geisha779

You appear to have genuine questions and that is not being a pain....and don't we all. I can give you a short answer... .whether you accept it is entirely up to you. There is a discussion in the doctrinal forum and if you put it there as well....maybe others will give more details. . The last 11 or so verses in Mark are added....and this is where Jesus mentions, what people assume, is SIT. Just because these verses are added doesn't necessarily negate them. Most of it can be corroborated in the other gospels. It isn't such a big deal. What He said was..... these signs will accompany those who believe. . . . .speak in new tongues. Paul didn't really say it was to edify yourself, he said someone who SIT is ONLY edifying himself and he compares it to prophecy where the whole church would be edified. He was not promoting it as a practice to build themselves up.....he was reproving them for seeking their own. My take....hope that helps.

This thread has helped me so much so I really thank you Raf. SIT is a topic I have struggled to understand since leaving TWI. I know I wasn't "born-again" while in the Way. Really, I lost much of the tenderness I had before becoming so involved. I know I lost my compassion for others and much of my ability to reason. I became a harder and darker person in TWI. That is really not the transformation one would expect, at least from a Christian perspective, but, there you have it. This thread has been a relief, but, it hasn't shaken my faith in the Lord in the least. That can't be dependent on SIT. VP did us a terrible turn by presenting it as proof and compelling us to do it. Looking back, not only did he teach us the opposite of genuine faith.....but what happens to people who later on realize it was a scam and they don't have that once saved always saved evidence? That could reasonably cause some issues. I believe VP gave many people a false sense of salvation. That is criminal IMO. Lump of coal? Yep.....but. that doesn't mean there are no other precious gems for us to seek. For a group that prided ourselves on the value of truth, the reality is that it was treated very cheaply in TWI. Individuals may vary, but on the whole, the "truth" in TWI was simply a commodity to cash in on.....

I salute you! I was also watching Glee at 4 AM while playing on the internet. I am recovering from a really bad flu and have been sleeping all day....up half the night. I hate that. Bags under the eyes that is. Thank-you for that Greek. DA Carson says he cringes when pastors who have preached less than a few years appeal to Greek because of the nuances......being in school and surrounded each day is a perfect time to look at these things....so, I take you very seriously. It is lovely that you are willing to share your experience here. Our date night is going to include an exciting trip to Wal-Mart. Whoo hoo!

Tongues were also a sign for the Jews who required a sign. A sign for unbelievers. Tongues had more than one purpose. . . . . I have mentioned this on this thread already. I didn't mean to imply evangelism is the only reason for SIT. I don't believe that, but, it did have purpose as an outward display for God's glory in evangelism as well as a practical purpose. People heard their languages and believed. How many accounts do we need? Why would it change? It also served as edification for the church when approached correctly. Paul was not the only Apostle either, but he did evangelize a massive area. It stands to reason he would have spoken in tongues more than the Corinthians....which was a church body whose members had jobs and families and lives. They were not constantly in the church SIT and I would respectfully dispute they SIT to build themselves up....at least not after Paul got through with them. What do we need tongues for now? The church is already established on the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets . . . . They did the heavy lifting for us. It was their job specifically. They were Apostles. Instead of asking ourselves why or how it has changed....or if it is the same thing as the first century.....we might rethink the question and ask what the practical and God glorifying reason there would be for SIT now. We are far too removed from the 1st century church to ever get a satisfying answer as to if it is the same thing. That is....other than a real and understood language speaking the wonderful works of God....the gospel. Personally, I would love that. But, there is too much of a divide in time.....we can't know unless we have the evidence. This is why VP was so diabolical.....there is just no way to know some things. VP claimed God told him, and that was hard to argue with. Simply believing VP as credible? Well, we all know where that got us.

Paul was evangelizing a huge area......SIT was a way of sharing the gospel to a large number of people without learning a new language. It stands to reason he would have SIT more than the Corinthians. He was called to help establish the church. Signs and miracles did follow these guys, but they were always for God's purpose and glory. How did Paul establish and add to all these churches when language was obviously a barrier? Maybe, like most things God enables us with....it had a more practical and less mystical purpose. Why would we need tongues today? The church is established and language is not an issue.

A little aside....if anyone is curious or struggling to understand the resurrection, we Christians have a wealth of sound and scholarly resources to turn to.. . . The go to guy on this topic is Dr. William Lane Craig. This is his area of expertise and he has offered several great defenses and his books are easily accessible to the average reader. They are understandable and require no dictionary to follow along. :) http://www.leaderu.c...uct_listing.htm Back to tongues.....which has been hit or miss in the history of the church.....it kind of pops up here and there in a movement and then dies down. This is not meant as a slight to anyone, but IMO the charismatic movement tends to draw the emotional, and immature seeker and usually seems to remain on the fringe. Not saying ALL. Geez, it seems I am always qualifying what I say or feel I have to censor my opinions on here. But, in other words, it attracts the kooks and those who are looking for a visceral experience and an outward display. The Holy Laughter movement probably illustrates best what I am trying to say. I can remember thinking my experience with TWI tongues was so superior to Pentecostals and surely the snake handlers. I think our experience of "decently and in order" bred arrogance. I was just as kooky, maybe just more refined and less emotional about it all.

"Be not unequally yoked together with unbelievers" was used like a mantra wherever I went in TWI. Of course, it was ripped out of context and we slapped an arrogant attitude on it to justify discarding people like kleenex. Some of the isolation was due in part to the highly conditional friendships we were encouraged to develop with the idea that we were to "shake the dust off our heels" and "move on" if they didn't take the class.

The context also tells us that this was not a good thing, edifying one's self. It was problematic because of the attitude of the Corinthians, and the opposite of what Paul was pleading with them to adopt. There isn't anything in the context, that implies that this is some kind of supernatural spiritual body building exercise, including how we once read "speaking mysteries to God" in TWI. It is not there. I believe it is rather the opposite. There are things in there that I think we were blinded to in TWI . . . . by the manner or perspective with which VP taught us to approach those scriptures. He spoon fed us the notions he did....and although I know you and I have moved on from VP's theology, it doesn't hurt to consider why we still believe some of the things that we do. I include myself. Of course I don't think it is a lie.....nothing has to be found a forgery or mistranslated for us to read these passages in light of the context and spirit of the gospel for us to simply see them in a different way. Paul wrote them in the spirit of the gospel and the meaning and promotion of love, which doesn't seek its own. I did write this out in the doctrinal forum.....and although it is rather long.....I think if you wade through it you will understand more why I think like I do....why I take offense at certain things.....and why I respond with genuine disdain to things like Johniam's suggestion that we should practice excelling at tongues because of 1 Corinthians 14:4. I wrote it understanding that most people here know the scriptures involved, but some may have not considered another way to view them. If you don't have the time or inclination to read it.....hey, that is cool too.

Is 1 Corinthians 14:4 an instruction, a passing comment, or a commendable endeavor? Or . . . . is it smack dab in the middle of correction and juxtaposed to the demeanor that Paul wanted the Corinthians to adopt, one more in line with the spirit of the gospel? Paul, starts out in his letter, hoping to again share the true heart of the gospel with this church, but, before he can get to that he has to confront all kinds of craziness. 14 chapters worth! This immature church was off the wall. Corinth was a wealthy port city with an influx of foreigners and a very large and multifaceted Pagan population with an influential culture. They were in the church. Before Paul gets to the gospel, he has to tackle the Corinthian's worldliness, sexual immorality, lawsuits, idol worship and Pagan sacrifice, the marked difference between the rich and poor, their disgraceful behavior at the communion table. Also he had to address their absolute love of making a spectacle of themselves in the assembly by trying to outdo each other in a display of the fantastic. . In chapter 13, Paul gives us that wonderful synopsis of what love is and what love is not. I notice that this comes on the heels of his dealing with the diversity of spiritual gifts and what unity in diversity means. Paul cuts like a knife through self-centeredness and self-seeking, and then he keeps hammering away at this theme. The phrase "One another" is used more frequently here in Corinthians than anywhere else in the NT. There is a reason for that. These believers were fond of exhibition and self aggrandizement. Many were seeking after tongues. Paul explains that not everyone has the same gift. The ironic thing, is that this church didn't lack in spiritual gifts....it was a highly gifted church. When Paul begins his synopsis on genuine vs counterfeit love......He starts out speaking about the tongues of men and angels. Where did that come from? No one was speaking angels tongues in Acts? I, and others believe, that the Corinthians, who were a carnal and ego based group were making "one up ya" claims and raising the bar to claim they also spoke the language of angels. Paul is taking those claims and turning them right back on them. If I speak in angels tongues or mans tongues.....it doesn't mean a thing if I don't have love. He does this with prophecy....if I understand ALL mysteries, ALL knowledge, ALL faith, so that I can move mountains....If I donate ALL my goods and give my body to be burned even...I gain nothing without the proper attitude of love. Paul is not claiming he actually speaks in the tongues of angels anymore than he is claiming he has ALL knowledge, ALL faith, or understands ALL mysteries. Later on he writes that we see through a glass darkly. He is saying that even if they reached the pinnacle of knowledge, wisdom, tongues and so on....it amounts to nothing without love. He tells them that.....love is not boastful....it doesn't seek its own. It doesn't act improperly. He tells them that their prophecies are going to end...their tongues are going to cease, and when that which is perfect comes along......the partial will cease altogether They had seriously lost their focus. Paul is reading them the riot act in a loving way, and this is all correction. One would think, that would be enough to get his point across, but he keeps going. He wants them to desire gifts.....but, to what end? Why would he want them to desire prophecy? Because everyone was claiming their turn at the microphone for exhibition.(I think this is where counterfeit comes in BTW.) Great, everyone has a tongue, but no interpreters. Tongues were only building up the people speaking them but, he addressed what they are without love...nothing!! They were self-gratifying...I mean edifying. It was an ego based edification. Paul was encouraging them to desire benefit for everyone....he was pleading with them. He tells them, since no one understands what someone is saying when they SIT....they are speaking a mystery. It is all Greek to me. Only God understood them. It is not that they were speaking some deep mysteries to God.....what good with that do the person SIT? He doesn't understand and it isn't doing God any favors....nothing is a mystery to Him. It is not speaking of some spiritual body building. And I believe this for many reasons.....one being that all believers are commanded to be filled with the HS, but not all believers SIT. We are filled and strengthened by God's grace and mercy. Paul juxtaposes the two attitudes....self...which he has been tackling right along....and love and desire to benefit the body. Others. One another....a body. An attitude that runs in line with the spirit of the gospel......a desire to encourage, edify, or console the church. Later on, he likens SIT without an interpreter for intelligible speech, to speaking into the air. That is a radical departure from speaking deep mysteries to God. Whistling in the wind. . . . . . It comes right back to you. Scripture does say that that he who speaks in a tongue builds himself up, that is not a lie, but then Paul immediately compares this to the better gift and speaker which builds up the church. Which attitude is he promoting? What is he pleading with them to seek? Self edification by showing off and building their ego or the desire to use a gift to benefit others? I am thinking 14:4 wasn't a command, or a laudable act....but rather a problem. The edification came because they were using their gift, but it meant nothing as they were seeking their own....because that is not love and without love it is empty.....void. I didn't use "IMO", or "I think" as much as I should have, but please, insert them wherever you like. This is how I read these verses....in light of the correction of gross error and the heart of the gospel Paul is really wanting to share with them. He finally gets there in 15. Someone will mention prayer in the spirit....and oddly enough....I have a take on that too! If you read this entire post....I salute you.

You are a sweet man who I have come to appreciate. Really.

They mocked Jesus as they crucified Him for sins He didn't commit, yet, someone questions you, or calls you delusion, or is offended by your attitude and those are fighting words? I hope you never run into real persecution. I really do find your attitude about tongues offensive, but if you are not saying they are for your own personal use, that God won't let you show them, and that they don't have to be a real known language, or that was a one time deal. I apologize. If you are saying that.....yeah....it offends me. The only reason it would matter that you are offending me is if you were a witness for Jesus Christ and had a special gift or calling you are responsible for. Otherwise I am just some angry blond at a keyboard. What else would you call one verse taken out of context and thrown out as an answer from Johniam. I suspect it is meant to bring to mind TWI doctrine, but I could be wrong. Either way, I thought I answered that rather well, in its context, without getting too specific. If you didn't think so....fair enough. I don't want to pick a fight with you....you actually once made me cry. I usually try and avoid you. And YES I am somewhat angry about being lied to in TWI and being led into some pretty ego based assumptions about the gifts of the Holy Spirit. Again, seems a reasonable response to me.If it is an anger problem....so be it. Are we clear?

You know....if I am following along correctly with the, God may shut this off, or, I can't do this line of reasoning....maybe God does have a problem with your prayer and this is His way of telling you.....we can stretch this puppy straight out to gas on the snow pumps. I have a problem with using a child like faith or approach as an excuse. What did God tell Job out of the whirlwind. Pull up your big boy pants and answer me? or, Come, let us reason together. Search the scriptures to see if these things are true. Iron sharpens iron...... If you believe what you are doing is scriptural, perfect prayer, speaking mysteries to God, I don't have a problem with that. . . . . I think you are wrong, but so what. I do have a problem with the attitude that you have your special toys and are not going to show them to anyone because you can't. . . . God wouldn't like it. It was used as a sign for unbelievers. That was the point. Not some self-edification and secret prayer language and mysterious spiritual body building. It all seems so far removed from edification for the body or a confirmation of the gospel it causes me serious questions. Those questions arise...in part....from the things you are saying and the attitude you have about SIT. But, it is my problem....not yours? I should just accept your attitude as correct because it works for you? No. You claim this special gift from God almighty....your attitude is definitely relevant. After all, if God has given you this special gift to confirm the gospel......I am going to pay close attention to not only the tongues you speak but the manner and attitude you approach it with. Seems reasonable.

I don't get this answer at all. And it is humble yourself like a child before God.....and receive the kingdom like a child....but, it is also grow up and put away child like things. Your faith, will not be rocked, unless your faith is dependent on your SIT being real. If it is.....it is best to chuck it anyway. We don't simply believe things like a kid without first really examining them, challenging them, and considering the scriptures. That is how we got into a mess in the first place. The problem as I see it....is not that challenge and child-like faith have collided on this thread, but that closely held and dear doctrines.....are difficult to let go of......if we want to believe them. Even if they are wrong. Been there and may still be there. I truly get that. But, child like faith is not a reason for not taking a closer look and rising to the challenge. If it is true.....God will keep up His end. That is faith.

Why thank-you Johniam....but, I already know TWI doctrine. Context context, context. How would the implication of that verse change if we paid really close attention to the context? It would take a vast departure from that verse being ANY kind of plausible answer. It does come on the heels of a beautiful description of genuine love, which doesn't seek its own satisfaction. Again, and for the last time, Paul is speaking to a bunch of immature Christians and some fake ones who are climbing over each other trying to display the most fantastic of gifts.....and he does mention that even if he spoke in an angels tongue.....an even more fantastic display......if he has no love it is pointless. Even if one is speaking to God in a tongue.....if no one understands it. . . . it is certainly a "mystery" to all but God. . . isn't it? The person doing it is happy and edified because they are displaying the fantastic and using their gift. Albeit, I believe, inappropriately,. Getting together after PAYING for the privilege and PRACTICING to edify ourselves takes what the Corinthians were doing to a whole new level. I can't practice a language unknown to me.....all I can do is form some words that may SOUND like a language. I can't improve on something genuinely from God. . . . but, I can get better at faking it. If you want to post a response in the doctrinal forum I will take a look, but this thread isn't really about doctrine....so that is all I am going to say about edifying yourself.

Excellent point....we were not faking God out. What a relief to just say......I faked it, I am sorry. . . . .and be thankful for the gifts God has actually given to me. And when I struggle with prayer....and sometimes I do......I have to deal with it up close and personal and use my words. No fake fall back position!

Jesus never said to celebrate or remember His birthday, He said to memorialize His death. Whatever day he was born....I don't think it really matters. That He was born matters. I don't believe God has written His word in the stars. The entire creation declares Him and makes man responsible before Him.

I probably should have said...."Opinion of tone and tenor aside"..... as I was trying to downplay that side discussion. Like you, I don't want that topic to distract from the points being made here. I once had an entire thread dedicated to my attitude because I said I was praying for someone. I think they thought I said I was killing kittens for sport...it went on and on and on. Good times! I think I will leave the issue of tone to others. It is difficult, at the least, not to wonder about this subject.....it was so wrapped up in that theology and that theology was so wrapped up in many of our Christian identities. If we carry on in faith....it seems a very pertinent question. I know I faked prophecy and interpretation by rehearsing in my head, and tongues was curious and suspect, but, looking back....at the time I thought I was doing it. I don't believe that now. My observation of those who have moved on to another faith was just one more thing to question. And while I really do wonder about Paul's comment concerning "Another spirit"....I am now unwilling to declare that the answer. Unlike VP, I cannot see black and white hearts walking down the street. I don't know what people were really thinking or what they had confessed. I don't want to be the person who tries and makes these judgements, it is way above my pay grade. So, I am mulling that verse over and having another look. You are absolutely right though......your answer does fit and it is a difficult thing to dismiss. I heard RC Sproul once liken SIT to scat singing....wind across the vocal chords and that resonates with me. A free vocalization. He is also suspect of modern tongues. I have appreciated this thread topic and the contributions on it immensely. Hubby and I had a great conversation about this today. He believes he faked it....and can still fake it, but he doesn't. Pointless really. His personal belief is tongues ceased with the Apostles after the church was established. He is a cessationist. We laughed as we realized we were both distancing ourselves in conversation as if we were observers, but the reality is....I ran those stupid practice sessions and HE ran the first one I sat through. This also makes the revelatory gifts via TWI highly suspect too, but we can be confident people faked those. That doesn't seem shocking. It was used as a means of control, top on down to twig leader that was often used as control. Hard to argue with "Father told me". Was there any genuine mixed in? I don't know....but I imagine that was very rare.

Tone and tenor aside.....what about all the really probing questions that have been asked and the pointed observations that have been made? I don't think there are too many people here who ever again want to close their minds, stomp their feet, and pretend none of this is suspect. I can see not caring, that is almost a logical place to go....I can see being resigned to never really knowing what happened.....and I can see believing we all faked it too.....but, what I find impossible is to believe it was ever genuine. It is interesting that some, who have long since repudiated Jesus as Lord and have embraced another faith, still have the ability to manifest this phenomenon at will. This runs head long into some very heady and serious scripture. These are not people who don't understand what they are saying, but have made a clear and conscious declaration of repudiation. I don't believe God holds us hostage against our will. Besides, that whole thing about it being proof of eternal life.....not scriptural and diabolically opposed to faith. Jesus is Lord is how you know....not, I know Jesus is Lord and I am saved because I SIT. This topic really did cause me considerable angst because I do love the Lord. I came up with a solution though....I just don't do it anymore. I really don't think I could if I wanted to. Too Add: THANKS Steve, I agree...He lied. I love that you just simply said it!! :)

Well, no actually. I am not sure what you have been reading....but, that is not a very fair rendering of the conclusions many theologians draw at all. Chockfull, I hope you do start reading more on this particular topic, because what many, many theologians do is look at these scriptures in light of the genuine and counterfeit . Paul is sorting out a carnal church in gross error where both the real and genuine were in play. Oh my....... It is certainly not as simple as the two conclusions you say they draw and I don't know too many Christians(outside of Pentecostals) that say tongues is necessary for proof of the new birth. That runs contrary to faith, . . . . a sign to Israel yes....proof of salvation...no. . . . because I don't know of any theologians outside of my Way world that actually believe all Christians have all the gifts or operate them at their will. That is a radical departure from the consensus and a fringe belief. I can give you a pretty long list of CHRISTIAN theologians who would say to flee from the tongues as we learned them from VP.....but not many, if any, that would conclude tongues is pretty much similar to what we did in TWI. VP was a cult leader....not a Christian. I really don't want to antagonize you or have contention. I want to encourage you to keep expanding out with some sound resources. I love that you are looking into these things. I think it is great. I look forward to hearing what you think as you consider at least, more theology. :)

For everyday use I have the Holman CSB Apologetics bible. . . . they mention TWI several times in the notes. I have an NIV Women's devotional bible that I also use.....there are loads of versions I avoid, but the one I personally can't stand reading anymore is the King James version.

This is a sincere question....and quite away from the intelligent and detailed debate going on here. I am simple folk.....but, I am still curious why we thought we could improve, perfect, expand or excel in an unknown language. Anybody? And if we participated in trying to improve on the quality and fluency of a language supposedly unknown to us...... stepping back and genuinely reflecting.....doesn't that strongly imply we were really faking it? I can exhibit a pretty good sized ego...some vanity and definitely pride, but even I understand my limitations. I can't excel in something completely foreign to me. I can't improve on something I genuinely don't understand at all.....and I can't increase my fluency in a language I don't know. Sessions to excel seem a pretty ego based practice to me. Now, doctrinal issues are not central to my question, but if it is an ego based practice, then it appears to run at cross purposes with the instruction manual. No? I am sincere not ironic here. Yet, I am asked to believe (Not directed at you Chockfull) it was a genuine experience with a tongue. I am starting to believe genuine tongues may have ceased.Without the evidence of an experience like that in Acts where the language was understood and it related a specific message.....I am now seriously questioning ALL modern accounts of SIT. Not just TWI. I would actually love to be wrong.

Just a clarification....I wasn't trying to legitimize the idea of reincarnation by relaying my personal experience. When I read the initial post, I remembered that reading, and just how boring my past lives were as they were recounted to me. I personally don't believe in reincarnation, but many, many, many people do and it is not something to dismiss without at least an examination. Right? The older I get the more I do find myself playing the "If I had it to do all over again" game or the "If I knew then what I know now" game. Serious design flaw IMO....we should get the wisdom which comes with experience first as it would save us the regret of youthful hubris later. And.... I would have invested in Microsoft.

I am not sure one can logically conclude anything without all the relevant information and within such a narrow corridor. Things like this make me uncomfortable and I am unwilling to read anything for more than it can legitimately offer. Which is why I directed you to Carson, who not only examines other doctrine, but linguistics, social anthropology, history, psychology, and geography. He does this so that he can draw rational conclusions. Don't do that to me Chockfulll... appeal to nameless, faceless, and "emotionally charged" scholars and imply that they are blind to a side. You may not like the conclusions some draw....but, I hope you really are judging them on the merits of their scholarship and not on the basis of a preconceived and emotionally invested theology. Especially one with "sides" and one which may largely be based on a personal and mystical experience. I read a HUGE amount of varied theology and if I found someone so emotionally vested in an issue that it reflects in their scholarship......I would not read them. Personally, I have yet to find a true scholar in theological circles....who does this. In that world....they don't really fair to well.....although polite about it....theologians do not suffer fools easily.

Hey Steve, I know you were asking for references in the SIT thread and I thought you might find this paper useful...... http://www.asa3.org/...68Jennings.html It cites many studies, papers, and books you might find helpful as well. Although it is not dealing with tongues in ancient cultures particularly.....it does explore tongues in current non Christian cultures. I am getting a bit confused about what goes where now, so, I am not sure this is the right place to give this to you. I would have simply sent it to you privately, but, since it opens up a whole new set of questions about SIT.....especially for the Christian reader....I thought others may enjoy it as well. Hope it is okay I posted it here. Geisha

After we left TWI and before I became a Christian I dabbled here and there in different things trying to find my way......I had my past lives read. Apparently, I was a baker in an English Manor house in the 19th century. I was very happy, but . . . I didn't get out much so, my health declined and I died. I was also a man. What is kind of strange is that my degree is in 19th century British history and I love to bake. Weird huh? Granted, I finished school after the reading, but I was always headed there. Never deviated. I have loved that period since I was a kid. Oh....and I didn't tell her anything about myself so she didn't get it from any conversation.