........... 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.
I have done this, previously, on other threads. What's the point of doing it again?
My argument has always included a simple way to prove me wrong: produce a language. My premise is valid because it is falsifiable.
The argument I'm responding to is the exact opposite of valid. It retreats and moves the goalposts whenever challenged, to the end that some have convinced themselves no one will ever identify the language in SIT, ever (unless, apparently, they are visiting from halfway around the world and returning, never to be seen or heard from again. Then it can be detected. But that's a digression).
I'll be moving off topic posts to another thread when I get a chance. Steve, if you'd like to ID which posts are on topic and which are not, it would give me something to go on. Thanks.
Raf, my subtitle was not intended to exclude YOU from this thread, it was intended to exclude your arguments against the existence of God, or against the reliability of the Bible, or against the validity of speaking in tongues, ancient or modern, from this thread. Not because I don't value the arguments you've made from the viewpoint of an ex-Wayfer, I do. But I'm NOT writing this paper as an ex-Wafer. I'm writing it as a student-member of the Anderson University School of Theology, which is one of the educational institutions of the Church of God Reformation Movement (Anderson, Indiana).
I am writing this paper because there is confusion within the denomination about the validity and proper practice of speaking in tongues.
William Seymour, the minister who led the Azusa Street Revival, had much of his thinking about the role of charismatic leadership of the local congregation influenced by the Evening Light Saints. Leaders of the Evening Light Saints later became the founders of the Church of God Reformation Movement (Anderson, Indiana). All the Pentecostal/Charismatic organizations grew out of William Seymour's ministry, yet the Church of God (Anderson,Indiana) did not as a whole accept Pentecostalism. The Church of God (Anderson, Indiana) does not impose doctrinal conformity from the top down, so the role of charismatic leadership has always been an issue, but it seems the times are conspiring to again heat up old controversies within the movement.
My intended audience already presupposes the existence of God, and the reliability (but not the "inerrancy") of the Bible. Confusion exists about the validity and proper practice of speaking in tongues. My purpose in writing this paper is to draw out everything that the Bible really says, and really does NOT say, about speaking in tongues, so that the confusion can be ameliorated.
If you have insights about what the Bible says about speaking in tongues, or current things people think about speaking in tongues that aren't biblical, Raf, and I have overlooked those insights, then I appreciate any contributions you might care to make! I have always found your thoughts to be cogent and perceptive. It's just that we currently hold different presuppositions, and I find it fruitless to argue presuppositions.
Love,
Steve
(I am thankful for my Pop! He taught me how to think like a newspaperman! or should that be "newspaperperson?
Steve, if THAT'S the conversation you want to have, I'll be happy yo sit back and watch. But by engaging waysider, you opened the discussion beyond its original scope.
waysider objected specifically to a specific statement I had made:
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.
and he made a counter-statement to it.
He claimed that history and science demonstrate that speaking in tongues is NOT a function of spirit. I have asked him to provide specific citations of specific studies that demonstrate speaking in tongues is NOT a function of spirit. There are plenty of studies showing that speaking in tongues is also a function of the human mind, but that's exactly what Acts 2:4 says. He needs to produce historical or scientific evidence that the Spirit does NOT give the utterance when a person speaks in tongues.
This is not a matter of argument... it is a matter of adequate citation in accordance with Turabian's 8th edition. For my statement I can cite Acts 2:4 and Amos 4:4-5. This paper is not being written in a full blown academic manner, but the intended audience consists of the very same people who mark my exegesis papers. I have to be able to cite sources for every statement I make.
He needs to produce historical or scientific evidence that the Spirit does NOT give the utterance when a person speaks in tongues.
Historical evidence:
Did you ever participate in a practice session? We called them "excellor" sessions. In these sessions we would participate in exercises that had us bringing forth tongues that started each word with a predetermined letter or sound. Sometimes we would do things like sell each other a vacuum cleaner using tongues instead of English or sing a popular song using tongues instead of the actual lyrics. This is not evidence of anything spiritual, it's simply a mental activity. I have seen similar activities performed by Non-Christian participants as well as Christian participants, thus negating the so-called spiritual connection.
An illusionist's task is to redirect attention from reality. We were illusionists. We used theatrical techniques to redirect attention away from the reality of what we were doing. These practice sessions were designed to help us perfect our craft.
"So one of the results of writing this paper is that I've redefined the primary function; the primary function of speaking in tongues is to enable a Christian to offer perfectly acceptable thanksgiving to God even though our minds are still contaminated with hypocrisy. This is possible because the Spirit, instead of our unregenerate minds, gives us the words to speak."
I am refuting this to be the case with regard to practice sessions.
He's speaking doctrinally. You're saying prove it. He's not interested in proving it. Totally different conversations.
By the way, Steve, I see no reason for yo to stay off the threads I've started. Your stated reasons are your business, but there's nothing about "presuppositions" that suggests you should stay off. The topics presume our presuppositions will not agree.
Did you ever participate in a practice session? We called them "excellor" sessions. In these sessions we would participate in exercises that had us bringing forth tongues that started each word with a predetermined letter or sound. Sometimes we would do things like sell each other a vacuum cleaner using tongues instead of English or sing a popular song using tongues instead of the actual lyrics. This is not evidence of anything spiritual, it's simply a mental activity. I have seen similar activities performed by Non-Christian participants as well as Christian participants, thus negating the so-called spiritual connection.
Hi Waysider:
The coordinators of the Way Ministry Excellor sessions were sometimes errant in their biblical understanding and application. That does not make the writings and teachings of the apostle Paul on this subject wrong or errant. I had a similar situation at an Excellor session in the 1970s. When I spoke in tongues and followed it with an interpretation the interpretation I spoke was a message of thanksgiving that related to an actual prayer to God. Right after I did this the errant and ignorant sessions coordinator complained about my interpretation and told me not to do this again. Guess what happened the next time I spoke with tongues with interpretation? It was even MORE of a thanksgiving to God that ended with a message similar to "And I God will provide you with the words that you are about to speak". And no, I did not predetermine my message before speaking it. I was just determined to do things to the best of my knowledge and understanding which I had previously studied biblically, while they were focused on their own doctrinal versions that were passed down in a hierarchy, from Wierwille and Way Ministry leadership downward.
I don't think it's a matter of predetermining the message. Sure, there were people who did this but I think what most of us experienced was a matter of free vocalization. (the tongues segment) As to the message segment, it's more a matter of drawing from mental archives. The sessions were designed in such a way as to instruct us in what parts of the archives were acceptable for presentation, as well as establishing procedure and protocol for the presentation. I realize I'm rambling off-topic but this brings me right back to the issue of establishing what is genuine and what is not. Clearly, based on your anecdote, it's apparent that criteria was in question even all those years ago.
I don't think it's a matter of predetermining the message. Sure, there were people who did this but I think what most of us experienced was a matter of free vocalization. (the tongues segment) As to the message segment, it's more a matter of drawing from mental archives. The sessions were designed in such a way as to instruct us in what parts of the archives were acceptable for presentation, as well as establishing procedure and protocol for the presentation. I realize I'm rambling off-topic but this brings me right back to the issue of establishing what is genuine and what is not. Clearly, based on your anecdote, it's apparent that criteria was in question even all those years ago.
It was a person telling me what to say or what not to say. When it comes to speaking in tongues with interpretation, I prefer speaking by the Holy Spirit.
Does the Bible say anything about how to distinguish between speaking by the spirit and free vocalization/extemporaneous speech requiring no supernatural infusion whatsoever but producing identical results? (If it's on topic for everyone else, it's on topic for me, thread subheading or not).
Am I the only one amazed that when the Holy Spirit speaks through Mark, he validates Mark's view of how this should work, but when the same Holy Spirit spoke to and through the other guy (equally insistent that he was not faking it), the Holy Spirit validated what the other guy said. It's almost like interpretation being exactly like prophesy in TWI, where no one was faking it, but suddenly becoming prayer and praise when the doctrine changed in CES (whose followers insist they weren't faking it).
Because that's amazing. Almost like exactly what you would expect if it was all people speaking extemporaneously.
From 1 Corinthians Chapter 14, the main mental analysis for the interpretation of tongues is to make sure it is in the language of the people present. And certainly if it is from the spirit of God it should include thanksgiving and praise to God.
My comments are responding to yours, so if I'm off topic, I apologize. Of course, when you subtitle a thread that specifically excludes a poster, anything that poster has to say (especially if it disagrees with you) is automatically off topic anyway, isn't it.
Two points I believe to be on topic:
1. The studies that have been done demonstrate (not prove) that SIT as practiced does not produce anything that requires a supernatural explanation. That is as close to demonstrating that it's not a function of the spirit as you can get in science. Earthquakes and storms are not God's wrath. Science does not prove this, but it demonstrates it by shoeing the actual causes of earthquakes and storms. Similarly, SIT requires no supernatural explanation until and unless you can demonstrate it produces something free vocalization does not. You can't, because it doesn't. You can presuppose it's supernaturally powered. More power to you.
Second, it is a false premise that my conclusion is based on presupposition. I reached this conclusion about SIT years before I rejected the premise of the Bible, and honest believers can reach the same conclusion if they follow what the Bible says to its logical conclusion. My argument had NEVER presupposed the nonexistent of the supernatural. That notion is a defensive posture designed to dismiss my argument without giving it due consideration. You're entitled to it, but not at the expense of misrepresenting me. If I am wrong about God and the Bible, SIT is STILL a bunch of hooey based on the fact that it does not produce what the Bible says it should: languages.
Raf... YOU are not excluded from this thread, but your ARGUMENTS against the existence of God, against the reliability of the Bible and against the things the Bible actually says about speaking in tongues are deliberately, explicitly off topic. That's what the subtitle of this thread says. It does not say "NOT an argument with waysider." If I choose to address things that waysider brings up, you may not take that as an invitation to introduce your arguments into this thread. My presuppositions are that speaking in tongues is a joint operation of the human mind and the Spirit, just as Acts 2:4 says, that the speaking in tongues described in the Bible was genuine, and that speaking in tongues that is done today that has the reputed or apparent qualities or character described in the Bible is also genuine.
I have not challenged the existence of God or the reliability of the Bible as a whole on this thread. My opinion about what the Bible actually says about SIT is most certainly on topic, and it is disconcerting that you think you can suggest otherwise. I will not argue about whether the Bible is truth, but I am absolutely entitled to argue that the Bible equates tongues with languages. If you disagree with that, we have a serious problem.
Further, as the person who started this thread, your intent regarding what is and is not on topic carries great weight. But "it's on topic for him but not for you" is completely out of line. If I am on topic, consistent with what you choose to address and not to address, I am on topic. This is rude, plain and simple.
I submit if you don't want me to discuss the issues you bring up in an open forum, you don't bring them in a forum of which I am a member.
From 1 Corinthians Chapter 14, the main mental analysis for the interpretation of tongues is to make sure it is in the language of the people present. And certainly if it is from the spirit of God it should include thanksgiving and praise to God.
The point I was trying to make is that interpretation changed or varied depending on the doctrinal position of the person doing the speaking. If your doctrine told you to expect edification, exhortation and comfort (EEC), that's what you produced. If your doctrine told you to expect prayer and praise, that's what you produced.
Completely consistent with contemporaneous speech/no supernatural explanation required. Completely inconsistent with the message being directly from God and bypassing the mind of the speaker.
I'm not sure whether the Bible makes a stronger argument for EEC or prayer and praise. My sense is prayer and praise has the stronger claim to biblical accuracy.
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
........... 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.
I have done this, previously, on other threads. What's the point of doing it again?
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
My argument has always included a simple way to prove me wrong: produce a language. My premise is valid because it is falsifiable.
The argument I'm responding to is the exact opposite of valid. It retreats and moves the goalposts whenever challenged, to the end that some have convinced themselves no one will ever identify the language in SIT, ever (unless, apparently, they are visiting from halfway around the world and returning, never to be seen or heard from again. Then it can be detected. But that's a digression).
Talk about an invalid argument!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I'll be moving off topic posts to another thread when I get a chance. Steve, if you'd like to ID which posts are on topic and which are not, it would give me something to go on. Thanks.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
Raf, my subtitle was not intended to exclude YOU from this thread, it was intended to exclude your arguments against the existence of God, or against the reliability of the Bible, or against the validity of speaking in tongues, ancient or modern, from this thread. Not because I don't value the arguments you've made from the viewpoint of an ex-Wayfer, I do. But I'm NOT writing this paper as an ex-Wafer. I'm writing it as a student-member of the Anderson University School of Theology, which is one of the educational institutions of the Church of God Reformation Movement (Anderson, Indiana).
I am writing this paper because there is confusion within the denomination about the validity and proper practice of speaking in tongues.
William Seymour, the minister who led the Azusa Street Revival, had much of his thinking about the role of charismatic leadership of the local congregation influenced by the Evening Light Saints. Leaders of the Evening Light Saints later became the founders of the Church of God Reformation Movement (Anderson, Indiana). All the Pentecostal/Charismatic organizations grew out of William Seymour's ministry, yet the Church of God (Anderson,Indiana) did not as a whole accept Pentecostalism. The Church of God (Anderson, Indiana) does not impose doctrinal conformity from the top down, so the role of charismatic leadership has always been an issue, but it seems the times are conspiring to again heat up old controversies within the movement.
My intended audience already presupposes the existence of God, and the reliability (but not the "inerrancy") of the Bible. Confusion exists about the validity and proper practice of speaking in tongues. My purpose in writing this paper is to draw out everything that the Bible really says, and really does NOT say, about speaking in tongues, so that the confusion can be ameliorated.
If you have insights about what the Bible says about speaking in tongues, or current things people think about speaking in tongues that aren't biblical, Raf, and I have overlooked those insights, then I appreciate any contributions you might care to make! I have always found your thoughts to be cogent and perceptive. It's just that we currently hold different presuppositions, and I find it fruitless to argue presuppositions.
Love,
Steve
(I am thankful for my Pop! He taught me how to think like a newspaperman! or should that be "newspaperperson?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Steve
Were you involved in THIS discussion? We hammered away at many of these points for 106 pages.
What about "practice" sessions? Do you contend that predetermining the beginning sounds of the words is a "genuine" example of speaking in tongues?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Steve, if THAT'S the conversation you want to have, I'll be happy yo sit back and watch. But by engaging waysider, you opened the discussion beyond its original scope.
I'll respect your original scope now.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
waysider objected specifically to a specific statement I had made:
and he made a counter-statement to it.
He claimed that history and science demonstrate that speaking in tongues is NOT a function of spirit. I have asked him to provide specific citations of specific studies that demonstrate speaking in tongues is NOT a function of spirit. There are plenty of studies showing that speaking in tongues is also a function of the human mind, but that's exactly what Acts 2:4 says. He needs to produce historical or scientific evidence that the Spirit does NOT give the utterance when a person speaks in tongues.
This is not a matter of argument... it is a matter of adequate citation in accordance with Turabian's 8th edition. For my statement I can cite Acts 2:4 and Amos 4:4-5. This paper is not being written in a full blown academic manner, but the intended audience consists of the very same people who mark my exegesis papers. I have to be able to cite sources for every statement I make.
Love,
Steve
Edited by Steve LortzLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Again, if Waysider is on topic with his question, then nothing I wrote is off topic. See how that works?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Historical evidence:
Did you ever participate in a practice session? We called them "excellor" sessions. In these sessions we would participate in exercises that had us bringing forth tongues that started each word with a predetermined letter or sound. Sometimes we would do things like sell each other a vacuum cleaner using tongues instead of English or sing a popular song using tongues instead of the actual lyrics. This is not evidence of anything spiritual, it's simply a mental activity. I have seen similar activities performed by Non-Christian participants as well as Christian participants, thus negating the so-called spiritual connection.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
As I said earlier, you guys are talking past each other. Just saying.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
An illusionist's task is to redirect attention from reality. We were illusionists. We used theatrical techniques to redirect attention away from the reality of what we were doing. These practice sessions were designed to help us perfect our craft.
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Re: Talking past each other
From the original post
"So one of the results of writing this paper is that I've redefined the primary function; the primary function of speaking in tongues is to enable a Christian to offer perfectly acceptable thanksgiving to God even though our minds are still contaminated with hypocrisy. This is possible because the Spirit, instead of our unregenerate minds, gives us the words to speak."
I am refuting this to be the case with regard to practice sessions.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
He's speaking doctrinally. You're saying prove it. He's not interested in proving it. Totally different conversations.
By the way, Steve, I see no reason for yo to stay off the threads I've started. Your stated reasons are your business, but there's nothing about "presuppositions" that suggests you should stay off. The topics presume our presuppositions will not agree.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
Hi Waysider:
The coordinators of the Way Ministry Excellor sessions were sometimes errant in their biblical understanding and application. That does not make the writings and teachings of the apostle Paul on this subject wrong or errant. I had a similar situation at an Excellor session in the 1970s. When I spoke in tongues and followed it with an interpretation the interpretation I spoke was a message of thanksgiving that related to an actual prayer to God. Right after I did this the errant and ignorant sessions coordinator complained about my interpretation and told me not to do this again. Guess what happened the next time I spoke with tongues with interpretation? It was even MORE of a thanksgiving to God that ended with a message similar to "And I God will provide you with the words that you are about to speak". And no, I did not predetermine my message before speaking it. I was just determined to do things to the best of my knowledge and understanding which I had previously studied biblically, while they were focused on their own doctrinal versions that were passed down in a hierarchy, from Wierwille and Way Ministry leadership downward.
Edited by Mark SanguinettiLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Mark
I don't think it's a matter of predetermining the message. Sure, there were people who did this but I think what most of us experienced was a matter of free vocalization. (the tongues segment) As to the message segment, it's more a matter of drawing from mental archives. The sessions were designed in such a way as to instruct us in what parts of the archives were acceptable for presentation, as well as establishing procedure and protocol for the presentation. I realize I'm rambling off-topic but this brings me right back to the issue of establishing what is genuine and what is not. Clearly, based on your anecdote, it's apparent that criteria was in question even all those years ago.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
It was a person telling me what to say or what not to say. When it comes to speaking in tongues with interpretation, I prefer speaking by the Holy Spirit.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Does the Bible say anything about how to distinguish between speaking by the spirit and free vocalization/extemporaneous speech requiring no supernatural infusion whatsoever but producing identical results? (If it's on topic for everyone else, it's on topic for me, thread subheading or not).
Am I the only one amazed that when the Holy Spirit speaks through Mark, he validates Mark's view of how this should work, but when the same Holy Spirit spoke to and through the other guy (equally insistent that he was not faking it), the Holy Spirit validated what the other guy said. It's almost like interpretation being exactly like prophesy in TWI, where no one was faking it, but suddenly becoming prayer and praise when the doctrine changed in CES (whose followers insist they weren't faking it).
Because that's amazing. Almost like exactly what you would expect if it was all people speaking extemporaneously.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
From 1 Corinthians Chapter 14, the main mental analysis for the interpretation of tongues is to make sure it is in the language of the people present. And certainly if it is from the spirit of God it should include thanksgiving and praise to God.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
"..............if it is from the spirit of God it should include thanksgiving and praise to God."
Did it always include thanksgiving and praise to God when we heard it during our time in The Way? (I ask this rhetorically, of course.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
Raf... YOU are not excluded from this thread, but your ARGUMENTS against the existence of God, against the reliability of the Bible and against the things the Bible actually says about speaking in tongues are deliberately, explicitly off topic. That's what the subtitle of this thread says. It does not say "NOT an argument with waysider." If I choose to address things that waysider brings up, you may not take that as an invitation to introduce your arguments into this thread. My presuppositions are that speaking in tongues is a joint operation of the human mind and the Spirit, just as Acts 2:4 says, that the speaking in tongues described in the Bible was genuine, and that speaking in tongues that is done today that has the reputed or apparent qualities or character described in the Bible is also genuine.
It is pointless for us to argue those things.
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I have not challenged the existence of God or the reliability of the Bible as a whole on this thread. My opinion about what the Bible actually says about SIT is most certainly on topic, and it is disconcerting that you think you can suggest otherwise. I will not argue about whether the Bible is truth, but I am absolutely entitled to argue that the Bible equates tongues with languages. If you disagree with that, we have a serious problem.
Further, as the person who started this thread, your intent regarding what is and is not on topic carries great weight. But "it's on topic for him but not for you" is completely out of line. If I am on topic, consistent with what you choose to address and not to address, I am on topic. This is rude, plain and simple.
I submit if you don't want me to discuss the issues you bring up in an open forum, you don't bring them in a forum of which I am a member.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
The point I was trying to make is that interpretation changed or varied depending on the doctrinal position of the person doing the speaking. If your doctrine told you to expect edification, exhortation and comfort (EEC), that's what you produced. If your doctrine told you to expect prayer and praise, that's what you produced.
Completely consistent with contemporaneous speech/no supernatural explanation required. Completely inconsistent with the message being directly from God and bypassing the mind of the speaker.
I'm not sure whether the Bible makes a stronger argument for EEC or prayer and praise. My sense is prayer and praise has the stronger claim to biblical accuracy.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
I agree with you Raf, you are being rude.
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
My comment was substantive and backed by supporting evidence. Your post is simple namecalling
Link 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.