Slick vs Kabane Debate Aftershow, imputation

Federal Headship, Imputation, and Adam’s Sin

Ah, oh, man, there's so, oh, yes, so I feel like Sam Shimon. He blew it to just one little thing. You got it wrong. So there we go. My bad, everybody. Yeah, sorry. Now I can focus. OK, Justin, I always ask your your question again.

This is the point I'm trying to make. Is that like like through one man's disobedience, many were made sinners, that Adam wasn't just declared legally a sinner, but internally he was made a sinner and that through one man's disobedience, the many were made righteous, that we're not just declared righteous in the sight of God, that he actually intrinsically makes us righteous and holy.

No, no, no, no, no, no, no.

Be careful here. I got to be careful. OK, the era of Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodox is very similar. Uh, when Adam sinned his gate. So can you see me on the camera here? I can see you. Yes. OK.

So I'm hearing clicks and sounds that bothers me. I have autism and those things make me not able to concentrate.

So I think it's the guy with the with the dog.

OK, Eastern Orthodox, Charlie, maybe it's Charlie. He just muted himself. It's just I have Asperger's, so it's just one of the things that hits me. So. OK, so when Adam sinned. Here he is in his nature and I'm hearing this clicking, what is that?

Are that that, Justin, is that you doing something or is that just a connection? I don't think it's me. There's a connection then. My connection. OK, well, no, it's sometimes sometimes there are issues that happen with and we get these.

You're not the only one. I don't remember if this happened before about two weeks ago. Talking to somebody got these clicking sounds. So I'll just have to push through it. But it's hard for me because of, you know, I have this autism thing going.

OK. OK. So when Adam fell, his nature was changed, but sin was reckoned to him. It became to his because he's the one who's guilty of his own sin. So it's to his account. But because we're in Adam, then sin entered the world through him.

Romans 512. And so therefore we fell in him. That's what Romans 519 says. When it says the air is passive indicative, it means it's a past action that he that Adam did, that the many were made sinners by what he did.

That's what's going on there. The many that are those in him were made sinners by what Adam did. Were made sinners. Now, how can you? That's what I say. That's I'm going to do. Now there's two senses which we can look at it.

One, they were made sinful. But the other one, they were made sinners. A sinner is someone who has broken that law. Now, wait a minute. How can we therefore be a sinner when we didn't even exist and do anything?

It's not our fault. Well, this gets in the doctrine of federal headship. So let me separate this for a little bit. Federal headship is a teaching that the male represents a descendants. Adam and Eve are in the garden.

She sinned first. She gave the fruit to Adam and then he sinned and sin entered the world through Adam, not through Eve. And Hebrews 7, 7 through 10, Levi paid tithes for Melchizedek while in the loins of his father Abraham.

So Abraham lived and he had a son, had a son, had a son, had a son, had a son, had Levi. And so Levi said to pay tithes through Abraham to Melchizedek. This is a term of federal headship. It says in Romans 5, 18, one verse prior, it says that through one transgression, there resulted condemnation to all men.

Condemnation is a legal standing to everybody. And so we know that what Paul's teaching is that Adam represented us. Now, in 1 Corinthians 15, 22, I'm going through this quickly, it says, in Adam, all die.

So we have this thing of in Adam being legal as well as the effect on our nature, that we have a legal imputation to us, we have a nature that we inherited from him that's sinful. So the federal headship issue takes both of those into account.

I believe, this is my opinion, the reason that this is the case is because Jesus would take our sins in his body on the cross, 1 Peter 2, 24, which Cobain couldn't, he didn't do well with that. He fumbled to that for quite a bit.

Nature, Evil, and the Meaning of Free Will

Can I ask a question on that?

Sorry, this is a big question that I had for you and it was kind of the big sticking point for me as an Eastern Orthodox coming from our framework. When you say that we inherit a sinful nature, can you flesh that out a bit?

Do you believe that our nature is made evil from the fall?

You said sinful not, and then you said in evil. And so what you did, you just switched terms, that makes the question a lot more difficult to answer. So, would I understand to be that the baby is born with a non-fallen nature, right?

That's right. Okay. We don't have fallen natures, yeah. Yeah, and that's heresy, flat out heresy. Because the Bible says we are by nature children of wrath, Ephesians 2, 3. By nature, in Adam, all die.

Now, are you familiar with federal headship? I'm not. I've heard you reference it a few times. I'm not sure what you mean by that. Well, what I would suggest, and I mean this lovingly, just go study. Go to my website and look up federal headship and do a study.

I'll explain more here, but I'm just saying go there, that way you can print it out, read it instead of having me 80 miles an hour dump this out at you. And there's more, there's scriptures, there's explanations.

And so when I do marriage counseling, for example, all right, I don't know, by any chance, are you married? I am. Okay. So you're married and I say, and I could say a lot more about this, but I'm just going to cut things down just to emphasize.

I'll say you are the head of your family and you represent the family to Christ. The head of Christ is God. The head of the man is Christ. The head of the woman is the man. This thing of headship, which is an authority thing.

Yeah. I think I know where you're going with this. Okay. So I'll say to people in marriage, I'll say, look, I don't care if you like it or not, dude, you know, the guy I go, this is your responsibility.

This is where you are because you're the one who represents her and your family to God. That's how Adam was.

Yeah, we're children of Adam. Right. So we're children of Adam. And so we're liable for his sin and what he's done. Because of federal headship. Yeah, no, I know. Adam is the father of us all until we're born again in Christ.

So I think he still is the father of us all. But in addition, Christ only represented his people. Now, I'll show you something. Okay. Let me ask. This is a trick question. Okay. You ready? I'm asking you a trick question.

All right. Yeah. All right. So have you died? Have I died? Yeah. As an Orthodox, I would say I died in baptism. I was born again.

Okay. So I would disagree with that theologically. But you get the idea. You've died, right? Okay. Now, the Bible says that our old self was crucified with Christ. That's when it says we died, when he was crucified.

That's what it says. Romans 6, 6, knowing this, that our old self was crucified with him. Well, when was he crucified? 2000 years ago. So that's what it says. This doesn't fit anybody's theology about you die in baptism.

They don't understand what that means. And I could teach on baptism quite a bit. So we were crucified with him because he represented us. And it says we died with Christ. So if I were to say we died with Christ, that's what it says in Romans 6, 8.

When did Christ die? It's 2000 years ago. And yet it says we died with Christ. Well, how does that work? If people say it's by baptism that we died with Christ, that's not what it says. It says we were crucified with him.

That's 2000 years ago. We died with Christ. That's 2000 years ago. It only makes sense in federal headship. Now, when I asked you the trick question, I said, have we died? You know, I said it's a trick question.

So here's another little something. You never find in scripture any place where it says the unbelievers died with Christ or the unbelievers died to self, died to sin. It's always the believer who's died to self, died to the world, died to sin.

You know, things like that. Okay. You with me? Yeah. Now I'm going to read a verse slowly because I want to make sure you get it. First, 2 Corinthians 5, 14. Okay. Says this. The love of Christ controls us, having concluded this, that one died for all, therefore all died.

Who's the all who died? Is it those in hell?

Sorry, he died. I'm just reading it again. And he died for all. And those who live should live no longer for themselves, but for him who died for them and rose again.

So he died for all that's on their behalf. Yeah, that's all of mankind. Those are all the children of Adam. No, but you're not getting what I'm saying. And this is typical. It happens. I have to teach Christians, Armenians, Calvinists this.

I said, I tell them, no, it's not accurate because the Bible says that when we've died, it's only in relationship to the believer. We've died with Christ. We have died to the elementary principles of the world.

We have died to sin. That's not referenced of the unbeliever. There's actually patterns that the Bible uses, that God uses. And I show people some of these patterns. And I say, when we go through this slowly, I go, look at this verse, everybody go here.

Look at there. Look at there. Look at there. It's never an unbeliever has died to sin. You don't find that. So when he says he died for all, therefore all died, the pattern of scripture is that the all who died is only the believer, the ones who trusted in Christ.

Well, so this is why I asked you about the nature question, because we don't believe that the fall has permanently altered human nature, because what that would mean is that evil has ontological being, ontological status, meaning that it exists as itself.

Which would then mean that God created evil. So if evil has an ontological being, an ontological status, and if God is the only one who can create natures, that would mean that God created evil nature and that would make God the author of evil.

No, no, no, no.

You don't get it. Yeah. That's a common question and misunderstanding theologically and logically. All right. Let me take a note here. I can address this. God created evil in us. That is a, in my opinion, it's a profound lack of understanding on what the issues really are here.

I'm going to put this in here. If anybody wants to come into this room, they can come in. So when you said evil has an ontological existence and evil in itself, that's impossible. And logically it doesn't work either.

Evil is not some ethereal kind of something that Lucifer bumped into and like the blob in the old 50s movie. Now it became something on him. We don't say that. What we say is that Satan himself became the opposer of God, the opposer of brethren.

And in his nature, he's evil. Wouldn't you agree that he is in his nature evil?

No, that would mean that God created an evil angel.

You, okay, let's back up. God created Lucifer good. Would you agree? Yes. Then Lucifer rebelled, right? Right. And then after his rebellion, he became evil. That's right.

But his nature is not what's evil. This is what the orthodox distinguish between nature, which is abstract in general and specific or personal. I get you. Atheists do this too. So personally, you can enter a mode where you exercise your will contrary to your nature.

That's what evil is in orthodoxy. No, no, no, no. That's ridiculous. It doesn't work. You cannot. Okay. Let me ask you a question here. Watch this. Okay. Can you define what free will is? So I didn't mention free will, but we have a will.

It's okay. We have a will that's tied to our nature.

So as you define free will, I'm going to show you something.

Okay. So what we do have is we have the ability to act contrary to nature. That's what we might call free will. Can.

Okay. So free will is the ability to act. Am I right? To act contrary to our nature. That's right. For our purpose. Okay. So that's illogical. All right. And I'll show you why. And it's also unbiblical.

Can God act contrary to his own nature? No. Then God doesn't have free will by your definition.

Well, it's like asking, can God lift a rock that's too heavy for him to lift? No, he can't. No, he can't.

Because it's a non-sequitur to begin with. It violates the laws of logic. So I'm just saying that what you're doing here and what Aether and Orthodox are doing, I'm getting more and more of this impression is they're trying to be philosophical and don't know what they're doing.

They don't know how to do it. And so let me help you out. To say that you act in a manner contrary to your nature is logically impossible.

Well, do you believe that God created the world and the world was good before the fall? No, you don't understand. And you understand. You understand.

Focus, focus, focus. You said free will is the ability to act contrary to our nature. That means God, by that definition, does not have free will. So that definition is not sufficient. God is a standard of what's right, not us.

And what you were doing inadvertently was being a humanist. Humanism, I'm not just calling you personally. Humanism is alive and well in the Christian church and the Protestant churches also. Humanism is saying that the man is the standard of right and wrong.

I can act contrary to my nature. My nature is good. And so that's what it is. And that's a faulty understanding. Period. It's illogical. It makes no sense. All right. And so when we say, well, what is what's God's standard?

Because God says in 1 Peter 1 16, be holy for I am holy because he's the standard of righteousness. So we have to go with him. And I wish I could just teach on the Trinity for like three days. And then and I wish you were listening in that and I could go into this as it's really deep.

But anyway, I won't do that now. So that definition of free will doesn't work.

But that's an elaborate one thing. I didn't say that's my definition of free will. I just said we have the freedom or the ability to operate against our nature. But the church fathers are very clear that true free will is to operate according to our nature.

So our ability to act against our nature is not a benefit that we get. That's not true freedom. That is a stimulated freedom that is a result of the fall.

First of all, when you go to the church fathers, I automatically take the respect level down for the speaker down a level. All right. I do. The church fathers, I've read through a lot of them. You know what?

That's fine. And I could ask you all kinds of difficult questions you can't answer. What's the right church father? How do you know it's the right church father? Oh, the church says this. How do you know it's the right one?

And it just gets into be a morass of difficulty. But you said, and I wrote it down, free will is the ability to act contrary to our nature. All you got to do is say, you're right. It's not a good definition.

Let's move on. That's all you got to do. And so I'm just helping you out that we can only act in a manner that's consistent with what we are. You cannot act in a manner against what you are. So if I'm human, I have the ability to do right and wrong.

God does not have the ability to do right and wrong. He can only do what's right. Now you stop me when you disagree. Because I disagree.

So God can do something wrong? Let me ask you a question. In the eschaton after the resurrection and the kingdom of heaven, can we do what's wrong?

Wait, are you saying God can do what's wrong?

No, God cannot. It's impossible for God to do what's wrong. Okay.

Now you're asking a different question on a different situation, a different topic. So you need to be careful. All right. Don't jump ahead. A lot of people just, they take one thing and they don't understand the nuance and they go in.

During a debate, I was telling Cobain that he, you know, I was trying to hint very politely that he's not understanding the terminology he's using and the way he's using it. And I tried to tell him he's, you know, without being condescending that he needs to work on that.

And he does. My only point is being a human by nature does not mean that you can do what's wrong. This is a temporary result of the fall.

Look, you're not listening. What is free will? We have to define it before we can say what can happen and can happen then and there.

I'm trying to answer you according to your categories because the fathers don't talk about. There's will, natural will, and there's hypostatic will at the individual personal level. We were created for our will to be aligned with our nature.

As a result of the fall, there can be now a misalignment between our will and our nature. But this is a temporary status that will be resolved in the eschaton after the resurrection.

Yeah, it's EO equivocation and lack of clarity.

It's well, the only problem that I have with your position is if our nature, what we are ontologically, our being is evil. And if God is the only creator, which I believe we affirm, then you may God the author of evil.

No, no, you don't understand. Again, you don't understand. Do you know what?

Okay. Do you know what ultimate if proximate and efficient causation is? I do not. Okay. So Adam and Eve are in the garden. God is the one who's the ultimate cause of Adam's sins. What that means is that God is when it created the universe and created Adam and Eve and put them in the garden.

He's the ultimate cause because it wouldn't exist without him ultimately creating everything. Proximate causation. God allowed the serpent to come in to tempt. God knew it was going to happen. So God specifically allowed the evil one to go into the garden and speak to Eve.

All God had to do is go and stop it. And he chose not to. So God is now the proximate cause. He is the one who arranged everything right in that condition, but he's not the efficient cause because Eve and Adam, both of their own volition shows to rebel.

So when we talk about causation and people say, well, you're making God the author of evil. No, we're not. You can. He's the ultimate cause of evil. He's approximate cause of evil, but he's not the efficient cause of evil.

And so this is why I asked him to debate if he knew what these distinctions were. He said, yes. Unfortunately, if I were to go into that level, the audience mostly just doesn't understand. I don't want to go into that too much.

The fact is that we're not making God the author of evil. And what I see a lot of people fail to understand is that God made Satan good and in his nature, he was able to sin. It doesn't say he was perfect.

It doesn't say he was holy. It just says he made everything good. And goodness does not mean they can't sin. Adam was good, and yet he sinned. Satan was what Lucifer was good, but yet he could sin. And when he did, he became evil.

God didn't make him evil. It's what happened to him in his rebellion against God. And the Bible doesn't say how that happened ontologically. It just says this is what happened. And this relates to the issue of when you're born again.

Because born again is an internal change where God indwells us, John 14, 23. And we can get into this stuff about John 3 and born again the whole bit. And he causes us to be born again, 1 Peter 1, 3. And we're born again, not of our own will, John 1, 13.

So here's a question. Born again is another term for regeneration, something that God does to us inside of us. If we lose our salvation, does God then make us unregenerate? Does he make us unborn again?

So we're in and out, and God is actively making you regenerate, making you unregenerate, back and forth, back and forth? Of course not.

Baptism, Water, and the New Birth

So it's ridiculous. At the hypostatic individual level, we have the ability to participate in that mode of salvation that Christ accomplished on the cross. Mode of salvation? Yeah.

Wait a minute. Participate in a mode of salvation. This is right out of New Age phraseology. Let me just explain.

When you interact... It's meaningless. Let me just tell you what the Orthodox believe, because I've seen when you interact with them, there's this disconnect at this level. And you can't make progress because you're not sure what the Orthodox are saying.

Let me just tell you what they believe. So you asked the question a lot about Colossians when God died for all, right? You asked, how could he die for all? And why isn't everyone in heaven, right? The Orthodox affirm that God died for all, that Christ on the cross died for all.

And what they mean by that is Christ re-established a mode of human nature that can be free of sin, okay? But he doesn't impose that mode on every individual. The individual through participation has to actualize that potential.

And through faith, the individual enters that mode, which is a relationship with Christ by the Holy Spirit. So what happened on the cross is potency. It's a potentiality that's not imposed on every single individual.

So let me get this straight. Orthodox affirm that Jesus died for all. He re-established a mode of human nature that is free from sin, but doesn't impose that mode on every individual, but the person has to actualize that mode, right?

It's a potentiality in our nature that previously we lost by the fall. Christ, by becoming human and living a perfect life, that's free from sin, re-establishes that mode. It tears down the barrier of sin on the cross.

That mode is not imposed on us. Again, it's a potentiality that we have to actualize through participation. Okay. All right.

So that's what you're saying. And I want to just make sure I'm going to write. I'm going to put this on my notes. Okay. East North Terms. I'm just going to put this right here. All right. Okay. I'm going to keep my notes here.

All right. Now, you know what the New Age movement is? I do, yeah. Okay. I used to teach on it a great deal years ago. It's making a comeback. I could take what you said, just alter a couple of things.

The Orthodox, I wouldn't say Orthodox. I'd say mankind affirms that Jesus died for all, re-established a mode of human nature that is free from sin, but doesn't impose that mode on every individual. But the person has to actualize that mode.

It is a potentiality in the nature that is lost in the fall. And I would say the Christ consciousness re-establishes that mode. I could put that right, just like that in a New Age conference. And they would say, yes.

Now, why am I bringing this up? Because these terms are not biblical terms defined in biblical context. See, look, say he died for all. For example, all right. I can show you in the scriptures where all does not mean every individual and who Christ died for.

In 1 Samuel 3, 14, God said that the iniquities of Eli's house will not be atoned for by sacrifice or offering forever. That's what God said. So he could not have died for all. Right there, could not die for every individual.

Right there is proof. Because he said so in 1 Samuel 3, 14. And he said he re-established a mode of human nature that is free from sin. Show me that in scripture. Show me where he re-established a mode of human nature, a mode of human nature.

Show me that in scripture. Because the Bible says we are by nature children of wrath, Ephesians 2, 3. It's not there. It's mumbo-jumbo from the Eastern Orthodox. Show it to me in the Bible.

Well, that's the whole point of baptism, right? So that's why for you to participate in Christ's work on the cross, you have to die again and you have to be born in Christ. Okay, so that's the answer to my question.

Hypothesis. So when I say mode of human nature, all I'm saying is the individual personal level, not the general natural level.

So where does it say anywhere in the Bible that a person's nature is somehow re-established in a mode of freedom from sin?

Down to the kingdom of heaven, you must be born again. That does not say. You must be born of water and spirit. You're reading it. You're reading it in the text. What does the water mean there? Baptism.

How do you know? Well, the context in Acts is water baptism. Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait.

Okay, I asked you. And John, you just did the same thing that I told Cabane don't do. We ask a verse, you first look at it. Don't jump someplace else. Because when you do that, I'm going to tell you flat out, it's what the cults do.

To keep their theology. That's what they do. So go to John, look in the context of John. Unless one is born of water and the spirit. What does the word water refer to?

I take it to be baptism. Because of the context of how baptism is understood in other passages in the Bible. Okay. So if you have a different approach, I'm happy to hear it. All right, great.

What baptism is he talking about? If that's the case, which baptism is it? Baptism of John?

Baptism of Jesus? What baptism? He's talking about the sacrament that he's going to institute.

Well, the sacrament he's going to institute, what is that?

So he did it in his baptism. So when Christ was baptized, it wasn't for his own sin. Because obviously Christ is without sin. What he did was he baptized the waters for our sin. So in that act, he instituted as part of the divine economy of salvation, a key sacrament.

Okay. Yeah. You're just, all you're doing is reciting EO stuff. That's all you're doing. Well, yeah. Look at the text. Look at the text. Look at the text. Show it to me from the text. We'll go to other baptism verses.

I can do that too. I know the topic well. Show me from the text. What's the context? Because the context is the baptism of John, if anything. And I don't know if you know this, but there's a baptism of conversion that the Jews would undergo where the water was applied.

And here's a question. I'm assuming you believe in sprinkling and pouring, right? I don't. No, only immersion. Only immersion. Okay. Let me just show you something. Here's all kinds of stuff. Okay. I'm getting less and less convinced that baptism means immersion.

Now, that's my opinion. You know, I'm open to being changed. Okay. But I'm studying stuff. Now, it says here in John 3, and I'll show you why Jesus was baptized and how he was baptized, and I'll show it to you.

But Jesus answered and said to him, truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. Nicodemus said, can a man be born when he's old? He cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born again, right?

Jesus says, truly, you have to be born of water and the spirit. Otherwise, you can't enter the kingdom of God. And then Jesus says, that which is born of the flesh is flesh, and the spirit is spirit. Yeah.

So, Nicodemus is saying entering the womb, and Jesus even says that's born of the flesh is flesh. What's the water context?

You're going to have to help me out here. The womb. But he's right. But Nicodemus is thinking the womb, but Christ is not talking about the womb.

Then why did Jesus say it's born of the flesh is flesh? Because Nicodemus was born of the flesh, wasn't he?

Because he's thinking of birth from Adam, and Christ is speaking about the rebirth in the Holy Spirit through baptism.

No, baptism doesn't save us, 1 Peter 3, 21. Okay. I'll show you some stuff. Why was Jesus baptized? I mean, why was Jesus baptized?

Oh, hey, I do this all day. Why was Jesus baptized? Well, as I said previously, Jesus was baptized not for his sin, because obviously he had none. He was born without sin on our behalf.

No, hey, I didn't ask anybody else. Please understand that when I'm talking to somebody, if someone else jumps in and gives an answer, I really don't like that. I want the person to struggle against their ignorance about the word of God.

I don't need someone jumping in. I know the answer already. Please don't jump in and help me out. I don't like that. Okay. Just letting you guys know. Now, why was Jesus baptized?

Right. Again, what we believe is he's baptized not because he needs to be cleansed from sin. He's God without sin, but he baptizes the waters. It's going back to imagery in Genesis with the flood.

Jesus answered John the Baptist when John said, look, you're going to baptize me. And Jesus says, permitted at this time for this way is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness. Why was Jesus baptized?

What do you mean? So how do you interpret fulfill all righteousness?

Okay. First of all, why was Jesus baptized? What does it say? It says to fulfill all righteousness. So that's what Jesus said, right? What do you think it means when it says to fulfill something? What do you think it means?

To accomplish. No, it doesn't say to accomplish. It says to fulfill. What did Jesus do? Did he not fulfill Old Testament scripture? He did fulfill prophecy. All right. Did you know that in order to enter the priesthood?

Do you know Jesus was a priest, right? Yeah, that's right. After the order of Melchizedek, Hebrews 6, 27, 25. Now, in order to enter into the priesthood, according to Leviticus 8, Numbers 4, Exodus 29, a man needed to be 30 years of age.

Jesus was 30, a verbal blessing given. This is my beloved son, whom I'm well pleased, right? I had anointed with oil. Okay. I can show you the references. I got an article on calm and sprinkled with water.

Numbers 8, 7. Now, think about this before you answer anything. It says, if you go to Acts 1, just think about this. Okay. Acts 1 and verse 5, and I'll just, I can, whatever. John baptized with water, but you'll be baptized with the Holy Spirit.

What does it mean to be baptized with the Holy Spirit? For us, that means to be chrismated. Nope. It means the Holy Spirit is poured out on you because it's a prophecy that's fulfilled here in Acts chapter 2, verses 17 and 18, which is Peter quotes from Joel 2, 28, 29, where God says he will pour his spirit forth.

It's not to be chrismated. Stop thinking EO, think scripture, scripture, because this is what you got to do. If it says John baptized with water, does it mean immersed in water? Does it mean immersed?

Yes, that's my understanding. And you'll be baptized with the Holy Spirit. Does that mean immersed with the Holy Spirit? No, but so the Holy Spirit, immersed with the Holy Spirit part is the second part of baptism.

Okay.

What does it say here in the text? I'm asking specifically about the text. What you do and what Catholics do and what Muslims do is you don't listen. You just jump into something else. Listen, focus. If the word baptized here in water means immersion, why does the word baptized in the very same breath not mean immersion?

It does mean immersion, just with oil.

No, immersion with the Holy Spirit. No, the way it's prophesied in the Bible is by pouring.

Okay, but that's the connection that you're making.

And no, this is what Peter says in Acts 2, 17. All right, so let me just elaborate. This is what was spoken on through Joel the prophet, that I'll pour forth my spirit on all mankind. They were speaking in tongues.