Apostolic Uniqueness ....Guided into All Truth

[Iconoclast]

Hey, @Iconoclast , hold up on the "attacks".

I was answering the OP.

Insofar as the quote - The Holy Spirit guides us to all spiritual truth. We cannot claim to have arrived at spiritual truth in any other way.- My answer is that it is correct. It seems the OP took the first sentence out of context to try and make a point.

Most of the promises made to the Apostles apply to us as well. We are also dependent on God. The Spirit brought to the Apostles mind what to write. We are not to be anxious because the Spirit will also guide us in what to say. I have experienced this in witnessing.

The idea that Scripture does not go beyond the original audience has been used to justify many sins.

Jn 16:13 is not taken out of context. In context it was only spoken to the Apostles.
Some promises made to them were for all believers.
These sections of John were not.
We are not told to write scripture.
Your anecdotal experiences do not address the issue at hand.
I have no where said that scripture does not go beyond its original audience despite your wrong suggestion that is what is being said.

 

[Iconoclast]

John Calvin, Institutes p. 1008

"guided by his Spirit into all truth [John 16:13]....although the Lord spake to the twelve apostles, when he said, 'Lo! I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world' (Matthew 28:20); and again, 'I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever: even the Spirit of truth' (John 14:16-17), he made these promises not only to the twelve, but to each of them separately, nay, in like manner, to other disciples whom he already had received or was afterwards to receive."

This quote does not address this verse , but the great commision

 

[GoodTidings]

In another thread, there was a disagreement concerning the promise of Jesus.

Were there promises that were given to the Apostles alone.?

Or can we just claim them to ourselves?

I had posted this;

Iconoclast said: ↑
The Holy Spirit guided the Apostles into All Truth, not us.
We are given the Spirit to be able to welcome truth, but we do not have the same promise the Apostles had.
No... this is not milk issues, but meat.
Correct doctrinal root leads to correct spiritual fruit.

In a previous thread a poster offered this;



So...what scriptural case can you make if someone asks you this question?

Why does it have to be either/or? Why can't it be both/and? I mean, the immediate context definitely applies to the future revelation that will come through them in the epistles and the Apocalypse. But there can be a wider application in that the Holy Spirit guides us into all truth through illuminating our hearts into the truth of the Word of God.

 

[JonC]

Jn 16:13 is not taken out of context. In context it was only spoken to the Apostles.
Some promises made to them were for all believers.
These sections of John were not.
We are not told to write scripture.
Your anecdotal experiences do not address the issue at hand.
I have no where said that scripture does not go beyond its original audience despite your wrong suggestion that is what is being said.

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]

Why does it have to be either/or? Why can't it be both/and? I mean, the immediate context definitely applies to the future revelation that will come through them in the epistles and the Apocalypse. But there can be a wider application in that the Holy Spirit guides us into all truth through illuminating our hearts into the truth of the Word of God.

None of us were given this promise.If we were guided into all truth, we would not be wrong about any verse. We were not there with Jesus.

 

[GoodTidings]

None of us were given this promise.If we were guided into all truth, we would not be wrong about any verse. We were not there with Jesus.

Guiding us into all truth does NOT mean that we will infallible as a result. Infallibility does not extend beyond the Scriptures.

That is why I maintain that while the direct interpretation only applies to the apostles in terms of their authorship of the epistles, the Gospels and the Apocalypse, an application can be made to believers in general who can be led into all truth as they are growing spiritually.

Are you actually a Roman Catholic? You putting forth an argument about that verse that I usually only hear from them.

 

[Iconoclast]

Guiding us into all truth does NOT mean that we will infallible as a result. Infallibility does not extend beyond the Scriptures.

That is why I maintain that while the direct interpretation only applies to the apostles in terms of their authorship of the epistles, the Gospels and the Apocalypse, an application can be made to believers in general who can be led into all truth as they are growing spiritually.

Are you actually a Roman Catholic? You putting forth an argument about that verse that I usually only hear from them.

The text is specific. It is not talking about a general application.
It is quite specific.

 

[Jerome]

J.C. Ryle in Consider Your Ways: Being a Pastor's Address to His Flock commends to them this verse, and another from the Gospel of Luke:

"You should pray for the Spirit to guide you into all truth. You should beg the Lord Jesus Christ to open your understanding, as He did that of His disciples."

 

[Iconoclast]

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.

Once again you twist the thread and offer false mischaracterization.
I guess this is just what you do for some reason.
This must be what happens when you cannot admit your error. I understand but cannot condone this.

 

[Jerome]

John Gill exposits the verse:

John Gill's Exposition of the Bible

"...what is here said of him is true of his office, and of his operations on other persons, and at other times"

 

[JonC]

Once again you twist the thread and offer false mischaracterization.
I guess this is just what you do for some reason.
This must be what happens when you cannot admit your error. I understand but cannot condone this.

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.

 

[Jerome]

The verse in question is the first verse cited, for the 1689 London Baptist Confession's teaching that "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."

 

[GoodTidings]

The text is specific. It is not talking about a general application.
It is quite specific.

I didn't say it was talking about general application. Have you no understanding of basic hermeneutics? What I said is that while the immediate context pertains to the apostles, it is also possible to make an application as it regards the Holy Spirit's guidance in our own lives In particular, I am referring to the fact that Holy Spirit is our teacher and our guide who illuminates the Word of God to our hearts and minds. He teaches us the very truth that was inspired and included in the 66 books of the Christian Bible.

Again, why you are making an Roman Catholic argument?

 

[JonC]

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.

 

[JonC]

I didn't say it was talking about general application. Have you know understanding of basic hermeneutics. What I said is that while the immediate context pertains to the apostles, it is also possible to make an application as it regards the Holy Spirit's guidance in our own lives In particular, I am referring to the fact that Holy Spirit is our teacher and our guide who illuminates the Word of God to our hearts and minds. He teaches us the very truth that was inspired and included in the 66 books of the Christian Bible.

Again, why you are making an Roman Catholic argument?

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.

 

[JonC]

John Gill exposits the verse:

John Gill's Exposition of the Bible

"...what is here said of him is true of his office, and of his operations on other persons, and at other times"

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.

 

[JonC]

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.

 

[JonC]

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

 

[Iconoclast]

GoodTidings

I didn't say it was talking about general application.

you did right here;

That is why I maintain that while the direct interpretation only applies to the apostles in terms of their authorship of the epistles, the Gospels and the Apocalypse, an application can be made to believers in general who can be led into all truth as they are growing spiritually.

 

[JonC]

GoodTidings

you did right here;

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.