SIT, TIP, Prophecy and Confession

[Raf]

Chockfull, as I said to Steve, we can respectfully recognize that we have reached different conclusions and, although my position makes a judgment about yours, I can certainly choose not to press the issue and bid you peace in your prayer life and your relationship with God. Ultimately, my accusation is meaningless and should have no bearing on your relationship with God.

Steve has chosen to engage me on a respectful level, and we're having a respectful dialogue about it that could, in the long run, prove quite interesting and instructive to both of us. As such, I'm not going to "leave him alone" unless he asks me to stop, at which point I'll shake his hand, as it were, and thank him for carrying it as far as he was willing.

But certain others are insistent on my "proving" my point and willing to put me in league with the father of lies for the audacity of my position. If there is any disrespect in my tone, please be assured it is directed at such an argument, and not at you.

Incidentally, I do not blame anyone who wishes to take me on with hostility. After all, I am calling them liars (although, to be fair, I'm not impugning their honesty or integrity because I believe they are lying to themselves first -- any lie that emanates from that is well intentioned. They think they are defending God Himself, and I cannot fault them for their zeal, misplaced though I think it may be).

In other words, stick around and contribute to the dialogue if you'd like, but a word of caution: you may not like. :)

[chockfull]

In other words, stick around and contribute to the dialogue if you'd like, but a word of caution: you may not like. :)

Sure - thanks. I appreciate the discourse. One area I have seen growth in personally since TWI is the ability to accept different points of view and to realize that the earth and my spiritual life are not going to explode if a person or group around me are not "lock-step likeminded".

I view the discourse as healthy.

[johniam]

BTW, not much of a turnout yet, but has anybody noticed what the poll says? LOL. Raf, you can huff and puff all you want but you won't blow down a house built on the ROCK!

[Raf]

Yes, I do find some amusement in the rather obvious fact that people who deluded themselves years ago continue to delude themselves today.

By the way, John, you can huff and puff all you want. That doesn't make it a language.

[Raf]

I put the poll up to invite people to engage in self-reflection and, perhaps, confession. It doesn't shock me at all that people would be eager to validate their practice by clicking "it's real and it works like I've been doing it for years!"

You know what it would impress me?

Identify the language you're producing.

Yeah, yeah, I know. Tongues of angels.

[waysider]

you can huff and puff all you want but you won't blow down a house built on the ROCK!

And there you have it....Speaking in tongues is considered by some to be the cornerstone of their belief system. Without it, we were just another silly cult amidst the millions of others.

[waysider]

It reminds me of the discussion we had some time ago that posed the question, "Would you still live a lifestyle based on Christian values if eternal life was not part of the package?" I think there is a connection here. Speaking in tongues is seen by some as being a claim ticket to the package. At least, that's what VPW led us to believe.

Edited September 17, 2012 by waysider

[Raf]

No question, Waysider.

I said it before and I'll say it again: they can attack me, criticize me, accuse me of working for ol' splitfoot, sic the ghost of VP Wierwille on me...

You know what they can't do?

Speak in tongues. At least, they can't prove it. They can't identify the language. Because somehow God's idea of irrefutable proof is synonymous with the inability to verify it.

How do you know that you know that you know if you can't prove it?

[Steve Lortz]

Wierwille taught SIT is irrefutable proof.

He was wrong.

The Bible does NOT teach that SIT is irrefutable proof.

Certain biblical characters accepted SIT as a "sign", but that doesn't mean SIT is a supernatural "proof", anymore than circumcision is a supernatural "proof".

And, Raf... I hope nobody thinks I'm attacking YOU! This is a discussion that has, in my opinion, been long overdue! And I give you credit for having the chutzpah to start it, and the tenacity of purpose to continue ramrod-ing it!

Love,

Steve

Edited September 17, 2012 by Steve Lortz

[Raf]

Steve disagrees with me. He has not attacked me. He is approaching this subject with integrity.

Hope I've been clear on THAT.

[Steve Lortz]

It reminds me of the discussion we had some time ago that posed the question, "Would you still live a lifestyle based on Christian values if eternal life was not part of the package?" I think there is a connection here. Speaking in tongues is seen by some as being a claim ticket to the package. At least, that's what VPW led us to believe.

Back in 1994, beset by the bewildering buffet of strange doctrines being offered by CES, I started writing "A Partial Inventory of Things I Believe as of MM/DD/YYYY". I stated as clearly as I could, in my own words, the things I believed, and the reasons why I believed those things. I left off writing that partial inventory when the rate of change in the things I believe exceeded the rate of my writing.

At the time, I re-examined what I thought about tongues in light of scripture. I came to the conclusion that tongues is always prayer and praise to God, and it IS NOT PROFITABLE for ANY OTHER purpose.

All the reasons Wierwille gave for speaking in tongues, except for "it gives thanks well", were bogus.

I think you are right, waysider, when you write, "Speaking in tongues is seen by some as being a claim ticket to the package. At least, that's what VPW led us to believe." Wierwille did, and he was wrong...

Love,

Steve

Edited September 17, 2012 by Steve Lortz

[Raf]

"Devil's" advocate:

Steve, do you agree that, in most cases, a genuine example of speaking in tongues should be more likely to produce an earthly language than a heavenly? I mean, the alternative would be either everyone speaking the same heavenly language (which should be fairly easy for a linguist to detect, even if the language itself cannot be recognized/identified) or that there are scores, nay hundreds, of heavenly languages (giving rise to the question, WTF? I mean, why?).

[excathedra]

and that is why some still find it so difficult to part with it. It's not just a sign of their faith. It IS their faith. Without it, they doubt everything.

absolutely not the case with me :)

[geisha779]

.. . . . . .

At the time, I re-examined what I thought about tongues in light of scripture. I came to the conclusion that tongues is always prayer and praise to God, and it IS NOT PROFITABLE for ANY OTHER purpose.

All the reasons Wierwille gave for speaking in tongues, except for "it gives thanks well", were bogus.

I think you are right, waysider, when you write, "Speaking in tongues is seen by some as being a claim ticket to the package. At least, that's what VPW led us to believe." Wierwille did, and he was wrong...

Love,

Steve

The Jews required a sign....tongues were a great evangelistic tool. With genuine tongues people heard and understood the gospel message.....it was confirmed by a sign, and the Apostles were able to communicate this message to a larger group of people in other languages....and they didn't have to learn them first. And if you take a closer look....as in the case of Cornelius it was actually used as a sign or confirmation. Remember the Jews required a sign.

When new groups were added to the church tongues were a confirmatory sign, but tongues were languages people understood. If there wasn't someone who understood they needed a (ta da) interpreter. Also a gift.

It is when you start getting into what was going on in Corinth it goes all wonky. They were trying to out do each other,,,,everyone sought tongues and they came from a heritage with Pagan temples and ecstatic utterances. It was a mess. There was the genuine mixed in with the counterfeit and when Paul is speaking to them he is sorting out their gross error. It sounds as if some of them were even calling Jesus accursed.

My take anyway.

[geisha779]

"Devil's" advocate:

Steve, do you agree that, in most cases, a genuine example of speaking in tongues should be more likely to produce an earthly language than a heavenly? I mean, the alternative would be either everyone speaking the same heavenly language (which should be fairly easy for a linguist to detect, even if the language itself cannot be recognized/identified) or that there are scores, nay hundreds, of heavenly languages (giving rise to the question, WTF? I mean, why?).

There is no such thing as "the tongues of Angels". Anywhere angels speak in scripture it is a known language......Paul is using a literary device....not sure what you would call it, but he is turning their terminology back on them and he is exaggerating to make his point. I don't think it was ever meant literally. No place are the angels words, when spoken in heaven, translated for us, but this does occur with other phrases that appear like Eli Eli or the handwriting on the wall. Mene Mene Tekel Upsharin. I am sure there are more but, those come to mind. At no time are angels words unintelligible.

DA Carson does a great piece on the tongues of angels. I really don't think Paul ever meant we were speaking the language of angels.

Also....while I am thinking of it. Earthly languages were originally given on the day of Pentecost, so for the Corinthians to actually be speaking the tongues of Angels it means the gift changed and the bar was raised.

Oh, sorry, you didn't ask me!!

Edited September 18, 2012 by geisha779

[Raf]

I wholly agree with you, Geisha. In fact, I said as much when I first mentioned the tongues of angels copout on this thread.

[Raf]

I wonder if the poll results would be different if those who answered yes were required to identify the language that they produced by speaking in tongues.

Nah.

[johniam]

quote: Wierwille taught SIT is irrefutable proof.

He was wrong.

No, he was right. The bible doesn't say that 2+2=4, but if anyone has any logic in their brain, they know it is true. VPs logic was a) SIT is a manifestation of the spirit of God, b)you can't manifest the spirit of God if you don't have the spirit of God, c) God and His spirit are incorruptible, therefore, SIT is irrefutable proof that you're born again and all hell can't stop you from being part of the gathering together. Sorry to be Debbie Downer on you (lol).

[johniam]

quote: Speaking in tongues is considered by some to be the cornerstone of their belief system.

It's actually one of three "cornerstones". Jesus Christ is THE cornerstone, but doctrinally, there's SIT, Jesus is not God, and the dead are dead. That's what separates twi from mainstream Christianity.

[geisha779]

I wholly agree with you, Geisha. In fact, I said as much when I first mentioned the tongues of angels copout on this thread.

I went back and looked and why....yes you did! Feels good doesn't it? To question I mean. Not only does it feel good, but it opens up a whole new world of theology....a BETTER way of understanding God and also a way to understand what we were swept up in.

Actually, I can remember sitting in the dinning room reading scripture with my PFAL decoder ring and rose colored TWI glasses on thinking to myself....I could be speaking in the tongues of angels. I just thought I was so special. I was special alright.

Thanks for this thread and the chance to look at these things again. Although I stopped SIT by way of VP sometime ago...........it is good to challenge these practices and see if they really do hold up under scrutiny.

[waysider]

No, he was right. The bible doesn't say that 2+2=4, but if anyone has any logic in their brain, they know it is true. VPs logic was a) SIT is a manifestation of the spirit of God, b)you can't manifest the spirit of God if you don't have the spirit of God, c) God and His spirit are incorruptible, therefore, SIT is irrefutable proof that you're born again and all hell can't stop you from being part of the gathering together. Sorry to be Debbie Downer on you (lol).

This is a false conclusion because it's based on a flawed premise.

You said,"SIT is a manifestation of the spirit of God". Yet, you have done nothing to corroborate that assumption. You're just repeating what you heard in PFAL, without actually considering its veracity.

[johniam]

I wonder if the poll results would be different if those who answered yes were required to identify the language that they produced by speaking in tongues.

Nah.

God never "required" those who SIT to "identify the language(s)". In Acts 2, the original outpouring, languages were generally referred to, but in Acts 10 they were not. When Peter recounted the event in Acts 11, he said nothing about languages; he said the holy ghost fell on them as on us in the beginning. That was all he was concerned about. That's all God was concerned about. "In the beginning" refers to Acts 2, so the events of Acts 10 were just as legitimate as in Acts 2. No need to identify the languages. At least, that's what GOD thinks.

Pig latin is an American white boy phenomenon. My mom taught it to me when I was 12. It's not really latin, it's tweaked English. Don't even know why they call it pig latin. Here's how it works: If an English word begins with a consonant, you say the part of the word after the first letter of the word, then finish the word by using the first letter (consonant) and following it with the syllable 'ay'. For instance, the word 'mother' would be 'other-may' in pig latin. If an English word begins with a vowel, then you say the entire word, then finish it with the syllable 'way'. The sentence 'I love the Lord Jesus Christ' would be ' I-way ove-lay e-thay ord-Lay esus-Jay ist-Chray' in pig latin.

Most of us used it as an occasional game. Hey, lets talk in pig latin! Other than that, it's use could be, say, I'm 14 and my 7 year old nephew is spending the day with grandma (my mom), but he misbehaves and has to spend an hour sitting in the corner. Later I come home and my mom wants to tell me what happened without embarrassing my nephew, so she tells me what happened in pig latin, which I understand, but my nephew doesn't. Nice.

If an American white boy sat through pfal and tried to fake SIT by using pig latin, he's be busted immediately. Every adult knew what pig latin was. But ANY language could be tweaked that way. If you sat through pfal and just spoke Spanish, someone might accuse you of speaking a known language, but if it were tweaked like that, nobody would know. Comprende?

quote: You said,"SIT is a manifestation of the spirit of God". Yet, you have done nothing to corroborate that assumption.

1 Corinthians 12 is corroboration enough for me. Again, I have logic in my brain.

[waysider]

You're missing the point, John. I'm not asking you to identify the specific language you're speaking. I'm asking you to prove that what you're speaking is, in fact, a language....any language. Pig Latin is technically a language because it meets the required criteria...it has definable structure. Speaking in tongues has no recognizable structure. It's not a language. If the people referenced in Acts 2 had been doing what we now call speaking in tongues, no one would have understood them. Yet, the record states that there were people who heard them speak their own language. How do you explain this?

Edited September 18, 2012 by waysider

[Raf]

How convenient!

[Raf]

If I were to haul johniam into court on charges of speaking in tongues, he would be found not guilty for lack of evidence.

If he were charged with THINKING he spoke in tongues, he'd be convicted.

Self deception at work.