1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Being slain in the Spirit?

Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by Bible-boy, Dec 22, 2005.

  1. webdog

    webdog Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2005
    Messages:
    24,696
    Likes Received:
    1
    This is just my point. I do not limit the ways God deals with His people...I am one of them. Being "slain" is not a universal "churchwide" phenomenon, just a pentecostal one. It is the pentecostals who "limit" God to only their denominations who get "slain". This is why I do not feel this is of the Lord. I believe satan or a demon can give a person a "shove" and knock them down. Look what God allowed satan to do to Job...
     
  2. DHK

    DHK <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    135
    Biblical faith is not blind, unlike your mysical experiences which cannot be validated. My faith rests upon the empirical validated evidence of the resurrection of Jesus Christ--one of the most historically attested facts in all of history. Your mystical experience lies in the realm of the meta-physical with no demonstrable evidence to prove its veracity. It takes blind faith.
    "I cannot prove I am sitting in Canada." Surely you jest. [​IMG] Will approximately one million witnesses from my own city do? How about the witness of my own eyes and other senses, not just from where I sit but when I fly over the city and see it from a different perspective? What about going down to the library and digging out the surveyor's map and find out the exact coordinates of the city, and then compare that with the lot on the deed of my land registered at city hall? I have empirical evidence contrary to a metaphysical experience which is simply mysticism.
    I don't argue from a philosopher's point of view (a vain man's imagination), but scientifically and Biblically.
    You either believe by faith or you don't. That goes with most things in life. I believe by faith that when I put my key in my ignition, that my car will start. It is trust, or confidence. 99% of the time it will start. If it fails it doesn't mean my faith is weak; it means my car was made by man who makes mistakes and fallible cars which are subject to the 2nd law of Thermodynamics. However I can put my faith in God's Word, and God who is immutable and perfect, never makes mistakes and always keeps his word. He never fails. But the faith is confidence, and it is based on facts. The facts are in His Word. His Word does not support "slain in the spirit." It takes blind faith to believe in a doctrine like that. It takes blind faith to believe that your experience was Scriptural. It is not based on fact. Biblical faith is always based on fact.
    DHK
     
  3. Ray Berrian

    Ray Berrian New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Messages:
    5,178
    Likes Received:
    0
    webdog,

    You said, 'This is just my point. I do not limit the ways God deals with His people...I am one of them. Being "slain" is not a universal "churchwide" phenomenon, just a pentecostal one.'

    .
     
  4. Ray Berrian

    Ray Berrian New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Messages:
    5,178
    Likes Received:
    0
    This will probably confuse you, DHK.

    If a person does not have a mystical relationship to Christ he or she is not saved.

    Just believing a set of rule of the church or even doctrines of the Christian Church does not promise everlasting life.

    Our faith trust in Christ must be real and thus connect us to God so we are one with Him [I Corinthians 6:17].

    Saul/Paul and the Apostle John had this experience of falling under the power of the Holy Spirit. I do not think all of the apostles had this experience although the writers of the N.T. do not say they did experience this.
     
  5. webdog

    webdog Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2005
    Messages:
    24,696
    Likes Received:
    1
    Because one "experiences" something, regardless of denomination, does not prove it is from God. If this was indeed an act of the Holy Spirit, it would not be a main staple of the pentecostal movement, while an individual occurence happens in other denominations here and there. Satan's influence can be known in many churches. If you crack open the door even a little, he will bust it wide open. I think this is true in many denominations.
     
  6. DHK

    DHK <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    135
    I am not confused. Perhaps you are, and perhaps you need to take heed to:

    2 Corinthians 13:5 Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?

    Note the definition of mystical:
    I know nothing of your salvation.
    But I do know that my salvation is based on gospel--the death, the burial, and the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
    I do know that there is nothing mystical about the gospel. Those are cold hard facts. It was a brutal death that Christ suffered on the cross, suffering as he did, shedding his blood, paying the penalty for our sins, a penalty that we could never pay. He then was buried in someone else's tomb, and after three days rose from the dead. He was seen of over 500 witnesses. I believe in the message of the gospel. It is because of that message that I am saved today.

    Now compare that what you say you believe:
    Your salvation is based on: an experience having spiritual meaning or reality that is neither apparent to the senses nor obvious to the intelligence. (i.e., mystical)
    You are right: God demands regeneration; not reformation, nor legalism.
    Real doesn't necessarily mean mystical.
    What Holy Spirit? Saul fell off his horse when he was blinded by a great shining light. If I was blind riding a horse I would fall off it too. That has nothing to do with the Holy Spirit.
    Concerning John,
    Revelation 1:17 And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last:
    --Again, there is no mention of the Holy Spirit, only fear. He fell prostrated before Christ out of fear. But Christ reassured him: "Fear not."
    None of the Apostles describe the unbliblical experience of being slain in the spirit. I suppose Annanias and Sapphira were slain in the Spirit. That is about as close as one can come to it.
    DHK
     
  7. Ray Berrian

    Ray Berrian New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Messages:
    5,178
    Likes Received:
    0
    webdog,

    I could go along with you ideas above, except many of the most noble Christians I know have experienced this special prayer language.

    The Lord does not allow demons to enter those who are genuinely born again of the Spirit of God.

    Go and think. Just because you have not experienced all that is available in the Lord, don't step on Divine truth coming from the Word of God.

    It is dangerous to do this, I believe. :cool:
     
  8. DHK

    DHK <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    135
    The symptoms of demon oppression (possible for a Christian) and demon possession are very similar.
     
  9. Ray Berrian

    Ray Berrian New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Messages:
    5,178
    Likes Received:
    0
    DHK,

    .

    DHK said, 'The symptoms of demon oppression (possible for a Christian) and demon possession are very similar.'
     
  10. webdog

    webdog Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2005
    Messages:
    24,696
    Likes Received:
    1
    I don't believe being "slain" is actually a demon entering a true believer. I believe a demon or satan can physically influence, even kill a true believer if God so allows. Job was struck with awful boils that God allowed satan to put upon Job. God said satan could do anything to him...except kill him. Satan physically affected Job, much in the same manner I believe he affects those who are "slain". This can be true with being "slain". If one wants to experience it, even if it's not of the Lord, I believe the Lord will grant it in certain instances.

    My cousin is a believer. He went to an AOG church with his friend once. He went up to the front to be "slain", because he wanted to experience the Holy Spirit the same way his friend had. While he did fall under the influence of it, he was afraid because he said he felt paralyzed. While he admit it didnt' hurt, and actually felt relaxed, he didn't feel comfortable...but not in control and confused. The Bible says plainly that God is not the author of confusion...and saten can appear as an "angel of light". I think it's a scary thing to constantly subject yourself to something the Scriptures do not even teach as biblical.

    [ January 30, 2006, 01:24 PM: Message edited by: webdog ]
     
  11. webdog

    webdog Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2005
    Messages:
    24,696
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ray, one more thing. We are told to resist the devil and he will flee from us. If being "slain" is indeed something not of God, nobody is "resisting", and they open themselves up to the "experience" even if it's not from God.
     
  12. DHK

    DHK <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    135
    1 Corinthians 6:12 All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any.
     
  13. Bible-boy

    Bible-boy New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2002
    Messages:
    4,254
    Likes Received:
    1
    You all are now taking this debate in the exact direction that I was hoping it would go. However, before you proceed can we come to agreement on point number 9?

    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."

    Can we agree on this point of logic?

    One other thing that I would like to see happen here (after we come to agreement on point 9) is that we focus on the Scriptures that our charismatic friends would use to support the idea of being slain in the Spirit. We must first demonstrate that Bible teaches that such a thing really happens before we can even being to discuss our subjective personal human experiences.
     
  14. Ray Berrian

    Ray Berrian New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Messages:
    5,178
    Likes Received:
    0
    Understanding the Bible is not a philosophical endeavor nor is God to be viewed through they minds of men like Socrates or Aristotle.

    The Word of God was written so that the average Christian with the aid of the Spirit of God can understand its meaning.

    I Corinthians 12 & 14 and the Acts of the Apostles are not encoded information.

    Read the Word, accept what God has said, and believe it with all of your inner being. Start with the Lord and you will end with the Lord's message to your life.

    When we begin with the theories of well intentioned people and scholars we conclude and form in our minds and hearts error. And what is worse than this is to spread that error to other new Christians. :cool:

    Dr. Berrian
     
  15. DHK

    DHK <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    135
    So does that mean you agree or disagree with what Bible-boy has stated? Or do you just want to beat around the bush?
     
  16. Bible-boy

    Bible-boy New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2002
    Messages:
    4,254
    Likes Received:
    1
    I disagree. Yes, understanding the Bible is primarily a Theological undertaking. However, our Theology guides our approach to life and forms our worldview. That is what makes Christians different from the rest of the world. Like it or not, our Theology, our approach to life, and our worldview form a philosophical system. Likewise, God is the source of all truth. Therefore, all truth is God's truth no matter which human first verbalized or wrote that truth down. In the case at hand the Bible bears out the truth of the fact that something can not be both true and false at the same time and in the same respect (Luke 11:14-23). It was false that Jesus cast out demons by the power of the devil. He did it by the power of God. Therefore, He showed that it was impossible for Him to be doing so and the kingdom of the devil still stand. There is no way that He or anyone else could argue otherwise. It could not possibly ever be both true and false that Jesus was casting out demons by the power of God. It can only ever be true that Jesus cast out demons by the power of God.

    What does any of that have to do with the last question that I asked for agreement upon?

    Are you saying that the average Christian is too simple minded to grasp the idea that something can not possibly be both true and false at the same time and in the same respect?

    Are you saying that it is wrong for us to teach the difference between truth and falsehood and how to recognize that difference?

    I do not see how agreeing to this simple reality (truth--and all truth is God's truth) could possibly be harmful to your position.

    So let me ask you again. Question number 9 re-phrased: Do you agree that it is impossible for something to be both true and false at the exact same time and in the exact same respect?

    [ February 01, 2006, 03:47 AM: Message edited by: Bible-boy ]
     
  17. Ray Berrian

    Ray Berrian New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Messages:
    5,178
    Likes Received:
    0
    Bible-boy,

    Yes.
     
  18. Bible-boy

    Bible-boy New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2002
    Messages:
    4,254
    Likes Received:
    1
    Great 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.

    9. We agree that the Law of non-contradiction is a true and valid principle. Therefore, it is impossible for something to be both true and false at the exact same time and in the exact same respect.

    Furthermore, we agree that during the course of our 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. Additionally, we agree that any violation of the law of non-contradiction makes our entire line of related argumentation invalid and/or false.

    Now...

    Let's begin to examine the Scriptures that our charismatic friends would use to support the idea that the Bible teaches that we can be "Slain in the Spirit." Ray has previously referenced Paul's experience on the Damascus Road (Acts 9:1-7) and John's encounter with the exalted Christ (Rev. 1:9-20) in support of charismatic belief.

    So Ray would you please give us an exposition of those texts and explain how they support the doctrine of being Slain in the Spirit?
     
  19. Ray Berrian

    Ray Berrian New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Messages:
    5,178
    Likes Received:
    0
    Bible-boy,

    Let's look at Revelation 1:9-18 first. The Apostle John was in a special state of being, because he says 'I was in the Spirit on the Lord's Day.' He is speaking of a state of being other than being indwelled by the Spirit as all Christians experience. It could be he was in a trance as Peter experienced [Acts 10:10]or perhaps a vision that the Lord gave to John the Apostle.

    I do not think that any one would deny that John was saved long before this spiritual experience happened in his life.

    Moreover, I do not think that John selected the timing of this spiritual experience of being given his special revelation from the Lord, meaning the Book of Revelation. I believe it was also important that John had this pure view as to the supernatural Lord that he saw and believed in Him as Savior and Lord years before this experience.

    In verse 17 John said when I saw the Lord I 'fell' as dead at His feet. Dr. A.T. Robertson, and as you know he was a Baptist Greek scholar says the word 'pipto' meaning to fall is in the aorist active indicative tense.

    John did not merely fall and immediately get up when the Lord laid His right hand on his (shoulder) saying, 'Fear not! I am the first and the last.' The Greek tense indicates a definite beginning time of action with a continuing action.
    After a period of time, John revived from this spiritual experience realizing that the Lord had overpowered him with His powerful Presence. Dr. Robertson says, 'Under the overpowering influence of the vision as in 19:10. The Lord 'laid' {etheken}; again the same verb tense is used indicating a period of time elapsed before John came out of this Holy Spirit event in his life. Eventually John revived from this spiritual experience and he wrote down what the Lord had shown him in this spiritual trance.

    In my Greek N.T. John says, 'I fell at his feet as dead.' The words, 'I fell' is the Greek word, (epesa) which is in the aorist active indicative tense. This does not mean that John bowed in adoration and then immediately got up on his feet. The Greek tense always means a distinct time of beginning with continued action into the future. This being said, because John was in the Spirit--in this unique way he fell out under the power and protection of the Holy Spirit and after his vision/trance he got up and wrote the manuscript of Revelation.

    If I recall correctly, theologians think after the death of the Roman Emperor John returned to the church at Ephesis until he died of natural causes.

    As to the words, 'I fell' the Greek verb tense is taken from "The Analytical Lexicon to the Greek N.T., "Zondervan Publishing House," The author is Dr. William D. Mounce on page 201 --in the right column.

    What the Holy Spirit ministered to John, of old, He countinues to reveal Himself to some Christians in our times. Perhaps a label is not as important as agreeing that the Lord still ministers His mighty power on some of His people, as He sees fit. [​IMG]
     
  20. Bible-boy

    Bible-boy New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2002
    Messages:
    4,254
    Likes Received:
    1
    Hello Ray,

    I can agree with most of what you have stated here about the NT Greek use and the meaning of the aorist verb tense etc. However, what I am having difficulty with is the last statement that you made.

    What biblical support is there for making the claim that "He [the Lord] continues to reveal Himself to some Christians in our times [like He did to John in the Book of Revelation]?"

    I have a problem with that statement because:

    1) John being "in the Spirit" in Rev. 1:10 is clearly teaching us that, like you said,
    Clearly, this is to inform us that the Apostles (in both cases, here and in Acts 10:10) were in such a state for the purpose of receiving divine revelation from God. This divine revelation occurred for the express purpose of the progressive revelation and recording of God's Word. We agreed that God is no longer progressively revealing Himself or His Word in this manner in point number 3 and its associated sub-points above. Therefore, it is invalid to assert that the Lord "countinues to reveal Himself to some Christians in our times" in this exact same manner (as you have done in the above quoted post). To make such a statement violates the Law of Non-contradiction and thereby invalidates your argument.

    2) The passage no where uses the phrase "slain in the Spirit" to describe what happened to John. Additionally, John's testimony recorded in this passage makes it clear that he was in the manifest presence of the exalted Lord Jesus Christ. Nowhere does the text indicate that the Holy Spirit, the third person of the Triune Godhead, had also manifested His presence. The text only indicates that the exalted Lord Jesus was present. Therefore, why would it be acceptable to state that the presence of the Holy Spirit caused John to fall?

    [ February 02, 2006, 05:39 AM: Message edited by: Bible-boy ]
     
Loading...