Leading of the Holy Spirit?

Status
Not open for further replies.
No, I meant mediate. I'm saying that He did work through the Word in this case. God's Word isn't just written. In fact, 2 Peter 1:21 specifically says men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

Well then I think that you're changing the discussion, because the original flow of thought regarding this issue was centered upon the relationship between the written word, the Holy Spirit, and the modern believer. Bringing something that was not a part of the original discussion is just a red-herring. Of course the prophetic word is still the word of God, even to have to bring that point up is quite silly.
 
Acts 13:4, Paul and Barnabas are "sent forth by the Holy Ghost," yet verses 1-3 have shown the human instrumentality involved in the process.

Acts 15:28, the decree of the Council of Jerusalem "seemed good to the Holy Ghost," yet the chapter has shown that human consultation and decision was involved.

It is gratuitous to assume that mention of the Spirit's directions must necessarily be immediate. (Another great example of Matt's proclivity to misrepresent his "opponent's" position)

Did I say that we should assume this? Another great example of the red-herrings that you regularly post.

Why would you bring in examples that were not even under discussion, instead of dealing with the passage at hand, namely, Act 16:6-10? Again, nobody is denying that the Spirit can work mediately, but the real question is can he work apart from the written word directly upon the mind/conscience of the individual, and I think that Acts 16 is a great example of that.

I think that it is gratuitous that you would assume the written word was involved in a passage such as Acts 16, if that is what you were getting at. Where would your support be for that?
 
Acts 13:4, Paul and Barnabas are "sent forth by the Holy Ghost," yet verses 1-3 have shown the human instrumentality involved in the process.

Acts 15:28, the decree of the Council of Jerusalem "seemed good to the Holy Ghost," yet the chapter has shown that human consultation and decision was involved.

It is gratuitous to assume that mention of the Spirit's directions must necessarily be immediate. (Another great example of Matt's proclivity to misrepresent his "opponent's" position)

Did I say that we should assume this? Another great example of the red-herrings that you regularly post.

Why would you bring in examples that were not even under discussion, instead of dealing with the passage at hand, namely, Act 16:6-10? Again, nobody is denying that the Spirit can work mediately, but the real question is can he work apart from the written word directly upon the mind/conscience of the individual, and I think that Acts 16 is a great example of that.

I think that it is gratuitous that you would assume the written word was involved in a passage such as Acts 16, if that is what you were getting at. Where would your support be for that?

I don't mean to be rude, but I accidentally clicked "Thanks" on this post.

It seems you may be reading into the text of Acts 16 in assuming this direction was given by an impression upon the mind/conscience. Could not have this message been through an audible voice or vision, as was the other vision Paul received?

Also, here is a quote from Calvin:

"It is not the office of the Spirit that is promised us to make new and before unheard of revelations or to coin some new kind of doctrine which tends to draw us away from the received doctrines of the gospel but to seal and confirm to us that very doctrine which is by the gospel" (Jonathan Edwards continues from here - from a footnote in Religious Affections) And in the same place he speaks of some that in those days maintained the contrary notion pretending to be immediately led by the Spirit as persons that were governed by a most haughty self conceit and not so properly to be looked upon as only labouring under a mistake as driven by a sort of raving madness.
 
Last edited:
Also, here is a quote from Calvin:

"It is not the office of the Spirit that is promised us to make new and before unheard of revelations or to coin some new kind of doctrine which tends to draw us away from the received doctrines of the gospel but to seal and confirm to us that very doctrine which is by the gospel" (Jonathan Edwards continues from here - from a footnote in Religious Affections) And in the same place he speaks of some that in those days maintained the contrary notion pretending to be immediately led by the Spirit as persons that were governed by a most haughty self conceit and not so properly to be looked upon as only labouring under a mistake as driven by a sort of raving madness

Was Calvin talking about normal experiences in the believer's life or was he talking about those folks who claim to have special revelation from God? I get the impression from reading this that Calvin was specifically speaking of "revelation" that leads us away from what the Scriptures are teaching, not every day experiences such as have been mentioned above.
 
(Another great example of Matt's proclivity to misrepresent his "opponent's" position)

(Matthew, not Matt). There was no misrepresentation. You appealed to a text in Acts and assumed it spoke of a direct action of the Holy Spirit; I countered with other texts in Acts which demonstrate human instrumentality, thus removing the assumption that the mention of the Holy Spirit necessarily entails immediacy. Given these other examples, you are constrained to bring forth evidence from the narrative which rules out the possibility of mediate action before you can safely conclude that it was immediate.
 
If the Spirit were not to always use means (even subliminal means) we would not be morally responsible?

No, but it would create an area of spirituality which was morally neutral and would fall outside one's responsibility. "Be filled with the Spirit" is the moral responsibility of the believer; if the Spirit worked directly the believer could have no way of employing means for the fulfilment of his responsibility. Further, he would have no way of proving all things, as he is commanded. If all things are to be proved then there is no area of Christian experience which defies explanation in terms of revealed truth.

Mr. Winzer, I think I almost understand you. I believe that you agree that the Spirit works both with the word and by means other than the word (as in providentially ordering things that a subliminal clue will provoke the memory I need in order to be stirred to pray for someone, or to remember the most apt text of Scripture in discussion). But we have no reason to think that the Spirit works without instrumentality. So far so good, but I don't quite follow the connection of that thought with our moral responsibility or our ability to prove things. Can you expand on that a little?
 
Mr. Winzer, I think I almost understand you. I believe that you agree that the Spirit works both with the word and by means other than the word (as in providentially ordering things that a subliminal clue will provoke the memory I need in order to be stirred to pray for someone, or to remember the most apt text of Scripture in discussion). But we have no reason to think that the Spirit works without instrumentality. So far so good, but I don't quite follow the connection of that thought with our moral responsibility or our ability to prove things. Can you expand on that a little?

If the Spirit works directly, i.e. without means, then the believer has no means to (1) fulfil his responsibility to be filled with the Spirit, or (2) prove that what he observes is in fact the work of the Spirit. (1.) We can consider the passage in Eph. 5, which makes the filling of the Spirit an imperative. It is followed by various participles which provide the medium through which the Spirit works to fill us and others. (2.) We can also consider the passage in 1 Cor. 12, which insists that the working of the Spirit can be discerned in terms of the propositional content of His message and the common good resulting from it. In both passages it is taught that the Holy Spirit works by means that can be utilised and discerned by the believer. If it is now suggested that the Holy Spirit might bypass the means and work directly on the individual then an area of spirituality is created in which the believer is free from the responsibilities laid on him by the clear teaching of Scripture; and I think if we were honest with ourselves then we would acknowledge that the desire for a direct working of the Spirit can be traced to a deeper desire to experience God in a personal way which absolves us from responsibility and introduces a broader concept of freedom than scripture (that is, the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture) allows.
 
Thank you. That does clear things up. I think I have just one more question. You had mentioned subliminal means, which professional researchers are just beginning to get some understanding of. If I can't tell what means the Spirit is using, does it follow that I can't test all things?
 
Thank you. That does clear things up. I think I have just one more question. You had mentioned subliminal means, which professional researchers are just beginning to get some understanding of. If I can't tell what means the Spirit is using, does it follow that I can't test all things?

No, because we recognise the imperfection of our present state. In the case of the Lord Jesus Christ, he possessed a perfect ectypal theology, and was able to perfectly trace in his own consciousness all the workings of the Blessed Spirit. We can trace them to a certain degree, but not to perfection. But the fact we cannot reach perfection in this life does not mean we do not press forward to attain it, as in Phil. 3.
 
No, I meant mediate. I'm saying that He did work through the Word in this case. God's Word isn't just written. In fact, 2 Peter 1:21 specifically says men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

Well then I think that you're changing the discussion, because the original flow of thought regarding this issue was centered upon the relationship between the written word, the Holy Spirit, and the modern believer. Bringing something that was not a part of the original discussion is just a red-herring. Of course the prophetic word is still the word of God, even to have to bring that point up is quite silly.

I believe this is quite relevant. I am using the language of mediacy to communicate that God works through His Word, whether it comes from the mouths of prophets or from the pages of Scripture.

Does you believe that modern guidance is the giving of a prophetic word as we see in Acts 16? If so, then you are not a cessationist at all for you believe that prophecy does continue. If not, I continue to challenge you to give me an example of the Holy Spirit's "leading" apart from the Word (from Scripture).

(I've been away from the web for a few days, so it took a while to get back to this.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top