as he introduces his study of women in ministry,
he makes this statement (emphases mine):
Here is just one of thousands of examples of a writer/speaker assuming to be the antecedent of Biblical pronouns. No where following these Upper Room words of Jesus to his Apostles is this promise made to any other disciple. This promised "guidance/remembrance/knowledge" was required of the Apostles as they prepared the church for the parousia/resurrection/judgment to come -- in their lifetime.Jesus told us the Spirit would guide us, and this book is an attempt to sketch how that guidance works itself out for many of us. Here are Jesus’ words, which I will quote before we look at the biblical exceptions that provide a map for our guidance: “But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come” (John 16:13).
Do we believe this? I do. Do you? To believe this verse we must have the confidence to strike out in conscious dependence on the Spirit.
My dependence on the Spirit is based on my belief that the Holy Spirit did, in fact, give guidance/remembrance/knowledge to the Apostles and that, in turn, resulted in the writings we have collected together as the New Testament.
Posts
I would preface my comment by saying that I have yet to find a view of the Spirit that I believe is consistent with all aspects of scripture. I think there is one (based on my view of scripture) but it has eluded me thus far. On the whole, the problem that nags at me in placing the Holy Spirit solely in the role of a testimonial agent in the past is that in the end it almost seems to negate the usefulness of it. If it was useful then, why not now? Sure we have the Bible now, but that doesn't change the fact that people were comforted or terrified by the obvious show of power. For any argument that the Spirit is no longer necessary,useful,or somehow cheats faith, I propose there is a counter-argument that says it is completely necessary, useful, and bolsters faith. I think there is more to the Spirit than testimony.
ReplyDeleteFor example, in Luke 11:11-13, Jesus IS speaking to his disciples but he says, "Which of you fathers, if your son asks for a fish, will give him a snake instead? Or if he asks for an egg, will give him a scorpion? If you then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!"
It seems the qualifications there are father/child relationship, ask, and give. I think it fair to say that in other places the Spirit is given according to His will. Additionally, there are other places that can support either side of the arbument albeit somewhat ambiguously at times.
In any case, scripture states that the Father will give to those that ask. I don't think it is a stretch to look at the nature of the Spirit in Luke 3:16 and Peter's quote of the same in Acts 11:16-17.
I wonder sometimes if it's futile to rationalize that which by it's nature bends natural law. Perhaps that sort of thinking is defeatist in itself.