If a scenario were presented wherein the use of an invisible, undetectable (by the five senses), dragon (so to speak) was the most effective (if not the only) practical means for God to achieve the desired/intended results, would it in any way validate that such a beast must exist?
If a scenario were presented wherein the use of an invisible, undetectable (by the five senses), dragon (so to speak) was the most effective (if not the only) practical means for God to achieve the desired/intended results, would it in any way validate that such a beast must exist?
Did I not already state somewhere that my mind can (perhaps too often) work in strange ways?
No. It would, at best, give you a philosophical foundation for believing in said dragon. But it would not be evidence-based.
Well, that's more or less what I thought. Which, is exactly (in my mind, anyways) the reason why it will never be proven with empirically based evidence.
Ok, but the issue of proving it is actually ancillary to what the Bible actually says it is and what it produces. I think that was the original purpose of this thread.
I suppose questions about whether it's still available or possible for believers today would also be on topic here, as long as we stick to "what does the Bible say?" as the criteria.
But "prove you're doing it" or "disprove I'm doing it" is a discussion for elsewhere. As I said, I was answering a question.
Then again, no one seems to be complaining about incorporating that question here. As a mod, if someone were to complain about it, I would have to agree that such discussions are out of bounds here. They're fair game elsewhere.
A linguist would not have to prove WHAT language is being spoken. A linguist would only have to prove THAT a language is being spoken.
Does it not concern anyone else that Non-Christians can do the same thing we did in The Way? The difference is that when they do it they sometimes call it improvisational acting.
Ok, but the issue of proving it is actually ancillary to what the Bible actually says it is and what it produces. I think that was the original purpose of this thread.
Well, someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but in discussing the scriptural aspects of it, I would think that part of understanding its benefits would also require pondering different ways to look at the reasons for it, including from God's perspective. Which may not be an easy task, but not necessarily or altogether an impossible one. But, it is one that extends outside the pages of I Cor. 12-14, and reaches as far as touching the theological foundation for it. So, I don't see "what the Bible says" as a hard and fast boundary for what can or might be "on topic" here.
The short answer is, it keeps conversations focused. The fact that I faked it, and my belief that others did too, has nothing to do with what the Bible teaches about speaking in tongues.
A linguist would not have to prove WHAT language is being spoken. A linguist would only have to prove THAT a language is being spoken.
To me, that seems to strike rather close to empowering a linguist with the ability to prove God. If he says, YES, it's a language... does it really prove that it is a language, or does it merely call into question the expertise and ability of the linguist to detect a language? Inevitably, I think it will always come down to what (or who) we (as individuals) choose to believe and trust to be right or "real".
Does it not concern anyone else that Non-Christians can do the same thing we did in The Way? The difference is that when they do it they sometimes call it improvisational acting.
Evidently, not as much as you seem to think it should. I actually recall seeing some actors do it on "Who's Line Is It" some number of years ago. Yeah, at first, it did strike me as sounding like something similar to tongues. However, after a closer listen, I wasn't so persuaded to think it was. Now, I'm no linguistic expert, by any means. But to my eyes and ears, it just didn't look or sound as effervescent or effortless. (And these guys were phenomenal improv actors...)
The short answer is, it keeps conversations focused. The fact that I faked it, and my belief that others did too, has nothing to do with what the Bible teaches about speaking in tongues.
I agree that should be kept separate. (But a certain amount of overlap is nearly unavoidable.)
I actually recall seeing some actors do it on "Who's Line Is It" some number of years ago. Yeah, at first, it did strike me as sounding like something similar to tongues. However, after a closer listen, I wasn't so persuaded to think it was. Now, I'm no linguistic expert, by any means. But to my eyes and ears, it just didn't look or sound as effervescent or effortless. (And these guys were phenomenal improv actors...)
Probably because they were going for funny, not convincing.
I agree that should be kept separate. (But a certain amount of overlap is nearly unavoidable.)
I agree that some overlap is unavoidable, and I recognize that we are dealing with the revival of long-dormant threads. But Doctrinal was set up to protect doctrinal discussions from this kind of digression, and to protect other threads from a doctrinal digression.
No harm done. No one is complaining. But if someone did, he would be right.
I would think that part of understanding its benefits would also require pondering different ways to look at the reasons for it, including from God's perspective.
...snip...
You're right about THAT, TLC!
One of the reasons Wierwille was so woefully wrong about SIT was because he COULDN'T explain from the scriptures what God's PURPOSE was in giving his people who are living in the time between the ages the ability to speak in tongues. Wierwille was blind to God's purpose because he misread the Bible from the get go.
First, the Day of Pentecost recorded in Acts chapter 2 was not the "birthday" of the Church.
The events of Acts 2 were the actualization/fulfillment of promises/prophecies made to and for Israel throughout the Old Testament, particularly in Deuteronomy 16:9&10: "9You shall count seven weeks; begin to count the seven weeks from the time the sickle is first put to the standing grain. 10Then you shall keep the festival of weeks to the LORD your God, contributing a free-will offering in proportion to the blessing that you have received from the LORD your God."
At the feast of weeks, God's people (the people of the covenant) were to make spontaneous, voluntarily-given offerings to express their gratitude to God for the things he had given them. The offerings were to be in kind, that is, the offerings were to consist of the same stuff that God's blessing had consisted of.
Tradition grew up that the feast of weeks was also a celebration of the giving of the covenant from Mount Sinai. From Jeremiah 31 forward, and especially in Ezekiel 36, God promised that he was going to institute a renewed covenant with the remnant of his people. One of the features of this New Testament would be that the LORD would write his law on his peoples' hearts by putting a new Spirit in them. In Joel, the LORD promised to pour out his Spirit on his people.
In Acts 2:16 Peter said "this is what was spoken through the prophet Joel..." In PFAL Wierwille taught that Peter did not mean what he said, but rather "this is LIKE that which was spoken by the prophet Joel"
WIERWILLE COULD NOT HAVE BEEN DEADER WRONG!
On the Day of Pentecost, Jesus established the New Testament by pouring out God's gift of the Holy Spirit!
The people of the covenant (everyone who called on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ) received a blessing from God. That blessing was not Wierwille's little button on a string. It was a partial measure of the life-force of God the Father heterodyned with the human personality of Jesus Messiah. The Spirit is not individualistic, it is the means by which we all, who have made a decision of humility toward Jesus, are entangled with him and with each other.
Those disciples of Christ who spoke in tongues on the day of Pentecost were offering spontaneous, voluntarily-given expressions of their gratitude to God for his blessing, by means of that same blessing... Spirit.
When we are speaking in tongues we are freely thanking God the Father through the Lord Jesus Christ by means of the Spirit, and I Corinthians 14:17 says we are doing it beautifully.
But... but... but... why does it have to be in words that the Holy Spirit gives? Why can't we just say what we want to say?
One of the requirements in the Old Testament for a thank-offering was that it had to be made of unleavened bread. This symbolized that our thanksgiving should not be tainted with hypocrisy.
We live in the time between the ages... some aspects of the coming Kingdom are already in place, some are still to eventuate when the Lord Jesus returns. Jeremiah 17:9 says the heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked. The desperate wickedness of my heart is that I want to be my own boss. I don't want to be lorded-over by anybody. Ezekiel 36:26 says that as part of the New Testament God will give me a new heart along with the Spirit of Resurrection Life, when the new age fully arrives. The gift of the Holy Spirit first poured out on the Day of Pentecost was not the Spirit of Resurrection Life... it was my earnest of that inheritance.
So here I sit, between the beginning of the new age that began when Jesus was raised from the dead and the end of the old age that will end when he returns. I have, as my guarantee that I am his, the gift of the Holy Spirit. But I also still have a heart that is thoroughly tainted with hypocrisy. Out of the abundance of the mouth the heart speaks. How can I offer to God thanksgiving that is suitably free of hypocrisy? With my mind, I can't! But by speaking as the Holy Spirit gives the utterance, I CAN!
It's a gift... a charisma.
THAT is God's purpose in giving people the ability to speak in tongues. God NEVER requires people to speak in tongues, because it is supposed to be a spontaneous, voluntary thing. In giving the impression that speaking in tongues is ever REQUIRED for anything, Wierwille was... how can I say it any stronger?... wrong. That's why genuine speaking in tongues always feels like we are making it up. It is totally free-will. That's why ALL the benefits of speaking in tongues Wierwille listed were so much CRAP! There is NO SELFISH BENEFIT to be received by speaking in tongues... not even the pride of saying "I speak in tongues more than you do"... all baloney... all of it!
I am personally inclined to think I might not be speaking in tongues if I don't have a conscious attitude of gratitude in my heart, but KNOW I am not so powerful that I can defeat the Spirit of God!
When Paul wrote in I Corinthians 14:4 that those who speak in a tongue build themselves up, it means that a person who deliberately speaks in tongues strengthens her confidence that Jesus really was raised from the dead, and that she really did receive the gift of the Holy Spirit, and that she really will be raised from the dead when Jesus returns. That's all...
All for now. I hope this helps people recognize what Wierwille couldn't even conceive of, the real purpose of speaking in tongues. Wierwille abused speaking in tongues. That doesn't mean Stiles did, or Gordon Fee, or my brother-in-law whose only experience of TWI is hearing the stories my sister and I tell.
Um, but you don't speak in tongues. You can SAY you speak in tongues all you'd like, but you have to twist and distort the meaning of "tongues" into a pretzel to force the conclusion that the sounds coming out of your mouth are "tongues." Now, you COULD say it's an indecipherable code known only to you and God, but we weren't talking about indecipherable codes.
...snip...
I didn't "twist and distort the meaning of 'tongues'".
I stated the definition Paul used when he wrote I Corinthians 12-14, "The ancients had no correspondingly detailed definitions for glossa. Liddell & Scott's Greek-English Lexicon simply says ""tongue...by word of mouth... language or dialect" All of the definitions we have for Greek words come from study of their use in context. We don't have any ancient dictionaries. We have practice tablets where students exercised their ability to write letters and words, but none of them record definitions.
I stated the modern, linguistic definition, a communication system that exhibits double articulation and syntax. That means the system is composed of a limited number of signs made up of an even more limited number of nonsense syllables, that can be put together in such ways as to produce and unlimited number of meanings.
The modern definition doesn't change the definition Paul was using. The tongues that I speak conform with both Paul's definition and the modern definition I use when I affirm that I speak in tongues.
I have nowhere introduced the idea of an undecipherable code. You injected that into the conversation, not me, Raf. Why?
By saying that the word glossa means "a known language and ONLY a known language" you have changed the language Paul was using. You have made Paul's use of glossa absolute (free of imperfection), because language which is not absolute cannot be used in a syllogism. If language is not absolute, a person can't use it to "prove" anything. You CANNOT prove from what Paul has written in I Corinthians 12-14 that I am not speaking in tongues... or anybody else for that matter.
You say I am required to prove that I am speaking in tongues because I affirm that my interpretation of my experience is that I am speaking in tongues. Why should that be so?
Can't I say that you are required to prove that you spoke a made up language as a child because you made that claim? Wasn't that also your interpretation of your experiences?
Neither of us have to justify our interpretations of our experiences to each other. We couldn't if we wanted to!
You make your reasoning sound so logical, Raf, but logic isn't the be all, end all. The soundness of logic is built on the truth of the propositions, and the degree of truth of a proposition is the same as the degree to which the proposition accords with objective reality. As objective reality turns out to be, there is a degree of uncertainty inherent in EVERYTHING. You can't make absolute statements that accord 100% with reality. Not about your interpretation of your experience... not about my interpretation of my experience.
Love, I feel like I'm sitting in the newsroom of the Anderson Herald about 55 years ago...
No matter how hard you try to get glossa To refer to something other than a human language, even going to the extent of accusing me of distorting what Paul wrote, you will never be able to demonstrate that it is anything other than a human language while still resorting to the Bible.
First, the Day of Pentecost recorded in Acts chapter 2 was not the "birthday" of the Church.
While I do agree with the statement, it may not be in the same way that you think. So, it would help if you were to clarify which "Church" you intend to refer to. Because in and of itself, it can be applied to different "called out" groups (or assemblies) of people.
The events of Acts 2 were the actualization/fulfillment of promises/prophecies made to and for Israel throughout the Old Testament, particularly in...
Well, I don't agree, based on a technicality. I would agree that it (the Day of Pentecost, Act 2) must have certainly appeared (to Peter and others that were with him that day) to be the beginning of the fulfillment of certain promises/prophecies the were made to and for Israel, even if it were (in reality) the beginning of it, it surely was not the end or complete fulfillment of said prophecies.
In Acts 2:16 Peter said "this is what was spoken through the prophet Joel..."
I think (it's my opinion... so, take it for what it is) that one of the great misperceptions about the book of Acts is that anything said or done by the apostles is the absolute "Word and Will of God" that is written elsewhere in scripture. But that's not the design or purpose of it. I believe is to be a very accurate recording of events that actually took place, regardless or whether they were in or out of alignment with the will of God. In other words, it's what was actually said or done.
Check this out, in verse 14:
But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and said unto them, Ye men of Judaea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and hearken to my words:
Does it say that Peter spoke by revelation from God? No.
Does it anywhere say that Peter was "moved by the spirit," and spoke by divine utterance or inspiration from God? No.
So, if YOU think that he did, then you might be wrong.
What is written, is what he (right or wrong) actually said. His motive is NOT revealed in this verse, so to presume that it is "the voice of God" is an assumption that far too many have (and still do) make.
We live in the time between the ages... some aspects of the coming Kingdom are already in place, some are still to eventuate when the Lord Jesus returns.
What is your position on dispensationalism, Steve? (might help to better explain better your perspective on some of this stuff you're writing...)
When Paul wrote in I Corinthians 14:4 that those who speak in a tongue build themselves up, it means that a person who deliberately speaks in tongues strengthens her confidence that Jesus really was raised from the dead, and that she really did receive the gift of the Holy Spirit, and that she really will be raised from the dead when Jesus returns. That's all...
This is a point I think needs further consideration.
Context of the cited quote: "The "words" that the Holy Spirit breathes into our hearts are not in any human language. It is as we translate/interpret/articulate those feelings (dabarim) into the language we were taught as children that the "words" become linguistic artifacts."
The problem with that, of course, is the Bible talks about speaking in TONGUES, and TONGUES in the Bible are languages, not spirit-imprints on our hearts that get articulated in otherwise meaningless sounds.
If you didn't say codes, fine. Someone did, either here or on another thread.
Paul's readers would have dropped dead of shock if someone tried to say glossa meant something other than language. I went through every usage in the Bible to document this, and we're still arguing about it.
I said it before, and I'll say it again: the only way you can make modern SIT genuine is to distort the Biblical meaning of glossa so that it no longer means what it obviously does now and obviously did then.
If we disagree, FINE. We disagree ON DOCTRINE. And that's not something I will waste another pixel arguing.
I think my ability to keep my cool is just about at a non-functional level, so I will be bowing out for the time being. If it's temporary (I AM exhausted), I'll be back soon. Otherwise, see you when you've documented a language.
All of the "it's a language but it's nothing like a recognizable, human language.
It's obviously tongues of angels, silly!" stuff is all based on a SINGLE VERSE.
That gets me nervous about a doctrine, lately.
Usually means I misunderstood the verse, not that a single verse really is the
basis for an entire, accurate doctrine.
It's all on a SINGLE MENTION of "tongues of angels."
"Well, there you have it-'tongues of angels' is mentioned, and Paul even talks
of speaking in them. Case closed."
Not quite, imaginary person I'm disagreeing with.
Let's take a look at the verse AND ITS CONTEXT.
I Corinthians 13:1-3 (NASB)
13 If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but do not have love, I have become a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal.
2 If I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge; and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing.
3 And if I give all my possessions to feed the poor, and if I surrender my body to be burned, but do not have love, it profits me nothing.
This section is to contrast love with all the dramatic displays of things of every kind.
In each instance, it uses hyperbole, a legitimate figure of speech which is not literally true to fact,
to make that point.
Without love, it's nothing even if I know ALL The Answers and have ALL The Knowledge.
(Is it possible to LITERALLY know ALL The Answers and have ALL The Knowledge? Obviously not.)
Without love, it's nothing even if I have a faith or believing that can move mountains at will.
(Is it possible to LITERALLY have faith to move an entire mountain? Obviously not-
through all the centuries where someone's claimed that was LITERALLY possible,
none of the billions of people have LITERALLY done it.
And many people would have loved to-and it would have made a fantastic commercial for
God Almighty to see it demonstrated. It certainly would have closed a lot of discussions
on the subject of God.)
Giving 100% my possessions to feed others and my physical body (the one thing left me)
for burning-is it LITERALLY going to happen? Not by any SANE Christian, so OBVIOUSLY
Paul wasn't trying to start you off on a project or give you a goal to shoot for.
Each instance included actions-and took them to an absurd level to make a point about
how love was much more important no matter what.
So, we started with the example of languages.
All accounts before this showed a demonstration of languages that someone recognized,
and someone present understood- which made them not only human languages,
but CURRENT languages spoken LOCALLY by SOMEONE if not many people.
So, speaking in languages of men and angels- was Paul saying it was possible
to speak in languages OF ANGELS?
Look at the construction of the sentences- in each case, there was an absurd
exaggeration. In I Corinthians 13:1, the absurd exaggeration was someone who was
able to Speak In Languages to the degree they could communicate beyond all
I think I got it: If the Dragon in my garage wants to SIT then it's O.K.; listen, I enjoy reading on the doctrinal forum but there's too much "personal" quiping going on about oneself - thanks to all of you who stick to the topic and not making it personal. This forum has picked up speed and I for one am greatly enlightened by it. Thanks, you have no idea how many folks probably come to GSC just to read the topics on the doctrinal forum.
So, what's language. You should understand this: if a frog says crivitz and no other frog understands it but a toad knows it's a town in north east Wisconsin, is it a language, is it SIT. Well no, of course not, at least to the frog but the toad, he get's it. I am not trying to be cute. So on the day of Penticost, 12 languages (there abouts) were spoken and there were folk in the assembly that understood. Do you ascertain that when you SIT their must be folk present to understand the SIT? Hope you don't croak before responding.
My point: meeting with Christians while in military service in Europe, mostly around the Mediteranian, numerous languages spoken and no issues with speaking in tongues. SIT is not a TWI exclusive thing - get over it, SIT existed before twi and will exist, well, until now.
Hey, not to change the discussion but I ask: don't you wanna be alive when the rapture occurs. Still on topic: what's more spiritual than being caught up in the air.
"Do you ascertain that when you SIT their must be folk present to understand the SIT?"
No, I ascertain maintain that, when or if you speak in tongues, it should do what speaking in tongues did in the Bible, which is produce a language. It should have form and substance like a genuine language. Whether someone can specifically identify it or not is a moot point.
"SIT is not a TWI exclusive thing - get over it, SIT existed before twi and will exist, well, until now."
I'm not sure why or where you got the idea I thought it is. The glosssolalia style SIT we practiced in The Way is done by Christians and Non-Christians outside The Way and even existed before Christianity itself.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
127
53
47
49
Popular Days
Feb 12
24
Feb 8
22
Feb 20
22
Feb 19
21
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 127 posts
Steve Lortz 53 posts
waysider 47 posts
TLC 49 posts
Popular Days
Feb 12 2016
24 posts
Feb 8 2016
22 posts
Feb 20 2016
22 posts
Feb 19 2016
21 posts
Popular Posts
Steve Lortz
A Word About A Word Tolerance is necessary for articulation. A hinge is an articulated device. One plate attaches to the door, the other plate attaches to the doorjamb, the two plates are joined tog
geisha779
Is 1 Corinthians 14:4 an instruction, a passing comment, or a commendable endeavor? Or . . . . is it smack dab in the middle of correction and juxtaposed to the demeanor that Paul wanted the Corinthi
waysider
Ummmmm.......You know he wasn't really a "Dr.", don't you?
Posted Images
TLC
If a scenario were presented wherein the use of an invisible, undetectable (by the five senses), dragon (so to speak) was the most effective (if not the only) practical means for God to achieve the desired/intended results, would it in any way validate that such a beast must exist?
Edited by TLCLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
No. It would, at best, give you a philosophical foundation for believing in said dragon. But it would not be evidence-based.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Did I not already state somewhere that my mind can (perhaps too often) work in strange ways?
Well, that's more or less what I thought. Which, is exactly (in my mind, anyways) the reason why it will never be proven with empirically based evidence.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Ok, but the issue of proving it is actually ancillary to what the Bible actually says it is and what it produces. I think that was the original purpose of this thread.
I suppose questions about whether it's still available or possible for believers today would also be on topic here, as long as we stick to "what does the Bible say?" as the criteria.
But "prove you're doing it" or "disprove I'm doing it" is a discussion for elsewhere. As I said, I was answering a question.
Then again, no one seems to be complaining about incorporating that question here. As a mod, if someone were to complain about it, I would have to agree that such discussions are out of bounds here. They're fair game elsewhere.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
A linguist would not have to prove WHAT language is being spoken. A linguist would only have to prove THAT a language is being spoken.
Does it not concern anyone else that Non-Christians can do the same thing we did in The Way? The difference is that when they do it they sometimes call it improvisational acting.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Well, someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but in discussing the scriptural aspects of it, I would think that part of understanding its benefits would also require pondering different ways to look at the reasons for it, including from God's perspective. Which may not be an easy task, but not necessarily or altogether an impossible one. But, it is one that extends outside the pages of I Cor. 12-14, and reaches as far as touching the theological foundation for it. So, I don't see "what the Bible says" as a hard and fast boundary for what can or might be "on topic" here.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
The short answer is, it keeps conversations focused. The fact that I faked it, and my belief that others did too, has nothing to do with what the Bible teaches about speaking in tongues.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
To me, that seems to strike rather close to empowering a linguist with the ability to prove God. If he says, YES, it's a language... does it really prove that it is a language, or does it merely call into question the expertise and ability of the linguist to detect a language? Inevitably, I think it will always come down to what (or who) we (as individuals) choose to believe and trust to be right or "real".
Evidently, not as much as you seem to think it should. I actually recall seeing some actors do it on "Who's Line Is It" some number of years ago. Yeah, at first, it did strike me as sounding like something similar to tongues. However, after a closer listen, I wasn't so persuaded to think it was. Now, I'm no linguistic expert, by any means. But to my eyes and ears, it just didn't look or sound as effervescent or effortless. (And these guys were phenomenal improv actors...)
I agree that should be kept separate. (But a certain amount of overlap is nearly unavoidable.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Probably because they were going for funny, not convincing.
I agree that some overlap is unavoidable, and I recognize that we are dealing with the revival of long-dormant threads. But Doctrinal was set up to protect doctrinal discussions from this kind of digression, and to protect other threads from a doctrinal digression.
No harm done. No one is complaining. But if someone did, he would be right.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
You're right about THAT, TLC!
One of the reasons Wierwille was so woefully wrong about SIT was because he COULDN'T explain from the scriptures what God's PURPOSE was in giving his people who are living in the time between the ages the ability to speak in tongues. Wierwille was blind to God's purpose because he misread the Bible from the get go.
First, the Day of Pentecost recorded in Acts chapter 2 was not the "birthday" of the Church.
The events of Acts 2 were the actualization/fulfillment of promises/prophecies made to and for Israel throughout the Old Testament, particularly in Deuteronomy 16:9&10: "9You shall count seven weeks; begin to count the seven weeks from the time the sickle is first put to the standing grain. 10Then you shall keep the festival of weeks to the LORD your God, contributing a free-will offering in proportion to the blessing that you have received from the LORD your God."
At the feast of weeks, God's people (the people of the covenant) were to make spontaneous, voluntarily-given offerings to express their gratitude to God for the things he had given them. The offerings were to be in kind, that is, the offerings were to consist of the same stuff that God's blessing had consisted of.
Tradition grew up that the feast of weeks was also a celebration of the giving of the covenant from Mount Sinai. From Jeremiah 31 forward, and especially in Ezekiel 36, God promised that he was going to institute a renewed covenant with the remnant of his people. One of the features of this New Testament would be that the LORD would write his law on his peoples' hearts by putting a new Spirit in them. In Joel, the LORD promised to pour out his Spirit on his people.
In Acts 2:16 Peter said "this is what was spoken through the prophet Joel..." In PFAL Wierwille taught that Peter did not mean what he said, but rather "this is LIKE that which was spoken by the prophet Joel"
WIERWILLE COULD NOT HAVE BEEN DEADER WRONG!
On the Day of Pentecost, Jesus established the New Testament by pouring out God's gift of the Holy Spirit!
The people of the covenant (everyone who called on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ) received a blessing from God. That blessing was not Wierwille's little button on a string. It was a partial measure of the life-force of God the Father heterodyned with the human personality of Jesus Messiah. The Spirit is not individualistic, it is the means by which we all, who have made a decision of humility toward Jesus, are entangled with him and with each other.
Those disciples of Christ who spoke in tongues on the day of Pentecost were offering spontaneous, voluntarily-given expressions of their gratitude to God for his blessing, by means of that same blessing... Spirit.
When we are speaking in tongues we are freely thanking God the Father through the Lord Jesus Christ by means of the Spirit, and I Corinthians 14:17 says we are doing it beautifully.
But... but... but... why does it have to be in words that the Holy Spirit gives? Why can't we just say what we want to say?
One of the requirements in the Old Testament for a thank-offering was that it had to be made of unleavened bread. This symbolized that our thanksgiving should not be tainted with hypocrisy.
We live in the time between the ages... some aspects of the coming Kingdom are already in place, some are still to eventuate when the Lord Jesus returns. Jeremiah 17:9 says the heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked. The desperate wickedness of my heart is that I want to be my own boss. I don't want to be lorded-over by anybody. Ezekiel 36:26 says that as part of the New Testament God will give me a new heart along with the Spirit of Resurrection Life, when the new age fully arrives. The gift of the Holy Spirit first poured out on the Day of Pentecost was not the Spirit of Resurrection Life... it was my earnest of that inheritance.
So here I sit, between the beginning of the new age that began when Jesus was raised from the dead and the end of the old age that will end when he returns. I have, as my guarantee that I am his, the gift of the Holy Spirit. But I also still have a heart that is thoroughly tainted with hypocrisy. Out of the abundance of the mouth the heart speaks. How can I offer to God thanksgiving that is suitably free of hypocrisy? With my mind, I can't! But by speaking as the Holy Spirit gives the utterance, I CAN!
It's a gift... a charisma.
THAT is God's purpose in giving people the ability to speak in tongues. God NEVER requires people to speak in tongues, because it is supposed to be a spontaneous, voluntary thing. In giving the impression that speaking in tongues is ever REQUIRED for anything, Wierwille was... how can I say it any stronger?... wrong. That's why genuine speaking in tongues always feels like we are making it up. It is totally free-will. That's why ALL the benefits of speaking in tongues Wierwille listed were so much CRAP! There is NO SELFISH BENEFIT to be received by speaking in tongues... not even the pride of saying "I speak in tongues more than you do"... all baloney... all of it!
I am personally inclined to think I might not be speaking in tongues if I don't have a conscious attitude of gratitude in my heart, but KNOW I am not so powerful that I can defeat the Spirit of God!
When Paul wrote in I Corinthians 14:4 that those who speak in a tongue build themselves up, it means that a person who deliberately speaks in tongues strengthens her confidence that Jesus really was raised from the dead, and that she really did receive the gift of the Holy Spirit, and that she really will be raised from the dead when Jesus returns. That's all...
All for now. I hope this helps people recognize what Wierwille couldn't even conceive of, the real purpose of speaking in tongues. Wierwille abused speaking in tongues. That doesn't mean Stiles did, or Gordon Fee, or my brother-in-law whose only experience of TWI is hearing the stories my sister and I tell.
Love,
Steve
Edited by Steve LortzLink to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
I didn't "twist and distort the meaning of 'tongues'".
I stated the definition Paul used when he wrote I Corinthians 12-14, "The ancients had no correspondingly detailed definitions for glossa. Liddell & Scott's Greek-English Lexicon simply says ""tongue...by word of mouth... language or dialect" All of the definitions we have for Greek words come from study of their use in context. We don't have any ancient dictionaries. We have practice tablets where students exercised their ability to write letters and words, but none of them record definitions.
I stated the modern, linguistic definition, a communication system that exhibits double articulation and syntax. That means the system is composed of a limited number of signs made up of an even more limited number of nonsense syllables, that can be put together in such ways as to produce and unlimited number of meanings.
The modern definition doesn't change the definition Paul was using. The tongues that I speak conform with both Paul's definition and the modern definition I use when I affirm that I speak in tongues.
I have nowhere introduced the idea of an undecipherable code. You injected that into the conversation, not me, Raf. Why?
By saying that the word glossa means "a known language and ONLY a known language" you have changed the language Paul was using. You have made Paul's use of glossa absolute (free of imperfection), because language which is not absolute cannot be used in a syllogism. If language is not absolute, a person can't use it to "prove" anything. You CANNOT prove from what Paul has written in I Corinthians 12-14 that I am not speaking in tongues... or anybody else for that matter.
You say I am required to prove that I am speaking in tongues because I affirm that my interpretation of my experience is that I am speaking in tongues. Why should that be so?
Can't I say that you are required to prove that you spoke a made up language as a child because you made that claim? Wasn't that also your interpretation of your experiences?
Neither of us have to justify our interpretations of our experiences to each other. We couldn't if we wanted to!
You make your reasoning sound so logical, Raf, but logic isn't the be all, end all. The soundness of logic is built on the truth of the propositions, and the degree of truth of a proposition is the same as the degree to which the proposition accords with objective reality. As objective reality turns out to be, there is a degree of uncertainty inherent in EVERYTHING. You can't make absolute statements that accord 100% with reality. Not about your interpretation of your experience... not about my interpretation of my experience.
Love, I feel like I'm sitting in the newsroom of the Anderson Herald about 55 years ago...
Steve
Edited by Steve LortzLink to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
eiy, yei, yei. (or... "oy vey" if ye'r jewish.)
Enough already with the dissing of vp on this thread.
It's much less distracting to stay focus on what you think is right, rather than so much on why he's wrong.
(Besides, I thought y'all pretty much agreed that none of what he taught was really his original ideas...)
Edited by TLCLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
No matter how hard you try to get glossa To refer to something other than a human language, even going to the extent of accusing me of distorting what Paul wrote, you will never be able to demonstrate that it is anything other than a human language while still resorting to the Bible.
The Bible's use of the term is consistent.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
While I do agree with the statement, it may not be in the same way that you think. So, it would help if you were to clarify which "Church" you intend to refer to. Because in and of itself, it can be applied to different "called out" groups (or assemblies) of people.
Well, I don't agree, based on a technicality. I would agree that it (the Day of Pentecost, Act 2) must have certainly appeared (to Peter and others that were with him that day) to be the beginning of the fulfillment of certain promises/prophecies the were made to and for Israel, even if it were (in reality) the beginning of it, it surely was not the end or complete fulfillment of said prophecies.
I think (it's my opinion... so, take it for what it is) that one of the great misperceptions about the book of Acts is that anything said or done by the apostles is the absolute "Word and Will of God" that is written elsewhere in scripture. But that's not the design or purpose of it. I believe is to be a very accurate recording of events that actually took place, regardless or whether they were in or out of alignment with the will of God. In other words, it's what was actually said or done.
Check this out, in verse 14:
But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and said unto them, Ye men of Judaea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and hearken to my words:
Does it say that Peter spoke by revelation from God? No.
Does it anywhere say that Peter was "moved by the spirit," and spoke by divine utterance or inspiration from God? No.
So, if YOU think that he did, then you might be wrong.
What is written, is what he (right or wrong) actually said. His motive is NOT revealed in this verse, so to presume that it is "the voice of God" is an assumption that far too many have (and still do) make.
What is your position on dispensationalism, Steve? (might help to better explain better your perspective on some of this stuff you're writing...)
This is a point I think needs further consideration.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
"This is how speaking in tongues can genuinely be speaking by the Spirit of God even if it DOES NOT PRODUCE a recognizable human language."
You wrote that on another thread, Steve. There is not a scrap of BIBLICAL support for that statement.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Context of the cited quote: "The "words" that the Holy Spirit breathes into our hearts are not in any human language. It is as we translate/interpret/articulate those feelings (dabarim) into the language we were taught as children that the "words" become linguistic artifacts."
The problem with that, of course, is the Bible talks about speaking in TONGUES, and TONGUES in the Bible are languages, not spirit-imprints on our hearts that get articulated in otherwise meaningless sounds.
If you didn't say codes, fine. Someone did, either here or on another thread.
Paul's readers would have dropped dead of shock if someone tried to say glossa meant something other than language. I went through every usage in the Bible to document this, and we're still arguing about it.
I said it before, and I'll say it again: the only way you can make modern SIT genuine is to distort the Biblical meaning of glossa so that it no longer means what it obviously does now and obviously did then.
If we disagree, FINE. We disagree ON DOCTRINE. And that's not something I will waste another pixel arguing.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I think my ability to keep my cool is just about at a non-functional level, so I will be bowing out for the time being. If it's temporary (I AM exhausted), I'll be back soon. Otherwise, see you when you've documented a language.
Djbp!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
All of the "it's a language but it's nothing like a recognizable, human language.
It's obviously tongues of angels, silly!" stuff is all based on a SINGLE VERSE.
That gets me nervous about a doctrine, lately.
Usually means I misunderstood the verse, not that a single verse really is the
basis for an entire, accurate doctrine.
It's all on a SINGLE MENTION of "tongues of angels."
"Well, there you have it-'tongues of angels' is mentioned, and Paul even talks
of speaking in them. Case closed."
Not quite, imaginary person I'm disagreeing with.
Let's take a look at the verse AND ITS CONTEXT.
I Corinthians 13:1-3 (NASB)
13 If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but do not have love, I have become a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal.
2 If I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge; and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing.
3 And if I give all my possessions to feed the poor, and if I surrender my body to be burned, but do not have love, it profits me nothing.
This section is to contrast love with all the dramatic displays of things of every kind.
In each instance, it uses hyperbole, a legitimate figure of speech which is not literally true to fact,
to make that point.
Without love, it's nothing even if I know ALL The Answers and have ALL The Knowledge.
(Is it possible to LITERALLY know ALL The Answers and have ALL The Knowledge? Obviously not.)
Without love, it's nothing even if I have a faith or believing that can move mountains at will.
(Is it possible to LITERALLY have faith to move an entire mountain? Obviously not-
through all the centuries where someone's claimed that was LITERALLY possible,
none of the billions of people have LITERALLY done it.
And many people would have loved to-and it would have made a fantastic commercial for
God Almighty to see it demonstrated. It certainly would have closed a lot of discussions
on the subject of God.)
Giving 100% my possessions to feed others and my physical body (the one thing left me)
for burning-is it LITERALLY going to happen? Not by any SANE Christian, so OBVIOUSLY
Paul wasn't trying to start you off on a project or give you a goal to shoot for.
Each instance included actions-and took them to an absurd level to make a point about
how love was much more important no matter what.
So, we started with the example of languages.
All accounts before this showed a demonstration of languages that someone recognized,
and someone present understood- which made them not only human languages,
but CURRENT languages spoken LOCALLY by SOMEONE if not many people.
So, speaking in languages of men and angels- was Paul saying it was possible
to speak in languages OF ANGELS?
Look at the construction of the sentences- in each case, there was an absurd
exaggeration. In I Corinthians 13:1, the absurd exaggeration was someone who was
able to Speak In Languages to the degree they could communicate beyond all
human language and Speak In Angelese.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Say what? Who's imagination fabricated this?
If it's plainly written that no man understandeth (ICor.14:2), why the contradiction with scripture?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
MRAP
I think I got it: If the Dragon in my garage wants to SIT then it's O.K.; listen, I enjoy reading on the doctrinal forum but there's too much "personal" quiping going on about oneself - thanks to all of you who stick to the topic and not making it personal. This forum has picked up speed and I for one am greatly enlightened by it. Thanks, you have no idea how many folks probably come to GSC just to read the topics on the doctrinal forum.
O.K., I'm done, please continue - please.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Fascinating. Acts 2 says they spoke languages that others understood yet I Cor 14:2 says no man understands.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
MRAP
Link to comment
Share on other sites
MRAP
So, what's language. You should understand this: if a frog says crivitz and no other frog understands it but a toad knows it's a town in north east Wisconsin, is it a language, is it SIT. Well no, of course not, at least to the frog but the toad, he get's it. I am not trying to be cute. So on the day of Penticost, 12 languages (there abouts) were spoken and there were folk in the assembly that understood. Do you ascertain that when you SIT their must be folk present to understand the SIT? Hope you don't croak before responding.
My point: meeting with Christians while in military service in Europe, mostly around the Mediteranian, numerous languages spoken and no issues with speaking in tongues. SIT is not a TWI exclusive thing - get over it, SIT existed before twi and will exist, well, until now.
Hey, not to change the discussion but I ask: don't you wanna be alive when the rapture occurs. Still on topic: what's more spiritual than being caught up in the air.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
"Do you ascertain that when you SIT their must be folk present to understand the SIT?"
No, I ascertain maintain that, when or if you speak in tongues, it should do what speaking in tongues did in the Bible, which is produce a language. It should have form and substance like a genuine language. Whether someone can specifically identify it or not is a moot point.
"SIT is not a TWI exclusive thing - get over it, SIT existed before twi and will exist, well, until now."
I'm not sure why or where you got the idea I thought it is. The glosssolalia style SIT we practiced in The Way is done by Christians and Non-Christians outside The Way and even existed before Christianity itself.
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.