SIT, TIP, Prophecy and Confession

[Raf]

I understand. Take as much time as you need.

Did you ever try to SIT before you were born again? Curious to know your basis for concluding you couldn't.

Karl Kahler spoke in tongues while never having believed in the resurrection. Last I checked, you can't be born again without that belief.

Google Poythress and free vocalization for the source of the term as used on this thread.

[Allan]

I understand. Take as much time as you need.

Did you ever try to SIT before you were born again? Curious to know your basis for concluding you couldn't.

Karl Kahler spoke in tongues while never having believed in the resurrection. Last I checked, you can't be born again without that belief.

Google Poythress and free vocalization for the source of the term as used on this thread.

I actually tried to s.i.t. after the last segment of pfal...and couldn't ??!! then later on that day, on my own & after a beer, I opened my mouth & a few words came out and it 'clicked' for me, sort of like, wooaah, so THAT'S how ya do it, lol

[Raf]

Ok, so you figured out how to free vocalize while drunk.

?

I asked how you knew you couldn't speak on tongues BEFORE being born again.

(PS: You could. You just never tried. Because why would you. But if I gave you the same instruction, minus the pressure and spiritual implications, not only would you have done it, but the results would have been indistinguishable from what you're doing now. The preceding is my opinion).

It should be a given that by the time we get to session 12, you could SIT. I mean, from a Biblical standpoint, nothing was stopping you. Well, maybe that little voice inside your head that told you it was just you... Oh, wait, that was the devil trying to talk you out of it.

Edited October 16, 2012 by Raf

[Raf]

Ok, now that I'm back on a computer instead of on my phone, I can look at this a little more systematically.

I will definitely look into this 'free vocalization' thing. My initial cynicism of course lends me to think how convenient for Satan to come up with a brush aside label like that...hmmnnn.

Convenient is an interesting word choice. I find it convenient that where the Bible is clear on the meaning of SIT as producing an actual language, in the modern practice (where we have the luxury of a field of study called linguistics that has the capacity to recognize actual languages) suddenly the offered definition of SIT not only includes more than actual languages, but actually all but excludes actual languages. Tongues speakers have taken something that, as described in the Bible, is quite testable, and redefined it for the sole purpose of making it as untestable as possible. How's THAT for "convenient"?

I still haven't had anything scientific or biblical to debunk the number of reasons and benefits for s.i.t.

I'm not offering a Biblical refutation. That would be a doctrinal debate. I am offering a practical refutation. Tongues speakers, when subjecting their experience to objective examination, are not producing languages. (I'm still putting Sherrill to the side here: I am skeptical of his findings and suspect he's full of it, but still do not know enough to dismiss the findings outright).

As for the scientific analysis, if you have seen nothing to debunk the modern day practice of SIT, I submit you are not looking very hard. It would be more fair to say you cannot produce scientific evidence to support it. (I believe the brain wave studies are inconclusive for reasons I have described: they don't compare SIT to admitted fakery, so they can't rule fakery out as an explanation). Again, Sherrill may be key here, but I believe my critique of his presentation thus far has been quite fair. Still not dismissing him: he's the best you've got in terms of scientific analysis. You may find him persuasive where I don't, and I'm happy to disagree there.

It's a bit like the blind man; "As for this Jesus I'm not sure, but one thing I know. Whereas before I was blind, NOW I see " ! I'm like that with the tongues, couldn't do it before getting saved, NOW I can :)

I have no reason to accept this statement. I have no basis to believe you ever tried to SIT before becoming born again, and every reason to believe that if you had tried to free vocalize, you could have. Further, you made a later statement that you struggled with SIT even (presumably) after being saved. Seems to me you owe your ability to SIT more to a bottle of beer than you do to your salvation, but I might be reading into that. ;)

Not funny? Ok, let me put it this way: if you never tried to speak in tongues before getting saved, you have no basis to conclude that you could not. Therefore, I have doubt as to the basis of your contrast: "I couldn't speak in tongues before, but I could after I was saved." Why should I believe that?

I couldn't drive a car before I turned 24, but after I turned 24 I could. True story. It's not because I was incapable of driving before that. I was just a New Yorker. I didn't need a car. When I needed a car, I learned to drive. Turning 24 had nothing to do with it.

Free vocalization is something anyone can do. You could have done it before you got saved, and if I'm right, you excelled at it after you got saved.

BTW, I don't believe I myself nor a number of genuinely, sincere fellow Christians I hang with, have ever done it out of a prideful heart or mindset, so, again, to make a general sweeping statement like that is not very fair. BTW ( also ) I was brought up JW just to throw a little spanner in the works.

I have no reason to believe that you, I, or anyone else on this thread or in TWI did it as a matter of a prideful heart or mindset. Rather, I believe it was most often done in the utmost sincerity, hunger and thirst for righteousness. My initial choice of words is unfortunate and puts you and others on the defensive. I apologize for that. If I had at my disposal a more diplomatic terminology, as I now do, I would have taken the more diplomatic course.

My belief is that SIT is free vocalization. They work the same way. They produce the same thing. The only thing different about them appears to be the setting in which the practices are undertaken. You are free to disagree with me. I won't lose sleep over that.

Edited October 16, 2012 by Raf

[chockfull]

Wow, compelling. The "it just is" exegesis, now why didn't I think of that? How is that celibacy thing going for ya? Keeping the little lady silent in the church too?

Well, by your logic and application of the figure hyperbole, I'm sure your interpretation of those verses is that Paul was saying to have as much sex as possible and that only women should preach in the church. That would be consistent with your interpretation of "I would you all spoke with tongues". It means the opposite, right? Because Paul was reproving them and their attitude wasn't right?

Tongues can be a prideful gift and that has never been more evident to me as on this thread and through your posts. You have used it as a weapon, something to make you stand out in great faith, you have insulted me by and with it and now, you have questioned my faith because I hold a different view than you do. Wow. Sure, I want to join your club and be just like you....the gentleness, tolerance, and kindness just oozes out of you.

It's funny how people only see pride in others but miss it obnoxiously sticking out of their own persona. Here again, like scripture says, why don't you worry about your own issues? You are not the matron of gentleness, tolerance and kindness that you view yourself to be.

Dogma never saved anyone and taking literally things which were not meant to be taken literally has caused people to vow celibacy in order to be close to God. It has had people self-mutilate, it has subjugated women, and it has launched many into the bondage of religion. I think I will pass. Just look what SIT has done for you.

Now I remember why I didn't ask these questions in TWI. It is all coming back to me....I would have been met with mocking derision, had my faith (believing) challenged, sneered at, had my emotional stability questioned, I would have been told I was full of anger.....and then the cherry on the top would have been the "It just is" answer. I bet anything you were clergy in TWI.

How your leaving Jesus Christ out of your little soliloquy of tongues makes me less is beyond me....oh wait, it is because I hold a different perspective of scripture than you.....that must be it? How far we have traveled.

You couldn't just calmly and unemotionally consider or discuss it with me without getting so angry or personal? What do you think would have happened?

Edited for Allan. :)

Wow - now look who's getting nasty. That's OK - I've faced this kind of thing plenty before. People don't want to address their illogic, and if you persist bringing it up to them all they do is get more angry with you. I'm a little more direct with you because you run over people. And I'm not surprised that you are going to stay as far as you can away from people who SIT. People will go to extreme lengths to avoid that within themselves that they need to change. And they will do it acting as pious and Christian as you please, all the while the rabid anger is rising up within them. And they look for anything else around them to blame except themselves.

I don't need to defend my faith to you. And I'm having a fine time on this thread discussing in a rational matter the topic with other people who aren't as mad as you.

[chockfull]

Convenient is an interesting word choice. I find it convenient that where the Bible is clear on the meaning of SIT as producing an actual language, in the modern practice (where we have the luxury of a field of study called linguistics that has the capacity to recognize actual languages) suddenly the offered definition of SIT not only includes more than actual languages, but actually all but excludes actual languages. Tongues speakers have taken something that, as described in the Bible, is quite testable, and redefined it for the sole purpose of making it as untestable as possible. How's THAT for "convenient"?

What I'm starting to see is that a lot of the position taken by people on whether or not "tongues of angels" has any leeway for being interpreted as different than a human language has to do with their views on some of the prayer related verses surrounding SIT where it is not explicitly stated as tongues. Like Rom. 8. I personally am not 100% either way on that one currently.

I'm not offering a Biblical refutation. That would be a doctrinal debate. I am offering a practical refutation. Tongues speakers, when subjecting their experience to objective examination, are not producing languages. (I'm still putting Sherrill to the side here: I am skeptical of his findings and suspect he's full of it, but still do not know enough to dismiss the findings outright).

I'm kind of approaching it on two fronts - one is Biblical/doctrinal. The other is scientific / practical. I'm doing the best I can to put posts in the right place for that, but probably still failing.

I have no reason to accept this statement. I have no basis to believe you ever tried to SIT before becoming born again, and every reason to believe that if you had tried to free vocalize, you could have. Further, you made a later statement that you struggled with SIT even (presumably) after being saved. Seems to me you owe your ability to SIT more to a bottle of beer than you do to your salvation, but I might be reading into that. ;)

So for me, if discussing SIT drives me to a bottle of beer, what does that do for my salvation? Just asking.

Free vocalization is something anyone can do. You could have done it before you got saved, and if I'm right, you excelled at it after you got saved.

Allan, "free vocalization" is the term a bunch of scientists came up with in the studies we are reading. I don't have a major issue with the term. SIT is literally "glossa" = "laleo" - "tongues" + "speaking without reference to the words being said". So I view those terms interchangeably so I can have a conversation with many on it. SIT, glossolalia, free vocalization.

The distinction I have internally currently is that studies describing "free vocalization" are showing people doing similar things (at least they appear similar to all scientific and senses evaluation) whether or not they claim to be inspired by God. So by sheer logic, if SIT works like the Bible describes, then whatever the nonbelievers are doing probably can't be energized spirit. So they are doing the exact same thing, or something real similar without the spirit of God being involved at all.

Raf, I'll get to Sherrill later today - I'm a bit slammed earlier.

[Raf]

One thing I appreciate about Chockfull is that you're keeping me honest and looking for holes in my logic. Let me say a few things to clarify matters:

If I'm wrong about SIT in the Bible being human languages, then my hypothesis fails in a way that cannot be tested or proved. Those who disagree with me are entitled to that position.

If I'm wrong on "code" as described by Poythress and those following his lead, then my hypothesis fails in a way that cannot be tested or proved. Those who disagree with me are entitled to that position.

If I'm wrong on "tongues of angels" as a viable and widespread alternative, then my hypothesis fails in a way that cannot be tested or proved. Those who disagree with me are entitled to that position.

If people are producing languages on a regular basis, but not when objective analysts attempt to bear it out because God doesn't want this experience to be tested, then my hypothesis fails in a way that cannot be proved. Those who disagree with me are entitled to that position.

If Sherrill is telling the truth, despite my misgivings, then my hypothesis fails in a way that HAS been tested and proved. I believe the burden here is on validating Sherrill, but I don't know how possible or likely that is given the context of this thread. I'll look for his book in a public library, but if someone else gets to it first, please share what you learn.

It occurs to me that every refutation of my hypothesis except the last one requires a "you can't disprove it, therefore it's so" conclusion. I am not satisfied with that. I liken it to the invisible, non-corporeal, non-thermal fire-breathing dragon in the garage. YOU present a hypothesis that can't be tested (modern SIT is real, there's a dragon in my garage) and when I deny it, my inability to disprove it is taken as evidence that your premise is so. I object. I can't prove my hypothesis (ie, disprove yours) because you won't let me. Or God won't let me. We're stuck there.

Of course, that last refutation, if verified by objective, independent observers, would be quite satisfactory. But there we are expected to believe that an objective, unbiased linguist did not recognize the language of a glossolalia sample but was somehow able to catch the emotional content of a message and declare it to be "a hymn of love" (!!!!!!!!) that was "beautiful." You don't mind if I, at least in theory, question that linguist's objectivity, do you?

[chockfull]

It occurs to me that every refutation of my hypothesis except the last one requires a "you can't disprove it, therefore it's so" conclusion. I am not satisfied with that. I liken it to the invisible, non-corporeal, non-thermal fire-breathing dragon in the garage. YOU present a hypothesis that can't be tested (modern SIT is real, there's a dragon in my garage) and when I deny it, my inability to disprove it is taken as evidence that your premise is so. I object. I can't prove my hypothesis (ie, disprove yours) because you won't let me. Or God won't let me. We're stuck there.

I'm not inclined to make that argument of "it can't be disproven so it must be so". I would be more inclined to reach a doctrinal position that is relatively sound and logical and use that (at least for myself) as a basis or augmentation of personal proof. That and just pray and trust direction will be there.

All of your roadblocks you are highlighting remind me of Thomas Edison. Just 990 more experiments and you'll discover the light bulb. Or if we can't we'll at least be a lot more educated on the topic :)

[Raf]

Ok, how's aboot:

"You can't disprove it, therefore you have not convinced me that it isn't so."

[chockfull]

Ok, how's aboot:

"You can't disprove it, therefore you have not convinced me that it isn't so."

Either statement is fine. They aren't the limiting factor. For me, the convincing part involves an element of faith - of trusting God and acting. And an element of logic, both scripturally and scientifically.

I mean, sometimes facts and logic can't get you all the way there. What do I mean? Well, for example, Euclidean geometry. Everything there is derived from 3 postulates - point, line, and plane. Those are reasonable postulates that pretty much nobody will refute. So we be-bop on our merry way living life and designing things based upon Euclid's theorems. But then Einstein comes along, and asks "what happens when you try to apply all these principles as you are approaching the speed of light?" And things change. Lines, planes distort into curves, objects. The seemingly solid postulates don't hold up in that environment.

I want the science, the logic, the proofs, the objective analysis. But I still realize that all this is the surmising of ants in a very large universe, all created by God.

[geisha779]

It occurs to me that every refutation of my hypothesis except the last one requires a "you can't disprove it, therefore it's so" conclusion. I am not satisfied with that. I liken it to the invisible, non-corporeal, non-thermal fire-breathing dragon in the garage. YOU present a hypothesis that can't be tested (modern SIT is real, there's a dragon in my garage) and when I deny it, my inability to disprove it is taken as evidence that your premise is so. I object. I can't prove my hypothesis (ie, disprove yours) because you won't let me. Or God won't let me. We're stuck there.

Of course, that last refutation, if verified by objective, independent observers, would be quite satisfactory. But there we are expected to believe that an objective, unbiased linguist did not recognize the language of a glossolalia sample but was somehow able to catch the emotional content of a message and declare it to be "a hymn of love" (!!!!!!!!) that was "beautiful." You don't mind if I, at least in theory, question that linguist's objectivity, do you?

We have the evidence, we have the information, and we have the scriptures to guide us in what we believe about SIT. It is simply a matter of forming and articulating what these things tell us. I think you have done this with amazing candor. All the arguments you list to refute the evidence and a whole host of others I could name from reading and listening are really not sound enough, or rational enough to sway me. People are clearly doing something, and a belief in supernatural ability is a powerful contention, but is it enough to dissuade us from a logical and rational approach to the evidence? Not me. Twisted scripture and personal anecdotes included, there is nothing that leads me to believe that anyone I know of or have heard of or those that claim this ability are speaking in tongues as they did in the bible.

I heard a personal anecdote about manifestations recently, John MacArthur tells of several charismatics who came to see him after their pastor dropped dead. It was immediately after someone had prophesied that the Pastor was going to go on to do great things, become a great teacher, and travel the world. This kind of rocked their faith a bit.

The thing that concerns me is the same thing that concerns many others.....people are free to practice and believe what they like, most people do.....but, if we start adding to the canon of scripture or influencing others in Christian living.....by our tongues, interpretation or prophecy....we become responsible if this is not a direct revelation from the Almighty. It is nothing to play at IMO.

Your understanding is not controversial, it is not esoteric, it is not hidden from others in the Christian world, it is the more largely accepted understanding of modern tongues. This is not only a contentious topic here, but in the mainstream of Christendom as well. This is why most Christians know to tread lightly on this topic. There are only a handful of well known and respected bible teachers who differ drastically on this topic, Gordon Fee, and Wayne Grudem(who I love)off the top of my head.....and all manage to respect their differences without malice, anger, and vitriol. It is not an essential doctrine. There is a great deal of respect offered and a coming together on issues where people do agree. I love these Christians so very much. They are amazing examples and they bring glory to God and care to the body.

I have just finished Moore's book and I think he sums it up quite nicely: Are tongues real languages? It appears that they are not. Charles Hockett has identified sixteen features that appear to be universal to every known human language.Glossolalia lacks a number of key features. This leads Samarin to conclude, "Glossolalia is fundamentally not language. All specimens of glossolalia that have ever been studied have produced no features that would even suggest that they reflect some kind of communicative system." Another devastating feature to the reality of glossolalia as a language is its interpretation. Specifically, when recordings of glossa were played for those who claimed to have the gift of interpretation, each interpreter gave very different meanings to the text. Furthermore, in written glossa, the interpreters gave different meanings to identical words in the same set of words. When confronted with this inconsistency, the interpreters simply said, "God gave different interpretations." Perhaps, as some charismatics claim, glossolalia lacks the design features of human language and incorporates multiple interpretations since it is really an angelic language not subject to the rules of earthly language. We have no response to such an argument. One last observation is important here. Just because glossalalia does not communicate verbal or cognitive meaning, does not mean that it does not communicate. Groans, vocal inflections, sighs, pauses, gestures, and mannerism are all critical communicative tools, which are fully operational in tongues. Thus, while tongues may not consist of cognitive meaning, it is full of affective communication. The same thing happens when one watches a foreign film. You can't know everything that is said, but the basic plot is pretty clear. This is perhaps how interpreters of tongues sense the general emotion of the speaker and can articulate the "atmosphere" of the speech act. Thus we conclude by suggesting that glossolalia is not a language but it is communicative.

Edited for spelling. Grammar is a lost cause with me.

Edited October 16, 2012 by geisha779

[Raf]

Interesting analogy, Chockfull. I'll stew on it.

In the meantime, let me try a sillier analogy. Pretend you have no prior experience with the very common adjectives and nouns I'm about to use. Just for the sake of argument.

***

Suppose the Apostle Paul took a white, granular substance and put it in a cup of water. He drank it and declared it to be salty.

2,000 years later, a bunch of people decide to reproduce Paul's experiment. They take a white, granular substance and put it in a glass of water and declare it to be salty.

Everyone who tries to reproduce Paul's experiment succeeds, and declare the result to be salty.

Along comes the researcher. He has you reproduce the experiment. You do it. You drink the water. You declare it to be salty. The researcher then tests the water. He determines that it does not conduct electricity, as salt water would. Its ionic content is not the same as saltwater. It bears a superficial resemblance to saltwater. It's clearly water. It's obviously not poisonous. The researcher saw you put the white, granular substance in there. But every single time the researcher subjects the experiment to a test, no matter who is performing the experiment, it always, without fail, comes out without the known qualities of saltwater, even though the subject is declaring it to be salty and identical to what the Apostle Paul produced.

Why would that happen? Well, maybe Paul used a cup while we used a glass. But the result of the experiment should be the same, shouldn't it? So we try a different approach: we redefine the word "salty" to include the taste but no other qualities of saltwater. After all, you're doing what Paul did, so the result must be the same. If you put a white, granular substance in a cup of water, just like Paul did, then the result of your actions MUST be the same as Paul's: salty water. It's so because Paul said it was so.

After a while, one of the practitioners realizes something's not right and becomes a skeptic. He confesses: I used sugar. He can't find evidence of anyone reproducing the experiment and producing actual saltwater. All the samples are consistent with sugary water. All of them. A few other people also come forward and admit to using sugar. Just as many insist that it's saltwater, but they are reluctant to submit their drink for testing. We just have to take their word for it.

Well, your skeptic can't go back in time and re-drink the water everyone else drank to prove it's ALL sugary. But every single time the experiment is done in a controlled setting, the end product is consistent with sugary water that is inconsistent with saltwater.

What are we to make of this?

Well, your skeptic might look at his own practice as well as those who have agreed to be tested and determined, to whatever degree of certainty that he can, that the white, granular substance Paul used was salt, and the white granular substance we've all been using today is actually sugar! This does not call into doubt anything Paul experienced or reported. It doesn't deny that the people who are seeking to reproduce Paul's experiment are actually doing something, not just drinking plain water. It only means that the people who are doing it today are not doing the same thing Paul did.

This alternative explanation, we're using sugar where Paul used salt, explains every objectively observed case. That it doesn't explain every unobserved case is due to the impossibility of observing every case in the first place. Is it possible someone is getting it right? Sure it is. But the more we observe the experiment and test it, the less reasonable that possibility becomes. You could prove the skeptic wrong by producing saltwater. But every time you try it, it doesn't work. It's always sweet.

***

I'm not denying that those who SIT are sincere. I'm not here suggesting that Paul was wrong or that Acts is wrong. I'm merely stating, plainly as I can, that we are not producing the same thing they described, and therefore we are not doing the same thing they did.

Now, my silly analogy falls apart because salt and sugar are so abundant in our culture. But you get the idea. At some point, you need to stop re-defining salt to incorporate sugar into the definition and just recognize that you're not doing the same thing Paul did.

Tongues MEANS languages. When you SIT, you should be producing a language. I don't know that you're not, but isn't it something that every single time SIT is tested, it's not a language? Maybe you're the exception. But the more I look at the objective research, the less convinced I am that anyone is doing what the Bible describes.

Edited October 16, 2012 by Raf

[WordWolf]

I like the whole process of working through this and trying to come to

conclusions.

As time permits (for me certainly and for others I'd expect), I'd like to go

a step further in the Doctrinal forum.

I'd like to go over the verses overtly discussing speaking in tongues,

and I'd like to go over the verses that are claimed to be discussing speaking

in tongues. I think we can do slowly, deliberately, and cautiously.

I think we can do a respectful job and get down to some specifics, clearing

out some things we THOUGHT the verses said, and getting clear on what the

verses DO say.

I don't know what the results will be, but I for one am overdue for such a

journey, and I think at least one of you might want to come along for the

process as well as the results. (Getting there can be the most fun part of

these things.)

[Raf]

There are two threads waiting for you. Three, if you count the reading room.

[Yanagisawa]

Perhaps a bit off topic but perhaps not. Interesting nonetheless.

[WordWolf]

I see them, but the Reading Room is for links, not discussion.

The other 2 address specific sections and I don't want to pull them all over

the NT (and OT). I won't mind pasting from them into another thread, however.

[Raf]

I don't think either thread starter would mind or consider it a derail, but your call.

[waysider]

Perhaps a bit off topic but perhaps not. Interesting nonetheless.

No, it's not off topic. In fact, if it weren't for the fact that speaking in tongues "SOUNDS" like a real language, this thread might have died long ago. Simply stated,however, speaking in tongues doesn't meet the linguistic criteria necessary to be classified language.

Edited October 16, 2012 by waysider

[Raf]

I want my four minutes back.

[Ham]

I actually tried to s.i.t. after the last segment of pfal...and couldn't ??!! then later on that day, on my own & after a beer, I opened my mouth & a few words came out and it 'clicked' for me, sort of like, wooaah, so THAT'S how ya do it, lol

after two, three, four, or some such beers, I generally have far too much to say. Thankfully, the reader can tell. Generally, I don't slur and miss-spell my words.

there HAVE been a few times here.. OldSkool usually picks up on it first.. "the Squirrel is Drunk, tonight.."

[OldSkool]

OldSkool usually picks up on it first.. "the Squirrel is Drunk, tonight.."

That's because OldSkool is prone to typing under the influence as well.

Edited October 16, 2012 by OldSkool

[Ham]

That's because OldSkool is prone to typing under the influence as well.

I wish we lived in the same Zip Code, friend..

[OldSkool]

I wish we lived in the same Zip Code, friend..

That would be awesome, except we would need someone to interpret our posts the next day. I wonder if that's the 10th manifestation, intrepretation of drunken posts (IDP)?

[Raf]

And.... checking in on our poll, the "I lied about its" are even with the "It's real and I've done its."

I wonder if anyone, after going through this thread, would change their vote.

[excathedra]

when we were kids and spoke in another language, i would not at that time be able to tell you if we were born again. i don't think we ever heard the term. we just went to church and knew jesus christ died for us and god got him up. does this help?