Being slain in the Spirit?

Hello Tam,

I was not attempting to argue any of the points you raise in your reply to my post. I was specifically addressing a point that Ray raised. However, when you quote me without quoting Ray's material that I was responding to you don't paint the entire picture.

Specifically Ray said:

Thus, my repy that you quoted above. When you quote someone please do so in context and in full.

 

No Ray. There is only one way that people come to know the Lord. That is by placing their faith and trust in Him. Then He becomes the Lord and Master of our lives. As such we have a personal relationship with Him. However, the only way that we come to this saving knowledge of Him is through the Bible. That is not to say that there is no general revelation of the existence of God. Clearly the Bible teaches us that all the world knows through the evidence revealed in creation that God exists (Rom. 1-18-20). However, saving knowledge of Christ and need for faith (in Him) and repentance comes only by the reading, preaching, and teaching of the Word.

The Scripture is our only source of objective truth. We can speculate all we want about the reason why John fell at Christ’s feet. However, all our speculation, no matter how fine it may be, is simply subjective musing and hypothesis if it does not line up with and correspond to the clear teaching of objective truth of the Scripture.

I am glad you agree with our basic premise. No one here is failing to see (or imagine) the joy that John surely experienced from having been in the presence of the exalted Christ and from being given a glimpse of heaven. So I don’t understand what you are trying to argue here.

No one is trying to argue that progressive revelation is the ONLY reason. However, it was the primary reason. The argument I am making is that you are attempting to use this passage as a proof text for your position. However, by your own admission you did not experience exactly what John experienced because you did not receive progressive revelation of God’s Word. The two experiences are vastly different. Therefore, you must find a different proof text because this one does not support your argument.

Please provide some Scripture references that support your idea that “John found out…” and that he knew the Lord would “operate” in the lives of all Christians just as He did in the John’s own life.

See DHK’s reply to this statement above.

You’re right it is a poor example. First, there are physical/biological/chemical reasons why aspirin has pain relieving effects on the body, and it works throughout the entire body not just in the head. Second, we do not have the refreshing and hydrating experience of drinking cool water by faith. We drink the water so we can swallow the aspirin easier. A drink of water is not refreshing and hydrating because I believe (have faith) that it will be. Again it is another physical/biological/chemical reality.

Wrong. I don’t think John had a “main thrust” when the events of the Book Revelation took place. He certainly is not able to “give” progressive revelation on his own accord. Now, it would be more correct to say that Christ’s main thrust was to “give” progressive revelation. I’ll let you work out the difference in those two statements.

If you boil it down to the absolute basics all of our salvation experiences are identical. We were all vile sinners in need of a Savior. When we placed our faith and trust in Him and repented He saved us. Were our circumstances and events different? Yes. However, our salvation is identical.

I am not trying to argue that point. I am asking you to show me from the objective truth of the Bible (our only source of objective truth) that what you are saying is correct and valid. So far, your argument has been laden with errors that do not agree with the clear teaching of the Scripture. That does not mean that you believe error (yet). It just means that your interpretation of the Scripture has been wrong. All I am doing is pointing out the errors you made in your presentation of the argument and giving you the chance to return to the Scripture and seek another proof text that actually supports your stated belief.

Wrong again Ray. We already agreed that God never changes (Mal. 3:6; Heb. 1:12). His word said that not me. Either you believe His Word or you don’t. I only expect God to act as He says that He will act in His Word. This is not legalism. Legalism has to do with people following a proscribed set of rules that dictate how they act so I am not sure what you are trying to say here.

Sorry Ray but none of the related texts say that Paul fell unconscious at that time (Acts 9:4; 22:7; and 26:14). Plus, we are not discussing the “how” or the “what takes place” when we are saved. Our topic is “Being slain in the Spirit.” So you need to find a more relevant line of argumentation.

No one here is trying bind that Holy Spirit. We are simply asking you to provide biblical support for your stated doctrinal belief. So far you have not done so.

First, you need to demonstrate from the pages of Scripture that people are indeed “slain in the Spirit.” It is not un-Christian or spiritually immature to expect someone who professes a doctrinal position to be able to prove that position from the Scriptures. This is exactly what the Bible says the people in Berea did when Paul and Silas came preaching to them. They “examined the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so” (Acts 17:11, NASB). You will note that the Bible also praised the people of Berea for being this way and calls them “more noble minded” than those in Thessalonica (Acts 17:10).

I agree, except I would say that doing so has His effect on all souls in the exact same way (He saves them from their sins when they had no power to do so for themselves).

See my comments on legalism above. Additionally, no one here is arguing for the repeating of denominational creeds. We are talking about being slain in the Spirit and asking you to support your doctrinal belief with Scripture. BTW, You are correct that this could happen to some. However, the problem is not with the stated beliefs contained in the creed (as long as they are biblical). The problem is with the church leaders not properly teaching their people to read the Word for themselves and to discern truth from it.

I agree with you. However, our topic is not legalism. We are talking about being slain in the Spirit and seeking the Scriptural support for the belief in that doctrinal position. You have not provided such Scriptural support so far.

I agree. However, what does this have to do with our topic of being slain in the Spirit and the Scriptural support for this doctrinal position?

What? We are talking about what the Bible says and does not say about a doctrinal belief. All doctrinal positions must be supported by the Scripture. If they are not then we should not be dogmatic about their reality and reliability. We are not talking about “our little concepts” about God; but rather, we are talking about what He has revealed about Himself to us in His Word.

I fully agree. However, I may not agree with the hermeneutical approach that you employ to arrive at your interpretation of those passages of Scripture (but that is a whole other debate).

[ February 05, 2006, 08:08 PM: Message edited by: Bible-boy ]

 

Hello Ray,

Do you really want me to point out the flaws in this analogy? You would be much better served if you stuck with the Scriptures and allowed them to speak for themselves to demonstrate your position. I believe the Word. I believe what it says when it is read and interpreted in a literal, historical, grammatical fashion. This means allowing the Word to speak for itself without adding outside words or meanings to the text. This is called exegesis. I do not accept interpretations that are based upon eisegesis (adding outside words and meanings to the text to arrive at a presupposition). Likewise, I do not accept doctrinal positions that are based on anything other than the objective truth of the Word (that means don't try to hand me a doctrine that is based on subjective personal experience). If you can provide an exposition of the Scripture that is based on sound hermeneutics and solid exegesis I'll accept it. If not, I'll reject it and let you know why I reject it.

.

I don't think anyone here disagrees with you just for the sake of disagreeing. We disagree when you state things that do not line up with the clear teaching of Scripture. We disagree with you when you fall prey to fallacy in your presentation of logical debate. Generally we take the time to point out your error and explain why it is an error.

Ray...

that has nothing to do with the example of taking aspirin and drinking water that you used previously or my response that showed why it was a poor choice of analogy in attempting to prove your point.

 

Ray...

Since these others were traveling with Paul for the purpose of persecuting Christians they clearly were not believers. The text never says that they became believers along with Paul. In fact, it does say that they saw the bright light but did not understand the voice of the One who spoke. The text says nothing about them being blessed by this encounter.

They were temporarily blinded by the great light. Thus, they also fell down. However, the text makes it clear that once Jesus was finished speaking to Paul they rose up and helped him on to Damascus (because he was still blind they led him by the hand). Then we do not hear or see anything else about them. They left him in the house of Judas on Straight Street.

[ February 06, 2006, 12:33 AM: Message edited by: Bible-boy ]

 

.

You said among other things, 'I do not accept interpretations that are based upon eisegesis (adding outside words and meanings to the text to arrive at a presupposition).' </font>[/QUOTE]Okay Ray, but surely you understand that not everyone who reads these pages has an advanced Theological degree and that it is good for us to expalin ourselves for their benefit. Right?

 

So it is your position that the Lord blesses unbelievers in the same manner that He blesses born again believers?

 

Ray,

Please look again at the text. It says nothing about these men being blessed. It only says that they fell. Why did they fall? Because they had been temporarily blinded. That is all we know from a literal reading of the text. Where does the idea that they were somehow blessed come from? I would argue that you imported that meaning onto the text (eisegesis) in order to support your presupposition about being slain in the Spirit. The text says nothing about anyone being blessed on the Damascus road with Paul.

We previously agreed that eisegesis resulted in flawed interpretation of the Scripture.

So let's stick with this method of interpretation and not add outside words and meanings to the text.

[ February 06, 2006, 12:58 AM: Message edited by: Bible-boy ]

 

Hello Ray,

Why would someone flee from the Lord because of conviction about being saved? Once someone is saved they are drawn to the Lord and not the opposite. Look at the text again. We do not want to talk about what we think or doubt about the story. We only want to discuss what the Word actually says about the event. Anything that we say outside of what the text actually says is merely speculation on our part. The text clearly says that there was the bright and blinding light (Acts 9:3; 22:6; and 26:13-14). The text clearly says that those who were traveling with Saul/Paul, “…saw the light but did not understand the voice of the one who was speaking to me” (Acts 22:9, ESV). The text clearly says that the voice spoke to Saul/Paul in the Hebrew language (Acts 27:14). The text does not indicate that Saul/Paul or any of the others were unconscious during this time. This is proven by the fact the Paul testifies to his hearing the voice and the others hearing it but not understanding it.

Why were Saul and these men traveling to Damascus? The text clearly says that they were going there with letters from the high priest in Jerusalem for the express purpose of persecuting Christians. The text makes it clear that this is Saul’s posse tasked with the job of rounding up and bringing Christians, bound as criminals, back to Jerusalem to be executed (Acts 9:1-2). As such these men would have been faithful Jews, perhaps Saul’s fellow Pharisees, and they would have spoken and understood the Hebrew language. So why did they not understand the Lord’s voice when He spoke to Saul? Because His message was not for them.

The text never says that Saul/Paul communicated to them what had taken place. The text only makes it clear that when they arose they assisted Saul/Paul on into Damascus and left him at the house of Judas on Straight Street (Acts 9:8-11). Why did they do this? The most probable explanation is that at this point they still believed that Saul/Paul was one of their own (Christ-hating unbelievers).

The text never says anything about anyone being blessed on the Damascus Road. So where does that idea come from? You added that meaning into the text in order to support your presupposition regarding being slain in the Spirit. This is eisegesis.

You previously agreed that eisegesis is an unacceptable hermeneutical approach that leads to improper exposition and flawed interpretation of biblical texts. However, when the tried and true hermeneutical method of exegesis results in a conflict with your predetermined belief system you chuck it out the window (so to speak) so that you can maintain and embrace your presupposition regarding this issue. Your stated belief in the principles of hermeneutics and the practical working out of your Theological position on this issue do not agree. You have given intellectual assent to the principles of sound hermeneutics and solid exegesis. However, when they result in a conflict with your presupposition on this issue you embrace eisegesis. This is a violation of the Law of Non-contradiction (to which you also previously agreed), and as such makes your entire line of argumentation here invalid.

The text never says anything about anyone of them being blessed. You added that meaning to the text. Eisegesis, eisegesis, eisegesis.

[ February 07, 2006, 06:24 AM: Message edited by: Bible-boy ]

 

Gentlemen,

From this point on if I so much as see a post that mentions the name of Benny Hinn it will be deleted post haste. I am going to open a new thread entitled with his name for you all to use for this discussion. Please keep it in there. Link to Benny's discussion thread

[ February 07, 2006, 06:26 AM: Message edited by: Bible-boy ]