I'm sorry. That didn't come across the way I meant it. I appreciate what you're sharing and that you've joined the discussion. :) I'm just surprised since they are so vocal in other areas. It does seem that CES supporters are becoming fewer, which, I suppose, is a message in and of itself.
David, I wanted to clarify....my apology is meant for you as well. I'm very sorry that my comments came across so crass and harsh. I'm embarrassed and wish I could delete them.
No problem here at all, Belle. :) Like Ex10 said -- I thought it better to be heard from them, rather than hear my viewpoint on it -- since then this thread would be about my perspective, rather than theirs. And since I don't have the time (these days) to really answer in depth -- I figured the links would answer questions more completely and thoroughly than I could.
I will say one thing here, about how they differ with twi about as pertains to Interpretation.
According to CES -- an interpretation of tongues should NEVER begin with *MY CHILDREN*.
OK -- what does that mean?? It means that the first time that men spoke in tongues there in Acts --
men spoke *the wonderful things of God* (Acts 2:11).
And then, when Cornelius and his crew received holy spirit, and spoke in tongues --
Peter and the others with him heard them *speak with tongues and magnify God*. (Acts 10:46).
Nowhere is it mentioned that it was a message *from God*, like docvic said it could be.
It was a message magnifying God, and since these are the first usages of it (ANYWHERE) --
it follows that all usages afterwards should follow the same pattern
(just like the use of the word *Elohim*/ twohoo boohoo/ etc.) that docvic taught.
If docvic was so big on first usages -- he shoulda applied it to tongues and interpretation as well.
But he didn't.
The prophecies (yup -- personal ones) directed to folks both in the OT and the NT did start with --
MY PEOPLE (OT prophecies), or Thus sayeth the Holy Ghost (from Agabus Acts 21:11) --
but I don't see anywhere, that TONGUES started with these words,
as that would be a contradiction to the *first usage*.
In Acts 19 Paul wanders in to Ephesus, and finds *certain disciples* that were the *fruit* of Apollos.
According to docvic (and Acts bears it out) -- Apollos split for Corinth before he taught the folks at Epheseus
about holy spirit -- which he learned from Aquilla and Pricilla.
Paul shows up, shows them how to manifest something greater than the baptism of John, and in
Acts 19:6 -- it says they spoke in tongues and prophesied.
Nowhere does it say tongues is a message *from God*.
Everywhere is says prophecy is a message *from God*. And ---
Everywhere it says tongues magnifies God (so the message is *TO HIM*, not *FROM HIM*).
So there is a perspective (read IMO) where CES differs from twi.
Although I regard tongues as a method of communicating between different groups of people when needed, I certainly have no problem with the idea that it is used for praising God "though I speak with the tongues of men and angels..."
CES sounds like they are much more in harmony with scripture on this just MO
Well -- let me back-track a little (if I may) -- tongues certainly was a *communication* thing, in Acts. That actually might have something to do for today as well -- hadn't thought of that point. :)
It was the Interpretation aspect of it, that CES teaches different from what docvic did.
Again -- I am a *long-distance* supporter of theirs, and what I posted above,
is what I have heard them teach.
Haven't heard CES teach it was for communication purposes,
I find this 'interpretation' discussion very enlightening. The first time I heard John Lynn teach it, it blew me away. Wow, no wonder the TWI version was so uncomfortable to me. I wasn't doing it right! I at once felt relieved and excited. Maybe there was hope for me in the Christian life.
But I had to wonder how something so 'basic' could be taught incorrectly in the first place. Okay, maybe the docta's ego got the better of him. But if God is truly inspiring us during interpretation, how the heck could we screw it up? Wouldn't somebody, somewhere have felt the inspiration and rendered it correctly? Is the voice of the Almighty so weak that even those seeking him and trying to do his will can't hear it?
In the end, how interpretation, or pretty much any other doctrine from the bible is handled, is fundamentally one's opinion. There is no way to prove or disprove it either way. As Belle and ex10 noted, there are things more important than doctrine.
But I had to wonder how something so 'basic' could be taught incorrectly in the first place. Okay, maybe the docta's ego got the better of him. But if God is truly inspiring us during interpretation, how the heck could we screw it up? Wouldn't somebody, somewhere have felt the inspiration and rendered it correctly? Is the voice of the Almighty so weak that even those seeking him and trying to do his will can't hear it?
Good point, JJ. My experience in TWI was that the interpretation of tongues was one of those points of contention. There were people who saw in the Bible that TWI's way of doing it contradicted scripture. However, the way's technique was taught, not anything else. So people were taught error, and "operated" that way.
Anybody who argued about it, or tried to change the official way teaching on the subject, was either hushed up, or shown the door. This was true on just about any matter.
When it comes to "manifestations" or anything along the lines of what we do with what is "available," (I cringe using that word, sorry, but it's the best way I can think of to put it) we have a choice to make. I believe VPW was correct in saying that we choose whether or not to operate. It's our free will choice. We can do it "correctly," the way God intended, or not. Some churches teach that the spirit of God "possesses" us when we choose to manifest his gift. So the "manifestation" is perfect.
I disagree with that belief. The words spoken, go through the filter of our own minds. If I have been taught incorrectly, it will influence my "operation" of the gift or manifestation. This is where sound doctrine comes in, and is so vitally important.
I believe that operating the spirit of God does not come "naturally," that it's something that we have to practice and work at, and strive to do the way the Lord intends. It's our free will choice. I think that's pretty evident in the scriptures. As we grow up in Christ, and spiritually mature, we get better and better at whatever our particular gifts and abilities may be.
And I do believe that each and every one of us is unique, with individual talents and abilities to offer the body of Christ. I know for a fact, for example, that some people find it easier to speak in tongues than others. Some are better at hearing the voice of God, some bolder at prophecy, etc. But we each have our own individual "calling" if you will.
When we are born again, we don't automatically start manifesting the power of God perfectly each and every time. Sure would be nice if we did. But we have to strive to have God's perspcetive, and his love, care, intentions, etc. when we act. I don't know about anybody else, but that's pretty much a daily struggle for me.
And we also need to figure out who we are uniquely in His church, and how we each fit into the grander scheme of things. Not always an easy task, unfortunately.
By the way, I didn't intend to say that doctrine is not important. I believe it's vitally important. But in and of itself, it's useless. We can have all the "truth" or "right doctrine" in the world, but if we don't act in accordance with it, what good is it? I Cor. 13 comes to mind. As well as the verse, "knowledge puffs up, but charity edifies." I can know an awful lot of "doctrine" but still be a total jerk. I think we all have experienced that in our former group.
I am not the most eloquent at explaining how I think about these things, but I hope I'm making sense.
You're making sense, ex. I had no problem following your thoughts. To me though, I remember putting forth those same types of arguments when I couldn't explain something or other in real life that seemed so very clear in the bible. I felt like I was apologizing and making excuses all the time. It didn't get better after 20 years so I stopped trying to make it fit. I suppose that's one way to grow up! :)
Has anyone looked at CES' position on personal prophecy in more detail? I really did find that practice quite offensive. And how about Momentous? A lot of folks had a cow over that one. I don't think they are actively involved with Momentus any more but I'm not sure about the PP.
One other point on my mind: I loved the old CES forums. I learned a lot from them and the posters there really had me thinking in new directions. It was great! Then they decided to start censoring the content and eventually shut it down. They certainly have that right but that was very disappointing.
It felt and sounded like a horoscope. General enough to be vaguely applicable and complimentary enough to be enticing and make you want to come back for more. It never had any real meaning, at least as far as I could tell. Yet people were making life-changing decisions based on it. People were reading things into it like who to date, who to marry and whether to take a job or not.
I raised my voice loudly one night after the 'group leader' (for lack of a better term) played a tape of his pp made at a leaderhip meeting for him. He might as well have drawn tarot cards or got his palm read. But he was willing to make life decisions based on it. Faith or foolishness? I never went back.
I agree. There was never anything about it (the incident or pp in general) that made sense to me. It seemed pride- and ego-based and I just had enough of that at the time.
I still believe what VP said about personal prophecy and that is "God is big enough to tell you something first..."
That has kept me in good stead over the years, even in twi. I remember telling a corps brother, Bo Th**as that Selina and I had decided to quit the Family Corps and go home.
His reply to me was "if you're at peace about it, it's the right decision." !! I heard him and his wife Re**e are still in, I hope they haven't changed too much.
Anyway, back to 'personal prophecy'. I have been along to differn't churches where they do this and it's pretty much always the same.."thus saith God Almighty..you will be a mighty warrior for the Lord..or..you will preach before thousands...or..(fill in the blank). Often I'm sure it appeals to peoples egos. I was at one meeting where a lady shared that a few weeks earlier she had been prophesied over and had been told that this person could see her house surrounded by poo. About a week later her sewerage backed up !
So where's the profit in that ?? Sorry, but PP sounds a bit too much like 'spiritualism' to me.
So where's the profit in that ?? Sorry, but PP sounds a bit too much like 'spiritualism' to me.
So -- I have a question here. :)
If speaking in tongues is a viable entity today (since it was done at the time of Acts/ the apostles/ etc.), but personal prophecy (which also happened in the book of Acts), is not?? Who decides what is, and what is NOT valid, and by what criteria??
Can you justify one, and denigrate the other??
Please give me reasons for doing so. (I'm all ears!) ;)
Hi d! Given my agnostic position, I don't think any of it is valid. Or if it is, we have no real way of knowing that. Strangely enough though, I'd be interested in your scriptural references for personal prophecy. I can think of some isolated incidents but nothing that would justify a regular practice of it.
The 'poo' example is excellent allan. A rather vain foretelling, but I'd bet they're still talking about how great it was. It reminds me of the bible code. Funny how you can 'see' things when you look back over events that already happened.
Good points, pond. I forgot about the practice sessions. Now *there's* something I've never seen in the bible. I remember being told to practice tongues with interpretation too. But I can't remember if that was TWI, CES or both.
Thanks JJ...In 1 Corinth 14 the prophesying in a church service 'appears' (and I say appear because it does not go into specifics ) to be something that would 'hit the heart' of the person being spoken to , that seems to intimate 'where they are at ' at that particular point in time, not a future event still to 'happen'.
Well, if prophecy isn't "personal" then what good is it? is my question. Whether it's directed at an individual, or a group of people, what's the point if it doesn't strike a nerve, hit the heart?
I think it's another one of those things that TWI tried to put in a box.
And it's like anything else, it can be a blessing, or it can be abused.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
16
7
16
12
Popular Days
Apr 7
20
Apr 8
11
Apr 6
10
Apr 18
9
Top Posters In This Topic
ex10 16 posts
Belle 7 posts
dmiller 16 posts
allan w. 12 posts
Popular Days
Apr 7 2006
20 posts
Apr 8 2006
11 posts
Apr 6 2006
10 posts
Apr 18 2006
9 posts
dmiller
No problem here at all, Belle. :) Like Ex10 said -- I thought it better to be heard from them, rather than hear my viewpoint on it -- since then this thread would be about my perspective, rather than theirs. And since I don't have the time (these days) to really answer in depth -- I figured the links would answer questions more completely and thoroughly than I could.
I will say one thing here, about how they differ with twi about as pertains to Interpretation.
According to CES -- an interpretation of tongues should NEVER begin with *MY CHILDREN*.
OK -- what does that mean?? It means that the first time that men spoke in tongues there in Acts --
men spoke *the wonderful things of God* (Acts 2:11).
And then, when Cornelius and his crew received holy spirit, and spoke in tongues --
Peter and the others with him heard them *speak with tongues and magnify God*. (Acts 10:46).
Nowhere is it mentioned that it was a message *from God*, like docvic said it could be.
It was a message magnifying God, and since these are the first usages of it (ANYWHERE) --
it follows that all usages afterwards should follow the same pattern
(just like the use of the word *Elohim*/ twohoo boohoo/ etc.)
that docvic taught.
If docvic was so big on first usages -- he shoulda applied it to tongues and interpretation as well.
But he didn't.
The prophecies (yup -- personal ones) directed to folks both in the OT and the NT did start with --
MY PEOPLE (OT prophecies), or Thus sayeth the Holy Ghost (from Agabus Acts 21:11) --
but I don't see anywhere, that TONGUES started with these words,
as that would be a contradiction to the *first usage*.
In Acts 19 Paul wanders in to Ephesus, and finds *certain disciples* that were the *fruit* of Apollos.
According to docvic (and Acts bears it out) -- Apollos split for Corinth before he taught the folks at Epheseus
about holy spirit -- which he learned from Aquilla and Pricilla.
Paul shows up, shows them how to manifest something greater than the baptism of John, and in
Acts 19:6 -- it says they spoke in tongues and prophesied.
Nowhere does it say tongues is a message *from God*.
Everywhere is says prophecy is a message *from God*. And ---
Everywhere it says tongues magnifies God (so the message is *TO HIM*, not *FROM HIM*).
So there is a perspective (read IMO) where CES differs from twi.
Hope that works for ya. ;)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
templelady
Although I regard tongues as a method of communicating between different groups of people when needed, I certainly have no problem with the idea that it is used for praising God "though I speak with the tongues of men and angels..."
CES sounds like they are much more in harmony with scripture on this just MO
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
So -- tongues is merely communicating??? Why is it first mentioned in Acts, and not in the OT, and why is it always mentioned as a spiritual event?
Maybe I am missing something you are saying here.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Well -- let me back-track a little (if I may) -- tongues certainly was a *communication* thing, in Acts. That actually might have something to do for today as well -- hadn't thought of that point. :)
It was the Interpretation aspect of it, that CES teaches different from what docvic did.
Again -- I am a *long-distance* supporter of theirs, and what I posted above,
is what I have heard them teach.
Haven't heard CES teach it was for communication purposes,
but then there is that *way-brain* kicking in.
And thinking about it makes ya wanna go Hmmmmm.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
allan w.
so is there a better explanation for 1 Corinthians 14: 27 "Let them interpret the tongues" ?
and verse 13 same chapter " Let him that speaks in a tongue pray that he may interpret "?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JumpinJive
I find this 'interpretation' discussion very enlightening. The first time I heard John Lynn teach it, it blew me away. Wow, no wonder the TWI version was so uncomfortable to me. I wasn't doing it right! I at once felt relieved and excited. Maybe there was hope for me in the Christian life.
But I had to wonder how something so 'basic' could be taught incorrectly in the first place. Okay, maybe the docta's ego got the better of him. But if God is truly inspiring us during interpretation, how the heck could we screw it up? Wouldn't somebody, somewhere have felt the inspiration and rendered it correctly? Is the voice of the Almighty so weak that even those seeking him and trying to do his will can't hear it?
In the end, how interpretation, or pretty much any other doctrine from the bible is handled, is fundamentally one's opinion. There is no way to prove or disprove it either way. As Belle and ex10 noted, there are things more important than doctrine.
Thank God!
-JJ
Edited by JumpinJiveLink to comment
Share on other sites
ex10
Good point, JJ. My experience in TWI was that the interpretation of tongues was one of those points of contention. There were people who saw in the Bible that TWI's way of doing it contradicted scripture. However, the way's technique was taught, not anything else. So people were taught error, and "operated" that way.
Anybody who argued about it, or tried to change the official way teaching on the subject, was either hushed up, or shown the door. This was true on just about any matter.
When it comes to "manifestations" or anything along the lines of what we do with what is "available," (I cringe using that word, sorry, but it's the best way I can think of to put it) we have a choice to make. I believe VPW was correct in saying that we choose whether or not to operate. It's our free will choice. We can do it "correctly," the way God intended, or not. Some churches teach that the spirit of God "possesses" us when we choose to manifest his gift. So the "manifestation" is perfect.
I disagree with that belief. The words spoken, go through the filter of our own minds. If I have been taught incorrectly, it will influence my "operation" of the gift or manifestation. This is where sound doctrine comes in, and is so vitally important.
I believe that operating the spirit of God does not come "naturally," that it's something that we have to practice and work at, and strive to do the way the Lord intends. It's our free will choice. I think that's pretty evident in the scriptures. As we grow up in Christ, and spiritually mature, we get better and better at whatever our particular gifts and abilities may be.
And I do believe that each and every one of us is unique, with individual talents and abilities to offer the body of Christ. I know for a fact, for example, that some people find it easier to speak in tongues than others. Some are better at hearing the voice of God, some bolder at prophecy, etc. But we each have our own individual "calling" if you will.
When we are born again, we don't automatically start manifesting the power of God perfectly each and every time. Sure would be nice if we did. But we have to strive to have God's perspcetive, and his love, care, intentions, etc. when we act. I don't know about anybody else, but that's pretty much a daily struggle for me.
And we also need to figure out who we are uniquely in His church, and how we each fit into the grander scheme of things. Not always an easy task, unfortunately.
By the way, I didn't intend to say that doctrine is not important. I believe it's vitally important. But in and of itself, it's useless. We can have all the "truth" or "right doctrine" in the world, but if we don't act in accordance with it, what good is it? I Cor. 13 comes to mind. As well as the verse, "knowledge puffs up, but charity edifies." I can know an awful lot of "doctrine" but still be a total jerk. I think we all have experienced that in our former group.
I am not the most eloquent at explaining how I think about these things, but I hope I'm making sense.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JumpinJive
You're making sense, ex. I had no problem following your thoughts. To me though, I remember putting forth those same types of arguments when I couldn't explain something or other in real life that seemed so very clear in the bible. I felt like I was apologizing and making excuses all the time. It didn't get better after 20 years so I stopped trying to make it fit. I suppose that's one way to grow up! :)
Has anyone looked at CES' position on personal prophecy in more detail? I really did find that practice quite offensive. And how about Momentous? A lot of folks had a cow over that one. I don't think they are actively involved with Momentus any more but I'm not sure about the PP.
One other point on my mind: I loved the old CES forums. I learned a lot from them and the posters there really had me thinking in new directions. It was great! Then they decided to start censoring the content and eventually shut it down. They certainly have that right but that was very disappointing.
-JJ
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ex10
What's so offensive about it, JJ? if you don't mind me asking? Personal prophecy, I mean?
Yeah, on the other stuff. Sometimes, nobody around gets it, so you are left to your devices as to how to keep on keeping on. Frustrating...........
Edited by ex10Link to comment
Share on other sites
JumpinJive
It felt and sounded like a horoscope. General enough to be vaguely applicable and complimentary enough to be enticing and make you want to come back for more. It never had any real meaning, at least as far as I could tell. Yet people were making life-changing decisions based on it. People were reading things into it like who to date, who to marry and whether to take a job or not.
I raised my voice loudly one night after the 'group leader' (for lack of a better term) played a tape of his pp made at a leaderhip meeting for him. He might as well have drawn tarot cards or got his palm read. But he was willing to make life decisions based on it. Faith or foolishness? I never went back.
-JJ
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ex10
So why on earth would someone want to make something that is "personal" so public, is my question........
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
Pride?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Hmm. I wouldn't share any personal prophecy I received. I might talk about it, but I sure as shooting wouldn't play the tape for others to hear.
Meebe the guy wanted to use it as an intro to a teaching he was doing --- I don't know.
Pride certainly is a possibility too, though.
Edited by dmillerLink to comment
Share on other sites
JumpinJive
I agree. There was never anything about it (the incident or pp in general) that made sense to me. It seemed pride- and ego-based and I just had enough of that at the time.
-JJ
Link to comment
Share on other sites
pond
that is why id do not get involved with them any fruther jj
it was the same here
practice session on PP
practice sessions????
god needs practice telling someone eles what you need for you life?
it didnt make sense and then .. they would agrue about which one was right and which was wrong
depending on who like the other at the time.
a total mess.
Karen Ann Graser considers herself a prophet , they had made friends with a group that was big into it .
I personaly do not trust how it is handled at all and i also believe it can cause damage to folks .
they totaly leave God out of the picture.. all about what they can do with PP. who is better more intune etc..
nuts.
.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
allan w.
I still believe what VP said about personal prophecy and that is "God is big enough to tell you something first..."
That has kept me in good stead over the years, even in twi. I remember telling a corps brother, Bo Th**as that Selina and I had decided to quit the Family Corps and go home.
His reply to me was "if you're at peace about it, it's the right decision." !! I heard him and his wife Re**e are still in, I hope they haven't changed too much.
Anyway, back to 'personal prophecy'. I have been along to differn't churches where they do this and it's pretty much always the same.."thus saith God Almighty..you will be a mighty warrior for the Lord..or..you will preach before thousands...or..(fill in the blank). Often I'm sure it appeals to peoples egos. I was at one meeting where a lady shared that a few weeks earlier she had been prophesied over and had been told that this person could see her house surrounded by poo. About a week later her sewerage backed up !
So where's the profit in that ?? Sorry, but PP sounds a bit too much like 'spiritualism' to me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
So -- I have a question here. :)
If speaking in tongues is a viable entity today (since it was done at the time of Acts/ the apostles/ etc.), but personal prophecy (which also happened in the book of Acts), is not?? Who decides what is, and what is NOT valid, and by what criteria??
Can you justify one, and denigrate the other??
Please give me reasons for doing so. (I'm all ears!) ;)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JumpinJive
Hi d! Given my agnostic position, I don't think any of it is valid. Or if it is, we have no real way of knowing that. Strangely enough though, I'd be interested in your scriptural references for personal prophecy. I can think of some isolated incidents but nothing that would justify a regular practice of it.
The 'poo' example is excellent allan. A rather vain foretelling, but I'd bet they're still talking about how great it was. It reminds me of the bible code. Funny how you can 'see' things when you look back over events that already happened.
Good points, pond. I forgot about the practice sessions. Now *there's* something I've never seen in the bible. I remember being told to practice tongues with interpretation too. But I can't remember if that was TWI, CES or both.
-JJ
Link to comment
Share on other sites
allan w.
Thanks JJ...In 1 Corinth 14 the prophesying in a church service 'appears' (and I say appear because it does not go into specifics ) to be something that would 'hit the heart' of the person being spoken to , that seems to intimate 'where they are at ' at that particular point in time, not a future event still to 'happen'.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ex10
Well, if prophecy isn't "personal" then what good is it? is my question. Whether it's directed at an individual, or a group of people, what's the point if it doesn't strike a nerve, hit the heart?
I think it's another one of those things that TWI tried to put in a box.
And it's like anything else, it can be a blessing, or it can be abused.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
SafariVista
[deleted by request]
Edited by ModaustinLink to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Hey there Safari. :) CES stopped *endorsing* Momentus about 10 years ago.
CES has changed their name to Spirit and Truth Fellowship (not something I agree with),
because they are now a *full-blown fellowship ministry*.
They have *evolved* (if you will), from info only to their present status.
I don't think the name change was due to adverse exposure, but I could be mistaken about that.
I do have them on tape here talking about the name change,
and it seems to be because of their change as a ministry --
and not due to any negative exposure they may have incurred from the past.
Just my IMO.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
well David... it's not like they'd come out and say that's why (if it was the reason)...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Well -- for what it is worth --- I've always been on the fringes of CES,
but have watched them slowly develop from an *information* based group,
to the full-fledged *ministry* (some can read *church* here) that they are today.
Personally --- I liked the old days, when they only offered quality teachings,
and weren't trying to be *everything twi should have been*, like I see them doing now.
Their reasons for the name change (actually) make sense,
since they are no longer the Org they started out as.
again -- just my IMO.
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.