I don't see how that could be since virtually all Christians of every stripe interpret John's Gospel as support for the Trinity. For you to be right, Trinitarian Christians would all have to judge John as a madman, liar, etc., and no one does that.
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?
I think one can be aware of an idea or choice not normally coming from him. When I notice this happen I see it as a distinct possibility of leading. If the idea or choice gives glory to God or is otherwise in accordance with scripture, (and for example, I wouldn't normally want to do it), then I believe it to be from Holy Spirit. If it does not give glory to God or leads away from scripture then I chalk it up to my Adamic nature or satan. Incidentally, Yates would fail this test in claiming her idea was from God because scripture strongly condemns what she did.
[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?
We aren't celebrating a lie since no one thinks that is His actual birthday. We are celebrating the event of His birth and since we can't know it we choose the day chosen long ago having become the traditional day among all Christians. While I'm not sure of any scripture calling for the celebration of personal birthdays, of course the scripture is full of God-approved celebrations honoring past events. I'm sure Christians as a whole see honoring Christ's birthday in the same light.
However, I will mention that I saw a show the other day that noted that there was some movement among the early Puritans to ban Christmas because it was pagan. It didn't last long and I for one am glad it didn't. Of course Christians should be thinking about Christ all the time, but I think reminders like Holy days are still good things. History has proved that we need all the reminding we can get. :)
So, then Protestants also hold on to traditions of men. How does that differ from the Church?
Yes, Protestants have some traditions, but one difference from the formal ones that are dogma is that they are not commanded of us by any higher earthly authority and our salvation has nothing to do with complying with them. My church's altar call is a tradition, but we certainly don't think it is a necessary ingredient of salvation. And, we surely would not look down our noses at any church for not having an altar call for that fact.
Finally, I would say that the Protestant traditions I can think of off of the top of my head either agree with or do not contradict scripture. I cannot say that of all the traditions of the Apostolic Church. Our (Protestant) strongest criticisms of the Latin and Orthodox Churches almost always involve a tradition we believe is in violation of scripture, or is based on an interpretation of scripture with which we strongly disagree. We see many of these as leading away from the worship of God, even as they see them bringing them closer to God. Marian beliefs would be one example.
Lying about what? If he wrote what he believed then he wasn't lying, FK. What he wrote is that the Spirit "will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears." That doesn't sound like God. He will glorify Jesus because he will take what Christ's, and that is the same as the Father's. That doesn't describe someone co-equal.
When I said this is non-Trinitarian I mean non-Trinitarian as Christianity defines it. Just because you mention Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit is itself not Trinitarian. If it were, then the Morons and some Protestant sects are "Trinitarian" and "Christian" too.
The concept of Trinity has to do with how we see the divine Hypostases, namely as one God, co-eternal, and co-equal. In John's presentation, the Spirit is subordinated to both the Father and the Son, who is himself subordinated to the Father. That is not orthodox Trinity no matter how you turn it around.
I think one can be aware of an idea or choice not normally coming from him.
Then, "normally," you cannot be deceived?
When I notice this happen I see it as a distinct possibility of leading.
FK, in retrospect, bad things are rationalized as being ordained by God for the "greater good," as part of his divine plan or some pedagogic lesson. But at the time this "greater good" is hidden even from believer's discernment because humans don't have the ability to know what the future brings. We are blind as to what will happen the next day. That's why believers have to have faith (trust) that whatever happens, even if it appears as "injustice," is really part of God's just plan and is all good.
Conversely, just because something seems right or righteous or even necessary, from our perspective, or even as "guidance" from above, may not be for the greater good. So when you say you see it as "distinct possibility of leading" it seems to be closer to your gut instinct being confused with "divine guidance" than a "distinct possibility" that you are being "led" from above.
So, then, hypothetically speaking, if you found yourself in the same situation as Lot did, you would offer your daughters?
Incidentally, Yates would fail this test in claiming her idea was from God because scripture strongly condemns what she did.
Not really. The Biblical story of a man who promises God that he will sacrifice to him the first living thing he sees when he returns home, sees his beloved daughter and sacrifices her to God and God doesn't stop him, is am example of such insanity.
I have heard Protestants tell me "God told me." If they believe God told them, are they going to tempt God (and doubt their faith) by checking the scriptures?!? It's not like Paul telling the Bereans, who then check the scriptures to see if this man Paul is right.
Imagine if Abraham said "I don't believe you! Prove to me that this is all for the glory of you!" In other words, you really don't trust the "indwelling Spirit" but rather have to check up on him? That's pretty gutsy—for a believer.
Actually, birthdays are a western custom. In the East, the patron namesake Saint is celebrated. Personal birthdays are considered vanity. But for some reason the Church decided to celebrate a date common to the birth of pagan gods. It wasn't a random choice.
Of course Christians should be thinking about Christ all the time, but I think reminders like Holy days are still good things. History has proved that we need all the reminding we can get.
So you think it's something we determine? Not God?
Yes, Protestants have some traditions, but one difference from the formal ones that are dogma is that they are not commanded of us by any higher earthly authority and our salvation has nothing to do with complying with them
Like Trinity?
Latin and Orthodox Churches almost always involve a tradition we believe is in violation of scripture, or is based on an interpretation of scripture with which we strongly disagree
Where do you find in scriptures such beliefs as "sola scirptura" or co-equal, co-eternal Trinity?
I submit that faith in God working all things out for good to those that love Him, is not unwarranted, but that those of faith who truly do see many things meant for evil that God worked out for the good of those who love Him.
Yet it is true that one must not judge things too quickly, as the rather funny story illustrates;
Once upon a time, there was a farmer in the central region of China. He didn’t have a lot of money and, instead of a tractor, he used an old horse to plow his field.
One afternoon, while working in the field, the horse dropped dead. Everyone in the village said, “Oh, what a horrible thing to happen.” The farmer said simply, “We’ll see.” He was so at peace and so calm, that everyone in the village got together and, admiring his attitude, gave him a new horse as a gift.
Everyone’s reaction now was, “What a lucky man.” And the farmer said, “We’ll see.”
A couple days later, the new horse jumped a fence and ran away. Everyone in the village shook their heads and said, “What a poor fellow!”
The farmer smiled and said, “We’ll see.”
Eventually, the horse found his way home, and everyone again said, “What a fortunate man.”
The farmer said, “We’ll see.”
Later in the year, the farmer’s young boy went out riding on the horse and fell and broke his leg. Everyone in the village said, “What a shame for the poor boy.”
The farmer said, “We’ll see.”
Two days later, the army came into the village to draft new recruits. When they saw that the farmer’s son had a broken leg, they decided not to recruit him.
Everyone said, “What a fortunate young man.”
The farmer smiled again - and said “We’ll see.”
Moral of the story: There’s no use in overreacting to the events and circumstances of our everyday lives. Many times what looks like a setback, may actually be a gift in disguise. And when our hearts are in the right place, all events and circumstances are gifts that we can learn valuable lessons from.
- author unknown