SIT, TIP, Prophecy and Confession

[Raf]

And we're at 500 replies.

Which would be considered remarkable if I didn't account for 470 of them.

Anyway, I was thinking of starting a "SIT/linguistics online bibliography" where we can all post links to various studies, abstracts, and apologetics. Where would such a thing go? Not here. Doctrinal? I think that's probably the place most would look for such a thing, no? Thoughts?

Then again, they all seem to just come back to Samarin.

Is anyone else finding this?

Edited September 22, 2012 by Raf

[waysider]

I think more people are drawn to About The Way than Doctrinal, especially new arrivals. Maybe you could do an initial post there and then do a redirect.

[Steve Lortz]

Here's a question that just occurred to me. I haven't thought it through yet:

What IF tongue-talking as happened on the day of Pentecost and at Corinth WERE what we would today call "free vocalization"?

Nine years ago, I was in a... er... ahem... discussion with Mikeol, and I challenged Wierwille's assertion that there is a "senses" realm and a separate "spiritual" realm.

The dominant cosmology in the first century was Stoicism, which was unitary and materialist. What the Stoics (and Paul and his audience) would have understood as "spirit" was vastly different from the way the Platonic apologists of 2nd century Alexandria conceived "spirit". Their view was dualist and posited a dichotomy between what was "matter" and what was "ideal".

I think it can be demonstrated that the early church regarded SIT the same way the Jews regarded circumcision. There was certainly nothing "supernatural" in a Platonic sense about circumcision.

I'm gonna hafta chew on this...

Love,

Steve

[Raf]

I'm using Free Vocalization as a less abrasive synonym for lied and faked. how are you using it?

[waysider]

What IF tongue-talking as happened on the day of Pentecost and at Corinth WERE what we would today call "free vocalization"?

It says the audience heard them speak in their languages and understood them. I think that rules out the possibility of "free vocalization". (as defined by Rev. Vern)

Edited September 22, 2012 by waysider

[Raf]

It would seem consistent to me that if the church at Corinth were exercising free vocalization under my definition, it might go a long way toward explaining why Paul felt such.a pressing need to spend time correcting them. But I suspect it would not explain the correction itself, which doesn't even seem to consider the possibility of fakery. But if you're thinking something else when you use the same term, maybe you're onto something. I can't tell.

[waysider]

Something that occurred to me about excellor sessions.

We, as instructors, told people to "believe" for God to meet whatever criteria was being requested such as,"Believe God for every sentence to start with the next letter of the alphabet." ....etc.

It happened at session #12, too. "You move your lips, tongue, etc. and 'believe' God for the words."

(I think we've been down that "believing" road enough times to skip any extensive rehashing of it,yes?)

Clearly, this puts the onus on the speaker to provide sufficient "believing" for God to act on their behalf.

Someone has repetitive messages, limited vocabulary?....Must be that they lack "believing" to receive. <_<

Edited September 22, 2012 by waysider

[Steve Lortz]

I'm using Free Vocalization as a less abrasive synonym for lied and faked. how are you using it?

As vocalizing without deliberately thinking about it... Allowing the mouth to speak uncensored out of the abundance of the heart...

Interpretation and prophecy done Wierwille's way would definitely NOT be free vocalization.

There have been times when I've realized I've been "speaking by the Spirit of God". There are a lot of people on campus here who do it without even realizing that's what they're doing. It's NOTHING AT ALL like what Wierwille taught us about prophecy. The followers of the Personal Prophecy movement wouldn't even recognize it.

Like I say... this is not a developed idea. Just something of which I'm considering the possiblity... I might be all wet...

Love,

Steve

[geisha779]

I've got a thread on doctrinal discussing I Cor 12 - 14 that could run parallel with this one. Discussing verses is definitely doctrinal. That verse maybe should be discussed there. All I'll say here on it is that even though the context is talking about edifying the body, if SIT did not edify an individual personally, then I can't see it being stated that way in the verse. That would make it a lie. If that first part of the verse is found to be a forgery, or something translated wrong, or a myriad of other options that we can highlight in doctrinal, then that's a different story.

The context also tells us that this was not a good thing, edifying one's self. It was problematic because of the attitude of the Corinthians, and the opposite of what Paul was pleading with them to adopt. There isn't anything in the context, that implies that this is some kind of supernatural spiritual body building exercise, including how we once read "speaking mysteries to God" in TWI. It is not there. I believe it is rather the opposite. There are things in there that I think we were blinded to in TWI . . . . by the manner or perspective with which VP taught us to approach those scriptures. He spoon fed us the notions he did....and although I know you and I have moved on from VP's theology, it doesn't hurt to consider why we still believe some of the things that we do. I include myself.

Of course I don't think it is a lie.....nothing has to be found a forgery or mistranslated for us to read these passages in light of the context and spirit of the gospel for us to simply see them in a different way. Paul wrote them in the spirit of the gospel and the meaning and promotion of love, which doesn't seek its own.

I did write this out in the doctrinal forum.....and although it is rather long.....I think if you wade through it you will understand more why I think like I do....why I take offense at certain things.....and why I respond with genuine disdain to things like Johniam's suggestion that we should practice excelling at tongues because of 1 Corinthians 14:4. I wrote it understanding that most people here know the scriptures involved, but some may have not considered another way to view them.

If you don't have the time or inclination to read it.....hey, that is cool too.

Edited September 22, 2012 by geisha779

[johniam]

i am not being disrespectful AT ALL, i mean it

have any of you seen -- or have proof -- that jesus christ rose from the dead?

This illustrates the 'stalemate' of faith. I can't prove he did; nobody else can prove he didn't. I was talking about this with George Aar once and he came back with, "Yeah, well, I can't prove that Spiderman doesn't exist , nyah, nyah!" I can prove Spiderman DOES exist. I saw him on broadway in NYC last year. I kept the program and there's pictures in it. But, really.

[waysider]

Well, that's proof enough for me.

[Raf]

John!

Well said. Except, of course, that has nothing to do with the fact that SIT is manifested in the senses realm and therefore can be observed and analyzed, unlike the resurrection, which can't. At least not today. So it is a different kind of question, despite similarities.

[Raf]

P.S. Was the spiderman musical any good?

[OldSkool]

Better?

Ya, since we all stopped squabbling so much I am doing better at following along and not skipping over posts.

I appreciate everyone considering what I had to say before we all went over the deep end into a flame war. Not that I am the self appointed mod or something. I think this is a really good thread that is very provocative, and requires readers to deal with issues they may have avoided due to critical thinking being snuffed out by TWI's methodology. I know the topic, and subsequent positions, have helped jar me out of complacency in this particular area of discussion.

The whole idea of VPW's great quest for truth, and how God "taught" him "the truth." "Truth" that should only be believed and not questioned falls to pieces as soon as "the truth" is analyzed. Truth should stand being analyzed, at least to a certain extent.

God always asks us to have faith, or trust in what he says. Obviously, this is required when it comes to God's existence or Christ being raised from the dead. But even then there is ample evidence for someone to develop their faith.

Anywho. Just rambling.

[geisha779]

A little aside....if anyone is curious or struggling to understand the resurrection, we Christians have a wealth of sound and scholarly resources to turn to.. . . The go to guy on this topic is Dr. William Lane Craig. This is his area of expertise and he has offered several great defenses and his books are easily accessible to the average reader. They are understandable and require no dictionary to follow along. :)

http://www.leaderu.c...uct_listing.htm

Back to tongues.....which has been hit or miss in the history of the church.....it kind of pops up here and there in a movement and then dies down. This is not meant as a slight to anyone, but IMO the charismatic movement tends to draw the emotional, and immature seeker and usually seems to remain on the fringe. Not saying ALL. Geez, it seems I am always qualifying what I say or feel I have to censor my opinions on here. But, in other words, it attracts the kooks and those who are looking for a visceral experience and an outward display. The Holy Laughter movement probably illustrates best what I am trying to say.

I can remember thinking my experience with TWI tongues was so superior to Pentecostals and surely the snake handlers. I think our experience of "decently and in order" bred arrogance. I was just as kooky, maybe just more refined and less emotional about it all.

Edited September 22, 2012 by geisha779

[Steve Lortz]

It would seem consistent to me that if the church at Corinth were exercising free vocalization under my definition, it might go a long way toward explaining why Paul felt such.a pressing need to spend time correcting them. But I suspect it would not explain the correction itself, which doesn't even seem to consider the possibility of fakery. But if you're thinking something else when you use the same term, maybe you're onto something. I can't tell.

Well, I slept on it, and I still can't tell either. Gonna take some work.

Love,

Steve

[chockfull]

I'm gonna put a toe in this pool, and I'll trust you guys to let me know if the water starts to boil and I should step out:

What's the bigger, fatter claim?

"In the privacy of my quiet time with God (or at a meeting of believers, or in my car, or wherever I want: whichever fits your view), I am able to bring forth a language I have never known and never been exposed to, a language whose meaning is known only to the heavenly host and the Almighty Creator of the Universe."

"I know you love God and appreciate your sincerity, but no, brother, no you can't."

Which is the bigger, fatter claim?

Well, honestly trying to look at what is a bigger, fatter claim, I am taken back to a core question. Can we really live the Bible in our modern day in the same fashion as they did the first couple of centuries after Jesus crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension? Or is there some magical corruption in the world present today that prevents this?

I mean, reading accounts in Acts, there was the first miraculous occurrence on Pentecost, where theologians speak of this almost as a translation service to the attendees. Then there are numerous other accounts where people did this also, and a lot of those are in conjunction with the new birth. Paul definitely states in Corinthians that he thanks God that he spoke in tongues more than they all did. Of course that statement may have been to assert his spirituality to a church in Corinth that seems immature and needed it. But he wouldn't have said it if it wasn't true.

So if we are analyzing the topic, we have to come to the logical conclusion that this was a common practice in the early church. Or we have to conclude that the Bible is a collection of fairy tales, or that all of the first century Christians were faking it too.

If this was a common practice in the early church, then if it can't be done today without faking it, that must mean that there has been something that drastically changed that. This leads to the topic of "dispensationalism". I know I don't 100% agree with TWI's teachings on that topic currently - my main reason is I look at how they practiced this, and all I really see is ignoring the words of Jesus and focusing on grace in the epistles and using it as a license to sin. And I see the large leaps of logic they perform in handling this with topics like debt and the tithe.

So my question remains - how do you explain what changed? Is it the internet? Now that we are connected online, did God shut down speaking in tongues? Seems ludicrous to me. Is it something else? What is it?

I hope you are following my line of questioning and reasoning here. With all of this background, I can safely say I think that your claim that everyone doing this today is faking it (or self-vocalizing - the more PC less inflammatory term) is a bigger fatter claim. I am reluctant to accept it from the doctrinal and biblical side of this without more to go on.

What changed?

[waysider]

If you examine the accounts of what is said to have happened in the first century and compare them to what we did in The Way, they don't appear to be the same thing. Same name or terminology, maybe, but not the same thing.

[Steve Lortz]

John!

Well said. Except, of course, that has nothing to do with the fact that SIT is manifested in the senses realm and therefore can be observed and analyzed, unlike the resurrection, which can't. At least not today. So it is a different kind of question, despite similarities.

One of the assumnptions I've been wrestling with for the past nine years (since the fight with you-know-who) is that there are two separate realities, one "sense-knowlege" and one "spiritual." Wierwille taught that the laws of the spiritual realm supercede the laws of the senses realm. I now believe that there is a single objective reality (just as the Stoics did), and there are our subjective experiences and interpretations of that unitary reality.

Not that I see a specific point here, except to say that I no longer think the phrase "in the senses realm" accurately reflects the same reality that Luke and Paul and our selves inhabit.

...just a thought...

Love,

Steve

[chockfull]

Well, I slept on it, and I still can't tell either. Gonna take some work.

Love,

Steve

Here's a radical postulate. What if self-vocalization is the vehicle, and the spirit of God is the catalyst? That the only difference between the faked language and the genuine is the catalyst of the spirit of God, energized by the belief of the person acting?

Vern approached that topic by the use of the term "T-Speech", and couldn't see any scientific difference between the two. But then again how adept has science been shown to prove spiritual matters in anything anyway? I mean, science can scarcely tell the difference between a live body and a dead body, and can't really produce much detail at all in the difference there. So to me it's not a huge stretch that science couldn't tell the difference in the injection of spirit into something.

I mean, I look at how genuine revelation works from my experience (separate but related topic - gifts, manifestations, etc.). Usually I'm logically thinking through alternatives and facts and I take the next step which seems like just another logical step to me. Then well after the fact looking back, that next step doesn't seem like something I would have arrived at by the facts alone, so to me it means God was leading me in a certain direction. But in the moment, I couldn't tell the difference.

If you examine the accounts of what is said to have happened in the first century and compare them to what we did in The Way, they don't appear to be the same thing. Same name or terminology, maybe, but not the same thing.

Yes, I acknowledge the impact of TWI's teaching in a negative respect. I also realize that teaching can have the impact of driving people away from the experience down the road after they leave TWI.

TWI had a lot of rote mechanics interjected, and a lot of "excellor" BS and practice, and immature teaching about pumping yourself up spiritually by SIT and so forth.

But outside of that, what has changed? My personal experience with SIT was a little more like the Acts accounts - just pray and it happens.

[waysider]

huh?

[geisha779]

Paul was evangelizing a huge area......SIT was a way of sharing the gospel to a large number of people without learning a new language. It stands to reason he would have SIT more than the Corinthians. He was called to help establish the church. Signs and miracles did follow these guys, but they were always for God's purpose and glory. How did Paul establish and add to all these churches when language was obviously a barrier? Maybe, like most things God enables us with....it had a more practical and less mystical purpose.

Why would we need tongues today? The church is established and language is not an issue.

[Steve Lortz]

It says the audience heard them speak in their languages and understood them. I think that rules out the possibility of "free vocalization". (as defined by Rev. Vern)

...but not "free vocalization" as defined by me... allowing the mouth to speak uncensored out of the abundance of the heart...

The love of God is poured out in our hearts by the holy Spirit He has given to us. If we have filled our hearts with things conducive to the love of God, things through which the love of God can flow, then His love can overflow through our mouths. We would be responsible, not for "moving your lips, your tongue, your throat" but for putting things into our hearts, on a habitual basis, things that God's love can work with and through.

Love,

Steve

Edited September 22, 2012 by Steve Lortz

[chockfull]

The context also tells us that this was not a good thing, edifying one's self. It was problematic because of the attitude of the Corinthians, and the opposite of what Paul was pleading with them to adopt. There isn't anything in the context, that implies that this is some kind of supernatural spiritual body building exercise, including how we once read "speaking mysteries to God" in TWI. It is not there. I believe it is rather the opposite. There are things in there that I think we were blinded to in TWI . . . . by the manner or perspective with which VP taught us to approach those scriptures. He spoon fed us the notions he did....and although I know you and I have moved on from VP's theology, it doesn't hurt to consider why we still believe some of the things that we do. I include myself.

Well I agree with you that a lot of that epistle is spelling things out due to the Corinthian church's immaturity, and teaching them the correct attitude. I view the context as comparing the profit to the entire body to that of profit to the individual. Acknowledging both profits and directing the believer to focus on the one that is not selfish as opposed to focusing on the private one.

I agree with you on the spiritual body building teachings in TWI. I think that was a stretch, and is not genuine doctrine. Nor are all the "excellor" session teachings. And I think that the fruit produced by this type of doctrinal error in teaching is a "spiritual elitism" attitude. I have renounced that attitude.

This is why I keep saying over and over that I think that someone who does engage in the private prayer practice of SIT is not any different and certainly not better than those who choose not to. And ex-TWI members I think God looking on the heart would have zero problem at all with them never SIT for the rest of their life as part of a practice of renouncing and avoiding the leaven of the Pharisees.

Of course I don't think it is a lie.....nothing has to be found a forgery or mistranslated for us to read these passages in light of the context and spirit of the gospel for us to simply see them in a different way. Paul wrote them in the spirit of the gospel and the meaning and promotion of love, which doesn't seek its own.

I agree.

I did write this out in the doctrinal forum.....and although it is rather long.....I think if you wade through it you will understand more why I think like I do....why I take offense at certain things.....and why I respond with genuine disdain to things like Johniam's suggestion that we should practice excelling at tongues because of 1 Corinthians 14:4. I wrote it understanding that most people here know the scriptures involved, but some may have not considered another way to view them.

I'll seek it out there and read it. Thanks for doing that. I also am recording the references you recommend and will seek them out as well.

[chockfull]

Paul was evangelizing a huge area......SIT was a way of sharing the gospel to a large number of people without learning a new language. It stands to reason he would have SIT more than the Corinthians. He was called to help establish the church. Signs and miracles did follow these guys, but they were always for God's purpose and glory. How did Paul establish and add to all these churches when language was obviously a barrier? Maybe, like most things God enables us with....it had a more practical and less mystical purpose.

Why would we need tongues today? The church is established and language is not an issue.

I would challenge you to go back through each and every account of tongues in Acts, and see for yourself whether or not they fit within the context of evangelizing to people who don't speak the language of the evangelist. Remember, Paul spoke the three common languages of the known world then. Paul studied under Gamaliel the elder, so spoke educated Hebrew. He grew up in Tarsus, a trade center. He spoke Greek, and the dialects involving the business language of the day. He wrote epistles to all of the Greek based churches in a language that both he and they understood.

Check out and see in scripture if people who were converted spoke in tongues or not. If they did, who were they evangelizing to needing an outside translation in the towns they grew up in?

Edited September 22, 2012 by chockfull