Commandments in John

[BibleOnly]

This is a redundant question. He doesn't obey the 10 commandments, he does more. He walks in the Spirit. The answer is the same as the question. You know someone has the Spirit because they spoke in tongues. You know they are walking in the Spirit by everything they say and do, not a checklist of 10 things that leave them free to do what they want after they've worked through it.

He does more! You got it. So will you do more than just "keeping" the Sabbath this coming Sabbath? Will you not only respect and honor that day, but make use of the Sabbath to spiritually bless others? Will you keep the Sabbath, not just because it's convenient, but because it's right?

Or is your version of "doing more" a "replacement" of Sabbath keeping, not an advancement?

[Lysimachus]

[Here's the thing. I've answered this. Others have posted on the SDA finding the 10 commandments in the Bible when they are not there. I've posted several bible passages, and no-one has answered. If you can explain to me how this passage is about the Sabbath, then I'll answer any questions you ask.

Hbr 4:1 ¶ Let us therefore fear, lest, a promise being left [us] of entering into his rest, any of you should seem to come short of it.

Hbr 4:2 For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard [it].

Hbr 4:3 For we which have believed do enter into rest, as he said, As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest: although the works were finished from the foundation of the world.

Hbr 4:4 For he spake in a certain place of the seventh [day] on this wise, And God did rest the seventh day from all his works.

Hbr 4:5 And in this [place] again, If they shall enter into my rest.

Hbr 4:6 Seeing therefore it remaineth that some must enter therein, and they to whom it was first preached entered not in because of unbelief:

Hbr 4:7 Again, he limiteth a certain day, saying in David, To day, after so long a time; as it is said, To day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts.

Hbr 4:8 For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day.

Hbr 4:9 There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God.

Hbr 4:10 For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God [did] from his.

Hbr 4:11 ¶ Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief.

Be sure to explain the terms 'today' and 'another day'.

Pages 5-7 of this article breaks all of this down in more or less the way I view Hebrews 4:

http://www.hearingthetruth.org/chapter9.pdf

Here is more info on Hebrews 4 that compliments the above:

http://www.homeschoolalumni.org/weblog_entry.php?e=38447

I wrote the last one, except for the part where I quote Joe Crews.

[ClubV12]

"So will you do more than just "keeping" the Sabbath this coming Sabbath? Will you not only respect and honor that day, but make use of the Sabbath to spiritually bless others? Will you keep the Sabbath, not just because it's convenient, but because it's right?"

You mean like I did last Sabbath and the one before that? Of course!

As far as your question's go, your tired excuse of "no one has answered them" is little more than being aaa bully. Just stop with the accusations. They've been answered again and again by multiple people. I certainly won't be covering the same old tired ground again. Please quit complaining about it, me thinks thou doest protest to much.

Got anything new to bring to the table?

Maybe Tom would like to answer a few, get into Hebrews with you.

[Gerr]

I have asked for the teachings of Jesus that Hansen says would comprise His commandments. So far I have not seen any response from him or from you. All I'm seeing so far is SDA bashing. Are we going to limit the use of "commandment" only in John? or should we not consult the other gospels and then the other NT writers and then the whole Scriptures? After all, Jesus said, in referring to the OT Scriptures, "it is they that bear witness of me," Jn 5:39.

Of the LORD'S Servant, it was prophesied that, ESV | ‎Is 42:21 The LORD was pleased, for his righteousness’ sake, to magnify his law and make it glorious. And that is exactly what Jesus did to this earth. We can see that in the Sermon on the Mt. He did not come to abolish the law, Mt 5:17, He came to magnify it and make it glorious. The 10c given at Sinai are the bare minimum requirements to show that one loves God and his fellowman. The least you can do for God is not to worship idols, etc., and the least you can do for your neighbor is not to take his life or anything that belongs to him.But in the Sermon on the Mt., Jesus showed that the principles of the law goes far deeper than the minimum. The commandment "you shall not murder" goes far deeper than just taking a life with malice.

Quote:

If you want to be saved by keeping the Decalogue,

Has anyone on this forum with the exception of one person that I know of, ever claim to be saved by keeping the law? However, I can positively say that Scripture unequivocably declares that anyone who willfully/intentionally transgress God's commandments will not see life everlasting.

Quote:

I'm sorry to say, based on Matthew 19, that isn't enough. Even keeping the Decalogue from your childhood isn't enough. You still need the treasure in heaven, which the legalistic ruler lacked. He walked away from Jesus. What are you going to do? Accept the gospel of righteousness by faith or take a walk?

I would say, "AMEN" to that too, because no amount of law-keeping will ever fully meet the requirements of the law. But my question to you is this: Does accepting the righteousness of God through faith free the believer from obeying the commandments?

Quote:

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again – Adventists have the ten commandments hard wired into their brains.

Your intent may be pejorative, but I will take that as a compliment. God's archenemy has been successful in enlisting the world in joining him in his rebellion against His gov't. It is for this reason that Adventists are zealous for God's law. God instructed His people - ESV | ‎Dt 6:7 You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise. ‎8 You shall bind them as a sign on your hand, and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes. ‎9 You shall write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates.

Quote:

This teaching is not found in the new testament and comes only from the writings of Ellen White. Her one redeeming quality is that at the end of her life she pointed people to the true gospel.

What teaching is not found in the NT? The keeping of God's commandments? If so, then what you're reading is different from the NT that I have.

I doubt that you will ever find a more balanced treatment of law and grace than EGW outside the Bible.

Quote:

Trying to attain heaven by keeping the ten commandments is the deepest pitch black darkness that there is and few people who go down that path ever come back. The ones who teach this false gospel are the agents of Satan.

[/quote']

That's the deep ditch on one side of the road to heaven. The ditch on the other side is just as pitch black darkness, i.e. that the believer no longer has to obey God's commandments.

[Gerr]

That's why we have the witness of the other gospel & NT writers!!!

Quote:

The core issue really' date=' is that no NT verse says we have to keep the Sabbath,

Lame & unbiblical. How many times does God have to repeat Himself? The commandment not to move boundary lines is not re-stated in the NT, are you therefore now free to do so? The OT law against digging a pit and leaving it open is not in the NT, are you now guiltless if someone is killed in your pit that left uncovered? Besides, Jesus said the Sabbath was made for man. Is there something not clear about that? And He said He did not come to abolish the law. So if it was not abolished and it was made for man, what does that tell you?

You said that the Spirit-led person will do more than just keep the 10c, he will do more. And you are absolutely correct, because as I already pointed out, the 10c are just the bare minimum in expressing how the two GREAT commandments (love to God & love to man) operate. But a truly Spirit-led

would never knowingly/intentionaly break what Jesus called, "the least of these commandments." It is shear folly to claim to be doing more or doing the max while disregarding the bare minimum.

Quote:

and many say we do not. I can see how someone, with pure intention, decided it was important to keep the Sabbath, as part of the commandments, and the movement has had to justify that stance ever since. But, without the 10 commandments as the core of Christianity, they've got nothing.

[/quote']

Yeah, you take away the 10c, then voila! No more sin. No more sin, no more need for a Savior. No more need for a Savior --> got nothing!!!

[Gerr]

This is a redundant question. He doesn't obey the 10 commandments, he does more. He walks in the Spirit. The answer is the same as the question. You know someone has the Spirit because they spoke in tongues. You know they are walking in the Spirit by everything they say and do, not a checklist of 10 things that leave them free to do what they want after they've worked through it.

I asked the question wanting a more specific answer. "You know someone has the Spirit because they spoke in tongues"???

What did Paul say? "If I speak in the tongues of men of angels, but have not love?" The greatest evidence that a person is walking in the Spirit is love. And how is love expressed? Not by mechanically checking off the bare minimum 10c list, he'll do far more! He will not just avoid bowing to idols, he will do more by actually worshiping God on the day He blessed and set apart. He will not just go 1 mile but go the second mile. Those who belittle God's commandments, Jesus said, "are called least in the kingdom of heaven."

[BibleOnly]

That's why we have the witness of the other gospel & NT writers!!!

[BibleOnly]

Originally Posted By: BibleOnly

This is a redundant question. He doesn't obey the 10 commandments, he does more. He walks in the Spirit. The answer is the same as the question. You know someone has the Spirit because they spoke in tongues. You know they are walking in the Spirit by everything they say and do, not a checklist of 10 things that leave them free to do what they want after they've worked through it.

I asked the question wanting a more specific answer. "You know someone has the Spirit because they spoke in tongues"???

[BibleOnly]

Well, I don't want to be obtuse, but if you were in a forum where everyone believed that all Christians spoke in tongues, and you said over and over that 1 Cor 12 says that not all Christians speak in tongues, and everyone pretended to ignore that you'd said it, and never addressed your point, what would you assume about how those people understood that passage of the Bible in light of their beliefs ?

[12tribes]

John 14:15

(15) If ye love me, keep my commandments.

Exodus 20:6

(6) And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.

[BibleOnly]

So both the old testament and the new tell us to do what Jesus asks of us. Or, do they both tell us to do what Jesus asked of Israel ?

[Hansen]

12 Tribes, Have you ever heard of a thing called context? Are you suggesting that Jesus suddenly tells his disciples that they must obey the Decalogue in order to be saved?

Why would he suddenly blurt that out? If you read the context, Jesus is talking about the authority of his teachings, not the Decalogue. Notice verse 10:

10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father is in me? the sayings that I speak to you, from myself I speak not, and the Father who is abiding in me, Himself doth the works;

Jesus is talking here about his sayings, his teachings. He is equating his teachings with the works of his Father.

Why do you want to subjugate Christ to the Decalogue? The glory of Christ's teachings supersede the Decalogue, which people cling to like a stone idol.

Christ's teachings are the words of God. They are spirit and life. They are eternal life. They will judge us in the last day

Joh 3:34 "for he whom god has sent speaks the words <4487> of god; for he gives the spirit without measure.

Joh 6:63 "it is the spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words <4487> that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life.

Joh 6:68 Simon Peter answered him, "lord, to whom shall we go? you have words <4487> of eternal life.

Joh 12:47 "if anyone hears my sayings <4487> and does not keep them, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world, but to save the world.

Joh 12:48 "he who rejects me and does not receive my sayings <4487>, has one who judges him; the word I spoke is what will judge him at the last day.

When we love God, we follow the teachings of Christ. That's what it means to keep the commandments. To disregard the teachings of Christ is really "transgression of the law."

[BibleOnly]

12 Tribes, Have you ever heard of a thing called context? Are you suggesting that Jesus suddenly tells his disciples that they must obey the Decalogue in order to be saved?

Why woud he ust blurt that out? If you read the context, Jesus is talking about the auhority of his teachings, not he Decalogue. Notice verse 10:

10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father is in me? the sayings that I speak to you, from myself I speak not, and the Father who is abiding in me, Himself doth the works;

Jesus is talking here about his sayings, his teachings. He is equating his teachings with the works of his Father.

It sounds as if you really have no appreciation of the teachings of Christ, if you want to subjugate them to the Decalogue. The glory of Christ's teachings supersede th Decalogue, which people cling to like a stone idol.

Christ's teachings are the words of God. They are spirit and life. They are eternal life. They will judge us in the last day

Joh 3:34 "for he whom god has sent speaks the words <4487> of god; for he gives the spirit without measure.

Joh 6:63 "it is the spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words <4487> that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life.

Joh 6:68 Simon Peter answered him, "lord, to whom shall we go? you have words <4487> of eternal life.

Joh 12:47 "if anyone hears my sayings <4487> and does not keep them, I do not

judge him; for I did not come to judge the world, but to save the world.

Joh 12:48 "he who rejects me and does not receive my sayings <4487>, has one who judges him; the word I spoke is what will judge him at the last day.

If we love God, we will follow/ the teachings of Christ. That's what it means to keep the commandments.

[Gerr]

Where in Heb 4 does it say that we don't have to keep the Sabbath anymore?

[Gerr]

The ones where Paul says not to be judged by the Sabbath, where he says that we are free to judge every day the same and where he explains how, if the Sabbath had given rest, Jesus would not have spoken about another day ?

Not my place to judge you, but the very commandment that you are disparaging is what you will be judged by.

ESV | &#8206;Jas 2:12 So speak and so act as those who are to be judged under the law of liberty.

ESV | &#8206;Re 11:19 Then God’s temple in heaven was opened, and the ark of his covenant was seen within his temple.

What is in that ark that is enshrined in heaven?

Quote:

So you think if I dig a it and don't cover it, I am going to hell ?

Did I say that? But it is written: ESV | &#8206;1 Jn 3:8 Whoever makes a practice of sinning is of the devil...

Quote:

This is a good point, Paul DID say that if you break one point, you break the whole law. Sacrificed any lambs recently ?

Sarcasm doesn't shed any light in a discussion. ESV | &#8206;1 Co 5:7 Cleanse out the old leaven that you may be a new lump, as you really are unleavened. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed.

Quote:

I am astonished that you guys don't get this. The sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath. God cares about man and gave him the sabbath, and not vice versa. I love how you guys keep saying Jesus did not come to abolish the law ( this is true ), but can't bring yourselves to say what He DID come to do. Fulfil it.

Are you saying that because He fulfilled the law that we no longer have to obey His commandments? Are you saying that Jesus came to die so as to give us license to sin?

If the Sabbath was made for man and you think you are free to disregard it without penalty, then salvation which was made for man can also be disregarded without penalty?

[Gerr]

Hebrews says that if the Sabbath gave rest, Jesus would not have pointed to another day. What day ? How can this be ? The Sabbath is unmovable, and God will always require us to worship Him via the intermediary of the sun, right ?

Where does it say in Hebrews that the Sabbath doesn't give rest? Merely avoiding work on Sabbath may give physical rest, but that is not entering into God's rest.

Most of the generation that left Egypt not only failed to enter the promised land rest, they also failed to enter God's rest, Heb 3. Why?

1. ESV | &#8206;Heb 4:6 Since therefore it remains for some to enter it, and those who formerly received the good news failed to enter because of disobedience. Disobey what? His commandments.

2. Hardened their hearts and rebelled, Heb 3:8

3. "Went astray in their hearts" 3:9

4. "evil, unbelieving heart" leading them to fall away, 3:12

5. Disobedience & unbelief, 3:18,19. In fact, 3:18 & 19 disobedience = unbelief.

So why did the Holy Spirit or the writer of Hebrews point to another day? He makes it very clear: ESV | &#8206;Heb 4:6 Since therefore it remains for some to enter it, and those who formerly received the good news failed to enter because of disobedience. SOME, not all, because there were people that did enter God's rest, like Moses (even though he did not enter the promised land), Caleb & Joshua, just as there are professed Christians today who have yet to enter God's rest.

How does one enter God's rest? If the Israelites failed to enter His rest because of disobedience & unbelief, then it stands to reason that we enter it by believing God and obeying what He says, Heb 4:3. True Sabbath keeping is symbolic of entering God's rest, cf Ex 31:12-19, Ez 20:12,19.

Quote:

So how do we do more that the 10 commandments with regard to the Sabbath ? Rest on two days ? I do that. How about the permanent rest Jesus promised, every day of my life ?

You can no more enter God's rest while knowingly disobeying His command than Abraham to enter into a covenant with God while disregarding the symbolic rite of circumcision!

Quote:

How do YOU do more than the bare minimum to keep the Sabbath concept ? What does Hebrews 4 mean ?

I already answered that, but here it is again: ESV | &#8206;Dt 6:4 “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. &#8206;5 You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might." AND ESV | &#8206;Le 19:18 "you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the LORD."

[Gerr]

BibleOnly:

For people bound to the law, yes. What do you think Jesus achieved by dying ? Did anything change ? If not, what was the point ?

Gerry:

We are derailing this thread and run the risk of getting this locked up too. I suggest you start another thread on this subject.

Are you free to transgress any of the commandments because we are not under law but under grace?

I am surprised that you would make such a statement after several pages of discussiing this subject in the thread that for reasons that escape me was locked up.

Because I am being honest and fair. I see how you assume all the things in Acts have passed, based on their absence in your church. [color:blue]

I doubt that you can produce any statement from any Adventist in this forum who would say that the gift of tongues no longer exists, least of all from me! For what purpose are the gifts given? To benefit and build, up benefit, and exhort the church. Now tell me how speaking gibberish will in any way do that to my church who all speak and understand American English.

Quote:

So you are trying to explain something that you don't expect to happen. And Acts 2 DOES confuse things, if you ignore 1 Cor 14:2 and other verses that indicate that God is generally the only one who understands tongues, and that this is the point, a story about people preaching in tongues is not that far fetched, even though the Bible never says it.

I don't understand your method of interpretation at all. What Acts 2 says about tongues is VERY clear. The tongues that was spoken by the apostles were tongues understood by the diasporic Jews. Now you are making what is clear as confusing, and the confusing text in 14:4,5 as the more clear? In fact you even put the word "unknown" in [] because it was a supplied word in the KJV. The NASB, ESV, NIV, NRSV, NKJV, all simply render it as "tongue". If there is some precedent in Scripture where some tongue was spoken that was not understood by someone has occurred, please show it.

Quote:

The thread was locked because people were being abusive, I do believe.

The abuse I saw took place many pages back. If that was the reason, it should have been locked up then.

Gerry Cabalo:

There's nothing confusing that I see in Ac 2. Luke makes it perfectly clear that the tongues spoken there as a result of the gift of tongues being given, were languages that were perfectly understood by the Jews of the diaspora.

Quote:

On that day, yes. Yet the bible never once says that tongues were used for that purpose. Even in Acts, people still asked 'what does this mean' and 'what should we do', questions that Peter had to answer.

On that day only? The Bible didn't have to state what was very obvious. There were Jews in Jerusalem from every corner of their known world with their own languages. Why is it so difficult to understand that the gift was needed so the apostles could share the good news?

Gerry Cabalo:

For one to claim that the tongues of Ac 2 are human languages and then proceed to claim that the tongues in 1 Cor 14 are tongues that only God knows, is bizarre and convoluted.

Quote:

No, it's an honest reading of what Acts 2 defines tongues during that day as, and what 1 Cor 14:2 defines tongues in the church in general as.

1Cr 14:27 If any man speak in an [unknown] tongue, [let it be] by two, or at the most [by] three, and [that] by course; and let one interpret.

1Cr 14:28 But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.

So you define the known by what is [unknown]? The straight with the convoluted? That's bizarre to say the least!

Quote:

Who does this say someone who speaks in tongues should speak to, if they don't speak in church ? Themselves and God. If they don't understand, why does God need me to pray in Chinese instead of English ? The answer is, it's not a human language, but a language only God understands, and gives to us because we 'know not what to pray for'. That's what the entire bible unites to say about tongues in general. A specific instance of tongues that differs from the general definition given, does not change it.

You can give all you definition you want and repeat again and again, but that would not make it biblical.

[BibleOnly]

Where in Heb 4 does it say that we don't have to keep the Sabbath anymore?

It doesn't. But, you will frame it in those terms, it's a straw man.

I've posted about these verses at least 15 times on this board. They refer to 'another day' and the fact that the sabbath did not give rest. They point to the concept still existing, but in a new form.

[BibleOnly]

Originally Posted By: BibleOnly

The ones where Paul says not to be judged by the Sabbath, where he says that we are free to judge every day the same and where he explains how, if the Sabbath had given rest, Jesus would not have spoken about another day ?

Not my place to judge you, but the very commandment that you are disparaging is what you will be judged by.

[BibleOnly]

Gerry : Are you free to transgress any of the commandments because we are not under law but under grace?

BO - Of course not. I've said that, over and over. I don't break the Sabbath, you do. Because in the NT, the Sabbath is rest in God through the Holy Spirit, not a day of legalism.

Gerry - I doubt that you can produce any statement from any Adventist in this forum who would say that the gift of tongues no longer exists, least of all from me! For what purpose are the gifts given? To benefit and build, up benefit, and exhort the church. Now tell me how speaking gibberish will in any way do that to my church who all speak and understand American English.

BO - I've done this, over and over. Paul does it, in fact. In the church, tongues is of benefit because it is interpreted. Paul says if there is no interpreter, one who wants to speak in tongues should wait and speak to himself and God. So, tongues is never to be used to speak to people of other languages, nor can it be, according to 1 Cor 14:2. The SDA basically says 'a version of tongues that we invented still exists sometimes in far away places, but the one in the Bible does not exist and never has'.

Gerry - I don't understand your method of interpretation at all. What Acts 2 says about tongues is VERY clear. The tongues that was spoken by the apostles were tongues understood by the diasporic Jews. Now you are making what is clear as confusing, and the confusing text in 14:4,5 as the more clear?

BO - Yes, it's clear what happened that day. 14:2 is the verse that makes clear what happens when tongues are spoken in general. Acts 2 is an account of a specific event. 14:2 is a definition of all events where no specifics are given that might contradict it.

Gerry - In fact you even put the word "unknown" in [] because it was a supplied word in the KJV. The NASB, ESV, NIV, NRSV, NKJV, all simply render it as "tongue". If there is some precedent in Scripture where some tongue was spoken that was not understood by someone has occurred, please show it.

BO - The king james puts 'unknown' in there because Paul makes it clear that is what he is talking about. 1 Cor 14 IS the precedent, verse 2 says only God understands. Because this gift is to be used only in the church, and in private prayer, there's no accounts of people walking around speaking a language no-one understands. Significantly, there's also no examples of tongues being used to preach the Gospel or reach people who cannot speak a shared language. In Acts 2, Peter still had to preach AND they must have all spoken a common language, to report that they'd understood different ones.

Gerry - On that day only? The Bible didn't have to state what was very obvious. There were Jews in Jerusalem from every corner of their known world with their own languages. Why is it so difficult to understand that the gift was needed so the apostles could share the good news?

BO - Because the bible never says it. Because Peter still had to preach in the commonly understood language. Because if the people there could only speak the languages listed, they had no way to report to the apostles what they had understood.

1Cr 14:27 If any man speak in an [unknown] tongue, [let it be] by two, or at the most [by] three, and [that] by course; and let one interpret.

1Cr 14:28 But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.

[color:blue]

Gerry - So you define the known by what is [unknown]? The straight with the convoluted? That's bizarre to say the least!

BO - I have no idea what you mean, but, the known IS defined by the unknown, just as sin is defined by what is right, because there's a division created that defines both. But, that's semantic. It doesn't change the fact that 1 Cor 14 says that no man understands tongues.

BO - Who does this say someone who speaks in tongues should speak to, if they don't speak in church ? Themselves and God. If they don't understand, why does God need me to pray in Chinese instead of English ? The answer is, it's not a human language, but a language only God understands, and gives to us because we 'know not what to pray for'. That's what the entire bible unites to say about tongues in general. A specific instance of tongues that differs from the general definition given, does not change it.

Gerry - You can give all you definition you want and repeat again and again, but that would not make it biblical.

BO - so 1 Cor 14 is not biblical ? Why does Paul say that the tongues speaker is only understood by God ? Why is interpretation by inspiration of God and not through knowing the language ? Why does the tongues speaker speak only to himself and God, if there is no-one to interpret ? All of this makes no sense if your reading of Acts 2 and the purpose of tongues is in fact true.

[Bert]

For Bibleonly - The Greek word for 'tongues' is glossa (1100) and is defined as follows: of uncertain affinity; the tongue; by implication a language (specifically one naturally unacquired):--tongue.

"According to the SDA Commentary, there are two principal views with regard to the gift of tongues as discussed in 1 Cor. 14 that are held:

(1) That the manifestation is to be described in terms of the phenomenon of tongues on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2); that the language spoken under the influence of the gift was a foreign language, one that could be easily understood by a foreigner of that tongue; that by speaking in a foreign tongue in the church when no one understanding the language was present the Corinthians were perverting the function of the gift; and that it was this misuse of the gift that Paul rebuked.

(2) That the manifestation was different from that on the day of Pentecost; that the language was not one spoken by men, and that thus no man could understand unless there was present an interpreter who possessed the gift of the Spirit to understand the language (1 Cor. 12:10); that its function was to confirm the faith of new converts (1 Cor. 14:22; Acts 10:44-46; 11:15) and to provide personal spiritual edification (1 Cor 14:4); that it was the exercise, in public assemblies, of this gift, designed primarily for private, personal edification, that Paul rebuked in 1 Cor 14. Other views combine elements of these two views.

It will be helpful in a consideration of this question to enumerate the characteristics of the gift of tongues as it was manifested at Pentecost and in Corinth. For a discussion of the gift at Pentecost see Acts 2:4. The gift there was clearly an ability to speak in foreign languages, and the purpose of the gift was to facilitate the spread of the gospel. A second function may be seen in the experience of Peter in the house of Cornelius, where the manifestation of the gift convinced Peter and the skeptical Jewish Christians who were with him that God accepted the Gentiles.

Concerning the gift later manifested at Corinth the following characteristics are noted:

(1) The gift is inferior to prophecy (1 Cor 14:1).

(2) The speaker in tongues addresses God, not men (vs. 2).

(3) No man understands the speaker in tongues (vs. 2)

(4) The speaker is "in the spirit," that is, in an ecstatic state (1 Cor. 14:2, 14; Rev. 1:10)

(5) The speaker utters mysteries (1 Cor 14:2; for a definition of mysteries see Rom. 11:25).

(6) The speaker edifies himself, not the church (1 Cor. 14:4).

(7) Paul wishes that all had the gift (vs. 5).

(8) The speaker should pray that he may interpret so that the church may be edified (vs. 12, 13).

(9) The understanding, or mind, is unfruitful when one prays in a "tongue", thereby indicating that the experience is not one of the conscious mind (vs. 14).

(10) The gift was for a sign to them that believe not (vs. 22).

(11) The gift was to be used in the church only if an interpreter was present (vs. 27); otherwise the speaker was to speak only to himself and to God (vs. 28).

(12) The Corinthians were admonished not to forbid speaking in tongues (vs. 39).

That the Corinthians abused the gift is evident. They spoke with tongues in the church when no interpreter was present and when no one but the speakers themselves was benefited. Several apparently spoke at the same time and while others were prophesying, teaching, etc. This resulted in general confusion (vs. 26-33, 40). Because of certain obscurities with regard to the precise manner in which the gift of tongues was anciently manifested, Satan has found it easy to counterfeit the gift. In later times, under the guise of Christianity, various manifestations of so-called tongues have from time to time appeared. However, when these manifestations are compared with the scriptural specifications of the gift of tongues they are found to be something quite at variance with the gift anciently imparted by the Spirit. These manifestations must therefore be rejected as spurious."

The above are highlights from the SDA commentary on the use of 'tongues', and explains the differences that are engrained in the use of tongues...as a language, or as an unknown tongue, and the restrictions that are associated with speaking in an unknown tongue. or a foreign language, without an interpreter.

[BibleOnly]

"That the Corinthians abused the gift is evident. They spoke with tongues in the church when no interpreter was present and when no one but the speakers themselves was benefited. Several apparently spoke at the same time and while others were prophesying, teaching, etc. This resulted in general confusion (vs. 26-33, 40). Because of certain obscurities with regard to the precise manner in which the gift of tongues was anciently manifested, Satan has found it easy to counterfeit the gift. In later times, under the guise of Christianity, various manifestations of so-called tongues have from time to time appeared. However, when these manifestations are compared with the scriptural specifications of the gift of tongues they are found to be something quite at variance with the gift anciently imparted by the Spirit. These manifestations must therefore be rejected as spurious.""

I agree that the Corinthians misused the gift. Yet, Paul never says the tongues they spoke were different to the gift he was glad to use. Nor did he ever suggest that there was any chance that the tongues they spoke were from satan, instead he said 'forbid not tongues'. It's a shame because the list you provide, provides the exact reasons why I disagree with the idea that Acts 2 defines tongues.

(1) The gift is inferior to prophecy (1 Cor 14:1).

Only when used in the church. Prophecy has no other use, but tongues is used to 'speak to ourselves and to God'.

(2) The speaker in tongues addresses God, not men (vs. 2).

Exactly. No man understands.

(3) No man understands the speaker in tongues (vs. 2)

Yes. So, where does he then say that this is satanic ?

(4) The speaker is "in the spirit," that is, in an ecstatic state (1 Cor. 14:2, 14; Rev. 1:10)

Well, that's an assumption, in the Spirit just means that it's the Spirit talking, not that the person is in a trance or other state.

(5) The speaker utters mysteries (1 Cor 14:2; for a definition of mysteries see Rom. 11:25).

Rom 11:25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.

Not sure how this gels. The word 'mystery' means what it means. In this sense, it means that no human understands.

(6) The speaker edifies himserlf, not the church (1 Cor. 14:4).

Yes, that is true. Jude 20-21 says that tongues builds us up in the faith and keeps us in God's love, for example. Building oneself up is not bad of itself.

(7) Paul wishes that all had the gift (vs. 5).

No, that's not what he says. If he said that, it would make no sense in light of his telling them to not all speak in tongues at once. He says 'it's my desire for you all the speak in tongues' in the context of use in the church, but with the qualifications he offers. He goes on to say 'I'd rather you all prophecy', and further down, he says they all CAN prophecy, so he's not talking about wishing they had an ability.

(8) The speaker should pray that he may interpret so that the church may be edified (vs. 12, 13).

Yes. Which only makes sense if every tongues speaker can expect to be able to interpret. Which makes sense only if everyone can also expect to speak in tongues, in light of the fact that tongues is grouped with gifts every Christian does have, such as faith, wisdom and discernment.

(9) The understanding, or mind, is unfruitful when one prays in a "tongue", thereby indicating that the experience is not one of the conscious mind (vs. 14).

Yes, that is kind of the point, God gives us the words, because we don't know what to pray for.

(10) The gift was for a sign to them that believe not (vs. 22).

Yes. Why is that ? It is not that they understood it, otherwise, why need an interpreter ? Beyond the fact that the unbeliever could well only speak the local language.

(11) The gift was to be used in the church only if an interpreter was present (vs. 27); otherwise the speaker was to speak only to himself and to God (vs. 28).

Yes. Not to speak to foreigners, or unbelievers outside the church.

(12) The Corinthinas were admonished not to forbid speaking in tongues (vs. 39).

Yes, absolutely. With no suggestion that the tongues they were speaking in where any different to the tongues that Paul spoke in or that there was any chance they were from the devil.

[Bert]

Response to comments by Bibleonly:

(3) No man understands the speaker in tongues (vs. 2)

Yes. So, where does he then say that this is satanic ?

(4) The speaker is "in the spirit," that is, in an ecstatic state (1 Cor. 14:2, 14; Rev. 1:10)

Well, that's an assumption, in the Spirit just means that it's the Spirit talking, not that the person is in a trance or other state.

Therein lies the problem. Since no one can understand what is being said, then there is no defining source to determine whether the utterings are from the Holy Spirit, or the spirit of devils. That is why it is so important to interpret what is said. What is difficult to comprehend is the fact that when someone speaks in 'tongues', and it is only between that person and God, how does someone else interpret it? It appears that it is a conundrum in this case. Also, how does the one speaking in tongues discern the source of the 'spirit' that is leading them?

[BibleOnly]

"Therein lies the problem. Since no one can understand what is being said, then there is no defining source to determine whether the utterings are from the Holy Spirit, or the spirit of devils. That is why it is so important to interpret what is said. What is difficult to comprehend is the fact that when someone speaks in 'tongues', and it is only between that person and God, how does someone else interpret it? It appears that it is a conundrum in this case. Also, how does the one speaking in tongues discern the source of the 'spirit' that is leading them?"

This is your opinion. Paul answers it.

1Cr 12:1 ¶ Now concerning spiritual [gifts], brethren, I would not have you ignorant.

1Cr 12:2 Ye know that ye were Gentiles, carried away unto these dumb idols, even as ye were led.

1Cr 12:3 Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and [that] no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.

This is the start of three chapters on tongues. Paul defines prayer in the Spirit as tongues in 1 Cor 14. I've heard some fanciful interpretations of v3 along the lines of 'if someone curses Jesus in English, they are not speaking of the Spirit'. This is both totally obvious, and totally off topic. Assuming this verse does not have a random meaning, and is in context of Paul's subject, he is saying, when you speak using the Spirit ( that is, tongues ), you can't curse Jesus. This is also somewhat redundant, if the Holy Spirit gives the words, how could they speak against Jesus ? But, this IS a possibility that people raise all the time, and is therefore a valuable thing to have the Bible say, so there is no question on the topic.

Again, Paul in no way suggests that tongues could ever be inspired by the 'spirit of devils'. The reason it's important to interpret is so that the church is edified, interpretation is by the inspiration of the Spirit, that's why it's a gift. In that sense, the interpretation can only be assumed to be correct through faith, although this is kind of always true, if I speak German to you and someone tells you what I said, you have faith that they are telling the truth, given that you can't understand me.

It's only a conundrum if we assume the interpreter just knows the language, but interpretation is a gift, so it's inspired by God, not natural knowledge.

If there was any question of other spirits giving a Christian an ability to speak in 'satanic tongues', I am sure this chapter would address that possibility. It does not. That concept does not even exist in the Bible. If you read the accounts of satanic spirits in the Bible, you'll see that the possibility of someone speaking out to praise God and being possessed by an evil spirit is really impossible.

[cheddar]

12 Tribes, Have you ever heard of a thing called context? Are you suggesting that Jesus suddenly tells his disciples that they must obey the Decalogue in order to be saved?

Why would he suddenly blurt that out? If you read the context, Jesus is talking about the authority of his teachings, not the Decalogue. Notice verse 10:

10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father is in me? the sayings that I speak to you, from myself I speak not, and the Father who is abiding in me, Himself doth the works;

Jesus is talking here about his sayings, his teachings. He is equating his teachings with the works of his Father.

Why do you want to subjugate Christ to the Decalogue? The glory of Christ's teachings supersede the Decalogue, which people cling to like a stone idol.

Christ's teachings are the words of God. They are spirit and life. They are eternal life. They will judge us in the last day

Joh 3:34 "for he whom god has sent speaks the words <4487> of god; for he gives the spirit without measure.

Joh 6:63 "it is the spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words <4487> that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life.

Joh 6:68 Simon Peter answered him, "lord, to whom shall we go? you have words <4487> of eternal life.

Joh 12:47 "if anyone hears my sayings <4487> and does not keep them, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world, but to save the world.

Joh 12:48 "he who rejects me and does not receive my sayings <4487>, has one who judges him; the word I spoke is what will judge him at the last day.

When we love God, we follow the teachings of Christ. That's what it means to keep the commandments. To disregard the teachings of Christ is really "transgression of the law."