Raf

Is this leading you somewhere, Chockfull? Or are you just making observations? TWI was never truly sola scriptura, though they would have wanted us to believe they were.

I don't see any fair way to conclude that the "muck and mire" line was inappropriate in any way. It is inconsistent to say that following this method will produce a word of prophecy, then dismiss what that person produced using that method because it didn't sound Biblical enough to the hearer. If God can make up an undetectable language out of your glossolalia to produce something that's a language to Him and to no one else in the universe, I can think of no good reason God would not use those words in that context to resonate with that particular audience. The criticism was made up, pure and simple. What was happening in the Intermediate Class was improv training, pure and simple. We spent several nights learning how to manufacture these messages on the spot. We were told what those messages would sound like (this doesn't even mention the "pre-training" that consisted of however many meetings we attended before the Intermediate class: Let's put the number at 20, a ridiculously low estimate that accounts for those who decided to take PFAL and TIP back when it was one class and assumes they did so after only a handful of fellowship meetings). That's quite a few live examples, fresh in the minds of the new Intermediate Class students, of what TIP should sound like, followed by several nights of instruction and strong social reinforcement. This "training" exceeds the training given to aspiring actors. Improv is a technique taught to beginners in acting schools, and they're taught to handle far more complicated situations than "What do you think God would tell the people in this room right now? Go!" I think both sides have conceded that it would be impossible to prove or disprove that a prophecy was really a prophecy. Even if the speaker never contradicted the Bible, that would show his/her competence with the Bible. Nothing about the anecdotal evidence serves to prove or disprove the veracity of prophecy as taught by TWI. Stumbling is to be expected, either way. Growing ability and confidence is to be expected either way. The occasional mistake is to be expected either way. That people would be impressed with the quality is to be expected either way. Give CES credit for this much: by injecting the notion of "personal prophecy" into the mix, they boldly asserted something that was actually testable. They fell flat on their face and exposed that particular doctrine to be a flat-out embarrassing lie, in my opinion, but it was bold and confident. One might say cocky. Personally, I am coming to the belief that when a natural and a supernatural explanation exist to explain or describe the same phenomenon, I am inclined to believe the natural unless the supernatural asserts itself in a way that cannot otherwise be explained. Thus, a prophecy that says "I am God. I love you and will always be there for you. I will never leave you nor forsake you," really, really doesn't make the case for supernatural inspiration. On the other hand, "I am God. The wallet you can't find is behind the couch. You're welcome," would impress the heck out of me (only, of course, if that's where my wallet was, and the person who uttered the prophecy wasn't the one who hid my wallet in the first place, after taking the cash). You know what would have impressed me in prophecy? "I am God. Heed my words this night. Martindale was a really, really bad choice to lead a ministry that purports to do my will. Get out. Get out now. Also, you guys worry a lot more about gay people than I do. Let me handle them, k?" THAT would impress me. Instead we got one prophecy after another that, more often than not, seemed to attempt to out-Ephesians the epistle to the Ephesians. So yes, I think it was all improv. No, I can't prove it, nor do I think anyone can "prove" it was real.

I understand your objection to free vocalization, but I do believe it is misplaced. Perhaps if it is presented in a different way, you can better see the point that is being made: 1. Free vocalization is a label that Poythress put on man's ability to string a bunch of sounds together to create something that, to outward appearances, has a superficial resemblance to a real language. Samarin describes the same ability, but doesn't call it free vocalization. He doesn't call it anything, in fact (well, he calls it glossolalia, but that's begging the question for the purpose of our discussion. You've called it circular reasoning. Most folks don't realize that begging the question IS circular reasoning. But I'm straying from the point). The ability to free vocalize is there. Poythress didn't just make it up. He just called it something that, in my view, facilitates discussion about it. Anyone can perform this action. It's just a matter of getting over the inhibition of sounding silly. I had a recent conversation about this with an atheist. I told him anyone could do it, and he told me he could not. So I accused him of not being an atheist. I explained: for an atheist, free vocalization describes all SIT by definition. To conclude that a Christian can free vocalize but an atheist can't is to concede a supernatural energizing of SIT. Within minutes, he was "speaking in tongues." That is, he was free vocalizing. He's never been a Christian. I simply told him to pretend he was a foreign prime minister giving a speech in front of the United Nations. Boom. It was that easy. It doesn't take great training. All it takes is a lowering of inhibitions. Poythress would likely conclude that was free vocalization but not glossolalia (and everyone in heaven and earth would have to agree). 2. SIT is claimed by Christians today. Linguistic analyses have failed to find any distinction between what people produce when they SIT and what other people produce in free vocalization. That was the conclusion of Poythress after reviewing linguistic studies. He found the connection so strong, in fact, that he calls SIT a form of free vocalization that is only distinguishable in two respects: its setting, and the hypothetical possibility that it is energized by God, which he declines to dismiss. Because Poythress defines that hypothetical possibility in terms that are impossible to test (by his own assertion), it creates problems for both our views. The problem in my view is that it redefines SIT to make it untestable, which I contend is unbiblical. You disagree with me on that, and our disagreement here is doctrinal: what should SIT produce? I've said all along that if we can't agree on that question, we have nothing to argue. The problem Poythress creates for you is that by lumping SIT with free vocalization and not finding any testable distinction, Poythress creates the "guilt by association" that has troubled you. I can easily resolve my problem with Poythress by attributing it to a doctrinal disagreement on what SIT should produce. The problem for you is greater when looking at the evidence (if setting and an untestable hypothesis that relies on faith are the only things distinguishing SIT from free vocalization, then the evidence will always favor the argument that there really is no distinction). But the problem for you is lessened by "taking it on faith." One aspect of that faith will have to be that SIT is not testable: You would consider it a fulfillment of I Cor. 14:2 every time a linguist failed to find language in SIT! That is a premise I do not accept. We are at an impasse here. But I don't think anyone has said or claimed that "SIT is free vocalization" is something that's proved. It is not proved. It is more accurate to say, if anything, linguistics has not identified a distinction between them. As such, "SIT is free vocalization" is an assertion, not a claim that this link is proved. 3. Some people have claimed non-Christian, pagan, spiritualist, psychic xenoglossia. In certain cases that we have been discussing, those people actually gave enough information to evaluate their claim. What they produced was not the foreign language they claimed it to be. In fact, to put it in Poythress' terms, what they produced seems very consistent with free vocalization. So it's not that free vocalization was created as an umbrella label to capture these disparate phenomena -- it's that free vocalization exists independently, and the claims of these other phenomena fail to show any distinction from what we know free vocalization produces. Now, I'm not sure Poythress actually says that last sentence. He might. It's been a while since I read his article. But the conclusion is inescapable of you read Samarin and adjust what he says using Poythress' language. When Samarin concludes that Helene Smith and Albert Le Baron actually produced glossolalia, we, as educated readers, need to recognize that what he's really saying is that he sees no distinction between what they produced and what Poythress would later label free vocalization. I am confident that Samarin would have appreciated the "free vocalization" framework that Poythress provided. It surely would have made his articles and his book a heck of a lot more readable, in my opinion. There is no need, in my view, to be concerned with what a person claims to produce via his psychic connections, spirit guides, etc. when all they are producing is free vocalization. I would be far more concerned if they produced actual languages. But they didn't. So I call them con men. I don't say the same of Christians claiming to produce SIT. In some cases, like mine, the fakery is recognized at the outset and suppressed. I really, really wanted to believe this is what I was doing. But I knew all along it wasn't. In previous threads, I've come thisclose to admitting it. But I never took that last step of saying, "Ok, I faked it." But in most cases, I think we were fooled. We may or may not have known this was "just us" at the outset, but the positive reinforcement easily drowned out the doubts we may have had (sure helps to call that doubt "the devil trying to talk you out of it"). Naturally, you have little use for the preceding two paragraphs. I can live with that. In any event, Poythress manages to believe in the possibility of SIT even while recognizing that free vocalization exists as an innate human ability. I don't think it's that great a leap to believe in the reality of SIT while recognizing free vocalization as an innate human ability. I believe SIT is free vocalization and nothing more. You disagree. I believe an unbiased analysis of output would reveal any difference between the two. You disagree. These disagreements are impossible for us to resolve without one or the other changing our minds on the Biblical presuppositions we hold. Stalemate. And I'm good with that outcome if it's on doctrinal grounds.

Response to post 1845: From what I can tell, and the reason I contacted this particular linguist, is that he's going into much, much more detail than Samarin ever described. I could point out that so far, he has seen no indication that the glossolalia he has studied matches any known language, but at this point that finding can be taken in opposite directions by us in accordance with differing doctrinal presuppositions. ... On a different note, I've been thinking about EB's Improv... I mean, Intermediate Class. Anyone else remember the part where they analyzed an interpretation or prophecy that included the expression "muck and mire of the world"? Burton (I think it was him) taught that this was an example of the speaker's injection of his own words into the prophecy, and that we should ignore it. WHAT? Can anyone give me one solid reason why God can't use that expression in a particular setting where and when it will resonate with those present? I keep thinking about that poor guy, who probably followed every instruction given to him in the TIP class, only to have his word of prophecy cruelly and disingenuously dissected as an example of what NOT to do in prophecy, based on NOTHING. Just thinking out loud.

Dang. Now who was in the Cannonball Run? Anyone famous?

That is correct

I've been thinking, and something just occurred to me: Newberg's study proves that free vocalization is an innate human ability. Hear me out: Newberg found that it is possible for someone to speak a string of syllables unknown to the speaker as any kind of language without activating the language centers of the brain. That IS free vocalization. The problem with this view, of course, is that last line: Newberg's test subjects would adamantly deny that this is what they were doing, and Newberg did nothing to address that question. So for those who hold that Newberg's test subjects were, in fact, doing something supernatural, it's not possible to draw the same conclusion from Newberg's study that I'm drawing here. It would be interesting to see what would happen if Newberg performed the same series of tests on someone who knew he was faking it. Would such a person also be able to utter a meaningless string of syllables without activating the language centers of the brain? I'd bet the mortgage the answer is yes. The emotional centers might show differences, but not the language producing centers. Time to find Newberg's e-mail.

Liam Neeson Batman Begins Morgan Freeman

Ah! Now I see. Thank you. TWI did not teach that it bypasses your mind. If I recall correctly, what TWI taught was "The Great Principle," which in sum says that God's spirit teaches your spirit, your spirit teaches your mind, and you speak it forth. This Great Principle is clearly articulated in the Bible verse... in the verse... CARP! I know I left that verse around here somewhere!

Without going into a detailed reading of this article and the articles linked (VERY nice find, by the way. Should have included it in the reading room), I think the position that best reflects what I've been saying would be "empirical cessationist." That is, I'm not dismissing SIT on principle; I just see no evidence of it. I put myself in that category with some reservation -- you may find an aspect of that position that I totally disagree with, and I don't want to align myself with it completely without having thoroughly reviewed it. Very nice find. Looks fair to both sides.

My belief is that today's SIT is nothing more than free vocalization wearing Christian clothes. I trust Chockfull would disagree with this assessment. As for inspiration vs. revelation, that is a TWI distinction that I'm trying and failing to find in scripture. My belief is that Biblical SIT always produced a human language. The only thing in question in the Bible is whether the people hearing could understand it (hypothetically). I Cor. 14:2 says no, not because it's not a human language, but simply because the audience typically didn't know it. The first incidence of SIT fairly clearly establishes that human language is produced, and nothing about the word "glossa" changes from human language to indecipherable utterance from Acts through Revelation. This leads me to conclude that I Cor. 14:2 is set in a context of meetings, not a blanket statement. Chockfull disagrees and considers I Cor. 14:2 a statement of the very change in definition I deny. We are at an impasse there, on a doctrinal question. No discussion of linguistics is relevant any longer, for if he's right, linguists will never detect a language in glossolalia because God won't allow it. If I'm right, linguistics will never detect a language in glossolalia because there is no language to detect. When both sides can look at the same evidence and come to opposite conclusions based on presuppositions, then the problem isn't the evidence: it's the presuppositions. One of those presuppositions must be wrong. We would know Chockfull's presupposition is wrong if a linguist detects a language in SIT (he'd lose the battle over I Cor. 14:2, but win the war on the existence of valid modern SIT -- interestingly, however, it would still prove nothing about any particular person's claim of SIT: it would only say that someone else did it. Still doesn't mean we didn't all fake it, but certainly would weaken that argument). I wish I had staked out a position that would allow me to claim victory no matter what the outcome of independent, unbiased research. Instead, I chose a position that can hypothetically be proved false... and hasn't been. So, back to inspiration vs. revelation: I'm guessing here, but this is always how I understood it blended with how I now understand it. Revelation would be God telling you "Say this," and you just repeat what He tells you to say. Inspiration removes the "hearing voices in your head" part: you just speak, and trust God to give you the next sound (SIT) or the next word (TIP). It's extemporaneous. You don't hear anything ahead of time. You just go... ...and improvise. There is nearly no distinction between what TWI taught as "inspiration" and "making it up as you go along," also known as improv with your understanding, free vocalization without it. There is, to the best of my ability to look through scripture, no documentation for inspiration as described by TWI as the mechanism for interpretation and prophecy. (This is not crucial to my argument; if someone can prove me wrong here, please go right ahead).

Here's the thing, TnO: What you appear to be asking is, why SIT if it's not producing a language that the speaker understands? Practically, there's no benefit to your understanding. Empirically, there may be some comfort to you to feel this connection with God, to know that he's working in you and with you and for you (I feel like I'm prophesying). But even Chockfull would probably agree that the main benefit you get out of it is what scripture says you'll get out of it, which in my view makes your question doctrinal. Off topic? I only insisted on staying ON topic when the scriptural discussion threatened to overwhelm the practical one we've been having here. That's not the case now. But if you're saying "I KNOW what the Bible says, or what TWI says, and even if I take those things for granted, I still don't see the point of SIT," then your question is purely practical -- and unanswerable. In other words, best as I can tell, the answer to your question is either scriptural or a shrug.

I've been fortunate to encounter a linguist who is conducting the exact kind of phonemic inventory comparison I earlier shared would be an ideal, objective way to identify whether a sample of "unknown" language actually corresponds to a known language. This, I am assured, is how linguists go about identifying languages they encounter with which they are not familiar. Here's the (rather simplistic) answer I got. I don't think it begins to address the depth of the conversation we've been having on this thread. Ok, maybe begins: This was specifically in response to a question about me producing a known language through glossolalia if the linguist investigating were unfamiliar with the language. It's a bit of a superficial answer, and I can't tell yet if it crumbles on close examination or if it is restrained in its confidence of linguists' ability to detect language. I'm at this guy's mercy in terms of him choosing to respond to follow-up questions, and I'll share what I think is relevant as the responses come in.

Ah! I have no exposure to the WAP series, but if Craig said it, that settles it. I just believe it.

I do not recall those anecdotes from the Intermediate class [Earl Burton], which I only took once. I don't believe I ever took the TIP class [VPW], but I may have. But the anecdotal assertion that the language was spoken perfectly (a running theme in many of these anecdotes) seems to me to run counter to the assertion that the reason linguists do not detect languages from a phonetic analysis is because of the "accents" of the people speaking. Samarin used the term "accent" to mean something different from what we typically mean when we use that word. We see this in his placement of quotation marks around the word "accent," and we know from further study that glossolalists lose their regional accents when they SIT. In other words, you cannot tell a New Englander from a Texan based on their glossolalia. So "when" you speak in tongues and produce a language, you sound like a native speaker of that language according to the anecdotal evidence. Unless a linguist is listening. Then you sound like a gringo asking for directions to ell banyo and the linguist is too boneheaded to recognize the language.

Quick (hopefully) doctrinal digression: TnO, Looking at the rest of your post, I think the heart of your question is doctrinal. From that perspective, it's still a struggle to answer in a way that will satisfy you, because I assume you are familiar with all the same scriptures as we. So reminding you that Paul said those who SIT do edify themselves (he doesn't say how, but excludes the understanding) only reminds you of something you seem to be rejecting anyway. If God says you're edified but doesn't say how, why is it not good enough to know He says you're edified? Going further than your post: I'm not trying to reverse my main argument here. I believe it's clear that what Paul wrote applies to the people Paul wrote it to, but I'm not convinced we today are doing or have done the same thing those people did, so its application to me is moot. Likewise, when Paul wrote "I would that ye all spake with tongues," was he writing to the church at Corinth or to every Christian everywhere for all time (or at least until The Return)? And if to every Christian everywhere for all time, why no instruction on how to do it? Why no instruction on how to interpret or prophesy? We used to say that tongues, interpretation and prophecy are by inspiration, not by revelation. Not only is that distinction nowhere to be found in the Bible, but it seems to be flat out contradicted by I Cor. 14:29-31. Any plain reading of that text tells you that words of prophesy come by revelation. Have you ever been in a meeting where one person delivering a word of prophecy was interrupted by someone else who said, "Stop! God has a word to deliver from me. Here it goes..."? I'm not saying it never has happened. For all I know, it has, but it would be exceedingly rare. Has anyone witnessed this in TWI or offshoots? I'm sure some may argue that these verses refer to people with the gift ministry of a prophet, not to people manifesting the word of prophecy that is one of the nine manifestations, but where is that distinction said or even implied in the verse or its context? The context of the whole passage is manifestations, not gift ministries. He just spent verse after verse after verse telling us how profitable prophecies are to the congregation. Are we to believe that when he finally gets to talking about prophets speaking in a worship setting, all of a sudden, without a word of warning, he's talking about something OTHER than the manifestation of prophecy? My point is that we do not see instruction in the Bible on HOW to speak in tongues. We see what it looked like, and we emulate what it looked like, but we're not producing the same thing (my assertion) that they did, so it follows we're not actually DOING the same thing. There's an instruction that seems to be missing, in my opinion. Likewise, aside for "pray that you may interpret," there's no instruction on how to do it. And the only thing approaching instruction on prophecy seems to be that the person prophesying receives a revelation and starts speaking, even though he may be interrupting someone else by doing so. Is there an offshoot that practices this? All these are doctrinal questions, and I do not pretend to know every answer. Was hoping the doctrinal threads that popped up would feature some exploration of these issues, but unfortunately, they have not gone that way. Maybe Mark Sanguinetti's studies answer some of these issues already, but he starts with a presumption I no longer share, which is that modern SIT and Biblical SIT are identical.

A socially (but not racially) diverse group of high school students is forced to serve Saturday detention at a Caribbean resort run by Robin Williams.

If anyone can find out whether she personally needs anything, or whether we can direct donations to help those close to her, please post here. I don't know where she lives, and don't know her personally, but if I can help in any way, I will.

"I can make it. I know I can. You broke the boy in me, but you won't break the man."

Actually, we do see evidence that the overthrow doctrine didn't last more than a couple of years, so I'm not surprised to hear the old prophecies came back.

In keeping with Socks' request, I have removed my reference to his story from my post.

Rain Man For All Seasons

But this is We Didn't Start the Fire, by Billy Joel.

Here was something interesting: Have you ever heard, in interpretation or prophecy, the message brought forth that "God chose us before the foundation of the world"? I did, lots of times. And it was a staple of messages on those Gartmore Weekly Tapes, too. At one point, Chris Geer had a dramatic shift in his doctrinal stance. I won't go into detail except to say that he now interpreted those "foundation of the world" verses to be the "overthrow of the world," corresponding to the Greek word katabole. God didn't choose us before the foundation of the world, which would have required a foreknowledge of the fall of Lucifer and of Adam. No, he chose us before the overthrow of the world, which would correspond to the period between the time Adam sinned and the time God cursed the ground and cast Adam and Eve out of Eden. Guess what happened? Come on, guess. Right. OVERNIGHT, references to God's calling us from before the foundation of the world disappeared from the interpretations and prophecies of everyone who adopted this doctrine. Gone from Gartmore Weekly Tapes. Gone from many (though not all) of the fellowship and branch meetings I attended in New York. You could tell who had heard and accepted the new teaching from those who had either not heard it or not accepted it just by the fact that the reference vanished from their interpretation and prophecy permanently. Proof? No, not proof. Illustration. Demonstration. FAKERY.

Actually, WordWolf, my belief on what glossa is is rather consistent. It is a language in a worship setting whether anyone there understands it or not (and it's certainly possible someone could understand it [Acts 2], Biblically. It just wasn't the norm). And it's a language when it's done in any other setting. It's always a language. My view is wholly consistent. It is the alternate view that "magically" changes glossa into non-language whenever anyone unbiased is listening. I guess it's fair game now to call another person's interpretation of scripture "laughable." So I will do so here: the notion that SIT is language when no unbiased researcher is listening, but magically becomes non-language when a linguist is looking into its veracity, based on a verse that is talking about something else entirely... is laughable.