Isn't it dangerous that lots of them, who glorify speaking in tongues and overly seeking for it, making people to also have the same misunderstanding? Because the misleading seems to be very thin (not the other way around) which could seem righteous to a lot of people. I almost doubted my own faith because of this not-so-little misunderstanding. I did read the 1 Corinthians, and what you said in this video really gave me more insights. Thank you Pastor Chris!
What I often see among Pentecostals is that they usually speak in unknown tongues and no one is even willing to interpret it. However, as you mentioned, Paul said that such a person should pray for interpretation, but who does it? Unfortunately, even if someone tries to interpret it seems very strange that you can not distinguish if this gift is genuine. Recently one guy wanted to show me how it works, because I doubted, and he interpreted a prayer by another guy speaking in tongues. He said that it would be a prophecy about me. The translation was very general, and is sounded like this "God has a plan for your life". I think everyone could prophesy like this.
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 like the way you covered this subject and I think you hit the nail right on the head in your biblical interpretation of the subject. This is an area of significant misunderstanding and often abuse. Calvinists dismiss tongues altogether by saying "that was for during the apostolic era only" (cessationism). Pentecostals and some in the word of faith movement abuse it with ostentatious public displays of it.
Its kind of weird that you brought this up as I was thinking about this the other day. Question for you..... So you interpret your own Tongues? If someone came up to me and said something in a foreign tongues and then said I will interpret it for you.... How do you know they are telling you the truth? An example prosperity Ministers. FYI I get a lot out of your ministries. I don't always agree, but it provokes a lot of questions and seeking of answers.
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
This is my understanding, of spiritual gifts as well... I left the church I was going to because of so many things taught, that I knew were wrong. Pastor said several times, that if one doesn't speak in tongues, they don't have the spirit within. That they are not living right or not true believers, basically.? And I heard a few sermons that were just wrong or from scriptures taken way out of context. Perhaps I should have tried to correct him, but these were & are the type of people that would simply tell you to find another church or turn it around on you as if you are wrong, so I prayed on it for awhile & stopped goin. Also, the congregation put far too much praise into the pastor than I saw necessary. Just too many red flags for me. Even had a guest preacher come one service sprinkling something all over & calling to invoke a spirit of laughter on the church. It was super weird & my spirit just cringed. Something was way off there...
Amen, I agree with what you have said here. I have an interesting topic I have been studying lately. I wanted to share in case anyone else finds interesting. Did Jesus go to hell between his death and resurrection? One thousand years before Jesus died on the cross, King David prophesied of Jesus Christ's resurrection: Psalm 16:10 KJV - For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption. The Apostle Paul confirmed that Psalm 16:10 was about Jesus Christ and not about King David: Acts 13:33-37 KJV - God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee. And as concerning that he raised him up from the dead, now no more to return to corruption, he said on this wise, I will give you the sure mercies of David. Wherefore he saith also in another psalm, Thou shalt not suffer thine Holy One to see corruption. For David, after he had served his own generation by the will of God, fell on sleep, and was laid unto his fathers, and saw corruption: But he, whom God raised again, saw no corruption. The Apostle Peter also confirmed that Psalm 16:10 was written about Jesus Christ and not about King David: Acts 2:22-27 KJV - Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know: Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain: Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it. For David speaketh concerning him, I foresaw the Lord always before my face, for he is on my right hand, that I should not be moved: Therefore did my heart rejoice, and my tongue was glad; moreover also my flesh shall rest in hope: Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption. Jesus said that no sign would be given to those of His day asking for a sign, but that of the prophet Jonah: Matthew 12:39-41 KJV - But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas: For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. The men of Nineveh shall rise in judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: because they repented at the preaching of Jonas; and, behold, a greater than Jonas is here. In Jonah's prayer to God, Jonah refers to his time in the belly of the fish as being in hell: Jonah 2:1-2 KJV - Then Jonah prayed unto the LORD his God out of the fish's belly, And said, I cried by reason of mine affliction unto the LORD, and he heard me; out of the belly of hell cried I, and thou heardest my voice. The Apostles' Creed was not written by the apostles. Rather, it was written at least 150 years after the apostles had all died. It is called the Apostles’ Creed because it is supposed to be a record of what the apostles taught. Note that within this creeds is written "the holy catholic church," which does not refer to the Roman Catholic Church as we know it today. The word catholic means “universal.” The true "catholic" church is all those who have placed their faith in Jesus Christ for salvation. The Apostles' Creed is as follows: "I believe in God, the Father Almighty, the Creator of heaven and earth, and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord: Who was conceived of the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried. He descended into hell. The third day He arose again from the dead. He ascended into heaven and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty, whence He shall come to judge the living and the dead. I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and life everlasting. Amen." Then in Romans 10:7, the word "deep" is the Greek word "abyssos" which everywhere else in scripture is used to refer to the bottomless pit (the abyss, or the abode of demons, see Revelation 9:1,2,11; 11:17; 17:8; 20:1). For example, in Luke 8:31, Legion is cast out of the demoniac and begs Jesus not to send them into "the deep" (the abyss). Romans 10:7 KJV - Or, Who shall descend into the deep? (that is, to bring up Christ again from the dead.)
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.
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 Lord brought my husband and myself out of an apostolic pentecostal church...i love the ppl within that church but their theology requires mental gymnnastics constantly. There is no amount of exegetical exposition of the bible and alot of their behaviors result in spiritual abuse. I would recommend anyone who is within this movement to please do thorough research on the pentecostal movement, heresies and church history. Inform yourselves even if it goes against pastors telling you not to. Read your bibles and when you get done read it again and repeat. Also, try other translations other than kjv, esv can be a helpful parallel.
Kingdom Theology, everyone who is baptised with the Holy Ghost, will speak in tongues. The Bible records five 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. The baptism with the Holy Ghost and speaking in tongues is a separate experience to the rebirth. A person doesn't have to be baptised with the Holy Ghost and speak in tongues to be saved. There are EIGHT supernatural manifestations of tongues that the Bible records, and the tongues in 1 Cor 12: 10, and v 30 are one of the nine gifts of the Spirit and not everyone will have that gift of tongues, it's tongues that need an interpretation, and not everyone will have this gift the tongues in those scriptures aren't languages, because they need an interpretation, please note, interpretation, NOT a translation. Everyone who is baptised with the Holy Ghost can speak in the other SEVEN supernatural manifestations of tongues that the Bible records. You really shouldn't try to teach when you don't know what the Bible says. You shouldn't mislead people.
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
Isn't it dangerous that lots of them, who glorify speaking in tongues and overly seeking for it, making people to also have the same misunderstanding? Because the misleading seems to be very thin (not the other way around) which could seem righteous to a lot of people. I almost doubted my own faith because of this not-so-little misunderstanding. I did read the 1 Corinthians, and what you said in this video really gave me more insights.
Thank you Pastor Chris!
Glad it was helpful. I'll put out a few more videos soon. Gbu!
What I often see among Pentecostals is that they usually speak in unknown tongues and no one is even willing to interpret it. However, as you mentioned, Paul said that such a person should pray for interpretation, but who does it? Unfortunately, even if someone tries to interpret it seems very strange that you can not distinguish if this gift is genuine. Recently one guy wanted to show me how it works, because I doubted, and he interpreted a prayer by another guy speaking in tongues. He said that it would be a prophecy about me. The translation was very general, and is sounded like this "God has a plan for your life". I think everyone could prophesy like this.
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?
I like the way you covered this subject and I think you hit the nail right on the head in your biblical interpretation of the subject. This is an area of significant misunderstanding and often abuse. Calvinists dismiss tongues altogether by saying "that was for during the apostolic era only" (cessationism). Pentecostals and some in the word of faith movement abuse it with ostentatious public displays of it.
Its kind of weird that you brought this up as I was thinking about this the other day.
Question for you..... So you interpret your own Tongues? If someone came up to me and said something in a foreign tongues and then said I will interpret it for you.... How do you know they are telling you the truth? An example prosperity Ministers.
FYI I get a lot out of your ministries. I don't always agree, but it provokes a lot of questions and seeking of answers.
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
This is my understanding, of spiritual gifts as well... I left the church I was going to because of so many things taught, that I knew were wrong. Pastor said several times, that if one doesn't speak in tongues, they don't have the spirit within. That they are not living right or not true believers, basically.? And I heard a few sermons that were just wrong or from scriptures taken way out of context. Perhaps I should have tried to correct him, but these were & are the type of people that would simply tell you to find another church or turn it around on you as if you are wrong, so I prayed on it for awhile & stopped goin. Also, the congregation put far too much praise into the pastor than I saw necessary. Just too many red flags for me. Even had a guest preacher come one service sprinkling something all over & calling to invoke a spirit of laughter on the church. It was super weird & my spirit just cringed. Something was way off there...
Amen, I agree with what you have said here. I have an interesting topic I have been studying lately. I wanted to share in case anyone else finds interesting.
Did Jesus go to hell between his death and resurrection?
One thousand years before Jesus died on the cross, King David prophesied of Jesus Christ's resurrection:
Psalm 16:10 KJV - For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.
The Apostle Paul confirmed that Psalm 16:10 was about Jesus Christ and not about King David:
Acts 13:33-37 KJV - God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee. And as concerning that he raised him up from the dead, now no more to return to corruption, he said on this wise, I will give you the sure mercies of David. Wherefore he saith also in another psalm, Thou shalt not suffer thine Holy One to see corruption. For David, after he had served his own generation by the will of God, fell on sleep, and was laid unto his fathers, and saw corruption: But he, whom God raised again, saw no corruption.
The Apostle Peter also confirmed that Psalm 16:10 was written about Jesus Christ and not about King David:
Acts 2:22-27 KJV - Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know: Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain: Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it. For David speaketh concerning him, I foresaw the Lord always before my face, for he is on my right hand, that I should not be moved: Therefore did my heart rejoice, and my tongue was glad; moreover also my flesh shall rest in hope: Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.
Jesus said that no sign would be given to those of His day asking for a sign, but that of the prophet Jonah:
Matthew 12:39-41 KJV - But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas: For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. The men of Nineveh shall rise in judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: because they repented at the preaching of Jonas; and, behold, a greater than Jonas is here.
In Jonah's prayer to God, Jonah refers to his time in the belly of the fish as being in hell:
Jonah 2:1-2 KJV - Then Jonah prayed unto the LORD his God out of the fish's belly, And said, I cried by reason of mine affliction unto the LORD, and he heard me; out of the belly of hell cried I, and thou heardest my voice.
The Apostles' Creed was not written by the apostles. Rather, it was written at least 150 years after the apostles had all died. It is called the Apostles’ Creed because it is supposed to be a record of what the apostles taught. Note that within this creeds is written "the holy catholic church," which does not refer to the Roman Catholic Church as we know it today. The word catholic means “universal.” The true "catholic" church is all those who have placed their faith in Jesus Christ for salvation. The Apostles' Creed is as follows:
"I believe in God, the Father Almighty,
the Creator of heaven and earth,
and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord:
Who was conceived of the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried.
He descended into hell.
The third day He arose again from the dead.
He ascended into heaven
and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty,
whence He shall come to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and life everlasting.
Amen."
Then in Romans 10:7, the word "deep" is the Greek word "abyssos" which everywhere else in scripture is used to refer to the bottomless pit (the abyss, or the abode of demons, see Revelation 9:1,2,11; 11:17; 17:8; 20:1). For example, in Luke 8:31, Legion is cast out of the demoniac and begs Jesus not to send them into "the deep" (the abyss).
Romans 10:7 KJV - Or, Who shall descend into the deep? (that is, to bring up Christ again from the dead.)
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.
I am leaning towards your understanding but I have questions. Why did Acts 2:4, 10:44-46, 19:6, 1 Cor. 14:23 say or suggest that ALL spoke in tongues?
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 Lord brought my husband and myself out of an apostolic pentecostal church...i love the ppl within that church but their theology requires mental gymnnastics constantly. There is no amount of exegetical exposition of the bible and alot of their behaviors result in spiritual abuse. I would recommend anyone who is within this movement to please do thorough research on the pentecostal movement, heresies and church history. Inform yourselves even if it goes against pastors telling you not to. Read your bibles and when you get done read it again and repeat. Also, try other translations other than kjv, esv can be a helpful parallel.
Kingdom Theology, everyone who is baptised with the Holy Ghost, will speak in tongues. The Bible records five 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.
The baptism with the Holy Ghost and speaking in tongues is a separate experience to the rebirth.
A person doesn't have to be baptised with the Holy Ghost and speak in tongues to be saved.
There are EIGHT supernatural manifestations of tongues that the Bible records, and the tongues in 1 Cor 12: 10, and v 30 are one of the nine gifts of the Spirit and not everyone will have that gift of tongues, it's tongues that need an interpretation, and not everyone will have this gift the tongues in those scriptures aren't languages, because they need an interpretation, please note, interpretation, NOT a translation.
Everyone who is baptised with the Holy Ghost can speak in the other SEVEN supernatural manifestations of tongues that the Bible records.
You really shouldn't try to teach when you don't know what the Bible says. You shouldn't mislead people.
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.
No they shouldn’t