SIT, TIP, Prophecy and Confession

[Steve Lortz]

Here's a (rhetorical) thought.

If SIT/TIP/Prophesy is as important as we've been led to believe, why is there so little information about it in the scriptures?

This is how I think baptism was done among the earliest Christians: the person presenting her/him self for admission to the congregation would strip down to some degree as they were exhorted to put off the old man; saying something to the effect of "Jesus is Lord", the person would be dunked in the water; when the person came up out of the water, she or he would be speaking in tongues; the person would then be re-dressed with exhortation to put on the new man.

Apart from the day of Pentecost itself (the thank offering of the first fruit of the wheat harvest, when people give back to God of that which He has given them), every mention of SIT in Acts and Paul is occassioned when people are doing it the wrong way, which argues against SIT being a result of possession by the Holy Spirit, or an abdication of personal will and responsibility by the speaker.

I think so little was written about SIT because, for the most part, it was taken for granted.

I think SIT at baptism died out as a result of the power struggle between the council of elders (twig coordinators) in the cities and the metropolitan bishops (branch coordinators). The metropolitan bishops could control the water, but they couldn't control the Spirit.

Some eye-popping things about prophecy and prophets were written in the Didache, a document believed to be contemporaneous with some of the latest writings to make it into the canon.

Thanks for not just blowing off the things I'm writing. Wierwille WAS a con man. I doubt that he himself ever genuinely spoke in tongues. I don't think the way he led people into SIT was 100% right or effective. But i think God was able to make use of Wierwille's deceptions, in SOME cases, to bring His will to pass, like Balaam. I have no doubt that Raf is speaking the truth as he understands it, and I applaud him for that.

Love,

Steve

Edited September 15, 2012 by Steve Lortz

[waysider]

Steve

HERE is another article that lists an abundance of citations.

This article strongly suggests that speaking in tongues is a learned behavior and, as such, is greatly influenced by the community and culture in which it exists.

There is a section in the article that describes an incident in which a group of people were led into tongues. It bears a striking resemblance to session #12 of PFAL.

Edited September 15, 2012 by waysider

[Raf]

What constitutes proof...

This isn't even a little complicated. Speak in tongues into a tape recorder. Spend the rest of your life trying to identify the language. Travel the world. Talk to linguists. Identify the language.

It's really that simple. You can try it with TWI folk. You can try it with your family. You can do it yourself. Find one person who can produce a verified actual language that they've never learned. Spare is the third and fourth hand stories of people who spoke in tongues and there just happened to be a native speaker of the same language nearby. I call that urban legend, and if you don't agree, fine. Find the speaker and reproduce the result.

Because what you're going to find is that speaking in tongues does not produce an actual language, which it would if it worked and was not being faked.

[waysider]

Not only does it not produce a verifiable language, it lacks the syntax and semantics (linguistic structure) that is found in genuine languages. I think that is really a crucial point to consider.

.........................................

Linguistics

The syllables that make up instances of glossolalia typically appear to be unpatterned reorganizations of phonemes from the primary language of the person uttering the syllables; thus, the glossolalia of people from Russia, the United Kingdom, and Brazil all sound quite different from each other, but vaguely resemble the Russian, English, and Portuguese languages, respectively. Many linguists generally regard most glossolalia as lacking any identifiable semantics, syntax, or morphology.

SOURCE

Edited September 15, 2012 by waysider

[johniam]

quote: johniam, on 14 September 2012 - 01:04 AM, said:

...That's just your opinion. You act like just because you did it disingenuously then so did everybody else and God has nothing to do with any of it. Prove it!

Can't be done, John, one way or the other...

That's exactly my point!

This whole thread illustrates something VP said: too much complicated theology and not enough simple believing.

quote: What constitutes proof...

This isn't even a little complicated. Speak in tongues into a tape recorder. Spend the rest of your life trying to identify the language. Travel the world. Talk to linguists. Identify the language.

It's really that simple. You can try it with TWI folk. You can try it with your family. You can do it yourself. Find one person who can produce a verified actual language that they've never learned. Spare is the third and fourth hand stories of people who spoke in tongues and there just happened to be a native speaker of the same language nearby. I call that urban legend, and if you don't agree, fine. Find the speaker and reproduce the result.

Because what you're going to find is that speaking in tongues does not produce an actual language, which it would if it worked and was not being faked.

Remember. A tongue can be of men (understood somewhere on earth) or of angels (not understood on earth). You're just trying to bully everyone into accepting your premise again.

[waysider]

Remember. A tongue can be of men (understood somewhere on earth) or of angels (not understood on earth). .

Maybe. But, if it's a "language", shouldn't it have , at least, an identifiable structure?

Buildings have identifiable structure....wood, bricks, screws, windows, shingles and so on, organized in a logical fashion.

But,you can't just toss all those things in a big old pile and call it a house.

Edited September 15, 2012 by waysider

[waysider]

correction:

In post #22, I said SIT decreases your sense of self. In actuality, the studies show it INCREASES your sense of self in relation to the world. Maybe that explains why we thought we were on some sort of mission to save the world/stand in the gap and all that sort of thing.

Edited September 15, 2012 by waysider

[Raf]

John writes as though I never addressed the cockamamie nonsense of tongues of angels. Assuming such a language exists, it's a copout beyond cowardly copouts to suggest that anyone not speaking in a known language must be speaking the tongues of spirits. Such convenient nonsense

[waysider]

"You move your tongue, you move your lips, you make the sounds, you put your left foot in, you put your left foot out...."

At what point does this cease to be a conscious effort on the part of the speaker??

[waysider]

John writes as though I never addressed the cockamamie nonsense of tongues of angels. Assuming such a language exists, it's a copout beyond cowardly copouts to suggest that anyone not speaking in a known language must be speaking the tongues of spirits. Such convenient nonsense

If it's a "language" of angels, why doesn't it have syntax and follow the conventions of "language" that we've come to expect?

Edited September 15, 2012 by waysider

[Raf]

Someone somewhere speaking in tongues must be speaking a known language. Just how many languages do they have in heaven anyway?

Remember, this manifestation is supposed to be outward, irrefutable proof. How does babbling a language known to no one on earth prove anything? And how are we to distinguish tongues of angels from someone who's just faking it and hoping no one calls him on it?

P.S. I'm not the bully here. You're the one who asked me to prove you're deceiving yourself. I just shifted the burden to where it belongs. If you say you're speaking in a language you've never learned, the burden to prove it is on you. So, identify the language. You say you can't because it might be, conveniently, the tongue of angels. Lol, but ok. Just repeat the experiment with someone else. Oh, they have tongues of angels too? Wait, so we can call in a linguist to at least determine that your angelic tongue and the second speaker's

angelic tongue are the same language, right? What's that? Angels might have more than one tongue. Sh... You're making that up, right? Ok, but let me ask you a question.. How far down this road will you be willing to travel before you admit what I'm encouraging you (not bullying you) to fess up to right now?

[waysider]

Badges Proof? We don't need no stinking badges proof.

Edited September 15, 2012 by waysider

[Raf]

P.S. Johniam, next time you cite Wierwille as an authority on faith, please bring toilet paper. It really stinks up the place when you don't wipe.

I'm really sorry you find this thread so threatening that you have to summon the spirit of that con man to denounce it, or falsely accuse me of bullying to justify your continued insistence on self-deception. I'm REALLY sorry about that.

Ok, I'm lying. I'm not sorry about it at all. Actually, I'm kind of amused by it.

It makes me giggle. In English.

Edited September 15, 2012 by Raf

[geisha779]

I have to break my GSC moratorium to comment. I have been watching this thread in complete fascination..... the "Prophetic" voice here coupled with the self-proclaimed and named Apostle in the doctrinal forum and it is almost just a bit too morbidly entertaining.

First off....hey...I LIED! I have no problem getting it out there. I can REMEMBER rehearsing in my head in case I was called on for interpretation or prophecy. It wasn't malicious.... it was more like.....oh crap...I gotta be ready. My tongues? I really don't know what that was or where it came from. Glossolalia? That is not really a satisfying explanation and it is somewhat redundant as SIT is glossolalia. I just know I have not done it in years and will not do it. I think it has little to do with God and more to do with the "other" spirit spoken of in Corinthians. Maybe not....but, I don't believe what we learned in TWI comes from God. My advice would simply echo that of many other Christians who would tell you....if you learned in TWI stop doing it.

I thought for a minute T&O was going to break it open here and give a scriptural end to the conversation, but as he/she alluded.....in scripture....they were speaking languages other people understood. It was an evangelical tool so to speak. It was meant for a sign!!!

Another person, Raf I think, mentioned that Corinthians proclaims that you can do it. I don't believe that is what Corinthians actually implies. Paul is reproving a church that coveted gifts. What I truly think Paul is saying is....to a people coming from a Pagan background where they probably did practice Glossolalia or it was in their heritage.... and who were coveting tongues . . .Yeah, sure it would be great if everyone spoke in tongues, but even better if everyone could prophesy . . . . . but, I don't want you coveting gifts . . . . .not everyone has the same gift. . . . hey, it would be great if we all had miracles and healing too. . . . but, the better thing for you to be coveting is love.(I copied myself from the the Thus Saith Paul thread)

I don't think the scriptures ever meant everyone could or would speak in tongues. It is a gift not a manifestation of the spirit. When the church was being established, sure it makes sense that there were these things going on. Now....not so much. I am not a cessationist but tongues is probably pretty rare and if God has a purpose for it than I imagine it will genuinely pop up when needed.

We have the record in Acts 8 of Simon trying to buy the power......I think Peter's response was "let your money rot with you....not "sure, sign this green card, fork over the dough, and you too can have this power."

As far as the bullying on this thread? Yeah it does seem kind of like bullying....but when confronted with the facts it can feel like that. What the really interesting thing about this thread is as that it highlights just how susceptible and weak willed many of us were.

IMO if you think answered prayer is the proof SIT true......you missed the boat. Muslims have prayers answered. Mormons have prayers answered, most people at one time will have a prayer answered. God is gracious and good.....don't confuse that with a sign that what you paid for in PFAL is from God.

[Raf]

I'm not disputing that the Bible says believers can speak in tongues. If you disagree with that, ok by me. It's irrelevant to my point. My point is that I faked it. I encourage others who faked it to come clean. Period. My point ends there.

In addition, I happen to believe we ALL faked it, but sincere people disagree with me. I'm okay with that too. But when I am asked to prove that other people are lying, well, that's when the gloves come off, because it's bullcrap to demand that I prove you're lying. Much easier for you to prove you're telling the truth. But you can't. So you say that something that's easy to verify is impossible to verify. Then you call me names and sic Wierwille on me. LO EFFIN L.

My "to whom addressed" got all mangled in this post, for which I apologize. Good to see you, Geisha!

[geisha779]

Ooops forgot to vote ....and just wanted to add that I led several people into SIT when I was in TWI. The funny thing is....they were fence sitters as far as accepting Jesus as Lord(even by TWI lax standards). It didn't stop them from stringing a bunch of malaka ca cas together and SIT. If it is a sign that one is born again than apparently confession and belief is out the window.

I have to say....I fall into the camp that thinks it was really a mass delusion. Sorry.....nothing personal against anyone, but come on....still? Really?

[Raf]

I remember once leading a group of people into the experience, and my assistant blurted out that it was just like baby talk. Holy cow, it was a confession right there for all to hear! I somehow managed to work past that with some pious sounding parries. I mean, we all KNOW it wasn't just baby talk, heh heh, right?

[waysider]

I'm not so sure, Raf, Wierwille said the Christ in us was like a "spiritual" baby. Speaking in tongues was like feeding it spiritual mashed potatoes .....sooooo.... we just had to speak in tongues a lot to make it grow big and strong.

Lo shanta goo goo gah gah *burp*

[Raf]

For those who led others into SIT. Imagine you were actively teaching someone how to fake it, but without them realizing that this was your goal. How different would your approach have been?

[waysider]

For those who led others into SIT. Imagine you were actively teaching someone how to fake it, but without them realizing that this was your goal. How different would your approach have been?

I don't think we would have been nearly as successful if we hadn't believed the lie ourselves. And, it's a snowball effect. They, in turn, believed it to be real and were thus able to attain a level of success, as well.......etc.

[Raf]

I agree. What I'm suggesting is that the fakery was so transparent that you can't distinguish teaching people the real thing from teaching people to fake it.

[Raf]

Because there was no difference.

[waysider]

You mean like trying to tell a fake three dollar bill from a real one?

[Raf]

Kind of. Look at it this way: Count Roderick Fitter runs a crime syndicate whose specialty is printing fake $2 bills. His workers, a gullible lot, are grateful to him for teaching them how to make real money. One day, the Count's former employee, Jennifer Ursula Wine, realizes she's been producing a fake all along. She tries to tell tge other workers, but they don't want to believe her. They have it on good authority from the U.S. Government that $2 bills exist and have been circulating for years. Plus, they have endless testimony about how the $2 bills they have made benefitted them and their friends. Jen counters that even though she concedes that $2 bills exist, it doesn't mean the bills they have been producing are real.

And so it was that many employees ignored Jen U. Wine warnings and continued working for the Count, R. Fitter.

[waysider]

You know he wasn't a real Count, don't you?

:P