The Specific Leading of the Holy Spirit (Part 1)

a really great piece, thanks for posting it.

I appreciate the article and I look forward to part 2 but I’m less than comfortable with this dispensational scheme. No time to develop this but I see the persons of the Trinity active throughout redemptive history. From a NT perspective consider Ephesians 1 that features every Person of the Trinity.

Parts 2 here

Some excerpts…

Pure objectivism is one step away from liberalism.

The Holy Spirit is the cure for fanaticism, not the cause of it.

Also of interest is the comment quoting from the autobiography of Carl F. H. Henry.

Part 3 here

Some excerpts…

The major protection to guard one’s relationship with the Holy Spirit from strange fire is the Word of God.

Lack of grounding in the Word regarding the Holy Spirit allows Satan to quickly counterfeit real fire and quench real revival.

Tragically, many college students, as well as Christian workers, are being taught by some that there is no real specific leading of the Holy Spirit.

[Jim]

I appreciate the article and I look forward to part 2 but I’m less than comfortable with this dispensational scheme. No time to develop this but I see the persons of the Trinity active throughout redemptive history. From a NT perspective consider Ephesians 1 that features every Person of the Trinity.

The choice to use the “dispensations of the Godhead” is not a direct allusion to the dispensations of “dispensationalism.” It actually is borrowed terminology from Handley Moule (see his helpful book, The Holy Spirit, bottom of the page here).

This concept is a way of recognizing that history seems to evidence a noteworthy tendency to de-emphasize or undermine particular members of the Godhead at different periods. This does not mean that the members of the Godhead are assaulted exclusively at any given period of time. Rather, it means that they seem to be assaulted especially during these periods.

As you have already noted, the NT features every Person of the Trinity. Neither is more important than the other at any given period of time. By nature, every member of the Godhead is equally divine, equally significant, and equally active at any given period of time in history to be sure.

Thankful for your response which was helpful

JIm

Having read all 3 parts, a few things remain unclear in my mind about the articles’ assertions.

1. What is the real, intrinsic difference between “subjective” and “objective” in regards to the Spirit’s “leading” or “guiding?” Is the Word the objective part and the Christian himself as a personal being before the Word the subjective aspect? Or do you mean that the believer has a subjective aspect of his decision-making apparatus that is required to understand the Word? Or is the subjectivism purely in his free will in being a “doer” of the Word? Or some kind of a feeling of satisfaction of what the Spirit has shown him in the Word is true and therefore binding on his actions, thoughts and deeds? I find it difficult to equate the leading of the Spirit to Philip (Acts 8) to being “led of the Spirit” for courses of action today. And since it is a given of a true Christian that he is led of the Spirit (Rom 8:9 in context), it appears practically redundant to make this leading something subjectively special only for certain Christians.

2. How does this leading of the Spirit differ from some form of special revelation or a direct communication of the Spirit to the subjective aspect of a believer? Is this guidance infallible, incapable of error? If so, is it intuitive; one just “knows.” If not, aren’t we back to an (intellectual) objectivism that is hard by (one step from) the synagogue of liberalism? Isn’t it possible, and often true, that liberalism arises out of subjective milieus of thought about the inherent goodness of man, a deep subjective compassion for his “felt needs,” to say nothing of the concerns for the distribution of justice, if not wealth, and the like?

3. I am not at all certain that worshipping the Lord in “spirit” (John 4:23-24) is “subjective” vis’a’vis an objective correlation of biblical truth in one’s mind which is the real meaning of the 2nd Commandment.

Rolland McCune

[Rolland McCune]

Having read all 3 parts, a few things remain unclear in my mind about the articles’ assertions.

Rolland McCune

Dr. McCune, John Van has provided a reply here.