Holy Spirit's teaching in John 14:16

[Rob Bowman]

Zerinus,

You wrote:

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

[Vance]

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.

Matt 15:6 And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.

Mark 7:13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

John 10:35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

??????????????

It is not obvious that Jesus is equating "word of God" to "scriptures". In fact it is apparent that "word of God" is far more than scripture.

Luke 3:1 Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar . . . 2 . . . the word of God came unto John the son of Zacharias in the wilderness.

Did the "scriptures" travel to John in the wilderness, or did God speak to John through the Holy Ghost? After all, John was "filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother

[Vance]

Please tell me where in any of these texts Jesus promises us to know doctrinal truth, in this mortal life, beyond what is in the Bible.

Can you show me where Jesus EVER mentions the "Bible"?

Remember, the words "all truth" have a context, and unless you claim to be omniscient, or on your way to becoming omniscient in this mortal life, John 16:13 is not promising knowledge in this mortal life beyond what is found in the Bible.

The Bible didn't even exist until several hundred years AFTER Jesus was on the earth. And He never mentioned it, so how could He be referring to ONLY it when He said "all truth"?

What was that you said? Oh yeah,

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

Have you tried bolding your repetitious fallacious tripe to make it less fallacious?

[Mudcat]

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.

Hi Rob,

To answer your question, no I am not LDS. My wife and her family are, though. I suppose I self identify as an evangelical. I serve and worship in a Southern Baptist church, but don't self identify as a Southern Baptist per say (primarily because of my issues with Biblical inerrancy and OSAS). A bit of a loose canon in some respects I suppose

Re: Slavery and it's relation to Scripture. I think it's actually a relevant point. What evidence, given fair context, seems to support the position that the Bible was in fact against slavery?

Rob, you like I, would likely say that slavery is abominable. I believe Christ through his Holy Spirit worked upon the hearts of men on such matters. You seem to say the Holy Spirit worked upon the hearts of men through Scripture on such matters. If so... and I have read your previous statement correctly, then where is that to be found in Scripture?

IMO, it is not to be found in Scripture, it is found in the heart of the Christian.

I understand that you disagree with Lewis, he is just a fellow after all. I don't agree with him on some points either. I suppose he was a bit of a fulcrum for my lever.

Now to address your point as to what Christ referred to as Scripture. Surely he quoted from the OT is some variation.. be it Septuagint, Masoretic or possibly targums, I am unaware and certainly no expert in the matter.

You may disagree with Lewis but do you disagree with John's Gospel as well?

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Joh 1:2 The same was in the beginning with God.

Joh 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

Joh 1:4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

Joh 1:5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

........

Joh 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

Regardless, I would ask you, if you are to take Scripture to equal the final say, Word of God and so forth. What Scripture is that? I mean are you acceptable to the Marcan Appendix, Comma Johannine and so forth? If so why?

I suppose you will likely perceive my response as a riposte of sorts.

Well, it is.

So far all you have to offer is interpretational bias, for support. Certainly there are other interpretations available and as you recognized, there are various sects of Christians who appeal to the Holy Spirit for such on an interpretational basis. However it becomes a battle of which interpretation is more correct.

More importantly, such an argument stifles the Holy Spirit to the context of Scripture only. IOW, God can't speak aside from Scripture is what you seem to be saying. You seem to believe that.

I disagree with you. (edit) I will make a rather harsh alliteration.

I imagine you watched Braveheart before. I think sometimes we are guilty of holding the Holy Spirit down to a table and gutting him, like they did Wallace in the movie. The Table being the Bible, the guts being the verses.. but the message he gives, regardless of our motives, can't be stifled...... "Freedom!"

Respectfully,

Mudcat

[Vance]

You are taking the words "all truth" out of context. In context, "all truth" in John 16:13 means all the truth that Jesus wanted to tell his listeners at the Last Supper but they were not ready to hear (v. 12). Verse 13 is not a promise that if you have the Holy Spirit he will make you omniscient.

Has anyone here claimed that we can be made omniscient in this life?

Do you think this was a promise to His "listeners" that they would be made omniscient in this life?

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

I pointed out that in Mark 7:13 and John 10:35, Jesus referred to Scripture as "the word of God." You replied:

It is not obvious that Jesus is equating "word of God" to "scriptures". In fact it is apparent that "word of God" is far more than scripture.

Luke 3:1 Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar . . . 2 . . . the word of God came unto John the son of Zacharias in the wilderness.

Vance, you're changing the subject. I was responding to the claim that Scripture is NOT "the word of God." I was not arguing that ONLY Scripture is the word of God.

The rest of your post proceeds on the basis of this false starting point.

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

I had written, in response to Zerinus:

"Please tell me where in any of these texts Jesus promises us to know doctrinal truth, in this mortal life, beyond what is in the Bible."

You replied:

Can you show me where Jesus EVER mentions the "Bible"? The Bible didn't even exist until several hundred years AFTER Jesus was on the earth. And He never mentioned it, so how could He be referring to ONLY it when He said "all truth"?

You're missing the context, as usual. Zerinus had said, with regard to John 16:13,

It says it will guide you into all truth.

[Rob Bowman]

Mudcat,

You know, I'm starting to wonder if there is any point to trying to present any argument for consideration in this forum. I start a thread on the exegesis of specific texts in the Gospel of John on the teaching ministry of the Holy Spirit, and everyone here wants to talk about anything but that topic. Even someone who identifies himself as an evangelical is trying to derail the topic -- by trying to start an argument about the basis for rejecting slavery! You can rationalize any diversion from the issue by claiming that there is some connection, but it doesn't change the fact that it's a diversion.

Suppose, for the sake of argument, that you are right and the Bible never says anything to indicate that slavery is bad. Suppose you are right and Christians came to reject the practice of slavery solely because the Spirit moved them to do so, completely independent of any consideration from Scripture. Would this somehow negate the exegetical reasoning I presented concerning John 16:13? That's a rhetorical question; the answer is No, it will not. In fact, I have said REPEATEDLY that in this thread I was making the extremely modest claim that John 14:26 and John 16:13 do not teach the idea you are advocating. I left it as an open question if the doctrine could be supported from some other Scripture. Like everyone else here, you have chosen to ignore all of these careful qualifications and the actual argument of the opening post.

Your attempt to defend Lewis's comment that the Bible is not the word of God falls flat, because I agree that Jesus Christ is the living Word of God. I did not claim that ONLY the Bible is the word of God; I simply claimed that it IS the word of God. I can sort of understand a Mormon like Vance not getting this, but what is your excuse?

The rest of your post is even more irrelevant, except for the end, where the real problem is made clear. Your problem with viewing the Bible as the word of God is that you find it stifling. You don't want anyone telling you what to believe. By appealing to the teaching of the invisible Spirit in the invisible heart and pitting that against Scripture, you have "freedom" to believe and do whatever you want. You do not want the Spirit inspiring a written word of God that tells you in black and white what the truth is; you find that akin to someone pinning you down on a table and gutting your intestines. You prefer the Spirit inspiring a subjective experience that is up to each individual to judge for himself. I'm sorry, but your problem here is not with me, but it is with the Lord Jesus Christ, who took the very view of Scripture you reject.

[Facsimile 3]

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.

So basically as long as one reads the words in the Bible, however it may have been translated for their understanding, they can feel the Spirit bear witness of Jesus Christ and the Divinity (truthfulness) of the Bible. The Bible's words have a monopoly on this kind of spiritual experience. Does this summery match well with your version of Christianity?

What did people do before the Bible was compiled during the life of the Apostles and after their deaths? How did they receive doctrine by the Spirit?

I especially reject the idea of the Holy Spirit revealing doctrine that disagrees with the Bible.

In what way would you describe the New Testament as not disagreeing with the Old Testament without at the same time weakening your stance on the Book of Mormon disagreeing with the Bible?

[Vance]

I don't see anything in John 16:13 that says that the "all truth" included doctrinal truth that was not going to be in the Bible.

The Bible didn't exist when Jesus said it, why should His statement be limited to something that didn't exist at the time?

Why should Jesus' statement be limited to scripture that DID exist at the time?

Or why should Jesus' statement be limited to scripture that DIDN'T exist at the time?

Why are you trying to limit Jesus' statement at all?

Why are you trying to limit God at all?

[Vance]

Mudcat,

You know, I'm starting to wonder if there is any point to trying to present any argument for consideration in this forum. I start a thread on the exegesis of specific texts in the Gospel of John on the teaching ministry of the Holy Spirit, and everyone here wants to talk about anything but that topic. Even someone who identifies himself as an evangelical is trying to derail the topic -- by trying to start an argument about the basis for rejecting slavery! You can rationalize any diversion from the issue by claiming that there is some connection, but it doesn't change the fact that it's a diversion.

Suppose, for the sake of argument, that you are right and the Bible never says anything to indicate that slavery is bad. Suppose you are right and Christians came to reject the practice of slavery solely because the Spirit moved them to do so, completely independent of any consideration from Scripture. Would this somehow negate the exegetical reasoning I presented concerning John 16:13? That's a rhetorical question; the answer is No, it will not. In fact, I have said REPEATEDLY that in this thread I was making the extremely modest claim that John 14:26 and John 16:13 do not teach the idea you are advocating. I left it as an open question if the doctrine could be supported from some other Scripture. Like everyone else here, you have chosen to ignore all of these careful qualifications and the actual argument of the opening post.

Your attempt to defend Lewis's comment that the Bible is not the word of God falls flat, because I agree that Jesus Christ is the living Word of God. I did not claim that ONLY the Bible is the word of God; I simply claimed that it IS the word of God. I can sort of understand a Mormon like Vance not getting this, but what is your excuse?

The rest of your post is even more irrelevant, except for the end, where the real problem is made clear. Your problem with viewing the Bible as the word of God is that you find it stifling. You don't want anyone telling you what to believe. By appealing to the teaching of the invisible Spirit in the invisible heart and pitting that against Scripture, you have "freedom" to believe and do whatever you want. You do not want the Spirit inspiring a written word of God that tells you in black and white what the truth is; you find that akin to someone pinning you down on a table and gutting your intestines. You prefer the Spirit inspiring a subjective experience that is up to each individual to judge for himself. I'm sorry, but your problem here is not with me, but it is with the Lord Jesus Christ, who took the very view of Scripture you reject.

Mudcat,

In other words, you point totally refutes his claim and he doesn't like it because he can't weaken it.

[mfbukowski]

Mudcat, ....

You do not want the Spirit inspiring a written word of God that tells you in black and white what the truth is; you find that akin to someone pinning you down on a table and gutting your intestines. You prefer the Spirit inspiring a subjective experience that is up to each individual to judge for himself. I'm sorry, but your problem here is not with me, but it is with the Lord Jesus Christ, who took the very view of Scripture you reject.

It's funny how you are willing to criticize this "subjective experience", but when we defend it, you are suddenly only interested in exegesis of specific verses, ignoring their full meaning.

Since you are now apparently willing to discuss it, I am still wondering how you know the Bible is the word of God, absent some sort of "subjective experience"

I think you will find that you will have a few unresolved credibility problems should you post here again.

[Facsimile 3]

You do not want the Spirit inspiring a written word of God that tells you in black and white what the truth is; you find that akin to someone pinning you down on a table and gutting your intestines. You prefer the Spirit inspiring a subjective experience that is up to each individual to judge for himself. I'm sorry, but your problem here is not with me, but it is with the Lord Jesus Christ, who took the very view of Scripture you reject.

It's funny how you are willing to criticize this "subjective experience", but when we defend it, you are suddenly only interested in exegesis of specific verses, ignoring their full meaning.

I think you will find that you will have a few unresolved credibility problems should you post here again.

Could this fear of the subjective spiritual experience and attempt to diminish its importance be considered the definition of the nonelect of God?

I think so.

[mfbukowski]

Could this fear of the subjective spiritual experience and attempt to diminish its importance be considered the definition of the nonelect of God?

I think so.

A characteristic of fundamentalism is the need to blindly follow perceived authority without a good reason for believing it's legitimacy, or simply accepting tradition without thought.

It would seem to follow that if our purpose in life is to find the truth, God would favor those who are willing to follow his communications.

[zerinus]

You are taking the words "all truth" out of context. In context, "all truth" in John 16:13 means all the truth that Jesus wanted to tell his listeners at the Last Supper but they were not ready to hear (v. 12). Verse 13 is not a promise that if you have the Holy Spirit he will make you omniscient.

All truth means all the truth that God would want them to know about. It did not mean that God would make them omniscient

[Vance]

It's funny how you are willing to criticize this "subjective experience", but when we defend it, you are suddenly only interested in exegesis of specific verses, ignoring their full meaning.

Since you are now apparently willing to discuss it, I am still wondering how you know the Bible is the word of God, absent some sort of "subjective experience"

I think you will find that you will have a few unresolved credibility problems should you post here again.

What we are seeing here is a classic willingness to throw the truth under the anti-Mormon agenda driven bus.

We are also seeing the fulfilling of this,

2 Ne. 28:30 For behold, thus saith the Lord God: I will give unto the children of men line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little; and blessed are those who hearken unto my precepts, and lend an ear unto my counsel, for they shall learn wisdom; for unto him that receiveth I will give more; and from them that shall say, We have enough, from them shall be taken away even that which they have.

[mfbukowski]

Please tell me where in any of these texts Jesus promises us to know doctrinal truth, in this mortal life, beyond what is in the Bible.

Please tell me where in any of these texts Jesus tells us that all doctrinal truth is in the Bible.

[Mudcat]

Mudcat,

You know, I'm starting to wonder if there is any point to trying to present any argument for consideration in this forum. I start a thread on the exegesis of specific texts in the Gospel of John on the teaching ministry of the Holy Spirit, and everyone here wants to talk about anything but that topic. Even someone who identifies himself as an evangelical is trying to derail the topic -- by trying to start an argument about the basis for rejecting slavery! You can rationalize any diversion from the issue by claiming that there is some connection, but it doesn't change the fact that it's a diversion.

Rob,

Your argument has a faulty conclusion. Don't get bent out shape because I am addressing it. Regarding your exegesis of 14:26. I agreed with you that Christ is telling the apostles that the Holy Spirit will call them to remembrance of his previous statements.

Regarding slavery, it isn't a derailment. It is one reason why your conclusion is flawed. I addressed what you said that I disagree with in my first post. But here is what you said again.

You wrote .

If we pay close attention to what Jesus says in John 14-16, however, we will not make the mistake of thinking that the Holy Spirit does this in any way independent of Scripture

Within Scripture we see no address to slavery, yet we as Christians have come to the understanding that it is wrong. How can we reach such a conclusion that is actually independent of Scripture? IMO, Paul gives us insight into this reasoning here...

1Co 2:10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.

1Co 2:11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.

1Co 2:12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.

1Co 2:13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

1Co 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

1Co 2:15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.

1Co 2:16 For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.

Suppose, for the sake of argument, that you are right and the Bible never says anything to indicate that slavery is bad. Suppose you are right and Christians came to reject the practice of slavery solely because the Spirit moved them to do so, completely independent of any consideration from Scripture. Would this somehow negate the exegetical reasoning I presented concerning John 16:13? That's a rhetorical question; the answer is No, it will not. In fact, I have said REPEATEDLY that in this thread I was making the extremely modest claim that John 14:26 and John 16:13 do not teach the idea you are advocating. I left it as an open question if the doctrine could be supported from some other Scripture. Like everyone else here, you have chosen to ignore all of these careful qualifications and the actual argument of the opening post.

Regarding 16:13.

From your OP you said.

[Zakuska]

1Co 2:10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.

1Co 2:11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.

1Co 2:12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.

1Co 2:13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

1Co 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

1Co 2:15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.

1Co 2:16 For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.

I also think this verse speaks to that exact point and against what Rob is advocating.

2 Cor. 3: 3

3 Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart.

Rob seems to want to place authority in the word written in stone or woody papyrus or partchment. Not in the word that lives and breaths.

I submit to place all Authority in a Book is idolitry, pure and simple.

Pslams 115

1 Not unto us, O Lord, not unto us, but unto thy name give glory, for thy mercy, and for thy truth

[Confidential Informant]

Mudcat,

You know, I'm starting to wonder if there is any point to trying to present any argument for consideration in this forum. I start a thread on the exegesis of specific texts in the Gospel of John on the teaching ministry of the Holy Spirit, and everyone here wants to talk about anything but that topic. Even someone who identifies himself as an evangelical is trying to derail the topic -- by trying to start an argument about the basis for rejecting slavery! You can rationalize any diversion from the issue by claiming that there is some connection, but it doesn't change the fact that it's a diversion.

Suppose, for the sake of argument, that you are right and the Bible never says anything to indicate that slavery is bad. Suppose you are right and Christians came to reject the practice of slavery solely because the Spirit moved them to do so, completely independent of any consideration from Scripture. Would this somehow negate the exegetical reasoning I presented concerning John 16:13? That's a rhetorical question; the answer is No, it will not. In fact, I have said REPEATEDLY that in this thread I was making the extremely modest claim that John 14:26 and John 16:13 do not teach the idea you are advocating. I left it as an open question if the doctrine could be supported from some other Scripture. Like everyone else here, you have chosen to ignore all of these careful qualifications and the actual argument of the opening post.

Your attempt to defend Lewis's comment that the Bible is not the word of God falls flat, because I agree that Jesus Christ is the living Word of God. I did not claim that ONLY the Bible is the word of God; I simply claimed that it IS the word of God. I can sort of understand a Mormon like Vance not getting this, but what is your excuse?

The rest of your post is even more irrelevant, except for the end, where the real problem is made clear. Your problem with viewing the Bible as the word of God is that you find it stifling. You don't want anyone telling you what to believe. By appealing to the teaching of the invisible Spirit in the invisible heart and pitting that against Scripture, you have "freedom" to believe and do whatever you want. You do not want the Spirit inspiring a written word of God that tells you in black and white what the truth is; you find that akin to someone pinning you down on a table and gutting your intestines. You prefer the Spirit inspiring a subjective experience that is up to each individual to judge for himself. I'm sorry, but your problem here is not with me, but it is with the Lord Jesus Christ, who took the very view of Scripture you reject.

While I certainly may be wrong, I see the point of the OP of this thread as nothing more than an attempt to explain why people shouldn't be praying about the truth of the Book of Mormon as requested by Moroni 10. Sorry, but I have a hard time with any one telling people they should not pray about something.

C.I.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

While I certainly may be wrong, I see the point of the OP of this thread as nothing more than an attempt to explain why people shouldn't be praying about the truth of the Book of Mormon as requested by Moroni 10. Sorry, but I have a hard time with any one telling people they should not pray about something.

C.I.

IT is more than that. It is that if you do pray about it and get an answer it really is not from the HG because the HG only teaches truth that is found in the bible. So be default Mormons are wrong in what they believe.

Since I have finally gotten Rob to tell me what his disagreement is in a nutshell, it is easy to see were he is going.

The question has been asked and I will ask it again. "Please tell me where in any of these texts Jesus tells us that all doctrinal truth is in the Bible."

The fact is in context Jesus wasn't talking about the bible as the bible was not compiled at the time he spoke those words.

[mfbukowski]

Well I have to thank Rob for being here.

It seems that he has totally unified us all against him.

We have EV's and skeptics and critics all agreeing that his arguments just don't make it. I have never seen most of these people agreeing on anything ever before.

Let's all sit around the campfire and sing Kumbaya.

[Zakuska]

I even got a lovely PM from some of them.

Here... have a "Warm Fuzzy" everyone!

[Vance]

Has Rob given up on this argument?

[Darth J]

Has Rob given up on this argument?

Apparently, because every time someone calls b.s. on him, he take his ball and goes home.