chockfull

I would challenge you to go back through each and every account of tongues in Acts, and see for yourself whether or not they fit within the context of evangelizing to people who don't speak the language of the evangelist. Remember, Paul spoke the three common languages of the known world then. Paul studied under Gamaliel the elder, so spoke educated Hebrew. He grew up in Tarsus, a trade center. He spoke Greek, and the dialects involving the business language of the day. He wrote epistles to all of the Greek based churches in a language that both he and they understood. Check out and see in scripture if people who were converted spoke in tongues or not. If they did, who were they evangelizing to needing an outside translation in the towns they grew up in?

Well I agree with you that a lot of that epistle is spelling things out due to the Corinthian church's immaturity, and teaching them the correct attitude. I view the context as comparing the profit to the entire body to that of profit to the individual. Acknowledging both profits and directing the believer to focus on the one that is not selfish as opposed to focusing on the private one. I agree with you on the spiritual body building teachings in TWI. I think that was a stretch, and is not genuine doctrine. Nor are all the "excellor" session teachings. And I think that the fruit produced by this type of doctrinal error in teaching is a "spiritual elitism" attitude. I have renounced that attitude. This is why I keep saying over and over that I think that someone who does engage in the private prayer practice of SIT is not any different and certainly not better than those who choose not to. And ex-TWI members I think God looking on the heart would have zero problem at all with them never SIT for the rest of their life as part of a practice of renouncing and avoiding the leaven of the Pharisees. I agree. I'll seek it out there and read it. Thanks for doing that. I also am recording the references you recommend and will seek them out as well.

Here's a radical postulate. What if self-vocalization is the vehicle, and the spirit of God is the catalyst? That the only difference between the faked language and the genuine is the catalyst of the spirit of God, energized by the belief of the person acting? Vern approached that topic by the use of the term "T-Speech", and couldn't see any scientific difference between the two. But then again how adept has science been shown to prove spiritual matters in anything anyway? I mean, science can scarcely tell the difference between a live body and a dead body, and can't really produce much detail at all in the difference there. So to me it's not a huge stretch that science couldn't tell the difference in the injection of spirit into something. I mean, I look at how genuine revelation works from my experience (separate but related topic - gifts, manifestations, etc.). Usually I'm logically thinking through alternatives and facts and I take the next step which seems like just another logical step to me. Then well after the fact looking back, that next step doesn't seem like something I would have arrived at by the facts alone, so to me it means God was leading me in a certain direction. But in the moment, I couldn't tell the difference. Yes, I acknowledge the impact of TWI's teaching in a negative respect. I also realize that teaching can have the impact of driving people away from the experience down the road after they leave TWI. TWI had a lot of rote mechanics interjected, and a lot of "excellor" BS and practice, and immature teaching about pumping yourself up spiritually by SIT and so forth. But outside of that, what has changed? My personal experience with SIT was a little more like the Acts accounts - just pray and it happens.

Well, honestly trying to look at what is a bigger, fatter claim, I am taken back to a core question. Can we really live the Bible in our modern day in the same fashion as they did the first couple of centuries after Jesus crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension? Or is there some magical corruption in the world present today that prevents this? I mean, reading accounts in Acts, there was the first miraculous occurrence on Pentecost, where theologians speak of this almost as a translation service to the attendees. Then there are numerous other accounts where people did this also, and a lot of those are in conjunction with the new birth. Paul definitely states in Corinthians that he thanks God that he spoke in tongues more than they all did. Of course that statement may have been to assert his spirituality to a church in Corinth that seems immature and needed it. But he wouldn't have said it if it wasn't true. So if we are analyzing the topic, we have to come to the logical conclusion that this was a common practice in the early church. Or we have to conclude that the Bible is a collection of fairy tales, or that all of the first century Christians were faking it too. If this was a common practice in the early church, then if it can't be done today without faking it, that must mean that there has been something that drastically changed that. This leads to the topic of "dispensationalism". I know I don't 100% agree with TWI's teachings on that topic currently - my main reason is I look at how they practiced this, and all I really see is ignoring the words of Jesus and focusing on grace in the epistles and using it as a license to sin. And I see the large leaps of logic they perform in handling this with topics like debt and the tithe. So my question remains - how do you explain what changed? Is it the internet? Now that we are connected online, did God shut down speaking in tongues? Seems ludicrous to me. Is it something else? What is it? I hope you are following my line of questioning and reasoning here. With all of this background, I can safely say I think that your claim that everyone doing this today is faking it (or self-vocalizing - the more PC less inflammatory term) is a bigger fatter claim. I am reluctant to accept it from the doctrinal and biblical side of this without more to go on. What changed?

I'm left a little high and dry by all of this. Okay, so the evidence shows that it can be faked. You have a big fat claim out there that nobody is really doing it, but they are all faking. There are accounts in scripture that if they are assumed as true (which most Christians WILL assume), then there is quite a discrepancy between the Bible and it's historical accounts and what you say is modern day where everyone is faking it. What's the difference between now and Bible times? I realize seeking truth on this HAS to involve doctrinal discussion and taking apart some verses at least as a bare minimum in Acts and Corinthians.

Not necessarily fighting words, but now that I am not in TWI I don't have to eat everything and stuff it. I am allowed to stand up for myself. I am not Jesus, who God called to sacrifice himself for the entirety of our sins. We are Christian brother and sister, so we need to get this stuff straight. If we can dial back the offense/emotional reaction side of interacting like I think Raf and I have I believe it will help to be able to do some study of science and scripture and do some real good. I make no claims w/r to a witness or special gifts or callings. I'm just trying to get by day to day. Part of that is just trying to pray. I don't have an attitude. I've got a thread on doctrinal discussing I Cor 12 - 14 that could run parallel with this one. Discussing verses is definitely doctrinal. That verse maybe should be discussed there. All I'll say here on it is that even though the context is talking about edifying the body, if SIT did not edify an individual personally, then I can't see it being stated that way in the verse. That would make it a lie. If that first part of the verse is found to be a forgery, or something translated wrong, or a myriad of other options that we can highlight in doctrinal, then that's a different story. Yes we are clear. I don't want to make you cry, I want to discuss things as Christian brothers and sisters. I think it's possible to do so without transferring our anger with TWI to one another. I think it is hard though, so it will take work. I guess for me after TWI there's a limit to how much I'm willing to be stepped on. That probably stems from anger too.

I mistrust what we were taught too. I suspect that as we drill into the text of I Cor 14 especially that there aren't going to be a wide spectrum of ways we can go there. But sounds fun.

Although I have a preconceived belief going into this, I don't want to stop short of anything I can learn through scientific analysis, or scriptural study either. So I'll continue discussing. I think you and I have dialed back the rhetoric enough to make it sufficiently interesting also.

Geisha, Here's what I have a problem with. You picking a fight. I have none of these attitudes towards SIT. You are picking a fight with me because you have some kind of issue or anger problem. No, you picking a fight is NOT God telling me something. It's you being obnoxious. I've explained these things away over and over again to you specifically, yet you STILL want to have some attitude like God didn't give you a toy or something, and that I'm vaunting myself. Fine. I'm done with your attitude here. Get over it. It's definitely not a Christian attitude. Stop lecturing me about big-boy pants and put some on yourself. Christians may disagree. That doesn't mean you have license to be obnoxious to them, or make blanket statements denigrating their positions. I mean johniam quoted a scripture in I Cor. 14 a bit ago that says that if you SIT you are edified. It was immediately hands-down dismissed as TWI doctrine. Where is quoting a verse TWI doctrine? Only if you are closed minded. If God says in I Cor. 14 that when you SIT you are edified, and you want to excuse that away by saying the point was it was for unbelievers and it doesn't mean self-edification, then please take that up with the author, not me. Are we clear? Hey, I'm an analytic guy when it doesn't come to my prayer life and how I talk to God. I'll look at scientific evidence as far as it takes us. And learn things. I don't think it will get us all the way there, as I believe there is a spiritual element to prayer lives and interaction with God, and that can't be approached or solved via reason and man's facts. But I've seldom had knowledge or facts hurt my prayer life.

Agreed.

Interested too. It might be helpful to compile a list of commentaries and what the theologians say about it. Steve Lortz is doing that kind of thing in the Acts records, which should be interesting. I'll look around and post things up.

Confirmed Vern didn't note linguistic differences. My impression too - my read on it was he was dealing with that category separately partially to see what elements might be different other than the motivating beliefs in back of it.

The problem with this line of reasoning to me is that God instructs us to come to Him like a little child. Jesus teaches this. I didn't say I believed "things" like a little kid, I said that's my approach towards God. I believe you've seen enough of my posts on here to know that I challenge things, consider scriptures, etc. I don't have a closely held and dear doctrine on this issue. I just pray like I have since I've been a child in high school. I've proved Him many times in my life, and how I pray doesn't seem to be an issue to Him. And sometimes I take issue with people calling me names and saying I'm deluding myself, when God doesn't. You can try to make it about something else, but that doesn't change what it's about to me. And I have taken a closer look, and rose to the challenge. If you have a problem with my child-like relationship with God, then what I will suggest is maybe it's exactly that - your problem. I agree with this. Reading through the scientific studies it seems apparent that people can do this regardless of their beliefs. So much so that I see the phenomenon associated with religiously motivated people categorized with a different term - "T-Speech".

Maybe they did fake it, maybe they didn't. Maybe God is participating, maybe He isn't. I just posed the question as a legitimate possibility that God could decide to turn off the spiritual side of things in an experiment where someone is trying to tempt / test Him. I'm a little past the point of dictating to God what He is and is not going to do. I'm bringing it up because you can't rule it out as a possibility.

So what if God chooses not to participate in your little experiment producing proof? That's the extent of my argument that you are labeling "Satanic methods".

For me, I approach my faith from a child-like relationship basis. That's where I get my inspiration. I approach my job and other things from a scientific basis. That's where I can measure and see advances and progress. For me, it doesn't work to mix them too closely. When I do, I see issues like have arisen from this thread discussion. Not Satanic, but inherently problematic. Are having two different approaches congruent? Possibly not. It works for me. Is it conflicting? When I try to intertwine the two like on this thread it is. Outside of that, I'm fine. I get my inspiration, I get to not live in a dream world. Works for me. When evaluating groups and extending my loyalty, I need a thorough vetting of both. Otherwise my child-like side will trust too much like I did with TWI.

For me there was edginess in discussing our sources. We both probably magnified the portions of the sources that aligned with our positions rather than accurately reflecting the source, background, and conclusions. On your methodology I feel you magnified the point I was making beyond it's intention. I don't consider your methodology Satanic. I was edgy, that's why I apologized.

I'm not assuming they were or were not genuine. I'm just not ready to write off the entire Charismatic Christian movement.

God, looking back at my feelings towards TWI, I have nothing but compassion for Raf being abrasive. Honestly. Thanks, brother.

Me too. Let's de-escalate and act more like the Christian brothers we are. Sorry for stirring you up more.

So let me get this straight. Researchers who have enough interest in SIT to put together studies on it who happen to be religious are biased and their views don't count. What a catch-22 of a situation. They are the only people who care about the topic.

I think Raf wanted a debate, told me to "bring it", I did, and now we are in the middle of a heated escalated argument that is proving to have less and less profit as we continue. We started out a lot more civil, recognizing motives, allowing leeway for other positions. Then as we moved towards evidence based studies, it became less so. We need to de-escalate the situation and argument, and get back to the reality of what is really important - the love of Christ between brothers. Some stupid little language I talk to God in to comfort me is insignificant in the spectrum of all that is important.

Yet you have referred to it as such in a way that sounds like it is fact numerous times to discredit it as a source. Do you honestly not see a problem with this behavior? Revisionist motives. You found out it doesn't prove your position, then recanted your support of it. What I call integrity is reproving you for making blanket statements denigrating all of your brothers and sisters in Christ from a Charismatic background.

Yes, the Way's concept of "The Household of God" is elitist, arrogant, and obnoxious. Yes it damages people. Yes most of us have found out who our real friends are by now, and "The Household" doesn't number among them. Yes it promoted a counterfeit family. But in our discussion we are moving beyond "The Way", and delving into truths about God and the Holy Spirit field that encompasses all of Christianity. If the damage from the Way is too great to be able handle that without the grief from the Way and anger at the Way, then the honest thing to do is to simply recuse yourself from the discussion, or since this board involves a lot of people in that boat, just drop the discussion, as you honestly recognize emotional bias in handling it. That is intellectual and spiritual honesty, not labeling all of charismatic Christianity as "communaly self deluding". When you can accept criticisms of your behavior as different from an overall assessment of you as a person without this kind of emotional reaction, then you're probably able to discuss it rationally.

And if VP's teachings on the topic were erroneous, yet God just honored the trust in these 3 believer's hearts in Him by providing a genuine message? Then your finger pointing at them just has three pointing back at yourself.