Why do modern Christians deny the presence of the spirit of truth that Jesus promised in John 14:17, 15:26 and 16:13? The spirits that taught the apostles starting on this day as described in Acts 2 was not a one-time promise. Why is it so hard to believe that this promise does not continue in modern times?
The moderators summarily deleted my post yesterday on this subject without reading the referenced source material. I have posted the same on Quora if any one is interested to see my opinion of this subject.
I donât. The Holy Spirit indwells every Christian.
That would be Holy Spirit, singular not plural. And while Pentecost was the first day the Holy Spirit was given it wasnât the last so why celebrate that?
Probably because that violated the forum rules. From the FAQ
Thatâs a bit of sleight-of-hand there, Shawn. Suddenly âSpiritâ changed to âSpiritsâ. As Bill says above, perhaps Christians accept the former, but do not follow you into the latter?
Dear Mervin,
I am an engineer and biblical scholar so I try to be precise. Acts 2:3-4 says the following.
And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.
Since each one was filled with a holy spirit, therefore there was more than one holy spirit present, making it plural. A single spirit manifesting in each person, and speaking independently is illogical for me and violates all the laws of physics.
Acts 2:4 says they (plural) were all filled with the pneumatos which my concordance says is singular. There is probably a plural form if God intended to say âspiritsâ so I will go with just the one.
Since when did the Holy Spirit become bound to the laws of physics?
1 Corinthians 12:4: Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit, and there are many varieties of services, but the same Lord âŚ
âŚand this is just after Paul writes that, ââŚno one can say âJesus is Lordâ except by the Holy Spirit.â [my own emphasis added to the word âtheâ]. Thatâs all quite ânon-pluralâ as it speaks of the Spirit.
Now I know you can find other passages where spirits may be mentioned in plural, such as in 1 John 4 where we are told to âtest the spiritsâ, but spirits can be read in other more ordinary senses up to and including the more traditional understandings of angels / demons / principalities / powers. Nobody here that I know of is following you when you attempt to take it into the world of disembodied souls or spirits of the dead communicating back to us. Scriptures do not support you in those pursuits.
Christians certainly do celebrate Pentecost. Pentecost - Wikipedia. There are lots of traditions.
But itâs clear from the Bible that âwhen 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 show you things to come.â
Dear Daniel,
The laws of physics do not cease to exist after death. Supernatural does not mean âwithout logicâ as many religious types would have you believe. A âmiracleâ or manifestation both follow laws - spiritual laws. Otherwise you are defining a chaotic God, and there is no evidence that God is lawless or chaotic or schizophrenic.
For me, a miracle is evidence that we do yet know all the laws of nature, not evidence of a chaotic God who can do anything He wants to, including violating His own laws.
Okay Randy, I will not debate the plurality or singularity of the spirit of truth. My question is, where is the spirit of truth teaching today, who fulfills: âHe will guide you into all truthâ?
There would be no confusion today in Christianity if this promise was true. Thoughts?
Excellent question! Mr Murphy, would you say itâs more like Jesus saying that our Heavenly Father will give us all things that we ask for in His name; and James saying that if we lack wisdom, we should ask of God, who gives generously to all, without finding fault? We never get more than what we need to do the task at hand, that God would have us to doâso the âallâ refers to specific things. In the âTill We Have Facesâ thread, thereâs a lot that the protagonist doesnât knowâbut with repentance and seeking the mirror of Godâs face, we learn more about ourselves and allow Him to destroy the dross and rebuild us from scratch, till we want to learn and do what only He wants us to do. What do you think?
As far as confusionâit depends on what you mean by that.
I read of a book once that summarized the reason for church splits to be excessively strong personalities in one of three directions:
excessively legalistic
excessively evangelistic
excessively kind/loving
Each one of these was to the detriment of the others, which could be balanced.
in Orualâs case in the âFacesâ thread, she thought she was right, and railed against others and the godsâthen realized that she was wrong. Itâs sort of a myth of repentance; but a counterplay in the book, I think, is that not only was she wrong, but the gods were kind and patient to her till she could look at herself in the mirror. Itâs easy enough for us to point out the speck in our brotherâs eye, but when we realize that weâve got a plank (or that God has forgiven us more than we could ever forgive others), that we can have Godâs grace to deal with our foibles. So maybe itâs not wisdom or materials we lack, but primarily actually Godâs grace and patience to deal with the learning phase of this earthly toilâand thatâs the foundation for becoming more like Him. Thanks for your patience (and that of others) with me.
He is in the same place He has always been, in the hearts of the believers. He is not in any human organization. Which, in case you were going there, explains why there are so many different flavors of Christianity.
Dear Bill,
When you combine Acts 2 with the promise of John 16:13 and the test in 1 John 4, you find that the spirit of truth makes itself known to the listeners, with the image of a dove or flame above the their head. This is how the spirit of truth taught the early Christians, not just residing in each believersâ heart. When the church turned away from the spirit of truth, the âbishopsâ disguised themselves as being filled with the Holy Spirit by wearing garments which replicate the flame. So, again, where is this happening today?
Your premise is flawed. Many Christians celebrate Pentecost.
You run the risk of conflating Johannine/Pauline pneumatology (emphasis on identity/presence with empowerment as secondary) with Lukan pneumatology (emphasis on empowerment with identity/presence as secondary).
The two perspectives are complementary rather than contradictory. I think Lukeâs theology might be better communicated through the language of âinfillingâ rather than âbaptism.â He uses âfillingâ terminology throughout Acts except for his first reference (Acts 1:8), which primes us to see subsequent âfillingsâ through the filter of âbaptismâ (i.e., initiation, etc.). Itâs also helpful to note that even after Pentecost, people are âfilled with the Spirit.â Itâs not necessarily a one-time experience, despite the claims of some pentecostals.
With a âholy spiritâ? Methinks youâre heavily reading your own agenda into the text.
Hereâs an extra-biblical thought-experiment.
God is not limited by time. Imagine he âplays through the timeline of the universeâ uniquely for every living individualâitâs not like he doesnât have the time to do it.
At Pentecost, he fills one individual. Then he plays through the entire universe again, and fills another individual. Etc.
Itâs kind of the same answer to âhow can God answer everybodyâs prayersâ or âgive attention to every individual.â God is not limited by human constraints and the logic you are imposing does not apply.
Given that there is a completely different source for the origin of the mitre (see Mitre - Wikipedia), do you have any evidence to support your claim that this headgear is a disguise designed to mimic the evidence of the Holy Spiritâs presence? Where did this information come from?
How could there possibly be an excess of kindness or love? You can distort love excessively, but true love and true kindness is never something there is âtoo much of.â An example: it is not âkindâ or âlovingâ to protect your child from harm to detriment of his/her development. That simply isnât âlove.â Itâs a distortion or parody of love that has more to do with the hidden self-interest of the parent than the well-being of the child.
Funny, but 1 John 3:24 says, âThe one who keeps His commandments abides in Him, and He in him. We know by this that He abides in us, by the Spirit whom He has given us.â
And you might want to do a little research on the Bishopâs mitre as it didnât start out in this shape.
that was a question I wondered about tooâI think that the author argued that itâs being so nice to someone that they didnât care about the rules and included ignoring something that would be detrimental to them (eg bad heresy). I donât recall what I read on that frankly.
