SIT, TIP, Prophecy and Confession

[johniam]

Luke 11:53,54 - and as he said these things unto them the scribes and the Pharisees began to urge him vehemently and to provoke him to speak of many things - laying wait for him and seeking to catch something out of his mouth that they might accuse him.

Have a nice day y'all.

[WordWolf]

Cute.

Got caught making mistakes on the Bible by believing pfal had it all correct,

was told he was wrong and it will be laid out in specifics once he stops

being vague on a matter and it can be compared to Scripture...

and he attempts to equate the thinkers who like truth to Pharisees who like

politics, and himself to Jesus Christ, King of Kings and Lord of Lords.

Like I said,

cute.

[chockfull]

Luke 11:53,54 - and as he said these things unto them the scribes and the Pharisees began to urge him vehemently and to provoke him to speak of many things - laying wait for him and seeking to catch something out of his mouth that they might accuse him.

Have a nice day y'all.

Nice Bible quote to deal with paranoia.

Is there one that deals with self-induced paranoia involved with trolling a message board and getting most of the people on it arguing with you by contradicting everything they say and quoting VPW all the time as a standard for truth?

[WordWolf]

Nice Bible quote to deal with paranoia.

Is there one that deals with self-induced paranoia involved with trolling a message board and getting most of the people on it arguing with you by contradicting everything they say and quoting VPW all the time as a standard for truth?

No,

that's when you change the subject by announcing that everyone who's

making sense is exhibiting worldly wisdom.

I wouldn't mind John disagreeing if he did it more honestly and didn't

flee and spew insults and subject changes every time he was caught

being wrong-

or even suspected he'd be caught being wrong.

Hey-it's possible that he could present his case for something,

and I could present mine,

and he'd prove me wrong.

But we'll never know for sure with him running and hiding.

[johniam]

You know a lot about running and hiding, don't you?

The people who killed Jesus.

They called him deceiver, heretic, sinner, not of God, one that perverteth the people, one who could save others but not himself, one who was born of fornication, one who blasphemes, and those were people who actually saw him. They were SURE they were right. They knew what was going on. They had the right religion. They had the right education. They had their worldly wisdom. They were sooooooo sure.

[WordWolf]

You know a lot about running and hiding, don't you?

Mostly from watching people do it rather than discuss like adults, sure, I suppose I do.

The people who killed Jesus.

They called him deceiver, heretic, sinner, not of God, one that perverteth the people, one who could save others but not himself, one who was born of fornication, one who blasphemes, and those were people who actually saw him. They were SURE they were right. They knew what was going on. They had the right religion. They had the right education. They had their worldly wisdom. They were sooooooo sure.

They also decided they were right from the beginning, and wouldn't even

CONSIDER they might be wrong. They called Jesus all kinds of names and spent

a lot of time AROUND issues rather than dealing with them.

They were soooo sure and refused to look at the evidence.

Cute.

Got caught making mistakes on the Bible by believing pfal had it all correct,

was told he was wrong and it will be laid out in specifics once he stops

being vague on a matter and it can be compared to Scripture...

and he attempts to equate the thinkers who like truth to Pharisees who like

politics, and himself to Jesus Christ, King of Kings and Lord of Lords.

Like I said,

cute.

[johniam]

quote:

John's obviously trying to drag this thread off topic because he feels

threatened by it.

No, WW, you are the one who continues to drive this thread off topic. I think it is you who find ME "threatening". Until couple pages ago, I hadn't even posted on this thread since post #190 or so. So I've had what? 1800 posts to "drive this thread off topic" if that were my agenda. I posted 3 pages ago to bring Earl Burton's intermediate class into the mix and to state my dissatisfaction with timing the interpretation and the tongue, which some people concurred with.

Then, as your manner is, it was you who took this thread off topic for the purpose of falsely accusing me of the same. You did this before 2008, when I stopped posting for almost 3 years, and then in late 2010, when I resumed posting, most people here at least welcomed me back just to be polite, but not you. You immediately started picking fights with me, your usual 'straining at a gnat' strategy, which created several 500 post threads which should have been 100 posts if not for your constant fault finding. Yes, IMO it is YOU who finds ME threatening.

Cute.

[WordWolf]

OK, so, let's bring it back on topic, then.

If "scripture is the basis for all things spiritually energized", how do you explain revelation? (or, at least revelation as defined by VPW in the Advanced Class)

Wierwille maintained that word of knowledge involved that which is impossible to know by the five senses, which, of course, is the avenue by which we know scripture.

We were taught that TIP and Prophesy all always forth telling and never fore telling of future events. What is the basis for that idea?

It seems to me like that is merely a handy way to obviate a potential objection, rationalize an obvious flaw before it becomes an issue of contention..

quote: We were taught that TIP and Prophesy all always forth telling and never fore telling of future events. What is the basis for that idea?

Pfal! The first use of the word 'prophet' in scripture (Gen. 20:7) is referring to Abraham, who foretold nothing. As for the manifestations of interpretation of tongues and prophecy, they're by inspiration, not revelation. Foretelling the future would have to be by revelation.

I have recently had my own thoughts about the word 'prophet/prophecy'. Also from pfal, we were taught that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation, right? And that 'prophecy' meant anything foretold or forthtold. I question whether 'prophecy' in that verse means all scripture without exception, or a subset of all scripture. Is it possible that 'prophecy' in that verse means either foretelling the future or simply stating what God's will is? There are many narrative portions of scripture which do neither of those two. For instance...

(snip)

That IS all out of pfal.

However, it is also wrong.

For startets, it's been over A DECADE since we first discussed that vpw's explanation of the phrase

"private interpretation" in the King James Version was incorrect and failed to address what the

verse was actually saying. He invented a different, cool meaning he could use because it reflected

what he wanted to teach. The verse was saying something simpler. However, vpw used what he referred

to as "private interpretation" to come up with his definition of "private interpretation."

A decade later (probably a lot more), you still don't have this down.

John, what's your definition of "foretold?"

I ask because Abraham DID foretell at least 1 thing, no matter what we were taught.

So, before I point that out, I want your definition of what foretelling is so you

don't change your definition as soon as I do to suddenly exclude it.

This is where the discussion of the last 2 pages was,

minus your detours into accusations, ad hominem attacks, and strawmen.

Not letting you off the hook here and pretending you're not doing it again.

We left off with you making some avoidable errors and refusing to discuss them,

adding the insults, etc to distract from the fact you were caught twice.

I've reposted them here. You can address them or everyone can see, very easily,

that you're ducking them. You're free to duck them, of course, but all your supposed

superior understanding of Scripture looks like a big bluff when you're avoiding

direct discussion of subjects. Last I counted, that was at least 2 on this thread

and one on the other you're refusing to discuss while claiming everyone else's

understanding is flawed.

Your "argument" is totally disconnected from the point at hand. Simply try to answer the question without resorting to unrelated rhetoric. Am I asking you you do something unreasonable?

This is the statement you made:

"... scripture is the basis for all things spiritually energized."

So, the onus is on you to illustrate how that statement applies to the examples you listed.

John

This is somewhat peripheral to the central discussion but I think it needs to be examined in order to gain more insight into the main topic.

Scripture is known by the 5 senses. (seeing, hearing, touch, in the case of Braille)

Wierwille said, in the AC, that revelation involves something that is IMPOSSIBLE to know by the five senses.

Do you consider revelation to be be spiritually energized? If you do, it disproves your statement.

[chockfull]

Then, as your manner is, it was you who took this thread off topic for the purpose of falsely accusing me of the same. You did this before 2008, when I stopped posting for almost 3 years, and then in late 2010, when I resumed posting, most people here at least welcomed me back just to be polite, but not you. You immediately started picking fights with me, your usual 'straining at a gnat' strategy, which created several 500 post threads which should have been 100 posts if not for your constant fault finding. Yes, IMO it is YOU who finds ME threatening.

Conflict does tend to drive people away from interaction. People have different ways they process logic, and different ways of handling conflict. I do know that just due to the nature of bulletin boards or forums like this one, that multiple people answering one person (like is happening here) can tend to make people feel ganged up on. It's an amplification effect, and it is not real.

I think virtually everyone posting on this forum, and the many lurkers who read here and are afraid to interact, are all in the same boat of endeavoring to "prove all things and hold fast to that which is good" regarding our exposure and experience in TWI. That can prove very challenging because as we've seen many things that look good on the surface don't always turn to be good in the long run. And because people hide information.

We can't avoid conflict, but hopefully we can be mature enough to work through it and move beyond it.

[johniam]

Weird. On the about the way first page it says chockfull posted at 10:34 pm on August 30th, yet when I click on go to last post...the last post I see is dated August 7th.

[waysider]

It has something to do with visiting the thread to look at poll results.

[Kit Sober]

Being able to disagree with people was such a precious thing here at the Greasespot Cafe (and Waydale and Trashnet). So sorry the political forums closed. I thought they were so very heaing.

[krys]

Chockfull, IMO your post above is right on the money.

[excathedra]

what are we fighting about ? i can't remember. maybe that's why i still come here lol that was a funny

i miss people, don't you?

[Kit Sober]

what are we fighting about ? i can't remember. maybe that's why i still come here lol that was a funny

i miss people, don't you?

Sometimes my brother and I would squabble because we didn't have anything else to do. (I would give anything to have another squabble with him.) From what I have read, there is no squabbling in heaven.

[Steve Lortz]

The other day, I came across the journal I kept while I was in the Corps. I don't miss all the idiocy of the program, but I sure do miss some of the people!

Love,

Steve

[T-Bone]

uhm....concerning the poll...

I selected the fifth one down as it was the closest to my current beliefs: "I faked it to fit in. I believe it's possible, but not sure if it's real." I would prefer a tweaking of how it's worded; I don't think I intentionally faked it to fit it. It was more like getting caught up in the moment of what everyone else was doing...Anyway, i'm from new york so it's easy to talk fast in a language incomprehensible to others.

When it comes to the manifestations of the spirit I kind of subscribe to cessationism (that they ceased with the original apostles) but I am not dogmatic about it; I think they can still happen if God deems it so – and it may very well be happening in the world somewhere now – it's just that I have not seen anything first hand that would cause me to re-think my position on this subject.

[Raf]

T-Bone, I personally believe your first paragraph reflects the majority of our experiences, mine included. I believe you can still be a decent, doctrinal consistent Christian while subscribing to your second paragraph, but of course, my opinion on such a thing is no longer worth terribly much. ;)

[Allan]

Oh, looking at the poll again it seems the first and last selection are pretty neck and neck ?! Kind of like a hundred people camping in a forest. The next morning 50 claimed to have seen a Yeti and the other 50 said they hadn't lol

[Steve Lortz]

I'm not sure if I voted earlier in this poll, but looking at it again, I can't say I agree with any of the options...

I think speaking by the Spirit of God is real. I don't think it works the way any of the options listed... TWI, CES/STIFI, denominational Pentecostals OR Charismatics... describe it as working.

I took PFAL in 1980, which was my first exposure to the practice. I left TWI in 1987, associated with CES in 1989, and left association with ALL the offshoots in 1996.

In 1994, I started composing an inventory of things I believed as of that date just to settle in my own mind all the different things I had been hearing from all sorts of different sources. One of the things I did was re-examine everything I could about speaking in tongues, including passages from the Scriptures I had never heard taught on, such as Deuteronomy 16:10&11,16&17.

It is impossible to understand what speaking in tongues in Acts 2 is all about without considering the things that Deuteronomy 16 has to say about the purposes of the feast that came to be known as Pentecost.

Nobody that I know of has put those things together.

Several years ago, I began working on a master's degree at the seminary of the Church of God Reformation Movement (Anderson, Indiana). The ChoGRM was founded in the late-1800s as part of the Wesleyan Holiness Movement. The ChoGRM rejected all creeds as man-made and divisive, and therefore placed great emphasis on Christians and especially ministers being moved by the Holy Spirit. A man named William J. Seymour associated with the ChoGRM in Indianapolis before attending Charles Parham's bible school in Houston, Texas. Seymour took seriously the idea of being led by the Holy Spirit and went on to lead the Azuza Street revival that began in 1906, the foundational event in the birth of the Pentecostal and Charismatic movements in the 20th century (including those of J.E. Stiles and V. P. Wierwille). ChoGRM itself did not become Pentecostal, though there are congregations that associate with ChoGRM who practice speaking by the Spirit of God. There are many within the ChoGRM who prophesy, even though they have no idea that is what they are doing.

Seymour relied on experience rather than doctrine, and so we have a multitude of understandings about speaking by the Spirit of God that are often nonsensical and sometimes contradictory.

I set out to write my master's thesis on this topic, but a year ago I was hospitalized with a massive overdose of potassium, and I have sustained residual damage sufficient to prevent me from completing a master's thesis within the constrains of the program. I think the Lord has called me to this time and place to teach the things that He has taught me, but we're going to have to invent a way to do it outside the formal process. I will probably write something like a very condensed master's thesis. My target audience will not be the current faculty of the seminary, but rather my fellow students who are of the up and coming generation, rather than my own.

I can also say these things: I think I know what Luke and Paul meant by "speaking in tongues", I KNOW that I know what Luke and Paul meant by "prophecy", I have no clear idea what Paul meant by "interpret" and "interpretation". I don't think Luke ever wrote about what Paul calls "interpretation".

Love,

Steve

Edited October 26, 2014 by Steve Lortz

[Raf]

16 people won't admit they faked it. 22 people admit it. Not a representative sample. Proves nothing. But definitely not "neck and neck."

[Allan]

I'm sorry you believe there are 16 liars on this forum ! Now here's an amazing thing, before I confessed Jesus as lord, I couldn't do it, after Confessing, I could...enunciated, syllabic words that I don't understand let alone know how I'm doing it !But yes, tongues, words, glossalia, whatever you want to call it, I did/do it !! I'm sorry if you faked it, but please don't presume to speak on my behalf !!

[waysider]

I faked it. I didn't mean to fake it or even realize it at the time. That doesn't make me a liar. It just makes me someone who faked it.

[WordWolf]

I faked it. I didn't mean to fake it or even realize it at the time. That doesn't make me a liar. It just makes me someone who faked it.

As those of us who participated in the past 100 pages understood,

many of us thought we were faking it at the time,

and many more did as we were instructed-

which was faking it at the time and now we say

"Hey-I was taught to fake it!"

We tend to resent having been lied to, but there it is.

We didn't mean to lie or fake it, we trusted unreliable instructions,

and a conman who meant for us to trust him-so we did.

[WordWolf]

I'm sorry you believe there are 16 liars on this forum ! Now here's an amazing thing, before I confessed Jesus as lord, I couldn't do it, after Confessing, I could...enunciated, syllabic words that I don't understand let alone know how I'm doing it !But yes, tongues, words, glossalia, whatever you want to call it, I did/do it !! I'm sorry if you faked it, but please don't presume to speak on my behalf !!

As someone who is confident about the power of God in people's lives,

I do not feel threatened in calling out a fake for a fake.

The thing we were taught to do in twi,

IF YOU WERE TAUGHT IT IN SOME ATHEISTIC ACTOR FASHION,

you could SO have done before confessing Jesus as lord.

We know that because atheistic actors and children who never confessed Jesus as lord

do it all the time. Children do it as a game, without any instructions.

Actors learn to overcome inhibitions about looking silly and learn to do it as well.

In fact, it's an EARLY exercise for BEGINNING actors,

not even something for "advanced" actors.

So, if, somehow, you didn't fake it, congratulations. However, you darn well COULD have

faked it, and many of us who were trying to serve God accidentally faked it because

we did as we were instructed-

and we were instructed to fake it while being told "this is genuine."

If the real thing is possible today, I don't know. I know I didn't do it, and I know

twi's instructions were on how to produce a fake.