The Highway Forums General Discussion Open Forum What's wrong with Charismatics?

I'm not convinced that there isn't a fundamental and critical difference between what you have been conveying here and what Augustine believed in regard to the inspired written Word. The Bible IS inherently God's infallible and inerrant will for man. It is by and through that repository of truth that the Spirit communicates that truth to man. But there is a vast difference in the inherent teaching of the written Word and the ancillary teaching that is spoken by men from that word. The writers of Holy Writ were divinely inspired. Those who teach and speak the written Word can only be illuminated by the Spirit and are not guaranteed to be free from error in what they teach. Thus the Bereans were more noble because they searched the Scriptures to validate Paul's teaching and his calling. If there were no absolute, immutable, infallible, inerrant basis upon which to judge a man's teaching, then it would be no more than an exercise in futility to even try. Yet, this is exactly what the apostle John exhorted his readers to do, he assuming the divine inspiration of the written Word. (cf. 1Jh 4:1)

In reply to:

---

[color:"blue"]As far as my illustration goes, the fact that men were moved by the Holy Spirit doesn't change anything. The end result, as I understand it, in literal, verbal, plenary inspiration of the scriptures requires that the exact words be used.

---

Perhaps you have not quite understood or studied the inspired text:

2 Peter 1:21 (ASV) "For no prophecy ever came by the will of man: but men spake from God, being moved (Greek: phero by the Holy Spirit."

Peter isn't saying that these men who spoke from God were "motivated" by the Holy Spirit to write those things which they did. That is, they did not experience some impetus to write and then from their own experiences jotted down some words which seemed best to them. Rather, the word phero is to better understood as "borne along, carried, moved in the sense of transported". In short, they were guided by the Spirit to write down exactly the words which the Spirit intended to be preserved. Thus those words can be said to be "true truth"; infallible, inerrant. It was God's purpose that not one jot nor tittle should originate from the independent minds or imaginations of men. And this is exactly how Peter prefaced what he wrote in the previous verse:

2 Peter 1:20 (ASV) "knowing this first, that no prophecy of scripture is of [color:red]private interpretation.

Thus, it makes all the difference in the world that the biblical authors were borne along by the Holy Spirit. For in this manner, God communicated to men objective, propositional truth which is not subject to the fanciful ideas of men as to what they meant. That being true, the only way that one can comprehend this truth is to be faithful in its grammatico-historico interpretation and by being indwelt by the divine Author Himself. Else, we would be left with no "truth" but simply the suggestions of men as to what God might have intended.

In reply to:

---

[color:"blue"]Again, the variety of expression in the gospels just goes to show that the expressions of the Holy Spirit HAVE to go, at least, beyond a specific group of words - and even to something that may transcend words if necessary.

---

Can you show why it is logically necessary that the "expressions of the Holy Spirit HAVE to go . . . words . . . that may transcend words . . ." This also begs another question. If the Spirit is to communicate to an individual without words, how is that individual to comprehend that truth which the Spirit seeks to convey? Further, how does an individual discern that it is the Holy Spirit communicating to him in this non-word language?

In reply to:

---

[color:"blue"]God is more powerful than to have to have a given set of words.

---

The issue doesn't concern God's "power", but rather God's intention to communicate. From the Bible's self-attestation, it is incontrovertible that it is God's divine revelation given to man. If you are not convinced of this, then can you tell me what purpose the written Word serves? and what place should it be held in regard to discerning God and His will?

In reply to:

---

[color:"blue"]The Holy Spirit's work is in judgement, conviction and comfort - all of which draw a man to Christ. The historical propositions of Christ won't do that.

---

First of all, the Scripture says that the Spirit's work in regard to unbelievers is: he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: (Jh 16:8) There is no "comfort" to unbelievers from the Holy Spirit. [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/grin.gif" alt="grin" title="grin[/img] Again, the historical propositions have no magical power to bring a man to Christ. But a man cannot come to Christ without them either. For, as it has been said several times already, the Spirit and the Word are "one", i.e., they are co-joined. If I may also try an illustration to try and make the point. I may create an object to be used in a surgical procedure which has been impossible to do otherwise. To think that the procedure could be done without the tool even though I, as the creator of that tool, is actively doing the surgery is irrational. God intended that His will be communicated in a comprehensible way for the very purpose that men may KNOW Him and what is required of them. This "means" is then used by the Spirit to communicate to men, because, He (Spirit) being spiritual is not apprehensible by a finite creature. Thus, the "eyes being enlightened" by regeneration would be of no use whatsoever if there was nothing to perceive. Put simply, there is only one possible way that any man can be drawn to Christ: The Spirit working in and through the written Word. (cf. Lk 16:29).

In reply to:

---

[color:"blue"]And, finally, as to the historical Jesus - I believe that unless one is drawn by the Father to Jesus, that he won't come. The Holy Spirit's work is in judgement, conviction and comfort - all of which draw a man to Christ. The historical propositions of Christ won't do that. So as far as that goes - no, I don't believe the historicity of Jesus has much (if any) of an effect on faith.

---

Well, I must say this highlighted statement is most serious. I MUST be sure I am understanding you on this particular point. So, let me simply ask you this: If Jesus of Nazareth didn't actually exist, i.e., if what we read in the Bible is actually a myth concerning the historical physical existence of Jesus, it has no bearing upon one's faith? From another perspective, if Jesus of Nazareth didn't actually exist, then there was no atonement. If there was no atonement, then God was not propitiated, the ransom demanded was not paid and no reconciliation was accomplished. (1Cor 15:12-19; 1Tim 3:16; 1Jh 4:3) IF there was no historical Jesus, then just what is one to believe unto salvation? What is the object of faith?