geisha779

It is possible we are simply reading the Apostles words and intent incorrectly. . . . I once read that I could possibly be speaking the language of angels....until I read it in context and considered Paul's use of hyperbole and the wider context concerning the language of angels.

What interests me is that many other Christians have the same concerns about modern vs. biblical tongues. Those of us questioning are not lone rangers.....it wouldn't matter if we were, but it is good to hear others concern as well as our own IMO. This one is a long article as it goes through all the gifts, but scrolling down to SIT we see the author makes some familiar comments. These questions appear to be pervasive. They are reasonable concerns and do lead to reasonable conclusions. http://bible.org/art...spiritual-gifts This author doesn't seem knowledgeable of the studies conducted.....but, he is aware of Pentecostals reluctance to be tested. My link only gets as far as bible.org and using the site search feature and looking for The Holy Spirit and Spiritual Gifts, John F Walvoord will get you the rest of the way. I don't know why my links to this site fail??? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Some excerpts.................... Though some writers have distinguished between the instances in Acts, which were clearly known languages, and the experience of the Corinthians in 1 Corinthians 12-14 , there does not seem to be adequate basis for this distinction. The same expressions are used in both places. The term "unknown tongue" (1 Cor 14:2. KJV) is inaccurate, since the word "unknown" is not in the original. There is no evidence that those who exercised the gift of tongues spoke languages that were unknown to men, though there is reference to the theoretical possibility of speaking in the tongues of angels (1 Cor 13:1). The instance in Acts 2 was clearly in known languages. The recognition of a known language is essential to any scientific confirmation that genuine speaking in tongues has taken place. If those speaking in tongues had only babbled incoherent sounds, this would lend itself to fraudulent interpretation which could not in any way be confirmed. Therefore it is assumed that speaking in tongues in the Bible was a genuine gift, that it involved speaking in existing languages unknown to the speaker, and that actual communication took place in such experiences. So genuine speaking in tongues in the New Testament cannot be explained as simply hypnosis or psychological emotionalism; it has to be recognized as a genuine gift of the Holy Spirit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . If speaking in tongues was truly exercised, however, in the early church, and if under proper regulation it was beneficial, the question still remains whether a similar experience can be had by the church today. Because it is almost impossible to prove a universal negative in an experiential matter such as this, especially in light of many who claim to have exercised the gift, a practical line of approach is to first examine the question whether the Scriptures themselves indicate that speaking in tongues was a temporary gift and then, on the basis of the total evidence, to ask what one should do in light of the claims of many that they have a gift of speaking in tongues today . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The only passage in the New Testament that deals theologically with the gift of tongues is found in 1 Corinthians 12-14 . In the Corinthian church, plagued with so many doctrinal and spiritual problems, it is rather significant that three chapters of Paul's epistle to them are devoted to expounding the purpose and meaning of tongues, giving more attention to this problem than to any other that existed in the Corinthian church. The chapters were written to correct and regulate speaking in tongues rather than to exhort the Corinthian believers to exercise this gift. In light of the fact that none of the other epistles or New Testament books apart from the Book of Acts deals at all with this subject, it would seem apparent that speaking in tongues, though it existed in the early church, was not a major factor in the church's evangelism, spiritual life, or demonstration of the power of God. It seems to have been prominent only in a church that was notoriously unspiritual (cf. 1 Cor 1-11 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

I pray in the Spirit, but I don't speak in tongues. My experience differs, as do many Christians who know what it is to pray in the Spirit and worship God in Spirit and in truth.....they even write songs about it. :) There is a huge difference between that time I thought I was SIT and now praying in the Spirit.....it is not even comparable. One is in God's familiar and holy presence where words are impossible, worship is not though....it is compelled. In my experience they are not the same thing....worship and praise come from the heart. Since experience seems to be relevant to what people believe....I just thought to add mine.

Since we are discussing....discussion.....I want to apologize for my part in the contentious nature of this conversation. I was convicted and am ashamed I got caught up in it. Please forgive me. I think the manner and attitude that we have concerning the things we claim.... speaks loudly to the genuine nature of what we are defending. It all factors in. There are real reasons Christians are admonished over and over to guard our tongue. If anyone considers himself religious and yet does not keep a tight rein on his tongue, he deceives himself and his religion is worthless. Socks apparently understands this as he wrote: We do disagree but I can't approach this topic in a way that would result in getting angry or abusive about it, towards anyone. To me, that one lines speaks volumes about Sock relationship to the nature of what is being defended. Just a consideration though.....something I think gets missed. Raf, is speaking about something he believes is fake. He is not speaking of a genuine biblical phenomenon, but something that we were persuaded of by a false teacher. Something false that permeated our personal relationship with God and effected our communication with Him as well as our understanding of Him. What is the appropriate response and attitude?

I don't really know anything about this site or author.....what I found interesting is that you can find the same argument against modern tongues put forth by many, many different Christians. I thought this take on prayer mentioned in 1 Corinthians was interesting. I am not really offering this article for more than consideration as an interesting read......I didn't vet the website...it is not offered for debate just perspective. It may already be on here, but I didn't see it . . . . . if it is posted somewhere.....take two! http://bible-truth.org/TonguesWhatisGoingOn.html

Don't get your hopes up too high.....the modern Pentecostal movement has very questionable origins and if you want a good lesson in the proponents of tongues.......watch TBN. That is not to say all Pentecostals are bad....but, it is a mine field for the seeking. If you want to read some good Pentecostal leaning teachers, I would recommend Gordon Fee or Wayne Grudem. Gordon Fee came out heavily against the word of faith theology but retained his pentecostal roots. He is well liked and respected.....even my favorite teacher, DA Carson is a tiny bit pentecostal friendly. He catches some heat for that....but, I understand him not wanting to alienate the seeking. I would be interested in what you learn and how you come to understand the movement if you ever want to share.Or dare. I have been so impressed by your attitude. Just a thought about tempting God....there is more than one way to tempt God. How we speak of a holy God and his word and how we relate and treat others concerning the things of God speaks as much about how we understand God's holy nature as what we say.

The verse in question has an immediate context and a larger canonical context..... when I have mentioned context before I was told it didn't matter. Raf's question about tongues producing a language is absolutely relevant. The larger canonical context enlightens us to God's purpose for SIT and the importance of Him choosing other languages with which to speak to Israel. The old testament reference and canonical significance in 1 Corinthians is important to factor into our reading of the very few verses about SIT . It is why Paul mentions it. It fits in. Since Paul is answering a letter that posed a series of questions and we don't have access to the questions we have to piece together what it is Paul is saying and all the information is important. It is not until we reach Corinthians that we have any idea tongues are being used in a church assembly. We don't read of it in other churches....it is not a central issue in the preaching of the gospel, but it is central in Acts to ushering new kinds of people into the church. A sign to Israel. So, why was it so important to the church at Corinth? Maybe because they were in gross error? Paul, in chapter 12, begins by mentioning that he doesn't want them ignorant of these matters and mentions their pagan practices and background. Why mention this? If we read up to this chapter we see in this carnal and immature church he has had to address division, gross immorality, legal disputes, marriage and infidelity, true Christian liberty, their sinful handling of the Lord's supper, and now we come to their assembly and worship practices.Their handling of spiritual gifts. All of their practices up to this point were being influenced by their pagan past. . . . . we can safely consider their assembly practices might also have been influenced as Paul says as much. Pagans practiced a form of ecstatic utterances in worship. Carried away to dumb idols. Maybe that is something Paul is also dealing with? Or not. I am not going to tell anyone how to consider or read these verses.....but, Paul does employ some heavy irony and hyperbole to relay his message. He does mention many languages in the world and all having meaning......but, maybe, the point he is trying to make is not with the emphasis on tongues being any language in the world.....but unless it is a language relevant to someone there....it is pointless. He says not to be childish in their thinking and then relates the OT reference. He says it follows that speaking other languages is intended as a sign. Is he encouraging them to use tongues in the assembly? Sounds more like he is saying if you are going to do it....not more than a few and always with interpretation. But, if there is no genuine interpretation....just keep quiet. None of this sounds like a command to me, but more correction of error. Paul is dealing with how they were coveting this miraculous ability, he is dealing with a heavily influenced and immature church........ to take one or two verses and apply them as a command or assign stand alone meaning seems a bit short-sighted.

How did we get from Paul imploring people who claim gifts to seek after love........ to calling people who disagree with us haters? Edited: Not because I didn't mean it....but it is pointless.

I am not sure why either? The word unknown was added later to 1 Corinthians, but why? Just because something is added doesn't automatically make it wrong, but it can change the meaning significantly. I am unsure how extinct languages make it into the mix and it seems random to me. It is worth examining if we are interested.

Wow! I am sorry. It wasn't meant to be condescending at all. I call experts when I have questions....it never occurred to me you would take offense at that. What makes me think someone would speak to you? Why wouldn't they? People love to talk about their area of expertise. Educators love to educate. It is more likely you wouldn't be able to get off the phone. I just thought maybe there was more to understand about the methods of research in such a vast field like linguistics. I stand corrected.....I am sure you have it under control. I simply picked Amherst because I know it well and there are some very respected people there. . . . . if you wanted to ask some questions I simply thought that might be a place where you could have some confidence. That's all. I apologize if this offended you it was not my intention.

Good....there is a link in the reading room for anyone interested. It seems pretty clear that the SIT is traced back to the speakers native language. Simple answer...if there were more to look at they would have jumped all over it. That brings me to a simple suggestion for Chockfull, given sincerely. . . . pick up the phone and call a good college and speak to a linguist who can help you to understand how they can be confident in determining language. It is a huge field but not all language is unique. There are language families with common ancestry which may include now dead languages. Amherst College is a place I think might be helpful if you want to speak with an actual linguist. It is also a place where you can have some confidence. A bit of language trivia....Hebrew was a dead language in that it had no native speakers and it was resurrected to everyday use. This is a phenomenon which happened over a relatively short amount of time. Now. . . . . that is something someone might consider a gift of God if they were so inclined. It is certainly tangible and might give us some confidence in God's ability to support a real known language.

I doubt this is helpful, .but, awhile ago I found a partial unpublished thesis online. It was written by someone named Larry Holton and posted on a site. I have never heard of him and am not endorsing him or the site. Make what you will of it......but, what caught my eye were the resources cited. Unfortunately, I can't link to it....it doesn't work. There are some quotes from linguists addressing a few of Chockfull's concerns. It is a poorly written paper but, what is of value IMO are the sources. If you want the sources or to read the entire article you will have to Google Larry Holton and SIT. I will cut and paste a bit. Apparently, these objections of Chockfulls are not unique and are heard from other people who SIT. _________________________________________________________________________ Objection: Since there are nearly three thousand languages in the world linguists could not have heard every language in the world, therefore if they studied a tape-recording of glossolalia they might not know what language it was in. Answer: A statement from William Welmers, Ph.D., in linguistics from U.C.L.A. answers this objection nicely: "That is not an entirely valid argument. Among us, we have heard many hundreds of languages. Furthermore, we have heard representative languages in virtually every group of related languages in the world. At worst we may have missed a few small groups in the interior of South America or in New Guinea. I would estimate that the chances are at least even that if a glossolalic utterance is in a known language, one of us would either recognize the language or recognize that it is similar to some language we are acquainted with." Dr. Welmers makes this challenge: "Get two recordings, one of a glossolalic utterance and the other in a real language remote from anything I have ever heard - any West Coast American Indian language would fill the bill. I'm confident that in just a few moments I could tell which is which and why I am sure of it." Objection: The language I speak in is a dead language and there is no way a language expert could detect it. Answer: In a letter from Herbert Stahike of Georgia State University, he states, "The problem of whether a glossolalic utterance involves the speaking of a foreign language depends heavily on your definition of a foreign language. If you mean a modern spoken language or a dead language of which we have some written record, then the claim is testable, otherwise the claim is meaningless." Bill Siemens says, "I have heard glossolalia a number of times, but in no case did it ever vaguely resemble any of the modem or ancient languages with which I am familiar in some degree." Eugene A. Nida, Secretary of Translations for the American Bible Society and world renowned expert in linguistics, concluded from his studies that the phonemic strata indicates that the phonomes of glossolalic utterances are closely associated with the language background of the speaker's native language. Felicitas D. Goodman made phonetic analysis of glossolalia from recordings she taped for her Master's Degree in Mexico and different sections of the United States. She concludes that the glossolalia she analyzed was not productive and noncommunicative. James Jaquith from Washington University in his research among English speaking tongue-speakers concludes that "There is no evidence that these glossolalic utterances have been generated by constituent sub-codes of any natural language other than English." Ernest Bryant and Daniel O'Connell of St. Louis University studied nine tapes of glossolalia taken from among their respondents. The results of their studies proved that "all glossolalic phonemes are within the normal phonemic repertoire of the native speaker of English." He says, "If a foreign language system were used a much greater divergence of phonemes would be expected, but the opposite is the case." Dr. Donald Larson of Bethel College in St. Paul, Minnesota, began analyzing glossolalic samples in Toronto, Canada, in 1957. Since then he has analyzed many samples and observed glossolalic behavior in different parts of the world. His research also concludes that the phonological features of the native speaker's language carried over into his glossolalia experience. In a letter to Dr, William Welmers of U.C.L.A., I asked him, "In your studies of modern glossolalia have you detected any known language?" His reply was, "In short, absolutely not." He goes on to say that "Glossolalic utterances are consistently in important respects unlike human languages. They are characterized by a great deal of recurrences of closely similar sequences of syllables and usually employ a restricted number of different sounds." Dr. Welmers said that the same thing is true of hundreds of other utterances studied by Christian linguistics of his acquaintance. Dr. Samarin, by far the most thorough, says, "There is no mystery about glossolalia. Tape recorded samples are easy to obtain and to analyze. They always turn out to be the same things: strings of syllables made up of sounds taken from among all those that the speaker knows, put together more or less haphazardly but which nevertheless emerge as word-like or sentence-like units

Just to be clear.....when I mentioned ad hominem attacks it was in reference to my specific exchanges with Chockfull and I think we are both guilty of it. . . . I am not passing judgement on other exchanges here. I have my thoughts, but how helpful will more opinions really be? I will say, I have been baffled by some of the reasoning on this thread, but I think this has turned out to be a more personal and difficult topic than I ever anticipated. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

I told you that I don't know why it would have changed, but I certainly know the reasons people propose as possibilities. I just don't think they would satisfy you. I casually mentioned that tongues in Acts were used as a sign to usher new groups into the church and signs did follow those that believe as Jesus predicted. You told me Jesus is still alive as if that explained the idea and purpose for SIT in Acts and Jesus' meaning when He predicted signs would follow. There is more detail to consider. I didn't even mention what had been added to Mark because Raf has already brought it to attention. However, there are reasons people put forth as to what might have changed, but they deal with concepts from scripture, context, and a less literal approach to some verses. If you are interested in this topic, some of the articles linked to in the reading room may address these questions or at least get you started. You and I both have a distinct manner and approach to exegesis and it is not a good idea for us to discuss scripture in too much detail. The reasons people put forth for why the practice may have changed are not definitive, they are just possibilities and involve contextual concepts . Context is always an issue when reading scripture as there are not too many stand alone verses. When speaking of context, you told me outright it didn't matter because Corinthians is the only place where Paul speaks of tongues and if we rely on the context it might change the meaning of the verse in question from a command to something else. I can't ignore context or take one verse as standing alone. If I did that I might be tempted to pluck out my eye or advocate the chopping off of hands. What I am trying to say is that it is difficult for me to have a conversation about scripture with you. Not only does it gets personal too quickly, but we can't even agree on basic bible exegesis. I am sure you have similar problems with my approach and where I do rely on context both in the immediate area, the book itself, and the canonical meaning. Where we agree is that it is best to read scripture as literal where we can.....we just don't agree where that may be. The practice of SIT appears to have disappeared from the church almost completely if the writing of the Church Fathers are any indication. They should be, and we are not speaking of a period of time very far removed from the Apostles. Chrysostom, when getting ready to talk about the gifts in 1 Corinthians basically said they had ceased. We have indications they had stopped altogether in the church at Corinth not too long after the Apostles were gone. I have linked to a paper in the SIT Reading Room thread if you are interested. We do have some history. Make what you will of it, but tongues did all but vanish from the church. There was a smattering here or there over time. It was not until the last few centuries it reemerged as a practice. The advent of modern tongues is directly related to one particular event and woman if you are interested in checking that out. This has really had an impact on modern Pentecostalism IMO. It is at least worth understanding how we were influenced concerning TWI. Looking at the bigger picture of church history may help guide us in our seeking answers....although, like scripture, history can be twisted to suit a particular belief. VP was a master at this. I believe the bible is God's Holy word and any conversation about it should not continually be contentious or lead to ad hominem attacks. When I find myself in the midst of that....it is time to back away. I am ashamed I got caught up in it with you to begin with. The scriptures are not a weapon or means to insult another. God have mercy if I ever return to treating them as such. I mentioned this before, and I think it is important to remember....the one unforgivable sin mentioned in scripture does not revolve around the Father, or the Son, but blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. That should speak to us of the sanctity and sacred nature of the Holy Spirit and how we should tread lightly and cautiously concerning or discussing Him.

So what is JAL producing? Is that a genuine manifestation of the power of the Holy Spirit(God)? Do we think that is a real language being used to communicate the wonderful works of God(the gospel)? Is he faking it? Is he willfully deluded and being reinforced by the group experience? Is that a demon on his lips? We have the example of him SIT, we have his exegesis, and we have his assurance that just because he is doing the speaking and forming the words....that doesn't mean it is fake. How is what JAL is doing different than say what a non ex-twier from a pentecostal church is doing? They all sound very similar except for those who whoop and click . We have an example, we can watch it.....what is it? If we can assume about other accounts being supernatural in nature....without even seeing them or having all the details.....we have one right here to observe. JAL claims it is real. We DO have some knowledge about the tradition and beliefs of JAL and more knowledge than we need or want concerning his ministries and understanding of the HOLY Spirit. I am inclined to think it is that the man has been deluded and keeps reinforcing that delusion with his experience of free vocalization. I don't think that is a demon on his lips....the simple explanation seems right. That is not to say if God had a purpose SIT is impossible. I don't believe that. I think if it is still out there at all it is rare and God's purpose will be revealed and He will be glorified. Not much of that going on here with these recounted accounts.

And they did follow.....the church was established, and the sign of tongues ushered in each new group into the church. Jesus told the truth.....

Why does it have to be one or the other....tongues are not real so God is dead?

Old Skool.....fair warning!! In this one JAL tells us exactly how to SIT or how to fail. . . . if we just open our mouths and formulate the words, he assures us we won't be making it up. BTW, he is eerily calm in this one. He has even brought friends along this time to reinforce the reality. He tells us to be bold. Oh and they all go for it in this one. They are all SIT at once. Pretty interesting. JAL SIT in this one. Is he possessed, faking it, or is it real? Maybe Memorex! (I am dating myself with that one) <iframe src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/iSiH37tVXkU" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" width="420"></iframe> I didn't see anything different in this video than I remember from PFAL or TWI.... it has been awhile though.

It is kind of like the McCarthy hearings or some form of mass hysteria where they see the devil everywhere. . . . and they didn't just see them in people obviously unique, it was in the people they called brother and sister. Instead of seeing God in those they call Christian, they claim to see the devil. I think it is just a fear of individuality...the enemy of conformity. People start coming back to their historic self a bit, start asking questions, start thinking outside Way thought......what do they do? Label them possessed. When people have issues or troubles that don't reflect well on a ministry that promotes a perfect system for living, what do they do? Label them possessed. What do they do with possessed people? Shun them of course. They use the bible to justify this garbage. It is an abusive religious system designed to keep people in fear and bondage. The one thing their followers should consider is that evil is found in the pulpit more than it is in the dust bunnies under the bed. Aberrant theology is a friendly breeding environment for evil.

Yes, there were claims of certainty in TWI....but, not without rules, laws, slog, and the painful mental gymnastics of believing just the right way. There was a whole bunch of work involved to attain a small degree of certainty. It was draining. Christianity is much more restful.....faith in one person and He isn't VP.

I didn't realize your questions angered you too.....I sensed your frustration in how they were addressed. . . . but if you want credit....by all means take it.

I think it would be great to see some of this energy and anger directed at Raf's questions ....redirected at the false teachers who hide in plain sight in the charismatic movement, who abuse people using these supposed gifts....to me, that would be a genuine Godly motivation. It is not just a few here who question modern tongues.....it is many many Christians. Are we going to get angry at all of them? These studies and the glaring reality that there are no documented cases of modern tongues producing a language speak to more than just a few on this thread. It is everywhere. None of these questions change that God is still on the throne and the Holy Spirit dwells in the heart of true Christians. . . . .

Sunday Night Teaching #484 Dr. Victor Paul Wierwille: "I see my life beyond today and tomorrow. I see my life from generation to generation causing the mystery to be lived." Wow, he didn't think too highly of himself did he? I hope the context makes that quote seem less blasphemous, but I couldn't get past the first bit without the threat of tossing my lunch. Here I thought it was Jesus who lives always to intercede. . . . . and all the time it was VP's life that would carry on and cause the mystery to be lived. Who knew?

We may have been exposed to some questionable pneumatology. "It is the manifestation in the senses realm, of the internal reality of the presence and power of the Holy Spirit, God's Spirit teaches His creation in you, which is now your spirit, your spirit teaches your mind and it becomes manifested in the senses realm as you act." I remember how we got there from scripture....but, I no longer deny the person of the Holy Spirit. I believe the Holy Spirit is God. I believe there is one Spirit, not my own break away created piece. We are probably too far apart on the Holy Spirit to see the same things. When reading your post, operating God at my discretion and will becomes problematic. Operating God in any externally flawed manner becomes more of a problem. If it is God, I am subject to Him, not He to me. It is interesting to consider, the unforgivable sin in scripture centers around blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. Attributing God's power to Satan. I am not sure we can commit this now, it may be specific, yet, it does clue us in to how sacred we are to understand the Holy Spirit. Something I never asked myself in TWI is....without the sign of SIT would I recognize the Holy Spirit in my life? There was so much talk in TWI about God vs. devil spirits....if it wasn't one it had to be the other. As an advanced class grad.... I was supposedly trained to be discerning. Maybe all that did was keep me from truly considering I had just gotten it very wrong. Maybe, all the emphasis placed on SIT and my operating Him was what actually kept me from hearing the Holy Spirit. Edited to be less doctrinal.

One more thought. I believe tongues are for the hearer and not for God's benefit and not intended for the speakers benefit. I think scripture bears this out.....a manifestation, gift, whatever you term them, if they originate with God....they are going to be perfect every time they are used. Every prophecy, every healing, every tongue....if genuine, will be perfect and serve their purpose. There are not going to be any near misses.