geisha779

We have the evidence, we have the information, and we have the scriptures to guide us in what we believe about SIT. It is simply a matter of forming and articulating what these things tell us. I think you have done this with amazing candor. All the arguments you list to refute the evidence and a whole host of others I could name from reading and listening are really not sound enough, or rational enough to sway me. People are clearly doing something, and a belief in supernatural ability is a powerful contention, but is it enough to dissuade us from a logical and rational approach to the evidence? Not me. Twisted scripture and personal anecdotes included, there is nothing that leads me to believe that anyone I know of or have heard of or those that claim this ability are speaking in tongues as they did in the bible. I heard a personal anecdote about manifestations recently, John MacArthur tells of several charismatics who came to see him after their pastor dropped dead. It was immediately after someone had prophesied that the Pastor was going to go on to do great things, become a great teacher, and travel the world. This kind of rocked their faith a bit. The thing that concerns me is the same thing that concerns many others.....people are free to practice and believe what they like, most people do.....but, if we start adding to the canon of scripture or influencing others in Christian living.....by our tongues, interpretation or prophecy....we become responsible if this is not a direct revelation from the Almighty. It is nothing to play at IMO. Your understanding is not controversial, it is not esoteric, it is not hidden from others in the Christian world, it is the more largely accepted understanding of modern tongues. This is not only a contentious topic here, but in the mainstream of Christendom as well. This is why most Christians know to tread lightly on this topic. There are only a handful of well known and respected bible teachers who differ drastically on this topic, Gordon Fee, and Wayne Grudem(who I love)off the top of my head.....and all manage to respect their differences without malice, anger, and vitriol. It is not an essential doctrine. There is a great deal of respect offered and a coming together on issues where people do agree. I love these Christians so very much. They are amazing examples and they bring glory to God and care to the body. I have just finished Moore's book and I think he sums it up quite nicely: Are tongues real languages? It appears that they are not. Charles Hockett has identified sixteen features that appear to be universal to every known human language.Glossolalia lacks a number of key features. This leads Samarin to conclude, "Glossolalia is fundamentally not language. All specimens of glossolalia that have ever been studied have produced no features that would even suggest that they reflect some kind of communicative system." Another devastating feature to the reality of glossolalia as a language is its interpretation. Specifically, when recordings of glossa were played for those who claimed to have the gift of interpretation, each interpreter gave very different meanings to the text. Furthermore, in written glossa, the interpreters gave different meanings to identical words in the same set of words. When confronted with this inconsistency, the interpreters simply said, "God gave different interpretations." Perhaps, as some charismatics claim, glossolalia lacks the design features of human language and incorporates multiple interpretations since it is really an angelic language not subject to the rules of earthly language. We have no response to such an argument. One last observation is important here. Just because glossalalia does not communicate verbal or cognitive meaning, does not mean that it does not communicate. Groans, vocal inflections, sighs, pauses, gestures, and mannerism are all critical communicative tools, which are fully operational in tongues. Thus, while tongues may not consist of cognitive meaning, it is full of affective communication. The same thing happens when one watches a foreign film. You can't know everything that is said, but the basic plot is pretty clear. This is perhaps how interpreters of tongues sense the general emotion of the speaker and can articulate the "atmosphere" of the speech act. Thus we conclude by suggesting that glossolalia is not a language but it is communicative. Edited for spelling. Grammar is a lost cause with me.

Wow, compelling. The "it just is" exegesis, now why didn't I think of that? How is that celibacy thing going for ya? Keeping the little lady silent in the church too? Tongues can be a prideful gift and that has never been more evident to me as on this thread and through your posts. You have used it as a weapon, something to make you stand out in great faith, you have insulted me by and with it and now, you have questioned my faith because I hold a different view than you do. Wow. Sure, I want to join your club and be just like you....the gentleness, tolerance, and kindness just oozes out of you. If you were correct and I misguided....the only thing you have done is make darn sure I am going to stay as far far away as possible from people who SIT. Dogma never saved anyone and taking literally things which were not meant to be taken literally has caused people to vow celibacy in order to be close to God. It has had people self-mutilate, it has subjugated women, and it has launched many into the bondage of religion. I think I will pass. Just look what SIT has done for you. Now I remember why I didn't ask these questions in TWI. It is all coming back to me....I would have been met with mocking derision, had my faith (believing) challenged, sneered at, had my emotional stability questioned, I would have been told I was full of anger.....and then the cherry on the top would have been the "It just is" answer. I bet anything you were clergy in TWI. How your leaving Jesus Christ out of your little soliloquy of tongues makes me less is beyond me....oh wait, it is because I hold a different perspective of scripture than you.....that must be it? How far we have traveled. You couldn't just calmly and unemotionally consider or discuss it with me without getting so angry or personal? What do you think would have happened? Edited for Allan. :)

The context of praying with spirit and mind is in the context of correcting corporate worship. Not private prayer. I think much of your understanding hinges on a very few scriptures and these should be considered carefully. But, do what you like.....claim what you like....read how you like......you are responsible for what you believe. I don't mind.... I did want to ask about this though..... Further access to God? Jesus didn't get us enough access to God? We need extra? I thought the veil was rent in Jesus from the top down? You said about SIT: God provided a perfect gift, one that would allow connection and communication with Him, eternal life, and spiritual power. A gift where you can be sustained through quenching yourself in the eternal fountain whose water never fails, and then you can share that with others helping them to get there too. We are pretty far away from scripture now. Can I gently remind you that it is through Jesus we have a relationship and connection with God. God so loved the world He gave His only begotten Son? A perfect sacrifice and an amazing gift of love? That is His gift to us which allows us access to Him. It is Jesus who is the source of living waters and it is in Jesus we have eternal life. It is Jesus who we are to share with others. Also, it is Jesus who sustains all things, including us. We don't sustain ourselves by doing something. :(

I think I will let this first part of your post slide. Angry Chockfull is not fun! I would rather you didn't analyze me either or assume you have clue one about my motives. You get personal so easily and when it suits you. That makes it so easy to believe you when you say we should talk to each other. I simply made an observation to your declaration about God's purpose behind tongues. You have no problem declaring things as fact. You even seemed exasperated you had to declare it twice. It struck me as ironic reasoning. Who is the emotional one again? I didn't ignore the other accounts Chockfull....I did tell you we would look at some of the reasons. I have plenty more, but I don't want to embarrass you or cram it down your throat. I was hoping to spark you to consideration. It is totally up to you what you investigate and how you reason. I think how burden of proof actually works might escape you. In scripture, when we have an established account like in Acts 2.....the burden of proof shifts to the person claiming the other accounts are something different. I didn't say it was for translation. I said it was a language understood by the hearers. Introducing a reason unrelated to what I said....doesn't really refute my point. If I didn't pay attention to details I might fall for that misdirection. Since Paul frequently uses hyperbole, it is not a stretch to consider he is using it when he says "I would that ye all spake in tongues". Since he had already used it when he claimed that that he wished all men were like himself, celibate. We are now clued into how he uses exaggeration. If all men were celibate, the human race would cease to exist. No? That might be hyperbole? Same phrase, same intent. Those pesky details. So, we actually ARE going to assume other reasons they knew those in Cornelius' house were exalting God and dismiss the obvious one? That, is not a good idea unless you are trying to make scripture say something you want to say. We don't dismiss the obvious in favor of grasping at other reasons which are not right there. Same gift, same way, same result. Someone understood what was being said. Think about it for a moment. These were gentiles, they didn't want to include them....Peter especially. It was a somewhat hostile audience. Do you think they were going to assume these gentiles were praising God? Assume it was it was the same thing as Pentecost. They didn't want the gentiles....they called them dogs. Luke does state they understood . . . by saying they were heard SIT and exalting God. Consider the details. Corinthians IS correction and Paul IS dealing with a very carnal and immature church. Why does this bother you? Why is it so difficult to accept Paul's criticism of this church and his correction? I don't get your point at all, we are to ignore the obvious, so we can take Paul literally where it suits us?? Okay....go ahead. Are you ready to be celibate? As you say Pentecost introduced something and then apparently God quietly changed it to something else? Okay...if you want to believe that....I don't mind. LOL, now you are appealing to the authority of the old adage, God helps those who help themselves? That is so far removed from scriptural, I don't know what to say except you may have, missed the forest for the trees. One adage deserves another. All those things you claim tongues are meant for, quenching thirst, eternal life, power, sustaining yourself? Wow, pretty words, but there is something missing. Let's see if you can figure out who, but, I am misguided? Tell me again your faith is not in the gift? Geisha out this time for real....unless I decide to post again. :)

This is my last post on the matter or the thread. Challenge someone's perspective and boy it gets ugly. Yet, all I read on other threads is how great it is to have critical thinking skills now and gee it is great to be able to question. It is so hypocritical it is laughable. I guess even considering that there actually IS continuity throughout Acts concerning speaking in tongues is right out the window. You just dismissed a very accepted and widely understood exegesis as "my interpretation" as if that explained it away. A caviler dismissal of the obvious in favor of a perspective that supports your cherished understanding is no way to look at the scriptures, but it is a really common exegetical fallacy. You bite so easily. But, maybe you are wrong. There really are compelling reasons to believe that people did hear and understand what was being said in the other accounts besides Pentecost. If you would just lose that edge maybe we could look at some of them and nicely consider for a minute. I believe exactly what I said....those other accounts reveal those hearing did understand what was being said. I think we have to read into it to see otherwise. Language is for communication, obviously your dismissal of me as uninformed was trying to communicate something to me. I will pretend I didn't understand and you were just SIT. I know the Pentecostal definition for speaking in tongues.....I once believed it. Speaking to God mysterious utterances in a secret and private prayer language. Got it. I just don't think scripture supports it. And yes, I actually had to look at scripture to see this. If you want to believe that when tongues is used in scripture it is used to convey some mysterious and special prayer language....go ahead. Is that what is means? Then that must be exactly how the Greeks would have understood that phrase SIT. Right? We might have to ignore the Septuagint where it is used for regular human languages....but whatever.Why should its first use or where it is used in Job, Psalms, Isaiah, Jeremiah. Esther, or Nehemiah matter to us? Although the accounts we do have were not some private prayer examples, but rather public testimony.....it shouldn't bother us. A biblical testimony is in there to ignore. The first account, which establishes it as a known human language, doesn't have to mean anything if we won't let it mean something. Unless of course, we are meant to lean on that for understanding in the subsequent accounts, then we have a problem. There were 14 different groups identified on Pentecost as hearing and understanding their specific dialect. Hard to ignore. Now, we have to make a leap if we are going to assume that SIT is anything other than a known human language. We have to start reading into Paul's intent in Corinthians....we must ignore hyperbole, tone, and correction. To assume Paul is advocating the private use of tongues, we would have to ignore his criticism elsewhere, really throughout the entire letter. The majority of what he writes in 1 Corinthians is negative because tongues is a problematic and pride filled gift. Yet, we are to assume he is suddenly advocating its private use after painstakingly explaining the negative connotations concerning self gratification? I don't think so, not unless he is manic. We also have to ignore Peter's visit to the gentiles. With Cornelius they were heard to be exalting God in tongues. Someone there understood what was being said or they wouldn't have known they were exalting God. Lucky guess? Assumption? Luke uses the same expression as Acts 2 where they were speaking known languages. If it was different, we are not clued in by Luke's choice of language. Language is for communication. Peter's defense of that mission also tells us . . . . they had received the Holy Spirit just as the Apostles had. He goes on to explain more.....As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit came on them as he had come on us at the beginning. . . . . . So if God gave them the same gift he gave us who believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I to think that I could stand in God's way. Color me uniformed on details, but it seems to me that Luke and Peter are going out of there way to draw parallels between the two events, not distance. It seems to me, one would have to ignore the obvious and blatant continuity to favor anything remotely like a one time event where the languages spoken and understood are a rare phenomenon. Silly me, I take these accounts into the reading of 1 Corinthians and amazingly my perspective allows for tone, hyperbole, and correction. New eyes to see those verses in Corinthians. That can't possibly be the reason they are in there can it? The Holy Spirit means empowerment.....for what purpose? Who or what is the focus on? Basic questions and details that must be considered when reading about gifts. Are we built up through the body or as a lone ranger? Are gifts distributed for the individual or are they for the edification of the body and then we in turn are edified by the whole? Is the empowerment of the Holy Spirit for empowerment to minister to others or some mystical way to build ourselves up? If it wasn't a known language and a sign for those who didn't believe and the purpose is self, private and merely some mysterious utterances......then we can throw out the rest of scripture and ignore all the wonderful things we should understand about one body, diversity within unity, and even what it means to pray.

That is exactly what He designed it for. . . . as a sign to unbelievers. I am chuckling because that is pretty outrageous Chockfull. It wasn't for the people speaking, but for the hearers who heard their language spoken. Of course, you are entitled to think whatever you will....I really am not trying to challenge your prayer life or faith in any way, but I would love it if you would just consider the thread of continuity of tongues we find in the differing accounts in Acts. Yeah, God did design it as a sign. It was a known language or the point was kind of moot without someone there to interpret. Just saying. Not trying to rabble rouse, but your assertion struck me as funny. Not laughing at you.....just at the irony. Peace okay? No fights? It is just an observation. --------------------------------------- oops! I should really finish reading before I post....I guess you have all touched on this a bit. I really do see Raf's point, especially concerning what scripture describes vs what we produced in TWI. For me, I just don't see a way around it.

I spent two years working with autistic adult males....and although I worked primarily with those who were also severely developmentally disabled....I did work with clients who have Aspergers. One young man rocked so hard he cracked his back. Some of the best people I know have autism and some of the best times I have ever had are with those people. So, I guess I know a bit from experience. It would explain a great deal.

You know cman, I actually do understand what Steve is talking about. . . . if you read enough theology you will run across just about everything, I don't think it is as esoteric as Steve would like to believe. If you Google 1 Corinthians 8: 4-6 and the word Shemah or hegemonikon a whole host of papers and theories about what Paul is saying in those verses will likely come up. Yet, when and if it finally comes down to it....it is going to work out pretty much as WordWolf has explained. It is just endless arguments over words. I suspect this particular one has an agenda I might consider heretical. I wouldn't even mind all the endless minutia.....I know how to scroll down a page, but, Steve has already pointed out what I do and do not need to understand. I was informed I already have my "special" job from the Lord and it apparently doesn't include discussion of 1 Corinthians 8: 4-6. What could I possibly contribute? Yes, I took that post as extremely condescending and offensive. Don't confuse not encouraging a discussion with not recognizing one...if others wish to engage...I have no problem with that.

Yeah....a bit confusing. It implies they are the word to the world. Here I thought Jesus was the word. See, if you stick around long enough....you too can be the prevailing word to the world. They are about as subtle as a flying brick.

Oh, I get it, you meant the thread, not you personally. Scratch what I said earlier!

To be fair, Opera Buff didn't say he hated you, it is the thread that he hates with a deep hatred. I would really like to know the reasons why. That is an extreme response and those often cover a myriad of underlying reasons. It would be interesting to know why this thread has evoked such a visceral response. I don't know 5 percent of ex-way let alone all 90 % that don't come here and neither does Opera Buff. He is just projecting his feelings onto a diverse group of people once in TWI. It seems like an extension of "group think" and finding security and support for our opinions in the safety of numbers. That comment about the 90 % does have an accusatory edge. Those of us who posted in this thread take a hit by extension. This thread has no power or authority to change anything we don't want to change, it may prompt us to consider, but isn't that what we initially missed? Questioning? We were in an ugly cult. What if we were wrong? That is not outside the realm of possibilities. Is that something we want to continue on in while we believe we are honoring the Lord? Just saying.....it sounds like some of those Corinthians may have had it so confused they might have been calling Jesus accursed. Opera Buff's response does seem rather paradoxical. I hope he elaborates just a bit. It does come off as a bit petulant..... to pop in....essentially imply some hated evil and not explain. But, nothing shocks me in ex-way world anymore.

Steve, I don't know how to say this to you without coming across as harsh....it is not my intent okay? It took me longer to write that out than it did to see that in scripture and it changed my entire theology. This is the core tenet of Christianity and with very few exceptions any Christian will tell you the same thing I did. They may word it differently, but the meaning will be the same. There is absolutely nothing in what I wrote that would shock anyone or cause any controversy or confusion except in a cult. I am not sure what you are on about in Corinthians 8 or what you believe you have uncovered, but you have got to start trusting some bible teachers. You could have got that in 5 minutes of reading Carson, Sproul, Piper, or Geisler. It doesn't get anymore elementary or basic than what I wrote. I have no idea what heresy you have unearthed that the "talking heads" are coming for you about. I can only speculate, but please, I really don't want to know. The talking heads, I assume, are bible teachers, Pastors, and the Lord's servants? Really, I am not sure what confusion you see or controversy from the councils, Lord knows I have heard plenty of talk about the evils of the councils, but everyone already knows what I wrote. It was me who didn't see it for years because I was in a cult, but this is all over the scriptures and how we already understand Jesus. The only thing I avoided saying is the obvious...... Just so that I am clear....as I have a tendency to couch things here so that they are palatable to most readers and I don't want to turn every thread into a debate about the trinity. I believe that Jesus Christ is God incarnate, God in the Flesh, The Son of God, eternal not created and in Him the Father is revealed. I did not always believe this, in reality I despised this truth. I mocked it, I denied it, and I believed something entirely different about Jesus. I changed my mind as I saw it unfold before me in scripture. Now, it is more obvious to me than anything else about the Lord. I am well aware others differ, but because of my earlier post and your response I felt I needed to clarify this. Edited this morning for some clarity.

You can always send me a message and we can talk. I am really not that scary and I have a good ear if you ever need a friend. Hugs....big hugs!

Absolutely and without a doubt!

Some people think it is worth sifting through to keep the "nuggets" of truth....or is it the baby and not the bath water. Wait, is it we keep the bathwater and we toss the baby? Now I am confused. Don't beat yourself up. I took the easy route and tossed that kid right out the window and let the tub and water hit him on the way down. Not everyone is willing to do that. I am sure that thread has promoted many to questions. It was a herculean effort and I am sure not without some real good being done. You simply may never hear of all the people it touched.

If we don't have a basic or simple knowledge of Jesus Christ, what is the point of ever learning? We can't get to God without knowing Jesus Christ. He is how we know God. This is how God chose to declare Himself to human beings. In the person of Jesus. So, when we see Jesus, we are seeing God. When we are calling out to Jesus, we are calling out to God. It will always be like this.....God will always be before us in the person of Jesus Christ. There is no one else, no where else, no other way. There was such a fear of orthodox theology instilled in us in TWI, and a real suspicion of historic Christianity. This played to a natural confusion about things. At least it did mine, I guess I shouldn't speak for anyone else. I would rather have discounted the things I didn't understand, like Jesus' divine nature, than admit I didn't know or could not see it. If it didn't make sense to me, how could it be true? So, in that regard, I think we can sometimes put God in a box. With that, there was a temptation to go beyond what is written, and it is not difficult to make unwarranted leaps with unassociated text when we use it to support an idea or concept we think we see in scripture. This can have us jumping from one thing to the next with no grounding. A caviler dismissal of the obvious conclusion in favor of a more convoluted explanation is a temptation when we feel we can't even trust established theology enough to consider. For example, when we see the term prayer and Spirit in one verse, the temptation may be to make improper syllogisms. VP did this when he gave us a list of benefits concerning "manifestation" of the Holy Spirit. Because we see praying in the Holy Spirit in Jude 20, are we to assume this means in SIT? No. When VP made this assumption he over generalized and over specified at the same time. Quite a feat! His approach also included a caviler dismissal of the obvious meaning in Romans 8 which says that it is the Spirit who does the groaning and it is not in words which can be expressed. That verse takes us out of the picture, as tongues is supposedly a language where we do express. What is the difference between what VP said about how others interpreted Jude 20 as getting the spirit into the meeting, and what he did with the same verse? There is no difference. It is an unwarranted leap. He did the same thing he accused others of doing and simply came up with an interpretation which supported the idea he wanted to express. He didn't even consider a more accepted understanding of this verse. He held up an improper reading of Jude 20 to contrast his understanding and convince us these were the only the two options. It is a real trap and one we should avoid by not going beyond what is written. There may be other temptations when we are leery of the more simple conclusion and that is to swing to the opposite end of the spectrum and conclude we can't know. Both are extremes. Knowing our God and what His nature is ..... is why we worship Him. It is how we are designed. We are made to worship God. Not only that, we are to share this and a common like faith in Him. It is not about distrust, or about our standing on the edge held back by what we think we know or can't know......it is so much greater than that. Don't lose the joy in knowing God .Don't miss the joy of knowing God by going beyond what is written. :)

I am having a difficult time understanding how Hendricks wrote one book, let alone four? The man couldn't even write out a grocery list without help. Seriously. He had real issues with basic writing and he wrote like a six year old. I have dyslexia and I have struggled, so I am not being cruel here. He literally could not write. Someone must have helped him write those books as there is NO possible way he did it on his own. He would always invert bible references and left it to others to figure out. When we knew him he always had someone who would help him with basic everyday correspondence.

I was reading some church history about tongues. It supports the idea it was for a sign to unbelievers, but I may be rethinking the way I look at speaking mysteries. It is easy enough to google and the accounts I read some spoke of many believing because of tongues....meaning they understood the words spoken. Worth a look at least. Writing to the preaching evangelists who were yet living, Eusebius says: "Of those that flourished in these times, Quadratus is said to have been distinguished for his prophetical gifts. There were many others, also, noted in these times who held rank in the apostolic succession... the Holy Spirit also wrought many wonders as yet through them, so that as the Gospel was heard, men in crowds voluntarily and eagerly embraced the true faith with their whole minds." Eusebius AD 100 Make what you will of it. Is he speaking of tongues?

Skyrider, I can see ridiculing the law of the believing and the other things you mentioned and the hypocrisy of his having cancer. It is just a thing with me about laughing at his eye falling out or cartoons of eyeballs. I don't know how painful his cancer was, but, not all that long ago, I watched my brother die of cancer. It was horrible and he suffered. I wasn't close to my brother, we did not speak for 14 years because he was angry with me. Yet, when no one else helped I did, because I can't stand to see anyone suffer. I was with him for all of it and there at the end. It broke my heart. I really wouldn't wish that pain on my worst enemy. I have no problem with justice.....I just consider it God's domain. Maybe it is too close to what I went through. I don't want to make anyone here feel bad either because I know people here have suffered equally in other ways. Carry on . . . . I understand what you are saying....I just feel differently is all. Peace.

It does say to desire gifts. Follow the way of love and eagerly desire spiritual gifts, especially the gift of prophecy. I think we could desire gifts for the purpose of edification of the body and if it is His will He would grant them or Paul is saying change your attitude. I can see both ways. Which one fits in more with the context? Chockfull, when you say God respects freedom of will.....I am not sure what that means? People always say that and I don't really see that articulated as a theme in scripture. I kind of see the opposite....it is His will that matters. Not because He is a bully, but because He is righteous. Right. I never really understood the freedom of will thing. I don't see it.

Could be you are on to something here. . . . which opens up a whole new line of questions somewhat unrelated to this thread. Just a thought, if VP was teaching true manifesting of gifts of the HS.....and his ministry reflected his theology....why was it inundated with a bunch of sadistic, narcissistic, cheating bullies? Love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control are a far cry from mark and avoid, homo purge, families being torn apart, rampant abortion and sexual abuse. Just saying.

Yeah, but when all you hear is how righteous and justified you are.....no matter what you do....it kind of takes the sting out of sins like theft, lying, bullying, and controlling abuses. Something was seriously screwy. The meanest of the bunch usually had the most themed prophecy. Righteous, justified, grace covering it all, chosen, special, you name a reason to ignore the obvious and it was usually in there. Snakes coming out of bodily orifices is one way to go I guess?

Nothing, unless you end up with the bitch from hell as your coordinator. My poor "WOW brother". I didn't like him on sight. He was heavy, a bit slow, and what I then thought of as gratingly laid back. I made his life a living hell that year just because I could. Yeah, what could possibly go wrong. Sorry I chased you out of the house and off the field Kevin, although that was probably the nicest thing I did for you all year.

Very convenient, but not really a satisfying explanation. I think you said it best...BS. What I remember hearing very specifically and very often is the phrase, "I am the lord your God and thus say. . . . " That isn't inspiration it is dictation. Why is it those who were inspired by God to write scripture had no problem using their own words, style, vernacular, and language? There are 66 books, 40 authors, 3 continents, and 3 languages spanning a period of 1500 years.... but our "inspiration" had us resorting to the English of the KJV because that is how we understood? Sounds like we were inspired by the words of the bible, not directly by God. Certainly fits with "It is the word the word and nothing but the word". If God were going to inspire a message to edify....we already have scripture. You would think it would be more specific. Tongues were often prayer in the assembly according to scripture...probably specific there for someone who understood what was being said....can you just imagine how that would give a church strength? That actually would be a miracle. A person speaking a language they don't know, someone understanding, and it being a prayer specific to a persons life? If I didn't believe, but heard and understood those words....I would certainly sit up and pay attention.

I don't understand that poster? It reads like it is The Way International which is "God's Prevailing Word to the World"? Am I reading that incorrectly? What does that even mean? A few thousand members doesn't really constitute mighty or prevailing does it? That has got to be one of the most self-serving and self-aggrandizing things I have seen in awhile.