SIT, TIP, Prophecy and Confession

[Raf]

I'm not trying to brush you off. I'm saying I do not intend to argue the point any further, since clearly "argument" requires a mutually agreed upon foundation that we don't share. (I'm not talking about the Bible, but rather what constitutes an honest, intellectual debate). I applaud you for the courage of putting your position out there and subjecting it to review and rebuttal. I do.

One thing I will add, however, is that if I seem fixated on "proof," I will remind you (once again) that I was the one from whom proof was demanded. I am not going to recant my position and the burden is not on me to prove it because I am not the one making the extraordinary claim. If you want to make an extraordinary claim and then declare, conveniently, that it is Satanic to expect you to prove it, we're done as far as any intellectual conversation is concerned.

Edited September 18, 2012 by Raf

[socks]

Hi Raf - how would you differentiate between these three - TWI, CES/STFI and Pentecostals/non-denominationals?

I know what TWI taught/teaches, and am familiar with some of the Pentecostal tradition. I'm fuzzy on CES/STFI details, although I did get an abbreviated hairball from Lynn on it about 20 years ago. What are the differences you see, are there any? Just curious.

[Raf]

TWI and CES/STFI appear to be identical except on the issue of interpretation of tongues.

TWI taught that tongues with interpretation will produce a message similar to (indistinguishable from?) prophecy.

CES/STFI taught that interpretation will produce a message that is similar to what is spoken in a tongue during prayer, and will sound very different from prophecy.

So in TWI, you would speak in tongues and interpret, and the interpretation would be something like "I'm God. I love you. I will never leave you or forsake you." A message to the people. Just like prophecy.

But in CES/STFI, you would speak in tongues and interpret, and the interpretation would be something like "God, you are great and worthy of praise. Thank you for your everlasting and faithful love." Not at all like a prophecy.

CES/STFI would never call TWI believers "self-deluded" liars, however, so they came up with an explanation for how they got it wrong while in TWI: Believers from TWI speak in tongues, and when it's time to interpret, they prophesy. That's why TWI interpretations sound just like prophecy. Because it is!

[if anyone has better insight or correction into the above, please feel free to correct me on any point. Also, check my tenses: I have no way of knowing whether either group still teaches this].

In other Christian traditions, SIT stands on its own and is not accompanied by interpretation unless someone else is doing the interpreting. I am uninformed on how they view prophecy.

[socks]

Thanks!

[excathedra]

i think this belongs in doctrinal and that's probably maybe the first time i ever said such a thing

raf, give me a break

i take a lot on faith. i don't really care one way or the other

why do you?

good god, i'm about to speak in pig latin

[Raf]

That's nice, excy.

But I'm not arguing doctrine.

Edited September 18, 2012 by Raf

[Raf]

You're right, though, excy. I should probably just let it go and be done.

But this is a forum for people who are healing from their involvement in TWI. I kind of thought people might find the subject matter and the challenge interesting.

If you don't, that's fine. There are other threads. Have at them. This thread rather obviously bores you. I can't force you to be interested in it.

[geisha779]

Some doctrine is bound to come up....

Last time....and I don't really think this is so very doctrinal....

Chockfull,

I didn't use the quote feature and for that I do apologize.....but, did I read you correctly? You believe the miracle of people understanding the tongues was just one time for Pentecost and then maybe those few other meetings you heard about?

Actually, I do believe praying in tongues is for the congregation....with interpretation. I just don't believe what we were doing in TWI was genuine. I do believe the scriptures, I just read them a bit differently now. How something is first related in scripture often helps us determine the meaning, so I think how tongues were originally described is significant.

Why did God change it? Why did He toss in angels tongues and up the anti? Why do you get the gift of tongues and I don't. If it is so significant to a genuine prayer life, it sounds like I should be coveting tongues.

Why do I get a serving gift and not one needed for my private prayer life! That seems a pretty big gap there.

Seriously, you have been speaking to the importance of tongues in your private prayer life....your secret language with God....some kind of pipeline it sounds like. If it is so significant to private prayer then why is it that many Christians who do not have the gifts of tongues, but pray with their understanding, have the most rich and amazing prayer lives and abilities?

Gifts are given for the edification of the body....we don't get gifts for our own private use. Sometimes I wish we did. . . . but that is not how it works. Don't even bother trying to tell me that every born-again believer can SIT. That is not what Paul means. It just isn't.

If I believed that SIT was for private prayer life and I DO know I don't have that gift....reading your posts about how privately important it is between you and God, well, it would start to make me feel pretty bad. Like I was somehow lacking. It would make me think God cares more about you then me. I got a serving gift. I have no choice but to use it for the edification of others. I want special prayer power....someone else can give for awhile.(Not really, I am thankful for my gift).

[Raf]

For what it's worth, geisha, I think your post is VERY doctrinal. Not rude or anything like that, but certainly an exploration of what God makes available, why, and to whom. Sounds doctrinal to me. (Not that there's anything wrong with that).

[chockfull]

I didn't use the quote feature and for that I do apologize.....but, did I read you correctly? You believe the miracle of people understanding the tongues was just one time for Pentecost and then maybe those few other meetings you heard about?

When people understood the tongues themselves without interpretation in their own language? Yes those are miraculous events. Don't happen every day.

Why did God change it? Why did He toss in angels tongues and up the anti? Why do you get the gift of tongues and I don't. If it is so significant to a genuine prayer life, it sounds like I should be coveting tongues.

Who says I get a gift of tongues and you don't? Not me. Not the Bible from my understanding. If you want to, covet it. If not, don't.

Why do I get a serving gift and not one needed for my private prayer life! That seems a pretty big gap there.

I didn't introduce the "God is a respecter of persons" line of thinking here, you did.

Seriously, you have been speaking to the importance of tongues in your private prayer life....your secret language with God....some kind of pipeline it sounds like. If it is so significant to private prayer then why is it that many Christians who do not have the gifts of tongues, but pray with their understanding, have the most rich and amazing prayer lives and abilities?

I have just been describing what I do and defending myself in this thread against Raf's accusation that I'm deluding myself. But I guess people always want to highlight differences and compare themselves to each other like Corinthians says. Why do some Christians have amazing prayer lives? Really? Maybe they pray a lot? Maybe they care about God, talk to Him, and listen to Him?

Gifts are given for the edification of the body....we don't get gifts for our own private use. Sometimes I wish we did. . . . but that is not how it works. Don't even bother trying to tell me that every born-again believer can SIT. That is not what Paul means. It just isn't.

That's not how it works and don't bother telling me and it just isn't are all so absolute of statements that all have zero supporting statements or scripture or evidence. I can't really respond to that at all. So what do I say? I guess believe what you believe. And how's that working out for you? I mean I could point you to I Cor. 14 and quote where it says if one speaks in tongues another isn't edified, thus by implication you can do it and it involves individual edification. But you've already determined that tongues isn't for your private prayer life so why would I bother?

If I believed that SIT was for private prayer life and I DO know I don't have that gift....reading your posts about how privately important it is between you and God, well, it would start to make me feel pretty bad. Like I was somehow lacking. It would make me think God cares more about you then me. I got a serving gift. I have no choice but to use it for the edification of others. I want special prayer power....someone else can give for awhile.(Not really, I am thankful for my gift).

Well I think the whole context of I Cor 12 - 14 kind of refutes that kind of thinking - comparing, feeling bad, feeling like God forgot you on Xmas with a toy you didn't want, daddy loves you better, etc. I'm defending myself from someone telling me I am involved in self-delusion in my prayer life between me and God and am challenged to prove differently. I stand up for myself and my beliefs and now you feel bad because you believe something different? And it's my fault? Come on, now.

[chockfull]

I'm not trying to brush you off. I'm saying I do not intend to argue the point any further, since clearly "argument" requires a mutually agreed upon foundation that we don't share. (I'm not talking about the Bible, but rather what constitutes an honest, intellectual debate). I applaud you for the courage of putting your position out there and subjecting it to review and rebuttal. I do.

You think honest intellectual debate requires me to provide evidence. I could debate other non faith-based topics in that fashion. IMO this is a question of my relationship with the Father, so all I can do is share.

One thing I will add, however, is that if I seem fixated on "proof," I will remind you (once again) that I was the one from whom proof was demanded. I am not going to recant my position and the burden is not on me to prove it because I am not the one making the extraordinary claim. If you want to make an extraordinary claim and then declare, conveniently, that it is Satanic to expect you to prove it, we're done as far as any intellectual conversation is concerned.

I remember you were stirred up into the proof side of things. I'm not making extraordinary claims, I am defending my personal faith against someone saying I'm deluding myself. I would do the same if an atheist challenged my belief in God, and in much the same fashion. If you don't feel that's an intellectual conversation then find another topic that's science based and we can play by the facts rules.

I mean I could start another argument with you with the shoe on the other foot. You believe in God, right? Prove He exists or you're deluding yourself. There's a basis for a great intellectual debate, right?

For what it's worth, geisha, I think your post is VERY doctrinal. Not rude or anything like that, but certainly an exploration of what God makes available, why, and to whom. Sounds doctrinal to me. (Not that there's anything wrong with that).

The whole topic to discuss in any kind of a logical manner is going to involve elements of faith, and HAS to get into the doctrinal area, because the only supporting evidence is going to be personal anecdote and scripture and its interpretation.

[chockfull]

i think this belongs in doctrinal and that's probably maybe the first time i ever said such a thing

raf, give me a break

i take a lot on faith. i don't really care one way or the other

why do you?

good god, i'm about to speak in pig latin

I ess-gue we ould-cay ove-may is-they ead-thre to the octrinal-de orum-fe.

It is getting a little deep for me and I have a very low threshold lately for how much I'm willing to get into doctrinal debates. I'm a little far in here.

[geisha779]

I guess it was doctrinal but, I don't want to be the reason it is moved. :) It also was rather ironic.....I was making a point.

Chockfull,

I guess I could explain to you that it is as He the spirit wills.....that the bible does actually say that not everyone has the same gift. If everyone was an eye where is the hearing. Maybe consider it is not as we learned TWI and you elsewhere...or not, but I guess you missed the real problem that can arise when we say our gifts are for our own private edification. It doesn't work that way. It vaunts you and it lowers someone else. It cheapens the gift and the giver.

I am SURE that is not your intention, but it all goes back to you and your special gift for your private use. Do you doubt that I know I don't have tongues? If so, then why do you take umbrage that someone doubts you do?

Go ahead and covet is hardly the attitude that someone who has a gift of the HS would display. That gift is actually for my edification if indeed you do have it.

Anyway. I was being ironic. It is the same point Paul was trying to make. Do you see what was going on in Corinth......me, mine....special...everyone wanted it and what ended up happening was people were counterfeiting, faking, competing and comparing. The genuine was mixed with the fake and the whole point was lost. That is why Paul said the greater thing to covet is....love.

So, let's do that! Take care.

[Raf]

A little unfairness at work here. My position has effectively been shut down by the Declaration that my line of inquiry is satanic. No honest discussion of my position is therefore possible

[Ham]

Hmmm. Any such accusation just KILLS any kind of dialogue.. doesn't it?

You don't even have to be satanic. Just "crazy" enough and whole posts disappear sometimes..

But don't take it hard. You're just a Friend of the Devil. A Friend of the Devil is a Friend of mine.. at least that's how the old song goes..

[Raf]

I do not think honest intellectual debate requires you to provide evidence, necessarily, although it would be nice. I do think shutting down inquiry by declaring it Satanic is, how can I put this, inconsistent with honest intellectual debate.

There's a significant logical fallacy at work in comparing arguments over the existence of God with arguments over the legitimacy of an individual's practice of speaking in tongues.

They are not the same kind of argument at all. It is a false equivalency.

God is, most would agree, not provable or disprovable (I'm disregarding the TWI argument that SIT is, in fact, proof of the existence not only of God, but of Christianity itself). He is not measurable. One cannot experiment on His existence. One can make an argument that usually ends with the theist saying God has always existed and had no Creator, and the atheist saying "well, if you can say that about God, then I can say that about the universe." As far as argument goes, you've reached a stalemate.

Tongues is not immeasurable. It can be produced on demand in the senses realm. It can be heard and recorded. The recording can be examined by competent linguists and others fluent in multiple languages. Of course, suggesting that one actually DO this to verify that the tongues produced are really languages and not the made up gibberish of the speaker is Satanic, so...

In one case, the argument reaches a stalemate because there is a logical, rhetorical impasse. In the other case, the argument reaches a stalemate because continuing the argument is to Satan's advantage.

So...Ok.

[JavaJane]

Just a question... what if Chockfull's private prayer is for someone else? Would that edify the body?

[waysider]

The question is a bit obtuse. It confuses intent with result. It would first need to be established that speaking in tongues is, in fact, a form of perfect prayer.

[Raf]

I wouldn't say that, ws.

I would say JavaJane has a point geisha should consider.

Both jj and chock take for granted that their SIT is real. There's no reason they should hold back from drawing conclusions that rely on that assumption. It's not exactly on topic, but it answers a question that was marginally on topic.

True, it doesn't prove anything as it relates to the overall topic of this thread, but it doesn't claim to, so ...

Edited September 19, 2012 by Raf

[JavaJane]

True, it doesn't prove anytging as it relates to the overall topic of this thread, but it doesn't claim to, so ...

Honestly, I find this thread very interesting. I do SIT, and enjoy doing so in the same way I enjoy reciting the rosary or doing breath meditation. Whether or not what I am doing is a specific language or not does not really matter to me. Neither does other people's opinions or theories or experiences. Proof would be cool, but not necessary for me personally. I am very much enjoying the discourse on the thread. I am also OK with my SIT being glossolalia, or even done by pagans prior to Pentecost. But then again, I am not really one to think every thing in the book we call the Bible is 100% God-breathed and accurate anymore. I do believe that it is good for our learning and for moral guidance and that Jesus Christ existed, was the Son of God, was the embodiment of the godhead, and was a pretty awesome cool guy that I want to be like.

That being said, whether or not RAF thinks I am lying about my experiences with SIT bothers me not a bit. There are a lot of people that I respect who think I am off my rocker with some of my beliefs, but that's OK. We don't all have to agree or have the same experiences to be good people.

What I do enjoy much is this kind of discussion can take place at all on this forum.

[Raf]

Lying is such a harsh word. If it softens it at all, I am not accusing anyone of anything I am not confessing to. I got three fingers pointed back at myself on this one.

Edited September 19, 2012 by Raf

[JavaJane]

Heck, my husband thinks SIT is BS... it was for him. He is also agnostic since leaving twi. I (Catholic/Buddhist/Pagan) still love him. And we are OK with our different belief/non-belief systems. Mine is constantly evolving.

Lying/self deception/just plain old confused/whatever. No skin off my back.

I'll make sure to send a Hail Mary your way tonight, Raf. And throw in a couple seconds of glossolalia for waysider... maybe some pig latin for john, too. ;)

[waysider]

Much obliged, Miss JJ.

[Raf]

Heck, my husband thinks SIT is BS... it was for him. He is also agnostic since leaving twi. I (Catholic/Buddhist/Pagan) still love him. And we are OK with our different belief/non-belief systems. Mine is constantly evolving.

Lying/self deception/just plain old confused/whatever. No skin off my back.

I'll make sure to send a Hail Mary your way tonight, Raf. And throw in a couple seconds of glossolalia for waysider... maybe some pig latin for john, too. ;)

Wait now just hold the bleep on one bleeping minute.

You define yourself as a Catholic AND Buddhist AND Pagan?

And you speak in tongues?

Loving it.

Like a rock! Sing it with me everybody! Like a rock!

Edited September 19, 2012 by Raf

[Raf]

I guess your husband won't vote in the poll, huh.

Oh well.

Makes me wanna buy a Chevy. Like a Rock! Yeah, yeah, Like a Rock!