A basic, basic questions. God guiding us into truth.

[blhowes]

A basic, basic question. God guiding us into truth.

When I was converted, God used scriptures to make absolutely clear to me that 1)He existed (though I was previously an athiest) and 2)that I had sinned against God and needed Jesus to save me. After that, I've learned some things here and there in my 'Christian journey', some of which I've had to unlearn.

Joh 16:13 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.

My question is, how does God lead us into truth? Or, how can a Christian know that God has taught him something, as opposed to something the Christian taught himself? To what extent can we know that God has taught us something?

Two hypothetical people study hard and dig into the scriptures, while earnestly praying that God would teach them the truth about a certain passage or topic. After many hours/days/weeks of study, the truth finally jumps out at them and they wonder why it took them so long to see it. They thank God for answering their prayer and teaching them the truth. But the two hypothetical people arrived at different conclusions.

How are we to know when God has lead us into a truth.

 

[AV1611]

Joh 16:13 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.

My question is, how does God lead us into truth? Or, how can a Christian know that God has taught him something, as opposed to something the Christian taught himself? To what extent can we know that God has taught us something?

It is a common misunderstanding that the verse you quoted applies to every believer. The context was that the promise was given to the apostles who then had all truth revealled to them which they wrote down...aka the Scriptures. Calvin notes, "The Spirit, whom Christ promised to the apostles, is declared to be perfect Master or Teacher of truth And why was he promised, but that they might deliver from hand to hand the wisdom which they had received from him? The Spirit was given to them, and under his guidance and direction they discharged the office to which they had been appointed. He will lead you into all truth. That very Spirit had lead them into all truth, when they committed to writing the substance of their doctrine. Whoever imagines that anything must be added to their doctrine, as if it were imperfect and but half-finished, not only accuses the apostles of dishonesty, but blasphemes against the Spirit If the doctrine which they committed to writing had proceeded from mere learners or persons imperfectly taught, an addition to it would not have been superfluous; but now that their writings may be regarded as perpetual records of that revelation which was promised and given to them, nothing can be added to them without doing grievous injury to the Holy Spirit."

 

[blhowes]

It is a common misunderstanding that the verse you quoted applies to every believer. The context was that the promise was given to the apostles who then had all truth revealled to them which they wrote down...aka the Scriptures.

That's what I've been taught and what I believe too. But does the Spirit still guide us into truth in some other way, in a way that we can know that the truth is from God, not from ourselves?

 

[AV1611]

does the Spirit still guide us into truth in some other way, in a way that we can know that the truth is from God, not from ourselves?

I am not convinced. I think that God established the Church to defend the truth and this truth is contained in the creeds and confessions of the Church.

 

[larryjf]

I would say that the Spirit guides us in truth by testifying to us that the Word of God is truth.

WCOF 1.5
...our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.

But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. 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. 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 2:10-12)

 

[A5pointer]

I would say that the Spirit guides us in truth by testifying to us that the Word of God is truth.

WCOF 1.5
...our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.

But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. 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. 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 2:10-12)

I think this passage has limitation to conversion, ie believing the "words of the cross". I had asked a question in another thread. I am unaware of anywhere in biblical text that christians are promised the aid of the H.S. in biblical/theological instruction. I think it assumed by most christians of all faiths that He in fact does. However there seems to be lack of evidence that this is so. The original question of this thread is a good one. Does anyone know of such texts?

 

[blhowes]

I would say that the Spirit guides us in truth by testifying to us that the Word of God is truth.

WCOF 1.5
...our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.

But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. 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. 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 2:10-12)

I'm thinking, "Should I, or shouldn't I ask?" - (they say there's no such thing as a dumb question, but...) oh well, here goes. How might we differentiate the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness in our hearts, from say the 'burning in the bosom that (can't remember which) the Mormons or the JWs say they've experienced after they're backed into a corner. They hear something, and something inside tells them that what they're heard is true.

Now, I don't know if they actually do experience that burning in the bosom, or if that's just what they're told to say when backed in the corner. I'll assume for argument's sake that they're honest about it, and that their bosom burns.

 

[Hippo]

This is why the authority of the Church is so important in recognising the truth.

There are of course problems with establishing both what is the church and possibly what does the church teach but being confessional it is rather easier for us reformed folk than most.

The important fact is that we are not alone in being lead to the truth but we have the church to guide and teach us.

It is so sad that much of the church has abdicated this responsibility.

 

[Zadok]

Those who argue church authority, are you not removing the problem just one step - viz. away from the individual to the body corporate. The question blhowes asked was about how we can know (given the differences among those who profess the Lord's name) that we have been led to those conclusions by God?

And what place does the "right of private judgment" have in your understanding?

 

[A5pointer]

Yes, the thread has wandered from the basic question. What role if any does the H.S. have in comunicating truth to the believer via the scriptures? Any takers?

 

[MW]

Those who argue church authority, are you not removing the problem just one step - viz. away from the individual to the corporate entity.

In this instance removing the problem one step is the the surest and safest course. It is God's own prescribed course. Eph. 5:18, 21, "but be filled with the Spirit ... submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God." Phil. 3:16, "Nevertheless, whereto we have already attained, let us walk by the same rule, let us mind the same thing."

 

[larryjf]

I'm thinking, "Should I, or shouldn't I ask?" - (they say there's no such thing as a dumb question, but...) oh well, here goes. How might we differentiate the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness in our hearts, from say the 'burning in the bosom that (can't remember which) the Mormons or the JWs say they've experienced after they're backed into a corner. They hear something, and something inside tells them that what they're heard is true.

Now, I don't know if they actually do experience that burning in the bosom, or if that's just what they're told to say when backed in the corner. I'll assume for argument's sake that they're honest about it, and that their bosom burns.

I think that we must be careful not to equate the witness of the Holy Spirit with some kind of emotional response. The Spirit bears witness to the Scriptures, and the Scriptures themselves are the truth that He bears witness to.

If any spirit bears witness to something that is not the truth, then it's not the Spirit of God. The Book of Mormon is not truth therefore any spirit that bears witness to it is a spirit of the father of lies. One such example of the untruthfulness of the Book of Mormon is that it places the birth of Jesus at Jerusalem.

 

[blhowes]

In this instance removing the problem one step is the the surest and safest course. It is God's own prescribed course. Eph. 5:18, 21, "but be filled with the Spirit ... submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God." Phil. 3:16, "Nevertheless, whereto we have already attained, let us walk by the same rule, let us mind the same thing."

Certainly that's the way God would have us walk, but let's say there were two groups, say Presbyterian and Baptist, and you were in the group that was incorrect, whichever that might be. Following the prescribed guidelines, how then would you discern the truth of the other group?

 

[MW]

Certainly that's the way God would have us walk, but let's say there were two groups, say Presbyterian and Baptist, and you were in the group that was incorrect, whichever that might be. Following the prescribed guidelines, how then would you discern the truth of the other group?

Not by the Cartesian method of doubt leading to self-persuasion. We begin with faith. What is our primary concern as believers in Christ? First, to uphold the things most surely believed amongst us. Our primary concern is to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. Then the differences can be discerned by a process of examining the fruits. Which distinctive fully contends for the "common salvation," which was once for all delivered to the saints? Which distinctive tends to bring the people of God together and which serves to cause and maintain divisions in the body of Christ? It is important to see that when it comes to a proper understanding of the truth, it is not merely tenets we are considering, but the tendencies which are inherent in those tenets to promote the glory of God and the good of the church.

 

[Leslie]

God is perfectly capable of making Himself clear in scripture. Yet He chose to leave some issues indeterminate--subject to different interpretations by those truly seeking His will--an example being baptism of infants vs believers-only. Thus, pushing the argument one step back just changes the question as to which church to affiliate with since, in western society, we are given a choice. This raises some other questions:
1. If God guides the church into all truth, what is meant by "church". The local congregation? The demonination? The church universal?
2. What is meant by "all"? It certainly cannot include baptism since there are disagreements between serious Bible scholars. Could "all" mean those essential truths on which God expects us to agree? There are other instances in which "all" doesn't really mean "all". No one would argue that "all have sinned" means that Jesus sinned.
3. Is the individual necessarily obliged to agree on something like baptism with the church with which he or she affiliates?
4. Does the church have the right to insist on agreement on issues in which God has chosen not to be clear?

 

[Zadok]

Those who argue church authority, are you not removing the problem just one step - viz. away from the individual to the corporate entity.

In this instance removing the problem one step is the the surest and safest course. It is God's own prescribed course. Eph. 5:18, 21, "but be filled with the Spirit ... submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God." Phil. 3:16, "Nevertheless, whereto we have already attained, let us walk by the same rule, let us mind the same thing."

Yes a true church is the House of God, the pillar and ground of truth .. but as the BCF 1689 puts it ..

"...The purest churches under heaven are subject to mixture and error; and some have so degenerated as to become no churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan; nevertheless Christ always hath had, and ever shall have a kingdom in this world, to the end thereof, of such as believe in him, and make profession of his name."

When dealing with the question of the supreme judge in controversies there is no mention of the church but it does state:

"The supreme judge, by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Scripture delivered by the Spirit, into which Scripture so delivered, our faith is finally resolved.
( Matthew 22:29, 31, 32; Ephesians 2:20; Acts 28:23) "

From this I glean that a true church upholds and spreads the truth, but the truth is only to be found in the Word of God.

So we are still back to the question - who has the truth when Christians differ and how should we tell?

 

[Iconoclast]

Yes, the thread has wandered from the basic question. What role if any does the H.S. have in comunicating truth to the believer via the scriptures? Any takers?

When we consider this work of the Holy Spirit, let's look here in Acts 8;

28Was returning, and sitting in his chariot read Esaias the prophet.

29Then the Spirit said unto Philip, Go near, and join thyself to this chariot.

30And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest?

31And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.

32The place of the scripture which he read was this, He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened he not his mouth:

33In his humiliation his judgment was taken away: and who shall declare his generation? for his life is taken from the earth.

34And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man?

35Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.

The Spirit used Philip to open the word of God.
The word of God is the "all truth "we are going to receive,or welcome.
The means of grace, The gathered assembly of believer's, The word preached, The word prayed, group and private study, admonition, exhortation, are all the process God uses.

11These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

Here again, we see it this way;

24And a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man, and mighty in the scriptures, came to Ephesus.

25This man was instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in the spirit, he spake and taught diligently the things of the Lord, knowing only the baptism of John.

26And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly.

2 Tim 3;14-17 also shows how we are to give ourselves to the word and meditation of it. We do what we are commande to do.It is not an option.
God has ordained the way and the means for us.
Even with our different understanding of baptism texts, it forces all of us to search the scripture daily, and I know I benefit when I see the discussions of covenant people, and families. We are all forced to work through these issues ,it makes me think that God in His wisdom has allowed us to flounder at times, and even get worked up and upset so we might seek the truth even more.

18For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it.

19For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.

 

[Ravens]

These issues are very complicated, and in my view seem to deal more with epistemological concerns than issues of dogmatic authority, at least as far as the OP's question is concerned.

That being said, if one submits one's judgment and interpretation of Scripture to the church's creeds and confessions, then one will still be functioning as the decisive factor, because then you'll need to apply reason and understanding to the historical data to figure out which church is the true church.

I hope that doesn't come across as pedantic, because I've thought these issues over quite a bit for myself. I just find it odd when some on here (not even necessarily on this thread, but I've seen this view on the PB) tout creeds and confessions in an overly confident way, the authority of the church, and that we should walk in old light. All of which I largely agree with, but if we took that tag-line consistently and not selectively, we should be in Rome or Constantinople.

I think that you must give the voice of the church a favorable weight and the benefit of the doubt, so to speak, in interpreting Scripture, but if you abandon your private convictions based on Scriptural study, you will end in your private convictions in evaluating history.

I don't see how that's avoidable. Because once you desire to submit to the church in that sense, as a Western Christian, then you'll need to figure out who was wrong when it came to leavened bread, the Filioque, and papal jurisdictional authority over the other metropolitans/archbishops. To make it even more confusing, most Protestants would say that the West was right in the pivotal issue of the Filioque, and that the East was right when it came to papal power. So one will need to make a crucial decision as to what constitutes the church. If one decides on the West, then yet another decision has to be made as to who to submit to, namely, now between Protestantism and the Bishop of Rome.

And if one finds oneself interpreting Scripture and applying it to these controversies, i.e., the Filioque, justification, etc., in order to decide which church to submit to, then we're really back at square one, aren't we?

I'm sure that some might see that as sophistic, and it might be, but this is my sincere look at the issues. Ultimately, I would say, probably with the Confession, but I'm not going to cut and paste, that some places in Scripture are plain and easily understood by all, and that, regardless of which church is "right", there is a body of consensus there. If I am trusting Christ and Christ alone for my salvation, and find myself in agreement with the broad plains of Scripture, and squarely in the consensus of the church, then I think that's a good indication of standing and certainty.

When it comes to baptism and other issues, I would just recognize that as important as they are, your salvation doesn't hinge on the matter. Live with a good conscience and interpret Scripture coram Deo, and leave your failings and errors to His mercy.

 

[lwadkins]

The Holy Spirit speaks through the pages of Scripture. That by no means presumes that we will submit ourselves to that truth. Still being imperfect we are distracted by things like pride, (desire for adulation for our mighty intellects), autonomy, basically insert your human inclination here. Point being that in spite of the Truth being there, (particularly on issues that Scripture has a lot to say about) there will always be those who refuse to accept those teachings as stated and find arguments to induce Scripture to support their view. Particularly in western culture we love to assert our independence and that desire for independence often colors our doctrine. Its difficult to submit.


Php 2:12-13
12 Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, 13 for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure. ESV

I think we tend to forget the "fear and trembling" part.

 

[Hippo]

Those who argue church authority, are you not removing the problem just one step - viz. away from the individual to the body corporate. The question blhowes asked was about how we can know (given the differences among those who profess the Lord's name) that we have been led to those conclusions by God?

And what place does the "right of private judgment" have in your understanding?

I think that the key point is that we are not free agents to come up with any judgment that we wish, our faith is apostolic and the only way that we know the truth is from the teaching of the apostles.

Some posters have felt that the "thread has wandered from the basic question. What role if any does the H.S. have in comunicating truth to the believer via the scriptures?" however you cannot seperate such a question from authority and you cannot seperate authority from the Church.

In my view it is not necessarily wrong for people to hold different positions, Augustine was certainly of the view that you did not have to say one position was wrong. This is not to say that truth is subjective but rather that God is bigger than each one of us and if he gives freedom to hold differing positions then that is his prerogative. As long as we submit to authority we will end up in pretty much the same place anyway. I have always liked the verse:

23 But whoever has doubts is condemned if he eats, because the eating is not from faith. For whatever does not proceed from faith is sin.
Romans 14:23 (ESV)

We have to act in faith.

The reason why we know that the Roman church is apostate and why it has been replaced is that the Roman church usurped the authority of the Apostles.

 

[Archlute]

1. The church is not always the guardian of the truth which trumps the individual believer, all one has to do is look at the nation of Israel during the years of the divided kingdom, or the time of the Judges, or....

2. Corporate truth seeking does not override the reality of Spirit's instructive work in the life of the individual. It should be noticed that in Paul's epistles he often speaks to his audience as individuals who have had personal experiences of God's grace in their lives, and he appeals to the truth of their spiritual experience in going on to make a defense of the truth of the Gospel. Paul's thoughts in the final chapters of Galatians is an example of this that most quickly comes to mind.

Regarding the OP, the most important thing is for both individuals and larger church bodies to continue to discuss the hard issues with grace, humility and honest scholarship which seeks not to assert itself for its own gains. It will be an ongoing process until the Lord returns.

 

[MW]

Samuel Rutherford (Pretended Liberty of Conscience):

Arminians: In controversies of religion which the scripture doth not evidently decide, what can certainly be determined by the Church, which ever, and in everything which it determines, is believed may err?

Answer 1. There is nothing that the scripture hath left simple, and in itself controversial. Actu primo the scripture hath determined of all things contained in it, whether fundamentals or not fundamentals; only in regard of our dulness and sinful blindness some things are controverted, and therefore the Church may determine from light of the word some thing that was a controversy to the Fathers ignorant of the original tongues, which is now no controversy. Yea, the fallible church may determine infallible points.

Answer 2. This is a principle that Libertines proceed upon, that men who are not infallible may err, and therefore can hold forth to others no infallible truth. Which is most false, for prophets and apostles, Nathan, Samuel, David, Peter, being deserted of the immediately inspiring Spirit, did err as well as the Church and Pastors now deserted of the ordinary Spirit can and do err. For all men, Prophets and Apostles are liars, Rom. 3, yet they may and do carry infallible truth to others; a blind man may hold a candle to others.

Answer 3. By this reason Pastors can preach nothing certain in fundamentals, though faith come by hearing, and faith is of a certain and determinate fixed truth of God, more permanent than heaven or earth; why, because by this reason pastors in preaching fundamentals are not infallible.

Answer 4. Nor is this a good reason -- it is believed the Church may err in Synods, ergo, it doth err and determines nothing that is infallible and certain in Synods; no more than this is a good consequence -- David may sin in praying, ergo, he doth sin in praying: a potentia ad actum non valet consequentia [from the power of the act the consequence does not hold good].