Holy Spirit's teaching in John 14:16

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

You wrote:

Has Rob given up on this argument?

No. Three things:

1. I got sick last week from a yellow fever vaccination. I'm still not recovered from it. It has slowed me down.

2. I have had my hands full getting ready to leave on Saturday for 10 days. I'm flying to Uganda to do some teaching at some conferences out there.

3. It's been less than two days since my last post in this thread.

[Rob Bowman]

Mudcat,

You wrote:

Rob,

Your argument has a faulty conclusion. Don't get bent out shape because I am addressing it.

I "got bent out of shape" because you were addressing my conclusion while bypassing the arguments I presented for my conclusion!

You wrote:

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.

Glad we have this much clear. But the reasoning for understanding John 16:13 to be directed specifically to the apostles is the same as the argument for this understanding of 14:26.

You wrote:

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?

Since you won't let this diversion drop, despite the fact that it doesn't address my exegetical arguments, I will answer it. The answer is that we didn't reach that conclusion independent of Scripture. It was Christian values taught in the New Testament that led to abolitionism in modern times. The following text is clearly relevant:

"Were you called while a slave? Do not worry about it; but if you are able also to become free, rather do that. For he who was called in the Lord while a slave, is the Lord's freedman; likewise he who was called while free, is Christ's slave. You were bought with a price; do not become slaves of men" (1 Cor. 7:21-23).

The argument here is simple: Paul urges Christians who are slaves, if possible, to become free, and tells them point-blank not to become slaves of human masters. That presupposes that being free is good and being a slave is not good.

In his epistle to Philemon, Paul asks Philemon to welcome back his runaway slave Onesimus, not as a slave, but as a beloved brother in Christ (Philem. 10-17).

The New Testament does not advocate a slave revolt. Rather, it teaches slaveowners to think of slaves as brothers in Christ and teaches slaves to think of themselves as free people.

There are other aspects to the issue, but this ought to be enough to establish that Christian opposition to slavery does have basis in Scripture. If this issue is of concern to you, please take a look at the following articles:

Rich Deem, "Does God approve of slavery according to the Bible?"

What Does the Bible Say about Slavery? (RBC Ministries)

Kyle Butt, "Defending the Bible's Position on Slavery"

Glenn Miller, "Does God condone slavery in the Bible?" (long)

You wrote:

I hope you see the rather glaring contradiction that the immediate audience was the apostles. However you note that the Epistles = "things that are to come". Paul was not present when Jesus made his statement in 16:13 but you extend a special pleading to him which seems to have no basis given your interpretation. Why are you prepared to extend such a pleading to Paul on the one hand and discount it towards anyone who didn't contribute to the canon on the other?

This isn't hard at all. Jesus was speaking to the group of apostles as it existed at that moment. What he said in 14:26 obviously could not apply to Paul, who was not present with Jesus and so could not be reminded of what Jesus had said. However, what Jesus said to the apostles as a group in 16:13 could also apply to anyone who was added to the apostolic band at a later time.

You wrote:

You failed to answer my question though. If the Bible is the word of God, do you agree that noted Biblical additions like the Marcan Appendix and the Johannine Comma are the word of God?

I didn't bother answering it because it was so obviously a diversion from the argument. The answer is No. These are additions to the text of Scripture, and therefore not properly part of Scripture.

[mfbukowski]

This isn't hard at all. Jesus was speaking to the group of apostles as it existed at that moment. What he said in 14:26 obviously could not apply to Paul, who was not present with Jesus and so could not be reminded of what Jesus had said. However, what Jesus said to the apostles as a group in 16:13 could also apply to anyone who was added to the apostolic band at a later time.

Why would the Bible contain private instructions to twelve people if those instructions were not relevant to everyone else?

And if others could be added to the "Apostolic Band" where is that "band" now?

[Darth J]

And if others could be added to the "Apostolic Band" where is that "band" now?

The Apostolic Band was formed in 1995 at Saint Paul United Methodist Church, Woodbridge, VA, by a group of men who love to play Christian music together. There have been several members along the way, but the current line-up is John Ford (keyboards, guitar, vocals, and arrangements), Chris Werle (guitar and vocals), Steve Hein (Vocals), Glen Phillips (guitar and vocals), Dennis Westberg (bass and vocals), and Robert Ford (drums).

http://www.motagator...icBand/info.php

[mfbukowski]

The Apostolic Band was formed in 1995 at Saint Paul United Methodist Church, Woodbridge, VA, by a group of men who love to play Christian music together. There have been several members along the way, but the current line-up is John Ford (keyboards, guitar, vocals, and arrangements), Chris Werle (guitar and vocals), Steve Hein (Vocals), Glen Phillips (guitar and vocals), Dennis Westberg (bass and vocals), and Robert Ford (drums).

Oh no!

I've joined the wrong restorationist church! I was going for a spiritual experience instead of a musical one!

[Mudcat]

Mudcat,

I "got bent out of shape" because you were addressing my conclusion while bypassing the arguments I presented for my conclusion!

Your arguments were and still are bypassing a greater Scriptural context. You seem patently happy to box what should be defined as the actions of the Spirit and they way we should receive him between completely upon John 14-16. There is more to it than that. I cited another Scriptural reference point but you failed to respond to it, because given your interpretation Paul's words that I cited fell upon deaf ears. You seem to be convulsively locked into an inconsistently narrow view of things. You have regretfully opted for the hard way out on this Rob.

Glad we have this much clear. But the reasoning for understanding John 16:13 to be directed specifically to the apostles is the same as the argument for this understanding of 14:26.

Yes, but it doesn't answer the question of Paul.

Since you won't let this diversion drop, despite the fact that it doesn't address my exegetical arguments, I will answer it. The answer is that we didn't reach that conclusion independent of Scripture. It was Christian values taught in the New Testament that led to abolitionism in modern times. The following text is clearly relevant:

"Were you called while a slave? Do not worry about it; but if you are able also to become free, rather do that. For he who was called in the Lord while a slave, is the Lord's freedman; likewise he who was called while free, is Christ's slave. You were bought with a price; do not become slaves of men" (1 Cor. 7:21-23).

Hold it right there....

Your ref to 1 Cor. 7:21-23 is another miscontextualization.

Lets add verse 24 for the sake of context

1Co 7:24 Brothers, each man, as responsible to God, should remain in the situation God called him to.

The following text is only clearly supportive of abolition when you omit verse 24.

The argument here is simple: Paul urges Christians who are slaves, if possible, to become free, and tells them point-blank not to become slaves of human masters. That presupposes that being free is good and being a slave is not good.

Either you didn't read verse 24, you ignored it or you made a faulty presupposition on some article you cited that left off v.24. I don't know which it is and am not concerned about it. Any way it goes you missed your point.

In his epistle to Philemon, Paul asks Philemon to welcome back his runaway slave Onesimus, not as a slave, but as a beloved brother in Christ (Philem. 10-17).

What is this Rob? Can you cite somewhere that Onesimus was a runaway slave. That is unsupported speculation within the canon. You would have to appeal to some sort of tradition on the matter to have a valid point. It could be interpreted that Onesimus was lazy to Philemon and Philemon sent him to be Paul's servant, whom Paul through Christ converted.

The New Testament does not advocate a slave revolt. Rather, it teaches slaveowners to think of slaves as brothers in Christ and teaches slaves to think of themselves as free people.

In a spiritual sense yes. In a physical sense, I would disagree. IMO, the message is don't be mean to your slaves their people too. If you find a "slavery is wrong" or some such in the Bible.. let me know.

There are other aspects to the issue, but this ought to be enough to establish that Christian opposition to slavery does have basis in Scripture.

Actually it isn't. I assume your miscontextualization came from these articles that were guilty of the same.

If you want to make a case that you are correct, please make it for yourself. I can Google articles where people take things out of context all day long if I had interest. I don't though. I am more curious about your ramification for slavery being wrong than someone else.

This isn't hard at all. Jesus was speaking to the group of apostles as it existed at that moment. What he said in 14:26 obviously could not apply to Paul, who was not present with Jesus and so could not be reminded of what Jesus had said. However, what Jesus said to the apostles as a group in 16:13 could also apply to anyone who was added to the apostolic band at a later time.

This is just a restatement of your special pleading for Paul.

IOW, you are saying that Paul was added as an apostle later and 16:13 applied to him retroactively. I understand what you are saying, but you have yet to proffer a valid Scriptural explanation that such a precedent actually exists. Also, you failed to give adequate response to the Scripture from Paul I proffered earlier. If you validate Paul to make a point, then why do fail to respond when the validity you acquiesce to fails to suit your intent?

Your rather glaring contradiction still exists Rob. I'm pressing you here, but I need a better explanation.

I didn't bother answering it because it was so obviously a diversion from the argument. The answer is No. These are additions to the text of Scripture, and therefore not properly part of Scripture.

No it wasn't a diversion Rob. I am appreciative that you are cognizant of the fact that there are things that exist within the canon that don't belong there. On what basis do you assert such. I mean more specifically on what basis do you determine what part of the canon you choose to believe? It is actually relevant.

Though you posited the notion on a different thread I thought would toss it up.

Premise 1: Whatever Jesus Christ taught is true.

Premise 2: Jesus Christ taught that Scripture is inerrant.

Conclusion: Therefore, Scripture is inerrant.

I don't know if you actually agreed with this argument or not. I just know you posited it with the intent to defend it. Let me ask you if you willing to snip parts of the Bible out as "not properly part of Scripture". Then how do you pose an argument that "Therefore, Scripture is inerrant."

Your being duplicitous. It is quite obvious to anyone who has looked.

It perturbs me when someone of my own stripe (persay) makes the faith I have look so tawdry and charlatan like. It isn't like that at all. Yet you make it appear that way. I have done my best to patient here but I am about at wits end on the matter.

You entered and argument that you were wrong on from the drop and you haven't got the decency to withdraw. Your prideful Rob and there is no glory for God in that, I assure you. I have been there.

Be safe on your upcoming sojourn.

Regards,

Mudcat

[Facsimile 3]

Though you posited the notion on a different thread I thought would toss it up.

Premise 1: Whatever Jesus Christ taught is true.

Premise 2: Jesus Christ taught that Scripture is inerrant.

Conclusion: Therefore, Scripture is inerrant.

I don't know if you actually agreed with this argument or not. I just know you posited it with the intent to defend it. Let me ask you if you willing to snip parts of the Bible out as "not properly part of Scripture". Then how do you pose an argument that "Therefore, Scripture is inerrant."

Your being duplicitous. It is quite obvious to anyone who has looked.

It perturbs me when someone of my own stripe (persay) makes the faith I have look so tawdry and charlatan like. It isn't like that at all. Yet you make it appear that way. I have done my best to patient here but I am about at wits end on the matter.

You entered and argument that you were wrong on from the drop and you haven't got the decency to withdraw. Your prideful Rob and there is no glory for God in that, I assure you. I have been there.

Be safe on your upcoming sojourn.

Regards,

Mudcat

You're one heck of a guy Mudcat. We love you.

[erichard]

Has Rob given up on this argument?

Vance and all,

Probably the clearest words in the Bible that verify that many more things will be revealed to the disciples of Christ are found in these verses:

John 16

12 I have yet MANY THINGS to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them

now.

13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you

into ALL TRUTH: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever

he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to

come.

It is probably of the highest importance to get it out of everyone's head that the above is a promise of continuing revelation.....

I will cut and paste a defense of latter-day revelation that I wrote which includes this verse.

Part 1

"But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. " Gal 1:8

Since Paul is warning Christians here not to preach another Gospel, what is the FIRST point he brings up as an example of the correct Gospel?

He brings up that the correct Gospel is NOT given out and taught by Seminaries and educated men, but by prophets who get it from the LORD. Notice what he says:

"For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the REVELATION of Jesus Christ." Gal. 1:12

So, the true Gospel is taught under the direction of men who receive revelation, or it is NOT the true Gospel. This is the first and main point Paul brings out here in Galatians.

Many ASSUME that the men trained in some religious seminary somewhere, studying the Bible in their great wisdom, obviously have the true Gospel-- when in fact, they obviously do NOT have the true Gospel.

Since there are dozens of such seminaries which teach conflicting versions of the Gospel, all claiming the Bible as their source, it is obvious that continuing revelation is needed, and always has been needed, by the sincere followers of Christ.

No wonder Paul makes this his first and main point to distinguish the true Gospel.

Part 2

"For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book." Rev. 22:18-19

Read the above warning carefully. Does it say ANYTHING about what GOD can or cannot do, or will or will not do?

No. It warns "every MAN" to not add or take from the words that God has given. An almost identical warning is in Deut. 4:2. But it says nothing about whether God can or will call a prophet of Israel to bring forth more of His words. Yet the calling of Prophets is according to His ancient pattern in all generations of former Israel before it fell.

So this Bible verse in no way shape or form can be used as a "proof" that modern revelation cannot come forth. Men simply ASSUME that these verses say that the God is setting conditions on Himself, declaring that He will never call a Prophet again-- but clearly that is NOT what these verses say.

In fact those who try to use this scripture to teach against any modern revelation are actually ADDING to these verses, doing the very thing these verses warn against!

Part 3

On the other hand, notice this clear promise from Jesus, the evening before his final mortal day, that through the Holy Ghost MANY more things will be revealed to his disciples-- until they have ALL TRUTH.

John 16

12 I have yet MANY THINGS to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them

now.

13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you

into ALL TRUTH: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever

he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to

come.

Notice that the Spirit of Truth, or the Holy Ghost, is the same source that gave the former Prophets of Israel the Bible revelations:

2 Peter 1

20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any

private interpretation.

21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but

holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

So the Bible actually predicts more word of the LORD scriptures, not an end of it

.

Richard

[Rob Bowman]

Mudcat,

You wrote:

Your arguments were and still are bypassing a greater Scriptural context. You seem patently happy to box what should be defined as the actions of the Spirit and they way we should receive him between completely upon John 14-16. There is more to it than that. I cited another Scriptural reference point but you failed to respond to it, because given your interpretation Paul's words that I cited fell upon deaf ears. You seem to be convulsively locked into an inconsistently narrow view of things. You have regretfully opted for the hard way out on this Rob.

I don't think it's unreasonable to ask that we focus on one passage, or at least one book, of the Bible at a time. I am happy to discuss 1 Corinthians 2 or any other passage, but this thread is on John 14-16. You want it to be on 1 Corinthians 2 or the slavery question or really almost anything other than John 14-16. As far as I am concerned, you can't deal with the exegetical argument in John 16 and so you want to bring up other matters. Thus, whereas I am quite willing and prepared to discuss any passage of Scripture on this subject, you clearly are unwilling to discuss the exegesis of John 16.

Now all you have really done with regard to 1 Corinthians 2 is to quote the verses and claim that the passage disagrees with my position. I respectfully disagree. I see nothing in 1 Corinthians 2 to indicate that having the mind of Christ means having access to doctrine that the church needs to know that is not in the Bible. That is what you need to show, and merely citing the passage does not make the case.

You wrote:

Your ref to 1 Cor. 7:21-23 is another miscontextualization.

Lets add verse 24 for the sake of context

1Co 7:24 Brothers, each man, as responsible to God, should remain in the situation God called him to.

The following text is only clearly supportive of abolition when you omit verse 24.

Either you didn't read verse 24, you ignored it or you made a faulty presupposition on some article you cited that left off v.24. I don't know which it is and am not concerned about it. Any way it goes you missed your point.

You're the one who is missing the context. The main topic of 1 Corinthians 7, from start to finish, is marriage and singleness. Paul briefly brings up the circumcision/uncircumcision and slave/free issues in the middle of that discussion to offer further illustration of the principle he is setting forth. In the context of the entire chapter, Paul is clearly not laying down an absolute command never to change one's station in life. He is not saying it is wrong to get married, or wrong for a slave to become free. He qualifies the general principle about being content in whatever one's circumstance. The married person is not to seek to be free of an unbelieving spouse, but may let that spouse go if the spouse wants out. Paul recommends that the single person not be concerned about getting married, but qualifies that there is no sin in getting married. A man should not bother getting circumcised if he isn't or having the procedure reversed if he is; circumcision or its lack is entirely indifferent. On the other hand, Paul counsels the slave not to worry about being a slave, but to become free if he can--clearly indicating that this matter is not entirely indifferent. Thus, the general statement you lean on so hard in verse 24 is qualified in different ways for the married, the single, the circumcised and uncircumcised, and the slave. I don't see any problem understanding Paul to mean exactly what he says, that if a slave can become free he should go ahead and do so.

You wrote:

What is this Rob? Can you cite somewhere that Onesimus was a runaway slave. That is unsupported speculation within the canon.

That he was a slave is explicit; that he was a runaway slave (or something along those lines) is implicit, at least as most commentators have understood it. But I am not particular about the "runaway" part.

You wrote:

If you want to make a case that you are correct, please make it for yourself. I can Google articles where people take things out of context all day long if I had interest. I don't though. I am more curious about your ramification for slavery being wrong than someone else.

This is ridiculous. The slavery issue isn't even the subject of this thread. I was being accommodating to offer any answer at all, and I went beyond that brief answer with some helpful articles on the subject. Now it is obvious that you don't really care about the slavery issue except as a debating point against the sufficiency of Scripture.

[Vance]

1. I got sick last week from a yellow fever vaccination. I'm still not recovered from it. It has slowed me down.

Sorry to hear that, I hope you get better soon.

2. I have had my hands full getting ready to leave on Saturday for 10 days. I'm flying to Uganda to do some teaching at some conferences out there.

Are they anti-Mormon conferences? You do know that the Church is making significant inroads in Africa. You guys (anti-Mormons) are a little behind. Perhaps you are missing an fund raising opportunity. You could put out a message to your donors explaining the urgency and importance of getting the anti-Mormon message out. (A side benefit would be more world travel for your self). You could also stroke your ego by being the anti-Mormon ministry most active in this area of the world.

3. It's been less than two days since my last post in this thread.

That is why it was a question and not an accusation.

[Vance]

Vance and all,

Probably the clearest words in the Bible that verify that many more things will be revealed to the disciples of Christ are found in these verses:

John 16

12 I have yet MANY THINGS to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them

now.

13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you

into ALL TRUTH: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever

he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to

come.

It is probably of the highest importance to get it out of everyone's head that the above is a promise of continuing revelation.....

I will cut and paste a defense of latter-day revelation that I wrote which includes this verse.

Part 1

"But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. " Gal 1:8

Since Paul is warning Christians here not to preach another Gospel, what is the FIRST point he brings up as an example of the correct Gospel?

He brings up that the correct Gospel is NOT given out and taught by Seminaries and educated men, but by prophets who get it from the LORD. Notice what he says:

"For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the REVELATION of Jesus Christ." Gal. 1:12

So, the true Gospel is taught under the direction of men who receive revelation, or it is NOT the true Gospel. This is the first and main point Paul brings out here in Galatians.

Many ASSUME that the men trained in some religious seminary somewhere, studying the Bible in their great wisdom, obviously have the true Gospel-- when in fact, they obviously do NOT have the true Gospel.

Since there are dozens of such seminaries which teach conflicting versions of the Gospel, all claiming the Bible as their source, it is obvious that continuing revelation is needed, and always has been needed, by the sincere followers of Christ.

No wonder Paul makes this his first and main point to distinguish the true Gospel.

Part 2

"For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book." Rev. 22:18-19

Read the above warning carefully. Does it say ANYTHING about what GOD can or cannot do, or will or will not do?

No. It warns "every MAN" to not add or take from the words that God has given. An almost identical warning is in Deut. 4:2. But it says nothing about whether God can or will call a prophet of Israel to bring forth more of His words. Yet the calling of Prophets is according to His ancient pattern in all generations of former Israel before it fell.

So this Bible verse in no way shape or form can be used as a "proof" that modern revelation cannot come forth. Men simply ASSUME that these verses say that the God is setting conditions on Himself, declaring that He will never call a Prophet again-- but clearly that is NOT what these verses say.

In fact those who try to use this scripture to teach against any modern revelation are actually ADDING to these verses, doing the very thing these verses warn against!

Part 3

On the other hand, notice this clear promise from Jesus, the evening before his final mortal day, that through the Holy Ghost MANY more things will be revealed to his disciples-- until they have ALL TRUTH.

John 16

12 I have yet MANY THINGS to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them

now.

13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you

into ALL TRUTH: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever

he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to

come.

Notice that the Spirit of Truth, or the Holy Ghost, is the same source that gave the former Prophets of Israel the Bible revelations:

2 Peter 1

20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any

private interpretation.

21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but

holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

So the Bible actually predicts more word of the LORD scriptures, not an end of it

.

Richard

But Richard, you didn't keep your argument confined to John 14-16.

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

You wrote:

Sorry to hear that, I hope you get better soon.

Thanks.

You asked:

Are they anti-Mormon conferences? You do know that the Church is making significant inroads in Africa. You guys (anti-Mormons) are a little behind. Perhaps you are missing an fund raising opportunity. You could put out a message to your donors explaining the urgency and importance of getting the anti-Mormon message out. (A side benefit would be more world travel for your self). You could also stroke your ego by being the anti-Mormon ministry most active in this area of the world.

They are not "anti-Mormon" conferences. They are discernment conferences. The main conference announcement can be seen here. I will be speaking on essential Christian doctrines, the Bible, Jehovah's Witnesses, and the Word of Faith movement. Someone else (Eric Pement) will be speaking on Mormonism.

[Vance]

They are not "anti-Mormon" conferences. They are discernment conferences.

Oh Rrriiiggghhhttt!

"discernment"? Really?

Strange that you are having a conference on this subject there when you can't explain here why you "know" that your interpretation is correct.

The main conference announcement can be seen here. I will be speaking on essential Christian doctrines, the Bible, Jehovah's Witnesses, and the Word of Faith movement. Someone else (Eric Pement) will be speaking on Mormonism.

So it IS an anti-Mormon conference.

Well, look at the bright side. By the time you get back, maybe, just maybe, people here will forget about how badly you are loosing your arguments.

I was wondering why I didn't find any links back to here over at irr. But I can understand why you wouldn't want the sheep over there to see your embarrassment over here.

[Mudcat]

Mudcat,

I don't think it's unreasonable to ask that we focus on one passage, or at least one book, of the Bible at a time. I am happy to discuss 1 Corinthians 2 or any other passage, but this thread is on John 14-16. You want it to be on 1 Corinthians 2 or the slavery question or really almost anything other than John 14-16. As far as I am concerned, you can't deal with the exegetical argument in John 16 and so you want to bring up other matters. Thus, whereas I am quite willing and prepared to discuss any passage of Scripture on this subject, you clearly are unwilling to discuss the exegesis of John 16.

Rob I think I have been more than willing to discuss John 16. I premised that your exegesis for your 16 didn't account for the apostle Paul and that you were using a different standard between 14 and 16 with no good explanation, if you'll remember. I'll repost that portion for your benefit.

In your OP you said:

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

You are still yet to proffer any support for the notion that Paul should be included in the group of apostles. I have asked you to support it and you tell me that I am unwilling to discuss your exegesis. IMO your side step, is actually an attempt to avoid discussing your exegesis.

Mudcat

Well done Mudcat.

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

NAR (No Answer Required).

Oh Rrriiiggghhhttt!

"discernment"? Really?

Strange that you are having a conference on this subject there when you can't explain here why you "know" that your interpretation is correct.

So it IS an anti-Mormon conference.

Well, look at the bright side. By the time you get back, maybe, just maybe, people here will forget about how badly you are loosing your arguments.

I was wondering why I didn't find any links back to here over at irr. But I can understand why you wouldn't want the sheep over there to see your embarrassment over here.

[Rob Bowman]

Mudcat,

To be candid, I didn't understand your argument regarding Paul, and I still don't after re-reading it. Your main complaint or criticism seems to be that I haven't given any reason to view Paul as one of the apostles. Is that the problem? Because the book of Acts clearly reports that Christ appeared to Paul (Saul) and called him to be an apostle, and that the rest of the apostles accepted Paul's ministry. Paul's own epistles also of course refer to Paul as an apostle. Is this not enough?

Next, you argue that certain incidents of the Spirit directing various individuals to go somewhere or speak to someone (Acts 8:29; 16;6-7) are evidence against my position. They aren't. I didn't claim that the Holy Spirit can never act independently of Scripture. I said that the Holy Spirit does not reveal to people today doctrine that is not in Scripture. And with regard to John 16, my claim was even more modest. I simply claimed that John 16 does not refer to the Holy Spirit revealing doctrines to people today beyond what is in Scripture.

[Vance]

I hope you see the rather glaring contradiction that the immediate audience was the apostles. However you note that the Epistles = "things that are to come".

Paul was not present when Jesus made his statement in 16:13 but you extend a special pleading to him which seems to have no basis given your interpretation. Why are you prepared to extend such a pleading to Paul on the one hand and discount it towards anyone who didn't contribute to the canon on the other?

1) Rob claims Jesus was only promising "all truth" to the "apostles" then present.

2) Who would then write (epistles) to declare the (truth) "things that are to come".

3) Paul an apostle wrote most of those epistles.

4) Because Paul 1) had a visitation of Christ, 2) was an apostle, 3) wrote the epistles, he must be included in the promise of "all truth" that Jesus made only to those "apostles" then present.

5) We are excluded from "all truth"

6) Because 1) we like Paul, weren't there.

Mudcat,

I understand what you are saying. Rob is using a double standard to exclude us and then include Paul.

Now, shall we see this double standard used again with this.

Joseph Smith should be included in "all truth" because, like Paul he

1) had a visitation from the Lord.

2) was called of God.

3) wrote scripture.

4) wasn't there when Jesus made the promise.

So Rob, how can you include Paul and exclude Joseph?

[Vance]

Mudcat,

I think the problem here is that Rob hasn't been very clear.

He wants to both include Paul (by way of his epistles and calling as an apostles) and exclude Paul (by way of his absence and what he wrote in 1 Cor 2).

And he thinks your point is confusing?

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

You've got it all wrong. I'm excluding US from John 16:13 because we are not apostles and therefore we not added to the group to whom Paul was speaking.

I exclude Joseph Smith because he was a FALSE apostle.

1) Rob claims Jesus was only promising "all truth" to the "apostles" then present.

2) Who would then write (epistles) to declare the (truth) "things that are to come".

3) Paul an apostle wrote most of those epistles.

4) Because Paul 1) had a visitation of Christ, 2) was an apostle, 3) wrote the epistles, he must be included in the promise of "all truth" that Jesus made only to those "apostles" then present.

5) We are excluded from "all truth"

6) Because 1) we like Paul, weren't there.

Mudcat,

I understand what you are saying. Rob is using a double standard to exclude us and then include Paul.

Now, shall we see this double standard used again with this.

Joseph Smith should be included in "all truth" because, like Paul he

1) had a visitation from the Lord.

2) was called of God.

3) wrote scripture.

4) wasn't there when Jesus made the promise.

So Rob, how can you include Paul and exclude Joseph?

[Vance]

Vance,

You've got it all wrong. I'm excluding US from John 16:13 because we are not apostles and therefore we not added to the group to whom Paul was speaking.

I exclude Joseph Smith because he was a FALSE apostle.

Like I said, a double standard.

The problem you have is that Joseph Smith was a TRUE apostle.

Also, as I have stated before John 13-16 applies to DISCIPLES. Your artificial limitation is bogus and unsupportable.

And if you are going to include Paul, then you need to include the TRUTH that Paul taught in 1 Cor 2. The truth that refutes your premise.

1 Cor 2:4 And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man

[Mudcat]

Mudcat,

To be candid, I didn't understand your argument regarding Paul, and I still don't after re-reading it. Your main complaint or criticism seems to be that I haven't given any reason to view Paul as one of the apostles. Is that the problem? Because the book of Acts clearly reports that Christ appeared to Paul (Saul) and called him to be an apostle, and that the rest of the apostles accepted Paul's ministry. Paul's own epistles also of course refer to Paul as an apostle. Is this not enough?

Okay Rob, I will try to be as specific as I can, though I am not sure this attempt will do any better than the any of the past attempts at articulating the point.

Here it is.

1. You say that 14 is dealing specifically with the group Christ is speaking to.

2. You say that 16 isn't dealing specifically with the group Christ is speaking to.

In both instances he is speaking to the apostles, that were apostles at that point.

You say that 16 also applies to anyone who became an apostle after the fact. We are focusing on Paul since his letters are in the canon, but Matthias would also qualify under your logic.

I am not challenging the actual apostleship of Paul, rather I want to know why you believe that Paul should be qualified as one of the people who 16 applies to. What is the basis that Christ meant (oh yeah and Paul too, even though he isn't an apostle yet). Is there any Scriptural support you can lend to this position? I haven't seen it yet. What is it?

While I am thinking about it, let me ask you something else on the matter of 14. Since you state that Christ was dealing only specifically with the apostles present. What about Matthias, I mean he was a part of Christ's mortal ministry who later became an apostle. Would he retroactively be called to remembrance as the the others were, because he became an apostle?

Next, you argue that certain incidents of the Spirit directing various individuals to go somewhere or speak to someone (Acts 8:29; 16;6-7) are evidence against my position. They aren't. I didn't claim that the Holy Spirit can never act independently of Scripture.

Are you serious Rob. I have mentioned this in nearly every post I have responded to you with. But just so we can take another look at it. Lets look at this claim from your OP again.

And of course the Holy Spirit does indwell all believers, making them spiritually alive and receptive to the word of God in Scripture, convicting them of sin, illuminating their minds so that they will hear and receive and accept the truth of Scripture. 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.

Your claim is that the Holy Spirit doesn't do anything in regards to the believer independent of Scripture. How am I misreading this.

I am encouraged that you seem to changing your footing on the issue, which I think is a good idea and meritorious on your part. Thanks for that.

I said that the Holy Spirit does not reveal to people today doctrine that is not in Scripture. And with regard to John 16, my claim was even more modest. I simply claimed that John 16 does not refer to the Holy Spirit revealing doctrines to people today beyond what is in Scripture.

If you take as strict a reading on 16 as you seem to on 14, then I am still at loss to Paul's inclusion. I would really like to know what your grounds are for this.

Regards,

Mudcat

[Doctor Steuss]

Vance,

You've got it all wrong. I'm excluding US from John 16:13 because we are not apostles and therefore we not added to the group to whom Paul was speaking.

Hi Mr. Bowman,

Hope you're feeling better (I'm sure some of these rascally Marmens could come give you a priesthood blessing if you wanted to get better faster... )

If one consistency applies this, wouldn't it mean that the sacrament of the Last Supper, and it's associated teachings/blessings were only meant for apostles?

1. The same word for "you" is used.

2. The only people there were apostles.

[Vance]

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.

Next, you argue that certain incidents of the Spirit directing various individuals to go somewhere or speak to someone (Acts 8:29; 16;6-7) are evidence against my position. They aren't. I didn't claim that the Holy Spirit can never act independently of Scripture.

I think Rob painted himself into an untenable position in his OP and is now trying to extricate himself without an explicit admission that he was wrong.

Is this a concession or not?

[Rob Bowman]

Doctor Steuss,

You wrote:

Hi Mr. Bowman,

Hope you're feeling better (I'm sure some of these rascally Marmens could come give you a priesthood blessing if you wanted to get better faster... )

If one consistency applies this, wouldn't it mean that the sacrament of the Last Supper, and it's associated teachings/blessings were only meant for apostles?

1. The same word for "you" is used.

2. The only people there were apostles.

No, because my argument was not as facile or superficial as saying that when Jesus said "you" what he said could only apply to those physically present at the time.