Why? Because

[Byblos]

Would you mind actually dealing with my examples?

It was the angel of the Lord and the Holy Spirit that guided Philip to the Ethiopian eunuch.

The issue under discussion is not the process by which teachers are led to those who need to be taught, but how those who read the Bible come to understand it.

So we're not discussing how Phiip was led to the Ethiopian eunuch, we're discussing how the Ethopian eunuch came to understand the Bible.

How did the Ethiopian eunuch come to understand the Bible? Not by being taught by the Holy Spirit, but by being taught by Philip (who is certainly not the Holy Spirit). This is in perfect accord with Paul's teaching in Romans 10:13-17.

Since Philip was guided by the Holy Spirit, that would make the Holy Spirit responsible for the Ethiopian being taught. Philip was the tool, the Holy Spirit was the cause.

Aren't Bereans an offshoot of christadelphianism? Don't known why you're referring to your own belief system as proof of your own belief system. Circular logic.

I have no idea why you are suggesting such a thing.

This is why: http://www.bereanecclesialnews.com/Bere ... reans.html

Allow me to introduce you to the Bereans in the Bible, to which I have been referring:

Acts 17:
10 The brothers sent Paul and Silas off to Berea at once, during the night. When they arrived, they went to the Jewish synagogue.
11 These Jews were more open-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they eagerly received the message, examining the scriptures carefully every day to see if these things were so.
12 Therefore many of them believed, along with quite a few prominent Greek women and men.

Thank you for the introduction. Now show me where it says that the Holy Spirit was NOT responsible for them believing.

[Jbuza]

Would you mind actually dealing with my examples?

No I am more interested in exposing the truth of the fact that we are baptized by the Spirit, and show that the things we can know about God and JEsus and our relationship to them come by that Spirit.

[Fortigurn]

Since Philip was guided by the Holy Spirit, that would make the Holy Spirit responsible for the Ethiopian being taught. Philip was the tool, the Holy Spirit was the cause.

No, that would make the Holy Spirit the indirect cause. It makes the Holy Spirit the cause of Philip coming to the Ethiopian eunuch. It does not make the Holy Spirit the direct means by which the Ethiopian eunuch understood the Bible.

I doubt that people had such a process in mind when they started talking in this thread about being led by the Holy Spirit.

This is why: http://www.bereanecclesialnews.com/Bere ... reans.html

Why should that make you think that I was referring to them, not the Bereans in the Bible? Were you aware of the Bereans in the Bible?

Thank you for the introduction. Now show me where it says that the Holy Spirit was NOT responsible for them believing.

That's a logical fallacy. You are asking me to prove a negative. The onus is on you to demonstrate that they were being led by the Holy Spirit.

[August]

That's a logical fallacy. You are asking me to prove a negative. The onus is on you to demonstrate that they were being led by the Holy Spirit.

Proving a negative is not a logical fallacy.

[Fortigurn]

That's a logical fallacy. You are asking me to prove a negative. The onus is on you to demonstrate that they were being led by the Holy Spirit.

Proving a negative is not a logical fallacy.

Yes it is.

[August]

That's a logical fallacy. You are asking me to prove a negative. The onus is on you to demonstrate that they were being led by the Holy Spirit.

Proving a negative is not a logical fallacy.

Yes it is.

So, are you, and these clever gentlemen saying negatives cannot be proven? Why don't you give us a syllogy to prove that statement to be true?

[Byblos]

Since Philip was guided by the Holy Spirit, that would make the Holy Spirit responsible for the Ethiopian being taught. Philip was the tool, the Holy Spirit was the cause.

No, that would make the Holy Spirit the indirect cause. It makes the Holy Spirit the cause of Philip coming to the Ethiopian eunuch. It does not make the Holy Spirit the direct means by which the Ethiopian eunuch understood the Bible.

The bottom line is without the Holy Spirit guiding Philip they couldn't have believed. That makes the Holy Spirit the cause (direct or otherwise is irrelevant, he was the ultimate reason they believed).

I doubt that people had such a process in mind when they started talking in this thread about being led by the Holy Spirit.

You doubt but you can't be certain.

This is why: http://www.bereanecclesialnews.com/Bere ... reans.html

Why should that make you think that I was referring to them, not the Bereans in the Bible? Were you aware of the Bereans in the Bible?

Did you specifically refer to the Bereans of the bible? Didn't notice it anywhere. If yes then sorry. If not then next time be more specific.

Thank you for the introduction. Now show me where it says that the Holy Spirit was NOT responsible for them believing.

That's a logical fallacy. You are asking me to prove a negative. The onus is on you to demonstrate that they were being led by the Holy Spirit.

Again I beg to differ. You are the one who used the Bereans' example as proof that they were not guided by the Holy Spirit. The onus is on you to demonstrate how they were not. The fact is you can't even remotely elude to the fact that they were not guided by the Holy Spirit. It is quite possible they were. You can't say one way or the other.

Both your examples have been soundly dealt with and therefore are arguments from ignorance.

[Fortigurn]

The bottom line is without the Holy Spirit guiding Philip they couldn't have believed. That makes the Holy Spirit the cause (direct or otherwise is irrelevant, he was the ultimate reason they believed).

In the context of this discussion, the distinction between direct and indirect guidance is extremely important. It has been claimed that we do not need teachers to illuminate our understanding, and it has also been argued that without the inner guidance of the Holy Spirit acting directly on us, we cannot understand the Bible. This passage proves these claims to be untrue.

If you want to describe the Ethiopian eunuch a being led to an understanding of the Holy Spirit, that's fine with me, but it does need to be described as indirect guidance.

I doubt that people had such a process in mind when they started talking in this thread about being led by the Holy Spirit.

You doubt but you can't be certain.

Sure I can be certain - all I have to do is aak. Jbuza, when you said that without the inner guidance of the Hily Spirit acting directly on us, we cannot understand the Bible, did you really mean that without a human teacher we cannot understand the Bible?

You are the one who used the Bereans' example as proof that they were not guided by the Holy Spirit. The onus is on you to demonstrate how they were not.

I was the one who used the Bereans as proof that we can understand the Bible without the Holy Spirit, not what you say here (which is a circular argument).

The fact is you can't even remotely elude to the fact that they were not guided by the Holy Spirit. It is quite possible they were. You can't say one way or the other.

Of course I can say for certain. They were preached to, they read the Bible to see if what was preached to them was true, they found it was, and they then believed and were converted.

The Holy Spirit is not referred to in the conversion process at all, so there is no reason to assume it was involved. Furthermore, can you honestly argue these people had received the Holy Spirit as unbelievers?

Finally, the argument would suppose that the Holy Spirit was given to unbelievers so they could understand the Bible, so they could then compare it with what was being preached, so that thy could then be convinced by the preaching and be converted. This all seems backwards. If the had the Holy Spirit already, they didn't need any teachers, or anyone to tell them about the gospel or explain it to them.

Both your examples have been soundly dealt with and therefore are arguments from ignorance.

This is a non sequitur (the conclusion does not follow the premise). If you believe my examples are 'arguments from ignorance', please demonstrate why, in your own words.

[Jbuza]

It has been claimed that we do not need teachers to illuminate our understanding, and it has also been argued that without the inner guidance of the Holy Spirit acting directly on us, we cannot understand the Bible. This passage proves these claims to be untrue.




I think perhaps you are going alittle far. The Bible clearly indicates their are prophets, preachers, and teachers. My point was that the understanding comes by the Holy Ghost, and not that he is acting on us but that he is acting within us.

While the Ethioian Eunuch would not have indwelt by the Holy Spirit prior to his salvation, I also believe there to be teaching that without the Holy Spirit Salvation cannot happen.

I suppose that you think I believe that we can understand the Word of God without actually reading it. OF course we must read, and be preached to, and taught. But you seem to want to ignore the large amount of Biblical evidence that says for example that no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God, or that we have the mind of Christ, etc. Perhaps I should just gather it all into one place and leave it at that. I have been trying to lacte a verse that basically says that no man can even say that Jesus is the Son of God except that it come from the Spirit of God.

IT is clear that God will not allow the glorying of the Flesh before him, so I belive it clear that works like saying "I have studied much and been able to know the things of God because of my own understanding" is going to burn up in the fire.

[Fortigurn]

I think perhaps you are going alittle far. The Bible clearly indicates their are prophets, preachers, and teachers. My point was that the understanding comes by the Holy Ghost, and not that he is acting on us but that he is acting within us.

Yes, I realise that is what you are saying, and I am looking for evidence for your case.

While the Ethioian Eunuch would not have indwelt by the Holy Spirit prior to his salvation, I also believe there to be teaching that without the Holy Spirit Salvation cannot happen.

Where is that teaching? I see it nowhere in the experiences of the Ethipian eunuch. I do not find it in the conversion experiences of Acts 2 and 3. I do not find it in the case of the Bereans of Acts 17. I do not find it referred to in the salvic process described in Romans 10.

I suppose that you think I believe that we can understand the Word of God without actually reading it.

No I don't. I know you're not saying that.

OF course we must read, and be preached to, and taught.

Yes, that's Romans 10.

But you seem to want to ignore the large amount of Biblical evidence that says for example that no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God, or that we have the mind of Christ, etc.

Only the regenerated have the mind of Christ, and the mind of Christ is not the Holy Spirit. Yes, no one knows the things of God except the Spirit (or 'mind'), of God - but that's what the Bible is, it's the Spirit (or 'mind'), of God. With the Bible, we compare spiritual things to spiritual things, and come to an understanding.

That is precisely why the Bible is elevated as the instructor of men's hearts and minds.

IT is clear that God will not allow the glorying of the Flesh before him, so I belive it clear that works like saying "I have studied much and been able to know the things of God because of my own understanding" is going to burn up in the fire.

I agree.

[Fortigurn]

That's a logical fallacy. You are asking me to prove a negative. The onus is on you to demonstrate that they were being led by the Holy Spirit.

Proving a negative is not a logical fallacy.

Yes it is.

So, are you, and these clever gentlemen saying negatives cannot be proven? Why don't you give us a syllogy to prove that statement to be true?

Do you mean a 'syllogism'? What is it about the examples they have already provided which you don't understand?

[Byblos]

The bottom line is without the Holy Spirit guiding Philip they couldn't have believed. That makes the Holy Spirit the cause (direct or otherwise is irrelevant, he was the ultimate reason they believed).

In the context of this discussion, the distinction between direct and indirect guidance is extremely important. It has been claimed that we do not need teachers to illuminate our understanding, and it has also been argued that without the inner guidance of the Holy Spirit acting directly on us, we cannot understand the Bible. This passage proves these claims to be untrue.

If you want to describe the Ethiopian eunuch a being led to an understanding of the Holy Spirit, that's fine with me, but it does need to be described as indirect guidance.

Please answer this question: Would the Ethiopian have believed if it weren't for the Holy Spirit? Better yet, don't answer that, I will: NO. Besides, you can't say for sure that, unbeknownst to him, the Ethiopian was not guided by the Holy Spirit (before you comment on the 'not sure' part, please read my reply to your second example below as they are related).

I doubt that people had such a process in mind when they started talking in this thread about being led by the Holy Spirit.

You doubt but you can't be certain.

Sure I can be certain - all I have to do is aak. Jbuza, when you said that without the inner guidance of the Hily Spirit acting directly on us, we cannot understand the Bible, did you really mean that without a human teacher we cannot understand the Bible?

You are the one who used the Bereans' example as proof that they were not guided by the Holy Spirit. The onus is on you to demonstrate how they were not.

I was the one who used the Bereans as proof that we can understand the Bible without the Holy Spirit, not what you say here (which is a circular argument).

The fact is you can't even remotely elude to the fact that they were not guided by the Holy Spirit. It is quite possible they were. You can't say one way or the other.

Of course I can say for certain. They were preached to, they read the Bible to see if what was preached to them was true, they found it was, and they then believed and were converted.

The Holy Spirit is not referred to in the conversion process at all, so there is no reason to assume it was involved. Furthermore, can you honestly argue these people had received the Holy Spirit as unbelievers?

Finally, the argument would suppose that the Holy Spirit was given to unbelievers so they could understand the Bible, so they could then compare it with what was being preached, so that thy could then be convinced by the preaching and be converted. This all seems backwards. If the had the Holy Spirit already, they didn't need any teachers, or anyone to tell them about the gospel or explain it to them.

Both your examples have been soundly dealt with and therefore are arguments from ignorance.

This is a non sequitur (the conclusion does not follow the premise). If you believe my examples are 'arguments from ignorance', please demonstrate why, in your own words.

It is so sequitur (you like that, huh?). Apparently you do not read your own links. This is a direct quote from your 'it' link above:

since no proof is available that this does not exist, it might exist, but this alone does not prove it to exist.

In other words, one can't say for sure whether or not it does, that's my argument (supported by your link). You're saying you can say for sure, thereby contradicting your own proof.

End of example two and end of discussion.

[August]

That's a logical fallacy. You are asking me to prove a negative. The onus is on you to demonstrate that they were being led by the Holy Spirit.

Proving a negative is not a logical fallacy.

Yes it is.

So, are you, and these clever gentlemen saying negatives cannot be proven? Why don't you give us a syllogy to prove that statement to be true?

Do you mean a 'syllogism'? What is it about the examples they have already provided which you don't understand?

I don't want examples, I want a logical proof from you to show that statement to be true.

[Fortigurn]

Proving a negative is not a logical fallacy.

Yes it is.

So, are you, and these clever gentlemen saying negatives cannot be proven? Why don't you give us a syllogy to prove that statement to be true?

Do you mean a 'syllogism'? What is it about the examples they have already provided which you don't understand?

I don't want examples, I want a logical proof from you to show that statement to be true.

Examples which were logical proofs were in fact given. Did you read the links?

[Fortigurn]

Please answer this question: Would the Ethiopian have believed if it weren't for the Holy Spirit?

What does that mean? If you mean 'Would the Ethiopian eunuch have believed if Philip hadn't been guided to him', the answer is 'No'. But that's not the topic under discussion. The topic under discussion is whether or not the Ethiopian eunuch needed the Holy Spirit to operate within him and guide his understanding of the Bible.

It is so sequitur (you like that, huh?).

No, it is a non sequitur. Dealing with my arguments does not render them arguments of ignorance. They are either arguments of ignorance because of a logical fallacy, or they are not. Responding to them does not render them logically false.

Apparently you do not read your own links. This is a direct quote from your 'it' link above:

since no proof is available that this does not exist, it might exist, but this alone does not prove it to exist.

In other words, one can't say for sure whether or not it does, that's my argument (supported by your link). You're saying you can say for sure, thereby contradicting your own proof.

You misunderstand what is written here. What this says that if no proof is available that it does not exist, then it might exist but this alone does not prove it to exist.

Since I was not arguing that something exists when there is no proof available that it does exist, this does not apply to my argument.

Rather, it applies to yours. You were asserting the role of the Holy Spirit in two texts in which the Holy Spirit does not appear. Not only that, but two texts in which the role of teaching is said to be carried out by Philip on one hand, and the Bible on the other.