Has it been 10 years? When I think of all I could have done with that utter waste of time and energy...
I don't think your time and energy were wasted, Raf. The Actual Errors in PFAL thread is the only effort I am aware of to systematically examine the errors of the things Wierwille taught. It was something Lynn, Schoenheit and Graeser SHOULD have done, but didn't. Issues you brought up have shaped my thinking to this day!
I THANK YOU for the time and energy you put into what you did then, and the time and energy you are putting into what you are doing now!
Has it been 10 years? When I think of all I could have done with that utter waste of time and energy...
Some people think it is worth sifting through to keep the "nuggets" of truth....or is it the baby and not the bath water. Wait, is it we keep the bathwater and we toss the baby? Now I am confused. Don't beat yourself up. I took the easy route and tossed that kid right out the window and let the tub and water hit him on the way down. Not everyone is willing to do that. I am sure that thread has promoted many to questions. It was a herculean effort and I am sure not without some real good being done. You simply may never hear of all the people it touched.
Steve, I'm afraid you gave the effort a tad too much credit. While I have been assured that the list helped break through the illusion of perfection that some placed on PFAL even while paying lip service to its imperfections, the truth is, by design, I never even tried to systematically examine Wierwille's errors. My entire argument was based on internal consistency/inconsistency, my goal merely to show that the written works of VPW did not pass their own test of what it is to be God-breathed. I never sought to prove or disprove Wierwille's key doctrines.
More deserving of the accolade you bestow is Jerry Barrax's PFAL Review threads, which went through the book and class chapter by chapter, session by session. THAT was truly the first effort I saw to systematically examine Wierwille's doctrines and errors. Jerry went after the substance. By comparison, I nitpicked.
I would argue that the most substantive issue addressed in Actual Errors was Wierwille's distinction between the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Heaven. For all Wierwille's examination, the clear Biblical distinction between the terms was purely semantic. The terms are utterly synonymous.
Appreciate the kind words, though (you too, Geisha).
Thanks for bringing Jerry Barrax to my remembrance! He and I met each other on the old CES forums before the organization shut them down. We had some good times trying to bring the errors of CES to their attention. You had the tenacity, RAF, and bull-headedness it took to plow through all the BS being relentlessly spewed by certain parties. Thanks again!
The key in that whole argument was to debunk it on its own terms. That, to me, was the critical part of the whole enterprise.
To disprove the presented thesis by pointing out the "error" of dispensationalism (the course you were eager to pursue, Steve), would have had no effect, because PFAL declares you wrong and PFAL is God-breathed.
That's why there was so much nitpicking in Actual Errors. The items on the list are largely meaningless in the grand scheme of things, but they are devastating to the claim of inerrancy and perfection. So what if Wierwille wrote in one book that "Judas went and hanged himself" meant one thing while writing in another book that "Judas went and hanged himself" means something else entirely? We intuitively understood that as a growth (or change) in the understanding of the writer, and we accept that the later explanation is the one held by Wierwille as the more accurate. But if both books are God-breathed, we have there a devastating contradiction that cannot be explained away. One of the two explanations had to be wrong. It doesn't matter which one: the FACT that it was a contradiction demolished the claim of inerrancy.
Tenacity? Maybe. But there was pride and arrogance in that whole enterprise too, a fact of which I am not particularly proud. I lament that the logic and reason I employed apparently had no effect on its intended recipient, but I am grateful that it helped others.
Tenacity? Maybe. But there was pride and arrogance in that whole enterprise too, a fact of which I am not particularly proud. I lament that the logic and reason I employed apparently had no effect on its intended recipient...
You weren't the Lone Ranger in that, Raf! I really hope you're having fun and doing well now. I am on a much better balance than I was back then!
In I Corinthians 8:5, Paul wrote that there ARE many gods! What are we to make of this if all words have to be representational in order to be true, something Wierwille learned from the fundamentalist protestants?
(snip)
Before going off on a 12-session class for 200/100/85/50/40 dollars
or something,
try the most obvious meaning of the passage.
It has always read the same to me regardless of version.
Even in the KJV I read it the same way.
1 Corinthians 8:4-6
New International Version (NIV)
4 So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that “An idol is nothing at all in the world” and that “There is no God but one.” 5 For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”), 6 yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.
1 Corinthians 8:4-6
New American Standard Bible (NASB)
4 Therefore concerning the eating of things sacrificed to idols, we know that there is no such thing as an idol in the world, and that there is no God but one. 5 For even if there are so-called gods whether in heaven or on earth, as indeed there are many gods and many lords, 6 yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him.
1 Corinthians 8:4-6
Contemporary English Version (CEV)
4 Even though food is offered to idols, we know that none of the idols in this world are alive. After all, there is only one God. 5 Many things in heaven and on earth are called gods and lords, but none of them really are gods or lords. 6 We have only one God, and he is the Father. He created everything, and we live for him. Jesus Christ is our only Lord. Everything was made by him, and by him life was given to us.
1 Corinthians 8:4-6
King James Version (KJV)
4 As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one.
5 For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)
6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.
Some people make an idol or a "god" of their job, or their
patriotism, or their family, or their political affiliation, or any of
hundreds of other things. Those things they make more important and
schedule their lives around, those are often their "lords". There's
"gods" and "lords" of every type. Ever see someone live for fantasy
football or for sex? You know what their "god" or their "lord" is.
Many gods? Yes- money, power, sex, fame, drugs....
Many supernatural beings existing and desiring worship?
Not what this is saying at all.
Back in high school, one guy I knew said that, if vampires were driven
off by objects of worship, most people would have to hold up a dollar
bill to ward one off. (And he was an atheist-he didn't think there was
anything supernatural about a dollar bill.)
Be careful. When the possibilities are "the obvious meaning" and
Occam's razor (also written as Ockham's razor, Latin lex parsimoniae) is the law of parsimony, economy, or succinctness. It is a principle stating that among competing hypotheses, the one which makes the fewest assumptions should be selected.
As God is in what WW sees even so he is in what Steve sees or Geisha or anyone.
You know cman, I actually do understand what Steve is talking about. . . . if you read enough theology you will run across just about everything, I don't think it is as esoteric as Steve would like to believe. If you Google 1 Corinthians 8: 4-6 and the word Shemah or hegemonikon a whole host of papers and theories about what Paul is saying in those verses will likely come up. Yet, when and if it finally comes down to it....it is going to work out pretty much as WordWolf has explained. It is just endless arguments over words. I suspect this particular one has an agenda I might consider heretical.
I wouldn't even mind all the endless minutia.....I know how to scroll down a page, but, Steve has already pointed out what I do and do not need to understand. I was informed I already have my "special" job from the Lord and it apparently doesn't include discussion of 1 Corinthians 8: 4-6. What could I possibly contribute? Yes, I took that post as extremely condescending and offensive.
Don't confuse not encouraging a discussion with not recognizing one...if others wish to engage...I have no problem with that.
I really thought God's grace and mercy had allowed you to finally finally be around Christians to see and to come to a simple knowledge of Jesus Christ. To share fully in a Christians common faith. I believed that was where your journey was leading you.
...
How familiar are you with Autistic Spectrum Disorder, Geisha, what the Diagnostic Standards Manual formerly called Asperger's Syndrome?
How familiar are you with Autistic Spectrum Disorder, Geisha, what the Diagnostic Standards Manual formerly called Asperger's Syndrome?
Love,
Steve
I spent two years working with autistic adult males....and although I worked primarily with those who were also severely developmentally disabled....I did work with clients who have Aspergers. One young man rocked so hard he cracked his back. Some of the best people I know have autism and some of the best times I have ever had are with those people. So, I guess I know a bit from experience.
Raf posted a really interesting article in the SIT reading room thread and I thought it was well worth posting a link here. The author also has a book entitled Fanning the Flames: Probing the issues in Acts. At least I believe it is the same person. I ordered the book either way, it looks like an interesting read. Of course, much of his article reiterates things I think are evident in these scriptures, :) but it was nice to see someone else draw similar parallels.
I'm working through this source now. I thought I'd comment here rather than clutter up the SIT Reading Room thread with discussion when that might be a good place to collect references.
Mark Moore - What We Can Know About SIT
I. What We Can Know About Speaking in Tongues Historically
Some good stuff here. Great references, from church history and modern history. I learned something here.
II. What We Can Know About Tongues Theologically
Here he starts to get into trouble.
Basham gives a classic Pentecostal definition: "Speaking in tongues is a form of prayer in which the Christian yields himself to the Holy Spirit and receives from the Spirit a supernatural language with which to praise God.”[11] This definition assumes two things. First, the primary form of tongues is prayer. Second, tongues constitute a divine, rather than a human language. Basham is right on if we’re looking at the dominant contemporary exercise of tongues. However, laid next to the Scriptures, both of these assumptions are suspect. The term "speaking in tongues” in the Bible comes from the Greek phrase γλώσσαις λαειν ("tongues” and "to speak”).[12]
His focus on supernatural language and his #2 assumption are both inaccurate and unsupported scripturally. IMO he is constructing a straw man here. In the definition it is not necessarily a "supernatural language". Tongues define themselves as "the tongues of men or angels" in Corinthians. This means that they are either a language used by men on Earth at some time, or a language spoken by angels. The alternative proposed interpretation is that "of angels" is a figure of speech (like hyperbole or in that family of figures) to exaggerate or over-emphasize the power and magnitude of what tongues represent. If it is figurative, what would "of angels" be meant to communicate? Since angels are spirit beings the first and most obvious point would be that it would be a language to communicate with spirit beings as opposed to humans. The second would be that it represents spiritual power as different from power in the physical realm.
Moving on. He goes on to define SIT a little more narrowly:
Therefore, a better definition of Biblical tongues is this: The ability to speak in a language which one has never studied (1 Cor 12:28). Obviously this definition will require greater elaboration, which it shall receive in the following pages.
Since he is in the theological section here, I'll say that this is accurate in its limited scope but does not represent the entirety of SIT.
Next he covers "Is glossolalia real human language?" and delves into a topic that Raf supports strongly - where he makes the case for I Cor. 13:1 tongues of angels being a hyperbolic statement. He does a good job making a case for that tying in all the other hyperbolic statements Paul makes and pointing out he didn't move mountains, etc. So his aim there is to narrow down SIT to human language only for purpose of examination and proof.
Next he digs into Romans 8:24:
Finally, there is Romans 8:26: "The Spirit helps us in our weakness. We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groans that words cannot express.” Does not that support an ineffable groaning in prayer? Well, yes. However, the groaning is not done by the human agent on earth, but by the very Spirit of God in the throne room. To use this as a support for glossolalia misses the point and diminishes the grandeur of the work of the Spirit on our behalf.
This verse is problematic in proofs as it is very closely tied to the doctrine of the Trinity. Is the Spirit here the third person of the Godhead, or is it talking about the gift itself? Depending on your views on the Trinity, this could make or break someone's view towards SIT - if it's the 3rd person of the Godhead, then SIT is unnecessary, and the Spirit does the work. If it's the gift, then that's a supporting verse for SIT being valuable in someone's private prayer life. Obviously the author is a Trinitarian and thus his interpretation here follows.
I don't think he's constructing a straw man so much as he's making a concerted effort at looking at this from all angles and deciding which one is correct. Keep reading. I don't agree with everything he says either (for example, I do not believe SIT opens you up to a Satanic influence).
Is Glossolalia for the purpose of personal enjoyment? It is common to read testimonies of tongue-speakers who laud the personal benefits of the gift. It is extolled as a wonderful experience that enhances one’s devotion to God. These statements stand on 1 Corinthians 14:4, "He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself, but he who prophesies edifies the church.” MacDonald says, "‘Glossolalia’ is the one gift given primarily for the benefit of the individual.”[19] Again, Basham says, "The primary purpose of it is for us in one’s own devotional life.”[20] The problem is this: 1 Corinthians 14:4 is not advocating the private use of tongues; rather, Paul is criticizing their use. Turning gifts inward is unhelpful to the body; that is Paul’s point. In fact, in light of 1 Corinthians 14:1a, Paul might even argue that uninterpreted tongues are unloving.
Here Moore IMO misses the forest for the trees. While it is stated that SIT builds up one's self, that is miles away from defining the purpose of SIT as for personal enjoyment or benefit. While true, that is secondary. One gets the picture of a muscle-bound egotist at a Gold's Gym SIT for hours and looking at themselves in the mirror. Thus the focus is taken off the smaller tidbits of truth contained in the letter, and on to the discussion of building up others. The main purpose of SIT is not for building up the body, it is for one's private prayer life.
As an example of this, as a child myself and friends would like to make up things speaking in Pig Latin. We would play and hold a private conversation which we held to be special and just between us. Because we were speaking in Pig Latin, only we could understand. It made us feel closer and that outsiders couldn't eavesdrop. SIT in my private prayer life feels like speaking to my friends in Pig Latin. I wasn't doing it to become a Pig Latin linguist and United Nations translator, or to make myself big and Pig strong, I was doing it because we could and it was cool. No big deal, kids will be kids. Now reading through this example again, it provides a lot of ammo for the "faker" side in saying "yeah, and that's why you made up SIT as an adult". Hopefully the reader can sort through the tangibles in the example without resorting to that logical leap.
With Moore's handling of I Cor. 14:4 the problem is this: here the context is talking about what they do in the temple, in church meetings, or at each others house when interacting with others in the body. It is not discouraging SIT in private prayer life, it is contrasting the private prayer life benefit which was being over-emphasized in Corinth with how they should be more mindful of one another, and look to edify others "in the church".
Some people really like to latch on to the latter, and use it to disprove the former. However, the only way you can really do that is to say that the context and tone of Corinthians is the ONLY thing important, and the individual verses can possibly be untrue and stated just in the context of reproof.
While that may be OK to do something like that when you are evaluating personal interaction, like an argument between two people, we are discussing scripture here. If it has no more weight than a mere statement in anger someone had while reproving Corinthians, then really there is no authority of scripture that can be held to, as it could be an incorrect statement made by a human at any given point, and not divinely inspired.
Next Moore gets into what I call "Jehova's Witness" territory. He claims that if you are doing something yourself that God didn't recommend, you could be possessed. This is great logic for introducing fear around the subject into the reader, and moves pretty far away from any scientific analysis.
Suffice it to say any person can refute this and probably does daily. For example, I do things probably on a daily basis God doesn't recommend (probably and hypothetically). There's a lot more things God says I should do that I don't. This is called "being human". This is not going to get me possessed by the spirit of Dr. Pepper. (or whatever). Come on, Moore. Can we move beyond the tribal superstition "booga booga" mindset here?
The section after this one is
Are the tongues of 1 Corinthians different than the tongues in Acts?
For this section it brings up theological arguments I have never heard before, and thus I learned a lot. Many sociologists and theologians bring up differences between Cor. and Acts in what they were doing. Honestly never thought of that before, but it's important to consider if there is a lot of mainstream Christian attention on it.
I agree with Moore's conclusion that a plain reading of Acts and Corinthians compels us to believe that the tongues spoken of in Acts and Corinthians are human languages. I accept that this position is not universally held.
I agree with Moore's conclusion that a plain reading of Acts and Corinthians compels us to believe that the tongues spoken of in Acts and Corinthians are human languages. I accept that this position is not universally held.
The difference in my views are that I hold the Romans 8:24 reference to be a non-Trinitarian interpretation, and the "groans that cannot be uttered" to me are describing private prayer life. As such, I would not limit the communication between myself and God to need to be in the language of a person on earth. That could support a "tongues of angels" type interpretation.
I've only been glancing at Chockfull's ongoing dispute with geisha on the various threads, so forgive me if this has been covered.
Chockfull, I think it might be possible that you might maybe be giving the concept of hyperbole a bit of short shrift in explaining the statement "I would that you all spoke in tongues." (Did I couch that enough?)
I think Paul is very clearly expressing reproof over the abuse of tongues in this congregation. When he says "I would that you all spoke in tongues," he could be expressing a literal desire without expressing a realistic possibility. "I would that you all spoke in tongues, won the lottery and married the hottie next door." It doesn't mean everyone can or will. And it certainly doesn't mean that in the context of a gathering of the church (but you knew that). It means he wishes everyone could. Wierwille made (what I think was) the mistake of suggesting that "I" was a reference to God, not Paul. If it's God saying He wants us all to speak in tongues, then the mandate is pretty clear. But if it's Paul, then it's not a mandate. It's wishful thinking.
Just a thought. I'm not sure it holds water. It strikes me that you had a group of people where everyone wanted to stand out as special, and Paul seems to be discouraging this.
I don't think he's forbidding tongues, obviously. The last verse in ch. 14 seems pretty clear on that point.
But I don't think "I would that you all spoke in tongues" is a doctrinal statement that compels the interpretation that all believers can. Other verses might make that point, but I'm not sure this one does.
Anyway, I offer the preceding as a thought, not a doctrine and not even a formed belief on my part.
This bible study may interest some....what is helpful to remember is that Paul is answering a series of questions submitted by the Corinthians, and although we are not privy to the questions, we can with some confidence piece together what they were asking. It appears that in this section 12-14 he is answering more than just a basic question about tongues, rather he is addressing the issue of coveting tongues and what true spirituality means. It seems the Corinthians were confusing the spectacular nature of SIT with the meaning of mature spirituality. Something else to maybe keep in mind is that VP borrowed heavily from the word of faith movement where things are often taken literally when they are not meant in that way. One more thing to thank him for.
Third, the gift of tongues is not some form of direct communication with God, as was undoubtedly thought of by the Corinthians and is often thought of today as well. People today often appeal to 14:2 in support of such a contention. This reading of the passage is fallacious for it is not Paul's point in v. 2 to affirm that the speaker has some mystical direct communion with God. His point is that since the tongues speaker (i.e., without an interpreter) speaks words that no one else can understand, he ends up speaking only to God, that is, only God can understand. To everyone else he speaks mysteries. Support for this idea cannot be garnered from 14:4 or 14:14-15 either. In each of these cases, uninterpreted tongues is the issue and only the speaker is edified. He may be encouraged well enough, as is anyone who exercises their gift. He may even be more so since his gift tends toward the spectacular (i.e., the ability to speak a foreign language without having studied it). But, his immaturity has lured him toward a fascination for the miraculous at the expense of the needs of his own brethern. This is carnality, not genuine spirituality (3:1ff).
Fourth, tongues is not an uncontrollable phenomena. With the exhortation in 14:40 and the statement of confusion in 14:33 we may be sure that there was chaos in the Corinthian assemblies in the exercise of the gifts. But Paul says very clearly that a person has the ability to control its (i.e., tongues) expression in their gatherings. They should speak each in his own turn and not at all if there is no interpreter.
Fifth, there were those in Corinth who claimed as many do today that all men should speak in tongues. Appeal is made to 14:5. There Paul says that he wished that all of them spoke in tongues. But, how can he be taken literally, when he has just finished arguing at length in chapter 12 against the Corinthian reductionism that everyone must speak in tongues. No, he boldly proclaimed that the Spirit had given varieties of gifts and that not all had the gift of tongues. If all did have the gift, how could someone fill the spot of the ungifted (i.e., without the gift of tongues), as according to his argument, they did (cf. 14:16)? What then is the need for an interpreter in the assembly? The reason Paul says this is that if all speak in tongues he could be guaranteed, because of their selfish state, that everyone would get edified, the very thing for which he is arguing. In the end though, uniformity is not the design of the Spirit (12:11).
I think Paul is very clearly expressing reproof over the abuse of tongues in this congregation. When he says "I would that you all spoke in tongues," he could be expressing a literal desire without expressing a realistic possibility. "I would that you all spoke in tongues, won the lottery and married the hottie next door." It doesn't mean everyone can or will. And it certainly doesn't mean that in the context of a gathering of the church (but you knew that). It means he wishes everyone could. Wierwille made (what I think was) the mistake of suggesting that "I" was a reference to God, not Paul. If it's God saying He wants us all to speak in tongues, then the mandate is pretty clear. But if it's Paul, then it's not a mandate. It's wishful thinking.
Just a thought. I'm not sure it holds water. It strikes me that you had a group of people where everyone wanted to stand out as special, and Paul seems to be discouraging this.
I don't think he's forbidding tongues, obviously. The last verse in ch. 14 seems pretty clear on that point.
But I don't think "I would that you all spoke in tongues" is a doctrinal statement that compels the interpretation that all believers can. Other verses might make that point, but I'm not sure this one does.
But rather that you prophesy. So if tongues wasn't available to the people he was speaking to, or not all of them, then by logic neither would prophecy be. So by that logic, it would be like Paul saying "I wish you were all billionaires, but if you can't do that, I'd rather you all be millionaires".
What about the people eating government cheese who could be neither? They are SOL, and now are more discouraged.
Chockfull, I think it might be possible that you might maybe be giving the concept of hyperbole a bit of short shrift in explaining the statement "I would that you all spoke in tongues." (Did I couch that enough?)
I think Paul is very clearly expressing reproof over the abuse of tongues in this congregation. When he says "I would that you all spoke in tongues," he could be expressing a literal desire without expressing a realistic possibility. "I would that you all spoke in tongues, won the lottery and married the hottie next door." It doesn't mean everyone can or will. And it certainly doesn't mean that in the context of a gathering of the church (but you knew that). It means he wishes everyone could. Wierwille made (what I think was) the mistake of suggesting that "I" was a reference to God, not Paul. If it's God saying He wants us all to speak in tongues, then the mandate is pretty clear. But if it's Paul, then it's not a mandate. It's wishful thinking.
Just a thought. I'm not sure it holds water. It strikes me that you had a group of people where everyone wanted to stand out as special, and Paul seems to be discouraging this.
I don't think he's forbidding tongues, obviously. The last verse in ch. 14 seems pretty clear on that point.
But I don't think "I would that you all spoke in tongues" is a doctrinal statement that compels the interpretation that all believers can. Other verses might make that point, but I'm not sure this one does.
Anyway, I offer the preceding as a thought, not a doctrine and not even a formed belief on my part.
Why would that thought not hold water? I think that is what he is doing.....while not disparaging tongues themselves he is trying to get them to seek other things. Love through the edification of the body. It makes sense that when he says he wishes they all spoke in tongues he isn't saying they all should or even could. I wish things for people all the time, but it doesn't mean the reality will bear it. He just spent all that time telling them about love and how it is patient, kind, and does not seek its own. Why bring this up at all unless it was an issue and he was addressing it? He does go on about it. It is curious that he would encourage them in seeking love and each others needs and then the next minute command them all to go for it when it appears that was the problem in the first place. Makes him sound manic.
When he says he wishes all men were celibate like himself....I don't read that as a command or even a realistic wish. Similar language.
It is interesting that we have a few accounts in Acts....and then the Corinthians who made a mess of it being corrected....but none of the other Apostles even mention it. If it is so important....I wonder why isn't it all over scripture? I think it probably says more about the tongue itself than SIT. The Corinthians had a really gifted church, but Jerusalem was trying to survive. It doesn't seem to be spread throughout all the churches. False teachers do seem to be spread around, that is a common theme in the NT. They were everywhere causing trouble.....including Corinth.
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
Steve Lortz
I don't think your time and energy were wasted, Raf. The Actual Errors in PFAL thread is the only effort I am aware of to systematically examine the errors of the things Wierwille taught. It was something Lynn, Schoenheit and Graeser SHOULD have done, but didn't. Issues you brought up have shaped my thinking to this day!
I THANK YOU for the time and energy you put into what you did then, and the time and energy you are putting into what you are doing now!
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
Some people think it is worth sifting through to keep the "nuggets" of truth....or is it the baby and not the bath water. Wait, is it we keep the bathwater and we toss the baby? Now I am confused. Don't beat yourself up. I took the easy route and tossed that kid right out the window and let the tub and water hit him on the way down. Not everyone is willing to do that. I am sure that thread has promoted many to questions. It was a herculean effort and I am sure not without some real good being done. You simply may never hear of all the people it touched.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Steve, I'm afraid you gave the effort a tad too much credit. While I have been assured that the list helped break through the illusion of perfection that some placed on PFAL even while paying lip service to its imperfections, the truth is, by design, I never even tried to systematically examine Wierwille's errors. My entire argument was based on internal consistency/inconsistency, my goal merely to show that the written works of VPW did not pass their own test of what it is to be God-breathed. I never sought to prove or disprove Wierwille's key doctrines.
More deserving of the accolade you bestow is Jerry Barrax's PFAL Review threads, which went through the book and class chapter by chapter, session by session. THAT was truly the first effort I saw to systematically examine Wierwille's doctrines and errors. Jerry went after the substance. By comparison, I nitpicked.
I would argue that the most substantive issue addressed in Actual Errors was Wierwille's distinction between the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Heaven. For all Wierwille's examination, the clear Biblical distinction between the terms was purely semantic. The terms are utterly synonymous.
Appreciate the kind words, though (you too, Geisha).
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
Thanks for bringing Jerry Barrax to my remembrance! He and I met each other on the old CES forums before the organization shut them down. We had some good times trying to bring the errors of CES to their attention. You had the tenacity, RAF, and bull-headedness it took to plow through all the BS being relentlessly spewed by certain parties. Thanks again!
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
The key in that whole argument was to debunk it on its own terms. That, to me, was the critical part of the whole enterprise.
To disprove the presented thesis by pointing out the "error" of dispensationalism (the course you were eager to pursue, Steve), would have had no effect, because PFAL declares you wrong and PFAL is God-breathed.
That's why there was so much nitpicking in Actual Errors. The items on the list are largely meaningless in the grand scheme of things, but they are devastating to the claim of inerrancy and perfection. So what if Wierwille wrote in one book that "Judas went and hanged himself" meant one thing while writing in another book that "Judas went and hanged himself" means something else entirely? We intuitively understood that as a growth (or change) in the understanding of the writer, and we accept that the later explanation is the one held by Wierwille as the more accurate. But if both books are God-breathed, we have there a devastating contradiction that cannot be explained away. One of the two explanations had to be wrong. It doesn't matter which one: the FACT that it was a contradiction demolished the claim of inerrancy.
Tenacity? Maybe. But there was pride and arrogance in that whole enterprise too, a fact of which I am not particularly proud. I lament that the logic and reason I employed apparently had no effect on its intended recipient, but I am grateful that it helped others.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
You weren't the Lone Ranger in that, Raf! I really hope you're having fun and doing well now. I am on a much better balance than I was back then!
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Before going off on a 12-session class for 200/100/85/50/40 dollars
or something,
try the most obvious meaning of the passage.
It has always read the same to me regardless of version.
Even in the KJV I read it the same way.
1 Corinthians 8:4-6
New International Version (NIV)
4 So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that “An idol is nothing at all in the world” and that “There is no God but one.” 5 For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”), 6 yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.
1 Corinthians 8:4-6
New American Standard Bible (NASB)
4 Therefore concerning the eating of things sacrificed to idols, we know that there is no such thing as an idol in the world, and that there is no God but one. 5 For even if there are so-called gods whether in heaven or on earth, as indeed there are many gods and many lords, 6 yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him.
1 Corinthians 8:4-6
Contemporary English Version (CEV)
4 Even though food is offered to idols, we know that none of the idols in this world are alive. After all, there is only one God. 5 Many things in heaven and on earth are called gods and lords, but none of them really are gods or lords. 6 We have only one God, and he is the Father. He created everything, and we live for him. Jesus Christ is our only Lord. Everything was made by him, and by him life was given to us.
1 Corinthians 8:4-6
King James Version (KJV)
4 As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one.
5 For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)
6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.
Some people make an idol or a "god" of their job, or their
patriotism, or their family, or their political affiliation, or any of
hundreds of other things. Those things they make more important and
schedule their lives around, those are often their "lords". There's
"gods" and "lords" of every type. Ever see someone live for fantasy
football or for sex? You know what their "god" or their "lord" is.
Many gods? Yes- money, power, sex, fame, drugs....
Many supernatural beings existing and desiring worship?
Not what this is saying at all.
Back in high school, one guy I knew said that, if vampires were driven
off by objects of worship, most people would have to hold up a dollar
bill to ward one off. (And he was an atheist-he didn't think there was
anything supernatural about a dollar bill.)
Be careful. When the possibilities are "the obvious meaning" and
"an occulted, hidden, secret, special meaning",
go with the obvious meaning.
Do not order 2 dozen ritual robes.
Do not make a new class.
Do not make a new organization.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Occam's razor (also written as Ockham's razor, Latin lex parsimoniae) is the law of parsimony, economy, or succinctness. It is a principle stating that among competing hypotheses, the one which makes the fewest assumptions should be selected.
Occam's Razor
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
As God is in what WW sees even so he is in what Steve sees or Geisha or anyone.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
You know cman, I actually do understand what Steve is talking about. . . . if you read enough theology you will run across just about everything, I don't think it is as esoteric as Steve would like to believe. If you Google 1 Corinthians 8: 4-6 and the word Shemah or hegemonikon a whole host of papers and theories about what Paul is saying in those verses will likely come up. Yet, when and if it finally comes down to it....it is going to work out pretty much as WordWolf has explained. It is just endless arguments over words. I suspect this particular one has an agenda I might consider heretical.
I wouldn't even mind all the endless minutia.....I know how to scroll down a page, but, Steve has already pointed out what I do and do not need to understand. I was informed I already have my "special" job from the Lord and it apparently doesn't include discussion of 1 Corinthians 8: 4-6. What could I possibly contribute? Yes, I took that post as extremely condescending and offensive.
Don't confuse not encouraging a discussion with not recognizing one...if others wish to engage...I have no problem with that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
'There is not one explanation or interpretation of any verse that has to be the same for everyone.
God is with us in whatever perspective we see.'
"As God is in what WW sees even so he is in what Steve sees or Geisha or anyone."
One might look at these interpretations along with the others of 1 Corinthians 8.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
How familiar are you with Autistic Spectrum Disorder, Geisha, what the Diagnostic Standards Manual formerly called Asperger's Syndrome?
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
I spent two years working with autistic adult males....and although I worked primarily with those who were also severely developmentally disabled....I did work with clients who have Aspergers. One young man rocked so hard he cracked his back. Some of the best people I know have autism and some of the best times I have ever had are with those people. So, I guess I know a bit from experience.
It would explain a great deal.
Edited by geisha779Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
I'm working through this source now. I thought I'd comment here rather than clutter up the SIT Reading Room thread with discussion when that might be a good place to collect references.
Mark Moore - What We Can Know About SIT
I. What We Can Know About Speaking in Tongues Historically
Some good stuff here. Great references, from church history and modern history. I learned something here.
II. What We Can Know About Tongues Theologically
Here he starts to get into trouble.
His focus on supernatural language and his #2 assumption are both inaccurate and unsupported scripturally. IMO he is constructing a straw man here. In the definition it is not necessarily a "supernatural language". Tongues define themselves as "the tongues of men or angels" in Corinthians. This means that they are either a language used by men on Earth at some time, or a language spoken by angels. The alternative proposed interpretation is that "of angels" is a figure of speech (like hyperbole or in that family of figures) to exaggerate or over-emphasize the power and magnitude of what tongues represent. If it is figurative, what would "of angels" be meant to communicate? Since angels are spirit beings the first and most obvious point would be that it would be a language to communicate with spirit beings as opposed to humans. The second would be that it represents spiritual power as different from power in the physical realm.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Moving on. He goes on to define SIT a little more narrowly:
Since he is in the theological section here, I'll say that this is accurate in its limited scope but does not represent the entirety of SIT.
Next he covers "Is glossolalia real human language?" and delves into a topic that Raf supports strongly - where he makes the case for I Cor. 13:1 tongues of angels being a hyperbolic statement. He does a good job making a case for that tying in all the other hyperbolic statements Paul makes and pointing out he didn't move mountains, etc. So his aim there is to narrow down SIT to human language only for purpose of examination and proof.
Next he digs into Romans 8:24:
This verse is problematic in proofs as it is very closely tied to the doctrine of the Trinity. Is the Spirit here the third person of the Godhead, or is it talking about the gift itself? Depending on your views on the Trinity, this could make or break someone's view towards SIT - if it's the 3rd person of the Godhead, then SIT is unnecessary, and the Spirit does the work. If it's the gift, then that's a supporting verse for SIT being valuable in someone's private prayer life. Obviously the author is a Trinitarian and thus his interpretation here follows.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I don't think he's constructing a straw man so much as he's making a concerted effort at looking at this from all angles and deciding which one is correct. Keep reading. I don't agree with everything he says either (for example, I do not believe SIT opens you up to a Satanic influence).
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Next, we come up to geisha's favorite section:
Here Moore IMO misses the forest for the trees. While it is stated that SIT builds up one's self, that is miles away from defining the purpose of SIT as for personal enjoyment or benefit. While true, that is secondary. One gets the picture of a muscle-bound egotist at a Gold's Gym SIT for hours and looking at themselves in the mirror. Thus the focus is taken off the smaller tidbits of truth contained in the letter, and on to the discussion of building up others. The main purpose of SIT is not for building up the body, it is for one's private prayer life.
As an example of this, as a child myself and friends would like to make up things speaking in Pig Latin. We would play and hold a private conversation which we held to be special and just between us. Because we were speaking in Pig Latin, only we could understand. It made us feel closer and that outsiders couldn't eavesdrop. SIT in my private prayer life feels like speaking to my friends in Pig Latin. I wasn't doing it to become a Pig Latin linguist and United Nations translator, or to make myself big and Pig strong, I was doing it because we could and it was cool. No big deal, kids will be kids. Now reading through this example again, it provides a lot of ammo for the "faker" side in saying "yeah, and that's why you made up SIT as an adult". Hopefully the reader can sort through the tangibles in the example without resorting to that logical leap.
With Moore's handling of I Cor. 14:4 the problem is this: here the context is talking about what they do in the temple, in church meetings, or at each others house when interacting with others in the body. It is not discouraging SIT in private prayer life, it is contrasting the private prayer life benefit which was being over-emphasized in Corinth with how they should be more mindful of one another, and look to edify others "in the church".
Some people really like to latch on to the latter, and use it to disprove the former. However, the only way you can really do that is to say that the context and tone of Corinthians is the ONLY thing important, and the individual verses can possibly be untrue and stated just in the context of reproof.
While that may be OK to do something like that when you are evaluating personal interaction, like an argument between two people, we are discussing scripture here. If it has no more weight than a mere statement in anger someone had while reproving Corinthians, then really there is no authority of scripture that can be held to, as it could be an incorrect statement made by a human at any given point, and not divinely inspired.
Edited by chockfullLink to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Next Moore gets into what I call "Jehova's Witness" territory. He claims that if you are doing something yourself that God didn't recommend, you could be possessed. This is great logic for introducing fear around the subject into the reader, and moves pretty far away from any scientific analysis.
Suffice it to say any person can refute this and probably does daily. For example, I do things probably on a daily basis God doesn't recommend (probably and hypothetically). There's a lot more things God says I should do that I don't. This is called "being human". This is not going to get me possessed by the spirit of Dr. Pepper. (or whatever). Come on, Moore. Can we move beyond the tribal superstition "booga booga" mindset here?
The section after this one is
Are the tongues of 1 Corinthians different than the tongues in Acts?
For this section it brings up theological arguments I have never heard before, and thus I learned a lot. Many sociologists and theologians bring up differences between Cor. and Acts in what they were doing. Honestly never thought of that before, but it's important to consider if there is a lot of mainstream Christian attention on it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I agree with Moore's conclusion that a plain reading of Acts and Corinthians compels us to believe that the tongues spoken of in Acts and Corinthians are human languages. I accept that this position is not universally held.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
The difference in my views are that I hold the Romans 8:24 reference to be a non-Trinitarian interpretation, and the "groans that cannot be uttered" to me are describing private prayer life. As such, I would not limit the communication between myself and God to need to be in the language of a person on earth. That could support a "tongues of angels" type interpretation.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I've only been glancing at Chockfull's ongoing dispute with geisha on the various threads, so forgive me if this has been covered.
Chockfull, I think it might be possible that you might maybe be giving the concept of hyperbole a bit of short shrift in explaining the statement "I would that you all spoke in tongues." (Did I couch that enough?)
I think Paul is very clearly expressing reproof over the abuse of tongues in this congregation. When he says "I would that you all spoke in tongues," he could be expressing a literal desire without expressing a realistic possibility. "I would that you all spoke in tongues, won the lottery and married the hottie next door." It doesn't mean everyone can or will. And it certainly doesn't mean that in the context of a gathering of the church (but you knew that). It means he wishes everyone could. Wierwille made (what I think was) the mistake of suggesting that "I" was a reference to God, not Paul. If it's God saying He wants us all to speak in tongues, then the mandate is pretty clear. But if it's Paul, then it's not a mandate. It's wishful thinking.
Just a thought. I'm not sure it holds water. It strikes me that you had a group of people where everyone wanted to stand out as special, and Paul seems to be discouraging this.
I don't think he's forbidding tongues, obviously. The last verse in ch. 14 seems pretty clear on that point.
But I don't think "I would that you all spoke in tongues" is a doctrinal statement that compels the interpretation that all believers can. Other verses might make that point, but I'm not sure this one does.
Anyway, I offer the preceding as a thought, not a doctrine and not even a formed belief on my part.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
This bible study may interest some....what is helpful to remember is that Paul is answering a series of questions submitted by the Corinthians, and although we are not privy to the questions, we can with some confidence piece together what they were asking. It appears that in this section 12-14 he is answering more than just a basic question about tongues, rather he is addressing the issue of coveting tongues and what true spirituality means. It seems the Corinthians were confusing the spectacular nature of SIT with the meaning of mature spirituality. Something else to maybe keep in mind is that VP borrowed heavily from the word of faith movement where things are often taken literally when they are not meant in that way. One more thing to thank him for.
http://bible.org/art...
Third, the gift of tongues is not some form of direct communication with God, as was undoubtedly thought of by the Corinthians and is often thought of today as well. People today often appeal to 14:2 in support of such a contention. This reading of the passage is fallacious for it is not Paul's point in v. 2 to affirm that the speaker has some mystical direct communion with God. His point is that since the tongues speaker (i.e., without an interpreter) speaks words that no one else can understand, he ends up speaking only to God, that is, only God can understand. To everyone else he speaks mysteries. Support for this idea cannot be garnered from 14:4 or 14:14-15 either. In each of these cases, uninterpreted tongues is the issue and only the speaker is edified. He may be encouraged well enough, as is anyone who exercises their gift. He may even be more so since his gift tends toward the spectacular (i.e., the ability to speak a foreign language without having studied it). But, his immaturity has lured him toward a fascination for the miraculous at the expense of the needs of his own brethern. This is carnality, not genuine spirituality (3:1ff).
Fourth, tongues is not an uncontrollable phenomena. With the exhortation in 14:40 and the statement of confusion in 14:33 we may be sure that there was chaos in the Corinthian assemblies in the exercise of the gifts. But Paul says very clearly that a person has the ability to control its (i.e., tongues) expression in their gatherings. They should speak each in his own turn and not at all if there is no interpreter.
Fifth, there were those in Corinth who claimed as many do today that all men should speak in tongues. Appeal is made to 14:5. There Paul says that he wished that all of them spoke in tongues. But, how can he be taken literally, when he has just finished arguing at length in chapter 12 against the Corinthian reductionism that everyone must speak in tongues. No, he boldly proclaimed that the Spirit had given varieties of gifts and that not all had the gift of tongues. If all did have the gift, how could someone fill the spot of the ungifted (i.e., without the gift of tongues), as according to his argument, they did (cf. 14:16)? What then is the need for an interpreter in the assembly? The reason Paul says this is that if all speak in tongues he could be guaranteed, because of their selfish state, that everyone would get edified, the very thing for which he is arguing. In the end though, uniformity is not the design of the Spirit (12:11).
Edited by geisha779Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Link doesn't work. Can you update?
But rather that you prophesy. So if tongues wasn't available to the people he was speaking to, or not all of them, then by logic neither would prophecy be. So by that logic, it would be like Paul saying "I wish you were all billionaires, but if you can't do that, I'd rather you all be millionaires".
What about the people eating government cheese who could be neither? They are SOL, and now are more discouraged.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
Why would that thought not hold water? I think that is what he is doing.....while not disparaging tongues themselves he is trying to get them to seek other things. Love through the edification of the body. It makes sense that when he says he wishes they all spoke in tongues he isn't saying they all should or even could. I wish things for people all the time, but it doesn't mean the reality will bear it. He just spent all that time telling them about love and how it is patient, kind, and does not seek its own. Why bring this up at all unless it was an issue and he was addressing it? He does go on about it. It is curious that he would encourage them in seeking love and each others needs and then the next minute command them all to go for it when it appears that was the problem in the first place. Makes him sound manic.
When he says he wishes all men were celibate like himself....I don't read that as a command or even a realistic wish. Similar language.
It is interesting that we have a few accounts in Acts....and then the Corinthians who made a mess of it being corrected....but none of the other Apostles even mention it. If it is so important....I wonder why isn't it all over scripture? I think it probably says more about the tongue itself than SIT. The Corinthians had a really gifted church, but Jerusalem was trying to survive. It doesn't seem to be spread throughout all the churches. False teachers do seem to be spread around, that is a common theme in the NT. They were everywhere causing trouble.....including Corinth.
. . . .
Edited by geisha779Link 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.