Leading of the Holy Spirit?

[MW]

I will give you a personal example of why I believe that the Holy Spirit works personally and actively among his people today, and that not only in conjunction with their reading of his Scriptures:

Appeals to personal examples validate the concern of cessationists and show that a belief in the direct work of the Spirit does lead to an unhealthy dependence on experience as a rule of faith and life.

 

[Archlute]

I will give you a personal example of why I believe that the Holy Spirit works personally and actively among his people today, and that not only in conjunction with their reading of his Scriptures:

Appeals to personal examples validate the concern of cessationists and show that a belief in the direct work of the Spirit does lead to an unhealthy dependence on experience as a rule of faith and life.

Apparently for some cessationists, you cannot open a jar of peanut butter without first appealing to a proof-text.

 

[MW]

Apparently for some cessationists, you cannot open a jar of peanut butter without first appealing to a proof-text.

1 Tim. 4:4, "For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving."

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I have always thought that many strict cessassionists err when it comes to the active work of the Holy Spirit among his people. I am by no means a Charismatic/Third Wave type on the use of the extraordinary gifts, but I nevertheless sympathize with some of their emphases regarding the internal work and prompting (which I do not see, as many strict cessassionists do, as necessarily compromising a closed canon or as being some sort of infallible special revelation).

I will give you a personal example of why I believe that the Holy Spirit works personally and actively among his people today, and that not only in conjunction with their reading of his Scriptures:

Right now, due to a number of converging circumstances, my family and I are quite broke. In fact, this last Monday I had spent my final 20.00 for the month on getting breakfast for my eight kids. I had less than 1/8 tank of gas in my car. There was no immediate relief in sight. After feeding my family I drove out to the woods behind the local theater where I spent an hour in desperate prayer, asking the God who had called me to lay down a comfortable and enjoyable lifestyle for the sake of his gospel to come to my aid, because his aid was all that I could expect at that point. The day goes by, dinner ends; I wake up the next morning and sit on my bed reading my theology, wondering why I am reading stuff that isn't feeding my family. My wife walks into the bedroom. She pulls out a card. An old friend of ours from a previous ministry had said that she normally would not do something like this, but that the previous day she had felt compelled by the Holy Spirit to provide aid for us, and that we were in great need (she was not aware of our circumstances). She gave us 1000.00.

That, my friends, is more than just providence, or the passing odd thought of someone who has been meditating upon some portion of Scripture. It is my belief that it can only plausibly be explained as the active and "unmediated" work of the Holy Spirit upon a person's heart, which was used in answer to a prayer of desperation.

I realize that this is a touchy subject, and I also realize that there are people who out in left field on the issue, but something like this has happened on more than one occasion in our life as a clear answer to prayer, and I want to be careful that in our attempts to guard the sufficiency of the Scripture for faith and life that we do not unnecessarily restrict the manner in which we believe the Spirit can/might/does/etc work in the lives of his people. Of course (for those who may be wondering/worried), my presbytery is fully aware of my view regarding the work of the Spirit being a "soft-cessassionist" view.

First of all, I praise God with you to hear that He provided for your need.

I'm wondering why you believe what occurred is, in your words, "...more than just providence...." I just read Calvin on providence and I believe you must be thinking of some other idea than providence when you stated this because what happened to you is providence. That said, I don't believe that the fact that God has provided for you in an extraordinary manner necessitates that we insist that we understand precisely the agency that God utilized. The hidden things belong to God and ours is not to know how your friend thought of you by claiming to understand the exact mechanism. We can thank God for His providential care even as we maintain respect for His inscrutable and unsearchable ways.

 

[Archlute]

I have always thought that many strict cessassionists err when it comes to the active work of the Holy Spirit among his people. I am by no means a Charismatic/Third Wave type on the use of the extraordinary gifts, but I nevertheless sympathize with some of their emphases regarding the internal work and prompting (which I do not see, as many strict cessassionists do, as necessarily compromising a closed canon or as being some sort of infallible special revelation).

I will give you a personal example of why I believe that the Holy Spirit works personally and actively among his people today, and that not only in conjunction with their reading of his Scriptures:

Right now, due to a number of converging circumstances, my family and I are quite broke. In fact, this last Monday I had spent my final 20.00 for the month on getting breakfast for my eight kids. I had less than 1/8 tank of gas in my car. There was no immediate relief in sight. After feeding my family I drove out to the woods behind the local theater where I spent an hour in desperate prayer, asking the God who had called me to lay down a comfortable and enjoyable lifestyle for the sake of his gospel to come to my aid, because his aid was all that I could expect at that point. The day goes by, dinner ends; I wake up the next morning and sit on my bed reading my theology, wondering why I am reading stuff that isn't feeding my family. My wife walks into the bedroom. She pulls out a card. An old friend of ours from a previous ministry had said that she normally would not do something like this, but that the previous day she had felt compelled by the Holy Spirit to provide aid for us, and that we were in great need (she was not aware of our circumstances). She gave us 1000.00.

That, my friends, is more than just providence, or the passing odd thought of someone who has been meditating upon some portion of Scripture. It is my belief that it can only plausibly be explained as the active and "unmediated" work of the Holy Spirit upon a person's heart, which was used in answer to a prayer of desperation.

I realize that this is a touchy subject, and I also realize that there are people who out in left field on the issue, but something like this has happened on more than one occasion in our life as a clear answer to prayer, and I want to be careful that in our attempts to guard the sufficiency of the Scripture for faith and life that we do not unnecessarily restrict the manner in which we believe the Spirit can/might/does/etc work in the lives of his people. Of course (for those who may be wondering/worried), my presbytery is fully aware of my view regarding the work of the Spirit being a "soft-cessassionist" view.

First of all, I praise God with you to hear that He provided for your need.

I'm wondering why you believe what occurred is, in your words, "...more than just providence...." I just read Calvin on providence and I believe you must be thinking of some other idea than providence when you stated this because what happened to you is providence. That said, I don't believe that the fact that God has provided for you in an extraordinary manner necessitates that we insist that we understand precisely the agency that God utilized. The hidden things belong to God and ours is not to know how your friend thought of you by claiming to understand the exact mechanism. We can thank God for His providential care even as we maintain respect for His inscrutable and unsearchable ways.

Yes, it falls under God's providence. However, the reason that I stated that it was more than just providence is because I dismiss what is commonly meant when that phrase is invoked in describing an occurrence like this. What is most commonly meant when someone approaches this issue through "mere providence", although it is usually left unspoken, is that we can be thankful that God had planned these things to occur at the precise moment when they were needed, but it's too bad that some ignorant/crazy old Christian woman had to assert that she was lead by the Spirit to do this, when we all know that the Spirit does not work in this manner. It was nice of God to be able to work through her; too bad she is self-deceived.

I take that as an affront to the active work of the Spirit (although, I am not taking your question in this way), and have always held that the position is a reactionary one that has arisen in recent decades within conservative Reformed thought against other issues. I believe that it is misguided theology at best, and that it is borderline unbelief, with a dash of condescending arrogance thrown in by some, at worst.

My position on the internal work of the Spirit is not novel in the history of the church, and similar thoughts can be found in the writings and sermons of Reformed theologians and ministers of the past. Calvin, Knox, and Spurgeon come to mind especially. Samuel Storms is another modern day theologian of repute who (although I think his views are a little broader than my own on the Spirit's work) nevertheless considers himself to be a Reformed theologian who has a more active view of the role of the Spirit in the Christian life than many modern Reformed folk would feel comfortable in affirming.

In the same way that none would want to deny God's work in providence, I also would not want to deny the work of the Holy Spirit as an instrument in that providence.

 

[Dearly Bought]

I take that as an affront to the active work of the Spirit (although, I am not taking your question in this way), and have always held that the position is a reactionary one that has arisen in recent decades within conservative Reformed thought against other issues. I believe that it is misguided theology at best, and that it is borderline unbelief, with a dash of condescending arrogance thrown in by some, at worst.

This is a rather strong claim to know the motives behind Reformed cessationism. Why not engage the claims of cessationists instead?

I would argue that this sort of language about the "active," "unmediated," and "direct" work of the Holy Spirit threatens to do serious damage to the doctrine of the Trinity. To quote Calvin's commentary on John 16,

"as soon as the Spirit is separated from the word of Christ, the door is open to all kinds of delusions and impostures."

The Father speaks His Word through His Spirit. The Spirit does not speak apart from the Word. He is the Spirit of Christ (Romans 8:9). If you do seek to uphold Trinitarian orthodoxy, yet still claim adherence to continuing revelations of any sort, then the canon must not yet be closed for the Word of Christ has apparently not yet been sufficiently revealed.

My position on the internal work of the Spirit is not novel in the history of the church, and similar thoughts can be found in the writings and sermons of Reformed theologians and ministers of the past. Calvin, Knox, and Spurgeon come to mind especially.

Would you please point me to where Calvin affirms that the Spirit works without the mediation of the Word?

 

[Archlute]

I take that as an affront to the active work of the Spirit (although, I am not taking your question in this way), and have always held that the position is a reactionary one that has arisen in recent decades within conservative Reformed thought against other issues. I believe that it is misguided theology at best, and that it is borderline unbelief, with a dash of condescending arrogance thrown in by some, at worst.

This is a rather strong claim to know the motives behind Reformed cessationism. Why not engage the claims of cessationists instead?

I would argue that this sort of language about the "active," "unmediated," and "direct" work of the Holy Spirit threatens to do serious damage to the doctrine of the Trinity. To quote Calvin's commentary on John 16,

"as soon as the Spirit is separated from the word of Christ, the door is open to all kinds of delusions and impostures."

The Father speaks His Word through His Spirit. The Spirit does not speak apart from the Word. He is the Spirit of Christ (Romans 8:9). If you do seek to uphold Trinitarian orthodoxy, yet still claim adherence to continuing revelations of any sort, then the canon must not yet be closed for the Word of Christ has apparently not yet been sufficiently revealed.

My position on the internal work of the Spirit is not novel in the history of the church, and similar thoughts can be found in the writings and sermons of Reformed theologians and ministers of the past. Calvin, Knox, and Spurgeon come to mind especially.

Would you please point me to where Calvin affirms that the Spirit works without the mediation of the Word?

Hello Bryan,

I don't really have time to waste with every inflamed individual on the Internet who makes overstated claims regarding the damage done the Trinity, etc. There's lots of reading you can do to help inform yourself a little better on the issue than the PB, or my own limited time for researching and posting.

You can be worried about "strong claims" etc. all you'd like. That's fine by me. I've had plenty of conversations with brothers who take a strict-cessationist position (again, it would be helpful for you to distinguish views within the camp, as there is more than a "one-size fits all" approach to the cessation of certain aspects of the Spirit's operation), and I don't really feel the need to engage their claims for your own pleasure of engaging in argumentation.

You can hold to a closed canon without having to hold to a complete cessation of the Spirit's work. There are modern Reformed theologians who argue this. Do the reading.

Also, regarding Calvin, Knox, and others, you'll have to take enough interest to find the relevant passages. They are out there, especially with Knox and Spurgeon (whom I notice you don't mention). I'm not about to do your leg work, and I've mentioned that to others on this board regarding other citations. If I had them on hand or in head I would be pleased to post them for you, but I do not, and my sermon prep and other things are a little more important to me than providing citations to everyone who may request them. If you don't believe me and don't want to read up on your own, that's fine by me. This board is neither a term paper, nor a scholarly publication, and I feel no compulsion to cite every source that I reference from memory.

Take care.

BTW, is the RCUS still kicking out ministers who refuse to use the KJV in family devotions? Serious question, as I'm friends with a minister whose father used to minister in the RCUS when he was a kid, that is until that happened. It lends a bit of insight into the petty combativeness and failure to understand/appreciate nuances in Christian theology that can come out of those circles. Which is one reason that I don't feel obliged to get into a debate over something that is an accepted position (within other parts of the Reformed world) with you over this.

 

[Herald]

Adam,

You have every right to disagree with cessationism. But you cited individuals (Calvin, Knox and "others") without being prepared to cite sources. Your response? You don't have the time. That's rather unfair. You can't assume that everyone is as read up as you are or has a mastery of other authors. You basically bit off Bryan's head for drilling down on your assertion. You're in the wrong on this. If you have, "limited time for researching and posting" maybe you should have refrained from posting or provided your sources?

 

[Archlute]

No, I don't think that I am in the wrong in making reference w/o citation, although I appreciate your desire to stand up on Bryan's behalf where you feel my approach to have been unfair.

As I have mentioned before, this is a non-scholarly forum. If I were writing a term paper, dissertation, or presenting a lecture in an academic environment, I would have prepared to present citations as such. In an online forum, however, I feel no obligation to do so. I certainly don't take time to cite sources in the middle of personal conversation (which is how I see participation on this board), and since I would feel free in bringing up the points without citing them in face to face conversation, I don't feel a need to do any differently on the PB. If Bryan wants to disbelieve my statements, because I don't feel compelled to dig through my stuff to find the exact quote, that's really O.K. by me. This conversation has much more to do with presuppositions regarding a number of theological topics than will be decided by quotes from church history. Even if I had the quotes on hand to post, many strict-cessationists would still just say that Calvin, Knox, Spurgeon, etc were wrong/misguided on that point.

I don't see this discussion as a debate to be won, or that someone's honor needs be upheld, so I'll leave my statement as stands. I don't mind coming back to give citations if I come across any of those quotes during the course of the week; I've done it before for others via PM on occasion.

 

[py3ak]

Hang on a minute. I'm a bit confused here.

God is sovereign over my thoughts, right? It was just as much a part of God's decree that I forgot to put postage on 8 packages this afternoon, thereby engendering a three-day delay in the shipment, as it was a part of His decree that my car wouldn't start this morning.

Now if God is sovereign over my thoughts, then when I remember to pray for someone, or am inclined to send them money, is that not also a part of God's decree?

Now what mechanism and second causes God uses, I don't always know (I was distracted talking about the packages). But it is still God who has done it.

 

[Archlute]

I think that what is being questioned is not whether or not God's sovereignty plays into the equation, but the instrument whereby He accomplishes His work.

I would say, in response to Bill's opening questions, that "yes" the Spirit does actively prompt believers, while others here might say "no", or might state it in a qualified manner such as "only if we say that their actions are moved by their reflecting upon the Scriptures" (which I would take as a "no" in the sense that question seems to have been asked).

 

[py3ak]

OK, Adam, that makes sense. So here's another question. Does the Holy Spirit bring the word to remembrance by the word? In other words, I don't have a Bible in front of me, but I remember an apt text of Scripture for a discussion or whatever. Now the recollection of that text was not a function of the word, but a function of memory. Does the Holy Spirit act on our memories in this way?

 

[JBaldwin]

OK, Adam, that makes sense. So here's another question. Does the Holy Spirit bring the word to remembrance by the word? In other words, I don't have a Bible in front of me, but I remember an apt text of Scripture for a discussion or whatever. Now the recollection of that text was not a function of the word, but a function of memory. Does the Holy Spirit act on our memories in this way?

I know this question was directed at Adam, and I hope you don't mind my answering it. I believe the reason why we are told to hide God's Word in hearts (memorize) is so that it can be brought to mind when we need it. I also believe the Spirit of God uses that to help us make wise decisions.

 

[Dearly Bought]

Adam,
It is certainly true that church history is not our final authority in this discussion. However, I will still certainly contend with your assertion regarding Calvin at least.

Passages such as the following seem to clearly deny the sort of immediate work of the Spirit today that you describe:

...But what kind of Spirit did our Saviour promise to send? One who should not speak of himself (John 16:13), but suggest and instil the truths which he himself had delivered through the word. Hence the office of the Spirit promised to us, is not to form new and unheard-of revelations, or to coin a new form of doctrine, by which we may be led away from the received doctrine of the gospel, but to seal on our minds the very doctrine which the gospel recommends...

...In like manner, when Paul says to the Thessalonians, “Quench not the Spirit,” he does not carry them aloft to empty speculation apart from the word; he immediately adds, “Despise not prophesying,” (1 Thess. 5:19, 20). By this, doubtless, he intimates that the light of the Spirit is quenched the moment prophesying fall into contempt. How is this answered by those swelling enthusiasts, in whose idea the only true illumination consists, in carelessly laying aside, and bidding adieu to the Word of God, while, with no less confidence than folly, they fasten upon any dreaming notion which may have casually sprung up in their minds? Surely a very different sobriety becomes the children of God. As they feel that without the Spirit of God they are utterly devoid of the light of truth, so they are not ignorant that the word is the instrument by which the illumination of the Spirit is dispensed. They know of no other Spirit than the one who dwelt and spake in the apostles—the Spirit by whose oracles they are daily invited to the hearing of the word. (The Institutes, Beveridge translation, Book I, Chapter IX

Please understand that I was not accusing you or others who are not strict cessationists of denying the doctrine of the Trinity. If I have understood you correctly, you appear to believe in the unmediated work of the Holy Spirit. I am proposing that the Bible teaches that the Holy Spirit does not work apart from the Word. Jesus appears to point us in this direction in John 15 & 16. The chapter of the Institutes I quoted does a fine job of explaining this teaching. I have also found chapter 10 of Michael Horton's Covenant and Salvation quite compelling (he addresses the mediate nature of the Spirit's work particularly in regeneration/effectual calling).

I have only been in the RCUS for a very short time, so I cannot speak to your friend's father's experience. I would, however, caution you to be very careful about such statements, considering the potential 9th commandment hazards.

Finally, I engage in these discussions and debates because this is a Reformed discussion board. I want to refine and build my understanding of the Scriptures as iron sharpens iron. So I find these debates helpful in that regard. Please do confront me if I become unduly arrogant and prideful in discussion.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I think that what is being questioned is not whether or not God's sovereignty plays into the equation, but the instrument whereby He accomplishes His work.

I would say, in response to Bill's opening questions, that "yes" the Spirit does actively prompt believers, while others here might say "no", or might state it in a qualified manner such as "only if we say that their actions are moved by their reflecting upon the Scriptures" (which I would take as a "no" in the sense that question seems to have been asked).

If it was as simple as that Adam then I would not have more than a bit of consternation as to your method of interaction heretofore. Your assertion that this is a mere conversation belies the fact that it is rude, in polite conversation, to assert something and then chastise the person who objects as being too ignorant to understand what you said. After all, if people just read as much as you before they started a conversation then no objections might be forthcoming.

I'm not trying to represent a particular cessationist position here but I do have a problem with some of the false dilemmas you have presented. You assume that one must either deny the agency of the Holy Spirit in human affairs or accept that, in your case, it clearly was the direct agency of the Holy Spirit. You also seem to imply that my only option with your friend is to be completely uncharitable to her or to accept her accounting of why this thought came to her mind. Are those really the only options?

May I only despise those who say: "The Holy Spirit placed this on my heart" and, since I shouldn't despise them, is my only option then to accept that this must be the case? Are there no other options?

I have good Christian friends that I love that say that the Holy Spirit has led them to stay home from Church on a particular day because they had their quiet time and felt at peace with the Lord on that point. May I not seek to instruct them even as I appreciate their zeal for the Lord in other areas? Or am I simply to accept their testimony because I do not wish to despise them.

I'm not going to claim to be a Scholar on this but I agree with Calvin in this portion of the Institutes on God's complete control of all events. He's speaking of those who deny God's agency in things but the point is well made:

2. No man, therefore, will duly and usefully ponder on the providence
of God save he who recollects that he has to do with his own Maker, and
the Maker of the world, and in the exercise of the humility which
becomes him, manifests both fear and reverence. Hence it is, that in
the present day so many dogs tear this doctrine with envenomed teeth,
or, at least, assail it with their bark, refusing to give more license
to God than their own reason dictates to themselves. With what
petulance, too, are we assailed for not being contented with the
precepts of the Law, in which the will of God is comprehended, and for
maintaining that the world is governed by his secret counsels? As if
our doctrine were the figment of our own brain, and were not distinctly
declared by the Spirit, and repeated in innumerable forms of
expression! Since some feeling of shame restrains them from daring to
belch forth their blasphemies against heaven, that they may give the
freer vent to their rage, they pretend to pick a quarrel with us. But
if they refuse to admit that every event which happens in the world is
governed by the incomprehensible counsel of God, let them explain to
what effect Scripture declares, that "his Judgments are a great deep,"
(Ps. 36:7). For when Moses exclaims that the will of God "is not in
heaven that thou shouldest say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and
bring it unto us? Neither is it beyond the sea that thou shouldest say,
Who shall go over the sea and bring it unto us?" (Deut. 30:12, 13),
because it was familiarly expounded in the law, it follows that there
must be another hidden will which is compared to " a great deep." It is
of this will Paul exclaims, "O! the depths of the riches of the wisdom
and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his Judgments, and his ways
past finding out! For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has
been his counsellor?" (Rom. 11:33, 34). It is true, indeed, that in the
law and the gospel are comprehended mysteries which far transcend the
measure of our sense; but since God, to enable his people to understand
those mysteries which he has deigned to reveal in his word, enlightens
their minds with a spirit of understanding, they are now no longer a
deep, but a path in which they can walk safely--a lamp to guide their
feet--a light of life--a school of clear and certain truth. But the
admirable method of governing the world is justly called a deep,
because, while it lies hid from us, it is to be reverently adored. Both
views Moses has beautifully expressed in a few words. "Secret things,"
saith he, "belong unto the Lord our God, but those things which are
revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever," (Deut. 29:29).
We see how he enjoins us not only studiously to meditate on the law,
but to look up with reverence to the secret Providence of God. The Book
of Job also, in order to keep our minds humble, contains a description
of this lofty theme. The author of the Book, after taking an ample
survey of the universe, and discoursing magnificently on the works of
God, at length adds, "Lo, these are parts of his ways: but how little a
portion is heard of him?" (Job 26:14). For which reason he, in another
passage, distinguishes between the wisdom which dwells in God, and the
measure of wisdom which he has assigned to man (Job 28:21, 28). After
discoursing of the secrets of nature, he says that wisdom "is hid from
the eyes of all living;" that "God understandeth the way thereof."
Shortly after he adds, that it has been divulged that it might be
investigated; for "unto man he said, Behold the fear of the Lord, that
is wisdom." To this the words of Augustine refer, "As we do not know
all the things which God does respecting us in the best order, we
ought, with good intention, to act according to the Law, and in some
things be acted upon according to the Law, his Providence being a Law
immutable," (August. Quest. lib. 83 c. 27). Therefore, since God claims
to himself the right of governing the world, a right unknown to us, let
it be our law of modesty and soberness to acquiesce in his supreme
authority regarding his will as our only rule of justice, and the most
perfect cause of all things,--not that absolute will, indeed, of which
sophists prate, when by a profane and impious divorce, they separate
his justice from his power, but that universal overruling Providence
from which nothing flows that is not right, though the reasons thereof
may be concealed. [135]

The revealed things belong to us and the hidden things belong to the Lord. We may often break into doxology out of the wonder of His amazing provision. We may even affirm, by Special revelation, that the Spirit has a role as another Paraclete.

What I believe, however, is that when something extraordinary happens, we are more than a bit presumptuous to announce to the world how God brought that event to pass. Might it have been the agency of the Spirit? Here we should fall silent. Here is the place to recognize that God is the Lord of everything that comes to pass. Here is the place to break into doxology and wonder at the depths and riches of His wisdom and provision.

It's not a denial of the work of the Holy Spirit but it is a respect for the hidden things of God and it is clearly revealed that these things do not belong to us to know. I think it is charitable to educate (in love) those who speak in the manner of announcing the Spirit's agency. We do not need to quench their love for the Gospel or Christ but simply to help them understand that we are creatures and He is the Creator. His ways are higher than our ways. That is a comfort and joy and not a stifle to our Christian walk.

 

[Archlute]

OK, Adam, that makes sense. So here's another question. Does the Holy Spirit bring the word to remembrance by the word? In other words, I don't have a Bible in front of me, but I remember an apt text of Scripture for a discussion or whatever. Now the recollection of that text was not a function of the word, but a function of memory. Does the Holy Spirit act on our memories in this way?

I wouldn't have a problem with that, as the Holy Spirit gives the gift of knowledge to some in the Church, and one could posit that a part of that gift would be in the bringing of pertinent points of Scripture to mind. However, I wouldn't think that the Spirit's acting upon the memory would be restricted to a gift, as such, but would be a common operation among believers by virtue of His indwelling. If I remember correctly, I think that Grudem addresses this somewhere in his ST.

 

[MW]

The modern use of subliminal messaging shows that sensory objects are often the mediums of sparking memories even when the person is not cognitively aware of the relation.

 

[py3ak]

So are you saying that our minds often do what we need them to without the help of the Holy Spirit?

 

[MW]

So are you saying that our minds often do what we need them to without the help of the Holy Spirit?

No, I understand the sum total of our experience to be the receptacle which is filled with the Holy Spirit, including providential sparking of memories. The idea of separating one aspect of human experience from another, and making that aspect indicative of the Spirit's leading, can only result in an unbalanced view of the Christian life.

 

[py3ak]

So when the Spirit acts on our memories He does so through some instrumentality, though we may not be able to put our finger on it?

 

[MW]

So when the Spirit acts on our memories He does so through some instrumentality, though we may not be able to put our finger on it?

Correct. Otherwise the biblical counsel to "remember" and the rebuke for "forgetting" would carry no moral weight.

 

[staythecourse]

Mary is driving along when Deborah (a fellow church member) comes to mind. Deborah is suffering from an illness and Mary acts on this thought to pay Deborah a visit in order to encourage her, etc...

This tells me Deborah has shared the event. A compassionate reaction based on Scripture would precipitate an act like this. It's purity would be based on how accurately Mary is following the word of God step by step. This following the word is not mechanical but spiritual. I cannot see a division between acting accord to the Word and being "led by the Spirit" They are the inseparable. Besides, Jesus was the Living Word and was always led by the Spirit non-stop. Nothing has changed as far as mechanics, to use a course term.

Phil is sitting on a park bench and notices a young man alone on the the bench next to him. Taking advantage of the opportunity, Phil strikes up a conversation and is able to share the gospel with the young man.

He acted on the great commission and it becomes supernatural in living it/Him out. Inseparable.

Andrew has noticed that a Christian friend of his has been acting out of character lately. A bit short of temper, depressed and sorrowful. Andrew is burdened for his friend and convinces him to stop at the local coffee house for a cup. They talk and Andrew's friend confesses he and his wife are having marital problems. Andrew's involvement allows help to begin for his friend.

Obedience to Jesus command regarding brothers in sin.

What do we make of situations such as these? There has been no divine revelation or word from God. No prophecies. No tongues. Each person found themselves moved in their heart to act in some way. Coincidence? Or does the Spirit "prompt" believers into action? As Reformed believers we all agree that God has revealed Himself through His word. Can the Spirit still prompt or move a person to act in accordance with the Word?[/QUOTE]

Those are not convincing examples of what I think you are trying to get at. I am not saying these are not supernatural. I am saying that supernaturally god things happen when we obey Scripture. I know I will find myself witnessing to people who are ready to hear the gospel ala the Ethiopian eunuch but I will be oblivious to God's arranging the events. If others have heard direct words of God to do something, they are blessed or deceived. I do not know if God does not talk to people via angels or directly but I have never heard of a convincing testimony yet. None come to mind with the Lord as my witness though I have heard remarkable stories from level-headed believers.

I can testify to being on a spiritual highway once I quit neglecting a sin in my life. I have gotten to see tangled up messes in my life disappear once I acted according to Scripture. I cannot separate out being led by the Spirit and obeying God's clear commands.

 

[py3ak]

If the Spirit were not to always use means (even subliminal means) we would not be morally responsible?

 

[Archlute]

Adam,
It is certainly true that church history is not our final authority in this discussion. However, I will still certainly contend with your assertion regarding Calvin at least.

Passages such as the following seem to clearly deny the sort of immediate work of the Spirit today that you describe:

...But what kind of Spirit did our Saviour promise to send? One who should not speak of himself (John 16:13), but suggest and instil the truths which he himself had delivered through the word. Hence the office of the Spirit promised to us, is not to form new and unheard-of revelations, or to coin a new form of doctrine, by which we may be led away from the received doctrine of the gospel, but to seal on our minds the very doctrine which the gospel recommends...

...In like manner, when Paul says to the Thessalonians, “Quench not the Spirit,” he does not carry them aloft to empty speculation apart from the word; he immediately adds, “Despise not prophesying,” (1 Thess. 5:19, 20). By this, doubtless, he intimates that the light of the Spirit is quenched the moment prophesying fall into contempt. How is this answered by those swelling enthusiasts, in whose idea the only true illumination consists, in carelessly laying aside, and bidding adieu to the Word of God, while, with no less confidence than folly, they fasten upon any dreaming notion which may have casually sprung up in their minds? Surely a very different sobriety becomes the children of God. As they feel that without the Spirit of God they are utterly devoid of the light of truth, so they are not ignorant that the word is the instrument by which the illumination of the Spirit is dispensed. They know of no other Spirit than the one who dwelt and spake in the apostles—the Spirit by whose oracles they are daily invited to the hearing of the word. (The Institutes, Beveridge translation, Book I, Chapter IX

Please understand that I was not accusing you or others who are not strict cessationists of denying the doctrine of the Trinity. If I have understood you correctly, you appear to believe in the unmediated work of the Holy Spirit. I am proposing that the Bible teaches that the Holy Spirit does not work apart from the Word. Jesus appears to point us in this direction in John 15 & 16. The chapter of the Institutes I quoted does a fine job of explaining this teaching. I have also found chapter 10 of Michael Horton's Covenant and Salvation quite compelling (he addresses the mediate nature of the Spirit's work particularly in regeneration/effectual calling).

I have only been in the RCUS for a very short time, so I cannot speak to your friend's father's experience. I would, however, caution you to be very careful about such statements, considering the potential 9th commandment hazards.

Finally, I engage in these discussions and debates because this is a Reformed discussion board. I want to refine and build my understanding of the Scriptures as iron sharpens iron. So I find these debates helpful in that regard. Please do confront me if I become unduly arrogant and prideful in discussion.

Thanks for your thoughts, Bryan.

Just so you are aware, slander (which is what I assume that you were addressing by citing the 9th commandment) is only considered properly so by standard English definition and usage if what is spoken is, in fact, untrue or spoken with malicious intent. You should take comfort that no individual names were mentioned.

Too often, way too often in fact, Reformed folk invoke the 9th commandment to shut down conversation that should be taking place in order to call folk to account. Just follow the FV debates, or work with a couple of sessions where the unrepentant sin of the pastor, or of complicit session members, continues to be concealed from the congregation (been there, done that). You'll hear it invoked all the time, and it is a perversion of that commandment. It only concerns me if a matter of untruth has been spoken, or if truth has been spoken with malicious intent. You may beg to differ, but neither of those are applicable to what I wrote, as far as I am concerned.

Make sure that the 9th commandment really applies to a situation before invoking it, because if I remember correctly part of the explication of that commandment as lined out by the WLC also involves not “calling evil good, and good evil, concealing the truth, undue silence in a just cause, and holding our peace when iniquity calls for either a reproof from ourselves, or complaint to others”, as well as positively “appearing and standing for the truth; and from the heart, sincerely, freely, clearly, and fully, speaking the truth, and only the truth, in matters of judgment and justice”. Those phrases could be categorized under the heading of “offensive” language (in a tactical, not an aesthetic sense), where all too often the 9th commandment is only used in a “defensive” manner by the guilty, or the friends/associates of the guilty.



Anyway, one of the areas where a "mediate only" approach is insufficient is in dealing with passages such as Acts 16:6-10, where only an a priori bias against the immediate actions of the Holy Spirit (and subsequently, with a reading that seems rather strained) could conclude that Paul, Silas, and Timothy were forbidden by the Spirit to preach in Asia, and were forbidden from entering Bithynia, due solely to some sort of Spirit prompted recall or reading of the Scriptures. It is clear that this was an “immediate” working of the Holy Spirit, and regardless of the other issues of apostolic office, or of open/closed canon as they may or may not apply here, the fact is that passages such as this indicate that indeed the Spirit can/could work apart from His word.

Whether or not the Spirit still works in such a manner is one of the differences between strict and moderate cessationists. I say that both are cessationists, because both would affirm that extraordinary gifts such as tongues or prophecy have ceased. It has only been in recent years, to the best of my understanding, that a debate regarding the "leading" work of the Spirit has become an issue in which some cessationists have now been labeled with the term "continuationist".

 

[MW]

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.

 

[Dearly Bought]

Thanks for your thoughts, Bryan.

Just so you are aware, slander (which is what I assume that you were addressing by citing the 9th commandment) is only considered properly so by standard English definition and usage if what is spoken is, in fact, untrue or spoken with malicious intent. You should take comfort that no individual names were mentioned.

Too often, way too often in fact, Reformed folk invoke the 9th commandment to shut down conversation that should be taking place in order to call folk to account. Just follow the FV debates, or work with a couple of sessions where the unrepentant sin of the pastor, or of complicit session members, continues to be concealed from the congregation (been there, done that). You'll hear it invoked all the time, and it is a perversion of that commandment. It only concerns me if a matter of untruth has been spoken, or if truth has been spoken with malicious intent. You may beg to differ, but neither of those are applicable to what I wrote, as far as I am concerned.

Make sure that the 9th commandment really applies to a situation before invoking it, because if I remember correctly part of the explication of that commandment as lined out by the WLC also involves not “calling evil good, and good evil, concealing the truth, undue silence in a just cause, and holding our peace when iniquity calls for either a reproof from ourselves, or complaint to others”, as well as positively “appearing and standing for the truth; and from the heart, sincerely, freely, clearly, and fully, speaking the truth, and only the truth, in matters of judgment and justice”. Those phrases could be categorized under the heading of “offensive” language (in a tactical, not an aesthetic sense), where all too often the 9th commandment is only used in a “defensive” manner by the guilty, or the friends/associates of the
guilty.

I don't really want to mess with this much further, simply because it isn't very profitable conversation. I understand that there was a period in the history of the RCUS where there were problems with KJV-Onlyism in a classis. However, your language insinuated that this has been a common problem in the RCUS and you appeared to claim that you knew it was motivated by petty combativeness. Please think carefully about making statements about fellow Reformed churches.

Anyway, one of the areas where a "mediate only" approach is insufficient is in dealing with passages such as Acts 16:6-10, where only an a priori bias against the immediate actions of the Holy Spirit (and subsequently, with a reading that seems rather strained) could conclude that Paul, Silas, and Timothy were forbidden by the Spirit to preach in Asia, and were forbidden from entering Bithynia, due solely to some sort of Spirit prompted recall or reading of the Scriptures. It is clear that this was an “immediate” working of the Holy Spirit, and regardless of the other issues of apostolic office, or of open/closed canon as they may or may not apply here, the fact is that passages such as this indicate that indeed the Spirit can/could work apart from His word.

Whether or not the Spirit still works in such a manner is one of the differences between strict and moderate cessationists. I say that both are cessationists, because both would affirm that extraordinary gifts such as tongues or prophecy have ceased. It has only been in recent years, to the best of my understanding, that a debate regarding the "leading" work of the Spirit has become an issue in which some cessationists have now been labeled with the term "continuationist".

It is precisely the issue of a closed canon tied to the apostolic office that matters in this case. No, the Spirit did not prompt a recall of some obscure prophetic text in the Old Covenant. God gave a prophetic word by His Spirit. It was definitely a mediate work of the Spirit. Do you deny that this is a prophetic word spoken which is to be accepted as the Word of God (cf. 2 Peter 1:21)? If not, then the real question still concerns the cessation of the prophetic word.

 

[Archlute]

I don't really want to mess with this much further, simply because it isn't very profitable conversation. I understand that there was a period in the history of the RCUS where there were problems with KJV-Onlyism in a classis. However, your language insinuated that this has been a common problem in the RCUS and you appeared to claim that you knew it was motivated by petty combativeness. Please think carefully about making statements about fellow Reformed churches.

I didn't insinuate that, but was asking a question in sincerity. The actions and mentality of the leadership of a denomination often trickles down into the thought process of those within the church. I wanted to know whether I was dealing with someone who would defend those actions, and therefore be guilty of the same mentality (which I would still label as a petty combativeness, whether or not they would call it that themselves). I always think through my statements and questions, and am very intentional in the ones that I make and ask. People may not like them, but they are very rarely made off the cuff. Fellow Reformed denominations can fall into sin, just like anyone else, and they should not be defended in their sins just because they happen to be "on our side".

It is precisely the issue of a closed canon tied to the apostolic office that matters in this case. No, the Spirit did not prompt a recall of some obscure prophetic text in the Old Covenant. God gave a prophetic word by His Spirit. It was definitely a mediate work of the Spirit. Do you deny that this is a prophetic word spoken which is to be accepted as the Word of God (cf. 2 Peter 1:21)? If not, then the real question still concerns the cessation of the prophetic word.

I think that you meant "immediate", correct? And, if I read your earlier post correctly, you seemed to be saying that it was some sort of Trinitarian heresy to assert that the Holy Spirit could ever work apart from His word, which is exactly what He did in this case, and which is why I brought it up.

 

[Dearly Bought]

I didn't insinuate that, but was asking a question in sincerity. The actions and mentality of the leadership of a denomination often trickles down into the thought process of those within the church. I wanted to know whether I was dealing with someone who would defend those actions, and therefore be guilty of the same mentality (which I would still label as a petty combativeness, whether or not they would call it that themselves). I always think through my statements and questions, and am very intentional in the ones that I make and ask. People may not like them, but they are very rarely made off the cuff. Fellow Reformed denominations can fall into sin, just like anyone else, and they should not be defended in their sins just because they happen to be "on our side".

No, I would not defend such actions. An ESV-wielding guy like myself would have faced a similar ordeal.

I think that you meant "immediate", correct? And, if I read your earlier post correctly, you seemed to be saying that it was some sort of Trinitarian heresy to assert that the Holy Spirit could ever work apart from His word, which is exactly what He did in this case, and which is why I brought it up.

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.

 

[MW]

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.

 

[StainlessThroughGrace]

From my understanding, if you do anything that pleases God then you are being led by the Holy Spirit. With the contrary, being led by the flesh, you cannot please God.

It may seem like man has done something to please God by his own thoughts but those very thoughts themselves are gifts from the Spirit. Also, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance.

Romans 8; John 14; John 14:26