Speaking in tongues and the Holy Spirit

[My Rock]

That which is born of the flesh is flesh

John 3:6 (KJV) states, "That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit." This verse, when considered alongside John 3:5, which says, "Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God," provides a nuanced understanding of the concept of rebirth.

In John 3:5, Jesus emphasizes the necessity of being "born of water and of the Spirit" to enter the kingdom of God. Here, "water" symbolizes the external, visible act of baptism (Faith in Christ not the water, getting wet doesn't save you but your faith in Christ does), while "Spirit" refers to the internal, transformative work of the Holy Spirit. This rebirth is essential for spiritual regeneration and entrance into God's kingdom.

John 3:6 further clarifies this by distinguishing between the natural and spiritual realms. "That which is born of the flesh is flesh" points to our natural, physical birth and our existence in the flesh. This natural birth is limited to the physical world and does not inherently grant spiritual life or entrance into the kingdom of God.

"that which is born of the Spirit is spirit" refers to the spiritual rebirth that is facilitated by the Holy Spirit. This rebirth transcends the mere physical existence and ushers one into a new spiritual reality and relationship with God.

The "flesh" in John 3:6 does not equate to water baptism but rather signifies the human nature in its unregenerate state. Water baptism, while a crucial outward sign of inward spiritual transformation, is not synonymous with the "fleshly" aspect of birth. Instead, it is an act of Faith that reflects the deeper, spiritual work accomplished by the Holy Spirit.

This is He who came by water and blood—Jesus Christ; not only by water, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit who bears witness, because the Spirit is truth. 1 John 5:6

This passage highlights the essential nature of Jesus Christ’s mission and identity, emphasizing the completeness of His redemptive work. The "water" symbolizes Jesus’ baptism, marking the beginning of His public ministry and His identification with humanity’s need for repentance and purification. The "blood" refers to His sacrificial death on the cross, which accomplished the atonement for sin and established the new covenant.

In this verse, the dual aspects of water and blood signify that Jesus’ work encompassed both His initiation into ministry and His ultimate sacrifice. These elements together affirm the fullness of His earthly mission and the divine truth of His identity. The "Spirit" bearing witness underscores that the truth of Jesus’ divinity and His redemptive work is confirmed by the Holy Spirit. The Spirit’s testimony is vital for understanding and recognizing the truth of who Jesus is and what He has accomplished.

The passage reinforces Biblically that Jesus is the singular manifestation of the one true God, and His work encompasses all aspects of divine redemption—beginning with His baptism and culminating in His sacrificial death. The witness of the Spirit aligns with this understanding, confirming the unity and completeness of Jesus’ role in salvation and His divine nature.

 

[RandyK]

In 1 Corinthians 14:22, Paul writes, “Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not.” This passage underscores that tongues, as a manifestation of the Holy Spirit, serve as a sign for those who do not yet believe. Tongues function as an outward demonstration of an inward reality—the Baptism of the Holy Ghost. At Pentecost, the disciples’ speaking in tongues was a dramatic and visible sign that captured the attention of a diverse crowd, leading to Peter’s sermon and the conversion of thousands (Acts 2:6-41). This sign was pivotal in validating the divine nature of the disciples' experience and opening the way for the gospel message to be received. For unbelievers, the manifestation of tongues serves as a clear and supernatural evidence of God's work, prompting them to reconsider their own understanding and leading them to the truth of Christ.

If the Tongues on Pentecost were for "unbelievers" due to their being a "foreign tongue," then it failed, because these Tongues were understood by the listeners who heard the message in their native tongue.

This is why Paul argued for the interpretation of a Tongue so that unbelievers could actually understand and be convicted. However, the argument that "Tongues are a sign for unbelievers" argues aginst their understanding, as long as they choose not to believe. That's why I say Paul utilzied an OT figure of hostile foreigners being brought by God against Israel in their unbelief, because they deserved to have foreigners take over their country. They were not faithful to God, and deserved to have pagan unbelievers conquer them.

Again, I could be wrong on this. But this sounds like what Paul was arguing...

1 Cor 14.21 In the Law it is written:
“With other tongues
and through the lips of foreigners
I will speak to this people,
but even then they will not listen to me."

This argues for the OT precedent of God bringing judgment against faithfless Israel by bringing against them foreign pagans. But in the NT, if pagans are to be converted to faith, foreign language is a sign that they must be converted, which they won't be able to understand unless the language is interpreted for them.

1 Cor 14.23 So if the whole church comes together and everyone speaks in tongues, and inquirers or unbelievers come in, will they not say that you are out of your mind? 24 But if an unbeliever or an inquirer comes in while everyone is prophesying, they are convicted of sin and are brought under judgment by all, 25 as the secrets of their hearts are laid bare. So they will fall down and worship God, exclaiming, “God is really among you!”

In the New Testament context, tongues are not portrayed as a form of judgment but rather as a spiritual gift meant to edify and serve as a sign for unbelievers.

I agree that Tongues in the NT are for the edification of believers. But Paul is talking about unbelievers entering into the church while Tongues are being spoken. They will not understand unless they hear the words in their native language. So it is a sign that they must be converted, supernaturally, to be able to hear God spiritually.

Does Paul speak in terms of pagans being judged? Certainly, he quotes where we are all viewed, in a sense, as captured soldiers who had been fighting against the Lord and His will on earth....

Eph 4.8 This is why it says: “When he ascended on high, he took many captives and gave gifts to his people.”

When we were pagans we were hostile to God and were His enemies. But He took us captive by the message of Christ, and now we are in service to Him. In the same way, He comes to us as if He is speaking a foreign language, out to conquer us like a foreign army. But when we learn to conform to His word, we understand spiritual truths. Anyway, that's how I read it.

 

[My Rock]

If the Tongues on Pentecost were for "unbelievers" due to their being a "foreign tongue," then it failed, because these Tongues were understood by the listeners who heard the message in their native tongue.

The tongues at Pentecost were not a failure because they were understood; in fact, their miraculous nature served as a powerful sign to unbelievers, demonstrating the divine origin of the message. The listeners heard the apostles fluently speaking in languages they had never learned, which was a clear supernatural event that called for faith and captured the attention of those present. This undeniable display of God's power led the crowd to ask the crucial question, "What must we do?" (Acts 2:37), opening the door for Peter's sermon and the conversion of about three thousand souls. The tongues were a sign precisely because they were understood in this miraculous way, convicting the unbelievers and leading them to seek salvation.

This is why Paul argued for the interpretation of a Tongue so that unbelievers could actually understand and be convicted.

Paul’s argument for the interpretation of tongues, as seen in 1 Corinthians 14:13, is intended primarily for the edification of believers, not unbelievers. Interpretation ensures that the church, which consists of believers, can understand and be built up by the message being delivered through tongues. In a church setting, where the goal is to strengthen the faith of the congregation, interpretation allows the spiritual truth to be communicated clearly and effectively. While tongues serve as a sign to unbelievers by demonstrating the supernatural power of God, the interpretation is specifically for the benefit of those who already believe, so that they can receive and comprehend the full meaning of the message being shared. The focus is on maintaining order and clarity in worship, ensuring that all members of the body are edified and that the presence of the Spirit is clearly understood within the community of faith.

However, the argument that "Tongues are a sign for unbelievers" argues against their understanding, as long as they choose not to believe.

Tongues as a sign for unbelievers does not argue against their understanding, but rather serves as a supernatural indication of God’s presence and power that challenges their disbelief. At Pentecost, the tongues were understood by the listeners in their own languages, which directly led to their conviction and subsequent faith (Acts 2:37-41). This understanding did not diminish the sign's effectiveness but heightened it, prompting a response of faith from those who witnessed it. The miracle of hearing unlearned languages fluently spoken called unbelievers to acknowledge the divine source of the message and to seek further understanding, leading many to conversion.

That's why I say Paul utilized an OT figure of hostile foreigners being brought by God against Israel in their unbelief, because they deserved to have foreigners take over their country.

While Paul may allude to Old Testament imagery in his teachings, the context of 1 Corinthians 14 is different. Here, Paul is not drawing a parallel between tongues and hostile foreign invaders as a form of judgment, but rather discussing the proper use of spiritual gifts within the church. The tongues at Pentecost were not an act of judgment but a sign of God’s promise being fulfilled and the gospel being made accessible to all nations. The emphasis is on the inclusion and empowerment of the believers, as the Spirit enables them to speak the languages of many nations, symbolizing the spread of the gospel to the ends of the earth.

They were not faithful to God, and deserved to have pagan unbelievers conquer them.

This interpretation misapplies the context of 1 Corinthians 14. The tongues at Pentecost and those discussed by Paul are not about judgment or conquest by unbelievers but about the proclamation of the gospel. The Pentecost event was about the outpouring of the Holy Spirit as a fulfillment of God’s promise, not a judgment on Israel for unfaithfulness. The manifestation of tongues was a sign of God's mercy and the opening of the door of salvation to all people, regardless of their background, rather than a symbol of condemnation. It was an invitation to believe and be saved, as evidenced by the thousands who responded in faith and were baptized after hearing the message.

Again, I could be wrong on this. But this sounds like what Paul was arguing...

While the humility of admitting potential error is very commendable, it’s important to carefully examine the context and intent behind Paul’s message. Paul’s teaching in 1 Corinthians 14 is focused on the proper use of spiritual gifts within the church, particularly how tongues and prophecy should function to edify the body of believers and to serve as a sign to those outside the faith. The emphasis is on clarity, order, and the ultimate goal of bringing people closer to God.

1 Cor 14.21 In the Law it is written:
“With other tongues
and through the lips of foreigners
I will speak to this people,
but even then they will not listen to me."

Paul’s reference to Isaiah 28:11-12 here is indeed an allusion to the Old Testament, where God used foreign tongues as a judgment against Israel’s unbelief. However, Paul is repurposing this reference to illustrate a different point in the New Testament context. In 1 Corinthians 14:21-22, Paul uses this citation not to declare judgment, but to highlight the paradoxical nature of tongues as a sign. While it was a sign of judgment in the Old Testament, in the New Testament, it becomes a sign that calls unbelievers to faith. The presence of tongues in the church signifies the powerful and active presence of God, inviting unbelievers to recognize the divine and respond in faith.

But in the NT, if pagans are to be converted to faith, foreign language is a sign that they must be converted, which they won't be able to understand unless the language is interpreted for them.

In the New Testament, tongues serve as a sign of God’s active presence and the fulfillment of His promise to pour out His Spirit. While interpretation of tongues is crucial within the church for the edification of believers, the initial sign of tongues at Pentecost was understood without interpretation because it was a miraculous event where each person heard the message in their own language (Not foreign to the Unbelievers but Native) (Acts 2:6). This understanding led to conviction and conversion. The necessity of interpretation comes into play within the church to ensure that the message is clear and edifying for all. However, the sign itself, as witnessed at Pentecost, was effective in reaching unbelievers precisely because they could understand it in their own native tongues, which compelled them to seek more, ultimately asking, "What shall we do?" (Acts 2:37). This demonstrates that the power of the Holy Spirit can overcome barriers of understanding and bring people to faith.

 

[My Rock]

1 Cor 14.23 So if the whole church comes together and everyone speaks in tongues, and inquirers or unbelievers come in, will they not say that you are out of your mind?

1 Corinthians 14:23, "If therefore the whole church be come together into one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those that are unlearned, or unbelievers, will they not say that ye are mad?"

This verse highlights the importance of order and edification in the use of spiritual gifts, particularly the gift of tongues. Speaking in tongues is a significant aspect of Pentecostal worship and is seen as a manifestation of the Holy Spirit. However, Paul emphasizes that the primary purpose of spiritual gifts, including tongues, is to build up the church and to be a witness to unbelievers.

In this passage, Paul is not discouraging the practice of speaking in tongues but is advocating for its proper use in public worship. This aligns with the teaching to encouraging believers to exercise spiritual gifts in a way that promotes understanding and edification. When everyone in the congregation speaks in tongues simultaneously without interpretation, it can lead to confusion, particularly for those who are new to the faith or are visiting unbelievers. This confusion can result in the misperception that the congregation is acting irrationally ("mad"), thus hindering the church’s witness.

Paul's instruction underscores the need for balance between spiritual expression and clarity of communication. The gift of tongues is a powerful and necessary experience but also recognize the importance of interpretation (1 Corinthians 14:27-28) so that the church may be edified. The presence of interpretation transforms the tongues into a prophetic message that can instruct and encourage all present, including unbelievers who might otherwise misunderstand the purpose of the gift. This approach ensures that the use of tongues serves its intended purpose: to glorify God, edify the church, and serve as a sign to unbelievers of the active presence of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Hidden In Him]

While embracing the Word of God and accepting Christ is crucial to the journey of salvation, the full new birth experience, as outlined in the New Testament (not my words, but God's), encompasses more than just an intellectual or initial acceptance. According to John 3:5 and Acts 2:38, being born again requires both water baptism and the reception of the Holy Spirit. The process of being "born of water and of the Spirit" is not an optional or secondary experience but is essential for entering the kingdom of God. The incorruptible seed of God's Word indeed initiates the transformation, but this seed must come to fruition through obedience to the full gospel, which includes water baptism in the name of Jesus and the infilling of the Holy Spirit. Without these elements, the new birth experience remains incomplete.

This is well written, and not much to disagree with here.

Interpreting John 3:5 within the broader context of the New Testament, it is clear that Jesus was not merely offering a suggestion but was making a definitive statement about the requirements for entering the kingdom of God. Water baptism and Spirit baptism are consistently presented throughout the New Testament as essential components of salvation. For example, in Acts 2:38, Peter explicitly commands repentance, baptism in Jesus’ name for the remission of sins, and the reception of the Holy Spirit. These are not presented as separate or optional steps but as integral parts of the salvation process. To diminish the importance of baptism and the Holy Spirit is to overlook the clear scriptural mandate that Jesus Himself established. The context of John 3 is not limited to the Pharisees or any specific group; it is a universal requirement for all who would enter into the kingdom according to Christ Himself.

While it is true that Jesus was addressing Nicodemus, a Pharisee, in John 3, His words about being born again are universally applicable and not limited to the Pharisees. Nicodemus did not come on behalf of the Pharisees; he came on his own, seeking Jesus in secret by night, likely out of fear of being seen by his fellow Pharisees (John 3:2). Jesus’ teaching about the necessity of being "born of water and of the Spirit" transcends the immediate context and applies to all who seek to enter the kingdom of God. The New Testament consistently emphasizes the need for both water baptism and the infilling of the Holy Spirit for all believers, not just those steeped in religious tradition like the Pharisees. The rebirth experience that Jesus describes is the foundation of Christian life, and it is essential for every believer, regardless of their background or prior religious experience. This teaching is further reinforced throughout the New Testament, demonstrating that the new birth is a universal requirement for salvation (again Scripture not my Words), and not merely a corrective measure for the religiously entrenched.

Your subsequent sections, however, and the use of words like "essential" and "universal requirements" come off as too legalistic, and I will explain why.

Let's take water baptism. While I agree it is a command to be maintained by the church, to teach that it is essential unto salvation is to elevate it into something greater than what it is. The real question at hand where salvation is concerned is has a man fulfilled the reality of what it represents. Water baptism represents death to the old, fleshly life and rebirth unto the new spiritual one. Who is truly saved, the man who undergoes water baptism yet does not live out what it represents, or the man who lives out what it represents whether he goes through with water baptism or not?

It's the same principle as what Jesus taught in Matthew 21 and elsewhere when He said:

28 “But what do you think? A man had two sons, and he came to the first and said, ‘Son, go, work today in my vineyard.’ 29 He answered and said, ‘I will not,’ but afterward he regretted it and went. 30 Then he came to the second and said likewise. And he answered and said, ‘I go, sir,’ but he did not go. 31 Which of the two did the will of his father?”

Now transfer this to Spirit baptism. I'm sure someone already brought this up but I will quote the passage for discussion's sake:

24 Now a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man and mighty in the Scriptures, came to Ephesus. 25 This man had been instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in spirit, he spoke and taught accurately the things of the Lord, though he knew only the baptism of John. 26 So he began to speak boldly in the synagogue. When Aquila and Priscilla heard him, they took him aside and explained to him the way of God more accurately. 27 And when he desired to cross to Achaia, the brethren wrote, exhorting the disciples to receive him; and when he arrived, he greatly helped those who had believed through grace; 28 for he vigorously refuted the Jews publicly, showing from the Scriptures that Jesus is the Christ.

Now how could Apollos be said to have been lacking anything that would undo his salvation if he was doing everything he knew before the Lord he was responsible for? I ask because while the church corrected this quite easily when they came across him, nowadays it is not nearly so easy to correct when so many are indoctrinated against it and now consider it to be not of God.

In short, a man is responsible to obedience, not ceremony which represents it, and will be held accountable for obedience only to what he truly knows he is responsible for. We are called to judge righteous judgement, and some of your posts run dangerously close to advocating for judgement based merely on outward appearances.

 

[eddif]

Jesus answered, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. John 3:5-6


Just read what Jesus said.


Furthermore John uses this unique phrase again in
1 John 5 to teach that Jesus was born of a virgin.


This is He who came by water and blood—Jesus Christ; not only by water, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit who bears witness, because the Spirit is truth. 1 John 5:6

Everyone comes (into the world) by water; is born of water.

Only Jesus came by water and blood.


Do you understand what blood John is referring to?




JLB

)I agree Jesus (the second Adam) became a life giving Spirit.

eddif

 

[electedbyHim]

No where is that stated in scripture.

We are saved by grace through faith.

Grace and faith.


Grace is the Spirit; the Spirit of grace.

We are born again by the Spirit.

Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God.


No one is saved without the Spirit.
No one is saved without faith.


Both together.



Faith alone is unbiblical.

Thus also faith by itself, (alone) if it does not have works, is dead.
James 2:17




JLB

Is salvation by faith alone, or is salvation by faith plus works? This is perhaps the most important question in all of Christian theology. This question was the cause of the Reformation, the split between Protestantism and Catholicism. This question is a key difference between biblical Christianity and most of the cults. Is salvation through faith alone or through faith plus human works? Stated another way, am I saved by trusting in Jesus, or do I have to believe in Jesus and, in addition, do certain things?

The works in addition to faith needed for salvation differ in various religious circles. Many groups point to water baptism as a work that must be added to faith for salvation—if you’re not baptized, you’re not saved. Some go even further: you must be baptized by the right minister, using the right method, saying the right words.

Others suggest different rites to be observed in order to be saved, but the formula is always faith + [fill in the blank]. Salvation is through faith + receiving Mass, faith + going to confession, faith + tithing, etc.

Many passages of the Bible teach that salvation is through faith alone, not faith plus works. Ephesians 2:8–9, for example, is clearly worded and unequivocal: “It is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast.” Of great importance is the word grace, which refers to God’s blessings on the undeserving. The very idea of grace negates all attempts to earn salvation. Paul makes that argument when teaching on God’s choosing of the remnant of Israel: “Since it is through God’s kindness, then it is not by their good works. For in that case, God’s grace would not be what it really is—free and undeserved” (Romans 11:6, NLT).

Other passages that clearly teach salvation through faith alone include Acts 16:31; Romans 3:28; 4:5; 5:1; Galatians 2:16; 3:24; Ephesians 1:13; and Philippians 3:9.

There are a few Bible passages that, at first glance, seem to teach salvation through faith plus works. One such is James 2:24, which appears to say that justification is by faith plus works: “You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone.” This apparent problem is solved by examining the whole of James’ argument in his epistle. James is refuting the idea that a person can have saving faith without producing any good works (see James 2:17–18). Genuine faith in Christ, James says, will produce a changed life and result in good works (James 2:20–26). James is not saying that justification is by faith plus works, but that a person who is truly justified by faith will have good works in his or her life. The works are an outward show of genuine faith in Christ (James 2:14, 17, 20, 26)—and it’s that outward show that “justifies” the believer in the sight of other people.

Paul says those who have true faith in Jesus Christ will be “eager to do what is good” (Titus 2:14). To return to Ephesians 2, immediately after teaching that we are saved through faith, not through works (Ephesians 2:8–9), Paul says that we were created “to do good works” (Ephesians 2:10). Salvation comes by God’s grace through faith, and that faith is made manifest in good works. The works follow the faith and are a proof of it.

If we’re going to say that we are saved by works, we must qualify whose works. We are not saved by our own works, however meritorious they are in our own eyes. We are saved solely by the work of Christ on our behalf. His death and His resurrection are the works that save us. We receive our Savior by faith (John 1:12).
Gotquestions.com

 

[My Rock]

Is salvation by faith alone, or is salvation by faith plus works? This is perhaps the most important question in all of Christian theology. This question was the cause of the Reformation, the split between Protestantism and Catholicism. This question is a key difference between biblical Christianity and most of the cults. Is salvation through faith alone or through faith plus human works? Stated another way, am I saved by trusting in Jesus, or do I have to believe in Jesus and, in addition, do certain things?

The works in addition to faith needed for salvation differ in various religious circles. Many groups point to water baptism as a work that must be added to faith for salvation—if you’re not baptized, you’re not saved. Some go even further: you must be baptized by the right minister, using the right method, saying the right words.

Others suggest different rites to be observed in order to be saved, but the formula is always faith + [fill in the blank]. Salvation is through faith + receiving Mass, faith + going to confession, faith + tithing, etc.

Many passages of the Bible teach that salvation is through faith alone, not faith plus works. Ephesians 2:8–9, for example, is clearly worded and unequivocal: “It is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast.” Of great importance is the word grace, which refers to God’s blessings on the undeserving. The very idea of grace negates all attempts to earn salvation. Paul makes that argument when teaching on God’s choosing of the remnant of Israel: “Since it is through God’s kindness, then it is not by their good works. For in that case, God’s grace would not be what it really is—free and undeserved” (Romans 11:6, NLT).

Other passages that clearly teach salvation through faith alone include Acts 16:31; Romans 3:28; 4:5; 5:1; Galatians 2:16; 3:24; Ephesians 1:13; and Philippians 3:9.

There are a few Bible passages that, at first glance, seem to teach salvation through faith plus works. One such is James 2:24, which appears to say that justification is by faith plus works: “You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone.” This apparent problem is solved by examining the whole of James’ argument in his epistle. James is refuting the idea that a person can have saving faith without producing any good works (see James 2:17–18). Genuine faith in Christ, James says, will produce a changed life and result in good works (James 2:20–26). James is not saying that justification is by faith plus works, but that a person who is truly justified by faith will have good works in his or her life. The works are an outward show of genuine faith in Christ (James 2:14, 17, 20, 26)—and it’s that outward show that “justifies” the believer in the sight of other people.

Paul says those who have true faith in Jesus Christ will be “eager to do what is good” (Titus 2:14). To return to Ephesians 2, immediately after teaching that we are saved through faith, not through works (Ephesians 2:8–9), Paul says that we were created “to do good works” (Ephesians 2:10). Salvation comes by God’s grace through faith, and that faith is made manifest in good works. The works follow the faith and are a proof of it.

If we’re going to say that we are saved by works, we must qualify whose works. We are not saved by our own works, however meritorious they are in our own eyes. We are saved solely by the work of Christ on our behalf. His death and His resurrection are the works that save us. We receive our Savior by faith (John 1:12).
Gotquestions.com

When we follow the commands of the Inspiration of the Holy Ghost, which is what the Word is. Never would that be considered a work. So, I ask If Jesus' and/or His Word commanded you to do something, you would say no that's a work, sorry Jesus.

 

[JLB]

In this verse, the dual aspects of water and blood signify that Jesus’ work encompassed both His initiation into ministry and His ultimate sacrifice.

He came by water and blood.

This is He who came by water and blood—Jesus Christ; not only by water, but by water and blood…

• not only by water, but by water and blood

Everyone comes into this world by water, He came by water and blood.


This is a reference to the virgin birth.

Do you understand that the blood was from Mary’s hymen, because she was a virgin?

Not by water only… like everyone else.



JLB

 

[JLB]

Is salvation by faith alone, or is salvation by faith plus works?

Salvation is not by faith alone, but by grace through faith.


For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God. Ephesians 2:8


Not faith alone.
Not grace alone.

Grace and faith.

 

[RandyK]

When we follow the commands of the Inspiration of the Holy Ghost, which is what the Word is. Never would that be considered a work. So, I ask If Jesus' and/or His Word commanded you to do something, you would say no that's a work, sorry Jesus.

I agree. Living in Christ is not a "Work" in the negative, Protestant sense. Thank you!

 

[RandyK]

Salvation is not by faith alone, but by grace through faith.


For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God. Ephesians 2:8


Not faith alone.
Not grace alone.

Grace and faith.

That's an interesting approach--one that in context makes a lot of sense to me! What I've been saying recently is that "Faith Alone" works primarily in the sense of Christ being the exclusive work of redemption for our Salvation. Apart from this particular faith in Christ for redemption we cannot be saved.

However, Salvation involves much more than just accepting Christ as our Redeemer. It involves a choice to live in him and in his redemption.

As such, we live by Grace, though it certainly requires Christian works. If we are to live in Christ we must obey his Word in our lives. This kind of "Work" comes through a partnership between Christ and us as we choose to live exclusively by his Spirit.

 

[My Rock]

He came by water and blood.

This is He who came by water and blood—Jesus Christ; not only by water, but by water and blood…

• not only by water, but by water and blood

Everyone comes into this world by water, He came by water and blood.


This is a reference to the virgin birth.

Do you understand that the blood was from Mary’s hymen, because she was a virgin?

Not by water only… like everyone else.



JLB

Some interpret this passage as a reference to the virgin birth, which is incorrect, a closer examination of the text and its context does not support this interpretation.

The phrase "came by water and blood" is better understood as referring to key events in Jesus' life and ministry, specifically His baptism (water) and His crucifixion (blood). The water symbolizes His baptism by John, where His ministry began, and the blood points to His sacrificial death on the cross, where He shed His blood for the remission of sins. This understanding is consistent with the broader context of 1 John, which emphasizes the reality of Jesus’ incarnation and His role as the atoning sacrifice for humanity.

The virgin birth, while a vital doctrine of the Christian faith, is not the focus of this passage. The emphasis in 1 John 5:6 is on the authenticity and completeness of Jesus’ earthly ministry, marked by His baptism, His death, and the testimony of the Spirit, which affirms His identity as the Son of God. To interpret this verse as a reference to the virgin birth would be to overlook the clear connection to the water and blood associated with His baptism and crucifixion. Therefore, 1 John 5:6 does not directly point to the virgin birth but rather to the key events that testify to Jesus’ messianic mission.

 

[RandyK]

The tongues at Pentecost were not a failure because they were understood; in fact, their miraculous nature served as a powerful sign to unbelievers, demonstrating the divine origin of the message. The listeners heard the apostles fluently speaking in languages they had never learned, which was a clear supernatural event that called for faith and captured the attention of those present. This undeniable display of God's power led the crowd to ask the crucial question, "What must we do?" (Acts 2:37), opening the door for Peter's sermon and the conversion of about three thousand souls. The tongues were a sign precisely because they were understood in this miraculous way, convicting the unbelievers and leading them to seek salvation.

This seems to run contrary to what Paul wrote...
1 Cor 14.23 So if the whole church comes together and everyone speaks in tongues, and inquirers or unbelievers come in, will they not say that you are out of your mind? 24 But if an unbeliever or an inquirer comes in while everyone is prophesying, they are convicted of sin and are brought under judgment by all.

It is not the Tongues that served as a sign to unbelievers, but rather, Prophecy, because it speaks to the mind of unbelievers.

Paul’s argument for the interpretation of tongues, as seen in 1 Corinthians 14:13, is intended primarily for the edification of believers, not unbelievers. Interpretation ensures that the church, which consists of believers, can understand and be built up by the message being delivered through tongues. In a church setting, where the goal is to strengthen the faith of the congregation, interpretation allows the spiritual truth to be communicated clearly and effectively. While tongues serve as a sign to unbelievers by demonstrating the supernatural power of God, the interpretation is specifically for the benefit of those who already believe, so that they can receive and comprehend the full meaning of the message being shared. The focus is on maintaining order and clarity in worship, ensuring that all members of the body are edified and that the presence of the Spirit is clearly understood within the community of faith.

Yes, I agree that Tongues is useful for believers. What I would question is whether it is useful for *unbelievers?* Paul indicated Tongues should be interpreted to reach them?

Tongues as a sign for unbelievers does not argue against their understanding, but rather serves as a supernatural indication of God’s presence and power that challenges their disbelief. At Pentecost, the tongues were understood by the listeners in their own languages, which directly led to their conviction and subsequent faith (Acts 2:37-41). This understanding did not diminish the sign's effectiveness but heightened it, prompting a response of faith from those who witnessed it. The miracle of hearing unlearned languages fluently spoken called unbelievers to acknowledge the divine source of the message and to seek further understanding, leading many to conversion.

So this was *interpreted Tongues,* and not purely Tongues in the uninterpreted sense. So how is this an argument that all Christians should speak in a foreign tongue, since most of the time they are not interpreted? And they do not reach unbelievers unless they are interpreted?

But Paul used Tongues as an allusion to the OT experience of foreign countries invading Israel for judgment against their unbelief. At least, that's how I read it. We are taken captive by Christ, and given Tongues, at times, to show that we've been changed, supernaturally, from unbelief to belief. Tongues, then, would not be a sign for unbelievers, but rather, for believers to know they've been changed by grace.

While Paul may allude to Old Testament imagery in his teachings, the context of 1 Corinthians 14 is different. Here, Paul is not drawing a parallel between tongues and hostile foreign invaders as a form of judgment, but rather discussing the proper use of spiritual gifts within the church. The tongues at Pentecost were not an act of judgment but a sign of God’s promise being fulfilled and the gospel being made accessible to all nations. The emphasis is on the inclusion and empowerment of the believers, as the Spirit enables them to speak the languages of many nations, symbolizing the spread of the gospel to the ends of the earth.

This interpretation misapplies the context of 1 Corinthians 14. The tongues at Pentecost and those discussed by Paul are not about judgment or conquest by unbelievers but about the proclamation of the gospel. The Pentecost event was about the outpouring of the Holy Spirit as a fulfillment of God’s promise, not a judgment on Israel for unfaithfulness. The manifestation of tongues was a sign of God's mercy and the opening of the door of salvation to all people, regardless of their background, rather than a symbol of condemnation. It was an invitation to believe and be saved, as evidenced by the thousands who responded in faith and were baptized after hearing the message.

While the humility of admitting potential error is very commendable, it’s important to carefully examine the context and intent behind Paul’s message. Paul’s teaching in 1 Corinthians 14 is focused on the proper use of spiritual gifts within the church, particularly how tongues and prophecy should function to edify the body of believers and to serve as a sign to those outside the faith. The emphasis is on clarity, order, and the ultimate goal of bringing people closer to God.

I don't advocate for "false humility." True humility begins with honesty. And I cannot honestly yield to your arguments unless enough truth is there to convict me that it is God's voice, and not merely your own interests. Have you examined what your motivation is in this? Are you really considering whether you understand what Paul is saying here, or simply wishing what is said to confirm your predetermined beliefs?

Paul’s reference to Isaiah 28:11-12 here is indeed an allusion to the Old Testament, where God used foreign tongues as a judgment against Israel’s unbelief. However, Paul is repurposing this reference to illustrate a different point in the New Testament context. In 1 Corinthians 14:21-22, Paul uses this citation not to declare judgment, but to highlight the paradoxical nature of tongues as a sign. While it was a sign of judgment in the Old Testament, in the New Testament, it becomes a sign that calls unbelievers to faith. The presence of tongues in the church signifies the powerful and active presence of God, inviting unbelievers to recognize the divine and respond in faith.

As I said above, you are asserting this, but not in any way demonstrating it as integral to Paul's thought. It goes without saying that Paul is speaking of NT Tongues, and not OT foreign invasions. But he did mention it, and you need to explain that other than simply calling it "paradoxical."

In the New Testament, tongues serve as a sign of God’s active presence and the fulfillment of His promise to pour out His Spirit. While interpretation of tongues is crucial within the church for the edification of believers, the initial sign of tongues at Pentecost was understood without interpretation because it was a miraculous event where each person heard the message in their own language (Not foreign to the Unbelievers but Native) (Acts 2:6). This understanding led to conviction and conversion. The necessity of interpretation comes into play within the church to ensure that the message is clear and edifying for all. However, the sign itself, as witnessed at Pentecost, was effective in reaching unbelievers precisely because they could understand it in their own native tongues, which compelled them to seek more, ultimately asking, "What shall we do?" (Acts 2:37). This demonstrates that the power of the Holy Spirit can overcome barriers of understanding and bring people to faith.

I agree. But the point had to do with whether uninterpreted Tongues was a sign to unbelievers? At least, that's what I thought your argument initially was? If it is not, then, a sign to unbelievers except as a miracle of supernatural translation of foreign languages, then why would it be explained as a function for *all Christians?* Certainly not all Christians interpret their "Gift of Tongues?"

Your argument is that "all" spoke in Tongues on the Day of Pentecost. But on that day, it was "Interpreted Tongues," and not "uninterpreted Tongues." How can we then use the Day of Pentecost and its particular use of Tongues as proof that *all* Christians should speak in Tongues?

 

[JLB]

That's an interesting approach--one that in context makes a lot of sense to me! What I've been saying recently is that "Faith Alone" works primarily in the sense of Christ being the exclusive work of redemption for our Salvation. Apart from this particular faith in Christ for redemption we cannot be saved.

However, Salvation involves much more than just accepting Christ as our Redeemer. It involves a choice to live in him and in his redemption.

As such, we live by Grace, though it certainly requires Christian works. If we are to live in Christ we must obey his Word in our lives. This kind of "Work" comes through a partnership between Christ and us as we choose to live exclusively by his Spirit.

I think many misunderstand the “work” James is referring to.

Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? James 2:21

The “work” James is referring to is not -

The works of the law
The work that earns a wage
Good works

The work that James is teaching is the work of obedience;
Specifically the “obedience of faith”.

But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith: Romans 16:26 KJV

This is the law (principle) of faith; the principle by which faith operates or functions to produce the intended divine result.

Faith comes by hearing God speak to you.

When He speaks to us we receive faith.

When we obey what He says (by which we receive faith) then faith is made complete and is therefore activated or made alive to produce the intended divine result.

By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith. Hebrews 11:7


Noah heard the warning from God, by which he received faith
(and grace; another discussion) and obeyed the word of faith and built the Ark.


The Divine Result: the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.



JLB

 

[JLB]

The phrase "came by water and blood" is better understood as referring to key events in Jesus' life and ministry, specifically His baptism (water) and His crucifixion (blood). The water symbolizes His baptism by John, where His ministry began, and the blood points to His sacrificial death on the cross, where He shed His blood for the remission of sins. This understanding is consistent with the broader context of 1 John, which emphasizes the reality of Jesus’ incarnation and His role as the atoning sacrifice for humanity.

“Came by” refers to came into the world.

This is He who came by water and blood—Jesus Christ; not only by water, but by water and blood. 1 John 5:6

Not by water only indicates a natural birth like any other.

By water and blood, indicates a supernatural birth unique only to Jesus Christ.

The water like this same John used in John 3:5 refers to the water associated with natural birth.

Again, verse 6 explains that the water referred to in verse 5 is associated with natural birth.

Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. John 3:5-6

That which is born of the flesh is flesh refers to natural birth.


The context is birth, spiritual and natural birth.

You interject baptism into the passage when contextually it is not being discussed.





JLB

 

[RandyK]

I think many misunderstand the “work” James is referring to.

Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? James 2:21

The “work” James is referring to is not -

The works of the law
The work that earns a wage
Good works

The work that James is teaching is the work of obedience;
Specifically the “obedience of faith”.

But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith: Romans 16:26 KJV

This is the law (principle) of faith; the principle by which faith operates or functions to produce the intended divine result.

Faith comes by hearing God speak to you.

When He speaks to us we receive faith.

When we obey what He says (by which we receive faith) then faith is made complete and is therefore activated or made alive to produce the intended divine result.

By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith. Hebrews 11:7


Noah heard the warning from God, by which he received faith
(and grace; another discussion) and obeyed the word of faith and built the Ark.


The Divine Result: the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.



JLB

Wonderfully and eloquently put! I call these "works of obedience" works that are part of the true definition of "Faith." As James said, "Faith without works is dead." Either that's true or it isn't! ;)

We're "saved by Faith," but that Faith requires works of a sort. When we repent of our works we choose Christ and his works. We choose to live by him and not strictly by our own guidance and works.

So repentance was always a condition for Salvation because in choosing Christ we choose to follow him and do works in him, as opposed to continuing in our own ungodly works--works that cannot save! But if we say we've chosen Christ and do not have to do any works then we haven't really repented, and we haven't really chosen Christ at all!

 

[Runningman]

Is salvation by faith alone, or is salvation by faith plus works? This is perhaps the most important question in all of Christian theology. This question was the cause of the Reformation, the split between Protestantism and Catholicism. This question is a key difference between biblical Christianity and most of the cults. Is salvation through faith alone or through faith plus human works? Stated another way, am I saved by trusting in Jesus, or do I have to believe in Jesus and, in addition, do certain things?

The works in addition to faith needed for salvation differ in various religious circles. Many groups point to water baptism as a work that must be added to faith for salvation—if you’re not baptized, you’re not saved. Some go even further: you must be baptized by the right minister, using the right method, saying the right words.

Others suggest different rites to be observed in order to be saved, but the formula is always faith + [fill in the blank]. Salvation is through faith + receiving Mass, faith + going to confession, faith + tithing, etc.

Many passages of the Bible teach that salvation is through faith alone, not faith plus works. Ephesians 2:8–9, for example, is clearly worded and unequivocal: “It is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast.” Of great importance is the word grace, which refers to God’s blessings on the undeserving. The very idea of grace negates all attempts to earn salvation. Paul makes that argument when teaching on God’s choosing of the remnant of Israel: “Since it is through God’s kindness, then it is not by their good works. For in that case, God’s grace would not be what it really is—free and undeserved” (Romans 11:6, NLT).

Other passages that clearly teach salvation through faith alone include Acts 16:31; Romans 3:28; 4:5; 5:1; Galatians 2:16; 3:24; Ephesians 1:13; and Philippians 3:9.

There are a few Bible passages that, at first glance, seem to teach salvation through faith plus works. One such is James 2:24, which appears to say that justification is by faith plus works: “You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone.” This apparent problem is solved by examining the whole of James’ argument in his epistle. James is refuting the idea that a person can have saving faith without producing any good works (see James 2:17–18). Genuine faith in Christ, James says, will produce a changed life and result in good works (James 2:20–26). James is not saying that justification is by faith plus works, but that a person who is truly justified by faith will have good works in his or her life. The works are an outward show of genuine faith in Christ (James 2:14, 17, 20, 26)—and it’s that outward show that “justifies” the believer in the sight of other people.

Paul says those who have true faith in Jesus Christ will be “eager to do what is good” (Titus 2:14). To return to Ephesians 2, immediately after teaching that we are saved through faith, not through works (Ephesians 2:8–9), Paul says that we were created “to do good works” (Ephesians 2:10). Salvation comes by God’s grace through faith, and that faith is made manifest in good works. The works follow the faith and are a proof of it.

If we’re going to say that we are saved by works, we must qualify whose works. We are not saved by our own works, however meritorious they are in our own eyes. We are saved solely by the work of Christ on our behalf. His death and His resurrection are the works that save us. We receive our Savior by faith (John 1:12).
Gotquestions.com

Because it's a difficult concept for one to really put their finger on, and because the Bible isn't precise about it, the idea of salvation is, of course, grace through faith. This understanding of salvation can only be truly grasped by experience, not by book smarts. The Bible also warns against sinning too much without explaining how much is too much, while also not insulting the Spirit of grace. Yet, if you do sin, you're still in God's grace, until a point.

I believe the piece of the puzzle that most people feel they are missing is the sense of control. While they can intellectualize the fact that salvation is by grace through faith, they actually have an element of uncertainty because they don't really know for sure if God has finally grown weary of their wickedness or not, despite God being depicted as merciful in Scripture. God wants to forgive if people want to repent, but many vain words and confessions amount to nothing if there aren't actions to back them up. People wonder, does God consider me repentant enough?

Where people get the idea that tongues are integral to their salvation is because it gives them something more tangible that they can experience firsthand, rather than the obscure "trust me on this one" that the Bible says is ultimately foundational to Christian living. Tongues give people the sense of control they long for, and so do works. Yet ultimately, works can't save someone either, even though God has prepared work for us and wants us to work!

It all ultimately boils down to someone's faith, and God knows who the true believers with true hearts are—those longing for righteousness, striving to do good, though failing, and genuinely repenting while serving the Lord. These people have grace, and the fakers don't.

 

[RandyK]

Because it's a difficult concept for one to really put their finger on, and because the Bible isn't precise about it, the idea of salvation is, of course, grace through faith. This understanding of salvation can only be truly grasped by experience, not by book smarts. The Bible also warns against sinning too much without explaining how much is too much, while also not insulting the Spirit of grace. Yet, if you do sin, you're still in God's grace, until a point.

I believe the piece of the puzzle that most people feel they are missing is the sense of control. While they can intellectualize the fact that salvation is by grace through faith, they actually have an element of uncertainty because they don't really know for sure if God has finally grown weary of their wickedness or not, despite God being depicted as merciful in Scripture. God wants to forgive if people want to repent, but many vain words and confessions amount to nothing if there aren't actions to back them up. People wonder, does God consider me repentant enough?

Where people get the idea that tongues are integral to their salvation is because it gives them something more tangible that they can experience firsthand, rather than the obscure "trust me on this one" that the Bible says is ultimately foundational to Christian living. Tongues give people the sense of control they long for, and so do works. Yet ultimately, works can't save someone either, even though God has prepared work for us and wants us to work!

It all ultimately boils down to someone's faith, and God knows who the true believers with true hearts are—those longing for righteousness, striving to do good, though failing, and genuinely repenting while serving the Lord. These people have grace, and the fakers don't.

It's a great point--saved by grace but to what point? Personally, I avoid self-condemnation by pointing not to my absolutely consistency, but rather, to my *like* of God. There are those who are "religious" and yet do not appear to really "like" God at all. They put up with Him only out of the necessity to maintain a sound social structure and a good public reputation.

But I believe those who like and want God are those who will live with Him forever. That simple.

However, I do think we can sin to the extent we will be ashamed upon entry into God's Kingdom. The shame ultimately will be washed away, but there has to be some accountability for the way we've lived our lives, even though we're "saved?"

 

[My Rock]

Yes, I agree that Tongues is useful for believers. What I would question is whether it is useful for *unbelievers?* Paul indicated Tongues should be interpreted to reach them?

Paul's teaching on the interpretation of tongues in 1 Corinthians 14 indeed emphasizes the edification of the church, which primarily consists of believers. When he states that tongues serve as a sign for unbelievers (1 Corinthians 14:22), Paul is not suggesting that tongues, especially when uninterpreted, are intended to directly instruct or reach unbelievers with understanding. Rather, the sign of tongues is a demonstration of God's power and presence, a supernatural indication that can provoke a response from those who do not believe, either in awe or in confusion. However, when tongues are interpreted, the primary goal is to edify the believers who are present, ensuring that the spiritual truth being communicated is clear and beneficial to the entire congregation. The interpretation allows the message, which originates in the Spirit, to be understood by all, fostering unity and spiritual growth within the church.

So this was *interpreted Tongues,* and not purely Tongues in the uninterpreted sense.

In the account of Pentecost in Acts 2, the phenomenon of speaking in tongues was indeed a miraculous sign that served multiple purposes. While the listeners heard the disciples speaking in their own languages, this was not the same as the spiritual gift of interpretation of tongues mentioned later in the New Testament (1 Corinthians 12:10). Rather, it was a supernatural act of God where the spoken tongues were instantly understood by those from various nations. The key point here is not whether these were interpreted tongues in the traditional sense, but that the event demonstrated God’s power and served as a divine confirmation of the new covenant reality—the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on all flesh (Joel 2:28-29). This manifestation was both a sign to the unbelievers present and a fulfillment of prophecy, signaling the dawn of the Church age and the universal call to repentance and faith in Jesus Christ.

So how is this an argument that all Christians should speak in a foreign tongue, since most of the time they are not interpreted?

The speaking in tongues at Pentecost is not an isolated incident but rather a pattern seen throughout the Book of Acts, where the baptism of the Holy Spirit is often accompanied by the initial evidence of speaking in tongues (Acts 10:44-46; Acts 19:6). This experience is not limited to foreign languages that need to be understood by others, but it serves as a personal sign of the infilling of the Spirit, a deeply spiritual and mostly private communication with God (1 Corinthians 14:2). The tongues spoken are not always meant to be understood by human ears, but they serve as a spiritual manifestation of God's presence within the believer, affirming their transformation and empowerment for service. This experience is seen as an essential component of the believer’s spiritual life, providing a direct, spirit-led connection with God that transcends natural understanding and empowers the believer for the work of the ministry.

And they do not reach unbelievers unless they are interpreted?

While the gift of tongues can be a sign to unbelievers, as evidenced at Pentecost, the broader application of tongues in the believer’s life is primarily for personal edification and communication with God (1 Corinthians 14:4). Paul explains that tongues, when spoken in a congregational setting without interpretation, may not benefit others directly; however, when interpreted, they can edify the church (1 Corinthians 14:27-28). This does not negate the importance of speaking in tongues as an initial evidence of the Holy Spirit’s infilling, which is a personal sign rather than a public one. The event at Pentecost was unique in its public demonstration, designed to show the fulfillment of prophecy and to draw unbelievers to faith. However, the ongoing practice of speaking in tongues serves a different purpose, one that is more about personal communion with God and the spiritual empowerment of the believer. The need for interpretation in public settings ensures that the church is edified, but it does not diminish the significance of tongues as a sign of the believer’s relationship with God and their participation in the life of the Spirit.