Being slain in the Spirit?

[Bible-boy]

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 ]

 

[Ray Berrian]

Wake Forest, N.C. brother,

Yes, I agree also with No. 8. But, I do believe many people rob the meaning of the Book of Revelation or neglect studying it because they believe most of it is symbolical rather than the Lord giving us a basic format of the way His human history will come to a conclusion. And yet I also understand there are certain phrases/symbolic words that we probably will never understand.

 

[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 ]

 

[Pete]

Originally posted by Ray Berrian:
Pete,

So because of one woman's medical condition you are saying all Christians at the altar have "Romberg's problems.

Ray, your selective reading is really starting to worry me mate Then again you have been doing it with the Bible so I guess I'm in good company I'ld suggest Romberg's Test to check for problems, but if you fell over during it you'ld probably say it was God again

In previous post I gave what happened to mum, then added that she "asked the doctor a bit about it and he said that most people can only stand a minute or two like that before falling over..."

Not every Christian at the altar or at Rev. Hinn's services have their eyes closed.

"Not every"...Nice cop-out Most I've seen do (either on Benny or in real life at alphabet soup churches), but as "Benny Jehovah" is a false teacher anyway anything remotely connected to him is suspect.

I was in Bible College sitting Indian style when the Lord put me down.....For me to deny this, for me, it would be like blaspheming the Spirit of God.

Mate, if the experience was God I doubt it would have produced all the attempts at Bible-bending seen so far...

Read: Acts 9:4; 10:10; 11:5; 22:7; 22:17; and Revelation 1:17.

Here we go round the mulberry bush, the mulberry bush, the mulberry bush...

To try and compensate for selective reading here it is again: Saul was not a Christian when he fell. Acts 9:4 Saul fell, the voice asked "why do you persecute me?" Acts 9:5 (just after Acts 9:4, hopefully it's in your Bible as well) Saul asks "Who are you, Lord?" ("Who are you, Lord?" would a Christian ask that?)

Same as above for all other references listed for Paul.

Revelation 1:17: John fell etc. Revelation 1:19 (two verses later, check to see if it's in your Bible) Jesus told John to write what he sees. As I asked in my Billy-Bob Smith's letter to Auntie Doris example further up the thread, where are all these extra books of the Bible that should be getting written today if people are having the same experience as John?


Good to see you agree with Bible-boy's point 7 Ray, I think B-b might be talking about the UTV though... (Un-Twisted Version)...

Bible-boy, for the record I'm with you so far, just waiting to see where you are going

 

[Ray Berrian]

Pete,

When I was twelve years old I realized Saul did not say his words that we count as a true conversion to Christ. Nevertheless, the same God who gives the saints these experiences is the same as the One Who drew close to Saul in the form of a bright light. The result is the same, two seconds before Paul was saved or whether it is a subsequent spiritual experience.

I have noted the Scriptural proof of this experience above while many of you like to deny the Word of God in this part of Scripture.

Those of us who have experienced this experience in the Holy Spirit, really know the difference between this and a medical problem. You have no idea unless you have been 'slain in the Spirit.' It is a soul filling and beautiful experience with God as He pours what feels like 'liquid love' into your life.

Medical problems and this spiritual connection to God are poles apart.

 

[Ray Berrian]

Sorry I meant to say, 'When I was twelve years old I realized Saul did not say his words that we count as a true conversion to Christ, until he was saved and personally committed and connected, if you will, to Jesus.

 

[Bible-boy]

Can we agree on point number 9?

 

[larry9179]

Been there and done it. Once you've experienced being slain in the spirit, you'll know the difference between mass hypnosis and the presence of the Spirit.

Hey Bible-boy - I'm right down the road from you in Butner.

 

[tamborine lady]

I just want to interupt here to issue a warning to any who are just reading or participating in this thread.

Remeber, line upon line and precept upon precept can also be used to lead you to the wrong conclusion.

Please, think before you leap.

Selah,

Tam

[ January 27, 2006, 08:29 AM: Message edited by: Pastor_Bob ]

 

[Johnv]

I've never understood the whole "slain in the spirit" thing. I certainly can find no scripture that uses this term or any resemblance thereof.

 

[rbell]

So, what would happen if I went to, let's say, a Benny Hinn crusade...and I refused to go down when my forehead was slapped.

Would he beat me across the stage, until I was out of sight?

And if he did, would it be unethical for me to go get back in line and tell him, "Now I need healing. I have a headache."

Just a little gas on the fire...

 

[standingfirminChrist]

Webster's 1828 Dictionary defines the word 'slain' to mean killed.

Just the fact that many who are supposedly 'slain in the spirit' are still committing sins (we all do), makes the phrase 'slain in the spirit' a nonsensical phrase.

One who is killed is not going to get back up, save throught the Holy Spirit. The devil can certainly imitate, but he cannot resurrect that which is dead. Only Christ has that capability. And Christ is not going to resurrect sin in someone's life.

 

[Johnv]

I concur with SFC wholeheartedly.

 

[Ray Berrian]

Johnv,

Do not immediately think you have found a new spiritual nugget. The Bible does not use the words, 'slain in the Spirit' and neither does God use the word Trinity, as to do with the Godhead

.

You said, 'I've never understood the whole "slain in the spirit" thing. I certainly can find no scripture that uses this term or any resemblance thereof.'

Berrian, Th.D.

 

[Ray Berrian]

larry9179,

I am sure that you concur with me that 'slain' merely means that it happens so quickly and without your knowing it, that it is as though one was slain.

If these people who are against the working of the Holy Spirit, ever have it happen to them, they might give us a new phrase to use in describing the ministry of the second Person of the Godhead.

What are you thinking?

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by Ray Berrian:
Do not immediately think you have found a new spiritual nugget. The Bible does not use the words, 'slain in the Spirit' and neither does God use the word Trinity, as to do with the Godhead.

Scripture clearly supports the existence of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. I can find no scripture that supports the concept of being slain in the spirit. I'm open to being proven differently and changing my mind.

 

[webdog]

If these people who are against the working of the Holy Spirit, ever have it happen to them, they might give us a new phrase to use in describing the ministry of the second Person of the Godhead.

...but why would I have to go to an AOG, COC or pentecostal church to experience it? Why doesn't it happen in my church? I believe 100% wholeheartedly in the working of the Holy Spirit. Why hasn't my pastor or anyone in our church for that matter been "slain"? I think this is what is meant by "test the spirits"...

 

[Ray Berrian]

Johnv,

You might go to page 15--my third post down the page. I have listed the Scripture that supports the effecual working of the Holy Spirit in the lives of people as they are being converted to Christ and the Apostle John who saw Christ and '. . . fell at His feet as dead.' Then the Lord placed His hand on John and said, 'Fear not . . .' [Revelation 1:17].

 

[standingfirminChrist]

Good question, webdog...

The Pentecostal and Charismatic apparently have a market on the Holy Spirit and its manifestations, even though the Bible teaches us that God is not a respector of persons.

As I have posted in the past, if one can show scriptural proof that one actually fell backward when accepting a touch from the Lord, I will accept it. But so far, through the many pages I have seen so far, and the Written Word, I cannot find it.

 

[Ray Berrian]

webdog,

The Lord will only minister to those who are open to the Spirit of God--generally speaking. And yet I am sure that He is sovereign and can autocratically minister to people as He desires to reveal Himself [I Corinthians 12:11].

What would happen if in your church someone spoke in tongues and another brother interpreted the message in tongues?

Do you think your pastor or lay Elders would remove them from the service of Divine worship?