Відео

There are really only 3 specific occassions where tongues is associated with receiving the Holy Spirit: Acts 2:4 and it specifies those who the Spirit gave them utterance spoke in tongues. Acts 10:44-46 is a conversion experience where both tongues and extoling were heard. Acts 19:6 is another conversion experience where both tongues and prophecy were heard. There were countless conversions where tongues is not associated (Acts 2:41, Acts 8:5-21, Acts 16:31-34, Acts 21:20 and others)

@@robertemard9452 because you are inspired by the devil, you can't believe the Biblical truths about tongues. And because you are blinded by the devil, you can't see the Biblical truths about tongues. (1) There are Five Biblical accounts of people being baptised with the Holy Ghost, and they all spoke in tongues, Making tongues the Biblical evidence of the baptism with the Holy Ghost. (2) I have shown you what the word, "Matter" means, in Acts 8: 21, but you refuse to believe the Biblical Greek. They all spoke in tongues. (3) If you read, see and believe. Acts 2: 41. Acts 16: 31--34. And Acts 21: 20. You'll see that none of those scriptures mention people being baptised with the Holy Ghost. Please stop deceiving people.

@@alanhales6369 I gave you 3 and provided references. You said 5 but without references. Do you have them?

@@robertemard9452 I given the five Biblical accounts of people being baptised with the Holy Ghost and they all spoke in tongues, Making tongues the Biblical evidence of the baptism with the Holy Ghost.

@@alanhales6369 I see - you are going make me sift through your other comments to find them. Try cutting and pasting so that we can keep comments coherent. I think I found them. You provided Acts 8:14-17, Acts 2:4, Acts 8:17, Acts 10:44-46, and Acts 19:6. Re: Acts 8:14-17: no mention of tongues here. Re: Acts 2:4: whether they each spoke tongues is not the point by Luke. Only those that the Spirit gave utterance spoke tongues. Re: Acts 8:17: no mention of tongues here Re: Acts 10:44-46: "they were hearing them speaking in tongues and extolling God". One cannot reasonably conclude each one spoke in tongues here. And note "extolling" was included here. Re: Acts 19:6: no tongues here You are fishing unreasonably to mould the scriptures into a false doctrine of tongues being the single only evidence of baptism of the Holy Spirit.

What bible are you reading? You said "Paul said everyone in the church have a tongue, (speak in tongues) 1 Cor 14:26". Paul said no such thing. 1 Cor 14:26 says: " What then, brothers? When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. Let all things be done for building up." Paul actually said in 1 Corinthians 12:8-11: "For to one is given through the Spirit the utterance of wisdom, and to another the utterance of knowledge according to the same Spirit, 9 to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit, 10 to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another the ability to distinguish between spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues. 11 All these are empowered by one and the same Spirit, who apportions to each one individually as he wills." And he also said in 1 Corinthians 12:30: "Do all possess gifts of healing? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret?". What Paul is saying is "no". If you read the instances in Acts where the Holy Spirit came down upon them and tongues was described, it doesn't really say that every individual spoke in tongues. That is not to say that it was not possible but Luke's point had nothing to do with identifying the one particular gift as the one evidence of baptism of the Holy Spirit. To keep it in general terms, there may be a biblically identified danger in calling biblical teaching as coming from the devil. For something like tongues, it may be wise to simply disagree and give your opinion.

@@robertemard9452 please look at the words "EACH ONE OF YOU", he didn't say SOME OF YOU,. You give your own erroneous opinions. The tongues in 1 Cor 12: 10 & v30 are tongues that need an interpretation, and not everyone will have that gift, but they can speak in the other SEVEN supernatural manifestations of tongues that the Bible records. As I have said, Those people in Acts 10 and Acts 19, all spoke in tongues, just like every account of people being baptised with the Holy Ghost did,. The Bible doesn't say some spoke in tongues and others prophecies. You make things up, things that oppose the Bible. Stop deceiving people.

@@alanhales6369 Acts 10:46 says " For they were hearing them speaking in tongues and extolling God. Then Peter declared,". It doesn't say every individual. And it was not Luke's point that baptism of the Holy Spirit must = tongues and in this case extolling too. Acts 19:6 says "And when Paul had laid his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began speaking in tongues and prophesying." Again, it doesn't say every individual and Luke's point was not that tongues, and in this case, prophecy, were the definitive signs of baptism of the Holy Spirit. It is more reasonable that some spoke tongues while others prophecied. You are reading into verses that which is not said and that which was not intended by the author. If I say the kids in the yard were yelling at me, I'm not saying every kid in the yard was yelling at me even though it is possible that every kid was yelling. But my point would not be every single kid.

@@robertemard9452 you really are in the Kingdom of the devil, you let him use you to spread his lies.

@@robertemard9452 you really are in the Kingdom of the devil, you let him use you to spread his lies. You MUST believe that God is a sinner, because you believe that God gives some people tongues but not others. There's EIGHT supernatural manifestations of tongues, and everyone are very important to the believers. Please stop letting the devil use you to spread his lies.

Yes, there are many sketchy things in the lives of some early pentecostal leaders. Not as bad as some of the Reformers, but definitely not good. If we want to stay with the Bible, we could never end up with cessationism since it is extra biblical doctrine. I encourage you to watch my playlist on cessationism if you are wrestling thru the topic. ua-cam.com/play/PL8YK6HWQvxC9WVT2a0_SDEw4fLM_uCbUZ.html&si=NPq3nO82NRHag65m Gbu

You might find the first 8 videos in this playlist helpful: ua-cam.com/play/PL8YK6HWQvxC9r_MPBGH3071Bco8ZqM_p5.html&si=_7T4goeOJJtT5qKC God bless!

Agreed, She was telling her to turn from her sin, particularly, the sin of adultery. Gbu

1 Corinthians 9:17 KJV - For if I do this thing willingly, I have a reward: but if against my will, a dispensation of the gospel is committed unto me. "My gospel" like the gospel according to Matthew (or the gospel of Matthew), or the gospel according to Mark (or the gospel of Mark), or the gospel according to Luke (or the gospel of Luke), or the gospel according to John (or the gospel of John)... 1 Corinthians 11:1 KJV - Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ. Philippians 3:17 KJV - Brethren, be followers together of me, and mark them which walk so as ye have us for an ensample. 1 Thessalonians 1:6 KJV - And ye became followers of us, and of the Lord, having received the word in much affliction, with joy of the Holy Ghost: 2 Thessalonians 3:9 KJV - Not because we have not power, but to make ourselves an ensample unto you to follow us. Hebrews 6:12 KJV - That ye be not slothful, but followers of them who through faith and patience inherit the promises.

@@Woman_in_the_Wilderness Is the gospel in the four gospels you listed?

@TouchTheUniverse yes, Matthew proclaimed the gospel, so did Mark, so did Luke, so did John, so did Paul - so did Jesus. So did the other apostles. Luke 9:6 KJV - And they departed, and went through the towns, preaching the gospel, and healing every where. If you are a disciple of Jesus Christ, you should be preaching the gospel too. Mark 16:15 KJV - And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.

@@Woman_in_the_Wilderness What scripture in any of the gospels contains the full gospel?

@@Woman_in_the_Wilderness Did Jesus also say anything about grace through faith? Is that what paul means by "My gospel", this revelvation?

I think it's because his very next statement starts with "yet": 1 Corinthians 14:19 KJV - Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue. Like he is saying: "Even though I am highly thankful for this gift and likely use it more often than any of you, there are other gifts that are far more edifying to the church, because..." So, to those who value the gift of tongues, he first makes it clear that he values the gift as well, before he goes on to say why there is a time and place for that gift.

@@Woman_in_the_Wilderness I see what you are saying. 1 Corinthians 14:19 does provide a context that might hamper Paul's bragging in 1 Corinthians 14:18 - only somewhat in my opinion though as he still kind of sounds bragging to me.

@robertemard9452 I think one would need to ignore everything else that Paul wrote to think he was bragging. 1 Corinthians 4:6-13 KJV - And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another. For who maketh thee to differ from another? and what hast thou that thou didst not receive? now if thou didst receive it, why dost thou glory, as if thou hadst not received it? Now ye are full, now ye are rich, ye have reigned as kings without us: and I would to God ye did reign, that we also might reign with you. For I think that God hath set forth us the apostles last, as it were appointed to death: for we are made a spectacle unto the world, and to angels, and to men. We are fools for Christ's sake, but ye are wise in Christ; we are weak, but ye are strong; ye are honourable, but we are despised. Even unto this present hour we both hunger, and thirst, and are naked, and are buffeted, and have no certain dwellingplace; And labour, working with our own hands: being reviled, we bless; being persecuted, we suffer it: Being defamed, we intreat: we are made as the filth of the world, and are the offscouring of all things unto this day. Galatians 6:14 KJV - But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world.

I think he is not bragging, but saying, don't look down on tongues or think I am belittling tongues, in fact, I speak in tongues more than anyone. That has always be the way I took it. Gbu

Not if you obey Christ. Hebrews 5:8-9, Matthew 7:24-27, Luke 6:46 Gbu

Yes, they were physically free from Egypt at that time. It was an illustration. Gbu

I only know of three accounts that tell us ppl spoke in tongues when they were baptized in the Holy Spirit (Acts 2, 10 & 19). And in those cases it only tells us each person in the group spoke in tongues in Acts 2. In the others it just says "they spoke in tongues and magnified God" & "they spoke in tongues & prophesied" which means the group did these things, but it doesn't clarify that each did these things. Maybe each one did prophesy, but Luke does not make that explicit. Since he does make it explicit in Acts 2, we can assume his goal was not to make "each of them" speaking in tongues a main point of his narrative. Could you let me know the 2 other places ppl were baptized in the Holy Spirit & on receiving that baptism immediately spoke in tongues as "initial evidence"? Are you referring to Acts 8 where tongues is not mentioned, and Acts 9 where Paul is visited by Ananias but not "initial evidence" of tongues is mentioned? I'm trying to think of 2 others besides acts 2, 10 & 19. I don't think there are other examples, but maybe in my old age I'm forgetting since I haven't looked at this topic for a while. Thx for the input Also, you stared that the tongues in 1 Cor 12 are not the various tongues of Acts 2? Please explain how you come to that conclusion. Thx again. Gbu

@@KingdomTheologyTV it's quite obvious that you aren't baptised with the Holy Ghost, because if you were, you would speak in tongues, which is the Biblical evidence of the baptism with the Holy Ghost. Jesus said the believers shall be baptised with the Holy Ghost, He also said they will speak in tongues. There are five Biblical accounts of people being baptised with the Holy Ghost, and they all spoke in tongues, Making tongues the Biblical evidence of the baptism with the Holy Ghost. You haven't mentioned the fact that Paul spoke in tongues 1 Cor 14: 14--15. If you check the Biblical Greek for the word, "Matter", in Acts 8: 21, you'll see that it means, "Tongues, dialect, languages" they had the same experience as those in Acts 2. Why do you false religions always make things up, things that oppose the Bible.

​​@@alanhales6369 I speak in tongues daily. So is it now "quite obvious" that I am baptized in the Holy Spirit? 😊 acts 8:21 "matter" in Greek the word is "Logos" which means word, reason etc, not glossolalia. Gbu

@@KingdomTheologyTV you are twisting the Biblical Greek for the word "Matter" in Acts 8: 21.

To be honest, I'm not quite sure of the answer to your question. Most of what I've ever seen I don't believe was real. Just ppl saying general stuff after someone speaks in tongues. But there have been a few times in 30 years when I was praying in tongues in a "language" that was not normal for me. And immediately after I began to pray with deep feeling about things I didn't previously have in mind. Was this interpretation of tongues? I'm not sure. But it is the closest thing I have to imagine what the gift might be like. Most of what I have heard seemed like tradition more than a real spiritual gift. So, I'm just not sure. I believe in the gifts & have experienced some in my life, but I think 95% of what happens in charismatic circles is just tradition & hype. I do think, if a person genuinely spoke in tongues and interpreted, it would have an immediate spiritual effect on others who had the Spirit of God. Wouldn't need evidence, but the Spirit would use it to spiritually edify other believers. But, I'm afraid I have not definite answers, because these things are experiential, not merely doctrinal. Gbu

There is lots "prophecying" at the level of predicting a likely outcome that is based on likely odds. I predict that most people going to the nephrology doctor have some sort of kidney problem. Or they predict something that has already been predicted in the bible. Or they call something that has happened as something they prophecied about - only they didn't. Personally, I find nothing wrong with the Deuteronomy 18:22 standard for evaluating prophecy: "when a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the word does not come to pass or come true, that is a word that the Lord has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously. You need not be afraid of him." Some of these are false prophets while others may be legitimate prophets who made an error in interpreting the word of the Lord.

I had that same question. How do you know its not BS.

@@hunglikehorse4339 What do you mean by BS?

Glad it was helpful. I'll put out a few more videos soon. Gbu!

Because those verses do not state they all spoke tongues and even if they did, it was a reference to a certain group at a certain point in time; not in reference to all Christians in general. Some clarifications on your identified verses below: Acts 2:4 does not say they all spoke in tongues. The verse's "as the Spirit gave them utterance" leaves room for some not given the utterance. Acts 10:44-46 states "they were hearing them speaking in tongues and extolling God" is a recorded observation and we cannot eisegese they were all speaking in tongues at the time. If I say the boys (in the yard) were yelling, I'm not saying every boy there was yelling. Acts 19:6 is a group of 12 men who were apparently "baptized in the Holy Spirit" in which both tongues and prophecy were directly associated. The verses refer to a point in time regarding a specific situation of 12 men and in this case, they were doing both tongues and prophecy; not just tongues. Again here, we should not assume that all 12 men were each exhibiting both tongues and prophecy; that's not what the verse says. 1 Cor 14:23 is Paul using "if" to make a point. He says elsewhere that not all speak in tongues.

@@robertemard9452 thank you for your response. I would still like To hear what the videos author thinks as there are problems with your logic. Acts 2:4 DOES specifically state that they ALL spoke in tongues. Acts 19:6 You say I am reading into the verse by assuming they all spoke in tongues. Are you not doing the same thing by assuming that they weren’t? Acts 10 You also assume that the outpouring of the Holy Spirit at Cornelius’s home was a special event and not normative. 1 Cor. 14:23 begs the question whether or not ALL could speak in tongues by the nature of the statement.

@@papoo9517 This video's author is probably sleeping right now being Indonesia time for him. Again Acts 2:4 says all those who were provided utterance by the Holy Spirit spoke tongues. We don't have to read into the verse or try to extrapolate anything more. Re: Acts 19:6, We were both not there but I suppose it is possible for 12 men = 12 prophecying + 12 tongues. But the verse stands as it is written quite well with some prophecied and some did tongues. There were probably other gifts as well. Re: Acts 10. Re-read my comment. I was not assuming anything and I was also not reading into the verses. Was it a special event? Yes. Was it a unique event? No and I'm sure it happened many times after that and happens to this day as well. I have no cessationism tendancies. The Holy Spirit then is the same Holy Spirit of today. Re: 1 Cor 12:23, I agree. The very presence of the Holy Spirit means "can". I will go even further and say that Paul bragged about speaking tongues more than others (1 Cor 14:18), and said he wanted all of them to speak tongues (1 Cor 14:5). But he also said not all are given the gift and Paul is specific that the Holy Spirit gives out gifts as he desires and not every gift to everyone. Tongues is one of these gifts. Paul also said don't speak tongues in front of others unless there is an interpretation of tongues which tells me that someone can have the genuine gift of tongues but just uses it at the wrong time. I guess the gifts work with the human will and not against it. I'll leave it there. I'm sure Chris will either address your question when he is awake or he'll address them in his upcoming videos on the topic or both.

@@robertemard9452 I am still having difficulty believing that Acts 2 does not describe everyone speaking in tongues. The use of the words ALL and the fact that “tongues of flame” sat on EACH of them seems definitive and requires verbal gymnastics to suggest otherwise. Your explanation of “ as the spirit gave them utterance” seems like eisegesis. The word “as” in this verse is not a conditional conjunctive but an informational one. I think in modern language it could be better understood as “ they all began to speak in tongues whenever and whatever the spirit directed them to say”. Still retaining the inclusivity of all in attendance. Just my two cents. If we are to agree that not everyone necessarily speaks in tongues, then the argument seems better served by presuming that the infilling of Acts 2 was an exceptional moment. I’m not sure I am there.

@@papoo9517 "As the Spirit gave them utterance" is not eisegesis because I'm just quoting the scriptures. I'm just saying that it leaves room for the possiblity of not all of them speaking in tongues. As for Acts 2 verse 3, I don't know if "cloven tongues like as of fire means they were speaking in tongues. If it does then they were all speaking in tongues here. Mark 16:17-18 says: "And these signs will accompany those who believe: in my name they will cast out demons; they will speak in new tongues; 18 they will pick up serpents with their hands; and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not hurt them; they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will recover.” - so why do pentecostals focus on the tongues part but don't broadly apply picking up snakes, poison, and healing to the entire church body? (rhetorical). We'll see what we can learn with Chris's future videos on the subject. I'm not an expert on tongues but I am not a cessationist and I do accept what the scriptures say on the subject without trying to go to far beyond what is said in terms of applicability to all Christians - especially when Paul already made it clear that not all are given the gift of tongues.

The question: “Did Jesus go to hell between his death and resurrection?” is an interesting one but is a question that I don’t think that people need a definitive answer to it. I have chosen not to submit to any creed however accurate or inaccurate they may be. I think the operative idea is that Jesus paid the penalty of our sin and it would have been the full penalty and not merely partial penalty. The penalty of our sin would certainly not be limited to merely our physical death but also the second death indicated in Revelation. Adam and Eve did not physically die right away when they ate of the fruit. That does bring the question of “what is hell”. There are varying views on it but at the very least, no one can argue with it being “away from God’s presence”. Then we can ask all sorts of questions about where was Jesus during the 3 days? Based on what he told the thief on the cross, his Spirit was in heaven if you take the comma to be before “today” instead of after (Luke 23:43). And/or was he speaking to saints waiting to be resurrected as possibly stated in 1 Peter 3:19? - if that’s what it means. I am not sure what 1 Peter 3:19 means. Then we have to contend with linear time as being part of the creation of the physical and that those principles would not really apply to the “I am” in the Spiritual realm. The way I look at it is Jesus paid the penalty of sin which kind of includes “hell” but because he was innocent, hell had to spit him back out. But that doesn’t make me 100% right in every little detail. Again, the important idea is that Jesus paid the full penalty of our sin and this penalty, because he was innocent, had to be withdrawn somehow.

@robertemard9452 Thank you for your thorough response. You brought up good points to consider. On the point where you said of hell "at the very least, no one can argue with it 'being away from God's presence.'" I think I can argue with hell being away from God's presence: Psalm 139:7-8 KJV - Whither shall I go from thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy presence? If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there. Revelation 14:10 KJV - The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb... I agree with Paul Washer when he says that hell is not hell because God is not there, but hell is hell because God is there in the fullness of His wrath.

@@Woman_in_the_Wilderness Those two verses do seem to contradict my statement however, their contexts could probably defend me. I probably could have worded differently such as "absent from God as in not face to face with God after physical death". Christians will be face to face with God (1 Cor 13:12); not pagans. Your two verses probably give indication as to the nature of the eternal torment for unbelievers which is also supported by Luke 16:24 regarding the rich man and Lazarus in that there seems to be some form of communication between heaven and hell. It could be that the nature of the torment in hell is unbelievers full of regret and and actually seeing what they are missing for ever and ever. I've heard that before and it would support your view. I wonder what Revelation 2:14 means which seems to be a future event? (rhetorically): "Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire." But that's well beyond the scope of my initial comment. Thanks for your comment. Your point is well taken.

@@robertemard9452 You made good points again, thank you. Regarding the following scripture you mentioned, Revelation 20:14-15 KJV - And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire. I do believe that hell will in actuality be thrown into the lake of fire - thus the lake of fire being the final destination of those who are in hell. Being cast into the lake of fire, in both the scripture above and the one below, is the described as the second death: Revelation 21:8 KJV - But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death. May we, by the grace and mercy of God, have no part in the second death: Revelation 2:11 KJV - He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; He that overcometh shall not be hurt of the second death. Revelation 20:6 KJV - Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

@@Woman_in_the_Wilderness Not completely clear at this point but it does seem like you take the position of "annihilationism" over "eternal concious torment" (ECT). Not only that, but I wonder if you might be of the position of "temporary concious torment" pending "final second death" which some of those in the "annihilationist camp" believe. Good genuine Christians can have any of these views. ECT'ers have to contend with "how can someone be dead and alive at the same time" (referring to the second death where death itself is put to death). Annihilationists have to contend with verses like the 3 below indicating directly or implied, levels of punishment which directly contradicts their view. Matthew 10:15: "Truly, I say to you, it will be more bearable on the day of judgment for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah than for that town." Matthew 26:24: The Son of Man goes as it is written of him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been better for that man if he had not been born.” Luke 12:47-48: I'll let you read - it's about the light and severe beating. Also, we see in 1 Corinthians 7:14 "For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy." In this verse, we see that children are saved as a function of the salvation of at least one parent. I don't want to turn this into a debate about all children going to heaven but if the verse implies what it seems to imply, children who died while having pagan parents, if they do not go to heaven, would obviously be subject to lowered levels of punishment than the level of "better if he had not been born". I believe ECT is the correct view because I believe the overwhelming evidence in the scriptures points to this and annihilationism requires a lot more creativivity in explaining the many relevant scriptures. I only brought up some "levels" ones but there are many other scriptures addressing the subject. Anyways, feel free to clarify your view on this but I think, because one can go on and on with rabbit trails, I will generally end it there for myself. Thanks for your thought provoking comments.

As I said in the video, the Bible is the standard not early church writings. The early church writers I referred to were the anti gnostic writers. As as far as I know, none of them were universalists. Some accuse Origen of that, but as far as I understand, he only suggested a possibility, but confirmed in the preface to his "principles" book, that eternal judgement was the universal teaching of the church. Anyways, I agree with your point, the Bible is the standard, & gnosticism & universalism are heretical. I'm only confused why you thought my video said anything different than that. U might listen to it again to make sure you got my point. But thanks for the input. Gbu

I'm sure I left out much information, but none knowingly in order to cherry pick. Just tried to make the points I had in my mind. Gbu

In ROM 10:12-13 Calling on the name of the Lord is distinct from believing. It is synonymous with confession unto salvation in vs 9-10. Vs 13-15 (approx) show that faith comes before "calling on name of the Lord", which in Acts 2 & Acts 22:16 is connected with water baptism. Not debating this interpretation, just clarifying so you know why I was making that connection. I made a case for my interpretation in an earlier video: ua-cam.com/video/wGXjU9wDiUY/v-deo.htmlsi=2nQuGNzgwWhmcyAo Gbu!

​@@KingdomTheologyTV I don't know. I'm not so convinced that there is that much distinction between believing (faith) and calling upon the name of the Lord at least for the context of believe and faith that one finds in John 3:15, John 3:16, and even the first part of Romans 10:10 which states: "For with the heart one believes and is justified". To most people, justified = saved and faith, but then Romans 10:13 says: For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” So which is it? Is one saved when they believe and have faith? or are they saved only after they call upon the name of the Lord as well? To your point, Romans 10:14 does say: "How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard?[c] And how are they to hear without someone preaching?" which seems to suggest here that they must first believe before calling upon the name of the Lord. But then when one reads the 2nd and 3rd sentence of the same verse, the context of believe here seems not one of faith as in John 3:15, 16 and Romans 10 but rather the context of accepting a few facts that they were made aware of which then makes sense for them to afterwards call upon the name of the Lord to then be saved. As for your Acts references, Acts 2 does not directly associate calling upon the name of the Lord with water baptism and Acts 22:16 does but then why would anyone expect otherwise at any water baptism or many other situations? (rhetorical).

I guess you didn't watch the video.