Being slain in the Spirit?

As best as I can tell we have agreed on the following principles:

1. God chose to speak to mankind (by means of His audible voice or Divine visions) for the following reasons:

A. The progressive revelation of Himself to His creation.

B. The progressive revelation of His Word (the Bible).

C. To guide and direct His people.

2. Then we also agreed that points A and C (above) are directly inter-connected to point B (above). Therefore, the progressive revelation of God's Word (the Bible) was the primary reason for God's choosing to speak to mankind.

3. There is no more progressive revelation of God’s Word because:

A. The canon of Scripture is complete/closed.

B. God has fully revealed Himself in His Word and in the person of Jesus Christ (when I say fully I mean as fully as He intends to do so).

C. Therefore, there is no more progressive revelation of His Word.

4. God never changes (Mal. 3:6; Heb. 1:12). Therefore, what we see Him doing throughout the Scriptures is what we can reasonably expect Him to continue doing throughout human history and throughout eternity.

5. When God finishes something He ceases to continue doing that thing (based upon Gen. 2:1-3 and Rev. 22:18-19).

A. God has finished revealing Himself through His Word and in the person of Jesus Christ.

B. The canon of Scripture is complete and closed.

C. Therefore, God has ceased to speak to mankind (for the time being) by means of His audible voice and/or Divine visions (the way He spoke to the OT Prophets and some of the NT Apostles).

6. God's Word (the Bible) is our sole and final authority for all doctrinal positions.

7. Since the Bible is our sole and final authority for all doctrinal positions (and objective truth), we agree that if our subjective personal experiences do not line up with the clear objective truth of the Word we must reject our experiences (or understanding/interpretation of them) as error and embrace the objective truth of the Bible. In other words, we can never accept our personal subjective experiences instead of the objective truth of the Bible if there is a contradiction between the two.

Now let’s move on to the next question/principle and hopefully continue in agreement.

8. A sound hermeneutical approach to the Scripture requires that we rely on a literal, historical grammatical, reading and understanding of the text. The only exception to this rule being when the context of a passage indicates otherwise such as in certain O.T. prophecies, the parables, and the Book of Revelation, or when the passage itself makes it clear that it is speaking metaphorically (e.g. Ps. 98:8; or Isa. 55:12, clearly rivers and trees do not literally have hands with which to clap).

A. Eisogesis—that is adding words and/or meanings that are not clearly present in the text in order to force our presuppositions upon the Scripture is unacceptable. We must allow the Scripture to speak for itself.

B. Exegesis—that is allowing the Scripture to speak for itself without forcing outside words and/or meanings upon the text results in proper interpretation and correct exposition of the Word.

C. Therefore, sound hermeneutics and solid exegesis must be employed to insure that we arrive at the proper interpretation and correct exposition of the Bible.

Can we agree on point number 8 and its associated sub-points?

[ January 25, 2006, 01:32 AM: Message edited by: Bible-boy ]

 

As best as I can tell we have now agreed on the following principles:

1. God chose to speak to mankind (by means of His audible voice or Divine visions) for the following reasons:

A. The progressive revelation of Himself to His creation.

B. The progressive revelation of His Word (the Bible).

C. To guide and direct His people.

2. Then we also agreed that points A and C (above) are directly inter-connected to point B (above). Therefore, the progressive revelation of God's Word (the Bible) was the primary reason for God's choosing to speak to mankind.

3. There is no more progressive revelation of God’s Word because:

A. The canon of Scripture is complete/closed.

B. God has fully revealed Himself in His Word and in the person of Jesus Christ (when I say fully I mean as fully as He intends to do so).

C. Therefore, there is no more progressive revelation of His Word.

4. God never changes (Mal. 3:6; Heb. 1:12). Therefore, what we see Him doing throughout the Scriptures is what we can reasonably expect Him to continue doing throughout human history and throughout eternity.

5. When God finishes something He ceases to continue doing that thing (based upon Gen. 2:1-3 and Rev. 22:18-19).

A. God has finished revealing Himself through His Word and in the person of Jesus Christ.

B. The canon of Scripture is complete and closed.

C. Therefore, God has ceased to speak to mankind (for the time being) by means of His audible voice and/or Divine visions (the way He spoke to the OT Prophets and some of the NT Apostles).

6. God's Word (the Bible) is our sole and final authority for all doctrinal positions.

7. Since the Bible is our sole and final authority for all doctrinal positions (and objective truth), we agree that if our subjective personal experiences do not line up with the clear objective truth of the Word we must reject our experiences (or understanding/interpretation of them) as error and embrace the objective truth of the Bible. In other words, we can never accept our personal subjective experiences instead of the objective truth of the Bible if there is a contradiction between the two.

8. A sound hermeneutical approach to the Scripture requires that we rely on a literal, historical grammatical, reading and understanding of the text. The only exception to this rule being when the context of a passage indicates otherwise such as in certain O.T. prophecies, the parables, and the Book of Revelation, or when the passage itself makes it clear that it is speaking metaphorically (e.g. Ps. 98:8; or Isa. 55:12, clearly rivers and trees do not literally have hands with which to clap).

A. Eisogesis—that is adding words and/or meanings that are not clearly present in the text in order to force our presuppositions upon the Scripture is unacceptable. We must allow the Scripture to speak for itself.

B. Exegesis—that is allowing the Scripture to speak for itself without forcing outside words and/or meanings upon the text results in proper interpretation and correct exposition of the Word.

C. Therefore, sound hermeneutics and solid exegesis must be employed to insure that we arrive at the proper interpretation and correct exposition of the Bible.

Now let’s move on to the next question/principle and hopefully continue in agreement. This one is not so much a biblical principle as it is a principle of logic. However, because God has created us in His image with strong logical minds and communicated with us in a logical written form (the Bible) it is extremely applicable to the subject at hand.

9. In logic the law of non-contradiction judges as false any proposition “P” asserting that both proposition “Q” and its denial, proposition “not-Q,” are true at the exact same time and in the exact same respect. In the words of Aristotle, "One cannot say of something that it is and that it is not in the same respect and at the same time."
Therefore, during the course of our future discussions in this thread it would be a violation of the law of non-contradiction to say that one of the points/principles to which we have agreed is both true and untrue in the same respect and at the same time. Furthermore, we agree that any violation of the law of non-contradiction makes our entire line of related argumentation invalid and/or false. Can we agree on point number 9?

[ January 25, 2006, 01:37 AM: Message edited by: Bible-boy ]

 

Can we agree on point number 9?