ). In Titus 3:5, they latch onto the word "washing", assuming it meant water baptism rather than "regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit" as specified in the verse & ignoring the beginning of the verse, which says that it is according to God's mercy, not anything we have done. Romans 6 is clearly using baptism as a symbol illustrating our dying to our old life of slavery to sin & rebirth to our new life of freedom from sin. I Cor. 11:24-26 says the Lord's Supper is memorial of what Christ has done.
You are misunderstanding baptism and the Lord's Supper to be works of men. Whenever baptism is spoken of it is passive - "You were baptized" it's something that is being done to a person. Plus, if believing that Christ promises forgiveness in baptism and the Lord's supper is work righteous then isn't it the same to believe that a man preaching the gospel can bring faith is work righteous? What about looking to works, or an inner feeling or your own decision as proof of forgiveness? (though I'm not saying you necessarily say those things, just possible that you do).
David Ude If someone receives water baptism or partakes in the Lord's Supper because they think that performing those actions is necessary for salvation, then that would be works righteousness. If you have already been saved (past tense) and then do those things because you are identifying yourself as a Christian, then that is different. The act of being baptized by water does NOT cleanse you of your sins. That takes place the moment your repent and put your faith in Christ. On the other hand, if someone says they are a follower of Christ yet disobeys Christ's command to be baptized by outright refusing to be baptized, that would seem to suggest that they may not really be a follower Christ after all. Preaching the gospel does not cause anyone to suddenly gain faith. The Holy Spirit working on a person's heart breaks down their defenses and shows them their need for a savior, though God uses the Bible, preaching, witnessing and other means as tools in this process. Salvation does not come from any of outward actions (works). It comes from repentance (recognizing and turning away from your sins) and faith (in Christ alone to rescue you from the penalty of those sins), which are internal changes in the heart. AFTER this internal change takes place, it becomes manifest immediately in changes in that person's actions such as obedience to Christ's command to be baptized and through continual sanctification (exhibiting less deeds of the flesh, and more fruits of the Spirit) (see Eph. 2:1-10; Gal. 5:13-6:10; James 1:19-27 & 2:14-20). Basically, there is no work that we can do to save ourselves. However, if we have true faith, then our action will prove it. We should be continuously examining our good/bad works and our inner motivations for our actions as evidence for whether or not we are truly saved (see 2 Cor. 13:5; 1 Cor. 11:27-31; Gal. 6:1-5).
Jeff Snavely Denouncing tongues? So God gives us a gift and we just denounce it? Sounds about right for this age I suppose.
Jeff,
Where in scripture does it say that conversion is a process? The bible says that there are only two conditions, spiritual death and spiritual life. Faith or unbelief. You are either entirely dead or entirely alive. It never describes anything else. One may certainly grow in faith once one has it but the person with a tiny weak faith and the one with a great faith are both saved the same, because the power of faith is not in the person but in the object: Christ.
The scriptures speak of conversion as an instantaneous act. 2 cor 4:6 compares it to when God created light. He commanded it to be and suddenly it was. There is no process. It just happens. And you cannot contradict the clear scripture which says that the preaching of the gospel produces faith - "faith comes by hearing and hearing through the word of Christ." This word of God stands against all human arguments. The same in 1 cor 1:18 where the gospel message is said to be the "power of God" the same as in romans where it is written "I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ for it is the power of God for salvation."
Baptism is one way that the gospel is preached, one specific, visible, tangible, object gospel-act where Christ seals the promised of His cross to us and by that promise calls us to faith. You can't contradict these clear scriptures either - baptism saves you...it saves you by the resurrection of Christ from the dead, through baptism we are buried with Christ into death.
And looking to your own works for proof of salvation is a denial of the clear teaching of objective justification in so many many passages - Romans 3, John 3:16, 2 Corinthians 5 for starters. Looking to your own works will either lead you to despair that you aren't good enough or to hyporcritcally think you are. The writer to the Hebrews tells us to look to Jesus (12:1-2) and to have full assurance of faith (10:22) not because of works but because of Christ!
We're saved by faith. Ephesians 2:8, Romans 3:28-30, 4:5, 5:1, 9:30, Galatians 2:16, 3:5-6, 3:24, Hebrews 11, Philippians 3:9.... etc...
Cosmic Dopefish Jesus said 'UNLESS' one is born of water & the Spirit, he CANNOT enter the kingdom of Heaven. The words 'UNLESS' & 'CANNOT' are exclusive words in the Greek. So, 'if' Jesus is referring to the waters of baptism (despite Jesus NEVER bringing up baptism 'during' His conversation with Nicodemus), then Jesus is saying that the ONLY way to enter Heaven is to be baptized IN WATER, which would mean 'everybody' who is NOT baptized IN WATER would end up in Hell, which would include unbaptized babies who die.
Titus 3:5-6 is talking about the baptism of the Holy Spirit that John the Baptist talked about, not water baptism (which again this verse NEVER mentions baptism).
In Scripture baptism 'in water' is a command that is given to people who are 'already' Christians & 'already' saved - not a 'means' of salvation. BTW, I agree that speaking in 'non-sensical gibberish' is NOT speaking in tongues, but rather known foreign languages (Acts Ch.2).
BornAgainRN I'm not one who has the gift of tongues (to my knowledge), nor do I attend a church that practices it, but I would like to disagree on the foreign language assessment of tongues. I used to hold the same view, but I believe scripture implies otherwise.
In 1 Corinthians 14, Paul talks about a need for an interpreter of the tongue. If this was the same as the event in Acts 2, where each heard it in their own language, it seems there wouldn't be a need for interpretation.
In fact, in 1 Corinthians 14:2, it specifically says "no one understands him" because he is "uttering mysteries of the Spirit."
Perhaps there's different types of tongues?
James Reynolds There are different types of tongues. Mine has changed numerous times over the years. It is the purpose of God that determines what the Tongues type is. Is it for foreigners who are unbelievers? Perhaps God will give their own language in a Tongue, as happened with a young uneducated man in our church who was speaking perfect French when some people from France started attending our church. He'd never studied French.
If its a mystery Tongue, the interpretation is given by God, either to the speaker or someone else. The wild thing is, I was in Florida when I received Tongues (a gift). A year later, my brother, in Hawaii, received Tongues. I'd never told him what mine sounded like, but when he told me what his was like, they were identical. He had no knowledge of what mine was, yet they were the same.
BornAgainRN, what do the Scriptures state about what the languages in Tongues are? Does it give a specific definition by stating, for example, "when a Tongues is given it is ONLY in a foreign language unknown to the speaker"? It does not.
James Reynolds
Paul asking for an interpreter probably means that there needs to be someone around to verify that the language being spoken is real (and that whoever is speaking is speaking the truth). Why, isn't that what intepreters usually do? Interpret foreign languages?
As for 1Cor.14, read the whole chapter. Tongues or no tongues, they are not to be used in corporate worship.
1 Corinthians 13:8 was taken out of context. you should read on : "8 Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. 9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10 but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears." so has completeness come t so that what is in part (speak in tongues) had dissapeared?
The complete is speaking of the knowledge and prophecy conveyed thru the gifts
Do we still have prophets today ?
The basic argument is because we can't understand something we will take a passage out of context and quote just a portion of a passage and can't any other passage in the New Covenant that speaks of tongues ceasing and build our entire argument on that.
1 Cor 13:8 says prophecy will fail and knowledge will vanish away. Yet Daniel prophesied in the last days knowledge will increase.
Which prophecy has failed? What knowledge has vanished?
The gifts of the Spirit have never ceased in the Church, just the faith for these gifts.
No, that is incorrect! Paul wrote in his epistle [he had the sign gifts up to a point] that those gifts; prophecy (speaking/writing the Word of God) tongues.
knowledge, wisdom would pass away once the perfect (complete) revelation of the Word of God arrived. His last letter to Timothy perfected the Word and no other scripture may be added to it, nor can any more prophesies be spoken, or unknown (not learned) languages (tongues) be spoken. The supernatural "gift of knowledge" has ceased, not knowledge itself. That should be obvious, no?
Sweet Swedish Chef Action!
A little Chevy Chase thrown in there. "A farla farla farla....." Love it.
I knew I recognized that but couldn't place it! Hilarious
This is funny and I take the points made. But there are still some theological problems with this video.
Thank you Jordan for the Gospel-filled Biblical way you write and witness to the truth of Faith in Jesus (5 Solas).
Am I not saved if I am not yet baptized?
Do you calm to be a Christian? Baptist is necessary for salvation. Hope you had a trinitarian baptism within the last year.
If you profess to be Christian and refuse to get baptized, you won't make it to Heaven.
Working on a blog post reply to you. I'll post a link in the video description when it's done.
1:40 Paul said the gift of tongues would cease when we see face to face, i.e. at Jesus return.
Thomas Fryxelius Give this man a medal. What a simple truth. My little sermonette: We got to be careful not to become like the church at Corinth, but we just don't stop using spiritual gifts due to others abusing them and the fear of what other think about us. I don't know, for me when I got saved it was a great experience. Completely delivered from sin, but of course the temptation was there and if I sinned I got it right. But when I was baptized in the holy spirit with the evidence of speaking in tongues, I had such a boldness to go proclaim the gospel.
+TimboSlice083 It is not scriptural to conclude that the baptism of the Holy Spirit is the determinant of receiving the gift of tongues. We are all baptized into the Body of Christ by "...One Spirit..." as per 1 Cor. 12:13. Yet not all who receive Jesus Christ as Saviour are enabled to speak/pray in tongues. I think it more plausible that you were "filled" with the Holy Spirit at which time He granted you that gift ministry. Note that the promise of our Lord was that the early Church would receive the baptism in the Spirit (Acts 1:5) "...not many days hence..." i.e. on the Day of Pentecost .Yet when we read Acts 2:4 there is a filling that seemingly accompanies the first Spirit baptism - a "double blessing." I doubt if it is true that everyone who today speaks/prays in tongues were enabled to do so at their regeneration (their Spirit baptism) but discovered that gift at a later filling.
That same verse says knowledge will fade away, might as well stop learning and reading your bible that all ended with the early apostles
Regardless of whether it ended or not, speaking in tongues, in the way we do it today, isn't biblical. It's always a known language.
@dar'man beskar Ordo
Re : Your paragraph #1 I never stated that tongues would cease. Where do you find that in my comments?
" " " #3 What "strawman fallacy " have I attempted to devise?
" " " #4 Wrong! Speaking in tongues is a gift manifestation of the Holy Spirit, distributed according to His will. Nowhere in 1 Cor. 12:1-11 is there any mention or intimation that the Holy Spirit Baptism equates with the giving of tongues. What it does state is that all believers have been baptized into the Body of Christ by the Holy Spirit baptism (vs. 13) and SOME have received the gift of tongues. None of us have all of the listed gift manifestations enumerated in that section of Scripture -- otherwise we wouldn't need each other and the Church of Jesus Christ would cease to exist in dependence on one another.
The Holy Spirit Baptism given on the day of Pentecost is clearly the birth of the empowered Church. Those in the upper room received both the Baptism as per Acts 1:5,8 ; and the filling of Acts 2:4 with the evidence of speaking in tongues. This was an extraordinary occurrence for those days.
I have been a Christian for many years having been saved under a Pentecostal ministry. I have witnessed many people coming to saving faith through my evangelism ministry; but never have I seen one receive the gift of tongues the very same moment as they have believed/confessed Jesus Christ as their Saviour and Lord. They were all "baptized" into the Body of Christ as per 1 Cor. 12:13 but they did not receive the infilling with the evidence of speaking in tongues at that moment. Some later did but most never received the gift of tongues. So please don't try to equate the baptism with the filling and receiving of the gift of tongues (if that is what you are attempting to do) .
I don't know if you're objecting to what I said or simply adding to clarify my statement was maid for the sole purpose of this video and how it explains that the gifts are no more when in fact they are as for after weather in heaven or clouds or paradise there will be no need that's not me giving you an opinion that's the word but ether way I thank you for your comment and God bless you brother
TIL Yosemite Sam was speaking in tongues every time he fell down the steps. Who knew that Chuck Jones, et al were pentecostal?!?!?!?
Please do another c3po video!!!!
Assurance is not found in baptism, tongues or communion. The one whom Jesus loves tells us in 1 John 2:3-6 (ESV):
And by this we know that we have come to know him, if we keep his commandments. Whoever says “I know him” but does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him, but whoever keeps his word, in him truly the love of God is perfected. By this we may know that we are in him: whoever says he abides in him ought to walk in the same way in which he walked.
1 Cor. 3:10 says that "when perfection comes, the imperfect passes away." Paul says that "we know in part and we prophecy in part" (1 Cor. 3:9).
When will everything listed in 1 Cor 3:8 cease? If tongues have ceased as you claim, then has also prophecy and knowledge ceased too? And if tongues are to cease when perfection comes , what perfection has come and when? I think it comes at Christ's return which hasn't happened yet. The CPH ESV Lutheran Study footnotes agree; it's at His return.
My point is the use of the WORDs, for example "Baptism". This applies to a lot of his references but let me pick the first one:
1 Peter 3:21: While Peter did say "baptism that now saves you"... he also clarified right after "-not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God". So the water does nothing really.
So a "sacrament", from what Ive observed in "religion", just becomes something you gotta do, instead of the actual meaning of what you are doing.
It is not the act of ourselves, but the acts of Jesus Christ. That is what is most important, what He did is what does the “saving”.
Ok, that ending was hilarious.
I totally caught the 3-Amigos Singing Bush reference!
ps... perhaps ironically, I do not in fact speak in tongues. just defending the idea of taking scripture in context.
>>Pt. 2
Since when does the fulfilment of a prophecy= prophecy ? That makes no sense at all
Thank you. Nicely written, a well presented argument. I won't press the point here but I wanted to make sure you knew I saw it and read it and was thankful for your efforts in writing it :D God Bless.
You're right. He totally used words and language to support his position. In particular, God's Word in English ;)
Yes, baptism is by the Spirit...water baptism only shows that the spiritual baptism was done and a chance to give testimony to the fact. As Colossians 2 points out, the Baptism of the Spirit is done when the Holy Spirit circumcises our soul from our body, making our soul no longer corrupt by the body & under penalty of sin even though at times we still sin (yet should seek a holy life, not to enter Heaven, but because we ARE seated in Heaven with Christ [Ephesians 2]). Ah, it's good to be saved!
My response is done now. Check out the updated video description for the link.
This video took 1Corinthians 13:8 out of contacts when it said that tongues would cease.
Here is a larger portion of scripture rather than a isolated verse.
out-of-context
If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give away all I have, and if I deliver up my body to be burned, but have not love, I gain nothing. Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never ends. As for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away. When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I gave up childish ways. For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known. So now faith, hope, and love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love.
1 Corinthians 13:1-13 ESV
bible.com/bible/59/1co.13.1-13.ESV
Love the zoobyzoobyzoo song :-) won't you kiss it too :-D
I’ve enjoyed the Lutheran satire videos till I saw this one. Other videos seemed to be strong on being saved by the Blood of Christ. This video seems to be saying you’re saved by Baptism. It’s the “ like figure” whereby baptism saves. It’s a picture not a sacrament imparting saving grace. That is a heresy. If Paul condemned trusting in the rite of circumcision for salvation, what makes you think that the rite of baptism plays an important part in the salvation of your soul? For by grace are ye saved….
Matthew 3:15 Jesus insisted that even John's baptism was fitting for them to fulfill all righteousness. A servant is not greater than his Lord.
Matthew 3:16 In baptism, the Father claims the Son. The Spirit rests on the Son.
Matthew 21:25 Mere water baptism is a gift from Heaven.
Matthew 28:19 Make disciples by baptizing in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit and by teaching.
Mark 1:4 Mere water baptism repentance grants the forgiveness of sins.
Mark 16:16 *Baptized believers are saved, unbelievers condemned.*
Luke 7:29 Even water baptism is a public declaration that God is righteous.
Luke 7:30 *Rejecting even mere water baptism = rejecting God's purpose for you.*
John 1:31, 33 John knew beforehand that God would reveal the Christ through baptism.
Acts 2:38 *Repentance and water baptism in the name of Jesus = forgiveness and the Spirit.*
Acts 2:39-41 3000 bachelors, virgins, wives, husbands, and children of all ages *received forgiveness and the Spirit in baptism.* The smallest can't have decided to repent in a mature way, but they were not excluded.
Acts 8 Many early church Bible readers saw a distinction between the Spirit's invisible gift of repentance/forgiveness and the Spirit's visible gift of leadership/ordination. Philip the Evangelist could baptize but not bestow spiritual authority. Only the apostles could do that.
Acts 10:47-48 *Baptism in the name of Jesus is water baptism.*
Acts 22:16 *Baptism washes away sins.*
Romans 6:3-5 *Water Baptism (which buries) is death to sin, death with Christ, newness of life in Christ, and resurrection with Christ.*
1 Corinthians 1:13 Baptism must not turn into hero worship, cliques, and factionalism.
1 Corinthians 12:13 On the contrary, baptism is unity in the one Holy Spirit in Christ.
1 Corinthians 15:29 Even heretical baptism declares the resurrection of the dead.
Galatians 3:27-28 Baptism clothes every member of the body of Christ in equality.
Ephesians 3:5 There is one Spirit, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all.
Ephesians 5:26 *Baptism sanctifies the Church because it is the washing of water with the word.*
Colossians 2:11 Water Baptism is the Spiritual circumcision, the circumcision of Christ.
Colossians 2:12 Christ was buried. You were buried with Christ *in water baptism.* God raised Christ from the dead. You believe God raised Christ from the dead. Therefore, God raised you with Christ *in baptism.* This is all *God’s powerful work.*
Hebrews 6:1-2 *Baptism is a basic foundational teaching. You can't say you believe in Jesus while rejecting his basic teachings.*
1 Peter 3:20 Noah was saved by water, not from water. The flood waters washed away much evil.
1 Peter 3:21 Baptism now *saves you!* Baptism is assurance/demand of a good conscience before God through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. This verse summarizes all that has been said above.
@@Mygoalwogel I’m not arguing against baptism. I’m just saying it has no saving power. If you don’t believe me, just ask the dying thief!
@@Mygoalwogel Note: Mark 16:16 says it’s the person who does not believe that’s damned. In Acts 2:38 it’s the repenting and trusting Christ that saves not baptism. It’s important to understand that Mark 16:15 and Acts 2:38 are descriptive rather than prescriptive. In other words baptism describes what a saved person has done , not what he needs to do in order to be saved. This view is consistent with salvation by grace. If you are trusting something you did, rather than what Christ did you probably are not truly born again.
@@robertszontagh1297 Concerning the Thief of the Cross cliche: ruclips.net/video/6p7a-kTcSZo/видео.html
Concerning Acts 2:38 being descriptive, you are factually incorrect. βαπτισθήτω (baptisthētō)
Verb - Aorist *Imperative* Passive - 3rd Person Singular. Imperative is prescriptive.
Connecting salvation to baptism is not trusting something you did but trusting something God does to you.
Isaiah 6:7
What is God doing? Forgiving sins.
How is He doing this? By his word.
To whom is this word spoken? To the person whose lips the coal touches.
How can that person believe his sins are forgiven? Because it is spoken by God directly to him as indicated by a physical sign.
2 Kings 5:14
What is God doing? Healing the sick.
How is He doing this? By his word.
To whom is this word spoken? To the person whose flesh the Jordan touches seven times
How can that person believe his flesh will be healed? Because it is spoken by God directly to him as indicated by a physical sign.
Acts 2:38
What is God doing? Forgiving sins.
How is He doing this? By his word.
To whom is this word spoken? To the person who is baptized.
How can that person believe his sins are forgiven? Because it is spoken by God directly to him as indicated by a physical sign.
1 Peter 3:21: "Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you-not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience-through the resurrection of Jesus Christ" - is this heresy?
The gifts will be done away with but not until that which is perfect has come (Jesus) for he alone is perfect and when he comes we will be changed and ascend to Heaven were the gifts will have no use. Love on the other hand will hence the emphasis on love in this chapter. As a child is referring to this life as a man is referring to the next life. Praise God!
+Christian Woods we don't ascend very far, just up to the cloud level where Jesus is until He finishes raining down wrath on the antichrist and on the antichrist's followers. We stay with Jesus Who is.....where? after that descending to earth to rule on earth. THE SCRIPTURES BEING COMPLETED THERE WAS MUCH LESS NEED FOR GIFTS. they also helped jump start the Church the remaining less spectacular gifts still go on, they help maintain the church.
tongues had faded away for some time before the Montanist upsurge started with this and went onto extreme heresies. prophesying to judge by Paul's statements is not just predicting or getting audible and visual in put from God, but also some brief God inspired preaching word of wisdom and word of knowledge might come under this heading.
the problem with the Pentecostal idea is that the miraculous should be normative and the showier gifts are sought, while teaching and administrating and helping are also gifts that Paul describes. These are more relevant to maintaining the church and individual believers and might include occasional healing and occasional dreams, but not the kind of scene in the Pentecostal and charismatic groups. A "healing ministry" would be a nonstarter. any kind of miracle focused ministry is a non starter. the daily miracles of personal increase in godliness and wisdom and odd little events of timing that make a difference are ignored.
what is a better church elca or the lcms
Thank you, I look forward to reading it.
I met some Catholic Charismatics once that told me that if I wanted to speak in tongues to continue to repeat the phrase: "Shudda botta hond-da"
shoulda-bought-a-Honda?
There is no difference between a man who is 25 and an infant 8 days old when it comes to salvation. Each is equally unable to chose God in any way shape and form, Each equally needs a solid affirmation that they are saved, outside of themselves and resting in the promises of God. Namely, that baptism now saves, not the water alone, but the water with the words of promise. Namely, that by the power of the Father, Son, and Spirit, that person is a claimed child of God and saved.
If in 1 Corinthians 13:8 Paul said that the gift of tongues would cease, and it has, does that also mean that knowledge has ceased as well? Because he said that in 1 Corinthians 13:8 as well.
(For the record, I don't think the gift of tongues should replace any of the sacraments, and I think a lot of people place way more importance on tongues than they should.)
Paul is speaking of the gift of knowledge from chapter 12
The word order in John 3:16 is of little impact (if you take Greek, you'd better understand it with this verse), but who says you can't raise a child in discipleship after it is baptized? Didn't Christ come to save us from our inability to choose? Did He not come to bring dead sinners, unable to choose, unable to act, unable to live, unable to follow, to bring them back to life? Is not salvation that life and therefore those actions are a reflection of that salvation already given?
But in all fairness, most Pentecostal denominations do not deny the Trinity. The LCMS webpage points that out in a compare/contrast document with other churches/denominations.
Me too! There should be a meme for that!
1 Corinthians 13:8 was taken out of context in this video. One must read the cessation of tongues, upon the death of St. John, into the Scriptures; since is taught no where in the canon of Scripture.
Where is that beautiful church pictured at 1:37?
An individual claiming to have the gift and using it in private, I will not question (even though I have my doubts).
We mainly take issue with the church bodies that teach this is a common spiritual gift, or a great one (despite Paul saying it is the least, and despite its pretty much complete disappearance from the Church after the 1st c.), or who teach it as a sign that you have been filled with the Holy Spirit.
One can reject salvation. One can rejects one's baptism. I can't say I know how. Scripture doesn't give the answer but describes the phenomena. Does this mean that the baptism was ineffective? No. Does this mean that if the child returns to the faith that need to be re-baptized? No. One baptism for the remission of sins Eph 4:5 & Nicene Creed. Baptism is (not symbolically, but is) being baptized into the death (and resurrection) of Christ Rom 6:3.
Tongues died out after the apostles? Paul was speaking to a church that didn't have apostles and he said that he wished everyone spoke in tongues.
That was during the age of the apostles.
When you make a solid Biblical case (which is impossible) for your Roman Catholic doctrine of infant baptism, then we'll talk.
+Michael Caza-Schonberger
"He came to save all persons by means of Himself - all, I say, who through Him are born again to God - infants, children, boys, youth, and old men."
St. Irenaeus, "Against All Heresies," c. 180 A.D.
"Baptize first the children; and if they can speak for themselves, let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them."
Hippolytus 215 A.D.
"In respect of the case of infants, you say that they should not be baptized within the second or third day after their birth - that the law of circumcision should be regarded. So you think that one who has just been born should not be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day. However, we all thought very differently in our council.... Rather, we all believe that the mercy and grace of God is not to be refused to anyone born of man.... As far as we can, we must strive that no soul be lost, if at all possible. For what is lacking to him who has once been formed in the womb by the hand of God?"
St. Cyprian of Carthage, "Epistle 58," c. 250 A.D.
"Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit he cannot enter the kingdom of God. No one is excepted, not [even] the infant."
St. Ambrose, "Concerning Repentance," c. 387 A.D.
"Do you have an infant child? Allow sin no opportunity; rather, let the infant be sanctified from childhood. From his most tender age let him be consecrated by the Spirit. Do you fear the seal [of baptism] because of the weakness of nature? Oh, what a pusillanimous mother and of how little faith! `Well enough,' some will say, `for those who ask for baptism, but what do you have to say about those who are still children, and aware neither of loss nor of grace? Shall we baptize them too?' Certainly [I respond], if there is any pressing danger. Better that they be sanctified unaware, than that they depart unsealed and uninitiated."
St. Gregory Nazianzus, "Oration On Holy Baptism," c. 388 A.D.
davitz77 You've not given a Biblical argument for infant baptism.
Michael Caza-Schonberger Neither is there a Biblical argument that ONLY adults may be Baptized.
+Darrell Jordan I'll take your Matthew 28:16 and raise you a Mark 16:15-20. There is a direct correlation between the gifts of the Spirit and evangelism. In fact if you study the history of Pentecostalism you will see this lived out. If you study the book of Acts, you will see this lived out. People were baptized in the Spirit, and went off to do mission work. However nowhere in Scripture will you find an argument supporting your Roman Catholic tradition of infant sprinkling! In the second wave of Pentecostalism (AKA the Charismatic movement which had its beginnings in the 40s and 50's) You will see Episcopal's such as Rev. D. Bennett and Jean Stone, as well as Lutheran Harald Bredesen at the forefront of the Charismatic Renewal Movement. I remind you of what Scripture says in Eph. 5:30 "Do not grieve the Ruach ha-Kodesh of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption." (TLV) Even Luther in his beautiful hymn "A Mighty Fortress Is Our God" in verse 4 wrote "the Spirit and the gifts are ours,
thru him who with us sideth.", which is the most common translation of the German "Mit seinem geist und gaben". It should be mentioned that the Mormons believe that the gift of tongues are the languages they learn for their mission trips.
+Michael Caza-Schonberger
Fucking anabaptists...
I caught the 3 amigos reference!!!!
The only thing I disagree that this video presents is the use of 1 Corinthians 13:8. This verse also states that knowledge will pass away. So has knowledge passed away with tongues and prophecy? Obviously it has not. The following verses 9 and onward emphasize that Christ's return or "when completeness comes" and "shall see face to face" is the time when tongues and prophecy pass away.
Is the The Three Amigos reference that fardy fardy thing that the lady said while speaking in tongues? It sounded like what either Lucky Day or Dusty Bottoms said when they were trying to summon the Invisible Swordsman when they found the Singing Bush.
The Swedish Chef!!!
LOL
Barnes, Tertullian, 42: The orthodox dubbed the Montanists ‘Cataphygians’ or ‘the Phrygian Heresy’. Yet they had to confess that they were orthodox in all matters of Christian doctrine. Only in the fourth century could polemical writers accuse the Montanists of purely theological error, and then the accusation patently relied upon a perverse and anachronistic interpretation of an utterance of Montanus himself.”
1 Corinthians 13:8 states that no one will ever speak in tongues again? I mean, I don't like evangelicals and their whishy washy theology but certainly such a statement can't be made from that verse alone...
In context the passage says all the gifts will cease at the return of Jesus; "When the fullness has come...", "then we will see face to face."
Thomas Fryxelius Actually that is not accurate. It says the gifts will cease when the perfect comes. In the Greek the word perfect is neuter. Through out that chapter, as well as the whole New Testament Jesus is never referred to as an it.
Todd Riordan
I agree that "the perfect" in itself does not refer to Jesus. In the context we are said to be face to face though and also that we will know fully as we are fully known.
So explaining away one word does not really change anything. I don´t think he means Jesus by "the perfect" but that he is talking of the fullness of knowledge and love that will make the partial unnecessary. All this seems to refer to the glorified state which we will experience at Jesus return.
There is no indication this is about Scripture.
I was wondering about using the quote from 1 Corinthians 3:8. In context, it seems that Paul is talking about the ephemeral nature of the things of this world - even those things that are directly inspired by God such as prophecies - as a way of showing how great Love is, being the one thing that can never pass away? Whilst you could say no argument would dissuade a die-hard speaker of tongues (too true, from experience!), I'm doubtful on the efficacy of using that particular verse.
Jeremiah 8:10
Therefore I will give their wives to other men and their fields to new owners. From the least to the greatest, all are greedy for gain; prophets and priests alike, all practice deceit
verse 9b above that: "behold, they have rejected the word of the LORD, so what wisdom is in them?" puts it in context. We're not talking about a people who have rejected the word of God here, rather people who claim it and study it deeply and love it. So what exactly do you mean by your quote? Who is practicing deceit here. You're calling someone a liar, but lack the courage to say who.
Watch this:
Eph 4:5
1 Peter 3:21
Eph 5:26 (about what Christ has done for the church using water)
Mark 1:4 (just noting how baptizing was meant as John the Baptist did it)
Matt 28:19 (the institution of holy baptism, note that infants and and everyone else falls among the nations unless you view them as less than one another, which then one asks how we argue against abortion :P)
So, one baptism, by water and the word for all nations instituted by Christ. Sounds like the making of a sacrament
We still do what the apostles did when they laid hands on the Samaritans and called down the Holy Spirit on them in the laying-on of hands. It is expected that converts should speak with new tongues." This quote is attributed to Augustine of Hippo, but it is not. Yet I could not find any article exposing it as fraudelant, can you help me?
So "The Marcels" song "Blue Moon" they were speaking in tongues? ;)
Of those two, LCMS actually believes what Scripture says...
FlappyDogman, not quite so ... according to Rom 6:4, Col 2:12, 1 Peter 3:2, John 3:5, Gal 3:27, Titus 3:5, Acts 2:38-39
I noticed something when I read 1 Corinthians chapters 12 to 14. No expiration date was given for the ceasing of the gifts of the spirit, just like the fruit of the spirit. Just saying. Since the scripture says Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever, and He is the one who "will baptize you in the Holy Spirit" maybe all you deniers of this fact have missed something.
So who was practicing those gifts during Abraham and Moses time? The Holy Spirit doesn't change...
Can you point me to where the Bible says the canon is closed? What about which books are included?
As for the second half of 1 Peter 3:21, the clarification is to show that the water, by itself, does basolutely nothing. However, the water with the Word of Christ, namely the pronunciation that one is baptized in the name of the Father and of the and of the Holy Spirit into the forgiveness of sins for adopted sonship into eternal peace with God, that is what saves. Why would anyone deny that to an infant?
What a way to completely take 1 Corinthians 13 out of context! haha
Dang! You're so right. Must mean something other than what it actually says on the page. You got me.
I assumed you were talking about communion there.
+Andrew Hoffer The whole passage is about God's love and how it's eternal. v8 says that things of this world (like language and knowledge - which are important things for now but not later) are temporary and will pass away, but God's love will not pass away. Therefore we must put more focus onto love than the other things. Simply, that's what the passage is about.
Paul said tongues would cease. Paul stopped talking and TheLutheranSatire continued to speak for him @1:40
Mario Stacy I think it's clear that in it's full context 1 Corinthians 13:8-13 is speaking that prophecies, tongues and knowledge will cease to exist when we are face to face with Jesus. For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. If you take the interpretation like you are, then it is also saying that knowledge with cease. Has knowledge ceased? Not yet, but when we are with Jesus it will.
newidentity316 You sound like me as if i were writing to myself. I couldn't agree more.
newidentity316 I perfectly agree. But just because continuationism is true doesn't mean that the "speaking in tongues" in most Pentecostal and charismatic churches are biblical either.
swecalf Agreed
Then why are you separating the Holy Spirit from Baptism?
love the 3 amigos reference!
It's not like Paula White "spoke in tongues" to the cadence of the chorus of the ketchup song or anything...
FlappyDogman, not quite so (John MacArthur is ignoring the clear text and message of these verses); Rom 6:4, Col 2:12, 1 Peter 3:2, John 3:5, Gal 3:27, Titus 3:5, Acts 2:38-39
not quite so ...according to Rom 6:4, Col 2:12, 1 Peter 3:2, John 3:5, Gal 3:27, Titus 3:5, Acts 2:38-39
I have yet to hear a person speak in tongues who speaks only English in the flesh in a fully German Spanish danish speaking church of mixed languages (only) and have them all hear them in their native tongue. It doesn't happen.
How many churches have you been to? I have a few Russian friends in my church. While a man who is not Russian was praying, one of them overheard him in the prayer room saying "Praise God". It's not much, but definitely not something to discount. I was encouraged having learned this.
Look closer. Paul said, speaking about the gifts in comparison of Love, "Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels,..." 1 Cor.13:1. There are two types of tongue here. The tongue of angels can not be understood by man, unless of course it is interpreted by another gift, gift of interpretation. Paul admonished in 1 Cor. 14:5, "I would that you all spake with tongues,..." Why?. because, verse 4, "He that speaks in an unknown tongue (tongue of angels) edifies himself." This is praying in the holy spirit 1 Cor. 14:14, which relates to Jude 20. Let him that has ears understand! May the Lord be with you!
Whats your point steve?
It's what scripture says so your disagreement is not with me but with the Word of God. Since He's God I'll take His word for it.
In a huffy & snotty type of voice: "Oh we have speaking in tongues and you don't -who's the real Christian now!"