What are my Beliefs?

All right, welcome back to another episode of Revealed Apologetics. I'm your host, Eli Ayala, and today I'm kind of doing something, well, not super different, but usually I have a guest on to talk about some topic.

Today I'm basically just going to be talking about myself. I hope whoever's listening might find this a little interesting, but I thought it'd be a good idea to kind of unpack some of my own theological positions with respect to certain topics that might be of interest to some folks.

I do place great value in the fact that one is able to survey their own beliefs and explain why they hold to certain positions, and there is some educational value to that. And so as I share my views with respect to creation, soteriology, the doctrine of salvation, perhaps we'll talk a little bit about my eschatology, my end times view.

Perhaps folks will find that somewhat valuable as they are perhaps searching for their own perspective on these topics. And so hopefully that will be useful to whoever may be listening. You might also, if you're used to listening to my show and my voice is somewhat familiar, I am kind of sort of losing my voice.

So I'm partially questioning the wisdom of me even going live today, but here's the thing. I love theology. I love apologetics. I'm the sort of guy that on the one hand, you might see me very tired and I don't want to really get into a conversation, but once people start talking about the Bible or apologetics or theology, I get kind of a renewed energy.

So hopefully I won't lose my voice completely and I will get energized through reflecting on some interesting theological topics that I've studied in my own personal life. And hopefully you'll find that useful.

All right. So if I sound a little different, I do apologize. Just real quick before we dive into some of the specifics of some of my theological perspectives, I just want to give folks a heads up. I am still good to go in terms of having Dr. Matthew Barrett on.

If you don't know who Dr. Matthew Barrett is, he is the author of Simply Trinity and of course, the highly popular book, God's Word Alone. I believe that's what it's called. And there's a whole series there in which you have different authors defending some aspects, some pillar of reformed theology.

And so I'm very much looking forward to having Dr. Barrett on. Sola Scriptura is a very important reformed foundation. And especially with my study into Eastern Orthodoxy and of course, whoever might be involved in the study of Roman Catholicism, the issue of Sola Scriptura and one's ability to defend the truth of that doctrine is vitally, vitally important.

So I'm very much looking forward to that discussion. Also, Dr. Michael Heiser is hopefully still coming on. I haven't been able to reach out to him yet. I know he is undergoing some health issues and I'm kind of following some of the updates that he's posting on Facebook.

I've just recently recovered from COVID. So I haven't really been going 100 in terms of reaching out to folks and things like that. And so I'll check into that and keep folks posted with respect to that.

Also, if you have any questions about anything, so this is kind of like, I'm not only serving some of my perspectives, theologically speaking, but if you have any questions for me with respect to a position that I hold, or if you have any apologetics questions, all of that is fair game.

Feel free to leave a question in the comments. It is helpful and useful to me when you preface your question with the word question or the letter Q so that I could differentiate questions and comments.

Okay. So without further ado, let's get into this. Well, first I want to make a disclaimer. I am a theologian only in the popular sense. I do not have a PhD in theology. I grew up in the church and so theology has very much been a part of my life.

Whether I'm arguing some element of theology with family members or later on in life, engaging in apologetics and teaching theology to middle school and high school students. I am not a scholar by any means.

I've gone to seminary, but I don't read Koine Greek. I can read it very little. So everything that I'm going on is based upon really my own personal studies and personal reflections. This actually is something that should actually be very encouraging to folks.

For example, let's take a look at some of my apologetics. Now, a lot of people know that's a central focus of my ministry. My YouTube channel, of course, is called Revealed Apologetics. This is something that's very encouraging to folks.

Okay. I went to seminary. I have a graduate of Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary. I earned two masters in theological studies. I have a master of arts in theological studies and a master divinity with a theological focus.

Now, here's the thing. 99 of the theology that I learned actually was not from my seminary training, but rather through my personal study. Okay. And the value of knowing that is that you do not need to go to seminary in order to really dig deep into theological studies.

It definitely helps, but it can be done without it. If you have a good focus and discipline, you're going to a solid church where good doctrine is promoted. These sorts of things are sufficient as well to really equip the average believer.

So I want to encourage folks, you don't need to have a PhD next to your name in order to do theology or even do theology well. Hopefully, I'm a person who perhaps you think I do a theology and apologetics well.

I greatly appreciate that if you think that about me. But there have been some major ideas that I have struggled with. Especially with regards to the doctrine of creation, with the whole old earth, young earth debate.

And so I'm going to put my flag somewhere on this show and tell you a little bit where I stand with respect to the doctrine of creation. And we're going to kind of follow kind of general theological and biblical themes.

For example, you take a look at the scriptures. The scriptures are comprised of 66 books, 39 books in the Old Testament, 27 books in the New Testament, written over a period of 1 ,500 years, written on three different continents in three different languages, Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic.

Bible's a pretty big book. And it can be very intimidating, especially when you have one of those giant study Bibles. It looks like you're kind of studying and reading from an encyclopedia. But what I have found is that the entire Bible can be summarized in just a few major themes of which all of the stories, all of the teachings and doctrines really in the scriptures kind of reflect these broad, basic themes that you find throughout scripture.

And those themes are creation, redemption, I'm sorry, creation, the fall, redemption, and consummation. And so you have from creation all the way up to consummation, which really typifies, if you take a look in terms of just history, it really typifies what we would understand as what we call a linear model of history.

And this is very important. History itself, along with everything else that we believe is always interpreted within a worldview perspective. And so I see history, this is kind of my theology of history.

I see history as linear. In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. Okay. And so my belief in creation is connected to my belief that everything within history has a specific purpose. History itself is unfolding God's plans, God's purposes, especially with respect to his unfolding of his redemptive plan throughout history.

So I believe, especially coming from a reformed perspective, I believe that God decrees whatsoever comes to pass. And that is what gives the events of history meaning and significance. Okay. So beginning with some of my theological beliefs, I have a theological perspective of history.

And so I follow what we call a linear model, which is actually very different. I'm not sure if folks are familiar with this, but when you study history, what undergirds history and what undergirds all of the disciplines, whether you're studying philosophy, mathematics, science, whatever the case may be, there is always, as you should be familiar with, if you listen to this show, there are always undergirding worldview foundations.

Okay. There's not just history. There is a philosophy of history. And the philosophy of history is not just a bare philosophy, a general perspective. It comes from a specific worldview perspective. And so you could have a very Christian understanding of history, and you can have a very, let's say, an Eastern perspective of history, which follows a more cyclical model of history.

So from the Christian perspective, as I perceive it, history proceeds in linear fashion, creation, and then everything that unfolds from there is actually moving towards a specific end. Now, that being said, this is important if you're a Christian who believes in the decrees of God, that whatever happens in time and space is something that unfolds God's plans and purposes.

Okay. That is not to say, especially coming from a reform perspective, when I say that, for example, I do not believe in luck, chance, and randomness, that is not to say that just because there is a reason and purpose for everything that happens, that we necessarily know what those reasons are.

Okay. So for example, when you take a look at the philosophical problem of evil and Christians grapple with the notion of the existence of objective evil and the existence of the sort of God that is presented in scripture, I do believe that God has morally sufficient reasons for the evil that he allows, but that doesn't mean I know specifically in every instance and manifestation of evil, that I know what that specific purpose is.

There is elements of mystery within that perspective. And of course, there is a theology of mystery, which I firmly hold to. I do not pretend to be able to explain every single detail of why God does what he does.

Deuteronomy 29 .29 says that the secret things belong to the Lord, but the things revealed belong to us and our children's children. And so I think theologically, and this is something I hold very strongly, there is room for mystery, an appropriate room for mystery.

And it is not always, it can be sometimes, but it's not always a cop-out to appeal to mystery. So for example, if you know some of the interviews that I've done with respect to Calvinism, theological determinism, engaging the question of how one is to reconcile the notion that God is meticulously sovereign, yet man is sufficiently free and morally responsible for his actions, we have theological and philosophical explanations as to how we think those things work out.

But I do believe, regardless if there are, you know, vitriolic insults that are hurled in the direction of Reformed theology for this, I do believe that in some cases it is very appropriate to affirm that how these elements are reconciled is in fact quite mysterious.

And so that when we are engaging in philosophical and theological explanation as to how, for divine sovereignty and human freedom and responsibility, we are engaging in speculation. Okay? That does not mean that it's inappropriate.

There is appropriate speculation. But we are speculating because I'm very much in line with John Calvin, who held to the principle that when the scripture is silent, we should be also. Again, so I don't mind talking about, you know, having someone like Guillaume Bignon on or some other Reformed philosopher to talk about how we explain some of these elements and how these things work together.

Ultimately, I have no problem saying I really don't know for sure how all of these things work out. And I have no problem with that. As a matter of fact, a friend of mine, you guys might be familiar with him.

He is a well-known Molinist, okay? If anyone is familiar with Molinism, which is a particular view of divine sovereignty, which places a great emphasis on what's called middle knowledge. I have a friend, his name is Tim Stratton.

He told me once, he said, if I wasn't a Calvinist, I'm sorry, if I wasn't a Molinist, I would be a Mysterian Calvinist, okay? And for Tim, or Dr. Stratton, we'll recognize his credentials there, Dr. Stratton defines Mysterian Calvinism as the sort of Calvinism that says, sure, God is meticulously sovereign, man is sufficiently free and morally responsible, but it's a mystery, I'm not sure how it works out.

I'm okay with that, okay? So I'm a Calvinist, I tend to lean towards a form of theological determinism, and I believe it, not only because I find the philosophical argumentation cogent and sufficient to my intellectual satisfaction, and that determinism survives many of the critiques that are launched at it by folks who hold to a more libertarian perspective, but most importantly, because I have a very high view of scripture, I believe that reformed theology and a particular form of determinism is something that is reflected in the biblical text.

I know some people will hear that and they'll say, that's ridiculous. You know, they'll say, when I read the scriptures, I don't see anything in scripture that even remotely looks like a form of determinism.

Yeah, I don't think so. Even if Calvinism was wrong, I would admit that there are elements of scripture that seem very deterministic, and so the debate and the discussion is not as simple as waving your hand and pretending that Calvinists have nothing valuable to bring to the table.

In like fashion, I do believe, as a student of scripture, that in favor of the Arminian perspective, or someone who holds to a view of free will, which leans more towards the libertarian perspective, while I do not hold to those perspectives, while I do not believe they are necessarily reflected in scripture, I totally and completely understand why someone can read portions of scripture and come away with that perspective.

And so I hold to a particular view. I am Calvinistic in terms of my view of divine providence, but I respect different perspectives and I see why some people hold the positions they hold. Ultimately, at the end of the day, my theological convictions are that those non-reformed perspectives, libertarian perspectives, are ultimately not the correct view, okay?

And that is the position that I hold. Some of you who might not be familiar with some past episodes and the certain things that I've studied before, I actually used to be a Molinist. And I remember the book, that actually converted me to Molinism into an adoption of libertarian free will and things like that.

It was a book by Kenneth Keithley, who is a professor over at Southeastern Theological Seminary. He wrote a book called Salvation and Sovereignty. And that book, when I read it, convinced me of Molinism, until I started applying Molinism to other areas, which I thought were very important, especially with soteriology and things like that.

And I became unconvinced in its application in those areas. And for other reasons as well, I kind of went back to my reformed perspective. And so I am a Calvinist. I do not hold to libertarian free will.

And no, I'm not convinced by the accusation. Well, you were determined to say that! I think those are very simplistic responses. And the debate on that topic, I think, goes much, much deeper. So that's my perspective with respect to a theology of time.

I believe time proceeds in linear fashion. It is an unfolding of God's redemptive and decretive purposes. With respect to my view of divine providence and things like that, I lean within a reformed and Calvinistic tradition.

There's some variation even within that, but I tend to hold to a form of theological determinism. If you need a point of reference and say, what do you mean theological determinism? If you read someone like Guillaume Bignon, who's a good friend of mine.

He's a French philosopher. I tend to lean towards his position with respect to that topic. Okay? All right. Well, again, just to remind folks, if you have any theological questions or biblical questions, feel free to put them in the comments.

It does not necessarily have to be related to a view that I am sharing here. But, you know, ask away. All right. Okay. So my next topic, which people have seen me go back and forth on, if you know, and I highly recommend, and I know folks who have seen the discussions on this topic would highly recommend on my channel, are the discussions I had with Dr. Jason Lyle, who is a young earth creationist and he is a PhD astrophysicist.

And I had him in dialogue with Dr. Hugh Ross, who is also a PhD astrophysicist and an old earth creationist. And I moderated a discussion between the two. And in my opinion, I suppose I'm biased, right?

As I often say, there is no neutrality, right? I'm biased. You know, I think that that was one of the best conversations on that topic that I've ever listened to. And Dr. Lyle and Dr. Ross have had interactions in the past, but I actually think the discussion they had on my show was the best discussion that I had the pleasure of listening to between them.

So I highly recommend you listen to that. But where do I stand? Okay. Where would I stand with respect to this debate over the days of creation? Now, here's the thing you need to understand that studies in interpretation of the book of Genesis is a very, very complicated field.

Okay. It's not as simple as just reading Genesis 1 and 2 and saying, oh, this is clearly what they're saying. Okay. There is a very important consideration of historical context, identification of the literary genre of various portions of Genesis.

And you have people from different perspectives arguing, well, clearly it's this or clearly it's that. Listen, I'm a presuppositionalist in my perspective. I trust in the authority of God's word. I understand the importance not of just looking at data and evidence in favor of a view.

I am very sensitive to the fact that our presuppositions affect how we interpret the data. Okay. And this, when you study the creation account in Genesis and throughout scripture, there is a strong interplay between literary interpretation and scientific findings, things like that.

You get into questions of Big Bang cosmology and evidence for or against and young earth or older perspectives. I am not ashamed. Okay. Of the fact that the Bible may be teaching that God created everything in six 24 hour periods and that the universe is somewhere between six to 10 ,000 years old.

That's not the issue. My issue is not I'm afraid to sway in one position. My issue is that Genesis is a very nuanced book. There is different ways one can identify theological and literary genre playing within those accounts.

And so it is not an easy decision for me. Okay. Now you might read Genesis and be like, Oh, it's clear for me with some of the things I know, with respect to what goes into studying ancient literature and genre and things like that.

It has not been an easy study and an easy situation in which I can just put a flag down and be like, this is where, where I hope. However, okay. I told you at the beginning of this video, I'm going to put my flag somewhere.

Okay. Now, now here's the thing. I personally do not hold to say a literary framework perspective. I, I am not attracted to over a meta. I isn't, if it's a real word, but let me rephrase myself. I'm not overly attracted to positions that look at a lot of metaphor in Genesis.

Okay. I am attracted to a more literal interpretation of what I'm reading. Okay. Now literal is a sticky word. You will often hear people say, well, you know, do you interpret the Bible literally? Well, yes, but it depends what you mean by literal.

Okay. This is actually an important point to, to, to kind of point out to interpret the Bible literally is to interpret the Bible according to its literature and identifying the literature of portions of the Bible that you're reading is not always, pardon, is not always an easy thing to do.

Now, all of that sidestepping and ambiguity aside. Okay. If you put a gun to my head and you said, Eli, you need to choose right now, do you understand the creation account to be literally 24 hour days or long periods of time or other perspectives out there?

I would have to say that if you, if you put a gun to my head and force me to, to, to put my flag somewhere, I would be more sympathetic to a young earth interpretation. Okay. Now I say this with flexibility in the sense that if you happen to hold, for example, to a day age perspective in terms of which the, the creation days are not literal 24 hour days, but rather long periods of time, I'm of the position where I can look at the text and say, okay, I see where you're coming from.

And I kind of see how that might make sense. Okay. So I do not see the old earth creation perspective, an example, the day age interpretation or something like that. I do not see those perspectives as a, um, a compromised perspective.

You will often hear this language, right? Um, oh, well those, you know, deep time proponents are compromisers, right? They are adopting secular perspective. I don't hold to that. I don't use that sort of language in describing the other position.

Um, and, uh, you might have strong convictions, uh, to the, you know, to the contrary. I, I just think that the, the topic is more nuanced and requires a little bit more flexibility. So ready? I am okay.

A flexible young earth creationist who is open to old earth interpretations. Okay. I, I get hit by a car. I go through the pearly gates and I asked Jesus, which one was it? Okay. And suppose Jesus says, well, it was the old earth perspective.

Hugh Ross was my messenger. And I tried to tell people if that's the case. Cool. All right. I'm down. I'm down with that. Um, if you know, I get to heaven and Jesus says, yep, it's the young earth perspective.

Don't you know that, that God has the power to create all things in a split second. Come on, man. Um, I'm okay with that as well. Okay. Um, what I am also okay with, but I don't agree with at all. Okay.

I am not, nor do I hold to the view that scripture allows. This is my perspective. I know a lot of people, um, uh, might disagree with this. Uh, but I do not believe that a, um, a theistic evolutionary perspective is a viable option in terms of understanding, uh, the text there.

Okay. Uh, now suppose I get to heaven and God says up, God used devil. We, I use devil. Okay. But as I read the text of scripture, I do not see a room for that in ways that perhaps some other Christian brothers, uh, may, may see that as a viable, a viable position to hold.

Okay. So I lean more towards a younger perspective. I do not reprimand folks who hold to an older perspective, but I am not a theistic evolutionist. All right. Okay. So I hope that makes sense and kind of, uh, allows you to see where I, my flags kind of get rooted in the ground there in terms of really, interestingly enough, a very highly contentious theological, um, topic.

I mean, there've been tons of books, uh, on creation, uh, and evolution and, you know, different interpretive models. Uh, it's actually pretty, uh, pretty interesting. Okay. All right. Um, I see some people, uh, send in some questions.

Yeah. Keep, keep them coming. I will definitely address them. Um, uh, and, uh, yeah, so I'm kind of going to go through some other perspectives here, uh, with, with respect to my own personal theology, and then I'll take some questions there.

So we got a couple of good ones. Okay. All right. All right. It's tempting to just kind of stop talking now and just go to some of the questions. Uh, yeah. Okay. Let me go through a couple more, uh, a couple of more of my theological positions and then we'll, we'll stay focused.

Okay. All right. So another, another topic that I, okay. So I talked about my view of creation. I talked a little bit about my, um, uh, theological position with respect to being reformed, which is no secret for people who watch this, uh, this show, uh, to say that I'm reformed is very ambiguous since there is a lot of variation within the reform, uh, tradition.

Uh, but so, so teary ology, I hold to all five points of, of the tulip acronym. Uh, for example, I am not convinced at all. Uh, when I listened to, uh, my friend Layton flowers, uh, who I think is, uh, a brother in Christ, uh, a nice guy with, when it comes to kind of the, our personal interactions, but, um, I, uh, am not convinced at all of his understanding.

So I'm not a provisionist. I'm not an Arminian. Um, I tend to be right in line with, uh, popular notions of, of what people think of in terms of what Calvinist, uh, believe. Okay. So I'm a five point Calvinist.

I hold to total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace and perseverance of, uh, the saints. Okay. As a matter of fact, um, guess which, uh, one out of the, uh, tulip acronym, uh, was the one that was the most difficult for me to affirm.

Okay. When you take a little, let's define our terms here. So, so folks who aren't familiar with, with Calvinism, uh, Calvinism as with, with the emphasis of, uh, what we call in theology. So Terry ology, which is the doctrine of salvation.

Okay. Uh, if you, you know, learn these theological terms, you have, um, you have theology, which is the study of God Christology, which is the study of Christ. Okay. You have a hermitology, which is the study of the doctrine of sin.

Okay. You have, um, eschatology, which is the study of last things. And you have. So Terry ology, which is the study of the doctrine of salvation, ecclesiology, which is the study of the church and things like these are theological terms.

Okay. So when I use the term, so Terry ology, I'm, I'm in essence talking about, um, the study of the doctrine of salvation. What is my, so Terry ology, what is my belief about how God saves people? Okay.

Um, and so when you talk about Calvinism, this is very important. Um, Calvinism is not simply a, so Terry ological perspective. Calvinism is a much more broader, uh, um, uh, theological perspective. Okay.

Um, of which so Terry ology is a more, uh, a more focused emphasis on the question of how does God redeem people? Okay. And so out of the, the, the tulip acronym, there is total depravity. The idea that we are totally and completely covered and touched by sin and all that we are, um, given our state of depravity, uh, no man seeks after God.

We are at enmity with God. We are born in sin and trespasses. So left to ourself, left to our own devices. We will never seek after God. Okay. Um, that is why salvation requires unconditional election.

Uh, God chooses us from before the foundation of the world because we would not have chosen him. And so God chooses a people, the father chooses a people to give to the son and the son redeems that people, he makes atonement for that people.

So you have total depravity, unconditional election. We are predestined before the foundation of the world, not based on anything that we do. And then typically this is the most difficult pill to swallow for a lot of people.

And that is actually the doctrine of limited atonement. Okay. And limited atonement is very difficult for people. Um, not only emotionally, because it is difficult to conceive of the idea that the God of the Bible, when it speaks of sending Jesus Christ to die for the world, um, why would God send Jesus to only die for the elect and not for everyone?

Okay. So there's kind of an emotional, uh, um, objection to limited atonement and there's a very strong biblical objection. So you have people who reject limited atonement will often appeal to those texts and scripture, which, um, emphasize a universal language.

Okay. And John three 16. I mean, it's not always used, but I mean, you have that universal language for God's soul of the world. He gave his only begotten son that whoever believes in him will not perish, but have eternal life.

So you have that word, uh, world there. So it seems like a universal scope. Um, God is the savior, uh, of, of the world and not only the, uh, not only those who believe, but for the world. So you have this idea of, uh, Jesus dying for, uh, it's kind of a universal, uh, atonement.

Okay. Now that said, while limited atonement has often been the most difficult for people, the last, I actually think limited atonement is clear in scripture in the sense that when you understand the nature of the atonement and substitutionary sacrifice, especially as projected in the book of Hebrews and things like that, um, limited atonement was not a difficult concept for me to, uh, understand when I studied limited atonement became convinced of it.

I was like, okay, yeah, I see how that works. What was difficult for me, uh, to adopt was actually the eye in the tulip acronym, which is irresistible grace. Okay. That was my own personal struggle. Uh, but at the end I did, I, what I am able to perceive the idea that in reform theology and reform soteriology, I am of the position that each letter in the acronym T U L I P are logically connected such that if you believe in one, uh, the other aspects seem to follow, uh, logically.

Okay. Um, so that's my position with respect to salvation, uh, election, things like that. I know there's some nuance even within those terms. Uh, perhaps we can talk about that if you have questions, uh, with respect to those things.

Okay. All right. Cool. All right. So, um, yeah. Okay. So, um, that's my position with respect to soteriology. I am a five point, a Calvinist, my creation position. I lean more towards a young earth perspective.

Of course, my apologetics is presuppositional in, in nature. So we, uh, uh, you know, we often talk about that in this channel. Okay. Um, let's, let's, let's touch the controversial stuff now as though that wasn't controversial.

What is my position on speaking in tongues? Okay. Um, I wasn't gonna touch on this, uh, position, but I was like, you know, I'm thinking about it. You know what? I've thought a lot about, uh, you know, position of the, the charismatic, uh, you know, uh, church and the practices and things like that.

Um, for those of you who, um, are familiar with some of my beliefs and you are, are, are privy to the fact. And if, if you weren't now, you know, that I lean more towards a reform perspective. I actually was raised in a Pentecostal church.

Okay. Um, my entire, uh, childhood from age zero to my early twenties, I was a member of an assemblies of God church. And so my entire foundation. Okay. One second. My entire foundation of learning was within the context of a Pentecostal context.

Now, gratefully, I am grateful for this, that in my, in my own, um, life, as I grew up in church, um, I did not go to the sort of Pentecostal church that participated in some of the more extreme charismatic practices where things get a little wild and crazy.

Um, I did see a couple of things, especially when we used to go to, um, we had these, uh, these things called a spring fest or winter fest. And it's usually the, um, these, um, big retreats where a bunch of churches would come together.

There were the highlights of my childhood, by the way, I would not take any of those events back. I formed some great friendships there. And even in the midst of some theological things that were taught that I no longer hold.

Um, I did learn a lot and had a lot of opportunity to grow when I went to, um, you know, these events. But as I look back now, there are a lot of things that I believed at one point, but no longer believe today.

And we'll talk a little bit, um, about that. Okay. So first, okay, let's go on to some of the, uh, what I would say is the, uh, is the less biblical practice within the charismatic church. And I would say less biblical because I don't see it anywhere in scripture is, uh, is the idea of being slain in the spirit.

Now I grew up in the context where people would fall down. Didn't happen every service. You know, when you have that revival service, then you would have a situation where people would go up to the front.

I was, um, altar calls were a big part of my church experience. Okay. And I went to a Spanish Pentecostal church and that that's actually different than your generic run of the mill Pentecostal church because within the subculture of, of Spanish Hispanic culture, uh, there's a definitely a different flavor, uh, than when you go to say, uh, a more American Pentecostal context.

Okay. Uh, if you know anything about Puerto Ricans, I'm a Puerto Rican. Okay. Uh, Puerto Ricans, Hispanic people tend to be very, very passionate. And so, um, passion energy, right? The music, this was very much a part of my experience when listening to preachers and things like that.

And so, um, mixed in with very charismatic speakers, dynamic and confident peoples of preaching with authority, which was something I appreciated. You also had the practice of the altar call and, uh, depending on the service or depending on the event, we went away to one of these spring fest or winter fest.

You would have this situation of people falling back. And I remember my first winter retreat. Um, we were in, again, I, we were part of what was called the Spanish Eastern district. Okay. And so when we went to these retreats, you had, uh, churches from all over a Long Island and New York, uh, go to this event.

So there would be hundreds and hundreds of young people. Um, and what was strongly impressed upon my mind, and I could still think of the details now is that the first event that I went to, um, that was the event that I saw the most people fall out that I've ever seen before.

I remember looking around and seeing people all over the floor. It actually looked like, uh, you know, there was a riot chairs were flipped upside down. You know, you had the music, uh, you know, the guy was, you know, who's leading worship was singing this, you know, the songs for like the same song for like an hour.

I'm like, are we still on this song? Uh, so I was very much a part of that culture, my position with respect to slain in the spirit. And this is, uh, um, this is being straightforward. I grew up in that context.

Uh, so I, I understand how things go in that regard. I do not see it in scripture. Okay. Now this is important because when I came to, I actually remember what convinced me that slain in the spirit was not biblical.

Okay. I remember, um, ironically, if, if, if you know, um, I actually had Hank Hanegraaff on my show, uh, a while back to talk about Eastern orthodoxy. And I remember before, of course, uh, Hank converted to Eastern orthodoxy, he had these little Bible question answer books.

Okay. And in one of the books, there was a small article, um, that, um, uh, that treated the question of being slain in the spirit. And it was when I first read that, that I began to doubt whether what I was seeing in the church and what I was seeing people experience, whether that was in fact biblical.

Now, without getting into too much detail, here's the thing. If I see something in the church and I observe, okay. All right. Now I grew up in a Spanish speaking church. I do not, I don't speak fluent Spanish.

I always joke around. I'm a terrible Puerto Rican. Okay. You speak to me in Spanish. Now I will understand a lot, but I cannot speak back in Spanish. Uh, and so there's still a big gap in terms of my, my, uh, my Spanish comprehension, but this actually played a role in my own, um, studies because I did not understand for the most part, the sermons growing up because they weren't Spanish.

I would spend my time in church Tuesdays, Thursdays, Sundays, we'd have two services on Sundays, one in the morning, one in the evening. Sometimes the services would be a two hours. If we had a guest speaker, an evangelist would almost be three hours.

I spent my time reading my Bible at this little new, new international Bible, a new international version. And I read the living daylights out of that from when I was little until I was an adult. So I was observing a lot of these practices of people falling down and things like that with knowledge of the scriptures.