SIT, TIP, Prophecy and Confession

[Raf]

JohnYouAre, I accept that you feel no need to prove the language you're producing by the power of Almighty God as indisputable proof of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ and His lordship in your life by subjecting your God-given ability to basic examination and verification, and I am prepared to shake hands and say go in peace.

See, the way I see it, you have claimed that God has enabled you to, on demand, speak in a language you have never learned. I am willing to entertain that assertion because I think it speaks well of the power of God.

In fact, I am willing to go a step further and PROVE you are right by recording your utterance and subjecting it to independent scrutiny that would resolve the issue without a hint of doubt, proving to skeptics the world over that this is not merely an article of faith for you, but a documented and irrefutable display of God's awesome power. You are not willing to take that extra step.

Which tells me, JohnYouAre, that I clearly have more faith in your God than you do.

Why do you suppose that is?

(Hint: It's because we both know you're lying. This is the part where you admit it).

Edited September 18, 2012 by Raf

[chockfull]

Why do you suppose that is?

Can't speak for john.

Why do you suppose that Jesus during his temptations did not throw himself from the pinnacle of the peak and let angels bear him up? Wouldn't that have provided irrefutable proof that he was the son of God and that he was tapped into God's power?

A very core tenet of Christianity in any form is a belief in the intangible. If you could prove God scientifically, then everyone would believe. Atheists call Christians delusional. Yet I still choose to believe. Who's right? I guess it will all get sorted out when we die.

[Raf]

You're equating a request for verification of a God-given power that EXISTS to provide verification of God's power to the temptation of the Lord by Satan?

REALLY?

"If you are the Son of God, God will do something He has not promised to do upon my request" is the temptation of Satan in the wilderness.

"YOU say God is doing something demonstrable. Demonstrate it" is my challenge.

If they are the same thing, then guilty as charged, I am Satan.

But horsehockey.

[chockfull]

"If you are the Son of God, God will do something He has not promised to do upon my request" is the temptation of Satan in the wilderness.

Every temptation had a scriptural backing. Of course God promised to protect His own, all throughout the OT. That's why the temptation had weight as opposed to being empty.

"YOU say God is doing something demonstrable. Demonstrate it" is my challenge.

I do. Often. To myself. Why? Because that's what the purpose of it is. Praise in your own private prayer life. It is not designed to put up on YouTube to convince skeptics.

Why don't you take care of your own demonstrations for yourself to prove or disprove your beliefs?

If they are the same thing, then guilty as charged, I am Satan.

But horsehockey.

Hey, I wasn't calling you names. I was pointing out similar behavior in the Bible. Do you disagree it is similar?

Listen, you've been making a lot of blanket statements across the board on this topic. You've been calling everyone self-delusional (or maybe leaving a little wiggle room for the possibility that it's not that way across the board). Now I'm challenging you with a statement and a concept. True honest intellectual discourse is considering and responding intelligently as opposed to reacting emotionally.

So is horsehockey the best you've got here?

[waysider]

Chock

It's a flawed analogy...apples and oranges, if you will.

No one is asking God to prove anything or for anyone to prove God.

What's under scrutiny here is the veracity of speaking in tongues.

[chockfull]

Chock

It's a flawed analogy...apples and oranges, if you will.

No one is asking God to prove anything or for anyone to prove God.

What's under scrutiny here is the veracity of speaking in tongues.

Disagree. Not apples and oranges. Yes absolutely he is asking to prove God in proving something God has provided for His children and documented in scripture.

Are there counterfeits? Yes. Do counterfeits disprove the genuine? I think not.

[waysider]

Disagree. Not apples and oranges. Yes absolutely he is asking to prove God in proving something God has provided for His children and documented in scripture.

Are there counterfeits? Yes. Do counterfeits disprove the genuine? I think not.

O.K

But, is it documented (or substantiated) in scripture that what we witness today being represented as speaking in tongues is the same thing found in Acts 2? People understood them in that account. They spoke a language(s). Today's version of speaking in tongues is not a language(s). If it is, it should be provable, using standards of linguistic identification.

Edited September 18, 2012 by waysider

[Raf]

FINALLY! A real challenge (JohnYouAre, take note: this is what an honest challenge looks like).

Every temptation had a scriptural backing. Of course God promised to protect His own, all throughout the OT. That's why the temptation had weight as opposed to being empty.

The devil misquoted scripture and removed it from context in order to tempt Jesus to sin. I am not engaging in this action. Rather, I am repeating what tongues speakers say about speaking in tongues and asking them to prove what they are producing is actually a language, WHICH IS WHAT YOU CLAIM IT IS. Asking YOU (not God, YOU) to prove that you're really doing what you say you're doing is NOT TEMPTING GOD. You should be EXCITED about this opportunity!

I said "Demonstrate it," to which you replied:

I do. Often. To myself. Why? Because that's what the purpose of it is. Praise in your own private prayer life. It is not designed to put up on YouTube to convince skeptics.

The purpose of speaking in tongues is a sign to unbelievers, according to TWI. Hard to imagine that this "sign" consists of unverifiable gibberish that you have to take on "faith." But if that's what you believe, then we shake hands, part ways, and I bid you Godspeed. You have proven nothing, but at least you don't pretend you have.

Why don't you take care of your own demonstrations for yourself to prove or disprove your beliefs?

You want me to prove I faked it? Ok. Swear me in as a witness. "I do." I faked it. There. You have my testimony under oath that I faked it, that the sounds I made came solely from myself. This is not a supernatural claim. It is true on its face. It needs no verification because no one anywhere is a better source on the subject than I am.

Oh, you want me to prove YOU faked it? No, you've got that backwards. You are the one making the supernatural claim. You are the one saying that when you do this, the sounds coming out constitute a real, detectable language. So the burden of proof is really on you. But you've already said you do not want to take that step. Godspeed. But don't fault me for not proving my point when you label my effort to prove my point as on par with a Satanic temptation. That's not intellectually honest.

Hey, I wasn't calling you names. I was pointing out similar behavior in the Bible. Do you disagree it is similar?

Yes, I disagree it is similar. In one case, God gave a scripture in one context that was misquoted by Satan in another context with the objective of getting Jesus to sin. In THIS case, you're saying God empowers you to do something and you can do it, and I'm just asking you to verify it (which would be a sign to unbelievers on YouTube AND Google).

Listen, you've been making a lot of blanket statements across the board on this topic. You've been calling everyone self-delusional (or maybe leaving a little wiggle room for the possibility that it's not that way across the board).

Bingo! Yes, I am doing that. And it's not nice. You can respond to that by proving what you're doing really is what you claim it to be, or by taking your ball and going home. I'm comfortable either way. But the second way, and I mean this with all due respect, you have proven nothing.

Now I'm challenging you with a statement and a concept. True honest intellectual discourse is considering and responding intelligently as opposed to reacting emotionally.

True, honest intellectual discourse? I believe this discourse is true and honest, in the sense that you've engaged in it from the heart and really believe what you're saying. But it's not intellectual, because the position that God is working a demonstrable miracle in me as a sign to unbelievers but it would be a sin for me to demonstrate that miracle as an indisputable sign to unbelievers, intellectually, makes no sense whatsoever.

So is horsehockey the best you've got here?

Well, I've got Bulls hit, but GS has sensors, I think.

Edited September 18, 2012 by Raf

[Raf]

... Yes absolutely he is asking to prove God in proving something God has provided for His children and documented in scripture.

Are there counterfeits? Yes. Do counterfeits disprove the genuine? I think not.

I am not asking anyone to prove or disprove God, and let's get that straight right now: I am challenging the integrity of the speakers, not God. What I am challenging is the notion that what you have done has tapped into the power of God as promised in the scripture. I am not shedding doubt on the integrity of scripture, but DARNED straight I'm casting doubt on the integrity of TWI and the huckster/liar/fraud VPW. What he taught us to do was to LIE to God, ourselves and each other. That's my observation and my challenge. And I will NOT participate in the lie any further, and you should be OFFENDED by what he did to you in this regard.

But you've convinced yourself that what you've experienced is of God AND that it would be a sin to seek to verify it!

Counterfeits do not disprove the genuine. I agree. But the genuine disproves that it is a counterfeit!

If you really think that seeking to verify SIT is Satanic temptation and a sin, there's really not much else for us to discuss. Godspeed. But don't dare preach intellectual honesty in the same breath!

[geisha779]

Just a little note....I don't know if it is relevant to the new direction the topic is taking and I am taking great care not to get all up in anyone's face doctrinally. It is actually a little difficult not to unleash on Johniam's logic....but there you have it. Restraint.

However, Jesus did predict tongues as a sign of those who were His followers. As Jesus predicted, tongues did follow as a sign. It is just that they were real known languages....new to the Apostles and a sign for those who didn't believe the gospel. The result of those tongues was enough that it persuaded people. Those who were already His followers didn't need a sign.

Asking for proof....just IMO....doesn't seem all that out there....especially if it is the purpose....for a sign to those who don't believe.

I guess, I just don't see where tongues would be anything other than a real language. I don't see where tongues only serve God's followers. Seems the opposite actually. We don't need a sign. Jesus always prayed in a known language as did everyone else. I don't think some new need arrived that made tongues needful for prayer. Not everyone has the gift of tongues.

[Raf]

I should be clear, since Geisha kind of brushed at it, that I am not making a doctrinal argument. Chockfull's counterargument was doctrinal (if I'm not mistaken) and that's okay. I responded to the doctrinal point to the extent that I had to, differentiating my position from Satan's temptation of Christ in the wilderness.

But I am not saying "true believers would not speak in tongues" or anything along those lines. You can still believe Christ and admit you faked this. That would not be a statement of doctrine. It would be a statement of honesty.

What I am saying is that the liar VPW taught us how to lie by faking this experience and we should be honest with ourselves and renounce that lie. Those who reject my premise can quote scripture till the cows come home, and they will have missed my point, because my point is not about the rightness of the doctrine: it's about the lack of integrity in the practice.

If, at some point, the moderators here choose to move this thread to the doctrinal forum, as would be their right, I will not dispute that judgment, but I would accept the move under protest.

[Steve Lortz]

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.

SIT? YOU be the judge!?!

Love,

Steve

[geisha779]

I should probably mention that there are some pretty compelling alternate views of the verses we used in TWI to say that tongues was for our private prayer life. . . including 1 Corinthians 14: 4-7. Some very reasonable evidence in context as well, so, I don't actually believe tongues is for private prayer. Here is a simple overview of why I believe this....if anyone cares. :) http://www.gotquesti...in-tongues.html

That being said....we can always agree to disagree. But, I do think the idea is unbiblical and another thing we were sold on so we would believe we really were manifesting the power of God and "special". Just my opinion. But, I don't have the gift of tongues so doesn't God want me to have a good prayer life too? Do I get to be built up?

I am still a little ticked I missed out on so much greater true faith building theology because I fell into lies.

The other thing that I wondered about was the idea that everyone would believe if we could prove God scientifically. I don't think so. Many people who were calling for Jesus to be executed and a criminal to be released were the same people following Him around and who saw the miracles He did. It took Jesus blinding Paul and smacking Him down to get him to actually see. Paul was zealous for God.

It takes God to grant us faith. Believing there is a God is different than faith, I know.....and devils believe. Still, I don't think everyone would believe.

[Steve Lortz]

"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?).

"...in most cases, a genuine example of speaking in tongues should be more likely to produce an earthly language than a heavenly..."

I have a hard time understanding questions that mix probability with a statement of absolute position. The idea of probability, by itself negates absolute deterministic statements... or so it seems most probable to me...

Love,

Steve

Edited September 18, 2012 by Steve Lortz

[Raf]

Steve, I have no idea what you just said.

Seriously. Read it three times. Broke it up into syllables and everything. Tried REAL hard.

But I'll let it go.

[Steve Lortz]

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).

Working on my paper, I came across this, from James D.G. Dunn's The Acts of the Apostles (Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press, 1996, p 26) regarding the people who, in Acts 2:13, thought the apostles were full of new wine:

"...the manifestations of the Spirit are not self-evident in themselves, but ambiguous and capable of different interpretations. Eph. 5.18 [And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit;] plays on just the same ambiguity."

Apparently in antiquity, the explanation for tongues was not "self-delusion", as some might argue here, but "drunkeness". The point is, the Bible itself nowhere claims that tongues are an "irrefutable proof". Some people accepted tongues as a "sign", but that will take a whole other post to get into.

Love,

Steve

[Steve Lortz]

Steve, I have no idea what you just said.

Seriously. Read it three times. Broke it up into syllables and everything. Tried REAL hard.

But I'll let it go.

Nah... don't let it go... back burner it... You know those "stretchers" you can use in your shoes to make 'em fit better? I've had my language and my mind stretched so many times in so many ways (of which my experience with TWI was only a minor part) that I sometimes astonish myself. Now, if I had written that sentence in the Anglo-Saxon alliterative style (think Beowulf), I REALLY wouldn't have expected you to understand it

Love,

Steve

[Raf]

You know what the folks in Acts 2 did not say? They did not say, "gee, what language is that? They're speaking languages none of us has ever heard before. Must be one of the dozen or so languages they speak in heaven!"

[chockfull]

O.K

But, is it documented (or substantiated) in scripture that what we witness today being represented as speaking in tongues is the same thing found in Acts 2? People understood them in that account. They spoke a language(s). Today's version of speaking in tongues is not a language(s). If it is, it should be provable, using standards of linguistic identification.

It sounds like languages to me. And I speak more than one language.

[Raf]

With respect, a biased observer's observations hardly prove anything. I could say "it sounds like gibberish to me," and it would not persuade you in the slightest. And rightly so.

I'll go one further: When I did it, it WAS gibberish, and you very likely would have said "it sounded like a language to me!"

So we're going to need a little bit more than your yea and my nay, don't you agree?

Edited September 18, 2012 by Raf

[waysider]

It sounds like languages to me. And I speak more than one language.

Sure, that's why so many people are convinced it's real. But, when it's put to the test, it proves to be lacking in cohesive structure.

HERE is an interesting study of this particular facet of the discussion.

Sherrill (1964) played over forty recordings of glossolalia to six linguists from graduate institutions in New York City. No one of them professed to hear a language that could be identified. Interestingly enough, however, they easily spotted two recordings of “made up gibberish” that Sherrill had slipped into the presentation and one linguist reported that a given recording had the structure of a poem, a structure that he understood, even though the actual meaning of the words eluded him. (Malony and Lovekin 28)

Edited September 18, 2012 by waysider

[chockfull]

FINALLY! A real challenge (JohnYouAre, take note: this is what an honest challenge looks like).

The devil misquoted scripture and removed it from context in order to tempt Jesus to sin. I am not engaging in this action. Rather, I am repeating what tongues speakers say about speaking in tongues and asking them to prove what they are producing is actually a language, WHICH IS WHAT YOU CLAIM IT IS. Asking YOU (not God, YOU) to prove that you're really doing what you say you're doing is NOT TEMPTING GOD. You should be EXCITED about this opportunity!

I don't make a claim about it being a language. With that said, what I observe personally is that it sounds like a language or more accurately different languages to me. I speak more than one language physically from my understanding, not tongues. So that is the basis of my saying so.

I still don't understand how you rationalize this being different than throwing yourself from a pinnacle. In the temptation record, Jesus didn't need to prove to the devil that God would take care of him, thus excused himself from doing so. In a similar fashion, I can trust that I can pray to God via the spirit because He says so, and have no need to prove anything to you to have confidence in that. I believe it is for my personal prayer life, thus using it for a purpose God doesn't tell me it is intended for to look cool, prove something, etc. is not compelling to me, and I believe it IS in the category of tempting God.

Capital letters, telling me what I should be excited about, and what other people say tongues are don't make compelling arguments for me to tempt God.

The purpose of speaking in tongues is a sign to unbelievers, according to TWI. Hard to imagine that this "sign" consists of unverifiable gibberish that you have to take on "faith." But if that's what you believe, then we shake hands, part ways, and I bid you Godspeed. You have proven nothing, but at least you don't pretend you have.

I don't believe all that TWI says, especially w/r to the purpose of SIT. I do believe that on Pentecost, there was a special miracle that those speaking in tongues were understood by the crowd gathered from different areas and they heard their native languages praising God. THAT was a sign to unbelievers. That one special occasion. I have not experienced this personally, but have heard 4 or 5 accounts of people being in "believers meetings" where there was tongues and interpretation, and the tongue was in English, and the interpretation was in French. The speaker did not know English, but the person in the audience relating the experience did.

You want me to prove I faked it? Ok. Swear me in as a witness. "I do." I faked it. There. You have my testimony under oath that I faked it, that the sounds I made came solely from myself. This is not a supernatural claim. It is true on its face. It needs no verification because no one anywhere is a better source on the subject than I am.

Oh, you want me to prove YOU faked it? No, you've got that backwards. You are the one making the supernatural claim. You are the one saying that when you do this, the sounds coming out constitute a real, detectable language. So the burden of proof is really on you. But you've already said you do not want to take that step. Godspeed. But don't fault me for not proving my point when you label my effort to prove my point as on par with a Satanic temptation. That's not intellectually honest.

Yes I am saying that Christianity, just like Euclidean geometry, has basic tenets that you have to take on faith. Logic works from there. I am not hung up on PROVING anything - if you say you faked it I have no reason to doubt that. I don't feel the need to prove anything. I feel that "praying with my understanding, and praying in the spirit" are both parts of my personal prayer life. I don't "prove" my prayer life by making outlandishly public prayer displays - I think those are fake and gaudy, and the same with tongues.

I'm not faulting you for not proving your point. I think you are getting carried away about this PROOF stuff, and think you are crossing the line goading people into trying to do so and making generic blanket statements about everyone deceiving themselves. In that crossing the line, your goading people to use private prayer for public proof is similar to Jesus temptation.

Yes, I disagree it is similar. In one case, God gave a scripture in one context that was misquoted by Satan in another context with the objective of getting Jesus to sin. In THIS case, you're saying God empowers you to do something and you can do it, and I'm just asking you to verify it (which would be a sign to unbelievers on YouTube AND Google).

Not putting tongues up on YouTube. Also not putting my private parts up on YouTube. Why? BECAUSE THEY ARE PRIVATE.

True, honest intellectual discourse? I believe this discourse is true and honest, in the sense that you've engaged in it from the heart and really believe what you're saying. But it's not intellectual, because the position that God is working a demonstrable miracle in me as a sign to unbelievers but it would be a sin for me to demonstrate that miracle as an indisputable sign to unbelievers, intellectually, makes no sense whatsoever.

Even in TWI's position and teaching, they teach the sign to unbelievers is that there are tongues w/ interpretation (like they call a "believers meeting"), not exposing your tongues up for everyone to listen to. In fact, there are express teachings by TWI in both the foundational and intermediate classes that it is immature to do that, and not to do that. Their scripture reference in that teaching is I Cor 14.

Sure, that's why so many people are convinced it's real. But, when it's put to the test, it proves to be lacking in cohesive structure.

HERE is an interesting study of this particular facet of the discussion.

Sherrill (1964) played over forty recordings of glossolalia to six linguists from graduate institutions in New York City. No one of them professed to hear a language that could be identified. Interestingly enough, however, they easily spotted two recordings of “made up gibberish” that Sherrill had slipped into the presentation and one linguist reported that a given recording had the structure of a poem, a structure that he understood, even though the actual meaning of the words eluded him. (Malony and Lovekin 28)

The missing link there is that glossolalia may very reasonably be looked at as a gibberish counterfeit for tongues.

With respect, a biased observer's observations hardly prove anything. I could say "it sounds like gibberish to me," and it would not persuade you in the slightest. And rightly so.

I'll go one further: When I did it, it WAS gibberish, and you very likely would have said "it sounded like a language to me!"

So we're going to need a little bit more than your yea and my nay, don't you agree?

No, a biased observation doesn't prove anything. Neither do the accounts of tongues in English really, although if you had a tape recording of that meeting it could be proof.

The only thing moving away from that farther is to speculate on what I might have likely said.

[chockfull]

I should probably mention that there are some pretty compelling alternate views of the verses we used in TWI to say that tongues was for our private prayer life. . . including 1 Corinthians 14: 4-7. Some very reasonable evidence in context as well, so, I don't actually believe tongues is for private prayer. Here is a simple overview of why I believe this....if anyone cares. :) http://www.gotquesti...in-tongues.html

Geisha, that tongues is for private prayer life is not exclusive to TWI teachings. I learned this growing up in a denomination. Interestingly enough, in that denomination one pastor took part in this kind of stuff, another one I talked to said that it died out with the apostles and the need served at Pentecost.

I did get to go through that link, and to break it down piece by piece would clutter this thread up way farther than me answering 4 people at once is already. But I think in that link it brings up a lot of doctrinal issues that it would be hard to resolve here shortly, like the Trinity, what is "praying in the Spirit", what the Spirit is, etc.

Haha - one more thing. If you believe tongues was only for a sign to speak in languages so people could understand the Pentecost sermon, does Google Translate, Bing Translate, or Babelfish now make that obsolete?

[waysider]

"The missing link there is that glossolalia may very reasonably be looked at as a gibberish counterfeit for tongues"

If glossolalia is the counterfeit, where shall we find evidence of the genuine?

Furthermore, if glossolalia is the counterfeit, there must have been an awful lot of counterfeit going on in The Way because there was an abundance of glossolalia.

[Raf]

I really had a lengthy response to each point here, and I wrote it all out. And then I hit delete. On purpose.

I claim you are deluding yourself. You are accusing me of a Satanic tactic to get you to prove me wrong. I'd say that makes us even. Go in peace.