SIT, TIP, Prophecy and Confession

[Raf]

There's a leap from no one is doing it to no one CAN do it that I am not prepared to make. The Bible, to my reading, merely says it can be done. It says nothing about everyone claiming to do it should be presumed genuine until proved otherwise (or vice versa, to be fair).

Believing that we, innocently, kidded ourselves should not detract from faith at all. If anything, it should inspire in the seeker a fervent quest for what SIT should be.

In any event, chockfull, we're at loggerheads on the bigger, fatter claim issue. I will drop it.

[chockfull]

...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, 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

Now that's a viewpoint on the topic that leaves me with inspiration in my heart, instead of the feeling of a scientist with a cold soul.

I know it doesn't prove anything.

[Steve Lortz]

...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.

WOW!... Jeepers! I just realized that's exactly what Paul was saying in 1 Corinthians 13:1, "Though I speak with the tongues of men, or even of ANGELS, if I don't have the love of God, I have become a braying horn or a clashing cymbal, an instrument making senseless noise." (my translation)

If there's one thing Wierwille neglected to teach us, it was how to do ANYTHING with the love of God!

Love,

Steve

Edited September 22, 2012 by Steve Lortz

[chockfull]

There's a leap from no one is doing it to no one CAN do it that I am not prepared to make. The Bible, to my reading, merely says it can be done. It says nothing about everyone claiming to do it should be presumed genuine until proved otherwise (or vice versa, to be fair).

Believing that we, innocently, kidded ourselves should not detract from faith at all. If anything, it should inspire in the seeker a fervent quest for what SIT should be.

In any event, chockfull, we're at loggerheads on the bigger, fatter claim issue. I will drop it.

OK. I'm not just debating you here. I really want to know what you think on this. Are you still formulating your opinion? All Christians faking it vs. TWI members and ex-members faking it because VP was a faker and taught them how to well vs. it's possible to be genuine and we can't really determine who's faking it?

Hell, I have no problem facing kidding myself. I kidded myself for decades that TWI was an organization worth sacrificing my life for.

[geisha779]

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?

Tongues were also a sign for the Jews who required a sign. A sign for unbelievers. Tongues had more than one purpose. . . . . I have mentioned this on this thread already. I didn't mean to imply evangelism is the only reason for SIT. I don't believe that, but, it did have purpose as an outward display for God's glory in evangelism as well as a practical purpose. People heard their languages and believed. How many accounts do we need? Why would it change?

It also served as edification for the church when approached correctly. Paul was not the only Apostle either, but he did evangelize a massive area. It stands to reason he would have spoken in tongues more than the Corinthians....which was a church body whose members had jobs and families and lives. They were not constantly in the church SIT and I would respectfully dispute they SIT to build themselves up....at least not after Paul got through with them.

What do we need tongues for now? The church is already established on the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets . . . . They did the heavy lifting for us. It was their job specifically. They were Apostles.

Instead of asking ourselves why or how it has changed....or if it is the same thing as the first century.....we might rethink the question and ask what the practical and God glorifying reason there would be for SIT now. We are far too removed from the 1st century church to ever get a satisfying answer as to if it is the same thing. That is....other than a real and understood language speaking the wonderful works of God....the gospel. Personally, I would love that. But, there is too much of a divide in time.....we can't know unless we have the evidence.

This is why VP was so diabolical.....there is just no way to know some things. VP claimed God told him, and that was hard to argue with. Simply believing VP as credible? Well, we all know where that got us.

[waysider]

I must have been about six or seven years old. I overheard the grown-ups having a conversation about diamonds. I suppose someone in the family must have recently become engaged. Well, one of them said that a diamond was nothing but a piece of coal that got real hot while it was being squeezed. (I think there might have been some sort of double entendre that escaped my youthful mind.) I didn't know much about diamonds but, I knew they were worth a lot of money and it sure wouldn't hurt our family to have a bit more. So, I ran and got Donny, the neighbor kid who lived behind us across the alley. We made a beeline for the coal cellar and scooped up the biggest lump we could find. We put it in some kind of cloth, maybe a bandana, and tied it up real good and tight with some twine we found in the alley. Then, we hung it from a low hanging branch on the big maple tree out in front of the house, taking care to make sure it had plenty of hot August sunlight beating on it. We left it that way for about a month, until the suspense got the better of us. (Okay, it was probably just a day or two.) We held our breath, tore open that package and, lo and behold, the lump of coal we had wrapped so excitedly was still nothing more than a lump of coal. Imagine that.

Edited September 22, 2012 by waysider

[waysider]

I recalled that incident for my grand daughter Clara-Belle Jean . (That's short for Helen)

She said, "Golly, Grandpa Waysider, you kids sure were simple".

(I had no idea young'uns still say "Golly".)

Edited September 22, 2012 by waysider

[Raf]

So you're saying that if your method of turning coal into a diamond was invalid, you have not invalidated the truth that diamonds are produced by squeezing coal. It just means that no matter how much you believed, so to speak, what YOU unwrapped was not a diamond.

[waysider]

By golly! I think you're on to something!

[Raf]

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

I was addressing JohnIAm on what I believe to be his terms.

Not judging your contribution to the "realm" discussion either way.

[geisha779]

This thread has helped me so much so I really thank you Raf.

SIT is a topic I have struggled to understand since leaving TWI. I know I wasn't "born-again" while in the Way. Really, I lost much of the tenderness I had before becoming so involved. I know I lost my compassion for others and much of my ability to reason. I became a harder and darker person in TWI. That is really not the transformation one would expect, at least from a Christian perspective, but, there you have it.

This thread has been a relief, but, it hasn't shaken my faith in the Lord in the least. That can't be dependent on SIT. VP did us a terrible turn by presenting it as proof and compelling us to do it. Looking back, not only did he teach us the opposite of genuine faith.....but what happens to people who later on realize it was a scam and they don't have that once saved always saved evidence? That could reasonably cause some issues.

I believe VP gave many people a false sense of salvation. That is criminal IMO.

Lump of coal? Yep.....but. that doesn't mean there are no other precious gems for us to seek.

For a group that prided ourselves on the value of truth, the reality is that it was treated very cheaply in TWI. Individuals may vary, but on the whole, the "truth" in TWI was simply a commodity to cash in on.....

[Raf]

WOW!... Jeepers! I just realized that's exactly what Paul was saying in 1 Corinthians 13:1, "Though I speak with the tongues of men, or even of ANGELS, if I don't have the love of God, I have become a braying horn or a clashing cymbal, an instrument making senseless noise." (my translation)

If there's one thing Wierwille neglected to teach us, it was how to do ANYTHING with the love of God!

Love,

Steve

You may be onto something there, but I'm not persuaded. It could be one of those things where honest people disagree.

What Paul says is "if i speak on the tongues of men or of angels and i don't have love, i am become as sounding brass or tinkling cymbal."

I think he's talking there about the effect on the congregation, not the short-circuiting of SIT. Otherwise, how to equate the first half of the analogy with the second if we're being literal (or literalish) about the second? In other words, how could you literally speak in the tongues of men or angels AND literally be making up fv at the same time? You can't.

So i don't think it's quite saying what you suggest, but i could see folks interpreting that way and, subsequently, taking the rest on faith, as it were.

Nice observation.

[Raf]

Is it me, or has most of the discussion now turned unmistakably doctrinal?

Edited September 22, 2012 by Raf

[Raf]

Now that's a viewpoint on the topic that leaves me with inspiration in my heart, instead of the feeling of a scientist with a cold soul.

I know it doesn't prove anything.

This got lost in the flames, but I'm not asking anyone to prove anything. I'm responding to a demand for proof. So if you're not asking me to prove my point, I am not asking you to prove yours.

That brings us back to the original point of the thread: I know I wasn't alone in faking my way through it. Anyone else who did so, all I can say is that I have found fessing up quite liberating.

Yes, I believe 100 percent of us fall into this category. No, I can't prove it. Won't be the first time you've disagreed with me, I'm sure. Sure as heck won't be the last.

And that's ok with me.

[waysider]

You can only look at a lump of coal for just so long before you stop thinking about what it is and start philosophising about what it might have been in the past or might become in the future.

Edited September 22, 2012 by waysider

[Raf]

OK. I'm not just debating you here. I really want to know what you think on this. Are you still formulating your opinion? All Christians faking it vs. TWI members and ex-members faking it because VP was a faker and taught them how to well vs. it's possible to be genuine and we can't really determine who's faking it?

Hell, I have no problem facing kidding myself. I kidded myself for decades that TWI was an organization worth sacrificing my life for.

I'm willing to say as a matter of fact that I faked it.

I'm willing to say as a matter of fact that others did too (while the CES change in the content of interpretation don't prove this doctrino-practically, it is consistent with and easily explained by the They're All Faking It model).

I'm willing to say as a matter of personal attempt to review available evidence that no one practicing SIT in an observable setting has been able to produce an actual example of xenoglossia as described in Acts 2.

Considering that Acts 2 presents a clear example of xenoglossia, an actual language, and that Paul's reference to tongues of angels has the marking of a hyperbolic brag that he does not intend literally, I have what I think is a reasonable expectation that SIT should typically produce a human language.

With no actual evidence to suggest otherwise, I conclude as a matter of opinion that people claiming SIT are engaged in a practice that is producing something other than what the Bible describes, but something very, very similar to my admitted fakery.

My opinion, subject to contradiction by yet unavailable or undisclosed evidence, is that we're all faking it.

If we're wrong and the Bible is describing something true, it would behoove us to seek that truth.

Edited September 22, 2012 by Raf

[Raf]

I am not intentionally saying any more than that

[johniam]

P.S. Was the spiderman musical any good?

Yes, IMO. I had a thread on the open forum last year in which I asked people from New England what there was to do in Rhode Island. This was part of my preparation for a week long trip to visit my sister who lives in New Haven, CT. During that week we saw Spiderman. It was really good. There was one actor who had all the speaking/singing lines for Peter Parker/Spiderman, and there were 8 other actors who rotated in the fight scenes. This theatre had a harness system on the ceiling which allowed them to do the fight scenes directly above the audience. I imagine that must have been pretty tiring, hence the rotation. The thread is called for New England residents. There may be more details there. Don't want to go too far off topic.

[Raf]

One more thing: I'm not asking anyone to agree with me save those who, on personal reflection, recognize that, yeah, what they did was free vocalization and not xenoglossia.

[Ham]

lumps of coal.. hmm.

Isn't that what Santa reserves for the "naughty" children?

sorry..

I take reality, and abstract hallucinatory elements of reality, as they hit me..

[Raf]

Thanks, Johniam.

[excathedra]

i know i'm a pain in the ask since you probably all covered this

but i was thinking jesus said those who believe will speak in tongues

and paul (i think) said it was to edify yourself

i'm not sure that the day of pentecost and now are one in the same

mind you, i'm only talking about speaking in tongues, not the interpretation and prophecy as taught in the way, which seems to me to be a whole different thing

thank you

and if it's between you and god (not to show at a meeting) it certainly could be angelic or heavenly language

[waysider]

It might be interesting to see someone do a brainwave test or something that demonstrates SIT, both silently and outloud.

I suspect they would look the same. I think someone did a study once that determined when you speak silently, your vocalization physiology (tongue, mouth,etc.) moves ever so slightly even though you think it doesn't.

Edited September 23, 2012 by waysider

[geisha779]

i know i'm a pain in the ask since you probably all covered this

but i was thinking jesus said those who believe will speak in tongues

and paul (i think) said it was to edify yourself

i'm not sure that the day of pentecost and now are one in the same

mind you, i'm only talking about speaking in tongues, not the interpretation and prophecy as taught in the way, which seems to me to be a whole different thing

thank you

and if it's between you and god (not to show at a meeting) it certainly could be angelic or heavenly language

You appear to have genuine questions and that is not being a pain....and don't we all. I can give you a short answer... .whether you accept it is entirely up to you. There is a discussion in the doctrinal forum and if you put it there as well....maybe others will give more details. .

The last 11 or so verses in Mark are added....and this is where Jesus mentions, what people assume, is SIT. Just because these verses are added doesn't necessarily negate them. Most of it can be corroborated in the other gospels. It isn't such a big deal. What He said was..... these signs will accompany those who believe. . . . .speak in new tongues.

Paul didn't really say it was to edify yourself, he said someone who SIT is ONLY edifying himself and he compares it to prophecy where the whole church would be edified. He was not promoting it as a practice to build themselves up.....he was reproving them for seeking their own.

My take....hope that helps.

[Raf]

and if it's between you and god (not to show at a meeting) it certainly could be angelic or heavenly language

It's a good thing it can be an angelic or heavenly tongue, seeing as it apparently always is!