On what basis do you disagree with proposition A, which makes no doctrinal claims and merely observes and recites a fact?
Partly for the reason of what I wrote in post #202 here in this thread, and partly for the reason(s) of what I wrote in posts #90 and #94 over in this thread:
But please don't presume what I am not saying. I've never said that everything done now is necessarily SIT, or supernatural.
Furthermore, I haven't indicated that anything done similar to it is necessarily "proof" of something else.
Prop A was a blanket statement, intended to catch anything and everything and categorize it as being one (and only one) thing, which I don't see as reasonable.
In one very real sense, Paul was saying "speaking in tongues (indecently and out of order) doesn't demonstrate Spirit... love demonstrates Spirit!"
I think it easy to miss giving sufficient consideration to the situation at Corinth, which was very deeply steeped in pagan worship and adherence to that which their eyes could see and their ears hear. Intangible spiritual things were a bit of an issue for them (much as it was for the nation of Israel, but from a different angle.) Paul appears to be responding to multiple "tangible" issues before arriving at these "spiritual issues" (beautifully explained and communicated in reasonably simple and "tangible" terms.)
It's no small or easy thing for the mind to adjust its basis for reality to include that which is spiritual, and my take on 1Cor.13 is that aside from the godly (and unselfish) motive brought to light herein, it probably isn't going to happen.
I think it easy to miss giving sufficient consideration to the situation at Corinth, which was very deeply steeped in pagan worship and adherence to that which their eyes could see and their ears hear. Intangible spiritual things were a bit of an issue for them (much as it was for the nation of Israel, but from a different angle.) Paul appears to be responding to multiple "tangible" issues before arriving at these "spiritual issues" (beautifully explained and communicated in reasonably simple and "tangible" terms.)
It's no small or easy thing for the mind to adjust its basis for reality to include that which is spiritual, and my take on 1Cor.13 is that aside from the godly (and unselfish) motive brought to light herein, it probably isn't going to happen.
(That's the short and to the point version.)
Very well put, TLC! Now...
Hi TLC! I'm the one to whom you said (in another place…about plagiarism), "Okay, I'll bite. So what is your basic premise, or where might you have discussed it here?"
I was preparing the following to post here when I saw your interest in "my findings", so will just do that here as I had planned. But --- I will also soon give a reply to you concerning "your curiosity" at your Topic on "oikonomia", which actually fits a bit better there. (Surely these two aspects are intertwined…but that's more advanced to see, and to do that here…about Biblical administrations…would seem a bit "off topic", although it's truly not (in the broad overview of things, that is)! Anyway, here goes:
Contrary to popular belief, just hearing someone SIT is not "the definitive proof" that someone has been born again. (I know that many of you remember what VP said in PFAL: That "No man can really say that Jesus is lord in his life, except by speaking in tongues."
That's dishonest workmanship! 1Co 12:3b actually says, "…no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost"[meaning: "The manifestation of the gift of holy spirit"]. And that means all of it, folks!
Now of course SIT is surely a part of all that --- BUT this verse certainly does not limit the manifestation of holy spirit to merely speaking in tongues, as if it alone were the only proof whereby you could know whether or not someone is born again. It plainly states that the entire spectrum of the manifestation of the gift of holy spirit is involved. (And---just who are we to judge people by all of that? God forbid!)
Even VP himself (speaking in the PFAL class, regarding "his quest" to speak in tongues) admitted that he intentionally spoke in High German to impress (actually to fool) those who were trying to lead him into that manifestation for the first time. And it worked. They really thought he was born again! (But VP knew better….Ha! Ha!)
So then, what prevents just anyone from trying a stunt like that? How about others who can speak languages which can sound like tongues to ignorant listeners? How about devil spirits? (Now, just think about that one for a bit --- if you dare!)
Nevertheless, it remains entirely possible to know the spirituality (or lack thereof) concerning any individual. This may yet be accomplished via a combination of the manifestations of holy spirit, such as the Word of Wisdom, the Word of Knowledge, and (most especially) the Discerning of Spirits! Even the manifestation of Faith (or, Believing, if you prefer) could be involved. But tongues alone? (BAH! Not a chance to fool me there, pal! ---
Now…for those who are curious, I seem to have stumbled onto something wonderful concerning how the Word of God is specifically designed (yes…all the way through it, mind you!) to show very simply how to manifest EACH ONE of these manifestations!
Now, many will find that statement of mine hard to believe, huh? Yet (when one has ears to hear and eyes to see), this truth is instantly recognizable throughout the Scriptures! In fact, (in light of this) it is my personal belief that if God had wanted to name the Bible himself, he might have entitled it: "How to Walk by the Spirit in Seven Easy Lessons" --- (sort of like an infomercial).
And "my way" (actually I believe it's God's way) sure makes more sense than how TWI taught Discerning of Spirits in their Advanced Class! All I got from that dribble was confusion and bewilderment…over the "hundreds of terms" and their inter-connections, like how "they group themselves together like an army", etc. (You know…the 5-star general spirits and their subordinates, etc.)
From that point on, I thought I would never understand how to operate that manifestation until I literally (at least) memorized the entire list of devil spirits --- along with how they all "interact with each other" in the spirit realm.
BUT --- I give thanks to God for making it so easy for me after all!
Now folks, I'm not saying that I have it all down pat…even at this point in time. But you just might be astounded at the "amazing structure" which serves as the basis (or, foundation) of this most important of areas in the Word of God. There truly AREsignposts and keys woven throughout the Bible…that we may learn how to operate the gift of holy spirit in every aspect. (No kidding!) I believe this very point is God's expressed reason for authoring the Scriptures in the first place.
All I wish is for a few of you (or even just one interested person) to consider this, so that (possibly together, and eventually) we could make it simpler for everyone to see just how easy God has made it for his kids to use the greatest gift he ever gave! How about it? Who dares give me a listen?
PS: [For TLC] This "amazing structure" I speak of concerns the "7 administrations" (and a few "other 7's") which are most curiously woven together throughout the Word of God. I'm composing a "related thread" for your "oikonomia Topic", and will post it there soon. Bless!
Thanks Mark...whoever you really are! I'll take a look at those (in detail) very soon. However (for the present) I did scan them a bit, and have just one comment which you might appreciate:
The word "severally" in 1 Co 12:11 is actually the word "idios", and this is the only place it's translated as such. And in 2 Pet 1:20 is the only rendering of idios as "private". All the rest of the 144 times (or so, I believe off-hand) it is used, it's translated "one's own", "his own", "her own", etc...which makes perfect sense of translating it "private". (BTW...we get "idiosyncrasy" from that word.)
But "severally" is truly misleading, for sure! (And grossly inconsistent, I might add.) For if we use "his own" instead of "severally", it is then unmistakable as to whom "he" refers to---which is the man---and not God...as such: (And I personally do truly loathe the capital "He", which appears [or is implied] in most of the modern translations.)
1 Co 12:11 But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man his own as he will. (It cannot be anything other than "as the man himself wills"!)
Now truly, it's God (or perhaps even Jesus Christ, for all I really know) who energizes these manifestations. But this is still done in accordance with what the man desires in the depth of his heart. And even if he's somewhat oblivious to it himself at the moment, it's still what he really wants anyway. (Ha!)
Thanks Mark...whoever you really are! I'll take a look at those (in detail) very soon. However (for the present) I did scan them a bit, and have just one comment which you might appreciate:
The word "severally" in 1 Co 12:11 is actually the word "idios", and this is the only place it's translated as such. And in 2 Pet 1:20 is the only rendering of idios as "private". All the rest of the 144 times (or so, I believe off-hand) it is used, it's translated "one's own", "his own", "her own", etc...which makes perfect sense of translating it "private". (BTW...we get "idiosyncrasy" from that word.)
But "severally" is truly misleading, for sure! (And grossly inconsistent, I might add.) For if we use "his own" instead of "severally", it is then unmistakable as to whom "he" refers to---which is the man---and not God...as such: (And I personally do truly loathe the capital "He", which appears [or is implied] in most of the modern translations.)
1 Co 12:11 But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man his own as he will. (It cannot be anything other than "as the man himself wills"!)
Now truly, it's God (or perhaps even Jesus Christ, for all I really know) who energizes these manifestations. But this is still done in accordance with what the man desires in the depth of his heart. And even if he's somewhat oblivious to it himself at the moment, it's still what he really wants anyway. (Ha!)
Does this make sense to you?
Spec
I cover a lot of detail in my commentary, but not every single detail with every single Greek word definition. And yes, your understanding of idios as seen in the Greek is correct (pertaining to oneself, one's own, from Thayer's Greek Lexicon). Also it is God through the Holy Spirit working with man for the manifestations of the Holy Spirit. And yes, man's desire is part of this. We are not the equivalent of robots or puppets.
And Spectrum49, I will do some editing to my commentary and might include the Greek word "idios" and its definition. You have made a very good point about the misleading or vague use of severally from the king James Version.
And I understand from another post that you are from Noo Yawk. Did I pronounce that correctly in your part of the state? And as I am typing this I am wearing a historic black baseball jacket with GIANTS on the front and NY on the right upper sleeve. NY stands for Noo Yawk or at least this is how I pronounce it. And my hope today is that I get you to giggle.
Partly for the reason of what I wrote in post #202 here in this thread, and partly for the reason(s) of what I wrote in posts #90 and #94 over in this thread:
But please don't presume what I am not saying. I've never said that everything done now is necessarily SIT, or supernatural.
Furthermore, I haven't indicated that anything done similar to it is necessarily "proof" of something else.
Well, I didn't realize that the posting numbers can (and do) change in a thread.
(consequently, the post numbers referred to above are all wrong... or, at least they were a few minutes ago.)
And after reading a couple of places, I'm still not sure where is a better place to post this, so... I guess it'll go here.
It's odd to me, how the mind and heart work at times. (Or, maybe it's just me.) But, still floating around in the back of my mind is the befuddlement of why many here (at least, it seems like the opinion of many, voiced by a few) have put so much emphasis on SIT needing to be an identified as a bona fide language for it to be the same thing that is referred to in the scriptures.
What is the actual point or purpose of it? (I'm referring to speaking in tongues.)
Isn't the most basic essence of it simply "to communicate"?
When the serpent spoke to the woman (in Gen.3), must we know the language... or that it was via "a language" that could be identified by some supposedly linguistic expert?
How long did it take these supposed language experts to figure out that humpback whales communicate with each other through some sort of verbalization?
Or how a dolphin speaks to another dolphin miles away? Or a bird to another bird? Or any number of other animals to each other?
What "expert" figured all these things out, that it puts them in such a position of trust that if they say or declare something is an authentic "language," the only believable or acceptable form of communication, so that now whatever vocalization is coming out of someone's mouth "must be" reckoned as something supernatural?
Why put so much trust or confidence in them to make that declaration or determination?
When it's referred to in the Bible, it's in the sense of speaking, of being a language, not merely a communication. Communication and language are not necessarily synonymous. Yes, animals communicate, sometimes through sounds, sometimes through posturing, sometimes through pheromones, sometimes by altering physical surroundings. Loosely speaking, some might refer to that as language. It's not, it's communication. Among the many ways that humans communicate, one of them is speech. Speech has regimented structure, framework, syntax. Speaking in tongues (as we know it from our time in The Way) does not. We can, whether consciously or not, control it in such a manner as to make it APPEAR to be systematically structured. Christians are not the only ones or even the originators of said activity. The type of speaking in tongues being observed today (glossolalia) predates Christianity and is practiced by groups that are decidedly non-Christian. Maybe there really is such a thing as genuine speaking in tongues. I don't know. I would think, however, that most Christian people would opt for the genuine, rather than the pseudo version if, indeed, it were available, rather than resist the obvious.
On what basis do you disagree with proposition A, which makes no doctrinal claims and merely observes and recites a fact?
I couldn't figure out what this post meant, because I remember (rightly or wrongly) seeing several different lists "of three propositions" (a very Greek artifact... not Hebrew at all) in recent threads. So I read back over the thread...
If I am not mistaken, the proposition A in question was this: Modern SIT seems not to resemble Biblical SIT and does not seem to be supernatural at all, unlike Biblical SIT.
While Proposition A seems not to make any doctrinal claims, it is rife with doctrinal suppositions which are papered over by using the word "Biblical."
What does the Bible... and I mean Paul to the Corinthians... say about tongues?
1. There is one... and ONLY ONE... imperative associated with SIT, 1 Corinthians 14:39b, "...forbid not to speak with tongues..." No one is ever told that they HAVE to speak in tongues. The Corinthians were only told that they were NOT TO FORBID people to speak in tongues, in a passage of Paul's letter chiding them for OVERDOING tongues (which also implies that genuine tongues can be done improperly).
2. I Corinthians 14:22 says that tongues are a sign, not to those speakers who are confident that they have received the Spirit, but to those speakers whose confidence is not yet fully developed. Paul told the Romans in 4:11 of his letter to them that Abraham had received the sign of circumcision. In Philippians 3:3 Paul wrote that we are the circumcision who worship God in the Spirit (SIT). The sign to Abraham was to cut off the end of his member (he got rid of a useless piece of flesh). There was nothing supernatural about that. The sign to us is to speak without reference to the meaning of the sounds coming out of our mouths. There is nothing supernatural about that, either.
Speaking about "supernatural"... the word doesn't occur in the Bible. Neither the Stoic Greeks (the Corinthians were Stoic, not Platonic) nor the Hebrews thought there was a "supernature" in existence. Only the Platonists did that, and not in the current sense until after the 3rd century CE.
Proposition A carefully uses the word "seems", which means it contains no statements of "fact" at all...
When it's referred to in the Bible, it's in the sense of speaking, of being a language, not merely a communication. Communication and language are not necessarily synonymous. Yes, animals communicate, sometimes through sounds, sometimes through posturing, sometimes through pheromones, sometimes by altering physical surroundings. Loosely speaking, some might refer to that as language. It's not, it's communication. Among the many ways that humans communicate, one of them is speech. Speech has regimented structure, framework, syntax. Speaking in tongues (as we know it from our time in The Way) does not. We can, whether consciously or not, control it in such a manner as to make it APPEAR to be systematically structured. Christians are not the only ones or even the originators of said activity. The type of speaking in tongues being observed today (glossolalia) predates Christianity and is practiced by groups that are decidedly non-Christian. Maybe there really is such a thing as genuine speaking in tongues. I don't know. I would think, however, that most Christian people would opt for the genuine, rather than the pseudo version if, indeed, it were available, rather than resist the obvious.
I think your distinction between language and communications is artificial and tendentious. A specific act of transferring intention from one being to another is communication. The means of doing so... ANY means... is a language. The word "language" comes from the Latin word lingua which means "tongue", just as the Greek word glossa means "tongue". Since the communication being done in SIT is between God (I Corinthians 14:2) and the Holy Spirit, human language... or the lack of one... doesn't make any difference at all. The only thing that makes a difference is that the speaker desires in her heart to thank God... enough to move her lips, her mouth, her tongue, and her BREATH, to do so. And I am not referencing Wierwille or PFAL here, I am referencing J.E. Stiles' The Gift of the Holy Spirit, pages 108-121.
Receiving guidance from the Holy Spirit to speak specific words in the speaker's language only comes into play when a person interprets the tongue they spoke, or when the person speaks the kind of prophecy described in 1 Corinthians 14:24&25. I am not sure how interpretation is supposed to work. I just know that the way the Way taught it was wrong. I do know from my own experience... before, during and especially AFTER my time in TWI... that the prophecy Paul describes in 1 Corinthians 14:24&25 WORKS! I have heard God speak directly to my heart in the conversation of strangers at the neighboring table in a restaurant... before I ever heard of TWI or knew how to read the Bible with understanding. There have been times when I have popped off and said something that seemed to me like a tangential comment, and the person I was speaking to broke down in tears and said I had answered a question they had been praying to God about. It seems to me that if the things Paul was writing about speaking prophecy by the Spirit of God were true (and they ARE), then I might be able to trust the things he writes about speaking by the Spirit of God in tongues also.
Love,
Steve
P.S. - I don't mean to imply by this that I trust ANYTHING taught by Wierwille.
"Since the communication being done in SIT is between God (I Corinthians 14:2) and the Holy Spirit, human language... or the lack of one... doesn't make any difference at all."
Well, I guess that settles it then. Speaking in tongues doesn't have to conform to linguistic standards because......it's spiritual.
Now, wasn't that easy?
It does say, however, that when they spoke in tongues in Acts 2, people understood them. That suggests to me that their vocalizations must have had some sort of systematic arrangement that was understood by the hearers.
The type of speaking in tongues being observed today (glossolalia) predates Christianity...
...snip...
I have seen you make this statement a number of times, waysider.
You say "the type of speaking in tongues being observed today." What type is that? A type that SOME Pentecostals, but not ALL, do? Or the OTHER type that different Pentecostals, though still not ALL, do? A type that followers of J.E. Stiles do? A type that practitioners of Santeria do?
And WHO is the observer who makes these assessments? What are their qualifications?
A vast majority of the people who write about speaking in tongues call it "ecstatic utterance", and that IS the case with many of the types of SIT observed today.
"Ecstatic" comes from the Greek word ekstasis which literally means "out of place". It is used to convey "an altered state of consciousness."
There are many types of seeming SIT that involve altered states of consciousness, induced by various artificial means such as drugs, extreme stress, sleep deprivation, etc. These means are called pharmakeia in the Greek.
There is only one account in the Bible where "ecstasy", an altered state of consciousness, is associated with SIT, Acts chapter 10. In verse 10, while on a rooftop praying, Peter "fell into a trance" -- egeneto ep auton ecstasis -- "an altered state of consciousness happened on him."
In verse 45 and 46, those of the circumcision, the believing witnesses Peter had brought with him, "were astonished" -- exestesan -- "had their state of consciousness altered"-- because they HEARD the uncircumcised speak in tongues!
Genuine Biblical speaking in tongues is not, never has been, and never will be, the result of an artificially induced state of consciousness. Genuine Biblical speaking in tongues is not, never has been, and never will be, ecstatic.
Now there have been people all over the world and all throughout history who have done "ecstatic" utterance, but as we see, genuine Biblical speaking in tongues is not ecstatic.
You wrote, "The type of speaking in tongues being observed today (glossolalia) predates Christianity..." Unless you can produce a proper historical citation that genuine, Biblical speaking in tongues, the non-ecstatic type, predates Christianity, then I suggest you stop making this statement, because it is demonstrably inaccurate.
"Since the communication being done in SIT is between God (I Corinthians 14:2) and the Holy Spirit, human language... or the lack of one... doesn't make any difference at all."
Well, I guess that settles it then. Speaking in tongues doesn't have to conform to linguistic standards because......it's spiritual.
Now, wasn't that easy?
It does say, however, that when they spoke in tongues in Acts 2, people understood them. That suggests to me that their vocalizations must have had some sort of systematic arrangement that was understood by the hearers.
Did I use the word "spiritual" in what I said? No I didn't. You used it, waysider. You were modifying what I wrote to put it into a form you could make fun of.
Making fun of what I wrote doesn't change the truth of it. Read what I wrote again without prejudice.
The fact that the Holy Spirit guided people on the Day of Pentecost recorded in Acts chapter 2 to use free vocalizations that some other people could understand as their own languages does not mean that all SIT MUST be done in an identifiable human language or it is false. The only Biblical requirement for speaking in tongues is that the speaker not understand what she is speaking. The Holy Spirit can do whatever he wants to do.
This is a bit of a straw man. I never suggested anything that involved altered states of consciousness or drugs or whatever.
In addition, you're asking that I "produce a proper historical citation that genuine, Biblical speaking in tongues, the non-ecstatic type, predates Christianity.") Without first defining "genuinely, Biblical speaking in tongues", that task is not possible.
I can understand why people are pieced off at Wierwille's toxic quackery. I'm pieced off too! And not just at him, but at all the other Pentecostal and charismatic quackery that takes something that is simple and beautiful and turns it into so much bull...spit?
I'm not mad at you, Raf, or you waysider, for reaching the conclusions that you have. I'd be there myself if I hadn't unthinkingly given the Lord permission to screw up as many of my plans as he wanted to screw up. But I did, and he did, and I have to live with the consequences.
Has it occurred to anyone that we wouldn't be trying so desperately to explain why speaking in tongues never produces languages if speaking in tongues actually produced languages?
Has it occurred to anyone that we wouldn't be trying so desperately to explain why speaking in tongues never produces languages if speaking in tongues actually produced languages?
Like eavesdropping on a bunch of kids, trying to convince each other Santa Claus is real.
When it's referred to in the Bible, it's in the sense of speaking, of being a language, not merely a communication. Communication and language are not necessarily synonymous. Yes, animals communicate, sometimes through sounds, sometimes through posturing, sometimes through pheromones, sometimes by altering physical surroundings. Loosely speaking, some might refer to that as language. It's not, it's communication. Among the many ways that humans communicate, one of them is speech. Speech has regimented structure, framework, syntax. Speaking in tongues (as we know it from our time in The Way) does not. We can, whether consciously or not, control it in such a manner as to make it APPEAR to be systematically structured. Christians are not the only ones or even the originators of said activity. The type of speaking in tongues being observed today (glossolalia) predates Christianity and is practiced by groups that are decidedly non-Christian. Maybe there really is such a thing as genuine speaking in tongues. I don't know. I would think, however, that most Christian people would opt for the genuine, rather than the pseudo version if, indeed, it were available, rather than resist the obvious.
So... let's see if I have this right.
You acknowledge and agree that animals can and do communicate.
However not in languages.
Therefore, assemby, fortran, basic, java... are all also not a language.
Wherefore, glossolalia, which is spoken, may indeed be an authentic form or means of communication, but it is not a language, because not all spoken communications are a language.
But when it is written "the serpent said to Eve," what language do you suppose it must have been?
Or, was it? After all, animals can't and don't communicate with a language, right? Or was this some kind of crazy exception? Because we certainly do have the translation of what was said, however it was said. So was it in or with a language, or not?
Maybe this is too much, too quickly.
So before taking this any further or deeper, maybe we'd better stop and see where some are at with this one:
True or false. Glossolalia can or might be an authentic form of communication.
Tongues are languages. Speaking in tongues is speaking in languages. To think that you can speak in tongues without producing a language is to inject a definition into the Bible instead of allowing it to speak for itself. And that improvised definition would not be necessary if you were demonstrably producing what the Bible promises in the first place.
Who are linguists to decide what's a language. Seriously? Who are biologists to decide what a cell is? Who are astronomers to tell what a star is?
Could you imagine Acts 2, how the people would have reacted if the apostles produced something other than recognizance human languages? They would have giggled their butts off. And the apostles would have been like, "Who are YOU to say it's not a language?"
Like it's everyone else's job to prove it's NOT. News flash: if you're the one claiming it IS genuine, then it's your task to prove it's a language. You should be calling in as many linguists as possible to get as wide a breadth of knowledge as you can to ID the language, not coming up with excuses for why they'll fail before they even start.
And for the last time, when you take one position for decades, reconsider and change your mind based on overwhelming evidence, the new position you take is NOT A PRESUPPOSITION. It is the OPPOSITE of a presupposition, and disingenuously calling it a presupposition to discredit it does not make it a presupposition.
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
Raf
On what basis do you disagree with proposition A, which makes no doctrinal claims and merely observes and recites a fact?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Partly for the reason of what I wrote in post #202 here in this thread, and partly for the reason(s) of what I wrote in posts #90 and #94 over in this thread:
But please don't presume what I am not saying. I've never said that everything done now is necessarily SIT, or supernatural.
Furthermore, I haven't indicated that anything done similar to it is necessarily "proof" of something else.
Prop A was a blanket statement, intended to catch anything and everything and categorize it as being one (and only one) thing, which I don't see as reasonable.
Edited by TLCLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Prop A was very tentatively worded. I don't get how you can call it a blanket statement seeing as it only talks about how things appear.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
It paints one picture of how they all appear to some people.
Maybe that's not technically a "blanket statement," but I didn't give a great deal of thought as to what it should be called.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Ok. I'm not overly concerned. Both our points are made. Carry on.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
I think it easy to miss giving sufficient consideration to the situation at Corinth, which was very deeply steeped in pagan worship and adherence to that which their eyes could see and their ears hear. Intangible spiritual things were a bit of an issue for them (much as it was for the nation of Israel, but from a different angle.) Paul appears to be responding to multiple "tangible" issues before arriving at these "spiritual issues" (beautifully explained and communicated in reasonably simple and "tangible" terms.)
It's no small or easy thing for the mind to adjust its basis for reality to include that which is spiritual, and my take on 1Cor.13 is that aside from the godly (and unselfish) motive brought to light herein, it probably isn't going to happen.
(That's the short and to the point version.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
spectrum49
Very well put, TLC! Now...
Hi TLC! I'm the one to whom you said (in another place…about plagiarism), "Okay, I'll bite. So what is your basic premise, or where might you have discussed it here?"
I was preparing the following to post here when I saw your interest in "my findings", so will just do that here as I had planned. But --- I will also soon give a reply to you concerning "your curiosity" at your Topic on "oikonomia", which actually fits a bit better there. (Surely these two aspects are intertwined…but that's more advanced to see, and to do that here…about Biblical administrations…would seem a bit "off topic", although it's truly not (in the broad overview of things, that is)! Anyway, here goes:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contrary to popular belief, just hearing someone SIT is not "the definitive proof" that someone has been born again. (I know that many of you remember what VP said in PFAL: That "No man can really say that Jesus is lord in his life, except by speaking in tongues."
That's dishonest workmanship! 1Co 12:3b actually says, "…no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost" [meaning: "The manifestation of the gift of holy spirit"]. And that means all of it, folks!
Now of course SIT is surely a part of all that --- BUT this verse certainly does not limit the manifestation of holy spirit to merely speaking in tongues, as if it alone were the only proof whereby you could know whether or not someone is born again. It plainly states that the entire spectrum of the manifestation of the gift of holy spirit is involved. (And---just who are we to judge people by all of that? God forbid!)
Even VP himself (speaking in the PFAL class, regarding "his quest" to speak in tongues) admitted that he intentionally spoke in High German to impress (actually to fool) those who were trying to lead him into that manifestation for the first time. And it worked. They really thought he was born again! (But VP knew better….Ha! Ha!)
So then, what prevents just anyone from trying a stunt like that? How about others who can speak languages which can sound like tongues to ignorant listeners? How about devil spirits? (Now, just think about that one for a bit --- if you dare!)
Nevertheless, it remains entirely possible to know the spirituality (or lack thereof) concerning any individual. This may yet be accomplished via a combination of the manifestations of holy spirit, such as the Word of Wisdom, the Word of Knowledge, and (most especially) the Discerning of Spirits! Even the manifestation of Faith (or, Believing, if you prefer) could be involved. But tongues alone? (BAH! Not a chance to fool me there, pal! ---
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now…for those who are curious, I seem to have stumbled onto something wonderful concerning how the Word of God is specifically designed (yes…all the way through it, mind you!) to show very simply how to manifest EACH ONE of these manifestations!
Now, many will find that statement of mine hard to believe, huh? Yet (when one has ears to hear and eyes to see), this truth is instantly recognizable throughout the Scriptures! In fact, (in light of this) it is my personal belief that if God had wanted to name the Bible himself, he might have entitled it: "How to Walk by the Spirit in Seven Easy Lessons" --- (sort of like an infomercial).
And "my way" (actually I believe it's God's way) sure makes more sense than how TWI taught Discerning of Spirits in their Advanced Class! All I got from that dribble was confusion and bewilderment…over the "hundreds of terms" and their inter-connections, like how "they group themselves together like an army", etc. (You know…the 5-star general spirits and their subordinates, etc.)
From that point on, I thought I would never understand how to operate that manifestation until I literally (at least) memorized the entire list of devil spirits --- along with how they all "interact with each other" in the spirit realm.
BUT --- I give thanks to God for making it so easy for me after all!
Now folks, I'm not saying that I have it all down pat…even at this point in time. But you just might be astounded at the "amazing structure" which serves as the basis (or, foundation) of this most important of areas in the Word of God. There truly ARE signposts and keys woven throughout the Bible…that we may learn how to operate the gift of holy spirit in every aspect. (No kidding!) I believe this very point is God's expressed reason for authoring the Scriptures in the first place.
All I wish is for a few of you (or even just one interested person) to consider this, so that (possibly together, and eventually) we could make it simpler for everyone to see just how easy God has made it for his kids to use the greatest gift he ever gave! How about it? Who dares give me a listen?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In hope,
Spec
PS: [For TLC] This "amazing structure" I speak of concerns the "7 administrations" (and a few "other 7's") which are most curiously woven together throughout the Word of God. I'm composing a "related thread" for your "oikonomia Topic", and will post it there soon. Bless!
Edited by spectrum49Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
Here are some very helpful for understanding commentaries on 1 Corinthians 12, 13 and 14, written by someone named Mark Sanguinetti. Who is that?
1 Corinthians 12
1 Corinthians 13
1 Corinthians 14
Link to comment
Share on other sites
spectrum49
Thanks Mark...whoever you really are!
I'll take a look at those (in detail) very soon. However (for the present) I did scan them a bit, and have just one comment which you might appreciate:
The word "severally" in 1 Co 12:11 is actually the word "idios", and this is the only place it's translated as such. And in 2 Pet 1:20 is the only rendering of idios as "private". All the rest of the 144 times (or so, I believe off-hand) it is used, it's translated "one's own", "his own", "her own", etc...which makes perfect sense of translating it "private". (BTW...we get "idiosyncrasy" from that word.)
But "severally" is truly misleading, for sure! (And grossly inconsistent, I might add.) For if we use "his own" instead of "severally", it is then unmistakable as to whom "he" refers to---which is the man---and not God...as such: (And I personally do truly loathe the capital "He", which appears [or is implied] in most of the modern translations.)
1 Co 12:11 But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man his own as he will. (It cannot be anything other than "as the man himself wills"!)
Now truly, it's God (or perhaps even Jesus Christ, for all I really know) who energizes these manifestations. But this is still done in accordance with what the man desires in the depth of his heart. And even if he's somewhat oblivious to it himself at the moment, it's still what he really wants anyway. (Ha!)
Does this make sense to you?
Spec
Edited by spectrum49Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
I cover a lot of detail in my commentary, but not every single detail with every single Greek word definition. And yes, your understanding of idios as seen in the Greek is correct (pertaining to oneself, one's own, from Thayer's Greek Lexicon). Also it is God through the Holy Spirit working with man for the manifestations of the Holy Spirit. And yes, man's desire is part of this. We are not the equivalent of robots or puppets.
Edited by Mark SanguinettiLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
And Spectrum49, I will do some editing to my commentary and might include the Greek word "idios" and its definition. You have made a very good point about the misleading or vague use of severally from the king James Version.
And I understand from another post that you are from Noo Yawk. Did I pronounce that correctly in your part of the state? And as I am typing this I am wearing a historic black baseball jacket with GIANTS on the front and NY on the right upper sleeve. NY stands for Noo Yawk or at least this is how I pronounce it. And my hope today is that I get you to giggle.
Thank you for your input.
Edited by Mark SanguinettiLink to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Well, I didn't realize that the posting numbers can (and do) change in a thread.
(consequently, the post numbers referred to above are all wrong... or, at least they were a few minutes ago.)
And after reading a couple of places, I'm still not sure where is a better place to post this, so... I guess it'll go here.
It's odd to me, how the mind and heart work at times. (Or, maybe it's just me.) But, still floating around in the back of my mind is the befuddlement of why many here (at least, it seems like the opinion of many, voiced by a few) have put so much emphasis on SIT needing to be an identified as a bona fide language for it to be the same thing that is referred to in the scriptures.
What is the actual point or purpose of it? (I'm referring to speaking in tongues.)
Isn't the most basic essence of it simply "to communicate"?
When the serpent spoke to the woman (in Gen.3), must we know the language... or that it was via "a language" that could be identified by some supposedly linguistic expert?
How long did it take these supposed language experts to figure out that humpback whales communicate with each other through some sort of verbalization?
Or how a dolphin speaks to another dolphin miles away? Or a bird to another bird? Or any number of other animals to each other?
What "expert" figured all these things out, that it puts them in such a position of trust that if they say or declare something is an authentic "language," the only believable or acceptable form of communication, so that now whatever vocalization is coming out of someone's mouth "must be" reckoned as something supernatural?
Why put so much trust or confidence in them to make that declaration or determination?
I don't get it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
When it's referred to in the Bible, it's in the sense of speaking, of being a language, not merely a communication. Communication and language are not necessarily synonymous. Yes, animals communicate, sometimes through sounds, sometimes through posturing, sometimes through pheromones, sometimes by altering physical surroundings. Loosely speaking, some might refer to that as language. It's not, it's communication. Among the many ways that humans communicate, one of them is speech. Speech has regimented structure, framework, syntax. Speaking in tongues (as we know it from our time in The Way) does not. We can, whether consciously or not, control it in such a manner as to make it APPEAR to be systematically structured. Christians are not the only ones or even the originators of said activity. The type of speaking in tongues being observed today (glossolalia) predates Christianity and is practiced by groups that are decidedly non-Christian. Maybe there really is such a thing as genuine speaking in tongues. I don't know. I would think, however, that most Christian people would opt for the genuine, rather than the pseudo version if, indeed, it were available, rather than resist the obvious.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
I couldn't figure out what this post meant, because I remember (rightly or wrongly) seeing several different lists "of three propositions" (a very Greek artifact... not Hebrew at all) in recent threads. So I read back over the thread...
If I am not mistaken, the proposition A in question was this: Modern SIT seems not to resemble Biblical SIT and does not seem to be supernatural at all, unlike Biblical SIT.
While Proposition A seems not to make any doctrinal claims, it is rife with doctrinal suppositions which are papered over by using the word "Biblical."
What does the Bible... and I mean Paul to the Corinthians... say about tongues?
1. There is one... and ONLY ONE... imperative associated with SIT, 1 Corinthians 14:39b, "...forbid not to speak with tongues..." No one is ever told that they HAVE to speak in tongues. The Corinthians were only told that they were NOT TO FORBID people to speak in tongues, in a passage of Paul's letter chiding them for OVERDOING tongues (which also implies that genuine tongues can be done improperly).
2. I Corinthians 14:22 says that tongues are a sign, not to those speakers who are confident that they have received the Spirit, but to those speakers whose confidence is not yet fully developed. Paul told the Romans in 4:11 of his letter to them that Abraham had received the sign of circumcision. In Philippians 3:3 Paul wrote that we are the circumcision who worship God in the Spirit (SIT). The sign to Abraham was to cut off the end of his member (he got rid of a useless piece of flesh). There was nothing supernatural about that. The sign to us is to speak without reference to the meaning of the sounds coming out of our mouths. There is nothing supernatural about that, either.
Speaking about "supernatural"... the word doesn't occur in the Bible. Neither the Stoic Greeks (the Corinthians were Stoic, not Platonic) nor the Hebrews thought there was a "supernature" in existence. Only the Platonists did that, and not in the current sense until after the 3rd century CE.
Proposition A carefully uses the word "seems", which means it contains no statements of "fact" at all...
Just my two cents worth...
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
I think your distinction between language and communications is artificial and tendentious. A specific act of transferring intention from one being to another is communication. The means of doing so... ANY means... is a language. The word "language" comes from the Latin word lingua which means "tongue", just as the Greek word glossa means "tongue". Since the communication being done in SIT is between God (I Corinthians 14:2) and the Holy Spirit, human language... or the lack of one... doesn't make any difference at all. The only thing that makes a difference is that the speaker desires in her heart to thank God... enough to move her lips, her mouth, her tongue, and her BREATH, to do so. And I am not referencing Wierwille or PFAL here, I am referencing J.E. Stiles' The Gift of the Holy Spirit, pages 108-121.
Receiving guidance from the Holy Spirit to speak specific words in the speaker's language only comes into play when a person interprets the tongue they spoke, or when the person speaks the kind of prophecy described in 1 Corinthians 14:24&25. I am not sure how interpretation is supposed to work. I just know that the way the Way taught it was wrong. I do know from my own experience... before, during and especially AFTER my time in TWI... that the prophecy Paul describes in 1 Corinthians 14:24&25 WORKS! I have heard God speak directly to my heart in the conversation of strangers at the neighboring table in a restaurant... before I ever heard of TWI or knew how to read the Bible with understanding. There have been times when I have popped off and said something that seemed to me like a tangential comment, and the person I was speaking to broke down in tears and said I had answered a question they had been praying to God about. It seems to me that if the things Paul was writing about speaking prophecy by the Spirit of God were true (and they ARE), then I might be able to trust the things he writes about speaking by the Spirit of God in tongues also.
Love,
Steve
P.S. - I don't mean to imply by this that I trust ANYTHING taught by Wierwille.
Edited by Steve LortzLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
"Since the communication being done in SIT is between God (I Corinthians 14:2) and the Holy Spirit, human language... or the lack of one... doesn't make any difference at all."
Well, I guess that settles it then. Speaking in tongues doesn't have to conform to linguistic standards because......it's spiritual.
Now, wasn't that easy?
It does say, however, that when they spoke in tongues in Acts 2, people understood them. That suggests to me that their vocalizations must have had some sort of systematic arrangement that was understood by the hearers.
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
I have seen you make this statement a number of times, waysider.
You say "the type of speaking in tongues being observed today." What type is that? A type that SOME Pentecostals, but not ALL, do? Or the OTHER type that different Pentecostals, though still not ALL, do? A type that followers of J.E. Stiles do? A type that practitioners of Santeria do?
And WHO is the observer who makes these assessments? What are their qualifications?
A vast majority of the people who write about speaking in tongues call it "ecstatic utterance", and that IS the case with many of the types of SIT observed today.
"Ecstatic" comes from the Greek word ekstasis which literally means "out of place". It is used to convey "an altered state of consciousness."
There are many types of seeming SIT that involve altered states of consciousness, induced by various artificial means such as drugs, extreme stress, sleep deprivation, etc. These means are called pharmakeia in the Greek.
There is only one account in the Bible where "ecstasy", an altered state of consciousness, is associated with SIT, Acts chapter 10. In verse 10, while on a rooftop praying, Peter "fell into a trance" -- egeneto ep auton ecstasis -- "an altered state of consciousness happened on him."
In verse 45 and 46, those of the circumcision, the believing witnesses Peter had brought with him, "were astonished" -- exestesan -- "had their state of consciousness altered"-- because they HEARD the uncircumcised speak in tongues!
Genuine Biblical speaking in tongues is not, never has been, and never will be, the result of an artificially induced state of consciousness. Genuine Biblical speaking in tongues is not, never has been, and never will be, ecstatic.
Now there have been people all over the world and all throughout history who have done "ecstatic" utterance, but as we see, genuine Biblical speaking in tongues is not ecstatic.
You wrote, "The type of speaking in tongues being observed today (glossolalia) predates Christianity..." Unless you can produce a proper historical citation that genuine, Biblical speaking in tongues, the non-ecstatic type, predates Christianity, then I suggest you stop making this statement, because it is demonstrably inaccurate.
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
Did I use the word "spiritual" in what I said? No I didn't. You used it, waysider. You were modifying what I wrote to put it into a form you could make fun of.
Making fun of what I wrote doesn't change the truth of it. Read what I wrote again without prejudice.
The fact that the Holy Spirit guided people on the Day of Pentecost recorded in Acts chapter 2 to use free vocalizations that some other people could understand as their own languages does not mean that all SIT MUST be done in an identifiable human language or it is false. The only Biblical requirement for speaking in tongues is that the speaker not understand what she is speaking. The Holy Spirit can do whatever he wants to do.
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Steve
This is a bit of a straw man. I never suggested anything that involved altered states of consciousness or drugs or whatever.
In addition, you're asking that I "produce a proper historical citation that genuine, Biblical speaking in tongues, the non-ecstatic type, predates Christianity.") Without first defining "genuinely, Biblical speaking in tongues", that task is not possible.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
I can understand why people are pieced off at Wierwille's toxic quackery. I'm pieced off too! And not just at him, but at all the other Pentecostal and charismatic quackery that takes something that is simple and beautiful and turns it into so much bull...spit?
I'm not mad at you, Raf, or you waysider, for reaching the conclusions that you have. I'd be there myself if I hadn't unthinkingly given the Lord permission to screw up as many of my plans as he wanted to screw up. But I did, and he did, and I have to live with the consequences.
Love,
Steve
-edited to subvert swear checker-
Edited by Steve LortzLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Has it occurred to anyone that we wouldn't be trying so desperately to explain why speaking in tongues never produces languages if speaking in tongues actually produced languages?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Like eavesdropping on a bunch of kids, trying to convince each other Santa Claus is real.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
So... let's see if I have this right.
You acknowledge and agree that animals can and do communicate.
However not in languages.
Therefore, assemby, fortran, basic, java... are all also not a language.
Wherefore, glossolalia, which is spoken, may indeed be an authentic form or means of communication, but it is not a language, because not all spoken communications are a language.
But when it is written "the serpent said to Eve," what language do you suppose it must have been?
Or, was it? After all, animals can't and don't communicate with a language, right? Or was this some kind of crazy exception? Because we certainly do have the translation of what was said, however it was said. So was it in or with a language, or not?
Maybe this is too much, too quickly.
So before taking this any further or deeper, maybe we'd better stop and see where some are at with this one:
True or false. Glossolalia can or might be an authentic form of communication.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Tongues are languages. Speaking in tongues is speaking in languages. To think that you can speak in tongues without producing a language is to inject a definition into the Bible instead of allowing it to speak for itself. And that improvised definition would not be necessary if you were demonstrably producing what the Bible promises in the first place.
Who are linguists to decide what's a language. Seriously? Who are biologists to decide what a cell is? Who are astronomers to tell what a star is?
Could you imagine Acts 2, how the people would have reacted if the apostles produced something other than recognizance human languages? They would have giggled their butts off. And the apostles would have been like, "Who are YOU to say it's not a language?"
Like it's everyone else's job to prove it's NOT. News flash: if you're the one claiming it IS genuine, then it's your task to prove it's a language. You should be calling in as many linguists as possible to get as wide a breadth of knowledge as you can to ID the language, not coming up with excuses for why they'll fail before they even start.
And for the last time, when you take one position for decades, reconsider and change your mind based on overwhelming evidence, the new position you take is NOT A PRESUPPOSITION. It is the OPPOSITE of a presupposition, and disingenuously calling it a presupposition to discredit it does not make it a presupposition.
Link 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.