SIT, TIP, Prophecy and Confession

[excathedra]

thank you geish

i don't know, raf, i'm just saying - nothing wrong with praying heavenly to our heavenly god

--

side note,

can i get a link for a bio for Samarin

[Raf]

Good question. I think he has a wikipedia entry. Full name William J. Samarin.

[Raf]

I'm wrong. No bio. I'd be interested if anyone can find one.

[johniam]

Paul said I would ye all SIT. (1 Cor. 14:5) Why would Paul wish that if God didn't?

[Raf]

A very good doctrinal question.

But assuming there is a correct answer, that does not mean what you're currently doing is genuine.

If God wants you to speak in tongues and you're faking it, aren't you cheating yourself twice? First, by imagining that there's some benefit to lying to yourself and to Him. Second, by not pursuing whatever it is He really wants?

If you're not faking, you don't have to answer.

[chockfull]

I am not intentionally saying any more than that

I know. You are consistent in presentng your beliefs and postulate.

The only thing you haven't answered me on (if I didn't miss a post) was the question about what changed between the first century and now such that now everyone is faking it and then they weren't? To me to be a complete congruent set of beliefs you have to address that, not just leave it out there hanging.

[waysider]

I know. You are consistent in presentng your beliefs and postulate.

The only thing you haven't answered me on (if I didn't miss a post) was the question about what changed between the first century and now such that now everyone is faking it and then they weren't? To me to be a complete congruent set of beliefs you have to address that, not just leave it out there hanging.

Maybe what has changed is the interpretation and understanding of whatever it was that was taking place all those years ago.

[Raf]

I don't know if anything changed, and if something did change, what it was. Maybe the cessationists are right? That would be consistent with the Bible being true but the current practice being false, wouldn't it? I don't know. I did my best to distinguish what i know from what i conclude as a matter of opinion. But i do not have a 42 on this.

Edited September 24, 2012 by Raf

[Raf]

By 42, i mean an Answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything. I don't have anything to propose that covers all the bases. Cessation theory would answer every practical question, assuming i'm correct, but does it stand up to Biblical, doctrinal scrutiny?

Edited September 24, 2012 by Raf

[Steve Lortz]

Raf, my Pop was a newspaper man, and he had a motto hanging on the wall: "It's a newspaper's job to print the truth and raise hell!"

I think he would be proud of the job you're doing!

Love,

Steve

[Raf]

Thank you. And thank you all for entertaining the logical consequences of agreeing with me, even though you disagree with me. It is noble.

[geisha779]

What if we can't know? What if there is no way to know for a certainty? Maybe, too much time has passed. VP had to appeal to direct revelation from God to carry his authority on much of what he presented as the truth. That his "truth" flies in the face of most core Christian doctrine and practices and appears to breed arrogance should give one pause. That I depended on his scriptural perspective and authority is what I had to overcome.

All I know is I don't speak in tongues....if God requires me to. . . and has a purpose for it in my life at this time. I just don't see it in scripture

[chockfull]

Tongues were also a sign for the Jews who required a sign. A sign for unbelievers. Tongues had more than one purpose. . . . . I have mentioned this on this thread already. I didn't mean to imply evangelism is the only reason for SIT. I don't believe that, but, it did have purpose as an outward display for God's glory in evangelism as well as a practical purpose. People heard their languages and believed. How many accounts do we need? Why would it change?

I don't see why it would change, at least without some scrap of evidence. To date, no evidence has been presented either doctrinally or scientifically in any thread here to document or explain why things would have changed between what is available in the first century to now.

It also served as edification for the church when approached correctly. Paul was not the only Apostle either, but he did evangelize a massive area. It stands to reason he would have spoken in tongues more than the Corinthians....which was a church body whose members had jobs and families and lives. They were not constantly in the church SIT and I would respectfully dispute they SIT to build themselves up....at least not after Paul got through with them.

and your evidence for this?

What do we need tongues for now? The church is already established on the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets . . . . They did the heavy lifting for us. It was their job specifically. They were Apostles.

Why did they need it then? Very clearly the apostles were not the only one doing this in those times.

Instead of asking ourselves why or how it has changed....or if it is the same thing as the first century.....we might rethink the question and ask what the practical and God glorifying reason there would be for SIT now. We are far too removed from the 1st century church to ever get a satisfying answer as to if it is the same thing. That is....other than a real and understood language speaking the wonderful works of God....the gospel. Personally, I would love that. But, there is too much of a divide in time.....we can't know unless we have the evidence.

To me this is a convenient way of avoiding the question. Instead of asking ourselves this question, let's ask ourselves another question. No, I think the original question is on topic, on point, and sufficient. What changed between the first century and now? And a following question - what documentation do we have of this change, either Biblically or scientifically?

This is why VP was so diabolical.....there is just no way to know some things. VP claimed God told him, and that was hard to argue with. Simply believing VP as credible? Well, we all know where that got us.

I don't simply believe VP as credible. And I search for ways to know something, especially if I'm putting my believing trust in it. I won't either simply accept or simply reject something just because of association with VP.

[chockfull]

What if we can't know? What if there is no way to know for a certainty? Maybe, too much time has passed. VP had to appeal to direct revelation from God to carry his authority on much of what he presented as the truth. That his "truth" flies in the face of most core Christian doctrine and practices and appears to breed arrogance should give one pause. That I depended on his scriptural perspective and authority is what I had to overcome.

Well for me at least delving into the scientific studies on language, it doesn't seem science provides an absolute answer. It does provide some perspective, that what can be done from a believing God background in those studies isn't measurably different than what is done outside of that context.

Scriptures are a challenge, especially to ex-Way peeps. TWI claimed to teach "the greatest truth known since the first century", yet by the abysmal behavior of their leaders, and the cult aspects of the group like isolation and control, micro-management, fear motivation, and shunning - when people leave the knee-jerk reaction is to reject ALL Way doctrine. (Or some start a splinter group - other issues there). Thus how they live counteracts all they teach, and can have the long-term fruit of driving people away from God and the Bible.

All I know is I don't speak in tongues....if God requires me to. . . and has a purpose for it in my life at this time. I just don't see it in scripture

Well from all I read and believe I don't see it required. I do see the mature Christian viewpoint being more concerned about how you can edify others in Christ. Personally it adds to my prayer life, and I see it as available to take part in for everyone. But again one more time it doesn't make one person's prayer life better than another's. God is the perfect parent - He loves all His kids the same unconditionally. For me, it helps my inspiration. Just don't rule it out - what do they say - don't let the hypocrites keep you from church? If you do approach it again some time in the future, I'd suggest a fresh start - seek it out among some in the charismatic Christian movement who have a good reputation. The two major denominational groups that I've seen that do this are the Pentecostals (and derivatives) and the Catholic Charismatics.

Thank you. And thank you all for entertaining the logical consequences of agreeing with me, even though you disagree with me. It is noble.

I've learned some things embracing and investigating your viewpoint and sources, even if it is different than my personal beliefs. So I feel stronger (not in a more entrenched in my belief way).

I hope all Christians can embrace discussion of this nature. I think we're supposed to add to one another, unlike the narrow-minded lock-step "likemindedness" practiced in the Way.

[Raf]

I've learned some things embracing and investigating your viewpoint and sources, even if it is different than my personal beliefs. So I feel stronger (not in a more entrenched in my belief way).

I hope all Christians can embrace discussion of this nature. I think we're supposed to add to one another, unlike the narrow-minded lock-step "likemindedness" practiced in the Way.

Well, maybe not "embracing." ;)

[chockfull]

Well, maybe not "embracing." ;)

Well, to truly give honest consideration to your premise here requires something beyond immediately rejecting it mentally because it doesn't align with my previous belief system. Even if that's how I treat it in my own head.

That may not be the best word, but it's not far off...

[socks]

What if we can't know? What if there is no way to know for a certainty? Maybe, too much time has passed. VP had to appeal to direct revelation from God to carry his authority on much of what he presented as the truth. That his "truth" flies in the face of most core Christian doctrine and practices and appears to breed arrogance should give one pause. That I depended on his scriptural perspective and authority is what I had to overcome.

All I know is I don't speak in tongues....if God requires me to. . . and has a purpose for it in my life at this time. I just don't see it in scripture

I guess I do want to toss in a few thoughts. Greets! Excellent point. The way you think resonates with me brain cells.

Scripture, the Bible in it's currently accepted canon doesn't offer descriptions and instructions, as in 'do this', 'don't do that', what this sounds like or feels like and doesn't describe what all the N.T. era people experienced. It does read "I would ye all spake in tongues", etc. but frankly I never have seen in the Bible a cranked shut done and doner case that all "believers" should speak in tongues the Way that PFAL teaches it. I know all the verses that were taught, I know that and get all of that very well, but it's kinda like a well tossed salad, looks a little different each time it's tossed. :) To me.

PFAL actually leveraged that reality (or lack of it) in 2 tiers - one being "biblical research' as a reliable method to understand what the Bible says and means and a second tier informing the teaching, that it was being presented in a doctrinal package that hadn't been 'known' since the 1st century, etc.

The "not-known-since part of VPW's PFAL isn't required to act on the idea that research and study of the Bible can yield understanding. If the Bible's the source material that we all use it should be the thing that differentiates and decides, ultimately - not 'special revelations'.

Reading through this thread and other comments I'd have to say that I don't think Acts 2 should be the sole qualifier to validate speaking in tongues - validate may not be the right word but that to have a legitimate instance of "speaking in tongues" today it would have to be a known human language, as it was in Acts 2 and unknown to the person speaking it. New Testament epistles of Paul describe a broader range of qualities, some that are personal and when "done" (can't think of the right word for that either) are internal, done in the mind/spirit of the person.

I don't think - actually I don't think I ever thought - that the unknown/known language incident described in Acts 2 would be normal or even common. It's a good question though - if, big 2 letter word there - if it's never happened since, then why? If it's for any kind of "sign" that would be a good one I'd think, it seemed to serve the purpose in that record.

And for the record, file this under 2nd hand story #23,467, I was in a meeting years ago, probably about 1970, with a group of Asian particpants, where a person spoke in tongues, and it was the native language of that group. It wasn't a completely "modern" dialect of Chinese but it was the dialect spoke by these people's family elders, older generation. I guess they said there were a few words that were slightly different that identified it that way to them. And it was a "YIKES!" moment for them in that meeting, they immediately started speaking to each other about it and in English words to the effect of "did you hear that! He's white! He's speaking Chinese!" that kind of thing.

Sorry, no tape, I don't know where the people ended up over the years. A few of us are probably still around Northern Cal that were there. I don't expect anyone to bet their morgtage on that. But you wouldn't lose it if you did.

[Raf]

Nice. Guess what? ;)

[Raf]

I do not wish to be disrespectful here, so let me just say that i have explained my skepticism regarding such accounts before and that Samarin offers a disapproving explanation for them in his study, cited on this thread. Consider this a blanket statement on my part to absolve me of any need to venture into the distasteful position of policing other people's experiences.

In other words, i'm going to shut up in the intetest of politeness. Don't read into it.

Edited September 24, 2012 by Raf

[socks]

Not at all Raf, none taken.

I may differ slightly from others as tp why I'm posting in that I'm not writing to prove or convince you or anyone else. if it were me I could be as skeptical of it as you.

A skepticism of that means more than one thing, to me anyway - that it happened at all, that it happened that way. What it actually was or wasn't and if it was, what it meant if it meant anything at all. If it wasn't at all, why would I lie about it happening is whole 'nother thing. If it did happen in some form or another what would others that were there say of the same event. Etc. Etc.

There's nothing distasteful about questioning another's word for something. "Policing" it reads kind of dense, I don't think you're positioned to take that stance or kind action. I'm probably not alone in feeling that's not expected from you (or anyone else).

In fact, you have no valid platform from which to question what I say - which is kind of why I wanted to chime in, it will stand on it's own, same as what others have posted.

You can say it didn't happen, that doesn't prove it didn't.

You can say it didn't happen that way or that it wasn't what I thought it was - again, that doesn't change my position or have any affect on what I've stated.

I just thought I'd chime in. Thread's paid for, this is all gravy.

.

[waysider]

Something else that bounced around here a couple years ago is the idea that maybe the record is saying these guys spoke their native tongues as usual but people from other countries understood them. In other words, I speak in English, my native language, but somebody from Germany, who would normally only understand German, somehow understands me.

[Raf]

Amen, socks

[Raf]

Point of amusement: the poll is meaningless, but the last vote was another confessor (welcome) and the one before that thinks it works the way Pentecostals say. And CES has zero votes

[socks]

I re read my spiel and what I meant to say was -

valid platform to "disprove" (that)

You do have valid platforms to question it, of course, many it seems.

None will prove it one way or the other and I can't prove it either. If I had a "tape" and photos and two others chiming in Yeah! Like that! .... that wouldn't prove it happened, or what it meant if it did.

And for the most part your proposition of a current test instance and environment would be the only way to do that - but I don't know if that would in fact "prove" an explanation but only validate that "it" happened, that something as described happened. In other words, if I was there during Acts 2 and saw and heard what happened, and it happened as described, I might not take it to be any kind of miraculous or unusual event, and perhaps see it as no more than an oddity, as phenomena. Weird things happen all the time and always have.

I might have gone home and told the neighbors, "weirdest thing happened, not sure what it meant or if I believe what this guy said about it at the temple, but it sure was crazy, never seen or heard anything like it before...."

[Raf]

I think I'll move away from even sounding like I'm trying to prove or disprove anything. It wasn't how I started this thread, and I think we'll all agree it's been explored ad nauseum. I'll concede (as I always have) that I cannot prove my point. Your account fits in with the type of account I've previously addressed. If you or anyone else draw value from that, far be it from me to stop you. As long as you're not demanding I account for it (and it looks like you're not), I see no need to demand that you prove it. We're good.

On the issue of Acts 2, we're in some pretty firm disagreement. I don't see anything in Acts or Corinthians to suggest that SIT should result in anything other than a human language save a hyperbolic, hypothetical statement by Paul that there's such a thing as "tongues of angels" that SIT can produce. Like "faith that moves mountains," I believe "tongues of angels" was posited as an Nth degree kind of possibility (which is to say, not possible). That's my opinion; take it or leave it.

Other statements in Corinthians seem to indicate that the people present generally won't know what language is being produced, but I don't see any indication that it's presumed to be non-language. WHAT is being said is a mystery because it's not interpreted, not because it's not a language. Could I be wrong? Of course I could be wrong. But I think I'm looking at a plain reading of Acts and Corinthians rather than an apologetic that seeks to answer why SIT is not producing a language. I propose a simpler answer: what we did is not producing a language because it's not SIT. It's free vocalization.

With that reading (I'm looking at you, chockfull), the question is not "what changed between the first century and today?" The appropriate questions become "what did they do that we're not doing? Can we do what they did? And how?"

And I have no answer to that.

Edited September 24, 2012 by Raf