SIT, TIP, Prophecy and Confession

[Raf]

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?

Did you deliberately mean to speak in tongues because it was in the Bible? Why doubt that you succeeded?

Were you just goofing around making up a phony language? It was free vocalization.

Personally, I don't think there's a difference. But I'm not going to make that connection for you. Between you and God.

[chockfull]

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.

Your analogy doesn't sound silly to me. Of course if Paul's SIT had substantial elements different from modern day SIT, then that would give you scientific relief. But it causes doctrinal problems. If I can do everything Paul and the Bible instructs regarding SIT, and God does not come through with power from His end, then wouldn't that make God a respecter of persons? Even further, can we trust scripture then? If it doesn't produce what it says when you act on it, it has no more value than any other book. Paul himself had critics on the day of Pentecost, people who saw the miracle right before their eyes, and chose to get up on a platform and cry out that these guys were drunk with new wine. What's to say that you guys aren't the same thing in modern days?

As I asked you before, if you want me to believe I'm using sugar and Paul used salt, you are going to have to provide some kind of logical explanation. Why would SIT no longer work now, when it did then? What changed between the first century and now? If that changed, how can you be certain that other things in the Bible that are available still are? Do promises of God come with an expiration date?

Oh, and also, there are some studies again which say glossolalia does not produce language, there are others that contradict that and say that it does. Samarin himself uses linguists that don't arrive at his same conclusions. His linguists did NOT conclude that glossolalia was definitely NOT a language. Only Samarin. There are other sources that disagree with him.

Edited October 17, 2012 by chockfull

[chockfull]

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.

The interpretation part of the study quoted by this guy is absolutely wrong to me because SIT and it's interpretation according to instructions in I Cor. 14 NEVER talk about having one person SIT and to go down the line asking a bunch of people to interpret it. If these manifestations are spiritual then you have to do them according to the instructions, or they won't work right. You can't game God on this stuff. And you can't rule out that as a matter of course, the first guy interpreting had the genuine message and the other guys down the line were making it up.

I mean, I could get bogus results on the revelation manifestations by doing things wrong too. All I would have to do is picture a cookie jar and put tons of mental effort into God revealing to me something about a situation. I could sit there for years and decades and have the same experience - no power from God.

So the guy's conclusion is that you can't get anything cognitively out of tongues, but you can get a lot out of the emotion of the speaker and voice inflection? What a crock!!!!

And these are representative of the types of studies that I'm supposed to believe "absolutely prove that SIT doesn't produce a language?" I don't think so.

Edited October 17, 2012 by chockfull

[geisha779]

I forgot to mention that Mark Moore is also a Christian. . . . .he is a professor of New Testament Studies and Hermeneutics. Hermeneutics is the art and science of biblical interpretation. Since there are different types of literature in scripture, it is important to able to identify these along with the methods used in their communication. Hermeneutics also teaches us how to interpret scripture grammatically, historically and contextually. As a teacher, Moore is not only trained in the methods we use to interpret scripture but, he has spent his life and career teaching them in service to the Lord.

I just finished his book Fanning the Flames, Probing the Issues in Acts. There were a few things I found problematic in his exegesis. For me, a caviler dismissal of his assertions really doesn't serve me well, as they are based on my limited study of hermeneutics and my more limited knowledge of relevant historical and scriptural data. They are things I am willing to give further consideration before I declare them untrue. In other words, I am more than willing to concede that he may possibly have a more in-depth and clearer handle on how we are to interpret scripture. I don't believe he has ever been in a cult. There is nothing that would lead me to believe God has not been at work throughout his life and that he is not filled with the Holy Spirit.

The information Moore has researched about tongues and his exegesis is on his website and Raf has posted a link in the doctrinal forum if anyone is interested in reading further. There are some other articles and studies posted as well. Moore has spent years researching these things and I found his approach is almost an affront in its honesty and he has an endearing willingness to consider as many angles as possible.

Bible.Org....which was originally associated with Daniel B Wallace. . . . also has some wonderful bible studies on the issue of tongues. Wallace is also a Professor of New Testament Studies and a very highly regarded theologian.

Edited October 17, 2012 by geisha779

[Raf]

Chockfull, you keep mentioning that Samarin uses linguists who don't draw the same conclusion he does. On what are you basing that statement? The last time we tried to track that down, it led us to Sherrill. I do not see in Samarin the ambiguity you are suggesting among his peers.

Seems the only linguists I've read about who disagree with Samarin are those whose talents were employed by Sherrill. Conveniently, we do not have the luxury of their names or their firsthand observation. They come to us anonymous and second hand from an evangelical SIT promoter. That doesn't make it wrong, but it raises my suspicion.

Edited October 17, 2012 by Raf

[Raf]

Chockfull asks a series of probing questions about the doctrinal implications of all modern SIT being false. Does it mean the Bible is not reliable? Does it mean God is a respecter of persons?

I submit that those questions, valid though they may be, have no bearing on the validity of modern SIT. Modern SIT is valid or invalid strictly on its merits. Does it produce what the Bible describes? If not, you have just cause to question whether what you are doing is Biblical.

What does the Bible describe? That is a fair and necessary question to answer that has a direct bearing on our ability to determine whether modern SIT is even testable, much less verifiable or disprovable.

But the questions Chockfull raises have no bearing. They're important for different reasons, but no matter what their answers are, they will not make modern SIT any more false or true.

[Raf]

Back to a computer and an ability to review Chockfull's post in a little more depth:

Your analogy doesn't sound silly to me. Of course if Paul's SIT had substantial elements different from modern day SIT, then that would give you scientific relief. But it causes doctrinal problems. If I can do everything Paul and the Bible instructs regarding SIT, and God does not come through with power from His end, then wouldn't that make God a respecter of persons?

We agree that this is a doctrinal problem. Your question has two "if" clauses, one of which we can address. IF you can do everything Paul and the Bible instructs regarding SIT... What if you can't? That knocks down the premise of your question, invalidating the conclusion. So if I'm right that all modern SIT is unbiblical (that is, it's not producing the same result and therefore cannot be the same thing) it is plausible to suggest we've all been mistaken on the pivotal question of "what is available?" I know that's a Wierwillian question, but it's a good one that stands up to reason. What if SIT today is not available and we've all been erroneously led to believe that it is? There is a widespread, mainstream interpretation known as cessationist theory that holds exactly that position. If that position is correct, it explains why I am right (presuming I am, which you obviously don't).

Even further, can we trust scripture then? If it doesn't produce what it says when you act on it, it has no more value than any other book.

A deeper question. I believe you can still trust scripture while questioning the validity of your interpretation of scripture. Again, cessationist theory may be your Biblical answer.

I keep bringing that up, so let me be clear: I am not advocating cessationism. I am merely pointing out that it is out there as a plausible Biblical view that we've all dismissed as a matter of course. Are you at least open to the possibility that it may be the Biblically correct view? Again, a doctrinal question, as you correctly label it.

Paul [You meant Peter] himself had critics on the day of Pentecost, people who saw the miracle right before their eyes, and chose to get up on a platform and cry out that these guys were drunk with new wine. What's to say that you guys aren't the same thing in modern days?

Well, the key difference is that Peter and the others spoke real languages and modern SITters are not (if I'm right). So that's a pretty big distinction to overlook.

As I asked you before, if you want me to believe I'm using sugar and Paul used salt, you are going to have to provide some kind of logical explanation.

I can only answer half of it: you're not producing saltwater. You're producing sweet water. Where do you find salt? Is there salt to find? I do not know. But my inability to answer that question does not make your sweet water salty. (Again, this response presumes I'm right, which you do not).

Why would SIT no longer work now, when it did then? What changed between the first century and now? If that changed, how can you be certain that other things in the Bible that are available still are? Do promises of God come with an expiration date?

Again, deep questions that have no direct bearing on the question we're considering. The fact (assuming it's a fact) that I'm wrong about my interpretation of one section or subject of scripture need not call into question my understanding or acceptance of other sections of scripture. Many people here used to believe Jesus is God. Just about all of us turned away from that belief. Some of us have gone back to that belief. If you can vacillate on the person of Jesus Christ, the central question of Christianity, and not lose faith in the Bible as a whole, why is it so much more difficult to vacillate on the question of SIT without casting the entirety of scripture into doubt?

Oh, and also, there are some studies again which say glossolalia does not produce language, there are others that contradict that and say that it does. Samarin himself uses linguists that don't arrive at his same conclusions. His linguists did NOT conclude that glossolalia was definitely NOT a language. Only Samarin. There are other sources that disagree with him.

Previously addressed: I am unsure of the basis of your claim. I'll look for it, but I don't think Samarin's work says what you say it says. I could be wrong, but the last time I tried to check that claim, it led me to Sherrill and not Samarin. And my jury is out on Sherrill (to put it politely and give him benefit of consideration).

This article, while one-sided in my view, does show that the finding of SIT not producing a language is not limited to Samarin. I'm not asking you to accept the findings of this article as a whole. I'm presenting it strictly for the purpose of showing Samarin is far from alone: http://charlesdailey.net/TonguesHolton.html

In contrast, I have yet to see a named linguist identify a language produced by SIT. Still waiting for that.

On your post addressed to Geisha, I agree with you that Moore's analysis of interpretation is flawed because it relies on a definition of interpretation that is inconsistent with our understanding of how that manifestation operates. At best, he can say that he has discredited the most commonly held view of interpretation (our view is not the most commonly held: we are vastly outnumbered in that regard). But the people who hold that view and who practice interpretation that way are most certainly sincere and hungry to do the things of God to the best of their ability and will all the fervor of their faith. As Wierwille would put it (correctly), their sincerity is no guarantee for truth. Clearly, if five people were tested and all five gave different interpretations, at least four were lying (or, more charitably, incorrect. Or even more charitably, prophesying).

As noted earlier on this thread, there is no conceivable way to test prophecy or interpretation in itself. The best we can say is that if SIT is fake, so is interpretation. But that doesn't prevent interpretation from being prophecy in disguise. The premise is quite untestable.

Thanks for permitting me such a lengthy response.

Edited October 17, 2012 by Raf

[geisha779]

For me personally, it has been interesting to familiarize myself with the history of the modern tongues movement, Holiness Movement or Charismatic Movement, however we choose to term it. When did it start? Who were its proponents? Who fostered this Movement? Who is Agnes Ozman? Who now is continuing this tradition? TBN answers that last question. Although that is a weak attempt at humor, there is some truth to it. People like Jimmy Swaggert, Jim Bakker, and Benny Hinn are all proponents of modern tongues. Jan and Paul Crouch who founded the network both big advocates of modern tongues. I was interested to learn that early Mormons, along with Joesph Smith practiced a form of SIT.

All the relevant information we have, and there is plenty, begins to paint a picture. How we view that picture or how we let the information influence us is totally up to us as individuals. I can understand more now why VP was attracted to this movement, albeit peripherally. He was a master at adopting a theology, and somehow making it as coming directly from the Almighty to his ears, but he borrowed heavily from the Word of Faith movement and appeared to be attracted to the spectacular and mystical.

Another interesting consideration for me has been the psychology associated with the modern tongues movement....which has been studied at length. The information is readily available. Reading about Felicitas Goodman and her examination of Pentecostal churches in Mexico was interesting. Again, this is just information available to us to help us determine how we proceed from TWI. For some, there is no questioning, for others there is a struggle. I get that. I am just putting out there that there is a wealth of information to consider if we are so inclined.

[Raf]

I have reservations about Goodman on a couple of fronts, not having examined her work in the same detail as we've been privileged to review Samarin and Poythress.

It seems to me that she draws linguistic conclusions in a psychological study. I'm not sure of her qualifications to do so. Not saying she's wrong: in fact, I think she's right. But I can't rely on her because I cannot retrace her steps with the limited information I have.

There are psychological conclusions she draws that I think give a clear indication that she did not observe SIT in the kinds of settings with which we are all familiar. She talks of altered mental states and "trances" as though they are the norm or even necessary to the tongues speaker. We know otherwise, firsthand.

Like my observations on Sherrill, these observations are based on a severely limited exposure to Goodman's work. My questions and doubts are enough to limit my reliance on her findings, as much as I agree with them on the details relevant to this thread.

[geisha779]

I have reservations about Goodman on a couple of fronts, not having examined her work in the same detail as we've been privileged to review Samarin and Poythress.

It seems to me that she draws linguistic conclusions in a psychological study. I'm not sure of her qualifications to do so. Not saying she's wrong: in fact, I think she's right. But I can't rely on her because I cannot retrace her steps with the limited information I have.

There are psychological conclusions she draws that I think give a clear indication that she did not observe SIT in the kinds of settings with which we are all familiar. She talks of altered mental states and "trances" as though they are the norm or even necessary to the tongues speaker. We know otherwise, firsthand.

Like my observations on Sherrill, these observations are based on a severely limited exposure to Goodman's work. My questions and doubts are enough to limit my reliance on her findings, as much as I agree with them on the details relevant to this thread.

Right, and I applaud the caution, but like you I found her interesting to read. She does appear to be highly regarded, but that is not my area or my interest, so I am not familiar enough either. With Moore and with Goodman, I somewhat shut down when the possible influences that could be associated with SIT were discussed. With Moore, I immediately shut down when he mentioned the outside possibility of demonic influences. It was too reminiscent of TWI.

Yet, working from my experience in TWI, I think about what influences may have meant for me personally by shutting down my reasoning skills so frequently and for sustained periods of time. We were encouraged to SIT often in TWI....it was like a challenge and pinned to our spiritual well being. I was a good do bee.

Waysider often brings up a good point. While I was "freely vocalizing" for "leadership" or specifically what I wanted or for the ministry and its so called spiritual goals.....it may have been influential in my lack of resistance to persuasion. There is really a whole myriad of things to consider in how SIT in TWI may have introduced influences into my life. I hold to the notion that TWI was a packaged persuasion which ran contrary to my better judgement. This is evidenced by the drastic change in my personality and my basic concepts of morality. VP's insistence on tongues for every PFAL grad and the focus and importance placed on SIT could be a defining characteristic of that package. The idea of demonic influences is a doctrinal question, better left for another day, year, or decade. Is what isn't of God immediately demonic? I don't know.

I am finding more not less to consider. I don't want to hang my denial or assent on a very few verses of scripture I may or may not be understanding correctly. I have already done that. I won't hang it on one persons opinion either, but combined all this evidence does begin to bring things into focus for me.

[Raf]

I had another one of those moments where I drafted a lengthy exposition and realized just before posting that I wasn't saying anything new.

I believe promoting free vocalization and pretending it was genuine, Biblical SIT was indeed in TWI's best interest. They used it to lord their superiority over us. It wasn't the only thing. Just another weapon in their arsenal. To this day, I would imagine there are some unwilling to leave TWI because TWI taught them "the Word" and proved it in a way no one else could by leading them into SIT. How hard is it to just leave that?

I know, THAT doesn't apply to everyone. And, of course, it assumes I'm correct.

I think the people at the top have always known it's a crock.

[OldSkool]

o this day, I would imagine there are some unwilling to leave TWI because TWI taught them "the Word" and proved it in a way no one else could by leading them into SIT.

When I left in 2008, it was common to hear way corps (et al.) express their disdain with TWI but then turn right around and say that nobody else had the package of truth taught by TWI. And what is inseparable from this package of truth? The manifestations of holy spirit as taught by TWI. By tackling topics like SIT it hits right at the backbone TWI's doctrine. No matter what conclusion we draw, at least we are exercising critical thinking skills to prove all things.

[Raf]

Looking at it as cynically as possible (and this may be going too far even for me), imagine this:

How far can I push "my people." Would they be willing to lie to themselves and each other about something as deeply personal as the most secret and private part of their prayer lives? Because if I can get them to do THAT, I can get them to do ANYTHING.

Sinister, right? Knowing what we now know about VPW, do you put it past him?

[That, of course, has no bearing at all on SIT outside TWI. But in my most cynical, I can't rule it out within TWI].

As far as striking TWI in the backbone of its doctrine, what can I say? They struck us in the backbone of our private prayer lives. I say we still owe them a few strikes.

Edited October 17, 2012 by Raf

[Allan]

Chockfull, you keep mentioning that Samarin uses linguists who don't draw the same conclusion he does. On what are you basing that statement? The last time we tried to track that down, it led us to Sherrill. I do not see in Samarin the ambiguity you are suggesting among his peers.

Seems the only linguists I've read about who disagree with Samarin are those whose talents were employed by Sherrill. Conveniently, we do not have the luxury of their names or their firsthand observation. They come to us anonymous and second hand from an evangelical SIT promoter. That doesn't make it wrong, but it raises my suspicion.

My response to the 'naysayers' when I'm out on the streets speaking to them is " I meet a lot of people that cannot s.i.t. ( for whatever reason ) that pooh pooh it, but I meet very few that CAN, that do the same

[Raf]

You haven't met anyone who can.

Snide comments are a poor substitute for reasoned discussion. But whatever floats your boat, as they say.

Edited October 17, 2012 by Raf

[waysider]

My response to the 'naysayers' when I'm out on the streets speaking to them is " I meet a lot of people that cannot s.i.t. ( for whatever reason ) that pooh pooh it, but I meet very few that CAN, that do the same

I'm curious. How does the subject present itself? Do you say, "Hey, have you ever tried.....?" or what?

[excathedra]

i don't know any of these flooking answers even if i did (or most likely did not) read the questions

hope to carry and see you all when the dark sunglasses are taken off

[Raf]

[excathedra]

i'm hoping that was a nice reply

if so, thank you raf

[Raf]

Just having a little fun with your sunglasses reference. I know what you meant.

[waysider]

Just having a little fun with your sunglasses reference. I know what you meant.

Oh, well, since we're having fun.......

A little musical interlude:

HERE

[geisha779]

I know there is a forum for everything imaginable.....I have been casually looking at ex-charismatic / ex-Pentecostalism forums as time permits. Their stories are not all that dissimilar to our own, and there is rampant abuse out there. The internet is littered with blogs and testimonies of ex-charismatics. There are support groups and they extend to family and loved ones affected by this movement. I am sure there are ex-Christian forums too. Got it. What I was looking for, and I really didn't look that hard, is someone who said that they believed they were genuinely SIT, but walked anyway. Haven't found one yet. It doesn't mean they are not out there, but in general people admit to faking it or have come to realize it was not genuine. The idea that SIT now is something other than biblical tongues is not unique to this thread or to the scholars.....I just didn't realize how common it is for people to leave their charismatic experience somewhat wounded.

[Raf]

Interesting anecdote from a fairly well-known Christian whose disillusionment with SIT did not shake his faith in the Bible one whit.

http://formercharismatic.blogspot.com/2008/02/rc-sproul-my-involvement-in-charismatic.html

"I began to see that anyone who is uninhibited enough can utter unintelligible sounds while in a posture of prayer. I don't doubt anyone's experience of praying in such a fashion, but I am concerned it is not a supernatural event and is not the same as what was experienced in the early church."

Turns out he writes a LOT.

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_i_1_6?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=sproul+r.c&sprefix=Sproul%2Caps%2C232

[chockfull]

Chockfull, you keep mentioning that Samarin uses linguists who don't draw the same conclusion he does. On what are you basing that statement? The last time we tried to track that down, it led us to Sherrill. I do not see in Samarin the ambiguity you are suggesting among his peers.

Seems the only linguists I've read about who disagree with Samarin are those whose talents were employed by Sherrill. Conveniently, we do not have the luxury of their names or their firsthand observation. They come to us anonymous and second hand from an evangelical SIT promoter. That doesn't make it wrong, but it raises my suspicion.

Yes, the last time we tracked it down, it was Sherril quoting Samarin's published work, which we do not have a link to or a complete reference to. In that work, Samarin quoted linguists responses. Sherrill noted inconsistencies in what the linguists in Samarin's study observed and what Samarin himself concluded.

I actually see parallels in issues with Samarin from the only published work we have an online link to - "The Linguistics of Glossalalia". For example, his basic definition of glossolalia:

"A meaningless but phonologically structured human utterance believed by the speaker to be a real language, but bearing no systematic resemblance to any natural language, living or dead".

Then immediately after his definition, where he includes what he says is 3 features that appear to be necessary in any definition of the phenomena, he says the first of these is this:

"a phonological structure, (that is the kind of patterning of sound generally typical of real languages)which distinguish it from gibberish".

So to me the guy is self-contradictory in his own definitions. He is choosing how to define this in his paper, and his definition says "bearing no systematic resemblance to any language", then in defining 3 key elements to glossolalia he states that the phonological structure is generally typical of real languages.

Hold on there, ace. If it "sounds" like a language (in your scientific terminology), then it DOES bear a systematic resemblance to language.

He makes no sense. It "sounds" like a language, but doesn't bear any resemblance to a language. Sorry, as Samarin stated, glossolalia actually DOES bear a resemblance to a language. Phonetically, it "sounds" like a language. That IS a resemblance.

This type of inconsistency I think is what leads a number of other authors like Sherrill to write works criticizing Samarin. I myself have scarcely seen that kind of internal contradiction in a published study right in the same sentences of the definition of terms. It is very glaringly obvious to the point of where I have to question Samarin's bias towards finding glossolalia as not a language.

Now if Samarin would have wrote that glossolalia "bears a strong resemblance phonetically to languages, but it is questionable as to the legitimacy of the meaning or interpretation of the utterance compared to language" he would have been more consistent even with his own logic.

[chockfull]

Another interesting fact from Samarin. In the cases he is examining where there is glossolalia among non-Christian participants, he submits one example as Albert LeBaron. LeBaron has recorded conversations with his "psychic automatism" where there are messages in another language and the interpretation of the language into English.

He says there are a number of other examples. I haven't seen all of his other examples. I haven't even seen one of his complete works, only one article. Yet I would submit that LeBaron's "example" is something in quite a different category than "glossolalia".

I will reserve judgement on the overall topic of "non-Christian glossolalia" until I have more of the direct sources cited.