Holy Spirit's teaching in John 14:16

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

You will become a true believer!

"You will beleive.....Dr Jones."

"What a vivid imagination you have."

Good times.

[Vance]

If you say something loudly enough and often enough, does it become any less fallacious?

Good question. It is very applicable to your anti-Mormon rants.

John's one and only use of the word apostolos is in a general statement that does not limit its application to the group we know as apostles: "Verily, verily, I say unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord; neither he that is sent [apostolos] greater than he that sent him" (John 13:16).

. . .

It is clear that John simply did not use the term apostolos in the technical sense of a revelatory spokesperson of Jesus Christ. He wasn't alone--the author of Hebrews also never used apostolos with this meaning (his one use refers to Jesus, Heb. 3:1).

Good point. Thanks for sharing it, even though it undermines your position.

I notice that you said "in John 14-16," ignoring this occurrence in John 13.

. . .

That doesn't mean that these writers don't refer to the group of people that the NT elsewhere calls the apostles.

Well since you were misrepresenting the audience of Jesus

[Vance]

I specifically addressed this objection toward the end of my opening post.

No, you didn

[volgadon]

Don't get me involved in this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3gsAPmVK6g

Based on the only true and living novel about the Thuggee.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

The above exegetical conclusions will not sit well with many people. It is natural to feel that denying that these texts are referring to the Holy Spirit

[stelf]

I think I can agree that Christ was specifically speaking to particular group of disciples in John 14-16 and the He was explaining how the HG would help them in their mission. However, I see no reason whatsoever to conclude from these chapters that I am excluded from the group of people that can learn the truth through the Holy Ghost.

[mfbukowski]

Darth,

As I rather expected, my parody went straight over your head. Perhaps you thought that Monty Python and the Holy Grail was a documentary about King Arthur and that Charlie Chaplin's The Great Dictator was a biopic about an actual totalitarian dictator named Adenoid Hynkel.

How clever! I think we were supposed to not notice you dodging again while we were dazzled with your wit.

I say we should all just put this guy on ignore and go about our business. There's nothing here. Nothing at all. It's a waste of time to even attempt to engage him

[Mudcat]

Read in this light, the teaching of John 14-16 concerning the Spirit

[zerinus]

That's an assertion, not an exegetical argument. Jesus tells us what it was he wanted both his apostles and us to have, namely, unity. I agree that we need the Spirit to have that unity, but I do not agree that we need the Holy Spirit to do everything in us that he did in the apostles.

It is an exegetical argument. Just as His prayer was not directed to His immediate disciples only, but to all that

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Rob, in regards to what should be considered canon for the New Testament, I am in agreement.

However, emphasis mine, I couldn't disagree with you more here. In example, take the issue of slavery. I truly believe it was the Holy Spirit at work throughout the Church that brought such a heinous thing to its knees. But Scripture is silent on the matter of slavery. Actually there is quite a bit in their about the treatment of slaves, but there isn't a verse that says slavery is wrong.

I think Lewis had the right of it.

"It is Christ Himself, not the Bible, who is the true word of God. The Bible, read in the right spirit, and with the guidance of good teachers, will bring us to Him." (C.S. Lewis, Letters of C.S. Lewis, pg. 247.)

That is an interesting aspect that you have propsed Mudcat. Thanks for sharing. It is one that I had not considered. Take for instance the found fathers and what they had to say concearning our country.

[Zakuska]

Rob, in regards to what should be considered canon for the New Testament, I am in agreement.

However, emphasis mine, I couldn't disagree with you more here. In example, take the issue of slavery. I truly believe it was the Holy Spirit at work throughout the Church that brought such a heinous thing to its knees. But Scripture is silent on the matter of slavery. Actually there is quite a bit in their about the treatment of slaves, but there isn't a verse that says slavery is wrong.

I think Lewis had the right of it.

"It is Christ Himself, not the Bible, who is the true word of God. The Bible, read in the right spirit, and with the guidance of good teachers, will bring us to Him." (C.S. Lewis, Letters of C.S. Lewis, pg. 247.)

AMEN!

And I still don't understand why Christians pick and choose Pauls words as out-moded fluff.

1 Cor 14 4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.

5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is aeven all one as if she were shaven.

6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a ashame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.

Weren't his words inspired by the Holy Ghost? How then can they justify not heeding them?

Thats right. We don't have to listen to the Holy Ghost any more. Because He only teaches Apostles.

[Vance]

Rob, in regards to what should be considered canon for the New Testament, I am in agreement.

However, emphasis mine, I couldn't disagree with you more here. In example, take the issue of slavery. I truly believe it was the Holy Spirit at work throughout the Church that brought such a heinous thing to its knees. But Scripture is silent on the matter of slavery. Actually there is quite a bit in their about the treatment of slaves, but there isn't a verse that says slavery is wrong.

I think Lewis had the right of it.

"It is Christ Himself, not the Bible, who is the true word of God. The Bible, read in the right spirit, and with the guidance of good teachers, will bring us to Him." (C.S. Lewis, Letters of C.S. Lewis, pg. 247.)

Mudcat, That's not fair, you went outside of John 14-16.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Thats right. We don't have to listen to the Holy Ghost any more. Because He only teaches Apostles.

TO be fair to Rob, I don't think this is his position.

I am a little confused by Rob's position though. He writes a big article that basically tells us that many Christians mis-understand certain bible passages. Those bible passages tell us that the HG will teach us all truth, yet that passages only tell us that that was for the Apostles. At the end of his artcilce he does admit that the HG does indeed lead us to all truth. So I would as Rob that if the verses he cited that doesn't tell us this, then what scripture verses does he use to confirm this doctrine?

[Vance]

If your argument were valid, it would actually contradict the passages quoted from the first epistle of John, because John is making the same promises to all the disciples that Jesus made in Gospel of John to His immediate disciples. That makes it an exegesis and not an assertion. Your argument is simply bad reasoning. It is false logic. Take the Lord

[Vance]

AMEN!

And I still don't understand why Christians pick and choose Pauls words as out-moded fluff.

1 Cor 14 4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.

5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is aeven all one as if she were shaven.

6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a ashame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.

Weren't his words inspired by the Holy Ghost? How then can they justify not heeding them?

Thats right. We don't have to listen to the Holy Ghost any more. Because He only teaches Apostles.

Zakuska, That's not fair, you went outside of John 14-16.

[Rob Bowman]

For the most part, the level of responses here have been on the level of junior-high smart-aleck comments and snide remarks, along with a good deal of diversionary attempts to derail the subject of the thread. Kids, feel free to continue hooting and howling among yourselves. If any grown-ups come along and actually attempt to engage the argument, I'll be glad to discuss it further.

Zerinus and Mola are notable exceptions to the above comments, although Zerinus hasn't engaged the exegetical argument either, and Mola doesn't understand what I'm arguing. I give Zerinus the highest marks for at least bringing up a text by the same author and trying to make a case from it.

Mola, my point is this: The Holy Spirit leads believers into all truth through the teaching of the apostles, which has been preserved for us in the New Testament. The Holy Spirit does not reveal doctrinal truth to us apart from Scripture. In particular, I reject the idea of the Holy Spirit revealing to someone that the Bible is wrong about this or that doctrinal issue. What the Holy Spirit has to say to us on doctrine is found in Scripture--period.

[Rob Bowman]

Mudcat,

I'm sorry, I still don't know everyone here. Are you LDS?

I disagree with your comments about slavery in the Bible, but that is a topic for a different thread, if it's even relevant to this forum.

Christ himself disagreed with C. S. Lewis's comment. Christ referred to Scripture as the word of God (Matt. 15:6; Mark 7:13; John 10:35). Lewis is one of my heroes, but on this particular point I must go with Christ rather than Lewis.

Rob, in regards to what should be considered canon for the New Testament, I am in agreement.

However, emphasis mine, I couldn't disagree with you more here. In example, take the issue of slavery. I truly believe it was the Holy Spirit at work throughout the Church that brought such a heinous thing to its knees. But Scripture is silent on the matter of slavery. Actually there is quite a bit in their about the treatment of slaves, but there isn't a verse that says slavery is wrong.

I think Lewis had the right of it.

"It is Christ Himself, not the Bible, who is the true word of God. The Bible, read in the right spirit, and with the guidance of good teachers, will bring us to Him." (C.S. Lewis, Letters of C.S. Lewis, pg. 247.)

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

For the most part, the level of responses here have been on the level of junior-high smart-aleck comments and snide remarks, along with a good deal of diversionary attempts to derail the subject of the thread. Kids, feel free to continue hooting and howling among yourselves. If any grown-ups come along and actually attempt to engage the argument, I'll be glad to discuss it further.

Zerinus and Mola are notable exceptions to the above comments, although Zerinus hasn't engaged the exegetical argument either, and Mola doesn't understand what I'm arguing. I give Zerinus the highest marks for at least bringing up a text by the same author and trying to make a case from it.

Mola, my point is this: The Holy Spirit leads believers into all truth through the teaching of the apostles, which has been preserved for us in the New Testament. The Holy Spirit does not reveal doctrinal truth to us apart from Scripture. In particular, I reject the idea of the Holy Spirit revealing to someone that the Bible is wrong about this or that doctrinal issue. What the Holy Spirit has to say to us on doctrine is found in Scripture--period.

So your main contention then is that the HG does not or cannot, for an individual, reveal to them things out side the bible or scripture?

I can entertain the idea that I mis-understood you. That happens. I have a short attention span and I get bogged down with work. Sorry for that.

[Zakuska]

Zakuska, That's not fair, you went outside of John 14-16.

And here I thought the Evangelicals favorite line was... let scriptutre interpret Scripture... then when we do that the cry is "context", "context", context".

This merry-go-round is making me dizzy!

[Rob Bowman]

Mola,

You're fine. I don't have a problem with you. Yes, I think you've got it. I reject the idea that the Holy Spirit reveals doctrine to people outside Scripture. He could if he wanted, but I deny that he does that today. I especially reject the idea of the Holy Spirit revealing doctrine that disagrees with the Bible. Now that much ought to be beyond dispute, though it isn't.

So your main contention then is that the HG does not or cannot, for an individual, reveal to them things out side the bible or scripture?

I can entertain the idea that I mis-understood you. That happens. I have a short attention span and I get bogged down with work. Sorry for that.

[Vance]

The Holy Spirit leads believers into all truth through the teaching of the apostles, which has been preserved for us in the New Testament. The Holy Spirit does not reveal doctrinal truth to us apart from Scripture.

It would be nice for you to provide scripture supporting the presumption that this is the ONLY method the Holy Spirit uses. (Especially in light of scriptures indicating otherwise.)

You are also presuming that "all truth" is in the Bible, which is obviously NOT the case.

Can the Holy Spirit use scripture to teach us? Yes He can.

Is this the only method available to Him? No, it isn't.

And you continue to avoid addressing this point, in spite of several request for it.

You can continue to dodge, if you want. But as long as you do so, you will not be able to move this discussion forward.

In particular, I reject the idea of the Holy Spirit revealing to someone that the Bible is wrong about this or that doctrinal issue.

Are you denying that the Holy Spirit has this power or are you denying that there are any misinterpreted doctrine in the Bible?

What the Holy Spirit has to say to us on doctrine is found in Scripture--period.

Are you saying that the Holy Ghost doesn't have the power to reveal doctrine outside of (your interpretation of) the Bible?

Why is He so limited? Because you say so?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Mola,

You're fine. I don't have a problem with you. Yes, I think you've got it. I reject the idea that the Holy Spirit reveals doctrine to people outside Scripture. He could if he wanted, but I deny that he does that today. I especially reject the idea of the Holy Spirit revealing doctrine that disagrees with the Bible. Now that much ought to be beyond dispute, though it isn't.

I do not dispute your latter contention. The HG shouldn't,and I contend can't, revleal things contrary to scripture in terms of doctrine.

Ok so now that we understand each other, I think we can get down to it.

[zerinus]

Mola, my point is this: The Holy Spirit leads believers into all truth through the teaching of the apostles, which has been preserved for us in the New Testament.

Not true. The scripture does not say that. It says it will guide you into all truth.

[mfbukowski]

Mudcat is one of the few evangelicals who post here who is highly respected, I think by everyone.

That is because he actually gives answers and doesn't avoid issues. He states his case with respect and dignity and does so articulately, and if we disagree we respond in kind, or at least try to meet his high standards.

When you demand respect, you get it.

[Rob Bowman]

mfbukowski,

I have asked the Mormons in this thread repeatedly to answer my exegetical arguments, and none of you can or will! Instead, you are throwing all sorts of other texts at me, or changing the subject entirely, and claiming I won't answer you!

The nerve!

Mudcat is one of the few evangelicals who post here who is highly respected, I think by everyone.

That is because he actually gives answers and doesn't avoid issues. He states his case with respect and dignity and does so articulately, and if we disagree we respond in kind, or at least try to meet his high standards.

When you demand respect, you get it.