And I imagine you know that because he whispered that in your ear?
I see it as a pretty basic Biblical principle. For example:
So if Holy Spirit guided a CHRISTIAN down the wrong path then it would not bring glory to Christ.
FK: My "catching myself" and "deciding" are merely my becoming aware of Holy Spirit's work.
How is that different from what Andrea Yates believed when she drowned her five children—claiming God told her to do so?
Because the desire and actions moved in opposite directions. My desire started off wrong and then changed to a Godly one according to scripture. Yates' started off fine and then changed to a decision that served satan according to scripture. That's a big difference.
The only problem is what qualifies one as a Christian?
True faith in the Biblical Christ.
And where does the word Christian appear in the Bible?
The NIV, NKJV, and the ESV all have it in Acts 26:28 :
But regardless of what other translations say the concept of followers and believers in Christ is throughout the Bible, obviously especially in the NT.
And where is December 25 noted in the Bible as the day Jesus was born?
Nowhere.
Traditions of men, right?
Absolutely.
That's what determines who is a Christian, FK; whatever an individual believer decides, or a group of believers decide. That's what Protestantism created.
I don't think things like whether the words "Christian" or "Trinity" are in the Bible or whether one believes Jesus was actually born on 12/25 has anything to do with whether one is a Christian. A Christian is one who has been graced and has come to faith.
So, how do we know who is being deceived (how could one know? Isn't that what deception is all about?). Then how does one "know" that he is being led by the Holy Spirit instead of being deceived?
We always have the Bible as the standard bearer. I'm not aware of any cases where God deceives a believer, so with non-believers it can be hard to tell if it is the Lord or not, but if a good is claimed that is actually evil according to scripture then a deception is occurring one way or the other.
Wouldn't someone being deceived think he is being led by the Holy Spirit? Doesn't even the Bible say the satan can appear as the Angel of Light?
For professing, but false believers this could well be the case. The "Lord, Lord" crowd whom Jesus turned His back on might be an example.
If the master of lies is always out there trying to deceive, wouldn't he try to appear as someone who is telling the truth at all times?
Yes, as we see in many places in scripture. That is why we are told to be of discerning hearts, and believers have the Holy Spirit indwelling to help them. We still blow it here and there, losing a few battles, but never the war.
Even Paul warns you "The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons." [1 Timothy 4:1] Wouldn't the Protestant Reform, some 1,500 years later, qualify as the "later times"? :)
Well, yes :), but I've never heard of any demons teaching to adhere closely to the Bible, so I think we're ok on that front. :) When satan "quoted" scripture to Jesus in the desert he left out key phrases that changed the meaning completely.
FK: I see "absolute certainty" as a relative term, which science has proved over and over
Only a lawyer could say that and believe it. :) Science does not claim 100% certainty on anything. Science is based on probability.
I fully agree.
Religious certainty is not relativism; it's absolute, dogmatic certainty. No believer can say the chance that Jesus resurrected from the dead is 99.9% certain, with 0.1% chance he didn't!
On core principles (like the resurrection) I agree, but on everything else I don't. A Latin and I can both be true believers with me saying I am 99% certain I am saved by grace through faith alone and the Latin saying he is 99% sure that he is saved by grace plus faith plus works. So with most of the things we talk about around here I think "absolute certainty" is relative.
FK, this is very nonTriniatrian. I am surprised you even chose to quote this. Here John makes the Holy Spirit, God Almighty himself, into a third fiddle—an obedient angel, who can't speak on his own. Obviously John's idea of who or what the Holy Spirit is was vastly different from that of what the Triniatiran Church believes HolySpirit is.
[1 John 16] "14. He will bring glory to me by taking from what is mine and making it known to you." So if Holy Spirit guided a CHRISTIAN down the wrong path then it would not bring glory to Christ.
My question was: How do you know it's the Holy Spirit guiding you? Did he whisper in your ear? How do you know it's not the satan when the Bible says he can disguise himself as the Angel of Light?
Because the desire and actions moved in opposite directions. My desire started off wrong and then changed to a Godly one according to scripture. Yates' started off fine and then changed to a decision that served satan according to scripture.
No, FK, she "knew" it was the "right" thing to do because "God" told her so, and you seem to say that the scripture is true because the Spirit guides you (i.e. "tells" you so). Both of you claim God told you so.
[And where does the word Christian appear in the Bible?]
The NIV, NKJV, and the ESV all have it in Acts 26:28 : 28 Then Agrippa said to Paul, “Do you think that in such a short time you can persuade me to be a Christian?”
Good try. The word means "anointed." Also older manuscripts say "to play an anointed one."
[And where is December 25 noted in the Bible as the day Jesus was born?]
Nowhere
Then why are Protestant Christians celebrating a lie that is not in the Bible?
[Traditions of men, right?]
Absolutely.
So, then Protestants also hold on to traditions of men. How does that differ from the Church?
I don't think things like whether the words "Christian" or "Trinity" are in the Bible or whether one believes Jesus was actually born on 12/25 has anything to do with whether one is a Christian. A Christian is one who has been graced and has come to faith.
The why are Protestants relentlessly attacking the Church for following traditions?
As I observed with John 14, the standard bearer is not always standard. Different people read different things into it, and sometimes just plain ignore the obvious. Given the virus versions of the Bible and different theologies, even among Protestants (trinitarians, unitarians, etc.) the Bible cannot be the standard bearer.
I'm not aware of any cases where God deceives
The OT is full of such examples. Just look up "deceiving spirit."
I've never heard of any demons teaching to adhere closely to the Bible, so I think we're ok on that front. :)
I wouldn't be so sure. Given the corruption and variations of biblical texts, the first thing the devil would want to do, I imagine, is make a believer break away from the Church tradition and make him believe various man-made versions of the Bible with nothing else to compare it to.
When satan "quoted" scripture to Jesus in the desert he left out key phrases that changed the meaning completely.
Funny, the same can be said of New Testament authors, who misquote the Old Testament.
Wouldn't ha-satan want first to change the theology and split the Church? Seems like a brutally effective plan. Divide and conquer. It seem the devil is not aiming at disbelief but at creating a parallel and competing belief to make it a more effective and credible opposition.
Creating a nuance rather than a whole new product is much more effective at converting someone to the new idea than a radically different one would.
On core principles (like the resurrection) I agree, but on everything else I don't...with most of the things we talk about around here I think "absolute certainty" is relative.
Okay, but unlike science there are core beliefs that are a "must" in no uncertain terms.