Holy Spirit's teaching in John 14:16

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Doctor Steuss,

You wrote:

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.

Uh?...... Yeah.....

[Zakuska]

Is this a concession or not?

And he continues, painting himself into an even smaller box still. Notice his response to Dr. Stuess.

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.

From the OP:

In this brief study, I want to dispel a common misunderstanding of the teaching of Jesus about the Holy Spirit in the Gospel of John. It is extremely common for people to understand certain statements in John to mean that the Holy Spirit teaches each individual whom he indwells in a direct manner. The Holy Spirit, Jesus said,

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

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?

Good catch. So if the Spirit can act independant of scripture what is the beef about then? If it can act independant of scripture, I would like to know under what conditions that it can and what biblical support Rob can offer for his POV.

[Rob Bowman]

Zakuska,

You wrote:

He was making the claim that John 14:26 was specifically excluded from the list of texts that could be used to support the Holy Ghost teaching on the very premise the Good Dr. brought to light. Because it was specdifically addres to those present.

No. Not ONLY because it was addressed to those present. You quoted my introductory comments, in which I stated my conclusion. You ignored the body of the post, in which I presented the arguments.

[Doctor Steuss]

Doctor Steuss,

You wrote:

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.

Once again, the simplicity of G-d's saving word escapes me (no doubt because I'm not an apostle).

Curses.

Thank you for taking the time to respond.

[David T]

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.

Which is actually the Jehovah's Witness POV on the Last Supper, as far as I understand it...

[Rob Bowman]

Mudcat,

You wrote:

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.

No, this isn't quite right. Both are addressed to the group to whom Jesus was speaking. In the nature of what Jesus says, the promise of a reminder in John 14:26 cannot be extended to new apostles who were not among Jesus' disciples during his earthly ministry. This limitation does not seem to apply to John 16:13.

You wrote:

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.

Correct.

You wrote:

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?

I didn't say that his words meant that, but that such is a reasonable application to Paul since he was an apostle and inspired by the Holy Spirit, as you agree.

You wrote:

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?

I don't see why not.

You wrote:

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

No, that's not what I said. You quoted me correctly but your interpretation of what I said goes way beyond my words. Here is what I said:

"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" (emphasis added).

Here "this" means "illuminating their minds so that they will hear and receive and accept the truth of Scripture." It does not mean everything the Spirit does in regards to any believer.

[Zakuska]

Which is actually the Jehovah's Witness POV on the Last Supper, as far as I understand it...

To bad they missed Pauls teachings about it, even though he wasn't actually there but learned it from the Spirit...

1 Cor 11

23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:

24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.

25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.

26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord

[Zakuska]

Zakuska,

You wrote:

No. Not ONLY because it was addressed to those present. You quoted my introductory comments, in which I stated my conclusion. You ignored the body of the post, in which I presented the arguments.

So you are saying your summary is flawed?

[Vance]

No, this isn't quite right. Both are addressed to the group to whom Jesus was speaking.

And not just to the group to whom He was speaking but TO THE SAME INDIVIDUALS!!!

But what He said to them at one time, Rob limits to just them, and what He said at another time Rob allows to all.

I get it now, ROB is the arbiter of which scriptures apply to whom.

And he acquired this position how?

By having the correct interpretation of scripture!!

And we know this how?

Because ROB says so!!

Now I understand where Rob is coming from. He thinks, therefore he is.

In the nature of what Jesus says, the promise of a reminder in John 14:26 cannot be extended to new apostles who were not among Jesus' disciples during his earthly ministry.

So now you are EXCLUDING Paul?

This limitation does not seem to apply to John 16:13.

Because you don't want it to, right?

Edited to add.

I didn't say that his words meant that, but that such is a reasonable application to Paul since he was an apostle and inspired by the Holy Spirit, as you agree.

So now you are INCLUDING Paul?

Would you PLEASE make up your mind!

[Zakuska]

I get it now, ROB is the arbiter of which scriptures apply to whom.

And he acquired this position how?

By having the correct interpretation of scripture!!

I was under the impression that every word in scripture applies to All.

Matt. 4: 4 4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

This is going to be fun picking and choosing what parts of the Bible I can safely ignore!

[Vance]

I was under the impression that every word in scripture applies to All.

Matt. 4: 4 4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

This is going to be fun picking and choosing what parts of the Bible I can safely ignore!

There, fixed it for you.

Sorry Zak, but it isn't you, but Rob, that gets to chose what parts you can safely ignore.

[erichard]

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

These verses stand alone without the need for any argument from any other scriptures:

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.

The term "MANY THINGS" clearly means many things that had not yet been revealed.

The expression "guide you into ALL TRUTH" clearly means much more truth than what had been given.

None of us are in a position to tell the Holy Ghost what He can reveal, and to whom He can reveal new truths. None of us are in a position to tell the Holy Ghost the true meaning of what is found in our present Bible. None of us are in a position to tell the Holy Ghost who the words "you" apply to.

For instance, if the Book of Mormon came forth in partial fulfillment of John 16:12-13, then all the arguments in the world will not change that truth.

Richard

[Darth J]

And they spake unto him, saying, Master, how shall we find the kingdom of heaven?

And Jesus answered unto them, saying, Ye shall learn about syllogisms and deductive reasoning.

And ye shall find one verse of a scripture and engage in a debate about the specific meaning of one particular Greek word, even though I never spoke Greek as far as you know;

And ye shall take these words that my servants have written, and take them for yourselves, as if ye had written them;

And then you shall debate others in order to prove why they are wrong, assuming that this means that you are right;

For verily, of syllogism and logical positivism and the Socratic method is the kingdom of God;

And if there be any who are too much of an idiot to pass first semester logic, let him dwell in Sheol forever.

[Mudcat]

No, this isn't quite right. Both are addressed to the group to whom Jesus was speaking. In the nature of what Jesus says, the promise of a reminder in John 14:26 cannot be extended to new apostles who were not among Jesus' disciples during his earthly ministry. This limitation does not seem to apply to John 16:13.

Okay, now I agree with you that Paul qualifies for 16. I agree that both Paul and Matthias would qualify for 16. What I disagree with is that there isn't any good evidence that people like you and me don't qualify for 16, as well.

Now I submitted my 1 Cor. 2 as a point on the matter. I also thought Zakuska had a nice point on his 2 Cor. 3, as well.

Beyond that, you have the citations in the Bible about spiritual gifts, prophecy being one, that seem to extend to all believers in some respect. So if the actual gifts of the Spirit don't see a need to qualify themselves by a persons apostleship, then why make the assumption that J 16 only addresses apostles in specific?

If it is that specific then there is no reason to include Paul or Matthias because they weren't there. The only reason I could see to include them, would be a preferential assumption.

I didn't say that his words meant that, but that such is a reasonable application to Paul since he was an apostle and inspired by the Holy Spirit, as you agree.

Okay, so lets just remove the notion that you meant anything, rather you were proffering a "reasonable application". So the question is, what is the most reasonable application? Let's look at 16, since you feel it is reasonable that Paul is included in this statment for some reason but everyone that wasn't around for Christ's mortal ministry was excluded.. save Paul.

seems the basic options(though there are certainly permutations) are

1. 16 means the apostles Jesus spoke to specifically

2. 16 mean the apostles Jesus spoke to specifically and anyone else who might become an apostle

3. 16 means all Christians

The question is, why do you think 2 is the most reasonable application?

Please note that the verses in Corinthians. Both cited by me and Zakuska need to be dealt with in some relevant basis. Also consider the fact spiritual gifts were not exclusive to apostles.

No, that's not what I said. You quoted me correctly but your interpretation of what I said goes way beyond my words. Here is what I said:

"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" (emphasis added).

Here "this" means "illuminating their minds so that they will hear and receive and accept the truth of Scripture." It does not mean everything the Spirit does in regards to any believer.

I appreciate your recognition that the Spirit can move independently of Scripture. Seriously Rob I do.

However, bold and underline mine. This phrasing sounds redundant. It is much like you are saying, "The Holy Spirit only reveals to you the truth of Scripture through Scripture". It is circular and I am not sure I agree with it, but its a bit dizzying to try and address.

Regards,

Mudcat

btw.. disregard the pm I sent you a day ago whenever you get around to reading it.

[Mudcat]

And they spake unto him, saying, Master, how shall we find the kingdom of heaven?

And Jesus answered unto them, saying, Ye shall learn about syllogisms and deductive reasoning.

And ye shall find one verse of a scripture and engage in a debate about the specific meaning of one particular Greek word, even though I never spoke Greek as far as you know;

And ye shall take these words that my servants have written, and take them for yourselves, as if ye had written them;

And then you shall debate others in order to prove why they are wrong, assuming that this means that you are right;

For verily, of syllogism and logical positivism and the Socratic method is the kingdom of God;

And if there be any who are too much of an idiot to pass first semester logic, let him dwell in Sheol forever.

3 funnies for you Darth J. That was great.

Wished it was small enough to fit in a sig line or something.

[Vance]

None of us are in a position to tell the Holy Ghost what He can reveal, and to whom He can reveal new truths.

Rob is excluded from "us" right? Because Rob can and has done exactly that.

None of us are in a position to tell the Holy Ghost the true meaning of what is found in our present Bible.

Rob is excluded from "us" right? Because Rob can and has done exactly that.

None of us are in a position to tell the Holy Ghost who the words "you" apply to.

Rob is excluded from "us" right? Because Rob can and has done exactly that.

Richard,

Sorry, but you don't seem to get it.

Rob can and has done those things, and he can do them, because he has the authority to do them, because he has the correct interpretation of scripture, because he says so.

Wherefore can you doubt Rob?

[Rob Bowman]

Zakuska,

You asked:

So you are saying your summary is flawed?

No. Good grief. The issue was, on what basis did I argue that John 14:26 and 16:13 referred to the apostles, not to all Christians. The answer to that question is found in the reasons I gave, not in my introductory comments in which I simply stated what my conclusion would be.

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

Perhaps you'd prefer to engage in a simpler activity than reading, in which all sorts of contextual elements and qualifications need to be given close attention if one is to arrive at a completely accurate understanding. Care for a game of tic-tac-toe?

And not just to the group to whom He was speaking but TO THE SAME INDIVIDUALS!!!

But what He said to them at one time, Rob limits to just them, and what He said at another time Rob allows to all.

I get it now, ROB is the arbiter of which scriptures apply to whom.

And he acquired this position how?

By having the correct interpretation of scripture!!

And we know this how?

Because ROB says so!!

Now I understand where Rob is coming from. He thinks, therefore he is.

So now you are EXCLUDING Paul?

Because you don't want it to, right?

Edited to add.

So now you are INCLUDING Paul?

Would you PLEASE make up your mind!

[Vance]

Perhaps you'd prefer to engage in a simpler activity than reading, in which all sorts of contextual elements and qualifications need to be given close attention if one is to arrive at a completely accurate understanding.

Physician, heal thyself.

Edited to add,

Rob, you have yet to address this issue.

[Rob Bowman]

Zakuska,

You wrote:

I was under the impression that every word in scripture applies to All.

Matt. 4: 4 4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

Since you think every word in scripture applies to all, I have some scriptures for you to apply to yourself:

"...and he went and hanged himself" (Matt. 27:5).

"Go and do thou likewise" (Luke 10:37).

"That thou doest, do quickly" (John 13:27).

[Vance]

Since you think every word in scripture applies to all, I have some scriptures for you to apply to yourself:

Classic strawman Rob.

What Zak quoted "by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God" is not the same as "every word in scripture".

Maybe you should take your own advice about reading.

[Rob Bowman]

And they spake unto him, saying, Master, how shall we answer the anti-disciples?

And Jesus answered them, saying, It all dependeth.

If ye can get away with it, ye shall employ your brightest minds to research ancient and medieval texts in every language to findeth parallels to these sayings. They shall argue that ancient Egyptian funerary texts honoring the gods of the Nile were the inspiration for these words, and lo, they will confound many with these subtleties. They shall make use of whatever insights of archaeology, science, linguistics, or philosophy that they may find that seemeth to confirm the truth of these words, and lo, they will confound many more with these subtleties. And when the anti-disciples commit fallacies, ye shall point them out with glee, ridiculing them for their lack of intelligence. For lo, all men have intelligence, but some more than others, and the glory of God is intelligence.

But if ye cannot get away with it, ye shall speak piously of thy simple faith, and of thy sincere prayer, and of the Holy Ghost that thou feelest burning in thy bosom, and of thy many good deeds. And ye shall heap scorn upon the learned, and the professors, and the scholars of this age. And ye shall make the anti-disciples to feeleth ashamed, for they think too much and feel too little. Ye shall glory in what men deem fallacies, because the wisdom of God is the fallacy of men. Woe unto them that seek truth with their minds! Woe unto them that call reason, reason and fact, fact, that think they know something that thou knowest not, and that stumbleth at my words because no record of them may be found.

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

You had me worried for a moment that I had indeed misread Zak. You wrote:

Classic strawman Rob.

What Zak quoted "by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God" is not the same as "every word in scripture".

Maybe you should take your own advice about reading.

But this is what Zak said (emphasis added for the reading-impaired):

I was under the impression that every word in scripture applies to All.