Видео

♥️♥️

ok theyre alright, the guitarists and bassists seem like they know what theyre doing, the singer seems nervous but that can be worked out, but the drummer is just all out of tempo, which is not great when you’re preforming, if your drummer is out of tempo then the whole band is, a drummer can make or break a band, she really needs to focus on that. not saying that theyre bad, but theres improvement needed obviously

song?

Beautiful speech! 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻💖 There's always hope. It is difficult to "let go & let God", but I try and practice every day.

Best debate on topic I have heard

I love that they throw last resort in there is like an intermission break for the band and for him. But I still would love to see him actually sing that live sometime. And I'm not a vampire.

Where a new albummmmmmm

Goat

While baptism is commanded and should be obeyed by the believer, it is not mandatory for salvation. Matt 20..the parable of the worker in the vineyard. Even if you only start work in the 11th hour of the day your reward will still be the same. There are those who have been saved in the last moments of their lives, where baptism is not possible. Does anyone seriously believe the Lord would deny them?

Yeah , this isn't rock. Not sure what it is besides a headache. Sorry you chaps missed out .

I love this song 🥹♥️

I was right in front with my son at the guard rails about four feet left of this camera angle was the most awesome concert .

I felt like Sproul made a good argument for believer’s baptism and only in the end, when he was able to tie it loosely to infants did he even begin to make a better case. Unfortunately he didn’t address the big issue that MacArthur addressed which is how we now have a world full of baptized unbelievers and unbaptized believers. The confusion this has caused is astounding. All my life I’ve heard people who have no signs that they are saved claim that they are because they were baptized when a baby and therefore cannot be hell bound.

compared to his STG stuff he's basically asleep here lol

THE BLEGHS THO 😤

Holy fuck

Technical difficulties at the breakdown 🫠

Gostei, a banda é boa!

Alex my fucking father

Ronnie deserves a much rowdier audience

Thats me in the end you can hear me talk about passing a joint!!! What a beautiful set..Sooo gold got there early to see this!!!

Disturbed has been a big help with my mental state dealing with all my medical issues thanks again super disturbed

Фига, STP вообще не ожидала увидеть)))))) Но они прям оч в тему оказались 👍

What's a child doing in a heavy metal concert?

Can't even hear him :( he is the goat bassist Mudvayne sucks cock though

Awesome! 🤘

Should put to rest the idea that we need men with degrees to decide what's biblical. If they can't even agree on what baptism is, when baptism is appropriate, or what baptism accomplishes, why should I assume they know anything else? Further, the fact that they are debating in front of the "laity" with the expectation that these same people have the ability to disagree with one of them, why can't they disagree with both? In fact, we can find all manner of degreed people who can't agree on meaning, timing, or even mode of baptism. In the end, 2 Tim 2:15. Neither Sproul nor MacArthur nor your pastor will stand by your side when we stand before the Lord to have our service judged.

It is sad to know that both of these misguided men have led millions down the rabbit holes of false doctrine that is not taught in the Bible!

Ironically, where RC Sproul ended up, water isn’t helping his parched mouth.

WOAH ... this is the first time i've seen alex with ronnie on stage. INCREDIBLE! ABSOLUTLEY FUCKING LOVE IT! 🤯

I was there

Саня красавчик)

this kid is living the dream!

Unas de las mejores colaboraciones

Baptism is a statement by God about the person not vice verca. Sproul is spot on here. Here’s a comment I will paste I’ve made before “As I’ve stated… Phil “the Bible nowhere portrays baptism as the testimony of the person baptized. Passages that link faith to baptism (such as Acts 8:12; 18:8) simply show that faith, publicly professed, is a necessary condition for baptism. Indeed, it is appropriate to include a statement of faith in the baptismal ceremony. However, a baptism itself (the application of water, with accompanying words) is a statement by God (through the church) to and about the person being baptized, not a statement by that person. The person baptized is the recipient of baptism from a minister of Jesus Christ, acting in his name (Matt. 28:18-20; Acts 2:37-42; 8:16; 35-38).” The most detailed and informative account is that of the Philippian jailer (Acts 16:30-34). “Believe in the Lord Jesus,” he was told, “and you shall be saved, you and your household” (vs. 31; cf. 11:14). Accordingly, the gospel was preached “to him together with all who were in his house” (vs. 32). In response, he “believed in God with his whole household” (vs. 34), whereupon “he was baptized, he and all his household” (vs. 33). The key word in this passage is “with.” It signifies accompaniment. When Luke says that the jailer heard the gospel and believed with his household, the implication is that everyone in his household went along with him. Any older household members, such as his wife, evidently became believers, too. But any young children went along with their father, following his lead with whatever limited understanding that they had. This crucial distinction between “with” and “and” (regrettably obscured by some translations) is clear in similar passages in Acts: 1:14; 3:4; 4:27; 5:1; 10:2; 14:13; 15:22; 21:5. In each case, “with” introduces those who follow the lead of others and join with them in their activity, however actively or passively. In Acts 21:5, for example, Paul is escorted to the harbor by all the men in the church at Tyre, “with wives and children,” which no doubt included a number of small infants. In the household baptism passages, the head of the house always believes “with” his household, but he and they are baptized. Just as the heads of households escorted Paul to the harbor “with” infants who were only passive participants, so also heads of households were baptized “with” whatever infants were in their families. Some would argue that there may not have been any infants in these households mentioned in Acts. However, household baptism was evidently a common practice in the apostolic church (see also 1 Cor. 1:16). It happened thousands of times, often including infants. How can a child be baptised with unbelieving parents Phil ? That’s not the biblical pattern. Paul’s promise to the Philippian jailer, that salvation would come to his whole house if he believed in Jesus, was no different from what Peter told three thousand adult converts at Pentecost. The promise of the Holy Spirit, Peter said, was “for you and your children, and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God shall call to Himself” (Acts 2:39). These converts had just been called by the Lord into fellowship with himself, and many other adults (then “far off”) would be called in the future, but the children of these converts formed a third category: they were called into fellowship with Christ together with their parents (or even merely one parent: see 1 Cor. 7:14). Such is the grace of God to the children of believers! The biblical pattern is that the children of the first Christian converts were baptized, brought up in the Christian faith (see Eph. 6:1-4; Col. 3:20-21), and, whenever it pleased the Lord, given the Holy Spirit promised to them. God will save all that he gave the son ) that’s his promise, believers are simply asked to follow that pattern. This is about believers children Phil. 1 Cor 7 says that the children of believers are ‘clean’. It is not clear exactly what this means for our kids, but what is clear is that our kids are unique, because of the faith of their parents. One practical way in which this shows itself is the very different path our kids have towards mature faith. Children of believers are raised within the Christian faith, not outside of it. This is obvious by the fact that from the moment they can talk they give expression to a faith in God. In fact, we teach them to live as his child - from birth. We don’t wait until they become a Christian in some crisis moment as teenagers. We assume they are, because they are our children. They will need to make a choice as they grow older, but it will be to stay in the faith, not join it from outside. This is very different to the choice a child of unbelievers makes. He or she has to choose to enter into the Christian community by a decision to turn to Christ. Our child is raised within the Christian community and faith. The other is raised outside of it. Infant baptism recognises this profound difference. Our kids are unique. Believers kids aren’t like just any kids. They are raised within the Christian faith from birth. And, second, God himself commands that a sign of faith be given to an infant, when they are a certain unique kind of infant. What is that unique kind of infant? The kind that has parents who already belong to the believing community. This is what Romans 4 says. It speaks of a ‘sign and seal of faith’ (circumcision) that was given to the infants of Jewish covenant members before they themselves could have that faith. For instance, if a pagan man was converted to Judaism, he would undergo circumcision as a sign that he was now a person who had chosen to put his faith in the God of Israel. Importantly for us, that sign of faith would also be applied to any infant children in his family even though they couldn’t personally give expression to faith - yet. The point here is that the Jews were used to applying a sign of faith to a person who wasn’t able to express faith themselves - yet - if that person was the infant child of parents of faith. Our children are a unique class of child. The act of baptism says at least three things. It says that the person baptised has looked to Christ to be his person and now identified as belonging to him. It says that God has marked us as his person. And it says that the person baptised is now welcomed into the church family is a fully-fledged member. Baptising the infants of believers emphasises the last two of these points. That is, it says to an infant that they are the object of God’s grace. He has put them in a family of faith and so marks this child as having a special connection with him (see again 1 Cor 7). And, it says that this little child is marked as a special member of our church community, to be treated as a fully loved member of the church family and raised within the church family with confidence and assurance that God will work in their life. That is, infant baptism says to our kids, you are welcomed among us by virtue of God’s grace towards you, not because they have proven yourself to be fit to be among us - by later coming to mature faith. It says that God has gone before them and given them many expressions of grace. And it says we receive them as fully welcomed members of church. We don’t leave them floundering outside we bring them in because unlike non believers we actually believer Gods word. Phil we baptise believers infants because It is consistent with the longest practice of the church. And it makes best sense of the very unique circumstances of our kids. We don’t raise little pagans, working to see them converted to Christ, and hoping one day they will prove it by their mature faith. We raise kids who belong to the things of Christ and seek to nurture and grow that faith, prayerfully encouraging them to stay with the Lord who has given them so many unique gifts of grace. This will be my final comment much of which I’ve stated before, I’ve just got more important matters to attend to then going round in circles re this but thanks for the convo. “

I am looking at this 9 years later..mañy believe they are saved because of infant baptism.what value is it to the child..hitler was baptised.i think its church tradition..was our lord sprinkled at the temple..no..did he tell the new believers .o baptise their children..no.

Alex vocals fucking brutal😎💪🏻💪🏻RUS Quality 👌🏻

The only reason people think they shouldn't or don't need to get baptized is because the thief on the cross. Most people always point to the thief as their reason why they can be saved and not follow Jesus. I tell them the thief was only saved to fulfill the scripture. He appeared to be repentant, but really it was to fulfill the scripture and by no means is an example to follow. Honestly, it's not a hard thing to go get baptized and follow Jesus' example, and every person who gave their life to the Lord in the book of Acts and beyond. I don't think baptism saves you but I also don't think you'll get saved if you don't get baptized. It's about obedience, and if you disobey that call then why would God want a relationship with you? If you are in a relationship with Him He by way of the Holy Spirit asks you to do all kinds of things, it's a relationship! Having said that there are many who have been baptized that didn't get saved because they thought baptism saved them. My Dad, who has past on got baptized and had absolutely zero desire to follow Jesus. He did the ritual and went right back to his life which consisted of laying on the couch, smoking 2 packs a day, and taking pain pills. I told him Jesus wants you to start living by His word now, and you don't get to live like the world and expect to get saved. He watched my life completely change from a drug addict to a sober and Spirit filled man of God who fed the poor daily and witnessed about Jesus. He simply thought he was perfect and the water ritual was all that was required. Unfortunately he didn't get saved because disciples of Christ love people and my Dad never loved anyone. Most people think I'm being mean when I say my Dad didn't get saved but I live like Jesus and righteousness calls for unrepentant sinners to go to Hell and last time I checked God created all souls not parents. I prayed and hoped he'd believe in Jesus, but he actually through his actions began to hate God even more than before because I would teach him Jesus' teachings and He'd say stuff like, "oh there's more than one way." No there's not.

Turn that mans mix UP! He IS the band!

In some respects, I think Sproul is/was guilty of fabricating his ideas and convictions. And his arguments are quite refined and polished. But did he drill deeper than the Scriptures actually go? I think he did. I can't wait until God finally sets everyone in the church straight on all matters of faith and conduct. If we aren't' careful, we can do the same as the cults we point out and condemn. Just a thought to ponder.

MacArthur all the way on this debate and issue.

Еееееее, Сашка Шоколай!!!!!!!!!! Yeeeeee, Alex Terrible!!!!!!!!!

8:22❤

MOVE means mosh!!! 7:40

My little girl is now a brand new fan of Soil!!!! That’s her riding on my shoulders!!!!

Well that was fucking adorable 🥹

So when you boil things down, what were the belief differences between these two men?

Thank you so much for exposing this false prophet. We always need more people to expose this ( these) hirelings! I believe TBN is a creation of Satan himself. This is not the anointing of God on these young people, but an evil spirit! Satan masquerades as an angel of light. Why isn’t an invalid person ever healed before our eyes?

Мне кажется там басист спокойно может конкуренцию составить и Ронни и Алексу🤔

I want to know what he’s watching.