first let me state that speaking tongues is not the only way for building up the inner man all the other manifestations all so build love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, Meekness, and temperance in our lives
But let me all so say speaking in tongues has a purpose for the unbeliever and more
when we go out to wittness in lands we do not know the language the people of the land speak then with use of tongues we can speak that language.
then the interpretation is for our understanding and the tongue is for their understanding
then there tongues of dreams and interpretation of dreams to show signs
I'm wondering if speaking in tongues isn't a bit like the "Jesus Prayer" as practiced by many Eastern Orthodox christians, as taught by an anonymous russian mystic. It's not all that different from using a mantra to meditate, although the object may be a bit different. In either case, I think the aim is to live on what EF Schumacher called a "higher level of being".
I'm copying this from another thread here in the doctrinal area, but I think it addresses the usefulness of speaking in tongues. If you Romans 8:26&27 deal with speaking in tongues, as I do, then this post that I'm pasting may be right in ascribing a significance to speaking in tongues that connects with everything spiritual that we've received and will receive.
Think about it. It only makes sense that a spiritual infusion would do that, no?
Here's the post:
Romans 8:24 For we are saved by [by, to, or in] hope...
It is the hope that will make us whole - inside & out.
Romans 8:26 ¶In the same way, the Spirit also helps our weaknesses...
The Spirit in the same way - in what same way? In the same way as the hope.
The Spirit does what like the hope?
also helps our weaknesses: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself makes intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.
Just like the hope will make us whole, so the Spirit doing is the hope making us whole now because Christ in you IS the hope.
And He who searches the hearts knows what is on the Spirit's mind, because he makes intercession for the saints according to God.
The intercession of the Spirit is a heart (inside) thing. It is the hope of glory straight from the mind of God to our hearts - now.
I believe the rest of Romans chapter 8 swings on the truth that intercession brings our hope of wholeness, the glorified Jesus Christ, into our heart lives now...
Because whom he foreknew, he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers, and whom he predestined, those he also called. Whom he called, those he also justified. Whom he justified, those he also glorified.
All the way through to being more than conquerors. It is the hope coming into our lives now through spiritual intercession.
Chapters 9 - 11 are a parenthesis, so that we may read chapter 12 as continuing on from the end of 8.
Romans 12:1 Therefore...
What's the "therefore" there for? It refers to energizing of the spiritual intercession of chapter 8 which brings Christ in you, the hope of glory into your lives now.
...I urge you, brothers, by the mercies of God...
It is the mercies of God that intercession brings the hope into our lives now helping the weakness of our flesh that doesn't even know what to pray for in the things which beset us.
... to present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God, which is your spiritual service. Don't be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may prove what is the good, well-pleasing, and perfect will of God.
The renewing of the mind is acknowledging that spiritual intercession enables the hope of glory to live in our hearts now, that God via the spirit can do for us and in us what we cannot do for ourselves.
It transforms us.
It is the good, well-pleasing, and perfect will of God happening.
It is the measure of faith.
The rest of chapter 12 goes from that basis into the functioning of the members of the one body overcoming evil with good, and from Romans, we go into the rest of the church epistles - ALL swinging on the hope coming into the inner life of our hearts through the spiritual intercession of Christ there.
Overcome evil with the good that God works in your heart through Christ's life there, for we know that all things work together for good for those who love God, to those who are called according to his purpose.
In my opinion I don’t think Romans 8:26 refers to Speaking in Tongues. “In the same way the Spirit also helps our weakness; for we do not know how to pray as we should, but the Spirit Himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words;” [Romans 8:26 NASB]
This verse seems to imply that the intercession goes beyond anything we could say. I don’t see the linkage between this verse and speaking in tongues. I used to believe it referred to speaking in tongues [courtesy of TWI] – that tongues was perfect prayer. I don’t know – maybe I’m wrong – but it looks to me like the verse is telling me I don’t know how to pray perfectly – and need the Spirit’s intercession which is by far superior to any words I could utter.
I never saw any tangible benefit from it (of course falling asleep was never terribly difficult for me).
Maybe it's in the Bible because some long dead preacher man from Israel figured out that people could speak in something that sorta sounded like a language if they could just lower their inhibitions enough. And then ascribing some great spiritual significance to such an act wouldn't be too far behind.
The basic concept also appears in many other cultures, and always with some mystical connection...
twi's perspective/teaching is the best I've seen so far about why SIT is useful for the believer.
Oldies, Suda,
What other prospectives or teachings have you earnestly studied, tried or experienced? -- Any others at all? What TWI "says" about other prospectives doesn't count.
If you haven't actutally studied the other teachings objectively, how could you possibly know if TWI's is the best or not?
In my opinion I don't think Romans 8:26 refers to Speaking in Tongues. "In the same way the Spirit also helps our weakness; for we do not know how to pray as we should, but the Spirit Himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words;" [Romans 8:26 NASB]
I tend to agree. TWI took about every verse that says "in the spirit" and made that equal to "speaking in tougues". In this verse they make "groanings too deep for words" equal to "speaking in tounges". If Paul meant speaking in toungues, then why didn't he just say that? Tongues is not even in the context.
In both cases I have seen nothing actually presented to justify these interpretations. It seems to be declared by fiat with no good explanation.
In the case of "groanings too deep for words", isn't tongues made up of words? If so, then how could it be refering to speaking in tounges?
Furthermore, the word for "cannot be uttered" is the Greek "alaletois" a form of "laleo" . According to TWI's definition, speaking in tongues is "laleoing". Therefore by TWI's own definition of tongues, this verse in Romans CANNOT be refering to speaking in tongues, because these groanings cannot be "laleoed".
Maybe it's in the Bible because some long dead preacher man from Israel figured out that people could speak in something that sorta sounded like a language if they could just lower their inhibitions enough. And then ascribing some great spiritual significance to such an act wouldn't be too far behind.
The basic concept also appears in many other cultures, and always with some mystical connection...
True George. Speaking in tongues frequently is an "ecstatic" experience, for people who are caught up in the emotion of their preceived connection with their god(s). Perhaps the early Christians were simply doing what other excited, newly converted religionists had done and ecstaticly spoke in tongues. later, biblical writers attepted to codify it and fit it into the big picture.
What other prospectives or teachings have you earnestly studied, tried or experienced? -- Any others at all? What TWI "says" about other prospectives doesn't count.
If you haven't actutally studied the other teachings objectively, how could you possibly know if TWI's is the best or not?
This is my biggest criticism of many PFAL fans. Your typical PFAL adherant looks at what Wierwille taught, declares that it makes sense, or looks into the King James, verifies that the verses are quoted accurately and is thereafter satisfied that "the truth" was taught. Some really ambitious PFALers will check out a concordance and look up a few Greek words. Any other interpretation is rejected mainly because it disagrees with Wierwille's interpretation.
TWI took about every verse that says "in the spirit" and made that equal to "speaking in tougues
A good example of the sloppy (or perhaps deceptive) aspects of Wierwille's "research". "In the spirit" was equated with "speaking in tongues" because it bolstered Wierwille's position. Maybe it does mean speaking tongues, but there is no investigation into the term, no examination of scripture, just a statement that we, as a group, swallowed unquestioningly.
Some of you "experts" feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but I Corinthians was written in the late 50's A.D., 57 maybe, while Acts was not written until the middle of the 60's, 64 A.D., I believe. Therefore, the uses of "Speaking in Tongues" in I Corinthians pre-date that which was written in Acts.
The first is the "listing" of the gifts/manifestations and the second is another list which mixes what we in TWI thought of as the "gift ministries" with "manifestations" and other miscellany like "helps in governments". There is absolutely no description of tongues or its usage until I Corinthians 14:5-6 where interpretation of tongues is implied to be edifying to the church. It is strongly suggested that tongues are not something that anyone can understand, so it is not profitable or edifying to anyone not doing the speaking, but there is nothing said about the personal benefit to tongues.
In 14:22 it says that tongues are a sign to them that believe not (nothing about "unbelieving believers").
I have doubted to truth about speaking in tongues for some time, and researched it in depth on several occassions. Every time it comes back to the fact that it is described in the book of Acts as being able to speak to anyone and be understood , reguardlless of their language. I always thought this might be tied to the old language that everyone spoke at one time before the tower of Babel.
My opinion is that tongues have ceased as it says they will, and that the deamons have counterfited tongues, to either ridicule God through how utterly stupid some people get with it ; or to communicate between themselves , and with persons to some degree as a trick, or outright lie and "witchcraft" to "confess spirits to their intent" . Has Yehovah God ever said vision yourself "having ...................."s wife , and i'll grant it for you ; but, it's common in some places i know!! God will never go against anything he says , no matter who says so. The so called reverend Robert Moynihan is enraged at the sight of me , one because i stood right on the Word and denied his making me bow down to him , time after time, then with he and v*** Mc*** , and that he had to finally admit that God did his Word and refused M**** in all he was campagining, and he lost the fight. So i think , he spoke in tongues a lot, and others for him , but the word was done, because i replyed with it , thus the overturn. I also think that the stone headed , and stone wall
to baptisim , has it's rational in the satan can manipulate his own , but once they are baptised , he has no more authority, like he had. Thereby tongues can be a great ploy , and the receiving of the "annointment of tongues", just gets you started into the crap of accepting spirits on you, as though something good or necessary.
While I question TWI's teaching and application of speaking in tongues, I doubt
that it is or was demons. It was too "decent and in order" demons IMO. Seems
more like learned behavior to me. Which is not to say that the genuine is not avaliable.
However, I also accept the possibility that tongues "may" have ceased. It "seems" to have ceased in practice in the first century sometime, since after the BIble, it is not mentioned much, in church writings/history until it was rediscovered in the late 1800's/early 1900's.
It is interesting that the record of the original Christian speaking in tongues experience has people speaking a language that is understood by the listeners.
The second record in Acts 10 (VP's suggestion that "what Peter saw" in Acts 9 is speaking in tongues is speculation IMHO) has the Jewish Christians (they of the circumscision) "hearing them speak in tongues and magnify God". How would they know that they were magnifying God if they couldn't understand them? One argument might be that they heard them speak in tongues, therefore, since speaking in tongues is magnifying God, they assumed that magnifying was going on, since speaking in tongues was going on.
The third record is Acts 19 simply states that after Paul laid hands on them they spoke in tongues and prophesied. Is this saying that the prophesying took place within the speaking in tongues?
I can see speaking in tongues being a "sign to them that believe not" if an understandable language was being spoken, but what unbeliever would be impressed with babbling?
I can see speaking in tongues being a "sign to them that believe not" if an understandable language was being spoken, but what unbeliever would be impressed with babbling?
I have doubted to truth about speaking in tongues for some time, and researched it in depth on several occassions. Every time it comes back to the fact that it is described in the book of Acts as being able to speak to anyone and be understood , reguardlless of their language. I always thought this might be tied to the old language that everyone spoke at one time before the tower of Babel.
My opinion is that tongues have ceased as it says they will, and that the deamons have counterfited tongues, to either ridicule God through how utterly stupid some people get with it ; or to communicate between themselves , and with persons to some degree as a trick, or outright lie and "witchcraft" to "confess spirits to their intent" .
Welcome Connerron. I admire your courage toward even contemplating the unsettling notion that demons may have been behind "tongues" - it is no easy jump to make when esteeming that which was previously thought "holy" or "truth" as now evil or "counterfeit". But the rotten fruits of the Way International have more than justified our exploring such possibilities. For all the tongues practiced throughout the Way International - rather than the collective "spiritual growth" that should have resulted in the greatest church movement in the world, it largely crashed and burned, the founder and his leaders manifesting anything but that resembling the "wisdom from above" as one might have reasonably expected. All those "tongues" seem to have had little effect there; instead of possessing Christ-like characteristics, many of those highly esteemed in twi turned out to be conniving, lying-thieving weasles, from the founder on down.
Yeah, it makes a lot of good sense to reassess all that "tongues" stuff!
I've leaned toward slightly different conclusions from yours; since reviewing Otto Everling's thesis "Paulinisch Angelologie und Daemonologie" and E. Earle Evan's provocative article on "Spiritual Gifts in the Pauline Community" (NTS 20) I've come to appreciate that peculiar "angelic" undercurrent flowing throughout the material of those chapters in 1 Corinthians 12 -14, which is also most strikingly apparent in Acts 2. Namely having to do with the role which angels were thought to have played in the function of the "spiritual gifts". Or in brief summation of the theory here - what we call the 9 "gifts" or "manifestations" may also have been actually regarded nine angelic "spirits" placed in service to every Christian, in the sense that "the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets".
Could these servicing "spirits" had been the principalities and powers "stripped" of their authority by Christ on the cross (Col.2:14f) - those comprising the "captives" which Christ led when He ascended? - and among "the gifts" given to men?
Paul's classifications of angels and demons (as well as others at the time) were far more intriguing and dramatic than the oversimplistic dualism -of "good angels versus evil demons, God versus the Devil" which has come to dominate Christian theologies. When we encounter phrases like "
principalities and powers and dominions" and the like throughout Pauline literature, there is little ground to assume anymore that Paul was limiting these designations to demons and devils in those places.
Wierwille never knew or understood the mystery of the cross of Christ.
Many assume that "the Spirit" teaches us but I think we're given as much (if not more) responsibility in teaching "spirits" (Eph.3:9) -whether our own, or angels appointed to us for service.
The Way's angels didn't learn from those to whom they were appointed. They became as hopeless as the rest of us in Wierwille's empty "mystery". The angels suffered especially, because there was nothing uttered about the salvation which the Lord bestowed to them through the cross. Oh, the humans have supposedly been bestowed "Christ-in-them" but not us? What's in it for us? Why the hell are we serving these stupid beasts? Let's take 'em over and run this horse and pony show ourselves, just as we did among the Pharisees, Sadducees and Scribes so long ago at Jerusalem!"
Sure, with all the energies the Way focused upon "devil spirits", - which in Pauline perspective, being merely one, lower class of "spirits" among many other more powerful classes of angelic "principalities and powers" -all the while, they failed to discern "The Elements" which entered their front door, and occupied their offices.
As I mentioned, Paul's actual views on angels and demons are far profound for interpreting our expeiences in the Way than the oversimplified dualism mentioned earlier.
SO did we speak in "the tongues of angels" in twi?
Their actual interpretation probably would have been far less flattering than what our brains were trained to cook up.
I'de like to end this post on a question to everyone: in all your experiences in the Way, does anyone here recall any occasion where someone got rebuked, reproved or even kicked out of the group for having produced an "interpretation" or a "prophecy" that was not well-received by the leaders, which content upset them so much?
And I think the less self centered we are the more we see our selves and others.
To leave what we hold so dear and love without thought of ourselves.
And to hear those angels in others.....and see them....
Quite possibly a lot more things then a few that work all things together to those who love God and leave what they hold so dear and love without thought of themselves releases the toungues of angels.
What other prospectives or teachings have you earnestly studied, tried or experienced? -- Any others at all? What TWI "says" about other prospectives doesn't count.
If you haven't actutally studied the other teachings objectively, how could you possibly know if TWI's is the best or not?
From what I've heard of the teachings against SIT today, they say don't do it ... it is devil possession, speaking gibberish, glossalalia, died with the apostles, and so forth.
Teachings in favor of SIT are along the lines of what twi teaches.
Not really a whole lot more to add here. One either believes it and manifests, sees and enjoys the profit of it; or one disbelieves it, doesn't do it, doesn't receive anything from it.
At this point, I don't see any compelling reason why I need to stop SIT entirely.
... Furthermore, the word for "cannot be uttered" is the Greek "alaletois" a form of "laleo" . According to TWI's definition, speaking in tongues is "laleoing". Therefore by TWI's own definition of tongues, this verse in Romans CANNOT be refering to speaking in tongues, because these groanings cannot be "laleoed".
Cannot be uttered in a known language to the speaker. It doesn't say that exactly, I know, but it was surmised that this was what it meant. If we don't know what we should pray for as we ought in our own language, the other conclusion is SIT, laloeing something which cannot be laloed in your known language.
SIT still is the best explanation I've heard for this verse. Otherwise , if this verse is not talking about speaking in tongues, what exactly is it talking about? Can one explain in detail what these groanings are?
I'm not saying you're wrong, you could be correct. But instead of this verse being used to disprove SIT, I'd be more interested and appreciative of what this verse precisely is talking about, if not SIT.
... There is absolutely no description of tongues or its usage until I Corinthians 14:5-6 where interpretation of tongues is implied to be edifying to the church. It is strongly suggested that tongues are not something that anyone can understand, so it is not profitable or edifying to anyone not doing the speaking, but there is nothing said about the personal benefit to tongues. ...
What about verses 4-5?
1Cr 14:4 He that speaketh in an [unknown] tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church.
1Cr 14:5 I would that ye all spake with tongues, but rather that ye prophesied: for greater [is] he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
45
26
26
69
Popular Days
Jun 26
28
Jul 3
20
Jun 27
18
Aug 12
17
Top Posters In This Topic
Tom 45 posts
Oakspear 26 posts
T-Bone 26 posts
dancing 69 posts
Popular Days
Jun 26 2006
28 posts
Jul 3 2006
20 posts
Jun 27 2006
18 posts
Aug 12 2006
17 posts
Abigail
I find it a very useful thing when my mind won't shut down and I can't fall asleep. 10 minutes of tongues and I am sound asleep.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
very nice primer, Oaks
as i have suggested many times around here before
(i can dig up the links if anyone is interested)
i dont think the speaking in tongues of acts and the epistles was anything like we learned in pfal
nor was it a 'supernatural event,' per se
but rather, a description of a movement that was exercising a higher level of ordinary human dialogue
in a way that allows people to speak interfaith
based on the law of agape love as Christ lived and showed them
it was both more complex, and more free, and simply said more with less
utilizing the universal "angelic structures" common to many traditions around the world
(which is perhaps why the logic and wisdom was recognizable to so many on pentecost
and why those gentiles already knew how to speak in tongues, etc...)
it allowed a quickening of co-intelligence and deep mutual understanding
where we can more openly share and compare our interior perspectives in love
and more-or-less "show each other our naked Christ within...unashamed"
if the "Return of Christ Within" thread is about the opening of individual interior space
"speaking in tongues" is open the facilitation of shared interior space
of course, this would cause a huge shift in collective awareness
as well as threaten the existing thought-order,
which was largely kept in place by using and controlling language itself
(as it is today)
in fact, if i ever get to spend a few months in a cabin doing research and writing a serious book
that would most likely be a large part of the subject of it
...although none of this discounts the value of what twi taught us as speaking in tongues
i still do that everyday, too, and still highly recommend it
it is a very strong vehicle for prayer, meditation, contemplation, relaxation, mindfullness, play, creativity, etc...
i just dont think it is as powerfully transformative as what acts and the epistles are describing
but more of something wonderful that was learned during the aboriginal stages of human evolution
and is utilized in the creation of new music and new words
Edited by sirguessalotLink to comment
Share on other sites
year2027
God first
Beloved Oakspear
God loves you my dear friend
I love the subject speaking in tongues
first let me state that speaking tongues is not the only way for building up the inner man all the other manifestations all so build love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, Meekness, and temperance in our lives
But let me all so say speaking in tongues has a purpose for the unbeliever and more
when we go out to wittness in lands we do not know the language the people of the land speak then with use of tongues we can speak that language.
then the interpretation is for our understanding and the tongue is for their understanding
then there tongues of dreams and interpretation of dreams to show signs
I will end here
thank you
with love and a holy kiss blowing your way Roy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
twi's perspective/teaching is the best I've seen so far about why SIT is useful for the believer.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheEvan
siguessalot, you made me think, there.
I'm wondering if speaking in tongues isn't a bit like the "Jesus Prayer" as practiced by many Eastern Orthodox christians, as taught by an anonymous russian mystic. It's not all that different from using a mantra to meditate, although the object may be a bit different. In either case, I think the aim is to live on what EF Schumacher called a "higher level of being".
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom
I'm copying this from another thread here in the doctrinal area, but I think it addresses the usefulness of speaking in tongues. If you Romans 8:26&27 deal with speaking in tongues, as I do, then this post that I'm pasting may be right in ascribing a significance to speaking in tongues that connects with everything spiritual that we've received and will receive.
Think about it. It only makes sense that a spiritual infusion would do that, no?
Here's the post:
Romans 8:24 For we are saved by [by, to, or in] hope...
It is the hope that will make us whole - inside & out.
Romans 8:26 ¶In the same way, the Spirit also helps our weaknesses...
The Spirit in the same way - in what same way? In the same way as the hope.
The Spirit does what like the hope?
also helps our weaknesses: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself makes intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.
Just like the hope will make us whole, so the Spirit doing is the hope making us whole now because Christ in you IS the hope.
And He who searches the hearts knows what is on the Spirit's mind, because he makes intercession for the saints according to God.
The intercession of the Spirit is a heart (inside) thing. It is the hope of glory straight from the mind of God to our hearts - now.
I believe the rest of Romans chapter 8 swings on the truth that intercession brings our hope of wholeness, the glorified Jesus Christ, into our heart lives now...
Because whom he foreknew, he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers, and whom he predestined, those he also called. Whom he called, those he also justified. Whom he justified, those he also glorified.
All the way through to being more than conquerors. It is the hope coming into our lives now through spiritual intercession.
Chapters 9 - 11 are a parenthesis, so that we may read chapter 12 as continuing on from the end of 8.
Romans 12:1 Therefore...
What's the "therefore" there for? It refers to energizing of the spiritual intercession of chapter 8 which brings Christ in you, the hope of glory into your lives now.
...I urge you, brothers, by the mercies of God...
It is the mercies of God that intercession brings the hope into our lives now helping the weakness of our flesh that doesn't even know what to pray for in the things which beset us.
... to present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God, which is your spiritual service. Don't be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may prove what is the good, well-pleasing, and perfect will of God.
The renewing of the mind is acknowledging that spiritual intercession enables the hope of glory to live in our hearts now, that God via the spirit can do for us and in us what we cannot do for ourselves.
It transforms us.
It is the good, well-pleasing, and perfect will of God happening.
It is the measure of faith.
The rest of chapter 12 goes from that basis into the functioning of the members of the one body overcoming evil with good, and from Romans, we go into the rest of the church epistles - ALL swinging on the hope coming into the inner life of our hearts through the spiritual intercession of Christ there.
Overcome evil with the good that God works in your heart through Christ's life there, for we know that all things work together for good for those who love God, to those who are called according to his purpose.
So, carry on,
Tom
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
In my opinion I don’t think Romans 8:26 refers to Speaking in Tongues. “In the same way the Spirit also helps our weakness; for we do not know how to pray as we should, but the Spirit Himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words;” [Romans 8:26 NASB]
This verse seems to imply that the intercession goes beyond anything we could say. I don’t see the linkage between this verse and speaking in tongues. I used to believe it referred to speaking in tongues [courtesy of TWI] – that tongues was perfect prayer. I don’t know – maybe I’m wrong – but it looks to me like the verse is telling me I don’t know how to pray perfectly – and need the Spirit’s intercession which is by far superior to any words I could utter.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Suda
Ditto to what Oldiesman said.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
I did it for years, like any good Wayfer would.
I never saw any tangible benefit from it (of course falling asleep was never terribly difficult for me).
Maybe it's in the Bible because some long dead preacher man from Israel figured out that people could speak in something that sorta sounded like a language if they could just lower their inhibitions enough. And then ascribing some great spiritual significance to such an act wouldn't be too far behind.
The basic concept also appears in many other cultures, and always with some mystical connection...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
Oldies, Suda,
What other prospectives or teachings have you earnestly studied, tried or experienced? -- Any others at all? What TWI "says" about other prospectives doesn't count.
If you haven't actutally studied the other teachings objectively, how could you possibly know if TWI's is the best or not?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
I tend to agree. TWI took about every verse that says "in the spirit" and made that equal to "speaking in tougues". In this verse they make "groanings too deep for words" equal to "speaking in tounges". If Paul meant speaking in toungues, then why didn't he just say that? Tongues is not even in the context.
In both cases I have seen nothing actually presented to justify these interpretations. It seems to be declared by fiat with no good explanation.
In the case of "groanings too deep for words", isn't tongues made up of words? If so, then how could it be refering to speaking in tounges?
Furthermore, the word for "cannot be uttered" is the Greek "alaletois" a form of "laleo" . According to TWI's definition, speaking in tongues is "laleoing". Therefore by TWI's own definition of tongues, this verse in Romans CANNOT be refering to speaking in tongues, because these groanings cannot be "laleoed".
Once again, TWI theology contradicts itself.
Edited by GoeyLink to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Regarding Goey's posts:
This is my biggest criticism of many PFAL fans. Your typical PFAL adherant looks at what Wierwille taught, declares that it makes sense, or looks into the King James, verifies that the verses are quoted accurately and is thereafter satisfied that "the truth" was taught. Some really ambitious PFALers will check out a concordance and look up a few Greek words. Any other interpretation is rejected mainly because it disagrees with Wierwille's interpretation. A good example of the sloppy (or perhaps deceptive) aspects of Wierwille's "research". "In the spirit" was equated with "speaking in tongues" because it bolstered Wierwille's position. Maybe it does mean speaking tongues, but there is no investigation into the term, no examination of scripture, just a statement that we, as a group, swallowed unquestioningly.Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Some of you "experts"
feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but I Corinthians was written in the late 50's A.D., 57 maybe, while Acts was not written until the middle of the 60's, 64 A.D., I believe. Therefore, the uses of "Speaking in Tongues" in I Corinthians pre-date that which was written in Acts.
The first is the "listing" of the gifts/manifestations and the second is another list which mixes what we in TWI thought of as the "gift ministries" with "manifestations" and other miscellany like "helps in governments". There is absolutely no description of tongues or its usage until I Corinthians 14:5-6 where interpretation of tongues is implied to be edifying to the church. It is strongly suggested that tongues are not something that anyone can understand, so it is not profitable or edifying to anyone not doing the speaking, but there is nothing said about the personal benefit to tongues.
In 14:22 it says that tongues are a sign to them that believe not (nothing about "unbelieving believers").
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CONNERRON
Hello:
I have doubted to truth about speaking in tongues for some time, and researched it in depth on several occassions. Every time it comes back to the fact that it is described in the book of Acts as being able to speak to anyone and be understood , reguardlless of their language. I always thought this might be tied to the old language that everyone spoke at one time before the tower of Babel.
My opinion is that tongues have ceased as it says they will, and that the deamons have counterfited tongues, to either ridicule God through how utterly stupid some people get with it ; or to communicate between themselves , and with persons to some degree as a trick, or outright lie and "witchcraft" to "confess spirits to their intent" . Has Yehovah God ever said vision yourself "having ...................."s wife , and i'll grant it for you ; but, it's common in some places i know!! God will never go against anything he says , no matter who says so. The so called reverend Robert Moynihan is enraged at the sight of me , one because i stood right on the Word and denied his making me bow down to him , time after time, then with he and v*** Mc*** , and that he had to finally admit that God did his Word and refused M**** in all he was campagining, and he lost the fight. So i think , he spoke in tongues a lot, and others for him , but the word was done, because i replyed with it , thus the overturn. I also think that the stone headed , and stone wall
to baptisim , has it's rational in the satan can manipulate his own , but once they are baptised , he has no more authority, like he had. Thereby tongues can be a great ploy , and the receiving of the "annointment of tongues", just gets you started into the crap of accepting spirits on you, as though something good or necessary.
Edited by DooWapLink to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
Conneron,
Welcome to GS.
While I question TWI's teaching and application of speaking in tongues, I doubt
that it is or was demons. It was too "decent and in order" demons IMO. Seems
more like learned behavior to me. Which is not to say that the genuine is not avaliable.
However, I also accept the possibility that tongues "may" have ceased. It "seems" to have ceased in practice in the first century sometime, since after the BIble, it is not mentioned much, in church writings/history until it was rediscovered in the late 1800's/early 1900's.
Maybe do a google search on "glossalia".
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
It is interesting that the record of the original Christian speaking in tongues experience has people speaking a language that is understood by the listeners.
The second record in Acts 10 (VP's suggestion that "what Peter saw" in Acts 9 is speaking in tongues is speculation IMHO) has the Jewish Christians (they of the circumscision) "hearing them speak in tongues and magnify God". How would they know that they were magnifying God if they couldn't understand them? One argument might be that they heard them speak in tongues, therefore, since speaking in tongues is magnifying God, they assumed that magnifying was going on, since speaking in tongues was going on.
The third record is Acts 19 simply states that after Paul laid hands on them they spoke in tongues and prophesied. Is this saying that the prophesying took place within the speaking in tongues?
I can see speaking in tongues being a "sign to them that believe not" if an understandable language was being spoken, but what unbeliever would be impressed with babbling?
Edited by OakspearLink to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
"Will they not think you are mad?"
Edited by TheInvisibleDanLink to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
Welcome Connerron. I admire your courage toward even contemplating the unsettling notion that demons may have been behind "tongues" - it is no easy jump to make when esteeming that which was previously thought "holy" or "truth" as now evil or "counterfeit". But the rotten fruits of the Way International have more than justified our exploring such possibilities. For all the tongues practiced throughout the Way International - rather than the collective "spiritual growth" that should have resulted in the greatest church movement in the world, it largely crashed and burned, the founder and his leaders manifesting anything but that resembling the "wisdom from above" as one might have reasonably expected. All those "tongues" seem to have had little effect there; instead of possessing Christ-like characteristics, many of those highly esteemed in twi turned out to be conniving, lying-thieving weasles, from the founder on down.
Yeah, it makes a lot of good sense to reassess all that "tongues" stuff!
I've leaned toward slightly different conclusions from yours; since reviewing Otto Everling's thesis "Paulinisch Angelologie und Daemonologie" and E. Earle Evan's provocative article on "Spiritual Gifts in the Pauline Community" (NTS 20) I've come to appreciate that peculiar "angelic" undercurrent flowing throughout the material of those chapters in 1 Corinthians 12 -14, which is also most strikingly apparent in Acts 2. Namely having to do with the role which angels were thought to have played in the function of the "spiritual gifts". Or in brief summation of the theory here - what we call the 9 "gifts" or "manifestations" may also have been actually regarded nine angelic "spirits" placed in service to every Christian, in the sense that "the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets".
Could these servicing "spirits" had been the principalities and powers "stripped" of their authority by Christ on the cross (Col.2:14f) - those comprising the "captives" which Christ led when He ascended? - and among "the gifts" given to men?
Paul's classifications of angels and demons (as well as others at the time) were far more intriguing and dramatic than the oversimplistic dualism -of "good angels versus evil demons, God versus the Devil" which has come to dominate Christian theologies. When we encounter phrases like "
principalities and powers and dominions" and the like throughout Pauline literature, there is little ground to assume anymore that Paul was limiting these designations to demons and devils in those places.
Wierwille never knew or understood the mystery of the cross of Christ.
Many assume that "the Spirit" teaches us but I think we're given as much (if not more) responsibility in teaching "spirits" (Eph.3:9) -whether our own, or angels appointed to us for service.
The Way's angels didn't learn from those to whom they were appointed. They became as hopeless as the rest of us in Wierwille's empty "mystery". The angels suffered especially, because there was nothing uttered about the salvation which the Lord bestowed to them through the cross. Oh, the humans have supposedly been bestowed "Christ-in-them" but not us? What's in it for us? Why the hell are we serving these stupid beasts? Let's take 'em over and run this horse and pony show ourselves, just as we did among the Pharisees, Sadducees and Scribes so long ago at Jerusalem!"
Sure, with all the energies the Way focused upon "devil spirits", - which in Pauline perspective, being merely one, lower class of "spirits" among many other more powerful classes of angelic "principalities and powers" -all the while, they failed to discern "The Elements" which entered their front door, and occupied their offices.
As I mentioned, Paul's actual views on angels and demons are far profound for interpreting our expeiences in the Way than the oversimplified dualism mentioned earlier.
SO did we speak in "the tongues of angels" in twi?
Their actual interpretation probably would have been far less flattering than what our brains were trained to cook up.
I'de like to end this post on a question to everyone: in all your experiences in the Way, does anyone here recall any occasion where someone got rebuked, reproved or even kicked out of the group for having produced an "interpretation" or a "prophecy" that was not well-received by the leaders, which content upset them so much?
Danny
Edited by TheInvisibleDanLink to comment
Share on other sites
dancing
Very enlightening Danny,
I run with a few who think very similar. But to put it in these words helps tremendously.
Edited by dancingLink to comment
Share on other sites
dancing
And I think the less self centered we are the more we see our selves and others.
To leave what we hold so dear and love without thought of ourselves.
And to hear those angels in others.....and see them....
Quite possibly a lot more things then a few that work all things together to those who love God and leave what they hold so dear and love without thought of themselves releases the toungues of angels.
Edited by dancingLink to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
From what I've heard of the teachings against SIT today, they say don't do it ... it is devil possession, speaking gibberish, glossalalia, died with the apostles, and so forth.
Teachings in favor of SIT are along the lines of what twi teaches.
Not really a whole lot more to add here. One either believes it and manifests, sees and enjoys the profit of it; or one disbelieves it, doesn't do it, doesn't receive anything from it.
At this point, I don't see any compelling reason why I need to stop SIT entirely.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Cannot be uttered in a known language to the speaker. It doesn't say that exactly, I know, but it was surmised that this was what it meant. If we don't know what we should pray for as we ought in our own language, the other conclusion is SIT, laloeing something which cannot be laloed in your known language.
SIT still is the best explanation I've heard for this verse. Otherwise , if this verse is not talking about speaking in tongues, what exactly is it talking about? Can one explain in detail what these groanings are?
I'm not saying you're wrong, you could be correct. But instead of this verse being used to disprove SIT, I'd be more interested and appreciative of what this verse precisely is talking about, if not SIT.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
What about verses 4-5?
1Cr 14:4 He that speaketh in an [unknown] tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church.
1Cr 14:5 I would that ye all spake with tongues, but rather that ye prophesied: for greater [is] he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.