SIT, TIP, Prophecy and Confession

[waysider]

I don't see any real evidence that having doubts about speaking in tongues would make you an atheist. Lots and lots of Christians have disputed the veracity of speaking in tongues. Surely, they can't all be atheists.

[Raf]

And I know this may not be popular on this thread, but there is a real possibility that what you (and Raf, and others) did in TWI regarding this topic is different than what others did.

We haven't addressed that on this thread yet.

On the contrary, I think we have addressed this, and it is the heart of this entire thread. We've addressed that there's no way for me to prove my position. I hold it, you [chockfull, Steve and others] dispute it, and we've agreed to respectfully disagree.

To me, it's more logically reasonable that what we all experienced was mere free vocalization that we attributed to God. Not that what we manifested was "another spirit." I have to agree with you there. The Biblical logic is clear: if you ask God for a fish, He's not going to give you a scorpion. I'm with you on that. But if you ask God for a fish, and upon not receiving a fish, you make yourself a bowl of chili, that's neither God nor another spirit. It's just you.

I contend that if what we experienced is what is described in the Bible, then the results of what we experienced should be the results described by the Bible. I see no reason to believe that has taken place.

We respectfully disagree, and I'm good with that.

You don't need to be atheist to admit you faked it. You just need to be honest (if you faked it: If you didn't this is not addressed to you).

Edited October 8, 2012 by Raf

[OldSkool]

You don't need to be atheist to admit you faked it. You just need to be honest (if you faked it: If you didn't this is not addressed to you).

I can say I never consciously faked anything. I began SIT on my own and was surprised I could do it. I have never questioned what it is I was actually doing, and that is where this thread has helped me beyond TWI's version of things. That people did fake it I am sure. I think TWI puts way too much pressure on people to produce SIT during their foundational class. I have been through so many classes I have lost count. I have conducted excellor sessions for new people and felt like I was their task master. I remember people who couldn't do what the FNC said they could, only to have them produce something jibberish like once the pressure was on them.

I don't really feel that anyone here has proved, or disproved anything beyond their own personal experiences. I think there is a certain point where faith is required and perhaps this is one of them. Not that faith should be blind, therefore questions and doubts are good.

[geisha779]

Well, I like Steve's post because it does make a difference your attitude when praying. Cor. does say you become a sounding brass or tinkling cymbal.

And I know this may not be popular on this thread, but there is a real possibility that what you (and Raf, and others) did in TWI regarding this topic is different than what others did.

We haven't addressed that on this thread yet.

To me that is logically more reasonable of an explanation than trying to convince me that I was praying to God and somehow by mistake "another spirit" answered my prayer. Or that I was praying to God and when receiving something instead it was just me making it up on my own for whatever reason. That logic sounds like something atheists would come up with.

If you want to believe what you are doing is different. Believe it. It is obviously somehow important to your faith....so I don't mind what you do. It is not a make or break doctrine in my estimation.

I wasn't trying to convince you that you were praying to God and somehow by mistake "another spirit" answered your prayer. I wasn't trying to convince you of anything. I said I wasn't completely convinced myself. Now, not being completely convinced myself, am I going to try and convince you? Context....why is that so difficult a concept? Is that what Paul was saying when he spoke of another spirit....they were praying to God and another spirit mistakenly intervened? No.

When you look at those verses in light of their context, it is not such a far fetched concept..... as Paul is speaking in the context of false teachers who infiltrated the church and were preaching another Jesus, another gospel, and people were easily and willingly receiving another spirit. As mentioned earlier.....false teachers teach false doctrine. No? They preach another Jesus and they preach another gospel. One that enslaves.

You yourself have called VP a false teacher. It was a cult not a nice Christian organization. PFAL is based in word of faith theology which has its roots in the occult. VP used exploiting and subtle persuasion techniques to convince us, sometimes against our better judgement. All that SIT we were doing.....was it self edifying and building up our inner man....a real phenomenon from God and proof of eternal life? Or was it a way to get us to shut off our critical thinking skills and zone out?

Believe whatever you like. You have my permission to SIT. Don't need it? No? Than why does it bother you so much that I don't believe it is real?

Actually, I like Sudo's answer the best. Seemed like a good idea at the time.

Edited October 8, 2012 by geisha779

[chockfull]

To me, it's more logically reasonable that what we all experienced was mere free vocalization that we attributed to God. Not that what we manifested was "another spirit." I have to agree with you there. The Biblical logic is clear: if you ask God for a fish, He's not going to give you a scorpion. I'm with you on that. But if you ask God for a fish, and upon not receiving a fish, you make yourself a bowl of chili, that's neither God nor another spirit. It's just you.

I contend that if what we experienced is what is described in the Bible, then the results of what we experienced should be the results described by the Bible. I see no reason to believe that has taken place.

We respectfully disagree, and I'm good with that.

You don't need to be atheist to admit you faked it. You just need to be honest (if you faked it: If you didn't this is not addressed to you).

All I'm saying on the atheist logic is that an atheist would typically describe a Christian's prayer life as them talking to themselves and making up answers. That is basically what someone praying to God to SIT, receiving no answer, and making up the free vocalization to appease themselves is saying. So the logic to me is similar to how an atheist would explain the circumstance. That's all.

I'm not saying that everyone who doesn't SIT is an atheist. Geez you guys read a lot into a sentence.

I don't see any real evidence that having doubts about speaking in tongues would make you an atheist. Lots and lots of Christians have disputed the veracity of speaking in tongues. Surely, they can't all be atheists.

I read your post, but understanding how you got there from what I wrote is puzzling. Yes lots of Christians have disputed the veracity of SIT, and I'm sure probably none of them are atheists.

[Raf]

All I'm saying on the atheist logic is that an atheist would typically describe a Christian's prayer life as them talking to themselves and making up answers. That is basically what someone praying to God to SIT, receiving no answer, and making up the free vocalization to appease themselves is saying. So the logic to me is similar to how an atheist would explain the circumstance. That's all.

I'm not saying that everyone who doesn't SIT is an atheist. Geez you guys read a lot into a sentence.

I wasn't trying to read into anything. I was simply stating as a counterpoint that you need not be an atheist to reach the conclusion that what we did was/is not what they did in Acts and the early church. I'm not disputing your observation. It has not escaped my observation that an atheist would (naturally) come to the same conclusion. The position rises or falls on its merits, not on the beliefs of the people espousing it.

"Someone praying to God to SIT, receiving no answer, and making up free vocalization to appease themselves" is also consistent with the position of one who believes that which is being prayed for is "not available," to borrow a term from Wierwille. It is consistent with the opinion of one who believes the "gift" "died with the apostles." It is consistent with one who believes simply that what is being practiced is not what is described in the Bible, and therefore a further search for Biblical truth is warranted. Etc.

Edited October 8, 2012 by Raf

[OldSkool]

I wasn't trying to read into anything. I was simply stating as a counterpoint that you need not be an atheist to reach the conclusion that what we did was/is not what they did in Acts and the early church.

Perhaps this has been covered, but I am not going through 33 pages on a search.

Acts has them speaking in people's native language on Pentecost, but does not say this happened elsewhere, though they did speak in tongues as recorded. So we can say that what they did on Pentecost was known languages of men. We don't know if what they did elsewhere when SIT was understood by those present or not. Please correct me where I am wrong as I am going from memory here.

But if I am correct, then you could only reasonably say that what we did was/is not what they did in Acts on the day of Pentecost.

Forgive me if I am being way-brained here. TWI did teach that Pentecost was unique in that those present understood and many languages were represented.

[Raf]

It is my opinion, and others may differ, that all SIT should produce an actual language. There is no promise that there will be people present who understand the language, but it should always be a language. The surprise in Acts is not that they spoke actual languages; the surprise in Acts is that the actual languages were understood by those present. "Tongues" in the Bible are languages. They are not mere sounds. What they were speaking in Corinth were languages, not meaningless sounds.

I believe that we err when we retroactively force Corinthians to alter the clear meaning of the word "tongues." I disagree with Steve on his interpretation of "sounding brass and tinkling cymbals" because I believe it is inconsistent with the rest of the verse. But that's a doctrinal issue.

I believe the interpretation that the sounds may or may not have earthly meaning is an ad hoc apologetic to explain why SIT doesn't produce a human language. There is a more logical explanation for why SIT does not produce a known language: it's not real, Biblical SIT.

Edited October 8, 2012 by Raf

[chockfull]

If you want to believe what you are doing is different. Believe it. It is obviously somehow important to your faith....so I don't mind what you do. It is not a make or break doctrine in my estimation.

I wasn't trying to convince you that you were praying to God and somehow by mistake "another spirit" answered your prayer. I wasn't trying to convince you of anything. I said I wasn't completely convinced myself. Now, not being completely convinced myself, am I going to try and convince you? Context....why is that so difficult a concept? Is that what Paul was saying when he spoke of another spirit....they were praying to God and another spirit mistakenly intervened? No.

I understand what you are saying. It's a natural line of logic from the admission of faking it. Next, you question whether you are unique - is it REALLY available to Christians or not. Next, you tie in the false teacher input wondering whether because VP was an evil guy that whether he introduced devil spirits into our lives by his false teachings.

So one of the underlying questions is "how much can God protect someone in a false ministry?" I'm sure everyone on this forum has had positive Christian experiences while in TWI. (Yes, I know many may question whether the experiences were genuinely Christian or not). "Can God have protected our hearts while experiencing the BS of TWI so that we could heal?" Quite obviously there is a lot of emotional damage from how TWI operates. So in that respect yes the false teachings have taken their toll. But without admitting the positive experiences as being from God's influence, how to reconcile them? Some of it goes right down to what you believe about God? Is He good always? Is He powerful enough to protect us even under false teachers influence?

When you look at those verses in light of their context, it is not such a far fetched concept..... as Paul is speaking in the context of false teachers who infiltrated the church and were preaching another Jesus, another gospel, and people were easily and willingly receiving another spirit. As mentioned earlier.....false teachers teach false doctrine. No? They preach another Jesus and they preach another gospel. One that enslaves.

I think Paul's teachings on false teachers and the impact are clear.

You yourself have called VP a false teacher. It was a cult not a nice Christian organization. PFAL is based in word of faith theology which has its roots in the occult. VP used exploiting and subtle persuasion techniques to convince us, sometimes against our better judgement. All that SIT we were doing.....was it self edifying and building up our inner man....a real phenomenon from God and proof of eternal life? Or was it a way to get us to shut off our critical thinking skills and zone out?

Agree VP was a false teacher, and TWI was/is a cult. PFAL and "word of faith" theology? I don't even know what that is. I mean Norman Vincent Peale wrote "The Power of Positive Thinking", and wrote for many mainstream Christian magazines in addition to his books. Is he based in the occult?

I certainly always thought VP's "bodybuilder" analogies with SIT were a little far-fetched. I didn't buy that. I also didn't buy that it's your only "proof" of eternal life. If that's all you need then what about faith? I did appreciate that at least PFAL listed all the verses related to SIT in any conceivable fashion. That was so much more than any denominational minister ever did for me, and I asked them. However, the next step of leaping to logical conclusions I felt was interspersed in the teachings. For myself, since SIT was more naturally occurring as part of my prayer life since a teen, it was easy just to keep praying and kind of hold the BS in abeyance.

Believe whatever you like. You have my permission to SIT. Don't need it? No? Than why does it bother you so much that I don't believe it is real?

Actually, I like Sudo's answer the best. Seemed like a good idea at the time.

Sudo's "seemed like a good idea at the time" I can relate to. I'm so embarrassed over all those "excellor" sessions I led, having people start with the letter "C" then fabricate the tongue language (mostly). And all the extemporaneous BS I presented similarly in that light - the "bodybuilder" analogy even though I didn't fully agree with it, the "building fluency" lines of BS. Actually it wasn't a good idea at the time - it was BS. I was just blind to it.

I guess picking up the pieces is never easy. That's why we need to talk to each other.

[OldSkool]

There is a more logical explanation for why SIT does not produce a known language: it's not real, Biblical SIT.

Again, this has probably been beaten to death on this thread, but besides those who admit they faked SIT (yourself and others) how can you say for sure that what everyone else did was BS? Obviously, speaking beyond your opinion.

Just on a cursory google seach I came with 6,909 known living languages when searching "known languages."

And I am not stuck on languages of Angels, or heavenly languages. So moving beyond that limitation.

[geisha779]

Perhaps this has been covered, but I am not going through 33 pages on a search.

Acts has them speaking in people's native language on Pentecost, but does not say this happened elsewhere, though they did speak in tongues as recorded. So we can say that what they did on Pentecost was known languages of men. We don't know if what they did elsewhere when SIT was understood by those present or not. Please correct me where I am wrong as I am going from memory here.

But if I am correct, then you could only reasonably say that what we did was/is not what they did in Acts on the day of Pentecost.

Forgive me if I am being way-brained here. TWI did teach that Pentecost was unique in that those present understood and many languages were represented.

There is a good case to be made for the continuity of tongues throughout the accounts in Acts. People understood that they were exalting God in Cornelius' house, and Peter said they received the gift in the same way. If it had varied he might have mentioned that. There are a few good articles posted in the doctrinal section in the SIT reading room thread. If you dare venture down there. :)

Just as an aside.....I read about receiving another spirit concerning tongues from John Juedes....he might be a good person to ask about those verses and if they can be related to TWI and tongues.

[waysider]

My take on what may or may not have happened beyond the day of Pentecost is this:

The record of what happened on The Day of Pentecost seems to establish an identifying criteria for what would then become known as speaking in tongues. That criteria involved the speakers uttering known languages. Languages have structure. Having words that are from a recognizable language is not substantial enough evidence to meet the criteria of structure. Sometimes, in The Way, there were valid words interspersed in the interpretation messages, but, there was no recognizable linguistic structure.. What we did in The Way does not meet the necessary criteria to be equated with the Pentecost experience.

[chockfull]

It is my opinion, and others may differ, that all SIT should produce an actual language. There is no promise that there will be people present who understand the language, but it should always be a language. The surprise in Acts is not that they spoke actual languages; the surprise in Acts is that the actual languages were understood by those present. "Tongues" in the Bible are languages. They are not mere sounds. What they were speaking in Corinth were languages, not meaningless sounds.

I agree with all of this.

I believe that we err when we retroactively force Corinthians to alter the clear meaning of the word "tongues." I disagree with Steve on his interpretation of "sounding brass and tinkling cymbals" because I believe it is inconsistent with the rest of the verse. But that's a doctrinal issue.

I don't understand. I thought Steve was bringing up I Cor. 13:1. And noting that the love in your heart is what's important, not the tongue. Honestly, when my head is into this topic with you guys, I don't SIT at all in my prayer life. I just pray with words and thoughts. SIT makes me feel greasy in this situation. It just feels hypocritical and cheap.

Oh, sorry I get it now. You are focusing on the phrase "tongues of men and angels" and disputing the interpretation of the "and angels" part. I honestly don't know on that one. When I pray it sounds like a language to me. Or a number of them. Maybe I'll learn more about this sometime. I think that's the only place in the Bible that tongues of angels is mentioned, right?

I believe the interpretation that the sounds may or may not have earthly meaning is an ad hoc apologetic to explain why SIT doesn't produce a human language. There is a more logical explanation for why SIT does not produce a known language: it's not real, Biblical SIT.

It does sound weaker from a logic perspective. And free vocalization is an easier more logical explanation. But it is a senses explanation, not a spiritual explanation.

[Raf]

Again, this has probably been beaten to death on this thread, but besides those who admit they faked SIT (yourself and others) how can you say for sure that what everyone else did was BS? Obviously, speaking beyond your opinion.

I can't. But linguists who have tried to study this "phenomenon" (for lack of a better word) seem pretty fairly convinced that the sounds produced are not languages. For this, I have no choice but to refer you back to the studies we referenced on this thread and in the "Reading Room" we set up in Doctrinal. A full answer to your post is not really possible in such a short space. I don't mean to dodge, but if you really want me to re-post, that's going to require me to do the digging through links we've already posted, and I'm not in a position to do that right now.

[chockfull]

I can't. But linguists who have tried to study this "phenomenon" (for lack of a better word) seem pretty fairly convinced that the sounds produced are not languages.

Well, I thought Vern Polythress was the one who noted that "free vocalization" by people not claiming to be God-inspired also could carry the characteristics of a natural language. I guess meaning that people could subconsciously control the flow of this, cadence, breakup. Meaning words, phrases, sentences. Like a real language.

So I actually thought it was exactly the opposite. The research DOES show tongues display the characteristics of real languages. But the kicker was that so does free vocalization.

I'll dig out quotes if anyone needs it. They are all from one source....

Edited October 8, 2012 by chockfull

[OldSkool]

What we did in The Way does not meet the necessary criteria to be equated with the Pentecost experience.

Well, certainly you could say what you did and those your were involved with seem to fit the same as your experience - that SIT as practiced by TWI is BS.

However, what we did is something you can't really verify since there are thousands of people involved that spanned multiple decades. I can say that what I do when SIT does sound as though it has structure and I did not fake it. Unless one can fake it unknowingly. But then it should sound like jibberish.

I think the topic is at an impasse. It serves well to have people come out and say they faked it. I can say before God I never did. Of all the known languages, and all the people that came and went, it's an unproveable situation. To cast others in light of your own experiences isn't really cool either. Unless you can say for sure everyone faked it as well. But then that would take proof. So it is with so many things of God. Proof can be difficult to produce while faith is required.

I guess that defines my position. I trust God, I have faith. Even though I may be somewhat of a train wreck when it comes to Christianity.

[Raf]

I don't understand. I thought Steve was bringing up I Cor. 13:1. And noting that the love in your heart is what's important, not the tongue. Honestly, when my head is into this topic with you guys, I don't SIT at all in my prayer life. I just pray with words and thoughts. SIT makes me feel greasy in this situation. It just feels hypocritical and cheap.

Oh, sorry I get it now. You are focusing on the phrase "tongues of men and angels" and disputing the interpretation of the "and angels" part. I honestly don't know on that one. When I pray it sounds like a language to me. Or a number of them. Maybe I'll learn more about this sometime. I think that's the only place in the Bible that tongues of angels is mentioned, right?

Ok, I should not be in a position to try to articulate Steve's view because I'm not even sure HE entirely understands it, so it's a bit unfair to critique it. He's also using the same terms to mean different things than I do, which further complicates things. So I don't entirely know what to make of it. I read Steve's posts the way Geisha does (meaning becomes infused by the heart of the one doing the praying). I'm being much more simple: I believe if it's not a language, it's not SIT, end of story. The verse itself equates tongues of men and angels (a hyperbole, in my opinion) with sounding brass and tinkling cymbal. If I'm reading Paul correctly, he's saying that a genuine operation of SIT is meaningless without the proper heart behind it. He's not saying it will suddenly become meaningless: he's saying it will benefit no one but the speaker. In other words, I don't think Paul is differentiating between the sounds produced in one circumstance versus the other: it should be languages in both cases. Paul is differentiating between the possible effects: benefit or no benefit. Simply put: Paul's comment in this verse is unrelated to this thread, in my opinion. Steve appears to disagree. I'll leave it to him to speak for himself.

It does sound weaker from a logic perspective. And free vocalization is an easier more logical explanation. But it is a senses explanation, not a spiritual explanation.

Fair enough.

[geisha779]

I thought Steve was bringing up I Cor. 13:1. And noting that the love in your heart is what's important, not the tongue.

What he said was tongues become free vocalization without love. Which is what I took exception to.....because that would mean a real known language becomes gibberish without the right attitude. I really don't think that is what Paul is saying at all. They are two different things.

Well, certainly you could say what you did and those your were involved with seem to fit the same as your experience - that SIT as practiced by TWI is BS.

However, what we did is something you can't really verify since there are thousands of people involved that spanned multiple decades. I can say that what I do when SIT does sound as though it has structure and I did not fake it. Unless one can fake it unknowingly. But then it should sound like jibberish.

I think the topic is at an impasse. It serves well to have people come out and say they faked it. I can say before God I never did. Of all the known languages, and all the people that came and went, it's an unproveable situation. To cast others in light of your own experiences isn't really cool either. Unless you can say for sure everyone faked it as well. But then that would take proof. So it is with so many things of God. Proof can be difficult to produce while faith is required.

I guess that defines my position. I trust God, I have faith. Even though I may be somewhat of a train wreck when it comes to Christianity.

But if SIT has a purpose, then it wouldn't be a language no one understood or some ancient language from the past. When you factor in its purpose, a sign for unbelievers, it has to be a recognized language or one that can be interpreted.Who says the gift of interpretation is some magical gift? I think it is more people who are there and can interpret.

Edited October 8, 2012 by geisha779

[OldSkool]

but if you really want me to re-post

That's thoughtful, but unnecessary. I have read along since post one, done a lot of soul searching, considered various sources. Then there is what I have done personally. I have arrived at the conclusion that some knowingly faked it. Others didn't. I think there are way too many known languages, and certainly way too many dead languages to ever nail it down. Perhaps God has a sense of humor? Perhaps we are to take him at his word?

That's my two cents anyway. I really do appreciate you bringing up the subject. It's been uncomfortable delving into it. It's certainly caused me to do away with all that SIT is supposed to prove according to TWI.

[chockfull]

Ok, I should not be in a position to try to articulate Steve's view because I'm not even sure HE entirely understands it, so it's a bit unfair to critique it. He's also using the same terms to mean different things than I do, which further complicates things. So I don't entirely know what to make of it. I read Steve's posts the way Geisha does (meaning becomes infused by the heart of the one doing the praying). I'm being much more simple: I believe if it's not a language, it's not SIT, end of story. The verse itself equates tongues of men and angels (a hyperbole, in my opinion) with sounding brass and tinkling cymbal. If I'm reading Paul correctly, he's saying that a genuine operation of SIT is meaningless without the proper heart behind it. He's not saying it will suddenly become meaningless: he's saying it will benefit no one but the speaker. In other words, I don't think Paul is differentiating between the sounds produced in one circumstance versus the other: it should be languages in both cases. Paul is differentiating between the possible effects: benefit or no benefit. Simply put: Paul's comment in this verse is unrelated to this thread, in my opinion. Steve appears to disagree. I'll leave it to him to speak for himself.

Fair enough.

I think your idea of "hyperbole" or that the "and angels" part is a figure of speech emphasizing the aggrandizement of the act is a good one.

[OldSkool]

But if SIT has a purpose, then it wouldn't be a language no one understood or some ancient language from the past.

Again. Cursory google search brings up 6909 known languages in use today. That's not to mention languages that are dead, known or unknown. The Bible never places the limitation on the topic that it has to be understood by those present. Though, there is a record that shows this happened on the day of Pentecost.

So, either you can produce someone who is adept in these languages and study a sampling of those who speak in tongues world wide or leave me to my opinion. I have read nothing that is convincing either way in this entire thread, beyond some faked it and readily admit it.

[Raf]

Well, I thought Vern Polythress was the one who noted that "free vocalization" by people not claiming to be God-inspired also could carry the characteristics of a natural language. I guess meaning that people could subconsciously control the flow of this, cadence, breakup. Meaning words, phrases, sentences. Like a real language.

So I actually thought it was exactly the opposite. The research DOES show tongues display the characteristics of real languages. But the kicker was that so does free vocalization.

A crucial observation! Recall that Vern Poythress is writing about the theological implications of this stuff, not the legitimacy. He rather adamantly dodges the legitimacy question, which is his right (and which prompted me to unfairly label him laughably biased until I realized what he was really doing).

I think we can agree that if something CAN be done without God (free vocalization producing some characteristics of language), the fact that the same thing is done in a religious or worship setting does not prove God's involvement.

Samarin, who is not writing for a religious publication or with a view toward making sense of theology, is rather more forceful in his observations on legitimacy. He never says anything is being faked, because that's not his role. But he says unapologetically that regardless of whatever characteristics of language are being produced, it's ultimately not a language.

I recognize we're rehashing, so I'll stop there.

[waysider]

"Unless one can fake it unknowingly. But then it should sound like jibberish."

Why would it necessarily sound like jibberish? The links that Excie posted don't sound like jibberish but, I doubt they demonstrate an actual language. If they do, someone who is skilled in information theory should be able to mathematically graph them without even specifically identifying them. Even so, they could be simply scripted, as we don't have any evidence they were spontaneously produced.

[Raf]

Again. Cursory google search brings up 6909 known languages in use today. That's not to mention languages that are dead, known or unknown. The Bible never places the limitation on the topic that it has to be understood by those present. Though, there is a record that shows this happened on the day of Pentecost.

So, either you can produce someone who is adept in these languages and study a sampling of those who speak in tongues world wide or leave me to my opinion. I have read nothing that is convincing either way in this entire thread, beyond some faked it and readily admit it.

http://charlesdailey.net/TonguesHolton.html

Let me know if that link addresses your questions.

And again, I'm perfectly fine with you disagreeing with me.

[OldSkool]

And again, I'm perfectly fine with you disagreeing with me.

I think that's where we are at at this stage. There is nothing earth and heaven shattering about experts being in discord with matters of faith.