Good video. Still not quite through, but as I was reading through Acts tonight in chapter 8, I read something that brought back tobwhat he said here and actually contradicted it. When I originally watched I kind of agreed on him with this. When I read Acts 8 I saw we both were wrong. Not criticizing him or the video at all. But no need to talk about where I agree it would be too much. And I wouldn't have even said this if my mind hadn't flashed here reading Acts and the fact I basically agreed with him when he said it. So just a teaching moment.
"If you are born again you have tongues. You have the gift but you need to open your mouth and start to use it...I got born again in April, the Holy Spirit come to me, changed my life. But I went several weeks before I understood I already had tongues and I need to open it."
This isn't actually true. When a person is born of the Spirit, he is born-again, a new creation, baptized by the Spirit into the body of Christ, but they have not been
baptized in the Holy Spirit yet as most of us would agree. At least all here that are Charismatic/Pentecostal.
We know that tongues are associated with the baptism in the Holy Spirit,
not the new birth. Not regeneration by the Holy Spirit. So just being born again doesn't mean you have the ability to speak in tongues even though the Spirit is the one that has done all these things in us.
What caused me to see this was in Acts 8 when Philip went to Samaria. Philip preached Christ to them, they
believed, and were
baptized. This is what we call getting saved, being born again, etc. They were saved beyond a shadow of a doubt. Then Acts 8 says:
14 Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John:
15 Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost:
16 (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus).
17 Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.
So we know from Acts 8 that being born again, or being saved, and being baptized in the Holy Spirit are as a rule two separate experiences although they can happen at the same time (Acts 2 and Acts 10). So if what he is saying is true, they didn't need anyone to come lay hands on them to receive the Holy Spirit. They could have just spoken in tongues. Why send Peter and John to
specifically lay hands on them to receive the Holy Spirit if they could just go ahead and speak? They couldn't because tongues come with the baptism in the Holy Spirit, not when you are born again, saved: 16 (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus).
Also look at Acts 19. Paul came upon the disciples of John at Ephesus. He asked them if they'd received the Holy Spirit since they believed, and they said they didn't know about a Holy Spirit. Anyway he tells them about Jesus:
5 When they heard this,
they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus (saved).
6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied (baptized in the Holy Spirit).
So if when you are born again you can just speak then, why did they not speak until
Paul laid hands on them and the Holy Ghost came on them?
Anyway, just thought I'd address that when I read that in Acts and I assumed the Holy Spirit flashed my mind back to this video and what he said. If I ever see him I'll talk to him about it.