Goey

Large, fancy and colored fonts annoy the hell out of me.

Believers may pray and bless others with the spirit. Here's where I believe it comes from:

1Cr 14:14 For if I pray in an [unknown] tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.

Nothing here about speaking in tongues FOR someone.

1Cr 14:15 What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also.

Nothing here either

1Cr 14:16 Else when thou shalt bless with the spirit ...,

Possible when read out of context, but you left out the second half of the verse that explains what the blessing is and to whom it is directed.

If you had completed verse 14 it would have shown that it was the giving of thanks was what refered to not the practice of praying FOR someone in tongues. The context was "in the church" when folks are together -- not in private prayer.

1 Cor 14:16 - 17

16: Else when thou shalt bless with the spirit,

how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest?

17:

For thou verily givest thanks well, but the other is not edified.

It clearly says here - "the other is not edified". Yet you use this section to prove the practice of speaking in tongues FOR someone? What's up with that ?

This section is probably refering to prayers of thanks to God within a church gathering, like saying grace over a meal - the emphasis being on praying in understanding instead if speaking in tongues.

If you want to speak in tongues FOR people/things thats your perogative. However you have provided no scriptural basis for that practice.

IF I were to receive 'word of knowledge' (for example), something I needed to know. Do I then have to wait around for someone else to give me a 'word of wisdom' concerning what to do about it ? What if no-one else was around ? God is going to make me wait til someone else with that (gift) turns up ?

How absurd ! Think about it.

It's abusurd because you made it absurd within the framework of VP's definitions.

Oak makes a good point. The definitions you use are Wierwille's. eg, So the reasoning becomes somewhat circular. But that aside ....according to Wierwille.

Word of knowledge = Information from God that could not be known by the human senses

Word of wisdom = what to do with that information.

I fail to see how God revealing to somone via the spirit that "the house is on fire, get out the back door" is actually two "manifestations" instead of one. They are both informational. I am not too sure that VP got his definitions correct on these.

I think word of wisdom, is more like an illumination or insight (wisdom) into God's plans and myseries that help in guiding the body of believers towards His will. More of general gift given to certain individuals for the direction of the body of believers, than a personal situational one.

That's great, but it seems you, like me, don't believe some verses you don't want to believe. Or else you don't believe they are applicable to you, such as the ones in Acts and Corinthians about SIT. Like the one in Jude about "building up yourselfs...praying in the HS." Perhaps you believe these verses applied in an earlier time but not now? Don't see the profit in them in your life?

Wrong again Oldies. I simply do not accept Wierwille's interpretation of certain scriptures - or Stiles' for that matter. If you paid any attention at all, you should have noticed that nearly everytime I used SIT in my posts, I qualified it with, "as TWI taught it" or as was practiced in TWI. Does that tell you something?

I think Wierwille was wrong about the manifestations / gifts being given to everyone as that person wills. I think the HE in 1 Cor 12:11 refers to GOD and not the person. While you errantly take it that I don't believe certain scriptures, the reality is that don't believe TWI's spin on those scriptures.

Goey, I also gather from some of your statements that you believe some O.T. scriptures apply directly to you as well and yet again at the same time you sidestep some of those in Acts and Corinthians and others.

I've proceeded similarly. I don't believe verses about tithing are applicable to me. There are others as well.

Well I guess it's all a matter of choice what one believes, and some of us still believe SIT and all the benefits and blessings of the 1st Century Church can apply to believers today.

Here's one way J.E. Stiles put it, from page 16 of his book, "The Gift of the Holy Spirit"

Yeah, I think some of the OT applies, Love God, Love your neighbor, don't lie,. don't steal, etc. But that has nothing to do "sidestepping". I haven't sidestepped anything Oldies, If I have sidestepped something, show me what and how and I will discuss it. But for the record, I doubt there are too many similarities in how you and I have proceded to understand the scriptures.

As for believing what we choose to believe you are correct. But let me point out that I have no theological hero or "Father in the Word" whose teachings I am (blindly?) commited to. I come to my own conculsions thought my own independent study, observations and experiences, rather than wholesale acceptance of the teachings of one man -- or one particular theological system. I think that gives m me bit of an edge in the objectivity category. I am free to change my mind if compelled to do so. I have very few sacred cows to cling to or to defend.

Oldies, show me how you or anyone else is better off spiritually for speaking in tongues, as TWI taught it, than the person who does not. Have you ressurected the first century church yet with your speaking in tongues?

To get back to best part of first century Christianity, I would say folks should probably concentrate a little bit more on being loving than on being tinkling symbols.

OK, OM, how much tweaking would it take to make it not twi material any longer?

Maybe a better question would be, how much tweaking would it take to make it a valid and effective form of Christianity.

Married twice - Divorced Twice. I remain happily divorced, which does not mean that I don't like the ladies. I most certainly do. I think women are precious, I just don't think I am cut out for marriage.

The problem is, at 52, I find that am not cut out for casual relationships either. -- Go figure.

Unless a miracle happens I'll probably never marry again.

With the coming of the greater, the lesser disappears. The writer unfortunately is unaware of 'simple' principles like this that helps to 'rightly divide' the word.

All scripture written aforetime is written for our learning etc..etc..

The sacrifice of bulls and goats was superseded etc.. etc..etc...etc...etc...etc...etc...etc...etc...

"For our learning " This comes from Romans 15:4 and VPW's interpretation of it represents one of his bigger theological blunders.

Rom 15:4 For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope. ( KJV)

"Learning" is from the Greek word - didaskalian. This is the same Greek word that is translated "DOCTRINE" all throughout the New Testament. So this verse could just as well be translated "for our doctrine".

I guess VP missed that - or he conviently ignored it. Regardless, it blows gaping hole in VPW's teaching that the OT does not "apply" now and is is only "for our learning".

VPW made a sharp distinction between doctrine and learning, whereas the scriptures do not. Didaskalia, is what is taught, or instruction as it is translated in many other versions.

It has been said that some folks confronted the sinners privately, to no avail.

Can you imagine someone rebuking at a public meeting? What a circus. :)

Yes, I can.

Didn't TWI's leaders rebuke the WC/staff underlings in public quite often? And many times for trival stuff -- Was that a circus?

I find it quite interesting that the underlings, while edifying the spirit by speaking in tongues much, did not publically rebuke the higher ups for the non-tivial stuff they were responsible for -- especially considering the public rebuking example set for them by those leaders.

I return to that question I posed earlier: in all your recollections/experiences in the Way, does anyone here recall any occasion where someone got rebuked, reproved or even kicked out of the group for having produced an "interpretation" or a "prophecy" that was not well-received by the leaders?

Yes, on more than a few occasions.

I saw people reproved, rebuked and corrected, but never kicked out. (1976-1982)

That would be for the individual to evidence for him/herself, and if someone says they are blessed by SIT, I can take them for their word. It is like being a witness, we are witnesses and share with the world what we have experienced of our relationship/fellowship with God. Folks are free to believe or disbelieve.

So If I say I get blessed by slain in the spirit, you take my word for it ? That's good to know.

Goey, somehow I get the feeling that if you analyzed the bible itself as critically as you are analyzing SIT, you'd become a non-believer very quickly. Nothing wrong with that... just a little odd.

Oh, but I do "analyze" the Bible critically, but even moreso TWI's interpretations of it. But now I am more of a bible believer than a PFAL/Wierwille believer.

Yet, I find it even more odd that you do not critically "analyze" the glaring defects in wierwillian theology. I get the feeling that If you did, maybe you would become a more of a bible believer than a Wierwille believer.

Yup, there were lots of rules which led to lots of pressure on everyone. It had to be perfect.

Once, in a tape class, I was responsible for queing up the cassette tapes and I accidently misqued one. That got me a good butt chewing, but even worse -- I also got that ominous glare from the local leader that said, "you let Satan in here to disrupt this class."

Yup, the old bird and his gang always showed up at PFAL classes -- trying to misque tapes, influence folks to ask questions ( or answer them), unline the chairs, or possess the new students with a "spirit of slumber".

See, if he can get someone to sleep through one of VP's jokes, or delay a session for 15 seconds while a tape is being requeued, or short out a coffeepot -- the whole class would fall to pieces. God knows what would have happend if someone had actually answered a question. -- I shudder at the thought.

I think what happened with TWI is irrelevant to whether SIT is a genuine spiritual manifestation.

I suppose one could argue that SIT is counterfeit, because the first century church was ruined as well.

SIT was around before twi and SIT may very well outlast twi.

Once again you missed the point. The point there was not so much the genuineness, but rather the effectiveness in doing what TWI says it does. Does it work as advertised? Does it do all that TWI says it does? --- For example, is speaking in tounges really a "requirerment" for receiving relevation from God, as TWI taught in the Advanced Class? That would mean that God could not give relevation to anyone unless they spoke in tongues much and edified the spirit first. Is this really true?

But since you brought it up, the fact that the first century church had schisms and divisions does not say anything about the geniuness of tongues back then or today. I assume that what was practiced during Paul's time was genuine since it is in scripture. Even so, it did not prevent the divisions or discord, so we at least know one thing that it does not do.

But, to correlate first century tongues with todays tongues, particularly as TWI taught it, one must first show that the tongues practiced today is the identical to what was practiced then. Can that be done? How would you know?

I wouldn't know that those who sinned greatly "spoke in tongues more than ye all" in their private prayer life. Maybe they did or didn't? I don't know.

Even so, still doesn't make the manifestation part of all that sinning. There are folks who didn't do those dirty deeds, SIT'd and can attest to SIT benefits. SIT doesn't make anyone not sin if they choose to sin.

I partially agree with you on this. TWI taught that the renewed mind would transform the believer, not just SIT. That takes work and effort, not only SIT but changing thoughts too.

Continual SIT in love can be a loving thing too... praying in tongues for someone is that along with edifying oneself in the spirit

I think everything is attitude. If you proceed with the right attitude in wanting to do God's best, SIT CAN AID YOU in all these things you mentioned.

Possibly it can be an aid to those things, but TWI's history and the the behavior of many of its most staunch adherents does not lend any evidence to that. Any evidence to that is purely subjective is it not?

Person A SITs much and is generally kind and loving, and always willing to help someone in need.

Person B SITs much, and is generally rude, unkind, abusive and is mostly self-serving.

Person C does not SIT is generally kind and loving, and always willing to help someone in need.

Person D does not SIT is generally rude, unloving, abusive and is seldom helpful .

I have seen all 4 types. What this tells me is that SIT is probably not much of a factor in these things at all.

SIT is certainly not "necessary" to manefest those things, is it? This is evidenced by the many folks that have never SIT, yet they still manage to demonstrate those "fruit of the spirit" abundantly. This belies the notion that to have the fruit of the spirt, you must operatate the manifestations of the spirit.

Oldies, where in the scriptures is the practice of "praying in tongues for someone" ever mentioned?

My somewhat casual observation is that those who speak in tongues much, as TWI taught, are no more spiritually edified (built up), are no more loving, are no more spiritually "tapped in" and seem to have no spiritual advantage over those who do not.

Can you offer any evidence to suggest otherwise?

But the rotten fruits of the Way International have more than justified our exploring such possibilities. For all the tongues practiced throughout the Way International - rather than the collective "spiritual growth" that should have resulted in the greatest church movement in the world, it largely crashed and burned, the founder and his leaders manifesting anything but that resembling the "wisdom from above" as one might have reasonably expected. All those "tongues" seem to have had little effect there; instead of possessing Christ-like characteristics, many of those highly esteemed in twi turned out to be conniving, lying-thieving weasles, from the founder on down.

Yeah, it makes a lot of good sense to reassess all that "tongues" stuff!

Poor reasoning for me. Makes no sense to throw away what would be useful, because of someone's elses sins.

Additionally, twi didn't invent SIT and there's plenty of folks who do it who never were influenced by twi.

I think you missed the point Oldies. Danny did not say "throw away" but rather, "reassess".

Danny's reasoning is actually quite good IMO. On the other hand I find your reasoning pretty much non-existant.

If SIT (as TWI taught it) is all that TWI said it was, then explain what happened with TWI.

Did the "sins of a few" negate all the collective SIT and the spiritual edification and sharpness that should have accompanied it?

While "edifying the spirit" with much SIT, folks were either oblivious/unaware to the "sins of a few", or powerless to to do anything about them. And those "few" who did the sinning, "spake in tongues more than ye all" and even ran the show.

I think this speaks loudly as to what SIT (TWI style) is not good for, regardless what they said - and is reason enough to reassess what TWI taught concerning SIT.

If TWI experience/observation means anything at all, it suggests that SIT ( as TWI taught & practiced it):

Does not make a person honest

Does not make a person compassionate

Does not make a person loving

Does not make a person tolerant

Does not make a person patient

Does nothing to prevent "sin".

In a nutshell, SIT (as TWI taught it) does not necessarily make a person more Christ-like.

Yeah, maybe it makes us feel all warm and fuzzy inside, but like VPW said, you can get a good feeling on a psychaiatrist's couch.

Conneron,

Welcome to GS.

While I question TWI's teaching and application of speaking in tongues, I doubt

that it is or was demons. It was too "decent and in order" demons IMO. Seems

more like learned behavior to me. Which is not to say that the genuine is not avaliable.

However, I also accept the possibility that tongues "may" have ceased. It "seems" to have ceased in practice in the first century sometime, since after the BIble, it is not mentioned much, in church writings/history until it was rediscovered in the late 1800's/early 1900's.

Maybe do a google search on "glossalia".

Here is the original thread Eagle started on this stuff. From 2004

Click Here

In my opinion I don't think Romans 8:26 refers to Speaking in Tongues. "In the same way the Spirit also helps our weakness; for we do not know how to pray as we should, but the Spirit Himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words;" [Romans 8:26 NASB]

I tend to agree. TWI took about every verse that says "in the spirit" and made that equal to "speaking in tougues". In this verse they make "groanings too deep for words" equal to "speaking in tounges". If Paul meant speaking in toungues, then why didn't he just say that? Tongues is not even in the context.

In both cases I have seen nothing actually presented to justify these interpretations. It seems to be declared by fiat with no good explanation.

In the case of "groanings too deep for words", isn't tongues made up of words? If so, then how could it be refering to speaking in tounges?

Furthermore, the word for "cannot be uttered" is the Greek "alaletois" a form of "laleo" . According to TWI's definition, speaking in tongues is "laleoing". Therefore by TWI's own definition of tongues, this verse in Romans CANNOT be refering to speaking in tongues, because these groanings cannot be "laleoed".

Once again, TWI theology contradicts itself.

twi's perspective/teaching is the best I've seen so far about why SIT is useful for the believer.

Oldies, Suda,

What other prospectives or teachings have you earnestly studied, tried or experienced? -- Any others at all? What TWI "says" about other prospectives doesn't count.

If you haven't actutally studied the other teachings objectively, how could you possibly know if TWI's is the best or not?

I see GreaseSpot Cafe as a vehicle through which people communicate. I am glad it is here. I have gained a lot through GSC over the years.

On the flip side, it has also been a source of distraction for me (when I allow it). Sometimes I should be doing other things, but I find myslef logged into GS for some reason. Habit I guess.

Anyway, if GSC weren't here I am sure that folks would find an alternate means of communication. Life would certainly go on, although it may be a change for us GS junkies.

Is this just another board or the differ from life and death?

Sorry Roy, that is a false dillema. --- It is neither.

Lately, I have received some pretty hard-hitting e-mails to the nasty side of left field on things I believe. I openly opposed VPW on some major doctrine and they are the following:

1. The Seed of the Serpent

2. The Unforgivable Sin

3. Christian Possession

4. "Four" Crucified With Christ

5. "Six" Denials of Peter

6. The Lamb of the First Year

7. The Fall of Man

They come from people who for the most part have left the Way a long time ago. But close to home those that I did hang out with me suddenly decided not to. Go figure.

We have to attend other churches to find any kind of Christian fellowship. But I have to know, are there some here at G.S. that would be so upset I opposed these points that I would get flamed in a post here? I was planning on discussing them in the Doctinal area later this year.

Eagle

HI Eagle,

I take it that these hard-hitters are die hard Wierillites. I don't know what it is about these folks, but it seems that VPW/PFAL fans can be some of the most obnoxious people around when it comes to their doctrines. They also seem to be the least able (or willing) to rationally defend or discuss them. Doc Vic said it and that settles it. -- Whatever.

Anyway,

The doctrinal forurn can get pretty tough sometimes. While it is possible that one of our resident VPW/PFAL defenders couild lob a grenade at you, I still think it is worth discussing those kind of things.

Flamed? Maybe. But lately, some of what folks call flaming is nothng more than having an idea disagreed with or challenged. I wouldn't be too concerned about it. Civilized disagreement / debate can sharpen us. It might can also show us where we might have missed something.

For what it's worth, I also disagree with VPW on several of those those items - others I haven't looked into very much but I would certainly like to see how you came to youir conclusions.

See ya in doctrinal some time I hope.

It certainly appears I was wrong. I was going from a conversation I had with a lady at my wife's church. She was telling us of a member that graduated from Princeton Theological Seminary and she pointed out that it wasn't related to Princeton.

And she was bascially correct. The main "relationship" between these two schools is geographical and incidental. They are located in the same town and share the name Princeton.

This Princeton stuff can be confusing.

Wierewille went to Princeton Theological Seminary not Princeton University.

Princeton Theological Seminary and Princeton University are indeed two separate entities. Always have been. Princeton Theological Seminary never was or never has been a part of Princeton University.

History of Princeton Theological Seminary

History of Princeton University

The "ties" referred to on the Wiki site are that these two separate schools share in certain educational and extracurricular activities since they are located in the same town.

They are still very much separate entities and separate schools. They have completely separate boards and separate campuses.

Princeton University is an Ivy League school. Princeton Theological Seminary is not. In no way is degree from Princeton Theological Seminary the same as one from Princeton University.

Although Princeton Theological Seminary is not an Ivy League School with the same Ivy League clout as PU, it is still very much respected as a School of Theology.

.

Is it possible that the second coming of Christ is something that happens from within?

Possible? Yes. But does it have to be only from within? It seem to me that since His departure from the earth was physical from the prospective of those seeing and and witnessing it, that his return would similar. "Return" implies a previous presence and a departure. How then does "return" apply to "within" ? Was there a departure from within?

A return is a coming, but a coming is not necessarily a return. Christ can and does come to us inwardly. So in biblical terms, I would refer to the inward as a coming rather than a return.

Acts 1:9-11 (King James Version)

9 And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.

10 And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel;

11Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.

Here above, I see both a departure and and a "return". I see this as a return of Christ in biblical terms. Some may refer to this as the "second coming". This particular passage does not seem to be figuratively speaking of a return from within. However .....

I do also see an inner appearing (the new birth) and a spiritual "comming" if you will, within an individual.

Ephesians 3 (King James Version)

17 That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith; that ye, being rooted and grounded in love, 18 May be able to comprehend with all saints what is the breadth, and length, and depth, and height;

19 And to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the fulness of God.

I make a distinction between the (second?) "comming" of Christ, as referred to in Acts 3 and an inner return or coming as may be understood in terms of the new birth and in terms of spiritual growth and enlightenment ( filled with all the fulness of God). I think both of these "comings", can live harmoniously within Christian doctrine.

In other words I don't see a need to dispense with the idea of a coming (return event) or a need to necessarily interpret everything in the bible figuratively in terms of inward things -- in order to also espouse the idea of an inward coming as a result of the persuit of inward growth and enlightenment.

For what it's worth, "second coming" is not actually a biblical term. Coming, return and appearing are. So again, I see nothing that prevents Christ from coming to us inwardly as we persue spiritual growth and enlightnement while also coming literally and physically as in Acts 3. Can't both be possible? I think so.

Will Christ come from outer space?

Will Christ come from Earth's upper atmosphere? (i.e. "the clouds")

Or will Christ come through that narrow narrow gate to heaven that is within our very hearts and minds and soul? (i.e. "the very air we breathe")

Which would you prefer?

Which makes more sense in terms of the spiritual life of Jesus?

While the scriptures seem to say that he will "appear" in the clouds I would guess that he will be "coming" from "heaven" which I see as probably another dimension, a spiritual dimension not detectable or seen by the human senses. But I have no real preference where he comes from. Come Lord Jesus.

Jesus indeed had a spiritual life and a spiritual presence. He also had a physical life and a physical presence upon earth. I don't think of Jesus as a mythical figure, but as a real man that historically and physically walked on on the earth. So I think things should makes sense in terms of both the spirtual realities and the physical realities.

Is it possible that most of the figurative language of the Bible refers to transformative INWARD realities of life?

Possible? Yes. But isn't it also possible that much of it refers to outward realities as well? I don't it as a black & white issue where it must be mostly one way or the other.

Is it possible that all those heavy heavy enigmatic figures could actually be more useful and practical as metaphors for how to temper our own body, soul and spirit?

More useful as opposed to what what for example? Isn't there more to life and Christianity than just our own selves and our own personal growth and temperment? Among other things, what about service to others on a physical plane? Outward things. Can't these figures also be practially applied in areas that are not inward to one's self ? Again, I don see that one necessarily precludes the other.

What does the Bible say about relying on outer things?

Do you have any verses you would like to discuss here?

if Christ is already supposed to be within, why does he have to come from somewhere else to gather us together?

Why must having the spirit of Christ within us now, preclude a gathering of the harvest some time the future?

Wierwille's doctorate carries about as much weight as an ordination

from the Universal Life Church.

This phoney, mail-order doctorate speaks loudly as to his dishonest and deceptive

character, but not so much as to what he actually taught. His teachings stand

or fall on thier own merit.

However, the indictment against his character by his phoney doctorate, his plaigarsim,

and his abusiveness is certainly grounds to question and critically examine what he taught.

It would be foolish not to IMO

Didn't expect you to.

Deleted