Sermon Outline: How We Can Be Worthy of God's Calling (I Corinthians 4:13)

How Can We Live Worthy of His Calling

(Ephesians: 4: 1-13)

by: Jun Gravoso



Introduction

All Christians are called. We are called to be the light and salt of this world. It is a special calling.

That means we have to live worthy of His calling.

We can live worthy of His calling:



I. By having a good attitude (verse 2)

A. with humility (verse 2a)
B. with perseverance (verse 2b)

II. By being at peace with one another (verse 3)

A. by loving others (verse 2c)
B. through the spirit (verse 3)

III. By using our spiritual gifts (verses 11-13)

A. for ministry work (verses 11-12a)
B. for edification of the church (verse 12b)



Conclusion:

It is really hard to live a Christian life if we will rely on ourselves. But with God’s help we can live a life that will show to others that our God is a living God. A God that can change the lives of people.

We also have to examine ourselves. Are we living a life worthy of His calling? A life that will also bring others to the saving power of Christ?

A Doctor's Nightmare

I feel that I am a doctor's nightmare.



First, I am now limping for reason I cannot fathom. In fact, I was crawling when I went to the toilet the other night. I've seen three doctors and they all have different diagnoses. The first doctor said I had a gout. The second doctor said that it is simple case of wear and tear of muscles. The third doctor said that it is because of my weight. He said that I am overweight and my feet cannot support my weight.



Second, I am half-blind now probably because of cataract. My students often notice it when I read in front of the class.



Third, I am a diabetic.



My colleagues, perhaps, are wondering why it seems that I am not bothered by my health. And yes, it is true that I am not bothered by it.



Definitely not primarily because I've learned to accept my situation.



I am not bothered by my health simply because it reminds me that I am human. It reminds me that I should really depend on God.



I thank Him because this is an opportunity to exercise my faith.



As the song says, "I don't know what the future holds." I don't know if I will be crawling to go to university tomorrow.



I know, though, that God will not forsake me (Hebrews 13:5). I also know that if I ask anything according to His will He hears me; and that if He hears me I know that my request will be granted." (I John 5:14-15 Right now, I am asking that God allows me to go to my class regularly.



I am also not bothered by my health now because I always look at the future. My God promised me a glorious future in heaven. In fact, He reserved a place for me in heaven. (John 14:2)



What I am experiencing now is temporal pain. In heaven, there is no pain. There is no sufferings. In heaven, I will no longer need to drink my maintenance drug to regulate my blood sugar.



And I am anxiously awaiting for that day.



"I don't know about tomorrow,

I just live from day to day.

I don't borrow from it's sunshine,

For it's skies may turn to gray.

I don't worry o'er the future,

For I know what Jesus said,

And today I'll walk beside Him,

For He knows what is ahead."

- from the hymn of "I Know Who Holds Tomorrow"

Domestic Violence in Christian Homes

A friend and I discussed domestic violence in Christian homes. That discussion triggered my action to write about domestic violence in christian homes.

The one that you will be able to read now is not the final paper since I desire to develop this thesis everyday maybe for a month.

The questions that will be answered here are:

1. What does the Bible say about violence at home?

2. Should the battered wife just allow the batterer to inflict pain on her in view of Galatians 5:23-24?

3. What should be the response of the church if her member is a victim of the proponent of violence at home? Should we just advise the victim to accept pain because the Bible teaches full submission to husband?

I’ve been reading the Bible and trying to know what it says about violence at home. I am also doing some research about it.

But here is my initial stand about it:

1. We should look at Galatians 5:23-23 in the light of the "whole" Scripture.

2. Our body is the temple of God. Therefore, we should not allow others to destroy our body.

3. Obeying doesn’t mean agreeing. We may disagree with the batterer and yet follow the Bible.

4. Up to what extent should the wife obey the husband? Is it absolute? (this is the most common argument)

5. The Bible also teaches that we should obey the government. The Family Code of the Republic of the Philippines says that domestic violence is a crime.

More about this next time!

Back off!

Are you pissed off with me? It seems you are.

I don't care.

You have the right be be pissed off. But don't impose on me your self-righteousnes.

Actually, I am also pissed off with your holier-than-thou attitude. You project that you know the Bible from the first letter to the last.

That I think is the very reason why you are aghast when I utter "out of this world ideas". But my ideas are mine and I don't care how people will react to it.

You know why so many people are against Christianity? One of the reasons probably is that there are Christians who are so righteous that they always see the wrongdoings of others. They will bombard others with their unsolicited pieces of advice. They will not run out of opinions. And they usually quote the Holy Scriptures.

I tell you, the world will be better without you.

You see God as vindictive and a God who loves punishing people?

I see God as a loving God who understands my shortcomings.

I see God as a God who looks at what Christ did on the cross for me every time He notices that I am doing things that are unholy.

I see God as a forgiving and understanding God.

So, I really don't mind you. In fact, I think you are an unnecessary termite.

But please!

BACK OFF!

Applied Hermeneutical Paper On 2 John 1-13

An Applied Hermeneutical Paper On 2 John 1-13
by: Pablo D. Gravoso



I. I have read thoroughly 2 John 1-13 approximately ten times.

II. Comparison of seven translations of the said passage
I consulted seven translations and examined if there are any differences between translations. The seven translations are: New King James Version (NKJV), King James Version (KJV), New International Version (NIV), Today’s English Version (TEV), New Revised Standard Versions (NRSV), Thomson Chain Reference (TCR) and Catholic Bible – Westminster Version (CB).

I noticed eleven (11) minor differences in their translations which I feel do not affect the interpretation of the passage. There minor differences are:

Verse 1
Elder = KJV, NKJV, NIV, TEV, NRSV, TCR
Priest = CB

Her offspring = NKJV
Her children = NIV, TCR, TEV, NRSV, KJV, CB

Elect Lady = NJKV, TCR, NRSV, KJV, CB
Chosen lady = NIV
Lady chosen = TEV

Verse 2
Abides = NKJV, NRSV
Abideth = CB
Dwelleth = TCR, KJV
Lives = NIV, TEV

Verse 4
Some of your children = NKJV, NIV, TEV, NRSV,
Thy children = TCR, KJV, CB

Verse 5
I wrote = NKJV, TCR, KJV
I am not writing =NIV, TEV,
I were writing = NRSV
As writing to thee = CB

Verse 7
As coming =NKJV, NIV, TEV
Is come = TCR, KJV
Has come =NRSV
Not the coming = CB

Verse 8
We = NKJV, TCR, TEV, NRSV, KJV
You = NIV

Verse 9
Transgresses = NKJV
Transgresseth = TCR, KJV
Runs ahead = NIV, TEV
Does not abide = NRSV
Abideth not = CB

Verse 11
Shares = NKJV, NIV, TEV
Partaker = TCR, KJV
Partaketh = CB
Participate – NRSV

Verse 13
Amen = NKJV, TCR, KJV
No Amen = NIV, TEV. NRSV, CB

Though, my opinion is that these minor differences do not affect the interpretation of the passage mentioned.

III. List of Alternatives / Key Terms
1. elder
2. elect lady
3. her offspring
4. deceiver / antichrist
5. doctrine of Christ
6. coming
7. greets (v. 10 and 11)
8. children of your elect sister

Mini-Word Study
1. elder - The author introduced himself not by name but by chosen character. His chosen character, which is ‘elder”, signifies seniority in faith, age, and stature.
2. elect lady - Because her husband was not mentioned in the letter, it is very probable that this elect lady was a widow. Though, this may also pertain to a church, considering that Christians were persecuted at that time. Therefore it is probable that the writer was hiding the recipient’s identity. Like when I wrote my fellow STMers (when I joined last year’s AVSTM) I addressed them as co-employees, and the church as company. The writer may also hide the identity of the recipient for safety reason. The Greek word “kurio” was used here and it means “directly chosen by God”. The Greek word also signifies a person of eminent quality. It is a feminine word of “kurios” which means Lord.
3. her offspring - They might be the real biological children of the widow (elect lady) and others who meet in her household. Though, it may also mean members of the local church.
4. deceiver - These deceivers seem to be the Gnostics who are so many during the time of the writing of this epistle. Gnostics deny the deity of Christ whish was mentioned in the letter.
5. doctrine of Christ – The doctrine of Christ teaches that Jesus is the Son of God and the Savior of the World. This doctrine also teaches that Jesus became flesh and dwelt among us.
6. coming – The word “coming” or “is come” pertains to the incarnation of Christ and his future coming.
7. greets – Greeting in the ancient times means accepting or welcoming visitors into their house. Usually, this also entails listening. In Eastern use, it means having no religious connections with them or acknowledge them as brothers.
8. children of elect sister – This may mean the biological nieces and nephews of the recipient of the letter. The elect sister must also be a Christian who lives in Ephesus.

IV. Historical Cultural Matters
The letter was written from Ephesus. John was already old (probably 90 years old) when he wrote this. It was probably written after the Gospel and before the persecution under Domitian in 95AD. We can place the writing of this letter in late 80’s or early 90’s.
Gnosticism was prevalent during that time in Eastern World. Gnosticism believes that knowledge is superior than virtues. They also believe in non-literal sense of Scriptures is correct and can only be understood by few. Gnostics believe that evil in the world precludes God’s being the only creator in the world. But what really opposes the Christian belief is that the belief of Gnostics that incarnation is incredible because deity cannot unite itself with the flesh. Therefore, they subscribe that resurrection of the dead is incredible.

V. Contextual Questions
The context of the epistle is the commandment of Christ that we should love one another. The recipients of the letter were encouraged to go on in their faith, walking in the truth. They can do this by loving one another. They are also encouraged to resist the false teachers and their teachings. They must believe in the doctrine of Christ which is: Christ is God, Christ became men, Christ is the Savior and Christ is coming. The author also longs to see the recipients personally.

Why?

Why can I not say, "Putris na buhay ito!" when I mean "putris talaga ang buhay na ito"?

Why can I not utter that four-letter word when I am pissed off?

Why can I not believe that this is a damnable world when I really feel that way?

Why?

Okay, I am supposed to be a self-actualized humanoid because I am a Christian and I studied Bible in a seminary.

I always tell myself: "Behave, Pablo! You are supposed to be a role-model, remember? You cannot call this life a shit even if the urge for you to say that is extremely strong. You have to pent up your emotion. You have to wear a camouflage. You have to fake yourself. The Sprite tag line, ‘magpakatotoo ka’ is not for you."

Oh, some of you might say, "You should not feel that way! You are a Christian. There must be joy in you if you are a Christian."

Bluff!

Don’t give me that baloney! You are not being true to yourself! I am sure that there were times that you felt this way too. Depression is very human. Depression is as real as pain. Depression is as tangible as my next meal.

You know what I don’t like with some christians? Some christians are so unreal. They live in the world of make-believe. They are so contrite. They don’t recognize their negative feelings! Escapist scums!

On the other hand, suffering is the real thing. Suffering is positive. Joy is just a negation of sufferings.

You negate your problems by looking for solutions. You miss your wife? That’s what is positive. You feel it. You negate it by calling her.

But these solutions are just paliative. Temporal.

Permament answer?

Ahimsa.

To be in the state of non-existence.

But we cannot do that! Our drives tell us that we cannot just surrender this damnable existence called life. These drives tell us that aiming for non-existence is cowardice. We have to fight!

But it will be a futile fight! Just an act in futility.

We just have to bear the sufferings. We have to accept that we are condemned here not to death but to life.

What a sad fate for mankind a whole!

Let's Give A Clap Offering To The Lord

There is one thing that troubles me when I attend worship services. It is when the worship leader says, “Let’s give a clap offering to the Lord.”

Is clapping of hands appropriate in worship?

I say no.

I searched the Scriptures for any thing that is related to clapping of hands especially that which pertains to worship. I found out that most passages that speak about clapping has a negative connotation. Clapping of hands was negatively mentioned in the Bible. Allow me to share to you these passages.

2 Kings 11:12
“Jehoiada brought out the king's son and put the crown on him; he presented him with a copy of the covenant and proclaimed him king. They anointed him, and the people clapped their hands and shouted, "Long live the king!"

This passage cannot be used to support the clapping of hands in worship because the Israelites clapped their hands for Joash whom Jehoiada proclaimed as king. They did not clap their hands to worship Yahweh.

Job 21:5
“Look at me and be astonished; clap your hand over your mouth.”

Now, we know what a torment Satan put on Job. Job was being tested and he lost and suffered so much. He was talking to his friend, Zophar the Naamathite, about his experience. This passage does not denote worship of God but about the sufferings of Job. Therefore, this passage cannot be used to support clapping of hands in worship.

Job 27:23
“It claps its hands in derision and hisses him out of his place.”

This passage surely cannot be used to support the clapping of hands in worship because Job talks about wicked people being judged by God and “east wind” claps its hand as it delivers the sad fate of the wicked. Definitely, this is a negative connotation for clapping of hands.

Job 34:37
“To his sin he adds rebellion; scornfully he claps his hands among us and multiplies his words against God."

Another classic of example of a negative connotation of clapping of hands in the Bible. This passage speaks clearly of it.

Proverbs 30:32
“If you have played the fool and exalted yourself, or if you have planned evil, clap your hand over your mouth!”

King Solomon tells us that those people who planned evil and are fools can clap their hands over their mouth. Surely, this cannot be used to support clapping of hands in worship.

Lamentations 2:15
“All who pass your way clap their hands at you; they scoff and shake their heads at the Daughter of Jerusalem: ‘Is this the city that was called the perfection of beauty, the joy of the whole earth?’”

Let us study the circumstances behind this passage. Lamentations was written when Israel was rebelling against God. And so, God judged Israel severely by proclaiming that Israel will suffer defeat against her enemies. Others will clap their hands for the fallen and defeated Israel. Can this passage be used to support worship of God then?

Ezekiel 25:6-7
For this is what the Sovereign LORD says: Because you have clapped your hands and stamped your feet, rejoicing with all the malice of your heart against the land of Israel,
therefore I will stretch out my hand against you and give you as plunder to the nations. I will cut you off from the nations and exterminate you from the countries. I will destroy you, and you will know that I am the LORD.' "

This passage tells us about God’s judgment against Ammonites because they clapped their hands and rejoice malice against Israel. A classic example of a passage where clapping of hands has a negative connotation!

Nahum 3:19
“Nothing can heal your wound; your injury is fatal. Everyone who hears the news about you claps his hands at your fall, for who has not felt your endless cruelty?”

This is part of the prophesy against Assyria. Nahum prophesied against Assyria that they will be slaughtered. And people will clap their hands when they hear it. What a negative connotation about clapping! This definitely cannot be used to support clapping of hands in worship.

Though, there are three passages in the Bible that can be seen as not “negative”. These passages are:

Psalm 47:1
“Clap your hands, all you nations; shout to God with cries of joy.”

I do admit that this passage speaks positively about clapping of hands. But what I learned in correctly interpreting the Scriptures is that we cannot base our theology in just one passage. The Bible is so well-organized that all doctrines are systematically supported not only by one passage but by the whole Bible.

Psalm 98:8
“Let the rivers clap their hands, Let the mountains sing together for joy;”

This passage doesn’t talk about people clapping their hands to God. It’s the rivers!

Isaiah 55:12
“You will go out in joy and be led forth in peace; the mountains and hills will burst into song before you, and all the trees of the field will clap their hands.”

This passage also doesn’t talk about people clapping their hands to God. It is the trees in the field!

Let me tell you another thing.

I really get jittery every time worshippers clap their hands after I preach. I always wonder if they clap their hands to God or to me. They may say that they are clapping their hands to God when they clap their hands after I preach. But I still couldn’t be sure. I feel creepy about the idea that probably some of them are clapping their hands to me as they agree with me. And I don’t want to rob God of what is due to Him!

This is also the same when some clap their hands after a “solo in song” in worship services. I wonder if they clap their hands to God or they clap their hands because the singer had a superb rendition of a song.

Therefore, for us not to fall in such a trap it is better not to clap during worship services.

Lastly, let us study “clapping of hands” in light of what a worship is.

Worship Service is like a heavenly drama.

We, the worshippers, are the performers, the worship leader is the prompter and the audience should be God.

It should be God who can clap His hands to us as He says, “Well done, my children!” as we worship Him in Spirit and in truth.

Why Bro. Eddie Should Not Run For President

There is a debate right now among my friends regarding the presidential candidacy of Bro. Eddie Villianueva, the founder of JIL (Jesus Is Lord Fellowship), a born-again charismatic group here in the Philippines. Some are pro and some are against.

Allow me to give you my two-cents worth of idea.

Why am I not in favor of the candidacy of Bro. Eddie Villanueva? Simply because he is a church leader and it may violate Article 2 Section 6 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution that states, "The separation of the state and the church shall be inviolable."

The said law was upheld in the Executive Order No. 2, Book 2, Chapter 1 Section 6 under the title, "Basic Principles and Policies".

A very good friend, Pastor Vincent Olaer contended that, "they only need to be separated in function, but not in spiritual and moral values. The Church functions as a spiritual adviser of the state, while the state functions as a ruling government of the state which covers the church as well."

Though there is a very thin delineation between advising the state on spirituality and morality and governing. There is an eminent danger that religious advising might encroach and overlap with political matters. Imagine if the Philippines is not a Catholic nation. Let us say that majority of Filipinos are pagans where beheading is common. Would you like their priests and priestesses to advise the President in that capacity? Surely not!

As Christians, we should set an example on how to respect our laws. It may set a precedence for other religious leaders to run for a post just to have a political clout. And it is very frightening to think that my equal right as a Filipino will be endangered by sectoral (or should I say religious) biases.

One may say that we cannot stop Bro. Eddie from running because he is not the church. He is just a pious person. May I remind everyone that Bro. Eddie is the founder and present leader of JIL Movement. In fact, he is bragging that he can command and get millions of votes from members of JIL Movement. Therefore, we cannot disconnect Bro. Eddie from JIL. In some extent, he represents and will represent JIL Movement and all other pentecostal groups.

He may step down from JIL leadership but there is a danger that the thin line that separates the church and state will be infringed.

One may even deduce that Bro. Eddie is just like President Arroyo who is a pious catholic. Now, that is wrong syllogism. We cannot compare Bro. Eddie with President Arroyo in terms of involvement in and in representing the church. President Arroyo is not a church leader. Yes, she is pious as can be seen by her consistency in attending catholic gatherings and in her being vocal in her spiritual stance. But the fact is she did not found any church and she is not at the helm of the catholic church.

I can accept the comparison between Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani of Iran who is the spiritual leader in Iran and Bro. Eddie but not between President Arroyo and Bro. Eddie. Hell, even Ayatollah doesn't dream of being elected as the President of Iran. They still have President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad!

Moreover, it is my conviction that Jesus desires that political power should be delineated from spiritual powers. As to quote Him, "Give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and give to God what belongs to God". (Matthew 22:21. NLT)

Another friend posited that this passage pertains only to taxation and not about political matters. Isn't it that taxation is a political matter? Taxation is part and parcel of politics and we cannot separate the two.

In studying a passage we have to know the surrounding facts about it. I believe that Matthew Henry has a good analysis of the said passage. Matthew Henry said that, to quote, "Ministers that would mind their business, and please their master, must not entangle themselves in the affairs of this life: they forfeit the guidance of God's Spirit, and the convoy of his providence when they thus go out of their way. Christ discusses not the emperor's title, but enjoins a peaceable subjection to the powers that be." (Matthew Henry Commentary of the Whole Bible)

It is suffice to say that Matthew Henry does interpret the passage as Christ's recognition that we, Christians, should recognize earthly powers. Therefore, this passage does not pertain only to taxation per se but to the whole political or governance issue.

Thus, "give unto Caesar what is due unto Caesar and unto God what is due unto God." We should leave political matters to politicos and let us all concentrate in doing what God wants us to do. Sharing the Gospel. Sharing His love.

Justice Roberts of the U.S. Supreme Court has a good reason why we should all adhere to the absolute separation of the state and the church. He said, "In the realm of religious faith, and in that of political belief, sharp differences arise. In both fields, the tenets of one man may seem the rankest error to his neighbor. To persuade others to his own point of view, the pleader, as we know, at times, resorts to exaggeration, to vilification of men who have been, or are, prominent in church or state, and even to false statement. But the people of this nation have ordained in the light of history, that, in spite of the probability of excesses and abuses, these liberties are, in the long view, essential to enlightened opinion and right conduct on the part of the citizens of a democracy." (Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U. S. 296, 310 U. S. 310 (1940))

Furthermore, let us all be reminded that there are so many religious groups here. As Filipinos, we have to live in harmony with one another. I strongly believe that religious leaders should refrain from engaging in politics for sectoral and religious harmony amongst all groups in the Philippines.

Slaying in the Spirit

My purpose in this paper is to examine the so-called “slaying in the spirit” in the light of the Scripture. There are a lot of cultural, social and historical considerations in explaining this phenomenon. But I will not delve in those.

My intention is just to focus on what the bible says or does not say about “slaying in the spirit.”

What is “slaying in the spirit”? Due to lack of resources (Dictionary of Penntecostal Theology,
etc.) I will try to describe this phenomenon as I observe it done by some pastors like Benny Hinn, etc.

“Slaying in the spirit” is a phenomenon wherein a Christian supposedly places his/her hand on another person and the latter will fall down usually backward (I have seen some people fall down to a sitting position) and be in a some sort of “altered state of consciousness”. Some people who experienced it describe their feelings as somewhat being “weakened in the knees” that causes them to fall down. Some say they are still conscious but just feel weak. This
phenomenon usually occurs during pray over.

Now, there are two elements that are important to call an occurrence “slaying in the spirit”. They are:
1.Someone prays and lays his/her hand over another individual.
2.That individual falls down as a result of first element.

These two elements should be present in a given situation in order to be called “slaying in thee spirit”. These two are inseparable. If one of the elements is missing that situation cannot be called “slaying in the spirit”.

There are two words that neopentecostalists use in supporting their doctrine of “slaying in the spirit.” They associate it with “falling down” (or fall down) and “prostrate” in support of their belief. Though, the word “slain” has been used in the Old Testament, that word is associated with killing as in when King Saul and David slain their soliders (I Samuel 18:7, 21:11, 29:5).

Thus, I will focus on these two words (fall-down and prostrate) and examine if these words can be used to support the doctrine of “slaying in the spirit”. ThecScripture in which these two words were used are:

Deutoronomy 9:18 “And I fell down before the Lord, as the first, forty days and forty nights: I neither ate bread nor drank water, because of all yourt sin which you committed in doing wickedly in the sight of the Lord, to provoke Him to anger.”

This cannot be the “slaying in the spirit” since it did not have the two elements discussed above. Falling down means praying to God. In Contemporary English version, the words “bow down” was used.. Thus, this does not support the theology of ”slaying in the spirit”.

I King18:38 “Now when all the people saw it, they fell on their faces: and they said, “The Lord, He is God! The Lord, He is God!”

Fell on their faces means they bowed down before God in reverence. This is actually a response to Godf when we see God’s greatness and not when we are “supposedly taken over by the Spirit”. In fact, as they bow before God they praise Him by saying, “The Lord, He is God!” This is very much different with today’s “slaying in the spirit”.

I Samule 4:18 “Then it happened, when he made mention of the ark of God, that Eli fell of the seat backward by the side of the gate: and his neck was broken and he died, for the man was old and heavy.”

I guess even people who support “slaying in the spirit” don’t want to use this verse because this has a “negative” result. Eli died!

Daniel 2:46 “Then King Nebucahddnezar fell on his face, prostrate before Daniel, and commanded that they should present an offering and incense to him.”

This cannot be used to support “slaying in the spirit” because in this passage the king worshipped Daniel and not God. In CEV, it states, “…bowed low to the ground and worshipped Daniel.”

Daniel 8:17-18 “So he came near where I stood and when he came I was afraid and fell on my face to the ground; but he touched me, “Understand, son of man, that the vision refers to the time of the end. While he was speaking, I fell face dwn in a deep sleep…”

In this passage, Daniel fell on the ground when the angel Gabriel came. He fell down because of fear. That fear is not clear whether fear from God or fear because naturally when a man sees a supernatural or experiences a different thing, he is anxious and feel a kind of fear. That may be the fear of “unknown”. It is a natural response to the “unknown’. But is this slaying in the spirit”? Did someone lay his hand and pray over Daniel? Did he fall face down or as what I
observe in “slaying in the spirit” backward or in a siting position.

Acts 9:3-4 “as Saul was coming near the city of Damascus, suddenly a light from the sky flasked around him. He fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul! Why do you persecute me?”

In this situation, God himself is talking to Paul. We all know how glorious God is and so when He appeared to Moses in Sinai and when Moses went down the mountain his face was still radiating with God’s glory. This Damascus occurrence may be attributed to that fact. God is so holy and glorious and Paul was so sinful that when he saw God’s glory, his natural response was to fall to the ground. But this cannot be used to support the doctrine of “slaying in the spirit” since we cannot see the two elements we discussed earlier. Again, did someone prayed and put his hand over Saul? It was stated in the passage that he “fell down; but can we attribute it to the phenomenon wherein the “spirit took” him?

Revelations 1:10 “On the Lord’s day the Spirit took control of me. And I heard a loud voice, that sounded like a trumpet, speaking behind me”.

All of us need to be controlled and empowered by the Holy Spirit not only during pray over but it should be moment by moment. This is what we call infilling of the Holy Spirit. When John narrated this incident, did he fall? All it said was that the Spirit took control of him. Did someone lay his hand over John?

Revelations 1:17 “And when I saw Him, I fell at his feet as dead. But He laid his right hand on me, saying to me, Do not be afraid; i am the First and the Last.”

In all the the scriptural references i read this is the passage which is nearest to today’s ’slaying in the spirit”. “I fell at His feet as dead” is somewhat similar to what I observe with people who were “slain in the spirit.” But in this revelation incident God appeared to John directly and personally. We know that the glory of God may even cause blindness and death (as when the Levites entered the ark of the covenant and if they have unconfessed sins they will die and Jews have to pull out that dead Levite using a rope). So, this is a unique experience and cannot be experienced by anyone. Unless until God physically appeared to someone and he was ’slain in the spirit” I cannot connect Revelation 1:17 experience with today’s “slaying in the spirit”.

In conclusion, I’ve learned that we cannot establish a doctrine thru only one passage in the Bible. That doctrine should be supported systematically by passages in the Scriptures (example is the doctrine of trinity wherein the whole Scriptures, from Genesis to
Revelation, states that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit is one God in three persons). Any position should be based upon an in-depth study of the total teachings of Christ.

I will try to answer here the questions people might ask. Some questions were asked to me by friend and some questions are hypothetical questions.

Q: Are saying that “slaying in the spirit” is of the devil?
A: In my life, I’ve learned and I am trying not to judge people. What I am saying here is that “slaying in the spirit’ cannot be supported in the biblical scrutiny. Thus, my personal decision is not to believe it. If some Christians (in fact, my best friend believes in some pentecostal practices) do it, my response is that I have to respect them. I will never, never judge anyone.

Q:The word “trinity” is not in the Bible. Why do you believe it and not “slaying in the spirit.”
A: The trinity is in the Bible. The Bilbe says that Jesus is God, our Father is God, and the Paraclete is God.

Q: There is no record in the Bible that a person cried when he was prayed for. Should we then stop people from crying when we pray for them because it is not in the Bible following your exegesis?
A: We cannot equate “crying:” and “slaying in the spirit” since the former does not require the element of laying of hands while the latter has it. Moreover, “crying’ is not a theological stand of some groups today while “slaying in the spirit’ is. Another thing, “slaying in the spirit” entails a somewhat structured occurrence. As I observe it, it happens when the minister prays and lays his hand to members (usually individually) while crying (as of now) has not been made a theological belief and this is not yet a structured occurrence. We can only compare one theological stand with another theological stand. As I see it, “crying” and “slaying in the spirit” are in two different planes.

Q: Yes, the “slaying in the spirit” is not in the Bible. But everything is not in the Bible.
A: A thorough study of the Scriptures is essential for validating any religious principle, action or conduct. The Bible is the “true center of Christian union, and the supreme standard by which all human, conduct, creeds and religious opinions should be tried.”(Article 2, Baptist Statement of Faith)Moreover, the Bible is the full and final revelation of God.