Tom

Cool, that's major & basically what I was saying. Right, what kind of assurance would that be? I think the phenomena of speaking in tongues & devils possessing people's vocal cords are realities that are so far apart from one another that they shouldn't even be mentioned in the same denotation, and aren't - except by people who don't make the distinction. All I can say to that is "whatever." A couple was sitting on a love seat together, & the guy said to the girl ( no offense to girls), "You know the problem we are having communicating? You're a generalist, & I'm a specificist." She said, "Whatever." He said, "Exactly!" God doesn't leave doors to devil possession open; people do. People who genuinely seek, get the genuine article. Hence the absoluteness of the assurance. Absolutely - a matter of perspective!

I have yet to see the reason for the yet. Perhaps.

I think this has valuable things to say about this discussion. Adrift at Sea God has enlisted us in his navy and placed us on his ship. The boat has one purpose-to carry us safely to the other shore. This is no cruise ship; it is a battleship. We aren't called to a life of leisure, we are called to a life of service. Each of us has a different task. Some, concerned with those who are drowning, are snatching people from the water. Others are occupied with the enemy, so they man the cannons of prayer and worship. Still others devote themselves to the crew, feeding and training the crew members. Though different, we are the same. Each can tell of a personal encounter with the captain, for each has received a personal call. He found us among the shanties of the seaport and invited us to follow him. Our faith was born at the sight of his fondness, and so we went. We each followed him across the gangplank of his grace onto the same boat. There is one captain and one destination. Though the battle is fierce, the boat is safe, for our captain is God. The ship will not sink. For that, there is no concern. There is concern, however, regarding the disharmony of the crew. When we first boarded we assumed the crew was made up of others like us. But as we've wandered these decks, we've encountered curious converts with curious appearances. Some wear uniforms we've never seen, sporting styles we've never witnessed. "Why do you look the way you do?" we ask them. "Funny, they reply. we were about to ask the same of you." The variety of dress is not nearly as disturbing as the plethora of opinions. There is a group, for example, who clusters every morning for serious study. They promote rigid discipline and somber expressions. Serving the captain is serious business, they explain. It's no coincidence that they tend to congregate around the stern. There is another regiment deeply devoted to prayer. Not only do they believe in prayer, they believe in prayer by kneeling. For that reason you always know where to locate them, they are at the bow of the ship. And then there are a few who staunchly believe real wine should be used in the Lord's Supper. You'll find them on the port side. Still another group has positioned themselves near the engine. They spend hours examining the nuts and bolts of the boat. They've been known to go below deck and not come up for days. They occasionally are criticized by those who linger on the top deck, feeling the wind in their hair and the sun on their face. It's not what you learn, those topside argue. It's what you feel that matters. And, oh, how we tend to cluster. Some think once you're on the boat, you can't get off. Others say you'd be foolish to go overboard, but the choice is yours. Some believe you volunteer for service, others believe you were destined for the service before the ship was even built. Some predict a storm of great tribulation will strike before we dock, others say it won't his until we are safely ashore. There are those who speak to the captain in a personal language. There are those who think such languages are extinct. There are those who think the officers should wear robes, there are those who think there should be no officers at all, and there are those who think we are all officers and should all wear robes. And oh, how we tend to cluster. And then there is the issue of the weekly meeting at which the captain is thanked and his words are read. All agree on its importance, but few agree on its nature. Some want it loud, others quiet. Some want ritual, others spontaneity. Some want to celebrate so they can meditate, others meditate so they can celebrate. Some want a meeting for those who've gone overboard. Others want to reach those overboard but without going over board and neglecting those on board. And, oh, how we tend to cluster. The consequence is a rocky boat. There is trouble on deck. Fights have broken out. Sailors have refused to speak to each other. There have even been times when one group refused to acknowledge the presence of others on the ship. Most tragically, some adrift at sea have chosen not to board the boat because of the quarreling of the sailors. SOURCE: Max Lucado ”In the Grip of Grace"

Well, finally - I'm back. I have to apologize to you T-bone, for taking so long to get back to you - and to whomever else was waiting. I'm not usually like this. Anyway, forget the giving of reasons - sorry. I'm not sure what you're referring to when you say "From what you're [i'm] saying." But that's okay; I'd rather talk about what I believe concerning what is real rather than what I've said; please excuse me if I've spoken wrongly. Actually, for me, the idea that speaking in tongues (the Christian thing) cannot be counterfeited means that "someone seeking this speaking in tongues experience" doesn't have "a lot of things to consider/check out/determine." It means that one doesn't have to worry that they will receive a counterfeit because God will no more give a counterfeit to one asking for the genuine than a father would give a stone to one of his offspring asking for bread, or a serpent instead of a fish, or a scorpion instead of an egg. That's three times complete - it's just not going to happen. If a son shall ask bread of any of you that is a father, will he give him a stone? or if he ask a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent? 12 Or if he shall ask an egg, will he offer him a scorpion? 13 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him? So, I don't think there was any issue of speaking in tongues being counterfeit back in the day. Was it a key selling point? A key element of marketing, as we know it, is guile; truth, by definition, has no guile. It just is - big or little, like it or not. Does it appear to be a core element of their preaching? Wow! That's a loaded question! Core, how? Core, as in you're going to hell if you don't do it? Core as in you're not a Christian if you don't do it? I don't belive that. Core, as in you can't have any spiritual interaction from your heavenly Father unless you do it? I don't believe that either. Core, as in speaking in tongues is spiritual intercession from God to you exploding truths about what it means to be a child of God? Yes, that I believe. I agree completely. Yeah, among a lot of other bad habits - again, I'm sorry I mentioned his name in this place. In TWI I've heard the following two verses used to prove the validity of TWI's speaking in tongues experience: In John 7:17 Jesus said, "…If anyone chooses to do God's will, he will find out whether my teaching comes from God or whether I speak on my own." And in I John 3:24 "Those who obey his commands live in him, and he in them. And this is how we know that he lives in us: We know it by the Spirit he gave us." Yes, that is deep. On your part. It could be sloppy methodolgy on VP's part, or it could be just as deep and honest. Not everything can be proven from scripture - or Jesus wouldn't have said the above. As DrtyDzn said, "VP taught that SIT could not be counterfeited, that's why it was the proof in the senses realm of the internal reality of being born again." What Scripture references did VPW use to back this up? Well, I don't know the exhaustive answer to this, but I do know that he did use the section that I quoted above from Luke 11:11-13. I think the idea that tongues cannot be counterfeited can be legitimately inferred from these verses. I don't think it is reasonable to presume that when the Word assures the seeker how much more God won't give the seeker a counterfeit than an earthy father, it is just because God is nice. It is God we are talking about. Apparently, the question remains, how much more shall your heavenly Father give the holy spirit to them that ask instead of a counterfeit? I believe the how much more is in the difference between evil people & God. God so much more will not give you a counterfeit that it can't even be done. God has designed reality that way. IT CAN'T BE DONE. God said so & made it to be so. That much is clear to me.

Hey, don't you go taking credit for MY quirky sense of humor :). Glad it tickled your funny bone, T-Bone. Not to ignore your points, but I have to go take down hurricane shutters while it's not raining. Clarification of some of my points forthcoming. I apparently appear to come off from a place other than your own in more ways than I actually do. Differences are cool; I have no problem with that. But not when they are differences perceived via impositions on our perceptions imposed by others rather than real differences. Artificial kaka despoiling the water of life! I'm sorry I mentioned Wierwille's name. Ah, but there it is. Gotta go - I'm cut short. Later & love, Tom

I know I'm going to regret this, but hey; it won't be the last thing I regret. I am a little curious to know how he distinguishes between the two, one of them "not having happened for hundreds of years." "He determined that this was not even genuine language." Then how was I talking with someone a few weeks ago who spoke in tongues in a meeting & had a newcomer come up to him & ask where he had learned his native language? "His explanation of what it was sure fits well with what I observed going on in the ministry." Your perception, I can't argue with it. "I'm confident that he was studying the same thing we practiced in the ministry." We? We who? I admitted I don't know what you know. Perhaps you might consider that you may not know what others have known, especially when it comes to their spiritual lives. I don't know what he observed either inside or outside a "Christian" setting, but I don't get your logic about counterfeiting "a genuine article so well that the counterfiet could only be exposed by 'revelatiion' that there were devil spirits involved." The qualifications for being considered genuine according to the other Doctor's study & the present discussion, apparantly, is simply that it is a language. What's the "so well" about it? Either devils can control people's organs of speech or they can't. Either people can speak in tongues or they can't. And, OMG, "revelation?" The audacity to think not only that it might require revelation to tell the genuine from the counterfeit, but that moi can hear from God! Well, I'm sorry, but if none of that is real, I'm just going to go pop a beer, & watch a movie, maybe commit some adultery. "Everything in moderation. A time for everything in its season." Sheesh, you sound like my mother! Hey, maybe I should pay more attention. Just messing with you, okay? Peace - & other altered states of consciousness, Tom

BTW, I suppose that I should add that I do not believe the majority of exway who believe their tongues weren't real were fooled by a hokey devilish counterfeit, but by the simplicity of the genuine. They thought "they" were doing it - which of course they were. Or they thought they were supposed to feel or experience something more. Or, I suppose, there may be a fairly healthy percentage who never really did anything. I think the comfort of what Wierwille was saying about devils not being able to counterfeit tongues was that one didn't have to be afraid that if he did the speaking a devil spirit would take over or he would be "cursing Jesus" or something like that.

My understanding of this is that speaking in tongues cannot be counterfeited because it is more than just a language spoken that the individual didn't learn. Even Wierwille said that devils have a version of tongues in which they move people's mouths, lips, vocal cords, etc, & make them speak a language - so that can't be the sense in which he was saying tongues cannot be counterfeited. When people get prophecy from devils, it really is prophecy. When people get revelation from devils, it really is revelation. When devils heal, people really do get healed. The sense in which the above three are counterfeit is that they are energized from the wrong source. THAT, devils can't counterfeit, when it comes to speaking in tongues. The devil's version of "speaking in tongues" is NOT really speaking in tongues at all. There is no intercession going on, no spiritual energizing of spiritual realities, no building of potential from the devil spirit world. It's just a language being forced through the mouth by devil spirits. If THAT'S as deep as your definition of speaking in tongues, then, sure, THAT can be counterfeited. But THAT is not speaking in tongues. I've seen Christians speak in tongues who weren't aware that was what they were doing - it really is a simple affair technically (on the part of humans - hell, the spirit is giving the utterence; what could be easier?). And the holy spirit is not the harsh qualifier he is made out to be). But I've never seen someone who is not a Christian speak in tongues; although, I have seen the hokey "counterfeit." Perhaps it should be called a counterfeit counterfeit to differentiate it from real, but devilish revelations, healings, etc.

Thanks for the clarification - I needed it. Actually, my comment about vague words sounded harsher than I intended it to. But if I've got what you're saying right now, it's not that the words spoken were vague, but that the Word's record of them doesn't specify what was spoken. If so, okay; I got it. So, no contradiction here between what I'm saying & what you said. I was just thinking that the praise, the wonderful works of God that were being spoken were a lot more to the point - hitting the nail on the head so to speak than we normally give them credit for - than we normally saw in TWI. Not that TWI was not correct or was uninspired (although I don't doubt that it was completely uninspired sometimes), but there are degrees of inspiration - all of which may be truly inspired. For example, the amazing prophecies given by Mary & Elizabeth concerning Jesus before he was born are very pointed, to the point that we, with our lack of vision, might consider them to be the prophecy of those with the ministry of a prophet - revelation from the Holy Spirit, exceptionally powerful, new. But there is nothing new in their words of prophecy, nothing that they didn't already know previously from angels, or from revelation from Holy Spirit, or from the Word. It was nothing new, just God cooking all that inside their spirit until it boiled over - the same kind of prophecy that we do. So, what was the difference? For one thing, Mary & Elizabeth were superlatively focussed on what Holy Spirit was doing at that point in time & place. But certainly, what happened on the day of Pentecost was no less stupendous, no less powerful, no less wonderful. And I think that is what came out when the apostles spoke the wonderful works of God - even though they didn't understand what they were saying - no less stupendous than what Peter said. What matters more is the realization that what happened on the day of Pentecost is no less of a happening today than it was then. Our words of inspired prophecy (not revelation prophecy, but poor ole lowly inspiration prophecy) may be as Mary's was. It is all dependent upon how focussed we are on what HAS BEEN REVEALLED TO US about what the Holy Spirit is doing today where we are. I don't think that Mary or Elizabeth consciously differentiated between what they knew from revelation & from the Word. They just knew what God was doing, were inspired by it, and said so. Let the redeemed of the Lord say so. SO...

Thanks for the kind words. About the Holy Spirit giving the utterance - are not both the tongues of men & of angels as the Holy Spirit gives the utterance? 1 Corinthians 12:30 Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret? 31 But covet earnestly the best gifts: and yet shew I unto you a more excellent way. 1 Corinthians 13:1 ¶Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. "Then said he unto them, Therefore every scribe which is instructed unto the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man that is an householder, which bringeth forth out of his treasure things new and old" What a beautiful verse!

Interesting Acts 2:5 ...devout men, from every nation under the sky. 7 They were all amazed... 12 They were all amazed... 13 Others, mocking, said, “They are filled with new wine.” Others is heteros, others of a different kind. They were not believers. They were not receiving the words of the 12 apostles concerning the great things that God was doing. BTW, I don't think it was some vague words about how wonderful God is; I think, at this time, with the new birth, God, through Jesus Christ's sacrificial death, resurrection, & NOW, giving of the gift was doing the greatest, most wonderful thing ever, and THAT'S what specifically the wonderful works of God were that were spoken in tongues. But the "others" didn't hear the words - perhaps they didn't understand any of the languages being spoken - just wondering. But, at that point, Peter was inspired just to lay it all out in a language that everyone understood at the same time together. Italics supplied to emphasize who is being addressed by Peter. 14 But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and spoke out to them... 15 For these aren't drunken, as you suppose... 22 Men of Israel[Peter has changed who he is talking to here, I think], hear these words! etc. PEACE and LOVE Tom

A few more notes: I think that most of the people would likely understand Aramaic. I can't speak for all the places referenced, but for a couple, maybe. Parthian: http://www.parthia.com/parthia_arts.htm#Language Parthian is a North Western Iranian language...written in a script derived from Aramaic. ...support of the old system by the Greeks kept the use of 'bureaucratic' Aramaic side by side with the Greek. Before the Arsacid dynasty, Parthian was spoken only in a small region but, as a state language of the Parthian Empire (together with Greek), it later spread throughout Iran, Mesopotamia and Armenia, and was widely used in Central Asia. The oldest Parthian documents found include the economic documents from Nisa (1st century B.C.) and there are as well rock inscriptions dating back to the 3rd century B.C. They are written in Parthian script with additions of Aramaic ideograms. Mesopotamia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesopotamia refers to the region now occupied by modern Iraq, eastern Syria, and southeastern Turkey. Scholars have suggested that the Akkadian term biritum/birit narim ...coined at the time of the Aramaicization of the region[1] The earliest written language in Mesopotamia was Sumerian, a language isolate. Later a Semitic language, Akkadian, came to be the dominant language, although Sumerian was retained for administrative, religious, literary, and scientific purposes. Different varieties of Akkadian were used until the end of the Neo-Babalonian period. Then Aramaic, which had already become common in Mesopotamia, became the official language of the Achaemenid Persian Empire. Akkadian fell into disuse, although both it and Sumerian were still used in temples for some centuries. It seems that Aramaic was widespread. The languages that were the "native" languages, or the languages of the birthplaces, of the people who were gathered in Jerusalem at the time, many times - or at least in the cases of Mesopotamia & Parthia (covering widespead areas at times in their histories - I don't know about in Acts 2; although, apparently large enough for mention) seem to have been relegated to the ranks of official political, legal, economic, or religious purposes in favor of Aramaic being the commonly spoken language. So, the 12 speaking the great things of God would have been remarkable & someone or some collections of people (as opposed to everyone hearing all 12 in their own language at the same time) in the audience would understand the particular language being spoken by an individual apostle.

A few things: GENEVA STUDY BIBLE 2:8 {e} And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born? (e) Not that they spoke one language, and different languages were heard, but the apostles spoke with different languages: for otherwise the miracle would have been in the hearers, whereas it is really in the speakers; Nazianzen in his oration of Whitsunday. Not that the above is the final answer, but it would make sense. Acts 2:6 ASV: And when this sound was heard, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speaking in his own language. BBE: And when this sound came to their ears, they all came together, and were greatly surprised because every man was hearing the words of the disciples in his special language. DBY: But the rumour of this having spread, the multitude came together and were confounded, because each one heard them speaking in his own dialect. KJV: Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language. WEY: So when this noise was heard, they came crowding together, and were amazed because everyone heard his own language spoken. WBS: Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because every man heard them speak in his own language. WEB: When this sound was heard, the multitude came together, and were bewildered, because everyone heard them speaking in his own language. YLT: and the rumour of this having come, the multitude came together, and was confounded, because they were each one hearing them speaking in his proper dialect, Acts 2:6 Multiple Languages WEY may be a notable translation. Not that the hearers each heard all the 12 speaking their own particular language at the same time, but that among the speakers each hearer heard the language of his/her birthplace being spoken. Among the 12 speaking, a language that one understands would stick out among the 11 other languages that one didn't understand - I'd go there to hear what was being spoken. To realize that all there were doing the same would be remarkable. That way, there wouldn't have to be one language spoken for 5 minutes & than another started - which does seem rather silly. What if your language was the last one to be spoken? How long would you have to wait, listening to incomprehensible gibberish instead of the wonderful works of God?

Well, I don't classify my approach, & I usually loose my grasp on the discussion when the target becomes classification of approach. I'm not well versed in man's classifications of spiritual matters. Maybe I should be more well versed, maybe not. Umm, I'm sorry to say that I just don't care. Perhaps I should care more, you know, to be a better witness & all, but I've been pretty fully occupied just trying to keep my life, my wife, my job, together with a connection to my God intact. Man's classifications of approaches to the Word - it just hasn't been a consideration - no time, no place! So, you've brought the time & place into play, my brother. As I try to honestly engage those places in my heart you seek to define, please be so kind as to continue your gracious reactions to my posts - I realize that we seem to have some basic differences that will enter into the mix. I also realize that you don't seek to classify my "approach as more spiritual - mystical - or something like that" to trap me into a doctrinal corner; you're simply asking. So, I'll try to simply answer. My approach is this. I figure that the rightly dividing of the Word occurs in life. It doesn't happen in an ivory tower of a research department. It happens in my life - in your life, my brother. If the Word has been rightly divided in your life in the area to which you need to apply the Word - NOW - the power of God is realized there by you - & by whomever the hell else needs to see the power of God fly there. If that's not happening, something is wrong. But maybe things are still moving towards that in a round about way. We all take these round about ways - sigh; but God works with that a lot - smile. But all round about ways aside, Christ has to be there. If he's not, there is something wrong with my approach. I don't know what kind of approach you want to call that - or my failure to achieve that at times - but that's the way I look at it. The approach doesn't discount the Word; neither does it discount my experiences of the Word in my life. If they're not both there, something is wrong. The Word, & the power & deliverance of God, are meant to be realized.

Do we have emotions? What are they? I hear a really loud thunderclap. Adrenalin floods through my system. My heart pounds. Electrical charges jolt along my nerve pathways. My body jerks. I call it fear. My dog licks my face, & I have a different set of hormonal, chemical, electric, system changes, & I call it something else. It's all a bunch of physical responses, nothing more. Does that make it any less real? No. Does God have emotions? If we accept that emotions attributed to God are a figure of speech, does that make it any less real? I say no. Figures of speech are truer to truth than the literal truth would be. His love is more truly loving than mine is. So what if he doesn't have oxytocin flowing through His system? Perhaps our emotions are mere shadows of God's realities.

Wow! this sure has been a voyage of discovery! There you go, "forcing" me to address my beliefs with the Word again. "Forcing" in a good way, iron sharpening iron - thank you. I REALLY appreciate it. I read your post last night, but didn't feel set to answer your thinking about what the crux of the matter revolves around. Although I sort of felt that you were correct about what my viewpoint is (in above quote), I don't think I'd ever quite thought through the ramifications of actually saying so - you know, how deep that rabbit hole actually goes. I looked around for my, or my wife's, holy spirit book to see what that said, but, perhaps providentially, I couldn't find either of them. So, I went to bed thinking about your post. A little aside here: I really love this section of the Word, Romans, chapter 8, that is. I suppose you can tell. But I haven't done a lot of "research" into it. When TWI & I came to the parting of the ways, it was a pretty rocky time for me mentally. All preconceived conclusions seemed up for grabs. As almost everyone at gs knows, some more, some less, that can be very unsettling. My anchor was Romans ch. 8; I ran it through my mind continually. I didn't research it. I didn't read it or even open a bible for years. But I ran it through my mind over & over again - for all those years. Obviously, I was impressed enough with it to have committed it to memory beforehand, but its significance grew substantially during that time. Also, Romans Ch. 8, SIT, & Jesus Christ all have a very big hook into the experiences of my life. I wouldn't be alive without the, umm, okay here is that word, "intercession," the extraordinary, miraculous, & dramatic intercession of what I perceive to be the reality of all three - detailed exposition of this aside withheld here to keep the tangent little. When I woke up this morning, my answer to your post was set. You're right, T-Bone, "the crux of the matter revolves around our different viewpoints of 'spirit' in the text" of Rom. 8:26, "Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered." I think that holy spirit is "referring to the gift of holy spirit in the believer" because of the following verse that says, "And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit..." He that searches the hearts is God, &, because he searches the hearts, he knows what is the mind of the spirit because of the gift of holy spirit/heart connection within believers. And I also think that the spirit here refers to the gift within because of the rest of the context of Ch. 8. BUT, to think so, I've had to readjust some of my previous thinking about everything we've been talking about. For THAT, I'll be eternally thankful to you, T-Bone. I still think that God is the big deal here (that being the true test of truth); He searches the hearts, He knows the mind of the spirit, He makes all things work together for good for those who love Him, He, along with freely giving us Christ, freely gives all things - but the fact that it is the spirit within us that God is listening to that is making the intercession has taken on new & greater significance for me as I've had to think this through further. I've often wondered why verse 26 says the spirit makes intercession, but verse 34 says Christ, at the right hand of God, makes intercession for us. Now I believe I see the answer. God is still the big deal, but I've vastly underestimated what God has given us in Christ. There is no difference between the spirit within & Christ at the right hand of God. The identification is absolute & complete. As verse 30 says we've already been glorified. As he (Christ) IS, so are we in this world. So, to carry this through honestly, I have to change where my thinking was going earlier. I realize people will receive this as ego, & it will remind people of TWI who DID make it into ego, but I believe that it is absolutely the ability of the believer, via the spirit within, to make intercession. We speak in tongues, we go forth and cast out spirits, we heal, we make intercession - via the spirit. God gives the increase. It is not the energy box model of holy spirit that became the practice in TWI, where we tell God what to do. It is where we get to move according to the will of God, Him working within us to will & do of His good pleasure. T-Bone, it wasn't only rethinking the ramifications of verse 26 that got me here, it was also your discussion of the significance of circumcision, bringing it more into line with God's main purposes: Because God "works all things after the counsel of His will" IN US! WE ARE the ones who need redeemed. We are where His will - our redemption - takes place. Goes back to the crux of the matter again, T-Bone. It all makes sense if we see God's purposes in Jesus Christ. Matthew 9:8 But when the multitudes saw it, they marvelled, and glorified God, which had given such power unto men. God got the glory for giving men the power - in this case, Jesus. Acts 3:12 ¶And when Peter saw it, he answered unto the people, Ye men of Israel, why marvel ye at this? or why look ye so earnestly on us, as though by our own power or holiness we had made this man to walk? Peter & John made the man to walk. They had the ability, the power, & the holiness to make the man walk, but it wasn't their own fleshly ability. It was the faith that came by the risen Jesus. In Romans 8:29, we learn that we, "...whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son..." That's God's purpose. That's redemption. Its not just redemption from sin; we get to be like Christ. Now! That's the crux of the matter. I think that's Romans 8:26, the groanings and the glorious liberty of the children of God.

You're very welcome, Oak. Thank you for the kind words. BTW, my last two posts above explain what I think is the "Seriously, what's the point?" of the "incomprehensible babbling" question of your original post. Major point! "Couldn't God have come up with a way of 'building up the inner man' that didn't involve incomprehensible babbling?" I don't know the answer to that. But here are some thoughts the question brings to mind: If I had to understand it, then the content or substance of tongues would be limited to my ability to understand. That would severely, pretty much critically, limit the ability of the intercession involved to overcome my weakness in not even knowing what to pray for as I ought. In some ways, SIT reminds me of circumcision to the OT believers. Circumcision was supposed to be a sign that people, like Abraham, believed in God's ability to produce the coming Messiah as their wholeness - that they believed in God's provision, instead of their own abilities. What more significant sign could God have chosen to show that He, God, brings the plan of salvation to pass & not man, than to have man cut off the foreskin of his penis (ouch) - the organ of the continued production of the race? Rank!!! But man (nationalistic Israeli man, but isn't that man), as his manner is, promoted circumcision (the ultimate sign & act of humility) as a mark that he was better than all other men - when the mark was intended to indicate man's acceptance of his place under God's care, NOT man's superiority to other men. MAN has done the same thing with SIT. As usual, man says, "Giberash, jump in the Jordan seven times to be made whole!?" "Cut off the skin on my dick?" "To be made whole?" "Give me a freakin' break." "Couldn't God have done it another way?" "That made sense?" "incomprehensible babbling?" Ah, you get the point - please tell me you get the point - that WAS your question. I'm not the answer man, & I'm severely limited in my ability to see this stuff, but what I've posted I think is real - doctinally, experientially, in every way I know "ially." Does it not touch the rock that holds your heart, brother?

I think this post overall contributed a lot to the conversation, but I think the above quote from MacArthur needs tweaking, especially in the light of all the discussion we've been having about groanings. Sometimes a little tweak yields a big result. I don't believe "In the same way" refers to the groans of the creation and of believers for redemption..." Nor do I believe that the Holy Spirit's (nor the holy spirit's, nor my holy spirit's) groanings "for God's ultimate day of restoration" does justice to what is being presented here. "In the same way" refers to how the "hope" of "the redemption of our body" will deliver us "from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God." In that same way, our groanings and travailings in pain are helped now by that same glory as we "which have the firstfruits of the Spirit" are "conformed to the image of his Son" because it IS now the hope of glory within us. That, I believe, is the intercession - God's all things working together for good in answer to our groanings. That's why I believe, as Kit said "Speaking in tongues gets me places I cannot go without it. I am thankful for the ride." The hope is our North star, our compass setting; it brings everything on track. That's where the ride is going - that's where speaking in tongues is taking us "that he might be the firstborn among many brethren." "Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified. What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us?"

"...I think it's a distinction that IS important - to me..." I agree. "I was looking at the context of BOTH chapter 7 and 8 - and I tend to think the author wanted to emphasize the work of The Holy Spirit rather than something WE do" I also agree with this; however, I think for clarity's sake, I must qualify that agreement - not with regard to the Word I see here, but with regard to conclusions you have made apparently from that. I agree I don't get any credit for the intercession that occurs when I speak in tongues; nevertheless, it IS my spirit that is praying, that is giving expression to the inexpressible groanings of all creation according to the will of God - not a natural or fleshly ability, but an ability of the (now my) spirit, nonetheless. And because my spirit is praying according to the will of God, God hears it - that's where the power & credit of the intercession (the all things working together for good) comes from. God makes it so. I'm just a kid who gets to cry "Abba - Father" via the (my) spirit when I speak in tongues.

Just a little aside - I don't agree with Kit on a lot of things. Kit and I met as... well, I was going to say adversaries, but...well, let's just say we disagreed on a lot of apparent essentials, but we found out that we could stand together on things we knew were real regardless of what appeared to be foundational differences. If Kit is in your corner, there is the power of God brought to bear and the love that crosses boundries. I'm honored to be associated with her in any regard.

"...somehow Almighty God needs some human to give voice to His own desires." You know, George - I don't understand you. I mean in certain regards I do, but in others, I have no clue. That's not a put down. In the ways I do understand you, I have a lot of respect for you. "...somehow Almighty God needs some human to give voice to His own desires." Why is that so hard to imagine? What if you were God? What if you did this whole creative thing because it was your desire to do so (why would you create anything if it wasn't your desire)? What if among this whole outrageous creation thing you did, there was nothing among the creation that could even give voice to what you desired to begin with? "Somehow?" Seems essential to me. Thank you Kit

Thanks, Danny - I really appreciate that you read stuff that usually would be accepted as pro-TWi by anti-TWI mindset constraints with an open mind without giving a rat's a$$ about TWI. Kudos - you are a big person.

I appreciate that you don't buy it, Clay, & you have your very real reasons, but you don't distribute spiritual things; the Holy Spirit does. This interceding benefit that we are speaking of IS a spiritual thing; I trust we agree on that. The Spirit distributes the gifts, the ways they are administered, & their energizings, no? Nevertheless, we see that all are not apostles, all are not prophets, all are not teachers, all are not workers of miracles, all do not have the gifts of healing, all do not speak with tongues, all do not interpret. Why should we think that all get this benefit of intercession? I know a lot of people who don't seem to have a lot of this intercession going on in their lives, & others who do, & still others, like myself, who have it in spades in certain regards and just not there in others. I'm not going to blow smoke up anybodies you know what by saying, "Oh, yeah, everyone's got it - it's all good. Don't even think about it; any thought to the contrary is ego - TWI-EGO." Hey, I'm all for going after spiritual things & figuring out what would be really spiritually to the point in any given situation, yet, let's go for the more excellent way - the way of love. Rom. 8: 238 doesn't say that all things work together for everybody because God loves them, but that "we know that all things work together for good to them that love God." Clay, I regard you highly, but I suspect that you do disregard some valuable insights from the Word because you associate them with TWI. I know you deny that, but you might want to rethink that in certain regards, brother.

That's a good point & a fine (not fine in small - so what, but fine in perceptive & discriminating) distinction that you've made there, T-Bone (BTW, are you the T-Bone I knew as T-Bone from NY?). I have a few problems accepting that the distinction has any significance in this instance for a few reasons: Calling something the spirit, my spirit, something else spirit, or just spirit doesn't always indicate the vast difference in significance that Wierwille indicated it did in the hs (neither do the capitals - there were no capitals in the originals - I wish you could see them like I can - just kidding). Context & the desired emphasis of the author can dictate those differences in expression are warranted concerning the same basic meaning. You know, I was going to list a couple of other reasonable explanations for using "the" or "my" spirit that indicate some distinction other than the one you indicate, but it might take us on a tangent, & the above one reason is strong enough to at least discount your objection as absolute. But, again, you make a good point, not to be discarded - there IS a difference of expression, so there must be a reason for it.

but many suffer - "groan" - in silence Indeed! I notice the " that you put at each end of one of the words in question. Why? Because groans are, by definition, expressions or utterances. No one "groans" in silence. But, of course, we all do. As do the very rocks & the rest of all creation. Therein lies the power of the figure. Therein lies the power of speaking in tongues; it gives utterance to the inexpressible groaning we've all been subjected to. It is the expression of the absolutely empathetic intercession of holy spirit - expressing what neither we, nor the rest of all creation can express - although we all groan silently. Probably a wee bit important, Danny! I'll change my mind concerning my overall thesis concerning how this happens, but only as it makes sense to me. Either way, it seems we are all discussing the action of the spirit that bridges the gap between our weakness & the realization of the promise of life in all its forms. I won't give that bitch up to the rest of the dogs while I have breath or after I have no breath. No offense intended by any use of any dog expressions.