SIT, TIP, Prophecy and Confession

[geisha779]

I don't see why it would change, at least without some scrap of evidence. To date, no evidence has been presented either doctrinally or scientifically in any thread here to document or explain why things would have changed between what is available in the first century to now.

and your evidence for this?

Why did they need it then? Very clearly the apostles were not the only one doing this in those times.

To me this is a convenient way of avoiding the question. Instead of asking ourselves this question, let's ask ourselves another question. No, I think the original question is on topic, on point, and sufficient. What changed between the first century and now? And a following question - what documentation do we have of this change, either Biblically or scientifically?

I don't simply believe VP as credible. And I search for ways to know something, especially if I'm putting my believing trust in it. I won't either simply accept or simply reject something just because of association with VP.

I don't know why things might have changed other than what God decides He needs, as tongues and any gift are for His glory and His purpose. What is available to us has little to do with it IMO. There seemed to be a real purpose to them in the 1st century. "So He will speak to this people in a stammering lip and a foreign language." The church was being established. And so on.... Maybe the "sign" gifts stopped with the Apostles.

But, I don't know. I don't think I can know. I am not fully convinced on either extreme.

Weren't you the one that said the purpose on the day of Pentecost, where people were added to the church hearing their own languages, a one time deal? I didn't say it. SIT would have had to change right away. Why would it? Why would it ever change?

That begs the question.... if we are doing the same thing now......why? What is the purpose? It simply causes division and hardly brings glory to God. It is not rocking the unbelievers world....they are studying us like a freak show. What is the point of tongues. I don't SIT. I do know it had a definitive and causal purpose in the 1st century.

A believer doesn't need proof Jesus is Lord and trustworthy. So, they are not a sign for the believer.

You say, they are for building up ones own self. I say, that Paul was reproving the church and telling them that seeking one's own edification was not love, but selfish, and that 14:4 was not an admonition to do it to build ourselves up , but rather a contrast to the correct desire to build up others.

You say it is for private prayer and worship.....I say, that it was for prayer in assembly and to be interpreted and Paul is telling them .....if there is no one to interpret....and you can't be quiet and quit disturbing the congregation...go do it quietly to yourself. I don't see it as being for private prayer or worship. God would not equip some for private prayer and worship and not others. It may very well be prayer, but without understanding...it is rather pointless. Like speaking into the air.

I think it is clear in chapter 12 that not each saint is equipped with all the gifts. You may read that differently, but none of the other gifts are for private use. Someone with a healing ministry doesn't go around building themselves up.....same with helps, managing, miracles. You may see it as speaking mysteries to God....I don't think so. God knows all mysteries, and the speaker has no clue what is being said. I read that quite differently. I read it as reproof and sarcasm....not declaration.

Tongues is only mentioned a few places in scripture despite that list of 11 or so reason VP gave us for SIT. Most of those are not actually about tongues. Acts gives us accounts and Corinthians is correction for a very gifted but, seriously messed up church. Paul's tone, is loving, but forceful, and sometimes sharply ironic. It can't be read without keeping his main point in mind.

Seek after edification of one another.

--------------------------------------------------

Excellent post Socks! Just excellent. I love your heart.

Edited September 24, 2012 by geisha779

[Raf]

I suspect this conversation has reached a natural ending point. While I welcome further discussion, I don't intend to spur it along.

Thanks for hearing me out.

Edited September 25, 2012 by Raf

[geisha779]

I suspect this conversation has reached a natural ending point. While I welcome further discussion, I don't intend to spur it along.

Thanks for hearing me out.

I think you are right.

"One man regards one day above another, another regards every day alike. Let each man be fully convinced in his own mind"

[johniam]

When I was back there in atheist school, there was a person there who put forth the proposition that....

"the face in the mirror won't stop, the girl in the window won't drop"

He may have cancelled his subscription to the resurrection, but not to oblivion. He was THERE! Therefore, he was credible. Believe it if you need it; if you don't just pass it on.

[johniam]

quote:

What do we need tongues for now? The church is already established on the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets . . .

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.

Too far removed????? The "foundation of the apostles and prophets" is the mystery (Eph. 3:5). The one body. We today are just as much a part of the body of Christ as was the first century believers. That's never going to change.

[Raf]

When I was back there in atheist school, there was a person there who put forth the proposition that....

"the face in the mirror won't stop, the girl in the window won't drop"

He may have cancelled his subscription to the resurrection, but not to oblivion. He was THERE! Therefore, he was credible. Believe it if you need it; if you don't just pass it on.

Does anyone have an interpretation? I do not recognize this tongue.

[waysider]

Does anyone have an interpretation? I do not recognize this tongue.

It's the language of Jim Morrison and The Doors

(Soft Parade/When The Music's Over)

[geisha779]

[quote name='johniam' date='25 September 2012 - 07:41 AM' timestamp='1348573305' post='546115'

. . . The one body. We today are just as much a part of the body of Christ as was the first century believers. That's never going to change.

Do you notice the little box above with your user name in it? When used properly, this holds the point I am addressing and makes it is easily identifiable as your quote. If not used or used improperly it may cause confusion.

Using this feature correctly, is helpful to other posters who may not be reading all posts or following along as closely. It is designed for easy use and a polite way to include all people in the conversation. When logged in, all you have to do, is hit the reply button at the bottom of the post you want to respond to and all the information is there for you at the top of the reply box. It is very convenient. I also like to indicate, in that little box, that this is a partial quote, cut off at some point. This way, if other readers are curious, they can go back and read the entire quote. As we don't always quote entire posts and may only want to address one point, the proper way to indicate a partial quote is with three ellipses. Although, this way may get lost in posts like mine where I use them improperly all the time....so, simply typing in the word "snip" is a good alternative. Would you please consider doing this for the posters here to help follow the ebb and flow of conversation and to keep who is saying what clear? Thanks, I appreciate it.

------------------------------------------------------------------- Back to topic or rather, wait....not really, but to quickly respond to Johniam's point.

There is a wealth of assumption in your assertion.

I don't assume we all are Christian, or that any who were not Christian before TWI ever became a Christian in TWI. Especially....Especially......because of SIT.

Edited September 25, 2012 by geisha779

[geisha779]

quote:

What do we need tongues for now? The church is already established on the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets . . .

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.

Too far removed????? The "foundation of the apostles and prophets" is the mystery (Eph. 3:5). The one body. We today are just as much a part of the body of Christ as was the first century believers. That's never going to change.

An example of an easily identifiable quote. Oh no, wait....it isn't a good example! It is Johniam quoting me and responding, but it is difficult to tell who is being quoted and where my words end and his response begins....! My bad.

Carry on

Edited September 25, 2012 by geisha779

[chockfull]

I don't know why things might have changed other than what God decides He needs, as tongues and any gift are for His glory and His purpose. What is available to us has little to do with it IMO. There seemed to be a real purpose to them in the 1st century. "So He will speak to this people in a stammering lip and a foreign language." The church was being established. And so on.... Maybe the "sign" gifts stopped with the Apostles.

But, I don't know. I don't think I can know. I am not fully convinced on either extreme.

I don't know is an honest answer. The Pentecost record "seems" to have a purpose for it in an instant translation service for attendees of the sermon. Other accounts in Acts that refer to speaking in tongues that is not present - i.e. nobody there needed translation. In that it "seems" similar to today's accounts.

Weren't you the one that said the purpose on the day of Pentecost, where people were added to the church hearing their own languages, a one time deal? I didn't say it. SIT would have had to change right away. Why would it? Why would it ever change?

Sure I observed that, except I said it was a special miracle, not a one-time deal. I've heard several accounts of meetings where someone in the audience knows the tongue of the person speaking in tongues. Socks just provided a first-hand account of that exact thing happening. So, unless he is lying or deluding himself (a popular viewpoint on this thread), there is another confirmation of that happening. Each one of those cases would be a miracle.

That begs the question.... if we are doing the same thing now......why? What is the purpose? It simply causes division and hardly brings glory to God. It is not rocking the unbelievers world....they are studying us like a freak show. What is the point of tongues. I don't SIT. I do know it had a definitive and causal purpose in the 1st century.

The purpose would be what scriptures describe it as. For example, a clear record is Acts 10:46 - the first record of the Gentiles conversion. It says they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God. So in that record "magnifying God" would be the purpose that is recorded. Acts 19:6 is another record. There it states they spoke with tongues and prophesied. The context looks like it is just a display of God's power, and the new birth involved.

A believer doesn't need proof Jesus is Lord and trustworthy. So, they are not a sign for the believer.

Agreed. Except for sometimes believers can be inspired by signs too. Look at socks account of someone understanding the tongue in a meeting.

You say, they are for building up ones own self. I say, that Paul was reproving the church and telling them that seeking one's own edification was not love, but selfish, and that 14:4 was not an admonition to do it to build ourselves up , but rather a contrast to the correct desire to build up others.

I didn't say anything. I quoted I Cor. 14, which expresses Paul's desire for all of them to speak in tongues as well as the instruction of the difference between just the tongues and tongues with interpretation and/or prophecy. Yes, I realize Corinthians is filled with reproof. It is even noted by theologians as a reproof epistle. Part of what reproof entails is detailed specific instruction on the right way and the wrong way. In that letter, we see a lot of specific instruction regarding tongues, interpretation, prophecy. I'm sure Paul's intent was not that people would cherry pick verses out of that section and ignore truths in it just because it was a reproof letter.

You say it is for private prayer and worship.....I say, that it was for prayer in assembly and to be interpreted and Paul is telling them .....if there is no one to interpret....and you can't be quiet and quit disturbing the congregation...go do it quietly to yourself. I don't see it as being for private prayer or worship. God would not equip some for private prayer and worship and not others. It may very well be prayer, but without understanding...it is rather pointless. Like speaking into the air.

There's a little bit of internal conflict in what you are saying here. Your paraphrase seems relatively accurate - Paul instructing them if there is not an interpretation to stop SIT out loud causing chaos in the meeting. If that was the case, do it quietly to yourself. Why would he instruct them to do it quietly to themselves if there was no purpose in doing so? He wouldn't. His instruction was that if they were not edifying the body, to do it quietly as private prayer and worship and keep it to themselves. Again, Acts 10:46 indicates that SIT is magnifying God. So that's a stated scriptural purpose for doing it quietly to themselves. Apparently scriptures don't seem to indicate it is pointless.

I think it is clear in chapter 12 that not each saint is equipped with all the gifts. You may read that differently, but none of the other gifts are for private use. Someone with a healing ministry doesn't go around building themselves up.....same with helps, managing, miracles. You may see it as speaking mysteries to God....I don't think so. God knows all mysteries, and the speaker has no clue what is being said. I read that quite differently. I read it as reproof and sarcasm....not declaration.

I think there is still a lot of confusion in churches surrounding the spiritual gifts. Thus VP went the route of defining one gift and 9 manifestations. He plagiarized J.E.Stiles on the RHST book and B.G.Leonard on the classes being centered around that topic and the receiving of it. Even TWI teaches that 8 manifestations are for others profit, one / SIT is for one's own profit. There are a bunch of topics in that chapter 12. I mean look at I Cor. 12:28 - where we have apostles, prophets, teachers, miracles, healings, helps, governments, and tongues. And a seeming order of importance in the church for all of those.

I can see the reproof, don't know about the sarcasm. From my perspective being sarcastic to someone while reproving them doesn't help them a whole lot, and usually backfires. I can't see my Father being sarcastic to me while reproving me. He doesn't work that way.

Tongues is only mentioned a few places in scripture despite that list of 11 or so reason VP gave us for SIT. Most of those are not actually about tongues. Acts gives us accounts and Corinthians is correction for a very gifted but, seriously messed up church. Paul's tone, is loving, but forceful, and sometimes sharply ironic. It can't be read without keeping his main point in mind.

Seek after edification of one another.

Sure, it's not in a lot of places. Then again neither is tithing, debt, or a bunch of other topics. Corinthians is a reproof epistle. As such, tone is important, but not to the extent that it is meant that you ignore the content of the message stated just to focus on the tone of the message. People who are messing something up need patience, love, and to walk them through how to do it right step by step.

Excellent post Socks! Just excellent. I love your heart.

I'm thankful for his posting too. Apparently he speaks in tongues as well, and relayed a personal experience of a special miracle where in a meeting in Northern California, someone spoke in a tongue that was a known language to Europeans visiting the meeting. To me that doesn't convey the message that it died out with the first century apostles.

Too far removed????? The "foundation of the apostles and prophets" is the mystery (Eph. 3:5). The one body. We today are just as much a part of the body of Christ as was the first century believers. That's never going to change.

If you can't trust the scriptures to work, inspire, have an effect the same way for us today as they did for first century believers, then what is the point of even reading the Bible at all? For entertainment, as nice little stories, like "Aesop's Fables" or "Grimm's Fairy Tales" ???

Now I don't want to be a narrow-minded fundamentalist redneck (I've met some), but somewhere you have to draw a line and stand on one side of it or the other.

[Raf]

It was Asians.

[Raf]

This will amuse you all:

I wrote a few things down, and it got to be pretty long, in response to the most recent posts. Then I reviewed my masterpiece and removed any comment I had already made in one form or another.

My preceding post comprised everything that survived this editing process.

[chockfull]

42

[penworks]

If you can't trust the scriptures to work, inspire, have an effect the same way for us today as they did for first century believers, then what is the point of even reading the Bible at all? For entertainment, as nice little stories, like "Aesop's Fables" or "Grimm's Fairy Tales" ???

For me, yes, sometimes.

[chockfull]

42

I started to write a long response to the last post, then I removed everything not associated with the "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy". I was left with the answer to life, the universe, and everything.

Don't forget your towel. :biglaugh:

[Raf]

Love it.

[socks]

They were Asian(s), yes.

Although in 50 years they may be Polish, and it will have occured in the north yes, northern Alaska, during what will then seem like a normal event, a heat wave in December.

Just kidding.

As to it occuring, yes indeed. Y. did. I've found that kind of thing to be very unique however. To it can be asked the question that could asked of any event like that when ascribed to Christian faith - why? why then, why them, what that, why there and also why NOT any/where/time else, other than that. There.

I don't know.

I don't believe that for a "thing" to occur that is "of God" there has to be world wide impact, it doesn't need to fit any kind of parameters that I would set for it to occur. No one's suggesting that overtly here but just sayin', for my part I don't pretend to understand or grasp the enormity of things that are by the nature of what I understand them to be, outside of my complete comprehension. And stuff.

[Raf]

They were Asian(s), yes.

Although in 50 years they may be Polish, and it will have occured in the north yes, northern Alaska, during what will then seem like a normal event, a heat wave in December.

Just kidding.

Maybe, but you cleverly articulated the problem of such anecdotes as "proof." . It's similar to Tom's story of the Aramaic SITter he recounted in Doctrinal, or chockfull's earlier account of the English speaker in this thread. You are in the impossible position of presenting the story in all sincerity as true without the current capability of examining what happened and determining its underlying veracity to the satisfaction of a skeptic. I am in the impossible position of being unable to disprove it for the same reasons. We are, as far as it goes, at a standstill. I'm fascinated, but I suspect that a further examination of the incident would reveal that you are innocently mistaken (just as you suspect a further examination would reveal you were NOT mistaken).

The problem for each of us is that a further examination is impossible, so "what would happen" becomes a matter of unbridled bias, for me as well as you.

Which is unfortunate, because it would seem to settle the matter as far as my portrayal of "all of it" being non-religious free vocalization.

It would still have little impact on the argument that "some, many or most" of it is not genuine, Biblical SIT. Though I know this position is not shared with those following this thread, I still contend that genuine SIT will produce a human language, not merely something that is language-like that can be decoded by God. But that's just me. Those of you who disagree are free to do so, of course. It's not worth fighting over, IMO.

Edited September 26, 2012 by Raf

[waysider]

Raf said:

"Though I know this position is not shared with those following this thread, I still contend that genuine SIT will produce a human language, not merely something that is language-like that can be decoded by God."

To my thinking, the incident in Acts 2 seems to support that.

[Raf]

Yes, but I could see where Corinthians might lead one to believe that the language produced might not be known of men. I do not accept that interpretation, but I have to concede that interpretation's existence and allow for the fact that some people may hold it.

[socks]

I agree, it certainly could ways' and Raf yes, if Acts 2 is factual that's what happened then.

The Bible references the "of angels", which could be hyperbole ("...or with the tongues of a 1,000 hummingbirds singing in French") or taken face value. Do angels speak? I would say yes, they do, quite well. But I can't speak for all angels all the time. They might have something different to say about that, they'll have to speak for themselves.

The cool part to me is that - if I heard a guy speak in something that sounded like another language, certainly not English and someone else said "That's Chinese!" and they understood what was said and that what they understood was similar to - the "same thing practically speaking" - to what an interpretation was that I and they heard -

Then that memory is meaningful in this dyad of 50, the me'sies and yousies of communication. I'm buzzing on that because I recently read this article in an unrelated effort, which i found to be interesting - http://www.acrwebsit...gs.aspx?Id=6421

Since no past event is recoverable in it's natural form, only the remnants, artifacts, effects - and memories - of them can represent them. Some "things" exist measurably in the time continuum of past/present to a greater degree than others. Eyewitness testimony being what it is a memory without measurable physical artifacts is probably going to be of lesser value to a large group outside of that event than to me and anyone immediately involved in it. That's just the way it is. (this is my opinion anyway) And if there were more involved, say a 100 people all with that memory, then it might be more meaningful to others not involved, or could be. Depending.

Dunno, this stuff fascinates me but doesn't always move the conversations forward much. Just notin' to what ends, not sure.

[Raf]

LOL.

Thanks for understanding, Socks. I don't know what happened in that room in Northern California. I suspect. You suspect. Our suspects are suspect, at least to each other. Stalemate.

In other news, (I should never have promised not to spur this thread along, but sue me), I came across this description this afternoon. I don't want to mischaracterize it, but I'll let you guys (paging chockfull) be the judge:

He is told to open his mouth and let the “tongue” come out. Or perhaps he is told to begin by imitating a few lines spoken by a T-speaker. When he utters a few sounds, he is encouraged to do more. So in a little while he learns to free vocalize fluidly. (The social scientist tells us that that is to be expected.) He is told, “Yes, that’s it. You have received the baptism of the Holy Spirit.” If he says, “I seem to be doing it myself,” the “coach” replies, “That’s the devil trying to make you doubt the gift that God has given you.”

http://www.frame-poythress.org/linguistic-and-sociological-analyses-of-modern-tongues-speaking-their-contributions-and-limitations/

Can I get an amen and a HS (and I don't mean Hholy Sspirit)?

This paragraph is deeeeep in Rev. Vern's paper, and it's strictly hypothetical. I THINK (please check me on this) Vern is in the middle of a discourse that presumes, for the sake of argument, that SIT died out with the apostles and everyone doing it today is free vocalizing. Even assuming such, it is possible to tell the [presumed] truth in such a way that you're basically being an a-hole and helping no one, Vern seems to be saying to me.

Thoughts? (I'm not quoting Vern here to prove my point or raise a new line of "argument," but rather to point out the startling similarity between a hypothetical well-intentioned but erring coach and the very real erring VPW. In other words, given the opportunity to invent a Biblically inaccurate charlatan to coach a believer into free vocalization while calling it speaking in tongues, Vern "invented" Victor Paul Wierwille, right down to the word choice. Amen and HS).

(In case you didn't catch it, my acronym of HS = Divine Solid Excrement).

Edited September 26, 2012 by Raf

[chockfull]

In other news, (I should never have promised not to spur this thread along, but sue me), I came across this description this afternoon. I don't want to mischaracterize it, but I'll let you guys (paging chockfull) be the judge:

Comments? Outside of the running commentary on receiving the baptism of the Holy Spirit, I don't find that method of instruction any different from the following instruction also take from that same source (Poythress - Speaking in Tongues: A Guide to Research on Glossolalia)

1. Can the average person be taught to produce free vocalization?

Yes. Learning to free vocalize is easier than learning to ride a bicycle. As with the bicycle, the practitioner may feel foolish and awkward at first. But practice makes perfect. Moreover, though at first a person may feel self-conscious, after he has learned he may sometimes forget that he is doing it. It is something that he can start or stop at will without difficulty. 8

One easy way for a person to learn is to pretend that he is speaking a foreign language. He starts speaking, slowly and deliberately producing syllables. Then be speeds up, consciously trying to make it sound like a language would sound. Once he is doing well, he just relaxes and does not worry any longer about what comes out.

I mean I can't truly know what is in a man's heart when he is praying, but certainly I can question the methods as suspect. And yes, I realize that all of the quoted instruction we are referencing sounds remarkably similar to VP's instruction...

Edited September 26, 2012 by chockfull

[Raf]

True. The only thing the new description adds to the previously cited one is the comforting "that's just the devil trying to talk you out of it" that I described earlier.

The quote I just cited, I have to say, is rich in content, and I say this without judgment as to whether it proves one side or another. It does neither. But in presenting it here, the best I can say is that I have not done it justice, citing it for such a limited purpose.

[chockfull]

True. The only thing the new description adds to the previously cited one is the comforting "that's just the devil trying to talk you out of it" that I described earlier.

The quote I just cited, I have to say, is rich in content, and I say this without judgment as to whether it proves one side or another. It does neither. But in presenting it here, the best I can say is that I have not done it justice, citing it for such a limited purpose.

It's a good read for a scientific study. It's published in a peer reviewed mainstream Christian theology journal.

And you're doing a good job representing it, especially considering your Satanic methods. (Too soon?)