did you ever hear wierwille speaking in tongues and/or interpret ?

[waysider]

Reading this thread has given me a much deeper understanding of how terribly wrong we were to use God's Word to rationalize behaviors we knew in our hearts were wrong.

[Dot Matrix]

Dooj

I agree with you.

I was timed in the corps. A 9th corps guy was really into that and he would, well, let people know if their int. was longer than their sit.

The girl I work with is Spanish. We had to fire a client and I wrote a succinct 3-line note to let her know she is not a good fit for us.

The interpretation? It was about 6 lines. She told me "different in Spanish"

So, while we used OUR logic to put God's power into a box -- there is a good chance all of that was just plain wrong.

We were all so smart in the Way, weren't we?

[Oakspear]

How ridiculous your logic is:

Jeez I got to spell everything out for you guys.

Gee, when you put it that way, it all makes sense! Edited September 14, 2007 by Oakspear

[excathedra]

my 9th corps bro used a stop watch. i thought that was weird

[doojable]

Thank you, johniam. I'm pleased that I'm not the only one who sees that.

Now -- be prepared for the gnashing of the teeth. :)

There will be no gnashing of teeth on my end. I like my teeth.

[WordWolf]

How ridiculous your logic is: read Acts 2. The 12 all spoke in tongues at the same time. Hello.

How ridiculous your logic is:

the day of Pentecost was a SPECIAL CASE, and no verse exists to indicate-

either in Acts or elsewhere-

that this was meant to ever be repeated.

Hello.

Just because Paul told those Corinthian believers to do it by two, at most by three doesn't make it law. Those believers were practicing error and Paul gave them guidelines to get into better habits. It doesn't say that all believers everywhere for all time could not have more than three people SIT with interpretation. What? A black cloud is going to come into the room as soon as the fourth tongue with interpretation is heard? I think not.

I Corinthians 14:23, 27, 28, 40.

23Therefore if the whole church assembles together and all speak in tongues, and ungifted men or unbelievers enter, will they not say that you are mad?

27If anyone speaks in a tongue, it should be by two or at the most three, and each in turn, and one must interpret;

28but if there is no interpreter, he must keep silent in the church; and let him speak to himself and to God.

40But all things must be done properly and in an orderly manner.

======

Those believers were together and all of them spoke in tongues at the same time.

They were PRACTICING ERROR.

I agree.

This is also the ONLY instructions concerning speaking in tongues when Christians aren't alone.

Finding pretext to disregard them is NOT based on a verse of Scripture.

It is, as vpw would have called it, "private interpretation."

========

As to "a black cloud coming into the room as soon as the fourth person spoke",

Paul certainly would have pointed out that this crude caricature wouldn't happen-

but that doesn't mean it wasn't a bad idea and not to be done- and certainly not to

be made a POLICY. If Corinthians was correcting PRACTICAL error, they were already

DOING THIS and Paul was instructed to tell them to STOP.

As well live in Corinth, read this, and conclude that the absence of a "black cloud"

meant Paul was wrong.

Can you come up with scripture that allows you to drive a car? I don't need scripture if simple horse sense can be used. Larry's right, it's legalism to insist that something is wrong when scripture doesn't.

WHEN Scripture says something's not to be done,

it's unScriptural to say the opposite.

Like when some verses say to only have sex with one's spouse, and someone tells other people

that God wouldn't mind for them to commit adultery with them,

or that orgies are permitted by God but not "best."

Or when an Epistle says not to do something, and excuses are found to do it anyway.

Reading this thread has given me a much deeper understanding of how terribly wrong we were to use God's Word to rationalize behaviors we knew in our hearts were wrong.

[Ham]

my 9th corps bro used a stop watch. i thought that was weird

Sounds like it was some kind of race.. he (or she) who finished first.. won.. well, something..

they shoulda used the stop watch on some of the VERY long drab meetings, when the "leader" "went over" the interpretation of what loyster harped on for two hours..

[T-Bone]

How ridiculous your logic is: read Acts 2. The 12 all spoke in tongues at the same time. Hello. Just because Paul told those Corinthian believers to do it by two, at most by three doesn't make it law. Those believers were practicing error and Paul gave them guidelines to get into better habits. It doesn't say that all believers everywhere for all time could not have more than three people SIT with interpretation. What? A black cloud is going to come into the room as soon as the fourth tongue with interpretation is heard? I think not.

Can you come up with scripture that allows you to drive a car? I don't need scripture if simple horse sense can be used. Larry's right, it's legalism to insist that something is wrong when scripture doesn't.

What happened in Acts 2 was quite different from what Paul addressed in I Corinthians.

Acts 2:5-13 NKJV

5 And there were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, devout men, from every nation under heaven. 6 And when this sound occurred, the multitude came together, and were confused, because everyone heard them speak in his own language. 7 Then they were all amazed and marveled, saying to one another, "Look, are not all these who speak Galileans? 8 And how is it that we hear, each in our own language in which we were born?

9 Parthians and Medes and Elamites, those dwelling in Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, 10 Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya adjoining Cyrene, visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes, 11 Cretans and Arabs—we hear them speaking in our own tongues the wonderful works of God." 12 So they were all amazed and perplexed, saying to one another, "Whatever could this mean?"

13 Others mocking said, "They are full of new wine."

Devout men from various nations heard these Galileans speak in their native tongue! Truly a miraculous simultaneous broadcast of the wonderful works of God in the languages of the audience. This wasn't a typical church service – like the setting to which Corinthians speaks. No one needed the interpretation of tongues in Acts 2 – which is also called for in Corinthians.

Sure they all spoke in tongues at the same time in Acts 2 – but their tongues were understood perfectly by those who naturally spoke those languages. Where in the Bible does it indicate that was a feature of speaking in tongues that the charismatic could control? "Today, I'm addressing Iranians so when I speak in tongues it will be Arabic." I think it's an unfounded assumption to insist that what happened in Acts 2 was the norm for the charismatic church.

Edited September 14, 2007 by T-Bone

[Dot Matrix]

yeah, ex that is one of the ones I was thinking of

And how nervous did that make people?

[johniam]

quote: the day of Pentecost was a SPECIAL CASE, and no verse exists to indicate-

either in Acts or elsewhere-

that this was meant to ever be repeated.

Nor is there any scripture or basis of logic that says it should NOT be repeated.

quote: What happened in Acts 2 was quite different from what Paul addressed in I Corinthians.

What about Acts 10:44-46? "For they heard THEM SIT and magnify God". They must've been doing it at the same time. Ditto Acts 19:6.

You guys are all just grasping at any straw that will allow you to attack VP. It's not true cause VP said it and it's not FALSE if VP said it. When ya gonna come back to the word?

Edited September 15, 2007 by johniam

[WordWolf]

What happened in Acts 2 was quite different from what Paul addressed in I Corinthians.

Acts 2:5-13 NKJV

5 And there were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, devout men, from every nation under heaven. 6 And when this sound occurred, the multitude came together, and were confused, because everyone heard them speak in his own language. 7 Then they were all amazed and marveled, saying to one another, "Look, are not all these who speak Galileans? 8 And how is it that we hear, each in our own language in which we were born?

9 Parthians and Medes and Elamites, those dwelling in Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, 10 Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya adjoining Cyrene, visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes, 11 Cretans and Arabs—we hear them speaking in our own tongues the wonderful works of God." 12 So they were all amazed and perplexed, saying to one another, "Whatever could this mean?"

13 Others mocking said, "They are full of new wine."

Devout men from various nations heard these Galileans speak in their native tongue! Truly a miraculous simultaneous broadcast of the wonderful works of God in the languages of the audience. This wasn't a typical church service – like the setting to which Corinthians speaks. No one needed the interpretation of tongues in Acts 2 – which is also called for in Corinthians.

Sure they all spoke in tongues at the same time in Acts 2 – but their tongues were understood perfectly by those who naturally spoke those languages. Where in the Bible does it indicate that was a feature of speaking in tongues that the charismatic could control? "Today, I'm addressing Iranians so when I speak in tongues it will be Arabic." I think it's an unfounded assumption to insist that what happened in Acts 2 was the norm for the charismatic church.

[WordWolf]

quote: the day of Pentecost was a SPECIAL CASE, and no verse exists to indicate-

either in Acts or elsewhere-

that this was meant to ever be repeated.

Nor is there any scripture or basis of logic that says it should NOT be repeated.

Got to suggest the Day of Pentecost is some sort of repeatable incident,

and not unique in history, just to try to hang onto your practice.

Part of me admires that kind of persistence even in the face of reason.

Interesting how you can even look at verses in I Corinthians 14 and still say

there's no basis for saying this was not supposed to be policy.

I Corinthians 14:26-28

26What is the outcome then, brethren? When you assemble, each one has a psalm, has a teaching, has a revelation, has a tongue, has an interpretation Let all things be done for edification.

27If anyone speaks in a tongue, it should be by two or at the most three, and each in turn, and one must interpret;

28but if there is no interpreter, he must keep silent in the church; and let him speak to himself and to God.

Of course, one may consider oneself so spiritual that they can disregard I Corinthians 14,

since they have a pipeline to God Almighty.

However....

I Corinthians 14:37-40.

37If anyone thinks he is a prophet or spiritual, let him recognize that the things which I write to you are the Lord's commandment.

38But if anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized.

39Therefore, my brethren, desire earnestly to prophesy, and do not forbid to speak in tongues.

40But all things must be done properly and in an orderly manner.

quote: What happened in Acts 2 was quite different from what Paul addressed in I Corinthians.

What about Acts 10:44-46? "For they heard THEM SIT and magnify God". They must've been doing it at the same time. Ditto Acts 19:6.

Hey, that might well be one reason the Corinthians were doing it wrong-

they may have mistaken the Pentecost incident for a normative experience,

and that's why Paul had to tell them "don't do it this way."

Because he DID tell them "don't do it this way", as almost all of us can see

without difficulty.

You guys are all just grasping at any straw that will allow you to attack VP. It's not true cause VP said it and it's not FALSE if VP said it. When ya gonna come back to the word?

You guys are just grasping at any straw that will allow you to defend vp. vp claimed it was supported by

Scripture, but we actually looked at ALL the verses, and saw it wasn't so....

you began by assuming he was correct and did your best to hide from verses that showed

he was incorrect.

When are you going to come to The Word of God and stop elevating the word of vpw over it?

[johniam]

There was nothing indecent or out of order about the session 12s or excellor sessions. I notice you didn't even address the scriptures I gave (Acts 10 and Acts 19). There WAS something indecent and out of order about the way the Corinthians were doing it. Sure Pentecost was special; it was the original outpouring. So was Acts 10 for Cornelius' household and Acts 19 for those at Ephesus. No problem unless someone wants to make one.

The believers being reproved in 1 Cor. 14 had already spoken in tongues. Why can't you see the simplicity of the difference. The truly important factors to consider are: decent and in order, which Pentecost, Acts 10, Acts 19, session 12, and excellor sessions are/were, and edification, exhortation, and comfort, which a message in manifestations is. Why should a 4th message of edification, exhortation, and comfort nullify the 3 that preceded it? Doesn't make sense, unless you allow that there's original outpourings, practice sessions, and protocol for "in the church".

Paul's guidelines were for the purpose of getting those believers back on track, not laws to beat people over the head with forever. I don't need a special pipeline to God to be able to figure this out.

[Ham]

Nor is there any scripture or basis of logic that says it should NOT be repeated.

If it ever indeed WAS repeated, would it not have essentially the same results?

Somehow.. the last time I saw "new people" in twig.. they didn't exactly fall down and exclaim "wowser.. God is in you of a truth.."

In fact.. I NEVER saw it happen.

So.. like the old vicmeister proposed.. "where is the PROFIT?"

[Ham]

And so I pose the question again, Where in the scriptures do we find mention of these "excellor sessions" and the need to develop our fluency?

Actually I see the opposite. On Pentecost, when it "hit", I don't read anything about the twelve going off somewhere, to get a couple of hours of practice before putting on the big show.

I would suggest that the practice sessions were introduced simply because what people thought were manifestations did not produce the "biblical" results they should have.

gotta be da people..

[coolchef]

i still say it's a crock

[anotherDan]

........Somehow.. the last time I saw "new people" in twig.. they didn't exactly fall down and exclaim "wowser.. God is in you of a truth.."

In fact.. I NEVER saw it happen.

I think you make a good point, squirrel, and don't want to diminish it. But I think I've witnessed quite a number of situations where inspired utterance did produce just such an effect. Quite a number of times, it wasn't during what we called "manifestations," but it did once in a while.

[waysider]

BUMP

(Just because it was so much fun)

[leafytwiglet]

Interesting Point... especially in light of the whole it is so very important to do so emphasis in The Way Interantional.

I never heard him in the time I was in and that was a couple of years and at several limb meetings where he was the star attraction.

[Broken Arrow]

Interesting Point... especially in light of the whole it is so very important to do so emphasis in The Way Interantional.

I never heard him in the time I was in and that was a couple of years and at several limb meetings where he was the star attraction.

I seem to vaguely recall him maybe doing it once at a Rock of Ages. Someone else posting here would have heard it too if I did. Then again, maybe he had just had a shot of drambuie and he was saying something in German. Then, just like Jackie Gleason he went...WHOOOOOAAA!

By the way, it seemed to me that when he spoke in tongues in the class, he was saying the same thing over again. "Lo shanta, ala ma seeta...etc. Gosh, I hope I didn't spell anything wrong in that last sentence.

[waysider]

Gosh, I hope I didn't spell anything wrong in that last sentence.

With so little to use for comparison, how would anyone know?

[Gen-2]

The Casting-Mountains-into-the-Sea excellor sessions will be held under the bleachers over on the sea-side of Seacoast Stadium by Christie's Restaurant at three o'clock. All Participants are asked to bring their own mountain.

I wasn't there, but have heard that VPW "spoke in tongues & interpreted" or gave a word of "prophecy" in small group-like settings. I wonder how great the temptation was for him to just make up the message delivered in English? I've seen that done in Pentecostal churches, where it seemed that the minister's ego was supplying the words as he spoke. I'm not sure you can actually judge that kind of thing without knowing another's thoughts - whether it's genuine or not, but sometimes it's so far out of synch with the bible, that you know it's fairly unrelated in source.

[waysider]

Have you ever thought about this?

If God wanted you to "practice" speaking in tongues out loud, because the sounds were foreign to your native tongue, (ie: French does not have a "ch" sound, Chinese speakers have trouble with the letter "R', etc.) why didn't He just have you speak in a language that was more suitable to the natural speech configurations you were used to?

Along those same lines, why was it "your" tongue, in the first place? If it really came from God, couldn't He give you a different one each time?

I'm just sayin'.

[waysider]

My own personal theory is that "excellor sessions" were not intended to expand your fluency; they were intended to enhance theatrical appeal.

[Oakspear]

Have you ever thought about this?

If God wanted you to "practice" speaking in tongues out loud, because the sounds were foreign to your native tongue, (ie: French does not have a "ch" sound, Chinese speakers have trouble with the letter "R', etc.) why didn't He just have you speak in a language that was more suitable to the natural speech configurations you were used to?

Along those same lines, why was it "your" tongue, in the first place? If it really came from God, couldn't He give you a different one each time?

I'm just sayin'.

Assuming for the sake of argument that tongues were "real", it appeared to me that most people's tongues did contain only sounds commonly found in the speaker's native language. Occassionally you'd get someone who knew a little bit about language and linguistics and you'd hear the hard "ch", glottal stops, clicks, and other "foreign" sounds.

My own personal theory is that "excellor sessions" were not intended to expand your fluency; they were intended to enhance theatrical appeal.

Good point.

Usually when I spoke in tongues it sounded like what someone once described as a cross between a Thai sportscaster and a Klingon warrior. I was usually called upon often in those "excellors sessions".