Speaking in Tongues, from God, or something from Satan? Options

[Green Cochoa]

NOTE: The contents of this post is intended only for those among us who are grateful to God for the gift of the Spirit of Phopecy and who believe in its manifestation in the ministry and writings of Ellen G. White and are willing to accept guidance and counsel and insight and correction and help for our spiritual life and growth from God through her writings even if some of our dearly held views are contradicted by her testimonies. All others are welcome to simply ignore it.

I guess you should also have said that your comments are only intended for those who do not wish to debate you on Ellen White!

BTW, I thought your comments were fair.

[saharafan]

Thank you for gathering and presenting these EGW selections. I believe they are applicable to the discussion on the gift of tongues that is going on here.

I appreciate your introduction as well. My take on it was that you weren't trying to force Sister White down anyone's throat. What I don't understand is the statement that I have highlighted. What do you see as our "dearly held views that are contradicted by her testimonies"?

PB, you did understand me correctly
What I mean with the phrase bolded by you is simply that in a general sense we should always be open and willing to be corrected by God's prophets and their writings (for me this includes the Bible and the writings of EGW), never mind how dearly we love certain personaly held views or beliefs (like about speaking in tongues) or interpretations. I speak from personal experience; in my past, I sometimes was quite sure of a certain meaning of a certain difficult Bible passage or of a certain detailed theological view that I liked, but further studies showed me that I was wrong, and sometimes it was Ellen White's writings that had corrected me. I expect more experiences like that on minor issues also in the future. This general principle I would like to apply also to this situation of modern speaking in tongues in the pentecostal way. Even if somebody is personally accustomed to it and practises it and loves it and thinks the Holy Spirit is speaking through him and experiences an emotional high and feels elevated to God or whatever else, these emotions are not a proof that this experience really comes from God, and we should be willing to accept being corrected by God's prophets (i.e. the Bible and sister White's writings).
We should have a similar attitude like, and act like the chosen and annointed king David when prophet Nathan pointed his error of behavior out to him, and not like another "chosen and annointed one" of our days who seems to deny every truth about his errors of behavior that are pointed out to him, based on and supported by inspired precepts (e.g. God's law). (Note: I don't want to equate glossolalia here with sin, the point I want to make in this comparison is the reaction of the person confronted with the divine truth: accepting it and confessing and correcting one's errors of whatever kind, or denying it and excusing and defending them.)

By the way, if anyone could show that I misapply those given quotes of Ellen Withe to present day glossolalia as it is practized by many Pentecostals and Charismatics and also a few Adventists, I certainly would accept that. The burden of proof clearly remains with those who do not agree with me on the appropriate application of those quotes to this current phenomenon, however.

This post has been edited by saharafan: Sep 23 2006, 09:37 PM

[simplysaved]

Agreed....

I sure didn't read saharafan's post as him claiming to be inspired. However, I believe that the Holy Spirit can bring to our minds texts, passages, etc. and that certainly can be considered "inspiration". Just my humble opinion.

[Seraphim7]

I sure didn't read saharafan's post as him claiming to be inspired. However, I believe that the Holy Spirit can bring to our minds texts, passages, etc. and that certainly can be considered "inspiration". Just my humble opinion.

Bear in mind, how you read is not how "everybody" read it.

[awesumtenor]

PB, you did understand me correctly

I understood you corrctly too; for you to say your comments in a public forum are intended only to those who share your perspective is an attempt to limit the scope of discussion of what you say.

If Calvin or Di or Clay had posted with the disclaimer you put on your post, people would have immediately been up in arms about censorship. Your intent was to minimize the expressing of opinions that differed from your own, period simply because you didnt feel like engaging in that side of the discussion. What I am saying to you is that once you post, it is no longer up to you who responds; it is up to the reader of your post to determine if he will or will not respond and what you want is irrelevant. You retain the prerogative to respond or not to any response to what you post... but it's not your call to say who should or who should not respond; you want that call, start your own forum and invite only those who see things your way to post there.

What I mean with phrase bolded by you is simply that in a general sense we should always be open and willing to be corrected by God's prophets and their writings (for me this includes the Bible and the writings of EGW), never mind how dearly we love certain personaly held views or beliefs (like about speaking in tongues) or interpretations.

That is a door that swings both ways; you have to be mindful of your own well loved personally held view... like the one you have regarding how Sis. White's writings should be applied... speaking of which there is still a question in your court which I am waiting for you to respond to... and no, categorizing me in whatever pigeonhole you find convenient is not going to work, so let's not play that particular game.

I speak from personal experience

As does everyone else here... so that and a dollar will get you a cup of postum... by itself, however...

in my past, I sometimes was quite sure of a certain meaning of a certain difficult Bible passage or of a certain detailed theological view that I liked, but further studies showed me that I was wrong, and sometimes it was Ellen White's writings that had corrected me. I expect more experiances like that on minor issues also for the future.

You could possibly have such an experience in your present if you werent so closed minded about this issue; re-read what you say above in light of this thread... you've gone back to the future... or at least to the present.

This general principle I would like to apply also to this situation of modern speaking in tongues in the pentecostal way. Even if somebody is personally accustomed to it and practises it and loves it and thinks the Holy Spirit is speaking through him and experiences an emotional high and feels elevated to God or whatever else, these emotions are not a proof that this experience really comes from God, and we should be willing to accept being corrected by God's prophets (i.e. the Bible and sister White's writings).

The problem here, aside from your inclination toward pontification is that you, judged by the same standard are as guilty as those you decry, if not more. Those who hold the differing opinion on this subject are not the ones trying to keep you from offering your opinion on the matter. The one trying to say he is right and no further discussion is required ( which is hubris in the extreme, IMO ) is you, my brother... and before you ask, if you read through the various threads where this subject has come up in this forum, you will find that I hold a position not far from your own.

It's not your position I have problems with because I share it... it's how you are claiming to prove it's veracity combined with your attempt to squash discourse... it's just wrong.

We should have a similar attitude like, and act like the chosen and annointed king David when prophet Nathan pointed his error of behavior out to him, and not like another "chosen and annointed one" of our days who seems to deny every truth about his errors of behavior that are pointed out to him, based on and supported by inspired precepts (e.g. God's law).

If David had your attitude, he'd have never been told his error... You are far closer in this, at least, to Danny than David because you are only willing to consider the scenario where you are right and anyone who differs is wrong... and then you compound it by basically saying since we know they are wrong their perspective has no value.

By the way, if anyone could show that I misapply those given quotes of Ellen Withe to present day glossolalia as it is practized by many Pentecostals and Charismatics and also a few Adventists, I certainly would accept that. The burden of proof clearly remains with those who do not agree with me on the appropriate application of those quotes to this current phenomenon, however.

No. If anything both sides have an equal burden of proof; this is not a legal proceeding and your position is not the one presumed true going into the presentation of arguments. You have not proven a thing yet because your so called proof gendered questions that you have not yet even bothered to acknowledge much less address.

Your serve.


In His service,
Mr. J

[princessdi]

That is because it was a passive aggressive shot. The ones for whom the shot is i not intended almost never recognize it for what it is. Because it is so subtle, then the person can also feign innocence....I only meant..... The problem here is there was no need for a disclaimer if no slight was intended. The fact that you two don't see it gives legitimacy to the claim of innoccence. However, the disclaimer was meant to "exlude" anyone who's appreciationand inteperpretation of EGW did not equal Saharafan's. This has been predetermined by prior discussions by those who challenged Saharafan's posts.

Agreed....

I sure didn't read saharafan's post as him claiming to be inspired. However, I believe that the Holy Spirit can bring to our minds texts, passages, etc. and that certainly can be considered "inspiration". Just my humble opinion.

[simplysaved]

No it was not...but you are entitled to your "opinion".

That is because it was a passive aggressive shot. The ones for whom the shot is i not intended almost never recognize it for what it is. Because it is so subtle, then the person can also feign innocence....I only meant..... The problem here is there was no need for a disclaimer if no slight was intended. The fact that you two don't see it gives legitimacy to the claim of innoccence. However, the disclaimer was meant to "exlude" anyone who's appreciationand inteperpretation of EGW did not equal Saharafan's. This has been predetermined by prior discussions by those who challenged Saharafan's posts.

[awesumtenor]

I sure didn't read saharafan's post as him claiming to be inspired. However, I believe that the Holy Spirit can bring to our minds texts, passages, etc. and that certainly can be considered "inspiration". Just my humble opinion.

And I am sure not bewildered... peacefully or otherwise... so how you chose to read it has no bearing on how I read it, does it...

In His service,
Mr. J

[Nuggie]

NOTE: The contents of this post is intended only for those among us who are grateful to God for the gift of the Spirit of Phopecy and who believe in its manifestation in the ministry and writings of Ellen G. White and are willing to accept guidance and counsel and insight and correction and help for our spiritual life and growth from God through her writings even if some of our dearly held views are contradicted by her testimonies. All others are welcome to simply ignore it.
Please read also SELECTED MESSAGES, BOOK 3, PP. 362-379; BOOK 2, PP. 40-47

Your "disclaimer" is a little disingenuous because you know and I know that anyone who opens the thread will automatically see the post so there's no way anyone could ignore the quotes you posted whether they agree with them or not. I don't consider myself a member of the pro- or anti-EGW groups...I'm somewhere in the middle and still trying to figure her out...and even I had to raise an eyebrow because there is an undertone of elitism and condescension here whether you intended it or not. So, in the future you may be better off just putting the quotes out there and letting the readers decide what do to after that. Just an observation.

This post has been edited by Nuggie: Sep 23 2006, 10:26 PM

[princessdi]

Uh excuse me? Now, that is your "opinion" also. So far, only two of you dont' see it, and you both agree with his/her inperpretation and gravity of EGW and that particular reading. However, I don't expect Saharafan to admit to it either.

No it was not...but you are entitled to your "opinion".

[simplysaved]

Fact. God and simplysaved (that would be me) know the motives and intents behind the post I made....

Uh excuse me? Now, that is your "opinion" also. So far, only two of you dont' see it, and you both agree with his/her inperpretation and gravity of EGW and that particular reading. However, I don't expect Saharafan to admit to it either.

[princessdi]

The post I referred to as passive agressive post post was by Saharafan, not you. You are just the one who didn't see their motive, I have no comment on yours.

Fact. God and simplysaved (that would be me) know the motives and intents behind the post I made....

This post has been edited by princessdi: Sep 23 2006, 10:37 PM

[saharafan]

While your intent may have been good, to quote George Bernard Shaw, "the road to hell is paved with good intentions..." As I noted before, you are not in a position to say who does or does not accept EGW in the overall; individual poster may have stated such specifically to you but beyond that where you have differed with others is not in whether or not they 'accept EGW' but rather in how you choose to apply her writings and whether said application is correct. Anything, posted by anyone, is left up to the reader to do with as he will and if they choose to differ with you, that is not an issue of personal animosity, nor does it mean they perceive you to be a bad person because they agree... so there is no need to be defensive and to come out of your corner swinging.

There will be disagreement and occasionally said disagreement will be passionate; that is the nature of this forum... but it's not personal, even if some are inclined to take it personally. Your disclaimer comes off as " this is for people who agree with me; those who dont, your opinions dont count because I wasnt talking to you in the first place"... and there are those who like to believe that this is the republican national convention where only long time, card carrying conservative ideologues who toe the .org party line need present themselves to say anything... the problem with such thinking is that is not how things are done here and dissent is not only allowed, it is expected ( or at least should be ). That doesnt mean you are obligated to alter what you believe one iota, however.
For one who claims to have not taken disagreement as a personal attack, you sure sound like one who felt disagreement was a personal attack ... your application of this is problematic in this wise. If what EGW said in the quoted text can and should be extrapolated to a universal application... IOW if her assessment of the meetings spoken of should be applied to every time there is ecstatic utterance, what of the rest of what she writes? Should it be viewed as universally applicable as well? What about a ststement like:

"Let none be educated to look to Sister White, but to the mighty God, who gives instruction to Sister White."--Letter 11, 1894. {3SM 29.3}

By the 'cut and dried' approach you have presented here, this should be universally applied as well... but if it were universally applied, you would be wrong in even presenting quotes from Sis. White to bolster your position. There are other places, where one can find passages from her writings to support the stance of both sides of an issue; which one is correct?

It is not as plain as you claim once one goes deeper than the varnish...
Since I fall into neither camp, my question to you stands.

In His service,
Mr. J

awesumtenor, I am sorry but I simply don't understand your point. Maybe it is my limited knowledge of English; maybe it is that you might be far more intelligent than I; but what I guess is that you have simply greaty misunderstood me, and you still do so.

Do you want to say that I am going to hell? What do you base your judgment on?
(This question is an example of how you misinterpret my posting; I just applied the same kind of misinterpretation to yours...)

You seem to imply that you already know me better than I know myself.
You seem to "know" that I am intentionally saying something which I myself even don't know that I am saying it...
Your understanding of my "disclaimer", as you call my introductory "Note", that I would have posted the quotations only "for those who agree with me", doesn't make any sense to me if the agreement you had in mind concerns the "speaking in tongues" part; there wouldn't have been any reason in my mind to quote those quotations to people who agree with me anyway, I obviously quoted them for people who are not agreeing with my view but believe in the writings of the Spirit of Prophecy through sister White (just as I have stated in that "Note"), so that they can make up their own mind based on those quotes, or with the help of them; If the "agreement" you had in mind was about people who agree with me concerning my understanding of the inspiration and authority of Ellen White, you are correct, and this is clearly expressed in my "Note" and I won't change that position. I don't judge anyone by that statement, however; it is neutral. But I don't understand why you would criticise me for that because to me it even seems to be logic that I didn't quote those quotations for people who don't accept Ellen White and don't believe in her.
You still seem to assume that I posted those quotations "to bolster my position" in the sense of "proving that I am right"; perhaps you can read something in my subconsciousness that is hidden to me? It is exactly in order to exclude this assumption that I included the "Note" in the original post, and I again tried to make it even clearer in my first response to you.
I just can not see what "question" to me you have in mind, maybe because it's quite late and I am very tired...

[PeacefulBe]

And I am sure not bewildered... peacefully or otherwise... so how you chose to read it has no bearing on how I read it, does it...

In His service,
Mr. J

Yeowch! Nope, awesumtenor, you and I can read it as we read it. BTW, the only thing I am bewildered about in my life at the moment is what to believe about this whole 3abn situation. (yes, that's right...I have figured out all of the other mysteries of the universe. )(Not reallly, just kidding...)

awesumtenor, I am sorry but I simply don't understand your point. Maybe it is my limited knowledge of English; maybe it is that you might be far more intelligent than I; but what I guess is that you have simply greaty misunderstood me, and you still do so.

Saharafan, should we call it a draw and everybody goes home happy til another day? It IS late and all of you are so incredibly wise and have stated your cases eloquently. As for me, my head is spinning and if I post any further I may show just how unlearned I am.

I do so appreciate the Sister White quotes you posted. What great advice!

[awesumtenor]

awesumtenor, I am sorry but I simply don't understand your point. Maybe it is my limited knowledge of English; maybe it is that you might be far more intelligent than I; but what I guess is that you have simply greaty misunderstood me, and you still do so.

My point is as plain as it can be made... I believe I have been direct to the point of bluntness. If you want the same perspective expressed in a less blunt manner, read Nuggie's post in this thread...

your limited knowledge of english? There are plenty of people here whose first language is not english who have no problem comprehending my points...should I re-phrase it in Urdu for you or something?

Whether I am more intelligent is moot.

Do you want to say that I am going to hell? What do you base your judgment on?
(This question is an example of how you misinterpret my posting; I just applied the same kind of misinterpretation to yours...)

This is a straw man; you want to claim I'm misinterpreting your post, be specific.

You seem to imply that you already know me better than I know myself.

You seem to not know the difference between imply and infer. Your having inferred something does not mean that I actually implied it... might want to put that on the better english comprehension "to-do" list...

You seem to "know" that I am intentionally saying something which I myself even don't know that I am saying it...

I know what you said; it's there in black and white. You say you meant something other that what you said... but if you meant something else, you should have said that rather than what you actually said....

Your understanding of my "disclaimer", as you call my introductory "Note", that I would have posted the quotations only "for those who agree with me", doesn't make any sense to me if the agreement you had in mind concerns the "speaking in tongues" part; there wouldn't have been any reason in my mind to quote those quotations to people who agree with me anyway, I obviously quoted them for people who are not agreeing with my view but believe in the writings of the Spirit of Prophecy through sister White (just as I have stated in that "Note"), so that they can make up their own mind based on those quotes, or with the help of them; If the "agreement" you had in mind was about people who agree with me concerning my understanding of the inspiration and authority of Ellen White, you are correct, and this is clearly expressed in my "Note" and I won't change that position. I don't judge anyone by that statement, however; it is neutral. But I don't understand why you would criticise me for that because to me it even seems to be logic that I didn't quote those quotations for people who don't accept Ellen White and don't believe in her.
You still seem to assume that I posted those quotations "to bolster my position" in the sense of "proving that I am right"; perhaps you can read something in my subconsciousness that is hidden to me? It is exactly in order to exclude this assumption that I included the "Note" in the original post, and I again tried to make it even clearer in my first response to you.
I just can not see what "question" to me you have in mind, maybe because it's quite late and I am very tired...

Whatever. Re-read my post particularly the part about your application of EGW being problematic... and if you are still having problems with the english comprehension thing I hear hooked on phonics works...

In His service,
Mr. J

The post I referred to as passive agressive post post was by Saharafan, not you. You are just the one who didn't see their motive, I have no comment on yours.

OOOOOH OOOOOOOOOOH I have a comment!!!!!!!!!!

In His service,
Mr. J