This is possible because the Spirit, instead of our unregenerate minds, gives us the words to speak.
You don't need spirit to speak in tongues. It's done by Non-Christians as well as Christians. Speaking in tongues is a function of the human mind, not spirit. History and science demonstrate this to be the case.
This is possible because the Spirit, instead of our unregenerate minds, gives us the words to speak.
You don't need spirit to speak in tongues. It's done by Non-Christians as well as Christians. Speaking in tongues is a function of the human mind, not spirit. History and science demonstrate this to be the case.
History and science do NOT demonstrate this to be the case!
Genuine biblical speaking in tongues is deliberate and volitional. There is no biblical warrant for equating speaking in tongues with ecstatic utterance. The word "ecstasy" comes from the Greek word echstasis that is a noun form of the verb existemi. Existemi means "to put out of its place, change, alter" (Liddell & Scott's Greek-English Lexicon, abr., s.v. "existemi"). Ecstatic utterance is that which proceeds from an altered state of consciousness. Both echstasis and existemi occur in the book of Acts. Echstasis is translated "trance" and is associated with receiving visions, not speaking in tongues. Existemi IS associated with speaking in tongues twice, Acts 2:12 and Acts 10:45. In both cases, it wasn't the speakers whose minds were put out of their place, but the people who HEARD them speaking in tongues.
For several years now I've searched for possible pre-Christian incidents of speaking in tongues. I've only found two, one was the Pythoness who inhaled chthonic gases at Delphi, and the other was at the celebrations of the Bacchants that involved getting falling down drunk on wine. There have been people around the globe and throughout history who have developed numerous ways to induce altered states of consciousness, and sometimes people in such a state jabber senselessly, but there is no biblical warrant for associating genuine speaking in tongues with an altered state of consciousness. Biblical speaking in tongues is ALWAYS deliberate and volitional.
The ancients were familiar with artificially inducing altered states of consciousness. The methods for doing so were considered part of the healing arts. They were called pharmakeia. According to Galatians 5:16-21, pharmakeia as a work of the flesh in opposition to the Spirit. Unfortunately, English translators chose to use "witchcraft" to translate pharmakeia, which throws our understanding WAY OFF.
There are some Christians who think they have to get into an altered state of consciousness to speak in tongues. Those folks get all the news coverage, but they are not representative of the Pentecostals I know.
History and science DO NOT demonstrate that speaking in tongues is wholly dependent on the mind and not the Spirit.
Speaking of science and spirit, what do you think about supersymmetry, waysider? If dark matter and dark energy have the same complexity as the matter and energy apparent to us, then I can certainly feature that there could be invisible (dark?) intelligences co-occupying the universe with us. Of course the ancients had no concept of supersymmetry, so they had to use a metaphor of something else that could not be seen, but whose effects could be felt... wind, or SPIRIT!!!!!
First (and this is important) I never mentioned or even suggested the concept of "altered minds". I simply said it's a mental function. Solving a math problem is a mental function. You don't need to alter your mind to do it.
When I studied acting, we used an improvisational technique that is suspiciously similar (OK, it's identical) to what we called speaking in tongues. We weren't in a state of altered consciousness. I did it, my classmates did it, lots of folks did it. Were we all Christians? I'm pretty sure you know the answer to that.
What is "genuine"? Who determines the parameters? What's the criteria? If something is going to be declared genuine, there must be defining qualities that differentiate it from the false.
Supersymmetry? I lack the sort of scientific and math background needed to address that subject intelligently. I personally suggest a much less ethereal approach. Look objectively at what it is, rather than what it might be.
I'd have to agree with your position entirely, waysider, that the Spirit does not give the utterance, if it weren't for my experiences with prophecy. And I don't mean TWI prophecy.
I started paying attention to God about seven years before I ever heard of TWI or took the class. I held conversations with him, and he would answer me. At that time, I didn't know how to get answers from the Bible. Most of the time, he would answer me by prompting a question or directing my attention to something. But sometimes, he would have people speak words to me. And the words didn't need to be directed at me. There were times when I was sitting in a restaurant and I would hear somebody in the next booth over say exactly the words I needed to hear.
The things we learned about prophecy in... what was it? the intermediate class?... were a batch of malarkey. But there were times during my involvement with the Way when I would just make some offhanded comment to somebody, and they would be astonished (existemi = "put out of place") that I had said exactly the thing they needed to hear. That has continued to happen to this day, even though I left TWI and TWI's kind of prophecy long ago. Those experiences DO correspond with the description of prophecy Paul set forth in I Corinthians 14, that if somebody hears you prophesy, they will fall on their face and say "God is in you of a truth!" I have heard many, many other Christians prophesy, even though they didn't realize that was what they were doing.
How can that be explained? At present, science CAN'T explain it. However, science might be able to explain it if CERN is able to detect supersymmetry. At present, the closest science can come is the occurrence of "synchronicity", a seemingly meaningful coincidence. Acts 2:4 explained it by saying they spoke (laleo = "to speak") in tongues as the Spirit gave the utterance (apophtheggomai = “to speak one’s opinion plainly”). Prophecy works the same way, a person speaks words as the Spirit gives the utterance.
How does the Spirit give the utterance? There are several places where the New Testament says that "out of the abundance (overflow) of the heart the mouth speaks". Whatever our hearts have too much of will flow out of our mouths. If our hearts are filled with discontent, then bitterness and frustration will flow out of our mouths. If our hearts are filled with thankfulness, then thanksgiving will flow out of our mouths. According to Romans 5:5, the love of God is poured out in our hearts through the Holy Spirit that was given to us. Speaking by the Spirit of God is simply allowing the love of God poured out in our hearts to flow out of our mouths without permitting our own thinking to interfere with the process. I KNOW from my own experience that is how prophecy works. The Spirit gives the utterance! And if the Spirit gives the utterance for prophecy, I am convinced it gives the utterance for speaking in tongues also.
Is the mind capable of imitating other languages? I've watched enough episodes of Whose Line Is It Anyway? to know that it can. But the things being said in those made up languages don't make any sense. I believe the things I am speaking in tongues make sense. I have not had a personal experience of someone knowing what a tongue means, but I have heard enough first person anecdotes (not hearsay mind you, but first person) to convince me that what is spoken in a tongue DOES make sense.
You ask "What is genuine?" I fall back on the Wesleyan Quadrilateral: Scripture, Tradition, Reason and Experience.
You may well have been faking tongues during your involvement with TWI, but that doesn't mean everyone was...
I don't think I was "faking", per se. Faking implies a deliberate effort. I think what I was doing was deluding myself into thinking it was real. Even though Charles Parham and William Seymour had pioneered the modern Pentecostal movement in the early 1900's, I had never personally heard of it (in a religious context) before I got involved with The Way. That contributed to my vulnerability, I'm sure.
Earlier, you asked me "What is genuine?" Now I'm asking you, "Were you deluded then, or are you deluded now? How can you tell?"
Wierwille and the Way International were one of the most tiny blips in the twentieth century. Pentecostalism started with a handful of people and a pastor who had been rejected by every church hierarchy because he was black. Without central organization, specifically Pentecostal groups grew in size and number. In the 1960s, the Charismatic movement brought Pentecostal beliefs and practices into all the mainstream denominations. In the twentieth century, the Pentecostal/Charismatic section of Christianity grew more rapidly than any other part of Christianity, especially overseas. Today there are hundreds of millions of Pentecostal/Charismatics in the world.
When we were involved with TWI, the leaders always tried to convince us that we were unique in the world, and the Spirit could only work through us. We thought we were the hot stuff, "taking the Word over the world." In truth, TWI was a tiny parasite hitchhiking on the back of a REAL movement that the Lord REALLY was using to spread Christianity over the world! No matter how many people Wierwille may or may not have led into tongues, it was all chump change compared to what was really going on.
Even if Wierwille was a total fraud (which I think he was), and even if every single person who graduated from Power For Abundant Living was deliberately faking tongues throughout their whole time in the Way (which I do not think was the case), it probably would not have made a perceptible difference in the number of people speaking in tongues in the world.
The faith community God has called me to (yes, there is a God, and I have no doubt that he called me specifically to this community) finds itself in somewhat of a quandry because some of the congregations in the community speak in tongues and some do not. One of the great emeritus leaders of the community, during a series of lectures, related his own experience of speaking in tongues (it was definitely not any kind of standard TWI experience), but said we need to return to sound doctrine on the subject. The problem is, nobody has produced any sound doctrine. I have not written this paper to persuade ex-Wafers, one way OR another. I have written it to help my profs, many of whom are younger than me. The Dean of the school has marveled at all the things God put me through to teach me this stuff, and my experience of TWI was less than a third of it.
I can see why a person whose only experience of tongues came from their involvement with TWI could doubt it! Right now, I wouldn't trust ANYTHING that came out of Wierwille's mouth. But the world is now, and always has been, a vastly larger place than a cornfield in Ohio. Speaking in tongues is now, and always has been much more widely practiced than by the miniscule number of people who graduated from PFAL. The Holy Spirit is now and always has been more gobsmackingly powerful than any little cigar box Wierwille could try to cram it into.
Steve, I always find what you write of interest. I'd like to read your paper if possible, please. Maybe you could attach it in a PM if you don't want to post it here?
This is possible because the Spirit, instead of our unregenerate minds, gives us the words to speak.
You don't need spirit to speak in tongues. It's done by Non-Christians as well as Christians. Speaking in tongues is a function of the human mind, not spirit. History and science demonstrate this to be the case.
I think I can take it for granted that Steve and I do not agree with each other on the "reality" of speaking in tongues, so responding to his post with this strikes me as... I don't know, I can't think of the right word. I just feel like "it's all a bunch of hooey" is my position, Steve rejects my position and is entitled to explore and refine his own position using his standards (the Bible, tradition, reason, experience, prehaps in that order, along with any other criteria he decides to use).
I'm interested in hearing him out, knowing that at the end, I'm going to say "it's all a bunch of hooey."
I'm looking at it this way: I'm interested in learning what the Bible actually says about speaking in tongues, whether it differs from what I was previously taught, whether there's anything I can learn about it, and whether I need to adjust my argument to respond to new or amended information.
I'm not going to respond to everything written on this thread, much as I want to , because I don't feel I would be writing much of anything that hasn't been covered before. I do want to address one statement Steve made.
"Even if Wierwille was a total fraud (which I think he was), and even if every single person who graduated from Power For Abundant Living was deliberately faking tongues throughout their whole time in the Way (which I do not think was the case), it probably would not have made a perceptible difference in the number of people speaking in tongues in the world." (emphasis mine)
I want to clarify anything I stated or misstated before: I don't think people deliberately faked anything. I think we believed it was real and/or convinced ourselves it was real. My personal belief is that this was universal. Steve and others disagree. We've made that clear. No need to rehash it.
As for what science has and has not demonstrated, I'll state my position this way:
Science has demonstrated that it is possible for someone to produce (what we called, in another thread) free vocalization. Charismatic Christianity has not demonstrated to my satisfaction that it is producing anything other than free vocalization when it claims to be producing "speaking in tongues." Anecdotal evidence does not impress me. It satisfies others. Impasse. No need to rehash it.
You guys are talking past each other, I submit. More power to ya!
I gave a great deal of thought to the subtitle to this thread... because I agree with the things you just posted, Raf. I respect your thinking, it's just that you and I have some different basic assumptions at this stage of the game... and de gustabus non est disputandum! In fact, I'm really glad you posted so that we could make sure that the air is clear and there is no animosity between us. I did think of you while I was writing this paper, because I chose to do it in a more journalistic rather than an academic style. My dad was a newspaper man, and that has always inclined me to trust you.
This paper is actually the result of about 21 years worth of thinking and researching. Two things have impressed me the most. The first is how much the Old Testament has to offer on the subject. The New Testament writers didn't bother to make explicit all the connections because they took it for granted that their readers would already understand the connections. For instance, WHY Pentecost? To me it seems blatantly obvious, but none of the commentators I've read seem to make the connections, and neither do my professors... yet. And Wierwille's parroting of dispensationalism cut us off from considering anything as valuable that came out of the Old Testament or the Gospels.
The second thing that has impressed me has been an appreciation of the massive impact of the Pentcostal/Charismatic movement on the whole world over the past hundred years or so. According to the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life (December 19, 2011) Global Christianity: A Report on the Size and Distribution of the World's Christian Population p. 67, there were over 500,000,000 Pentecostals/Charismatics in the world at that time... that's over 500 MILLION! What was the highest estimate for grads of PFAL... about 100,000? That means there are over 5,000 Pentecostals/Charismatics for every single grad of PFAL!?! Wierwille's teachings on speaking in tongues, which he stole from J.E. Stiles, were like a little parasite, a tiny flea, riding on the back of an elephant. Not all of those Pentecostal/Charismatics know that they can speak in tongues, but ALL of them can, and many, many of them DO. To conclude that speaking in tongues is not real because of exposure to Wierwille's miniscule chicanery is to fly in the face of an overwhelming amount of evidence.
I stopped and thought about how many Pentecostal/Charismatics there are around apart from the people who were involved with TWI. In my extended family there are four nuclear families who speak in tongues. The other three, apart from my own nuclear family that was from TWI, came out of three DIFFERENT faith communities. I would have had to write this paper for mutual understanding in my own extended family, if for no other reason!
I took a class on Christian ethics last May, and an incident that happened in that class also contributed to my decision to write this paper... The professor was African-American along with about half of the students. One of the African-American students wrote and presented a paper in class on race relations within the American church. The races came together during the Civil Rights Movement in the sixties, but afterwards they separated again... except for the Pentecostals. The student posed the following as a question for class discusssion: What are the Pentecostals doing right?
I hadn't spoken before in any of my classes about speaking in tongues. It is a relatively taboo subject at the SOT because there have been arguments in the past about the subject. But in this case, I couldn't keep quiet. An African-American named Marcus and I had some remarkable interactions while I was a WOW in Tucson, in spite of our radical racial differences, demonstrating to each other the love of God. I know that happened because we each respected the fact that we both spoke in tongues. I related the incident in class, and all sorts of people started saying all sorts of things about tongues, because I had made it safe for them to do so. There is a need at the SOT for us to come to a common understanding of tongues based on what is actually written in the Bible.
The title of my paper is What does the Bible really say (and really NOT say) about speaking in tongues? I take it for granted that what the Bible really says (my own translations from the Greek) are reliable, and that modern speaking in tongues is generally genuine, even though some people do it indecently or out of order. Those are premises from which I have started. Members of my intended audience and myself will not be able to come to any common understanding if we don't respect those presuppositions.
If anyone wants to present arguments that the Bible is not inherently reliable, or that speaking in tongues is all delusional, well... that's a wonderful thing, but it's not what this thread is about, and that's why I deliberately subtitled it "NOT an argument with Raf..." :beer:/>/>
Not all of those Pentecostal/Charismatics know that they can speak in tongues, but ALL of them can, and many, many of them DO. To conclude that speaking in tongues is not real because of exposure to Wierwille's miniscule chicanery is to fly in the face of an overwhelming amount of evidence.
Again, emphasis mine.
And again, I defy you or anyone else to produce this "evidence." The studies that have been done, that have failed to detect known languages, are all of Pentecostals, not of TWI people. The evidence that exists indicates that Pentecostals are not producing languages. So to say I am rejecting SIT because of Wierwille's chicanery is actually 180 degrees incorrect. The only evidence there is to examine is of Pentecostals, not Wierwillites. (And it should be clear that I am not counting unsubstantiated anecdotes as "evidence").
I don't see an overwhelming amount of evidence in favor of speaking in tongues. In fact, I don't see evidence at all. 100 percent of the evidence that we can substantiate supports the proposition that SIT is nothing more than free vocalization, with no supernatural element to it at all.
I'm not going to argue about what you believe versus what I believe. That's between you and your God. But when you start talking about "the evidence," you step outside the realm of personal faith and into the realm of what can be objectively shown.
And again, I defy you or anyone else to produce this "evidence." The studies that have been done, that have failed to detect known languages, are all of Pentecostals, not of TWI people. The evidence that exists indicates that Pentecostals are not producing languages. So to say I am rejecting SIT because of Wierwille's chicanery is actually 180 degrees incorrect. The only evidence there is to examine is of Pentecostals, not Wierwillites. (And it should be clear that I am not counting unsubstantiated anecdotes as "evidence").
I don't see an overwhelming amount of evidence in favor of speaking in tongues. In fact, I don't see evidence at all. 100 percent of the evidence that we can substantiate supports the proposition that SIT is nothing more than free vocalization, with no supernatural element to it at all.
I'm not going to argue about what you believe versus what I believe. That's between you and your God. But when you start talking about "the evidence," you step outside the realm of personal faith and into the realm of what can be objectively shown.
You get to define what you consider "evidence" on your threads, Raf. I get to define what I consider "evidence" on mine! :beer:/>
How can deciding which evidence to accept and which evidence to ignore be considered stepping outside the realm of personal faith? It all depends on a person's basic assumptions (guesses that have to be made because of insufficient information), and how people choose their basic assumptions is always a matter of personal faith! Ever since "Actual Errors in PFAL" you have carefully crafted your definitions of evidence to preclude any conclusions other the ones you already hold.
I'm not trying to be a pain but I'm still waiting for you to explain how you determine if something, such as speaking in tongues, is "genuine". What guidelines do you follow? Are there characteristics that expose the fraudulent variety, set it apart from "the real deal"?
When you say I'm ignoring mountains of evidence that I've actually considered and rejected, you speak an untruth. That you accept something as evidence and I reject it is something we can state clearly without disagreeing further. But evidence and faith are not compatible terms in the context of this discussion.
Look clearly. You are telling me that in order to hold my position, I need to ignore evidence. That's simply not true. What I am ignoring is not evidence, it's the claim. You said Pentecostals CAN and DO speak in tongues. That's an assertion, which you go on to cite as evidence I'm ignoring.
Now, if you are saying as a matter of faith that Pentecostals speak in tongues, I have no quarrel with you. You believe that, and I can't argue with what you believe. But when you cite that practice as evidence, you simultaneously make the claim that what they are doing has a supernatural element and is more than mere free vocalization. I dispute that.
You do not get your own definition of evidence, sorry to say. You only get your own standard of what evidence you are willing to accept as proving your assertion, and I think the history of this discussion contains admissions on both sides that the evidence alone does not confirm SIT as genuine.
With actual errors, I carefully crafted definitions in order to limit my ability to declare something an error. Far from precluding conclusions other than those I already hold, my definitions worked against me by design. They had to, or the premise of my argument would have failed.
Further, I did not offer an individualist definition of evidence. Rather, I set an unusually high threshold for what made something an error as opposed to a difference of opinion or interpretation.
The below titled "Tongues, Gift Of" is from the Nelson Bible Dictionary which has very well written and biblically accurate teachings of the bible. Tongues as we see in 1 Corinthians chapter 12:7-10 with scripture quoted after the below teaching is also referred to as a manifestation of the Spirit.
Also available for understanding are commentaries that I have written on 1 Corinthians chapters 12 and 14. These are two chapters of the bible which most use the word "tongues" as a gift from God or manifestation of the Spirit of God as found in the Bible. From the New King James Version New Testament 14 of the 26 usages of the word "tongues" is found in one of these two chapters.
Thanks to Steve Lortz for starting this thread. I think Steve is very knowledgeable and has a very good understanding of the bible while also teaching it well.
TONGUES, GIFT OF
The Spirit-given ability to speak in languages not known to the speaker or in an ecstatic language that could not normally be understood by the speaker or the hearers.
Apparently the only possibly direct reference in the Old Testament to speaking in another tongue or language is found in Isa 28:11 "For with stammering lips and another tongue He will speak to this people." This seems to be a reference to an invasion of the Assyrians. They apparently would speak in another language, one probably unknown to the people of Israel. The apostle Paul later applied this verse to speaking in tongues (1 Cor 14:21). The apostle Peter considered the phenomenon of speaking in tongues that occurred on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2) as the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy (Joel 2:28-32).
In an appearance to His disciples after His resurrection, Jesus declared, "And these signs will follow those who believe: In My name they will cast out demons; they will speak with new tongues" (Mark 16:17).
On the Day of Pentecost, the followers of Christ "were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance" (Acts 2:4). The people assembled in Jerusalem for this feast came from various Roman provinces representing a variety of languages. They were astonished to hear the disciples speaking of God's works in their own languages. Some have suggested that the miracle was in the hearing rather than in the speaking. This explanation, however, would transfer the miraculous from the believing disciples to the multitude who may not have been believers.
Tongues as a gift of the Spirit is especially prominent in 1 Cor 12 and 14. In 1 Cor 12 the phenomenon of tongues is listed with other gifts of the Spirit under the term gifts. As one of the several gifts given to believers as a manifestation of the Holy Spirit, tongues is intended, with the other gifts, to be exercised for the building up of the church and the mutual profit of its members. In 1 Cor 13 the apostle Paul puts the gift of tongues in perspective by affirming that though we "speak with the tongues of men and of angels" (v. 1), if we do not have love, the gift of tongues has no value.
In 1 Cor 14 Paul deals more specifically with the gift of tongues and its exercise in the church. In this chapter the tongue is not an intelligible language, for it cannot be understood by the listeners. Therefore, a parallel to the gift of tongues is the gift of interpretation. The gift of tongues was used as a means of worship, thanksgiving, and prayer. While exercising this gift, the individual addresses God not man; and the result is to edify himself and not the church (1 Cor 14:2,4). This gift is never intended for self-exaltation but for the praise and glorification of God. Paul does not prohibit speaking in tongues in a public service (14:39). But he seems to assign it to a lesser place than the gift of prophecy. Paul claims for himself the gift of tongues-speaking, but apparently he exercised this gift in private and not in public (14:18-19).
The gift of tongues is to be exercised with restraint and in an orderly way. The regulations for its public use are simple and straightforward. The person who speaks in an unknown tongue is to pray that he may interpret (1 Cor 14:13). Or, someone else is to interpret what he says. Only two or three persons are to speak, with each having an interpretation of what he says. Each is also to speak in turn. If these criteria are not met, they are to remain silent (1 Cor 14:27-28). The gifts of speaking in tongues and their interpretation are to be Spiritinspired. Paul also points out that tongues are a sign to unbelievers. If these guidelines are not observed, unbelievers who are present will conclude that the people of the church are out of their minds.
The phenomenon of speaking in tongues described in the New Testament is not some psychological arousal of human emotions that results in strange sounds. This is a genuine work of the Holy Sp
7 But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to each one for the profit of all: 8 for to one is given the word of wisdom through the Spirit, to another the word of knowledge through the same Spirit, 9 to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healings by the same Spirit, 10 to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another discerning of spirits, to another different kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues. 11 But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually as He wills.
In some ways my writing has been as much an effort of translating as it has been a presentation of research. I have had to translate from a popular style to a more academic style because of my intended audience, and I have had to translate from the language of our previous common faith community to language that could be understood by people who were brought up in the aftermath of the Wesleyan Holiness movement. The language is different from that of the liberal protestant denominations, and it is also different from that of the evangelical protestant denominations. What a hoot!
I have also presented material derived from Exodus 21:2-6; Deuteronomy 16:10 and Amos 4:4&5 that bears on speaking in tongues. I don't think anybody ever explicitly referred to those verses before because the New Testament writers took their meaning and application for granted, and dispensational theology didn't think anything from the OT or from the Gospels was of any value to the church.
Reading through your commentaries on I Corinthians 12 and 14 was like sweet music to me, confirming to me that I had taken the right track in my own comments, and that I hadn't flown off on any wild tangents.
As for your question, waysider, on how we can tell what is genuine and what is not, Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary(11th ed. s.v. "genuine") has this to say, "genuine... 1a actually having the reputed or apparent qualities or character... 2 free from hypocrisy or pretense..."
Therefore, I would say, genuine speaking in tongues would have the reputed quality of not being understood by the speaker, and genuine speaking in tongues would not involve faking it.
When you add the quality that a tongue must be spoken in a certifiably understandable language, Raf, you are departing from the definition of "genuine" because nowhere in the Bible does it repute that tongues must be capable of being understood. It is true that some people understood what Jesus's followers were saying in tongues on the day of Pentecost, but nowhere else in the Bible does it say that anyone understood, and nowhere does it say that somebody ought to be able to understand when a person speaks in tongues. The only biblical requirement on speaking in tongues is that it not be understood by the person doing the speaking.
You also discount anecdotal evidence, Raf, as if it has no value. I have never broken any of my bones. What evidence do I have, historical or scientific, that a broken bone is painful, other than anecdotal evidence? A medical technician can stick a little clip on the end of my finger and measure the amount of oxygen flowing around in my bloodstream, but nobody can stick a little clip on my finger and measure how much pain I am in. The medical technician gives me a slip of cardstock with ten little pictures on it, ranging from a full smiley face at the left end to a full frowny face at the right end, and asks me how much pain I am feeling today. Pain is entirely subjective and the only evidence for it is anecdotal.
You reject evidence of the supernatural, Raf, not because there isn't any, but because one of your presuppositions is that the supernatural does not exist. You automatically invalidate any evidence that goes against your presupposition. But logical systems can NEVER prove or disprove their presuppositions without getting into circular reasoning, Raf, which is not valid.
This thread is EXPLICITLY NOT an argument against you, Raf. Why are you quibbling?
"Therefore, I would say, genuine speaking in tongues would have the reputed quality of not being understood by the speaker, and genuine speaking in tongues would not involve faking it."
Not understood by the speaker
That describes the TWI experience.
Would not involve "faking it"
Again, describes the TWI experience, as most of us were not consciously practicing deception.
Is it just me or do you also see a problem with this definition?
"Therefore, I would say, genuine speaking in tongues would have the reputed quality of not being understood by the speaker, and genuine speaking in tongues would not involve faking it."
Not understood by the speaker
That describes the TWI experience.
Would not involve "faking it"
Again, describes the TWI experience, as most of us were not consciously practicing deception.
Is it just me or do you also see a problem with this definition?
What problem do you see with that definition? That a blind pig stumbled on an acorn?
Here are some other interesting things to give some serious thought to. In your post of 18 Jan. '15 6:59 am (#2 post on this thread) you wrote, " Speaking in tongues is a function of the human mind, not spirit. History and science demonstrate this to be the case."
Acts 2:4 indicates that speaking in tongues is a joint operation, the person deliberately, volitionally speaks, and the Spirit gives the utterance (apophtheggomai = “to speak one’s opinion plainly”). It only follows that history and science should confirm the first part of your statement, that speaking in tongues is a function of the human mind, but how does history and science demonstrate that speaking in tongues is NOT a function of spirit? Can you cite a single historical or scientific study that conclusively demonstrates speaking in tongues is NOT a function of spirit?
The definition is circular. According to it, if I fool you into free vocalizations, calling it speaking in tongues, and you do it, it's genuine SIT. Then you, in all sincerity, share my instruction in how to produce free vocalizations, believing it to be SIT, and others follow your instruction, sincerely believing they're doing the real thing. By your definition, they are.
But they're not. That's why it's flawed.
You call my position "presuppositional." I reject that characterization. The word better suits your position, which presupposes a supernatural element without evidence that requires a supernatural explanation. My position is strictly evidence based: produce a language, and you establish something that requires a supernatural explanation. Without it, a natural explanation suffices.
"Can you cite a single historical or scientific study that conclusively demonstrates speaking in tongues is NOT a function of spirit?"
That's a burden of proof fallacy at work. You are making an affirmative claim. The burden is on you to prove it, not on doubters to disprove it. Why should I have to disprove something you've never demonstrated? Free vocalization produces the exact same result you claim SIT produces, no supernatural element required. If you assert SIT produces something extra, you have to prove it.
You cannot name a thread "everyone gets to participate in this except that guy" and bind that guy to it. I was prepared to accept the premise of this thread as a discussion of what the Bible teaches, about which I submit I am no slouch. Not believing a book is very different from not knowing what it says.
It says languages. It never says anything other than languages. If you're speaking in tongues, you're producing languages. That is a testable claim. It has been tested. It has never passed.
I never said anecdotal evidence has no value. I said it is insufficient.
Before I continue, I would like to be clear on what subjects are on topic and what subjects are off. I started a thread specifically to avoid derailing threads like this one, and if I need to move my thoughts there to keep this thread on topic, I'd like to know.
Your arguments are explicitly off topic, Raf. That's why I subtitled this thread the way I did. I don't argue on your threads because our differences ARE presuppositional.
The nature of reality (or the reality of nature) is ambiguity. We find what we look for. If we look for a particle, we find a particle, if we look for a wave, we find a wave. There is evidence for and evidence against EVERYTHING! We ALL have to pick and choose what evidence to accept and what evidence to ignore.
The ONLY difference between speaking in tongues and free vocalization is that when a person speaks in tongues, the Spirit gives the utterance.
There is no burden on me on this thread to prove that "the supernatural" exists. I presuppose the existence of spirit as described in the Bible. However, waysider brought upon himself the task of proving that spirit does not function when he wrote, "Speaking in tongues is a function of the human mind, not spirit. History and science demonstrate this to be the case." He claims that history and science demonstrate that speaking in tongues is NOT a function of spirit. I have asked him to cite specific historical and scientific studies demonstrating that speaking in tongues is NOT a function of spirit.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
34
14
17
22
Popular Days
Jan 24
19
Mar 14
12
Jan 18
8
Jan 26
8
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 34 posts
Mark Sanguinetti 14 posts
Steve Lortz 17 posts
waysider 22 posts
Popular Days
Jan 24 2015
19 posts
Mar 14 2015
12 posts
Jan 18 2015
8 posts
Jan 26 2015
8 posts
Popular Posts
Steve Lortz
I am taking two classes this year, Literature and History of the Old Testament and Literature and History of the New Testament. During the first semester of OT we studied the history of Israel from "t
Steve Lortz
History and science do NOT demonstrate this to be the case! Genuine biblical speaking in tongues is deliberate and volitional. There is no biblical warrant for equating speaking in tongues with ecsta
waysider
Earlier, you asked me "What is genuine?" It's not a trick question. What criteria do you use to determine if it's real or not? Now I'm asking you, "Were you deluded then, or are you deluded now? Ho
waysider
This is possible because the Spirit, instead of our unregenerate minds, gives us the words to speak.
You don't need spirit to speak in tongues. It's done by Non-Christians as well as Christians. Speaking in tongues is a function of the human mind, not spirit. History and science demonstrate this to be the case.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
History and science do NOT demonstrate this to be the case!
Genuine biblical speaking in tongues is deliberate and volitional. There is no biblical warrant for equating speaking in tongues with ecstatic utterance. The word "ecstasy" comes from the Greek word echstasis that is a noun form of the verb existemi. Existemi means "to put out of its place, change, alter" (Liddell & Scott's Greek-English Lexicon, abr., s.v. "existemi"). Ecstatic utterance is that which proceeds from an altered state of consciousness. Both echstasis and existemi occur in the book of Acts. Echstasis is translated "trance" and is associated with receiving visions, not speaking in tongues. Existemi IS associated with speaking in tongues twice, Acts 2:12 and Acts 10:45. In both cases, it wasn't the speakers whose minds were put out of their place, but the people who HEARD them speaking in tongues.
For several years now I've searched for possible pre-Christian incidents of speaking in tongues. I've only found two, one was the Pythoness who inhaled chthonic gases at Delphi, and the other was at the celebrations of the Bacchants that involved getting falling down drunk on wine. There have been people around the globe and throughout history who have developed numerous ways to induce altered states of consciousness, and sometimes people in such a state jabber senselessly, but there is no biblical warrant for associating genuine speaking in tongues with an altered state of consciousness. Biblical speaking in tongues is ALWAYS deliberate and volitional.
The ancients were familiar with artificially inducing altered states of consciousness. The methods for doing so were considered part of the healing arts. They were called pharmakeia. According to Galatians 5:16-21, pharmakeia as a work of the flesh in opposition to the Spirit. Unfortunately, English translators chose to use "witchcraft" to translate pharmakeia, which throws our understanding WAY OFF.
There are some Christians who think they have to get into an altered state of consciousness to speak in tongues. Those folks get all the news coverage, but they are not representative of the Pentecostals I know.
History and science DO NOT demonstrate that speaking in tongues is wholly dependent on the mind and not the Spirit.
Speaking of science and spirit, what do you think about supersymmetry, waysider? If dark matter and dark energy have the same complexity as the matter and energy apparent to us, then I can certainly feature that there could be invisible (dark?) intelligences co-occupying the universe with us. Of course the ancients had no concept of supersymmetry, so they had to use a metaphor of something else that could not be seen, but whose effects could be felt... wind, or SPIRIT!!!!!
Love,
Steve
Edited by Steve LortzLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Steve
You're spinning so fast it's making me dizzy.
First (and this is important) I never mentioned or even suggested the concept of "altered minds". I simply said it's a mental function. Solving a math problem is a mental function. You don't need to alter your mind to do it.
When I studied acting, we used an improvisational technique that is suspiciously similar (OK, it's identical) to what we called speaking in tongues. We weren't in a state of altered consciousness. I did it, my classmates did it, lots of folks did it. Were we all Christians? I'm pretty sure you know the answer to that.
What is "genuine"? Who determines the parameters? What's the criteria? If something is going to be declared genuine, there must be defining qualities that differentiate it from the false.
Supersymmetry? I lack the sort of scientific and math background needed to address that subject intelligently. I personally suggest a much less ethereal approach. Look objectively at what it is, rather than what it might be.
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
I'd have to agree with your position entirely, waysider, that the Spirit does not give the utterance, if it weren't for my experiences with prophecy. And I don't mean TWI prophecy.
I started paying attention to God about seven years before I ever heard of TWI or took the class. I held conversations with him, and he would answer me. At that time, I didn't know how to get answers from the Bible. Most of the time, he would answer me by prompting a question or directing my attention to something. But sometimes, he would have people speak words to me. And the words didn't need to be directed at me. There were times when I was sitting in a restaurant and I would hear somebody in the next booth over say exactly the words I needed to hear.
The things we learned about prophecy in... what was it? the intermediate class?... were a batch of malarkey. But there were times during my involvement with the Way when I would just make some offhanded comment to somebody, and they would be astonished (existemi = "put out of place") that I had said exactly the thing they needed to hear. That has continued to happen to this day, even though I left TWI and TWI's kind of prophecy long ago. Those experiences DO correspond with the description of prophecy Paul set forth in I Corinthians 14, that if somebody hears you prophesy, they will fall on their face and say "God is in you of a truth!" I have heard many, many other Christians prophesy, even though they didn't realize that was what they were doing.
How can that be explained? At present, science CAN'T explain it. However, science might be able to explain it if CERN is able to detect supersymmetry. At present, the closest science can come is the occurrence of "synchronicity", a seemingly meaningful coincidence. Acts 2:4 explained it by saying they spoke (laleo = "to speak") in tongues as the Spirit gave the utterance (apophtheggomai = “to speak one’s opinion plainly”). Prophecy works the same way, a person speaks words as the Spirit gives the utterance.
How does the Spirit give the utterance? There are several places where the New Testament says that "out of the abundance (overflow) of the heart the mouth speaks". Whatever our hearts have too much of will flow out of our mouths. If our hearts are filled with discontent, then bitterness and frustration will flow out of our mouths. If our hearts are filled with thankfulness, then thanksgiving will flow out of our mouths. According to Romans 5:5, the love of God is poured out in our hearts through the Holy Spirit that was given to us. Speaking by the Spirit of God is simply allowing the love of God poured out in our hearts to flow out of our mouths without permitting our own thinking to interfere with the process. I KNOW from my own experience that is how prophecy works. The Spirit gives the utterance! And if the Spirit gives the utterance for prophecy, I am convinced it gives the utterance for speaking in tongues also.
Is the mind capable of imitating other languages? I've watched enough episodes of Whose Line Is It Anyway? to know that it can. But the things being said in those made up languages don't make any sense. I believe the things I am speaking in tongues make sense. I have not had a personal experience of someone knowing what a tongue means, but I have heard enough first person anecdotes (not hearsay mind you, but first person) to convince me that what is spoken in a tongue DOES make sense.
You ask "What is genuine?" I fall back on the Wesleyan Quadrilateral: Scripture, Tradition, Reason and Experience.
You may well have been faking tongues during your involvement with TWI, but that doesn't mean everyone was...
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
I don't think I was "faking", per se. Faking implies a deliberate effort. I think what I was doing was deluding myself into thinking it was real. Even though Charles Parham and William Seymour had pioneered the modern Pentecostal movement in the early 1900's, I had never personally heard of it (in a religious context) before I got involved with The Way. That contributed to my vulnerability, I'm sure.
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
Earlier, you asked me "What is genuine?" Now I'm asking you, "Were you deluded then, or are you deluded now? How can you tell?"
Wierwille and the Way International were one of the most tiny blips in the twentieth century. Pentecostalism started with a handful of people and a pastor who had been rejected by every church hierarchy because he was black. Without central organization, specifically Pentecostal groups grew in size and number. In the 1960s, the Charismatic movement brought Pentecostal beliefs and practices into all the mainstream denominations. In the twentieth century, the Pentecostal/Charismatic section of Christianity grew more rapidly than any other part of Christianity, especially overseas. Today there are hundreds of millions of Pentecostal/Charismatics in the world.
When we were involved with TWI, the leaders always tried to convince us that we were unique in the world, and the Spirit could only work through us. We thought we were the hot stuff, "taking the Word over the world." In truth, TWI was a tiny parasite hitchhiking on the back of a REAL movement that the Lord REALLY was using to spread Christianity over the world! No matter how many people Wierwille may or may not have led into tongues, it was all chump change compared to what was really going on.
Even if Wierwille was a total fraud (which I think he was), and even if every single person who graduated from Power For Abundant Living was deliberately faking tongues throughout their whole time in the Way (which I do not think was the case), it probably would not have made a perceptible difference in the number of people speaking in tongues in the world.
The faith community God has called me to (yes, there is a God, and I have no doubt that he called me specifically to this community) finds itself in somewhat of a quandry because some of the congregations in the community speak in tongues and some do not. One of the great emeritus leaders of the community, during a series of lectures, related his own experience of speaking in tongues (it was definitely not any kind of standard TWI experience), but said we need to return to sound doctrine on the subject. The problem is, nobody has produced any sound doctrine. I have not written this paper to persuade ex-Wafers, one way OR another. I have written it to help my profs, many of whom are younger than me. The Dean of the school has marveled at all the things God put me through to teach me this stuff, and my experience of TWI was less than a third of it.
I can see why a person whose only experience of tongues came from their involvement with TWI could doubt it! Right now, I wouldn't trust ANYTHING that came out of Wierwille's mouth. But the world is now, and always has been, a vastly larger place than a cornfield in Ohio. Speaking in tongues is now, and always has been much more widely practiced than by the miniscule number of people who graduated from PFAL. The Holy Spirit is now and always has been more gobsmackingly powerful than any little cigar box Wierwille could try to cram it into.
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Earlier, you asked me "What is genuine?"
It's not a trick question. What criteria do you use to determine if it's real or not?
Now I'm asking you, "Were you deluded then, or are you deluded now? How can you tell?"
How can you tell?
You weigh your conclusion against the evidence. Believing in something that evidence contradicts is delusion.
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
Steve, I always find what you write of interest. I'd like to read your paper if possible, please. Maybe you could attach it in a PM if you don't want to post it here?
Cheers, Twinx
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Just noticed this thread and the subtitle. Laughed at the subtitle. Thanks for the chuckle.
Now to read the posts (yikes).
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I think I can take it for granted that Steve and I do not agree with each other on the "reality" of speaking in tongues, so responding to his post with this strikes me as... I don't know, I can't think of the right word. I just feel like "it's all a bunch of hooey" is my position, Steve rejects my position and is entitled to explore and refine his own position using his standards (the Bible, tradition, reason, experience, prehaps in that order, along with any other criteria he decides to use).
I'm interested in hearing him out, knowing that at the end, I'm going to say "it's all a bunch of hooey."
I'm looking at it this way: I'm interested in learning what the Bible actually says about speaking in tongues, whether it differs from what I was previously taught, whether there's anything I can learn about it, and whether I need to adjust my argument to respond to new or amended information.
I'll keep reading now. :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I'm not going to respond to everything written on this thread, much as I want to , because I don't feel I would be writing much of anything that hasn't been covered before. I do want to address one statement Steve made.
"Even if Wierwille was a total fraud (which I think he was), and even if every single person who graduated from Power For Abundant Living was deliberately faking tongues throughout their whole time in the Way (which I do not think was the case), it probably would not have made a perceptible difference in the number of people speaking in tongues in the world." (emphasis mine)
I want to clarify anything I stated or misstated before: I don't think people deliberately faked anything. I think we believed it was real and/or convinced ourselves it was real. My personal belief is that this was universal. Steve and others disagree. We've made that clear. No need to rehash it.
As for what science has and has not demonstrated, I'll state my position this way:
Science has demonstrated that it is possible for someone to produce (what we called, in another thread) free vocalization. Charismatic Christianity has not demonstrated to my satisfaction that it is producing anything other than free vocalization when it claims to be producing "speaking in tongues." Anecdotal evidence does not impress me. It satisfies others. Impasse. No need to rehash it.
You guys are talking past each other, I submit. More power to ya!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
I gave a great deal of thought to the subtitle to this thread... because I agree with the things you just posted, Raf. I respect your thinking, it's just that you and I have some different basic assumptions at this stage of the game... and de gustabus non est disputandum! In fact, I'm really glad you posted so that we could make sure that the air is clear and there is no animosity between us. I did think of you while I was writing this paper, because I chose to do it in a more journalistic rather than an academic style. My dad was a newspaper man, and that has always inclined me to trust you.
This paper is actually the result of about 21 years worth of thinking and researching. Two things have impressed me the most. The first is how much the Old Testament has to offer on the subject. The New Testament writers didn't bother to make explicit all the connections because they took it for granted that their readers would already understand the connections. For instance, WHY Pentecost? To me it seems blatantly obvious, but none of the commentators I've read seem to make the connections, and neither do my professors... yet. And Wierwille's parroting of dispensationalism cut us off from considering anything as valuable that came out of the Old Testament or the Gospels.
The second thing that has impressed me has been an appreciation of the massive impact of the Pentcostal/Charismatic movement on the whole world over the past hundred years or so. According to the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life (December 19, 2011) Global Christianity: A Report on the Size and Distribution of the World's Christian Population p. 67, there were over 500,000,000 Pentecostals/Charismatics in the world at that time... that's over 500 MILLION! What was the highest estimate for grads of PFAL... about 100,000? That means there are over 5,000 Pentecostals/Charismatics for every single grad of PFAL!?! Wierwille's teachings on speaking in tongues, which he stole from J.E. Stiles, were like a little parasite, a tiny flea, riding on the back of an elephant. Not all of those Pentecostal/Charismatics know that they can speak in tongues, but ALL of them can, and many, many of them DO. To conclude that speaking in tongues is not real because of exposure to Wierwille's miniscule chicanery is to fly in the face of an overwhelming amount of evidence.
I stopped and thought about how many Pentecostal/Charismatics there are around apart from the people who were involved with TWI. In my extended family there are four nuclear families who speak in tongues. The other three, apart from my own nuclear family that was from TWI, came out of three DIFFERENT faith communities. I would have had to write this paper for mutual understanding in my own extended family, if for no other reason!
I took a class on Christian ethics last May, and an incident that happened in that class also contributed to my decision to write this paper... The professor was African-American along with about half of the students. One of the African-American students wrote and presented a paper in class on race relations within the American church. The races came together during the Civil Rights Movement in the sixties, but afterwards they separated again... except for the Pentecostals. The student posed the following as a question for class discusssion: What are the Pentecostals doing right?
I hadn't spoken before in any of my classes about speaking in tongues. It is a relatively taboo subject at the SOT because there have been arguments in the past about the subject. But in this case, I couldn't keep quiet. An African-American named Marcus and I had some remarkable interactions while I was a WOW in Tucson, in spite of our radical racial differences, demonstrating to each other the love of God. I know that happened because we each respected the fact that we both spoke in tongues. I related the incident in class, and all sorts of people started saying all sorts of things about tongues, because I had made it safe for them to do so. There is a need at the SOT for us to come to a common understanding of tongues based on what is actually written in the Bible.
The title of my paper is What does the Bible really say (and really NOT say) about speaking in tongues? I take it for granted that what the Bible really says (my own translations from the Greek) are reliable, and that modern speaking in tongues is generally genuine, even though some people do it indecently or out of order. Those are premises from which I have started. Members of my intended audience and myself will not be able to come to any common understanding if we don't respect those presuppositions.
If anyone wants to present arguments that the Bible is not inherently reliable, or that speaking in tongues is all delusional, well... that's a wonderful thing, but it's not what this thread is about, and that's why I deliberately subtitled it "NOT an argument with Raf..." :beer:/>/>
Love,
Steve
Edited by Steve LortzLink to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
Thanks, waysider! I didn't have a preface for my paper, but I just realized that you provoked me into writing one!
Thanks again!
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Just one quibble:
Again, emphasis mine.
And again, I defy you or anyone else to produce this "evidence." The studies that have been done, that have failed to detect known languages, are all of Pentecostals, not of TWI people. The evidence that exists indicates that Pentecostals are not producing languages. So to say I am rejecting SIT because of Wierwille's chicanery is actually 180 degrees incorrect. The only evidence there is to examine is of Pentecostals, not Wierwillites. (And it should be clear that I am not counting unsubstantiated anecdotes as "evidence").
I don't see an overwhelming amount of evidence in favor of speaking in tongues. In fact, I don't see evidence at all. 100 percent of the evidence that we can substantiate supports the proposition that SIT is nothing more than free vocalization, with no supernatural element to it at all.
I'm not going to argue about what you believe versus what I believe. That's between you and your God. But when you start talking about "the evidence," you step outside the realm of personal faith and into the realm of what can be objectively shown.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
You get to define what you consider "evidence" on your threads, Raf. I get to define what I consider "evidence" on mine! :beer:/>
How can deciding which evidence to accept and which evidence to ignore be considered stepping outside the realm of personal faith? It all depends on a person's basic assumptions (guesses that have to be made because of insufficient information), and how people choose their basic assumptions is always a matter of personal faith! Ever since "Actual Errors in PFAL" you have carefully crafted your definitions of evidence to preclude any conclusions other the ones you already hold.
Love,
Steve
Edited by Steve LortzLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
I'm not trying to be a pain but I'm still waiting for you to explain how you determine if something, such as speaking in tongues, is "genuine". What guidelines do you follow? Are there characteristics that expose the fraudulent variety, set it apart from "the real deal"?
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
When you say I'm ignoring mountains of evidence that I've actually considered and rejected, you speak an untruth. That you accept something as evidence and I reject it is something we can state clearly without disagreeing further. But evidence and faith are not compatible terms in the context of this discussion.
Look clearly. You are telling me that in order to hold my position, I need to ignore evidence. That's simply not true. What I am ignoring is not evidence, it's the claim. You said Pentecostals CAN and DO speak in tongues. That's an assertion, which you go on to cite as evidence I'm ignoring.
Now, if you are saying as a matter of faith that Pentecostals speak in tongues, I have no quarrel with you. You believe that, and I can't argue with what you believe. But when you cite that practice as evidence, you simultaneously make the claim that what they are doing has a supernatural element and is more than mere free vocalization. I dispute that.
You do not get your own definition of evidence, sorry to say. You only get your own standard of what evidence you are willing to accept as proving your assertion, and I think the history of this discussion contains admissions on both sides that the evidence alone does not confirm SIT as genuine.
If it did, the whole world would be Christian.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
With actual errors, I carefully crafted definitions in order to limit my ability to declare something an error. Far from precluding conclusions other than those I already hold, my definitions worked against me by design. They had to, or the premise of my argument would have failed.
Further, I did not offer an individualist definition of evidence. Rather, I set an unusually high threshold for what made something an error as opposed to a difference of opinion or interpretation.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
The below titled "Tongues, Gift Of" is from the Nelson Bible Dictionary which has very well written and biblically accurate teachings of the bible. Tongues as we see in 1 Corinthians chapter 12:7-10 with scripture quoted after the below teaching is also referred to as a manifestation of the Spirit.
Also available for understanding are commentaries that I have written on 1 Corinthians chapters 12 and 14. These are two chapters of the bible which most use the word "tongues" as a gift from God or manifestation of the Spirit of God as found in the Bible. From the New King James Version New Testament 14 of the 26 usages of the word "tongues" is found in one of these two chapters.
1 Corinthians Chapter 12
1 Corinthians Chapter 14
Thanks to Steve Lortz for starting this thread. I think Steve is very knowledgeable and has a very good understanding of the bible while also teaching it well.
TONGUES, GIFT OF
The Spirit-given ability to speak in languages not known to the speaker or in an ecstatic language that could not normally be understood by the speaker or the hearers.
Apparently the only possibly direct reference in the Old Testament to speaking in another tongue or language is found in Isa 28:11 "For with stammering lips and another tongue He will speak to this people." This seems to be a reference to an invasion of the Assyrians. They apparently would speak in another language, one probably unknown to the people of Israel. The apostle Paul later applied this verse to speaking in tongues (1 Cor 14:21). The apostle Peter considered the phenomenon of speaking in tongues that occurred on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2) as the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy (Joel 2:28-32).
In an appearance to His disciples after His resurrection, Jesus declared, "And these signs will follow those who believe: In My name they will cast out demons; they will speak with new tongues" (Mark 16:17).
On the Day of Pentecost, the followers of Christ "were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance" (Acts 2:4). The people assembled in Jerusalem for this feast came from various Roman provinces representing a variety of languages. They were astonished to hear the disciples speaking of God's works in their own languages. Some have suggested that the miracle was in the hearing rather than in the speaking. This explanation, however, would transfer the miraculous from the believing disciples to the multitude who may not have been believers.
Tongues as a gift of the Spirit is especially prominent in 1 Cor 12 and 14. In 1 Cor 12 the phenomenon of tongues is listed with other gifts of the Spirit under the term gifts. As one of the several gifts given to believers as a manifestation of the Holy Spirit, tongues is intended, with the other gifts, to be exercised for the building up of the church and the mutual profit of its members. In 1 Cor 13 the apostle Paul puts the gift of tongues in perspective by affirming that though we "speak with the tongues of men and of angels" (v. 1), if we do not have love, the gift of tongues has no value.
In 1 Cor 14 Paul deals more specifically with the gift of tongues and its exercise in the church. In this chapter the tongue is not an intelligible language, for it cannot be understood by the listeners. Therefore, a parallel to the gift of tongues is the gift of interpretation. The gift of tongues was used as a means of worship, thanksgiving, and prayer. While exercising this gift, the individual addresses God not man; and the result is to edify himself and not the church (1 Cor 14:2,4). This gift is never intended for self-exaltation but for the praise and glorification of God. Paul does not prohibit speaking in tongues in a public service (14:39). But he seems to assign it to a lesser place than the gift of prophecy. Paul claims for himself the gift of tongues-speaking, but apparently he exercised this gift in private and not in public (14:18-19).
The gift of tongues is to be exercised with restraint and in an orderly way. The regulations for its public use are simple and straightforward. The person who speaks in an unknown tongue is to pray that he may interpret (1 Cor 14:13). Or, someone else is to interpret what he says. Only two or three persons are to speak, with each having an interpretation of what he says. Each is also to speak in turn. If these criteria are not met, they are to remain silent (1 Cor 14:27-28). The gifts of speaking in tongues and their interpretation are to be Spiritinspired. Paul also points out that tongues are a sign to unbelievers. If these guidelines are not observed, unbelievers who are present will conclude that the people of the church are out of their minds.
The phenomenon of speaking in tongues described in the New Testament is not some psychological arousal of human emotions that results in strange sounds. This is a genuine work of the Holy Sp
(from Nelson's Illustrated Bible Dictionary, Copyright ©1986, Thomas Nelson Publishers)
1 Corinthians 12:7-11
7 But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to each one for the profit of all: 8 for to one is given the word of wisdom through the Spirit, to another the word of knowledge through the same Spirit, 9 to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healings by the same Spirit, 10 to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another discerning of spirits, to another different kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues. 11 But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually as He wills.
NKJV
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
Thank you very much, Mark!
In some ways my writing has been as much an effort of translating as it has been a presentation of research. I have had to translate from a popular style to a more academic style because of my intended audience, and I have had to translate from the language of our previous common faith community to language that could be understood by people who were brought up in the aftermath of the Wesleyan Holiness movement. The language is different from that of the liberal protestant denominations, and it is also different from that of the evangelical protestant denominations. What a hoot!
I have also presented material derived from Exodus 21:2-6; Deuteronomy 16:10 and Amos 4:4&5 that bears on speaking in tongues. I don't think anybody ever explicitly referred to those verses before because the New Testament writers took their meaning and application for granted, and dispensational theology didn't think anything from the OT or from the Gospels was of any value to the church.
Reading through your commentaries on I Corinthians 12 and 14 was like sweet music to me, confirming to me that I had taken the right track in my own comments, and that I hadn't flown off on any wild tangents.
As for your question, waysider, on how we can tell what is genuine and what is not, Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary(11th ed. s.v. "genuine") has this to say, "genuine... 1a actually having the reputed or apparent qualities or character... 2 free from hypocrisy or pretense..."
Therefore, I would say, genuine speaking in tongues would have the reputed quality of not being understood by the speaker, and genuine speaking in tongues would not involve faking it.
When you add the quality that a tongue must be spoken in a certifiably understandable language, Raf, you are departing from the definition of "genuine" because nowhere in the Bible does it repute that tongues must be capable of being understood. It is true that some people understood what Jesus's followers were saying in tongues on the day of Pentecost, but nowhere else in the Bible does it say that anyone understood, and nowhere does it say that somebody ought to be able to understand when a person speaks in tongues. The only biblical requirement on speaking in tongues is that it not be understood by the person doing the speaking.
You also discount anecdotal evidence, Raf, as if it has no value. I have never broken any of my bones. What evidence do I have, historical or scientific, that a broken bone is painful, other than anecdotal evidence? A medical technician can stick a little clip on the end of my finger and measure the amount of oxygen flowing around in my bloodstream, but nobody can stick a little clip on my finger and measure how much pain I am in. The medical technician gives me a slip of cardstock with ten little pictures on it, ranging from a full smiley face at the left end to a full frowny face at the right end, and asks me how much pain I am feeling today. Pain is entirely subjective and the only evidence for it is anecdotal.
You reject evidence of the supernatural, Raf, not because there isn't any, but because one of your presuppositions is that the supernatural does not exist. You automatically invalidate any evidence that goes against your presupposition. But logical systems can NEVER prove or disprove their presuppositions without getting into circular reasoning, Raf, which is not valid.
This thread is EXPLICITLY NOT an argument against you, Raf. Why are you quibbling?
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
"Therefore, I would say, genuine speaking in tongues would have the reputed quality of not being understood by the speaker, and genuine speaking in tongues would not involve faking it."
Not understood by the speaker
That describes the TWI experience.
Would not involve "faking it"
Again, describes the TWI experience, as most of us were not consciously practicing deception.
Is it just me or do you also see a problem with this definition?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
What problem do you see with that definition? That a blind pig stumbled on an acorn?
Here are some other interesting things to give some serious thought to. In your post of 18 Jan. '15 6:59 am (#2 post on this thread) you wrote, " Speaking in tongues is a function of the human mind, not spirit. History and science demonstrate this to be the case."
Acts 2:4 indicates that speaking in tongues is a joint operation, the person deliberately, volitionally speaks, and the Spirit gives the utterance (apophtheggomai = “to speak one’s opinion plainly”). It only follows that history and science should confirm the first part of your statement, that speaking in tongues is a function of the human mind, but how does history and science demonstrate that speaking in tongues is NOT a function of spirit? Can you cite a single historical or scientific study that conclusively demonstrates speaking in tongues is NOT a function of spirit?
Love,
Steve
Edited by Steve LortzLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
The definition is circular. According to it, if I fool you into free vocalizations, calling it speaking in tongues, and you do it, it's genuine SIT. Then you, in all sincerity, share my instruction in how to produce free vocalizations, believing it to be SIT, and others follow your instruction, sincerely believing they're doing the real thing. By your definition, they are.
But they're not. That's why it's flawed.
You call my position "presuppositional." I reject that characterization. The word better suits your position, which presupposes a supernatural element without evidence that requires a supernatural explanation. My position is strictly evidence based: produce a language, and you establish something that requires a supernatural explanation. Without it, a natural explanation suffices.
"Can you cite a single historical or scientific study that conclusively demonstrates speaking in tongues is NOT a function of spirit?"
That's a burden of proof fallacy at work. You are making an affirmative claim. The burden is on you to prove it, not on doubters to disprove it. Why should I have to disprove something you've never demonstrated? Free vocalization produces the exact same result you claim SIT produces, no supernatural element required. If you assert SIT produces something extra, you have to prove it.
You cannot name a thread "everyone gets to participate in this except that guy" and bind that guy to it. I was prepared to accept the premise of this thread as a discussion of what the Bible teaches, about which I submit I am no slouch. Not believing a book is very different from not knowing what it says.
It says languages. It never says anything other than languages. If you're speaking in tongues, you're producing languages. That is a testable claim. It has been tested. It has never passed.
I never said anecdotal evidence has no value. I said it is insufficient.
Before I continue, I would like to be clear on what subjects are on topic and what subjects are off. I started a thread specifically to avoid derailing threads like this one, and if I need to move my thoughts there to keep this thread on topic, I'd like to know.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
Your arguments are explicitly off topic, Raf. That's why I subtitled this thread the way I did. I don't argue on your threads because our differences ARE presuppositional.
The nature of reality (or the reality of nature) is ambiguity. We find what we look for. If we look for a particle, we find a particle, if we look for a wave, we find a wave. There is evidence for and evidence against EVERYTHING! We ALL have to pick and choose what evidence to accept and what evidence to ignore.
The ONLY difference between speaking in tongues and free vocalization is that when a person speaks in tongues, the Spirit gives the utterance.
There is no burden on me on this thread to prove that "the supernatural" exists. I presuppose the existence of spirit as described in the Bible. However, waysider brought upon himself the task of proving that spirit does not function when he wrote, "Speaking in tongues is a function of the human mind, not spirit. History and science demonstrate this to be the case." He claims that history and science demonstrate that speaking in tongues is NOT a function of spirit. I have asked him to cite specific historical and scientific studies demonstrating that speaking in tongues is NOT a function of spirit.
Love,
Steve
Edited by Steve LortzLink to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.