Being Slain in the Spirit? Part Two

Hello Tam,

Evidently I did not make myself clear, or you just misunderstood what I was saying. I am not asking for you to post more Scripture that you claim supports SITS. However, since you have been bold enough to charge that I have engaged in eisegesis throughout this thread, I am asking you to:

1. Quote from my posts when you believe I have eisegeted the text of Scripture.

2. Fully explain how what I said abuses the text of Scripture by engaging in eisegesis. FYI eisegesis means that someone has added outside words or meanings, which are clearly not present in the actual text, in order to force a particular interpretation upon the said text so that they can maintain their presupposition (in this case regarding a doctrinal position).

3. Then provide the proper exegesis and interpretation of that same text using sound hermeneutical principles. FYI exegesis means that you allow the text, in its full context, to speak for itself without adding outside words or meaning which would force a different meaning upon said text. Basically, solid exegesis is derived by applying a literal, historical, grammatical reading and understanding to the text in question.

If you are unable to do these three things which would verify your charge that I have engaged in eisegesis, then I expect you to withdraw the groundless charge and apologize for making a false charge against a fellow Christian.

Since the Bible does not even hint that SITS indeed does happen you are asking me to do the impossible. However, before you start to think that you have driven me into the fallacy of arguing from silence please consider the following:

1. Is it your position that we can make up anything we want, so long as the Bible does not address it, and claim that it is biblical?

2. The Bible uses the argument from silence in the exact same way that I am using it. The writer of the book of Hebrews clearly says that Jesus could not function as a priest while on earth (Heb. 8:4). So we ask why could Jesus not function as priest while He was here on earth? The answer is because the Lord was from the tribe of Judah, and the law “said nothing” (i.e., was silent) regarding priests from Judah (Heb. 7:14).

3. God has not been silent about His silence. The Bible, God's Word, warns us not to go beyond that which has been written:

4. There are occasions when the argument from silence is appropriate during logical debate. Likewise, there are occasions when it is inappropriate during logical debate. The key is to be able to recognize which type is appropriate and which is inappropriate.

For example: It is an inappropriate use of the argument from silence to claim that because Paul never mentions the virgin birth of Christ that he was ignorant of it. The reason this is an inappropriate use of the argument from silence is that there may well be other reasons why Paul does not mention the event. It is possible that he may have not considered it important to his line of reasoning. Likewise, it is possible that he referred to it in texts that have now been lost (and no I am not arguing for an open canon here). However, the argument from silence is not fallacious if it is used to prove that Paul may have been ignorant of the virgin birth of Christ. We are certain that Paul knew of Christ’s resurrection because he mentions it. However, because he never mentions the virgin birth it is not certain that he knew of it. Therefore, it is reasonable to say that he may have been ignorant of it.

It is not inappropriate to acknowledge that God’s word does not use the phrase “slain in the Spirit,” and that there are no Scriptures that support the idea that SITS does indeed happen to anyone during either NT times or today.

[ March 10, 2006, 07:26 AM: Message edited by: Bible-boy ]

 

What does a dead man being raised back to life have to with SITS? The two things are not even remotely similar or connected. There is no correlation between the quoted passage and the doctrine you are trying to support. So you'll have to find another proof text.

 

See the second half of my reply to Tam (two posts above).

And... sorry but you did not find Scripture that supports the concept of SITS. What you did was take a bunch of passages of Scripture out of context and force your presupposition upon them. However, DHK has done a fine job of pointing out your hermeneutical and Theological errors in each example. So you can no longer claim that your proof texts have been ignored. On the contrary, they have been examined in their full context and your interpretation/conclusions have been soundly refuted.

 

DHK replied:

I would also point out that the text referenced above (Mark 9:26) is specifically speaking about a case of demon possession. In that quoted verse specifically Jesus has just commanded a demon to leave an afflicted person, when the demon exited the person “fell as dead,” then in the next verse we see Jesus actually touch the person. However, note that when Jesus touches him he does not fall out; rather, he gets up to his feet. The sequence of events is 180 degrees opposite to what proponents of SITS claim happens.

This passage is dealing with a case of demon possession. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the concept of SITS (whereby the Holy Spirit supposedly “blesses” people by coming upon them through the touch of, or a blowing of the breath, by a Charismatic pastor). So what is your point? The two events are not remotely similar or connected. Therefore, you’ll have to find another proof text.

DHK replied:

I would also point out that Jesus had just spoken the very name of God, YHVH (in Hebrew), which the orthodox Jews from the Temple would have understood as a direct violation of “You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain, for the LORD will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain” (Ex. 20:7, ESV). These orthodox Temple Jews may have expected fire to fall from heaven and they were falling over themselves to get out of the way. I can’t prove this, but it is a more likely possibility than claiming that these unsaved persecutors of Christ were being SITS (which you claim is a "blessing" by the Holy Spirit through the touch of, or blowing of the breath by, a Charismatic pastor).

These two passages have been repeatedly discussed and clearly shown why they can not be used to support SITS. The only way that you can use it to support your claims is to eisegete the text (which Ray, a Charismatic pastor with an advance degree in Theology, agreed is an unacceptable hermeneutical practice that leads to flawed biblical interpretation.) Therefore, you’ll have to find other proof texts.

In addition to DHK’s refutation above I would ask what does the example of Daniel receiving divine progressive revelation to be included in the Bible have to do with the modern idea of SITS as it has been portrayed here as being a “blessing” of the Holy Spirit that is passed on through the touch of, or the blowing of the breath by, a Charismatic pastor? The two examples have nothing in common with one another except that someone falls over. Are you saying that someone falling over is the sole and driving criteria for being SITS? If that is the case I got SITS 4 times last winter while walking outside in an ice storm.

[ March 10, 2006, 11:10 AM: Message edited by: Bible-boy ]

 

So like I said...

If falling down is all it takes I got SITS 4 times last winter in an ice storm because I fell down 4 times. I even lay on the ground an did not move for while because of the pain of having my 6'1" 250+ lb. 40 year old frame hitting the ground so hard.

The hermeneutical and Theological problems arise from the fact that the circumstances recorded in the Scriptures do not even remotely correspond to the way you all have explained what being SITS means (i.e. a blessing from the Holy Spirit that come through the touch of, or by the blowing of the breath by, a Charismatic pastor). What you are offering as proof texts do not match the experiences that you all are attempting to justify as being SITS. However, just because someone fell over you all are forcing the idea of SITS upon the Scripture. When one forces an outside meaning upon a passage of Scripture, which clearly does not carry such a meaning when it is being understood in a literal, historical, grammatical manner of reading, one has eisegeted the text. This is a huge hermeneutical problem that leads to flawed biblical interpretations and resulting in the teaching of false doctrines.

It is by all means correct to expect such things as recorded in Mark 9:26 to happen in cases of demon possession because we have clear examples of such experiences happening in Scripture. However, we do not see SITS happening in Scripture that lines up with the experiences of SITS that you all are relating to us. The circumstances, the actions (with the exception of someone falling over), and the reasons why it happened which you all supply do not at all line up with or match the Scriptures that you are attempting to use as proof texts. Why don’t you see a conflict or problem with the fact that your proof texts and actual experiences do not agree (with the exception that someone fell over)?

In the case of the Mark 9 passage the boy’s body had been possessed and ill treated by a demon for a long time. He fell as dead when the demon departed at Jesus’ command. Then Jesus helped the fallen boy to stand. Jesus’ touch did not cause the boy to fall. According to the text the demon’s departing the boy’s body is what caused him to fall (a demonic action caused the fall). However, you all want to say, “See he was slain by the Holy Spirit.” No, he was abused and knocked down by a demon. In effect you are attributing the outcome of a demonic activity to the Holy Spirit. Please think about the ramifications of doing such a thing. What does Christ say about doing this kind of thing?

 

Tam,

The problem is that none of you have demonstrated from the objective truth of the Scriptures that SITS actually happens in the exact same way that your subjective personal experiences describe it happening. So the things that we have here are (1) a biblical example of the power of God to raise a dead man to life again (in the text you reference), and (2) then the other is simply your assertion that SITS is the power of God without any corresponding biblical support.

[ March 10, 2006, 01:40 PM: Message edited by: Bible-boy ]

 

Then your understanding of the term is flawed. No one said anything about using an outside source (such as a Bible Commentary or other book written by a Theological Scholar). Doing so would simply demonstrate that other Theologians and well respected Bible interpreters have agreed with your position. There is nothing wrong with doing this after you have done the hard work of exegesis for yourself. However, what I said, and what the definition you supplied above says, is that it is improper to force your existing belief or understanding onto the text of Scripture. How does one do this? By taking a passage of Scripture, usually out of context, and adding in other outside words, definitions, and/or meanings into your interpretation in order to force the biblical text to say what you want it to say so that you can justify a presupposed doctrinal position. When one does this it is called eisegesis. You can never make the Bible say what it never said in the first place.

[ March 10, 2006, 01:43 PM: Message edited by: Bible-boy ]

 

But how do you know it was not because of the power of the Holy Spirit? According to the line of argumentation being used by music4Him all that has to happen is for someone to fall down. I fell down 4 times in one day last year. What makes my subjective experience any different than what you all have described without objective Scriptural support to validate the claims?

You mean you don’t think Paul ever fell down because he was regularly on mission trips? That’s funny because I have been on mission to Africa 4 times, to eastern Europe once, and all over the southeastern U.S. and yet last year I fell 4 times while walking on ice.

Thanks for the exercise tip. I used to exercise everyday for at least an hour up until last fall when I started having problems with the arches in my feet. However, I have now gotten myself some of those “WalkFit” arch supports and my feet don’t hurt anymore. So now that spring has just about arrived I’ll get back on my schedule. I also watch what I eat, generally only organic foods, and lots of fiber to help keep my cholesterol in check. But none of this has anything to do with SITS so let’s stick to the subject.

So again we are back to the idea that we can make up whatever we want and call it biblical so long as the Bible does not address the issue (or experience as the case may be)? Come on Ray…


[ March 10, 2006, 01:47 PM: Message edited by: Bible-boy ]