SIT, TIP, Prophecy and Confession

[cman]

you have no idea of my course and what it is

and i'm talking to you directly

neither confrontational or deliberately rude

if you can't take conversation, with me, you knock it off

or as the bible teaches

let another judge

and not yourself

i will not be told what i can and cannot say any more

been there-it sucks

[Raf]

When it comes to the rules of this forum, everyone is told what they can and cannot say. You're no different. Neither am I.

Edited November 7, 2012 by Raf

[cman]

"everyone is told what they can and cannot say"

that's not true

[OldSkool]

Can someone remind me again where Wierwille stole...err...I mean got his material on SIT?....and where did they (VP's source) get it?

[Raf]

Part BG Leonard, part JE Stiles. Don't know their sources, other than the Bible.

The GS site rules, including what's not permitted, are posted for all to see.

Edited November 7, 2012 by Raf

[cman]

Rules

In an effort to clarify the original rules, we have expanded them with specific items. I will be putting them up on the main site, but wanted you to have a chance to view them.

Welcome to the GreaseSpot Café Forums!

The forums are for the purpose of discussing The Way International (TWI)--and many other topics of interest. While our mission is to tell "the other side of the story" about TWI, we recognize that posters' opinions about their TWI experience range from pro to con to somewhere in between. We welcome them all.

The GSC Forum Rules

Be courteous, and please don't make it personal. Remember, others feel as strongly about their opinions as you do about yours. It's okay to disagree, but when doing so, criticize the message, not the messenger. For example, "I remember that event differently," is appropriate; "you're an idiot" is not. Also, don't assume someone is calling you a liar just because he/she disagrees with you.

Please do not engage in insulting behavior, personal attacks, and inflammatory language. This includes:

calling fellow posters names

accusing them of "needing a therapist/shrink/meds"

labeling others with terms such as "Wierwille apologist" or "perpetual victim"

distorting another poster's name to insult or ridicule

making disparaging remarks about fellow posters' character, motives, intelligence, religious beliefs (or lack thereof), or life outside these forums.

Implying negatives about fellow posters is also not acceptable.

Be aware that sarcasm toward another poster can quickly turn a discussion into a flame war.

And by the way, "He hit me first" didn't work with your mom, and it won't work here.

We disapprove of comments that stifle discussion or label a particular viewpoint as unwelcome. Such comments hinder thoughtful and open discussions.

Do not accuse fellow posters of being "trolls." If you suspect someone is trolling, PM the moderators; please don't start a thread about it.

Do not "stalk" another poster from thread to thread to perpetuate an earlier disagreement (but don't accuse someone of stalking if he/she just happens to disagree with you often).

Do not talk negatively about a fellow poster in a thread where he or she is not participating or start a new thread to "call out" that person.

Do not challenge a fellow poster's personal recollections of his/her TWI experience. People deserve the freedom to share how TWI affected their lives and should not have to fear interrogation or feel pressured to "prove the unprovable."

Generalizations about how TWI affected everyone who was ever involved in the organization may be challenged, however. If you wish to question those generalizations, start a new thread.

Violation of the above rules will result in deletion of the offending posts and/or suspension. Persistent refusal to follow them may result in permanent banning. If you have a specific problem with a poster, settle it outside the forums or use the "ignore" feature. Threads that deteriorate into little more than bickering will be deleted or sent to the Soap Opera Forum, at the moderators' discretion. These rules do not (and cannot) cover every possible eventuality, so please don't try to find loopholes. The moderators will use their best judgment regarding "grey areas."

The Purpose of the Rules

These rules are meant to encourage civil, courteous discussion. They are not meant to stifle your freedom of expression. We want everyone to have a voice here; please use yours wisely and considerately.

[Raf]

Thanks. Now that we're all reminded, let us all continue on that course.

[WordWolf]

if you understand tongues it's not tongues any more

of course it's a friggin language

the language - the tongue of the spirit

hung up on the word language or somethin here

Ok, I think cman accidentally made a critical point that keeps getting lost in the shuffle.

Remember how we studied "faith" vs "believing" and the critical differences in twi?

And then how we discussed them at the GSC, and-no surprise!- with both being the same

Greek word, the same concept is both words in English, and the differences were added

by the doctrines and minds of people in English?

"Well, if it was the same thing, it would be called the same thing."

Right- it was called the same thing until translators to English took the same word

and gave it multiple meanings, either justifying an existing doctrine or accidentally

inventing a new doctrine.

(I ran into a similar problem with 3 different KJV English words for 1 Greek

word, where 2 of the words had denotations the first one did not.

So, meanings were added by translators.)

Well, we have "tongues" and we have "languages." In Greek, that's the same Greek word.

The most sensible thing to do is to begin with one word in Greek being consistently

translated as ONE word in English. In this case, we could go with "tongues" in both

instances, but that would then make the term less common and more open to muddying

the meanings. So, the obvious approach would be: translate it "language" each time.

So, we'd end up with

"If you understood languages, it's not languages any more.

Of course it's a frigging language."

We're discussing "speaking in languages."

[cman]

I can speak English and you may not understand what I'm saying.

Or think I'm saying something I'm not saying.

Same with hearing, and mostly internalized.

Someone can hear something in what is being said as well.

And get something out of it that was not initially intended, good or bad.

That's, in part where the spirit works.

There are no accidents, by the way,

all of it works for those who love god.

[OldSkool]

Part BG Leonard, part JE Stiles. Don't know their sources, other than the Bible.

The GS site rules, including what's not permitted, are posted for all to see.

The following site has an enlightening excerpt from JE Stiles book, The Gift of the Holy Spirit. Clearly, Stiles expected those who received to produce a language, even a "new," supernatural language, albeit one that was not understood by the speaker or those present.

The following background on Stiles is enlightening to me to answer one of the questions I have had: Where did Wierwille, Stiles, and other contemporaries doctrine originate?

J. E. Stiles Sr. 1891 - 1959

Stiles was born in northern California in 1891. He studied and taught at the University of California and was a farmer. In the late 1920s, he decided to become a full-time minister. He explored the Foursquare denomination, but settled into the Assemblies of God. He served as a pastor in Woodland, Calif., for two years and in Hayward, Calif., for 17 more.

The Assemblies of God and other Pentecostal bodies had long taught that a Christian could receive the Holy Spirit only by "tarrying" and pleading with God until agonizing insights and personal worthiness were rewarded with an experience of the Spirit.

Influenced by Howard Carter, Stiles bucked tradition when he insisted that the Bible taught that the Holy Spirit was received by simple faith, not by wrestling with God. Incensed denominational officials reprimanded Stiles, accusing him of leading people into a "light" or "unselfconscious" experience with the Holy Spirit. Stiles left the parish ministry around 1946 to travel and spread his message of receiving the Spirit by faith alone. In 1959, Stiles estimated that he had led 10,000 people into receiving the Holy Spirit with evidence of speaking in tongues, including about 1,000 in an eight-month tour of Canada.

Moved by a lack of biblical teaching on receiving the Holy Spirit, Stiles published a pamphlet called "How to Receive the Holy Spirit" for free distribution after his meetings. Stiles also published a book called The Gift of the Holy Spirit in 1948. This book told how to receive the Holy Spirit by faith, evidenced by speaking in tongues.

The book became a classic, especially among those who had been frustrated by strained attempts to receive the Spirit. The book went through 10 printings totaling over 50,000 copies.

So, and I am not going through 80 some odd pages looking for the answer but I assume Samarin included Pentecostals in his studies?

On a side note,

She was so delighted that God had put one supernatural word on her lips that she did not stop to question what it was , or what it sounded like, but she just tossed it right back to heaven carrying her praise.

I really dislike this practice of not stopping to question, as if faith does not stop to question. Faith should be the result of answered questions.

[Raf]

The contention has been made, repeatedly, that I Corinthians 14:2 contains an "absolute" statement that "no man understands." Whether the verse itself applies to the speaker or the audience is irrelevant, for even if one were to concede that it applies to the audience as well as the speaker, I contend the verse itself is still in the context of the average worship service and cannot be extrapolated to cover all situations.

The Biblical support for my belief as it applies to the Biblical practice has been previously cited as Acts 2, where men did understand. I agree that Acts 2 is an unusual situation in which God saw to it that the languages spoken were actually understood by those present. I Corinthians tells us that there's no guarantee this will be the case in all instances of SIT. But it does NOT say that the languages spoken will themselves be unknown by any other human. The Biblical definition of speaking in languages is self-defining: speaking in LANGUAGES. (WordWolf's recent comment on these same lines had not been posted as I was originally writing this).

It bears repeating that if I Corinthians 14:2 is "absolute" in its assertion that "no man understands," that would by definition discount any modern instance in which someone present DID in fact understand. How can people understand what was spoken if "no man understands" is absolute? It is not. The fact remains that the person who speaks in languages will produce a language that CAN be understood by man, but typically is not understood in a worship setting. That is the clear reading of the verse. Contorting it to say otherwise is a retrofit: interpreting the scripture in light of our experience rather than allowing the scripture to define and predict our experience. If our experience fails to meet Biblical expectations, we should change our experience, not the scripture!

The notion that "no man understands" contains a blanket prediction that others will not understand, as an absolute, is without merit both in scripture and by the defense of the modern practice. If "no man understands" is absolute, then cases where people did understand are not of God!

But it's not absolute. It's in a context. And that context does not negate the testable claim that speaking in languages will produce languages. Paul never contemplated the field of linguistics. Paul knew darned well that the SIT he was writing about produced real human languages (as every other use of that word in the Bible, when not referring literally or metaphorically to the physical tongue, indicates a real language, including in I Corinthians 14:9, where the language IS spoken with the understanding: same word in the same context, but no distinction between what it produced insofar as it being a language is concerned).

I continue to contend that using this verse to absolve SIT of the burden of independent examination is a cop out, one more excuse to make a testable claim untestable, one more excuse as to why the modern practice of SIT does not produce Biblically predicted results. I accept that people disagree with my position here. But I believe my position is in full keeping with the Scripture on the subject. If you disagree, our disagreement is doctrinal and the discussion belongs there.

I do not believe the Bible promises an experience indistinguishable from fakery except to the faithful. I believe the Bible makes a testable assertion that modern SIT fails to meet.

Edited November 7, 2012 by Raf

[OldSkool]

Oops, forgot the link.

Stiles Materials

[geisha779]

The verse in question has an immediate context and a larger canonical context..... when I have mentioned context before I was told it didn't matter. Raf's question about tongues producing a language is absolutely relevant. The larger canonical context enlightens us to God's purpose for SIT and the importance of Him choosing other languages with which to speak to Israel. The old testament reference and canonical significance in 1 Corinthians is important to factor into our reading of the very few verses about SIT . It is why Paul mentions it. It fits in.

Since Paul is answering a letter that posed a series of questions and we don't have access to the questions we have to piece together what it is Paul is saying and all the information is important. It is not until we reach Corinthians that we have any idea tongues are being used in a church assembly. We don't read of it in other churches....it is not a central issue in the preaching of the gospel, but it is central in Acts to ushering new kinds of people into the church. A sign to Israel. So, why was it so important to the church at Corinth? Maybe because they were in gross error?

Paul, in chapter 12, begins by mentioning that he doesn't want them ignorant of these matters and mentions their pagan practices and background. Why mention this? If we read up to this chapter we see in this carnal and immature church he has had to address division, gross immorality, legal disputes, marriage and infidelity, true Christian liberty, their sinful handling of the Lord's supper, and now we come to their assembly and worship practices.Their handling of spiritual gifts. All of their practices up to this point were being influenced by their pagan past. . . . . we can safely consider their assembly practices might also have been influenced as Paul says as much. Pagans practiced a form of ecstatic utterances in worship. Carried away to dumb idols. Maybe that is something Paul is also dealing with? Or not.

I am not going to tell anyone how to consider or read these verses.....but, Paul does employ some heavy irony and hyperbole to relay his message. He does mention many languages in the world and all having meaning......but, maybe, the point he is trying to make is not with the emphasis on tongues being any language in the world.....but unless it is a language relevant to someone there....it is pointless. He says not to be childish in their thinking and then relates the OT reference. He says it follows that speaking other languages is intended as a sign. Is he encouraging them to use tongues in the assembly? Sounds more like he is saying if you are going to do it....not more than a few and always with interpretation. But, if there is no genuine interpretation....just keep quiet. None of this sounds like a command to me, but more correction of error.

Paul is dealing with how they were coveting this miraculous ability, he is dealing with a heavily influenced and immature church........ to take one or two verses and apply them as a command or assign stand alone meaning seems a bit short-sighted.

Edited November 7, 2012 by geisha779

[Raf]

OldSkool,

Yes, Samarin included Pentecostals in his research, among others.

[chockfull]

So, and I am not going through 80 some odd pages looking for the answer but I assume Samarin included Pentecostals in his studies?

It probably is a fair assumption to note that the sources for Samarin and other linguists HAVE to include Pentecostals, as by far and large they (and I include Assemblies of God and the Apostolics as part of this because they generally are considered part of this) are the largest Charismatic Christian group out there.

However, if you go by their research the only answer is "I don't know". Why? Because they don't provide details about the sources of the glossa samples they are writing about that I have seen.

I really dislike this practice of not stopping to question, as if faith does not stop to question. Faith should be the result of answered questions.

Well, I've got about 80 pages in to stopping to question so far, and am continuing to pose and answer questions.

[OldSkool]

OldSkool,

Yes, Samarin included Pentecostals in his research, among others.

Then to me that squelches my own argument that Wierwille taught us something that was not included in the study. What Wierwille taught us was the Pentecostal practice except we were to "receive it by believing" and not by tarrying or pleading with The Lord. That was Stiles position and why he struck out from the Pentecostal church.

[Raf]

I'm not sure it squelches that particular argument, OldSkool. Not disagreeing with you, just not making the same connection you are. Wierwille and today's Pentecostalism may have a common source, but the areas in which they diverge may be relevant. Or not. Who knows?

Edited November 7, 2012 by Raf

[chockfull]

The contention has been made, repeatedly, that I Corinthians 14:2 contains an "absolute" statement that "no man understands." Whether the verse itself applies to the speaker or the audience is irrelevant, for even if one were to concede that it applies to the audience as well as the speaker, I contend the verse itself is still in the context of the average worship service and cannot be extrapolated to cover all situations.

Well you would be safer considering "no man understands" as an "absolute" statement in that verse than you are considering just because they word "tongues" is used in the verse that means it is an "absolute" statement that a language will be produced.

But in reality it is a general rule for what occurs in SIT unless God initiates a miracle, like in Acts 2, or potentially other anecdotal situations.

I don't even think you can go that far for the use of the word "tongues" in the verse. It's not a general rule, it's not an absolute statement, it's just a hanging prepositional phrase that includes the word "tongues".

The Biblical support for my belief as it applies to the Biblical practice has been previously cited as Acts 2, where men did understand. I agree that Acts 2 is an unusual situation in which God saw to it that the languages spoken were actually understood by those present. I Corinthians tells us that there's no guarantee this will be the case in all instances of SIT. But it does NOT say that the languages spoken will themselves be unknown by any other human. The Biblical definition of speaking in languages is self-defining: speaking in LANGUAGES.

I don't disagree that it is a logical position that "tongues" means "language". I just disagree with extracting that one word out of the context of the verse, blowing it up to the sky, and making ALL of SIT now about that one word as opposed to the main idea the scripture is communicating. And that is EXACTLY what you are doing on this thread.

It bears repeating that if I Corinthians 14:2 is "absolute" in its assertion that "no man understands," that would by definition discount any modern instance in which someone present DID in fact understand. How can people understand what was spoken if "no man understands" is absolute? It is not. The fact remains that the person who speaks in languages will produce a language that CAN be understood by man, but typically is not understood in a worship setting.

Well, in a strict definition sense it can't be "absolute" because Acts 2 contradicts it. Also, if any anecdotal evidence is true on other miraculous accounts they also would contradict the "absolute" definition sense.

But you are mistaken that I Cor. 14:2 is speaking ONLY about a worship setting. The overall topic of I Cor 14 is TIP in the church, but in the detail of the verses involved there is a CONTRAST set up between speaking in the church and speaking outside of the church (i.e. private prayer life). Consider the WHY behind the fact that the believer is told they are speaking to God not men and no man understands. This has absolutely nothing to do with what is going on in the church. If the church ONLY was what was spoken about there, then it matters not whether you are speaking divine mysteries to God, only that God is inspiring edifying words for the church. Speaking divine mysteries to God only becomes important in private prayer.

The notion that "no man understands" contains a blanket prediction that others will not understand, as an absolute, is without merit both in scripture and by the defense of the modern practice. If "no man understands" is absolute, then cases where people did understand are not of God!

So the understanding of this is not "absolute", it is the definition of how SIT works generally outside of a miraculous event initiated by God. But it still serves to invalidate all of man's foolishness trying to measure it. Unless there was a miraculous event initiated by God in a lab, then linguists will NOT understand the tongue.

This really isn't that difficult of a concept.

But it's not absolute. It's in a context. And that context does not negate the testable claim that speaking in languages will produce languages. Paul never contemplated the field of linguistics. Paul knew darned well that the SIT he was writing about produced real human languages (as every other use of that word in the Bible, when not referring literally or metaphorically to the physical tongue, indicates a real language, including in I Corinthians 14:9, where the language IS spoken with the understanding: same word in the same context, but no distinction between what it produced insofar as it being a language is concerned).

Outside of the nice little speculation on what "Paul knew darned well", if it didn't mean that people would not understand it, then it would not have stated that. I mean it's a complete farce to take the word "tongues" in that verse and try to make it mean that a linguist can test God's fulfillment of SIT by understanding the language, when it clearly says "nobody understands". Picking on the one loophole in the Biblical definition of that, where God can initiate a special miracle doesn't give that line of logic any more legs to stand on.

I continue to contend that using this verse to absolve SIT of the burden of independent examination is a cop out, one more excuse to make a testable claim untestable, one more excuse as to why the modern practice of SIT does not produce Biblically predicted results. I accept that people disagree with my position here. But I believe my position is in full keeping with the Scripture on the subject. If you disagree, our disagreement is doctrinal and the discussion belongs there.

And I say that using this verse to extract the word "tongues" and use that as some kind of guarantee that a linguist will understand SIT when the verse says that the linguist will NOT understand the verse is in error.

And the discussion happens where the discussion is happening. Nobody died and made you king of moderation, and as I stated before you being involved in ANY moderation related to this topic is COMPLETELY DISHONEST.

I do not believe the Bible promises an experience indistinguishable from fakery except to the faithful. I believe the Bible makes a testable assertion that modern SIT fails to meet.

I respectfully disagree on your Biblical views and have different ones. I don't believe the Bible makes a testable assertion, simply by reading one common phrase - "no one understands".

It is a complete leap of logic to think that verse means that those IN the prayer meeting will not understand but those OUTSIDE the prayer meeting will. That makes ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE from the intent of those gifts or manifestations.

[Raf]

The post above this one does not reflect edits I made to the post quoted. I am responsible for any discrepancies.

[OldSkool]

I'm not sure it squelches that particular argument, OldSkool. Not disagreeing with you, just not making the same connection you are. Wierwille and today's Pentecostalism may have a common source, but the areas in which they diverge may be relevant. Or not. Who knows?

Well, it may not kill it beyond question, but it leads me to the position that we were not taught anything more by TWI than what was taught by Pentecostals at the time, with the difference that we receive by believing. Otherwise, it's the same - you move your mouth, your lips, your tongue and the spirit gives the utterance.

My ramblings are on a more personal level and have little to do with the scope of the many arguments swirling around on this thread. Most of the arguments have been beaten to death and have become ridiculous at this point. But carry on.

[chockfull]

Then to me that squelches my own argument that Wierwille taught us something that was not included in the study. What Wierwille taught us was the Pentecostal practice except we were to "receive it by believing" and not by tarrying or pleading with The Lord. That was Stiles position and why he struck out from the Pentecostal church.

If I had to trace Wierwille's roots of learning that topic, it would be primarily Oral Roberts. Oral was teaching that stuff during that time, and in VP's account where he first SIT (in the book "The Way Living in Love") he attended an Oral Roberts meeting where they attempted to lead him into SIT. He tells the story of how he faked them out, then met J.E. Stiles in a coffee shop.

Oral was not Pentecostal. J.E. Stiles was an "Assembly of God" minister, which IS Pentecostal. RHST, which is plagiarized from Stiles book, would be Pentecostal.

During that time period (what 1965 for filming of PFAL???) Oral was the primary person teaching that doctrine, and the Pentecostals were about the only charismatic movement around. The charismatic Catholics came later, and other groups. So I would say Wierwille doctrine is probably an amalgamation of Oral Roberts and Pentecostal teachings. I think the record in Luke about "praying for a fish and not getting a stone" (horrible paraphrase but in a hurry) is a Pentecostal emphasized verse on this topic.

Well, it may not kill it beyond question, but it leads me to the position that we were not taught anything more by TWI than what was taught by Pentecostals at the time, with the difference that we receive by believing. Otherwise, it's the same - you move your mouth, your lips, your tongue and the spirit gives the utterance.

Fair assessment, except IMO the Intermediate class with all the word formulation practice isn't a Pentecostal practice. That's more like the punch line to a joke.

What do you get when you cross a Pharisee with a Pentecostal?

[Raf]

There's no need to carry on with aspects of the conversation that have been beaten to death. Enough other people seemed interested in the doctrinal segue that has been taken, so I decided to address those questions on their own, doctrinal terms. If anyone disagrees with that, there's really nothing to debate. My argument is based on SIT producing languages. An interpretation of scripture that argues the phenomenon cannot be studied by its very nature, while not an argument that I agree with and not an argument I believe is consistent with the Bible's teaching on SIT, is also not an argument I can counter because there is no common ground there. So we part in peace. That argument is doctrinal. This thread is not.

I have been grateful over the past few days to receive private e-mails from people who reflected on their experience and recognized that the behavior I described matches their own experience. They have freed themselves of the delusion that invaded their own lives, and to me, any growth that sheds dishonesty and embraces truth is a positive step. Whether I am right that it's ALL a fake or not, the reality is that many, many people faked it, more than are willing to admit it, and this thread can give them the impetus to unburden themselves of a practice that was, at least for them, completely fraudulent.

[chockfull]

I continue to contend that using this verse to absolve SIT of the burden of independent examination is a cop out, one more excuse to make a testable claim untestable, one more excuse as to why the modern practice of SIT does not produce Biblically predicted results.

Nobody is "using" this verse to try and move any agenda along except you. I am just reading it and contrasting it with people's opinion.

If you don't like the verse that much, take it up with the Author. You know, the one that made the commandment on the tablets He miraculously wrote on Mt. Sinai, which included the commandment "thou shalt not tempt (test) the Lord thy God" ??????

[Raf]

Aside from not being part of the Ten Commandments (seriously, do you just make stuff up and hope no one will notice?) "Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God" is a rebuke against Israel for demanding a miracle from God that He had not promised. To apply it to SIT is to say we should not expect God to be faithful to His promise, which is quite a different proposition. You may not expect God to live up to His Word, but when you claim to be doing what His Word says, I expect His Word's results. Modern SIT doesn't pass this test. On this basis, I doubt the modern practice, not the Scripture.

Edited November 7, 2012 by Raf

[chockfull]

I'm curious. I'm going to post it again.

Other than chockfull, can everyone else SEE my point?

I'm not asking if you AGREE- just if you SEE it.

You can see it and strongly disagree, of course.

I just want to confirm my communication is effective.

WW, just so you know, I am very familiar with the word "him" after understandeth being from a Greek word that only appears in the Stephens text, but not the other 6 major critical Greek textualists.

My contention is that it makes little to no difference to the overall meaning of the verse. For instance, as related to my beliefs, I am perfectly comfortable with the NASB and other modern translations of that verse where it does not appear. It doesn't change my beliefs in the least.