Featured Apostolic Uniqueness ....Guided into All Truth

I am talking about the quote. It was mine. I did not quote John 16:13.

I am not offering you anecdotal experience. I am answering the OP. We can only know that which is spiritual through the Spirit.

I understand you disagree. I am not trying to change your mind. I am not even arguing against the error.

I am simply saying that Christians are guided by the Holy Spirit. He is our Helper. He indwells us (not just the Apostles). And He is active - not some sort of door to theology but God Himself.

That you argue against this truth speaks volumes. To attribute your acceptance of ANY spiritual truth to any means except God is wrong.

 

Iconoclast,

Bear with me a moment as this will be a "test" of your integrity:

This is what I said (and what you quoted):

"Don't discount the Holy Spirit... The Father and Son sent the Spirit as a "Helper"...to guide us.
The Holy Spirit guides us to all spiritual truth. We cannot claim to have arrived at spiritual truth in any other way. Even Peter's confession of Christ was of the Spirit."

What I think you may have done is lifted the sentence "the Holy Spirit guides us to all spiritual truth" out of the context prescribed by "we cannot claim to have arrived at spiritual truth in any other way" to erroneously treat the comment as if I were stating we are led to all spiritual truth that exists.

Look over the comment and then respond - we'll take it from there. Since the post was on the open forum let's see how you respond. I understand why (and half way expect a certain result) you would stick to your last reply.

There was no error on my part. Just so you don't try to wiggle out of your mistake instead of owning up to it - This is what I said that you found in such error: THE HOLY SPIRIT GUIDES US TO ALL SPIRITUAL TRUTH. WE CANNOT CLAIM TO HAVE ARRIVED AT SPIRITUAL TRUTH IN ANY OTHER WAY.

 

Actually, @Iconoclast , I do understand if you cannot admit you took the first sentence of the quote of the OP and ran with it - taking it out of context. It is difficult sometimes for men to admit their mistake even when it is plainly before them. I do not necessarily understand why, but I understand some are built that way. I suppose it is pride.

But don't worry about it. It probably does not need saying that I've twisted nothing (my statement stands). I will not require you to once again consider my words as a whole. It is an issue of character and I do not believe forced values are true values. So stick with your claim, if that is who you are.

 

Exactly!

No matter what @Iconoclast would say there is NO scripture affording men spiritual truth absent the work of the Spirit. Scripture even states this of the lost.

The Holy Spirit guides us to all spiritual truth - we posses NO spiritual truth absent the Spirit.

I think @Iconoclast may, as you indicate, hold the teachings of some Reformers as on the same level with how Catholics view the pope. But this elevates man.

 

Yes. It is arrogant (perhaps the "original sin") to think that once saved we are no longer dependent on the Spirit of God. If the Apostles were dependent on the Holy Spirit then why on earth would we think we can come to truth independent of God? We are no more saved than were they.

This is an illustration of my caution to @Iconoclast regarding just how far he has drifted.

 

It is easy to dismiss @Iconoclast 's OP, but it needs to be taken seriously because it is a real issue in churches today.

I do not understand why we negate the work of the Spirit in the lives of believers. But I have observed that the OP is not alobe in its view of the Holy Spirit.

Christ did nothing of His accord but submitted to the will of the Father. I submit tgat the Holy Spirit was essential not only in the lives of the Apostles but also in the ministry of Christ. How much more so should we rely on the Spirit of God for guidence?

The intellectual movement of which @Iconoclast seems a member denies the present power of God in the life of the believer in favor of a formula or doctrine encompassing all needs of the believer. Scripture, however, presents the beluever not as empowered on his or her own accord bur completely dependent on God.

This is the problem when Christians confuse "meat" with "milk". The meat of the word is spiritual and points to a dependence on God.

 

Another issue is "walking in the spirit". How can we say we are walking in the spirit rather than the flesh EXCEPT we are walking in submition to the Spirit of God?

The more I think of it the more I come to see our brother @Iconoclast may have substituted human wisdom for the perfect Word of God.

We cannot claim to be Christian and at the same time abandon the guidance of the Holy Spirit

 

The difference here is that all but you attribute Spiritual growth to God (to the Holy Spirit). I do not understand where or how you have come to the conclusion that the Holy Spirit is not instrumental in guiding the believer.

Maybe you should take note that you are standing alone here. I do not even think those you may look up to as guiding your faith would agree with your rejection that all spiritual truth to which we arrive is wrought of God.

Your rejection is so foreign to Christianity to me I am having difficulty reconciling it with Christianity period.