Thank you for this post… I am not sure it “answered” something I’ve been considering but it is definitely something that I have been contemplating lately… I’m not crazy!!!

Not to take away from the notion that the Holy Spirit was sent to “guide us into all truth” as Jesus himself said, but… Paul did spend 4-5 weeks teaching the people of Thessalonica before being forced to leave town. It’s not unthinkable that his application of Torah-based sexual purity might have been taught in more detail, and that his letter to these people merely referred to his detailed teaching in “shorthand”. Just sayin’…

Bob #2,
I appreciate your comment and it certainly raises a possibility. My only thought is that if you peruse Paul’s letters and isolate all his extant teachings on sexual immorality/purity (in 1 Corinthians, Ephesians, etc.), you cannot find a reference to the Levitical Code which, as you acknowledge, he so ably could teach. You would think that there would at least be a hint in his letters in that direction. An argument from silence is tough to wrestle with. BTW, if Paul spent 3 Sabbaths teaching in the synagogue of Thessaloniki (Acts 17), it is possible he was there as short as only *two* weeks, then the opposition broke out and he left.

I’m surrounded by people who are not shy on sharing what the Holy Spirit is saying to them. What then does discernment look like if we can’t begin with the scriptures?

Nick,
I think part of the problem that we have now is that many folks think that it’s scriptures OR Spirit. As if God’s ongoing voice and his canonized voice can’t work together or even co-exist. That’s not what John is arguing. The Spirit ongoingly given to the believer is the same Spirit of the scriptures. Each illumines discernment of the other. It’s when we try to only rely on Spirit, or as is more common in my and John’s circles, only on scriptures, that we weaken ourselves and stray, ironically, from the teaching and example of the scriptures themselves.
I don’t think if we are dealing with a living God who gives his Spirit to us in the way we see in the NT that it’s bad to be surrounded by folks who can articulate what they believe God is saying to them. The faith of the New Testament is one animated and led by God’s Spirit via the scriptures via community. But, yes, the scriptures are perfect for helping us get to know the character of God’s actions and agenda through Christ (and the kinds of things he would and wouldn’t say). Both scriptures and community are good sounding boards to help us discern the Spirit.

Thanks for this post. Yes, we believe in the Holy Spirit in a doctrinal sense. But we don’t seem to know very much about how to interact with him on a practical, day-to-day level. Following Scripture versus following the Spirit should be a false dichotomy, because the Spirit is the author of Scripture. But the incident you mention in Detroit about the Levitical purity codes is a perfect illustration of why we so desperately need to recover an understanding of how the Spirit works through the Word to draw us to Jesus Christ and sanctify us.
One thing that has helped my understanding of late is the close connection between the Holy Spirit and the church. On Pentecost, the Holy Spirit was not given merely to individual Christians but to the church as a whole when they were in one place seeking God together. When he came, he established the fellowship of the Church. The Holy Spirit can be, and often is, present and working at the same time in individuals who think differently and who may even disagree. When people speak of the work of the Holy Spirit in purely individualistic terms (“the Spirit told me” or “the Spirit moved me”) it raises many red flags, because the Spirit is the actual presence of Christ in his Body.

Good post, as was T’s.
I appreciate the concern of emphasizing the Holy Spirit in an either/or category.
I think J.L. #6 brings up an interesting question: apart from Scripture, how much is individual v. community? If community, does this support the tradition of RCC or EO?

Hi Ric #6,
As a former Catholic and present evangelical Protestant, I strongly believe that the Holy Spirit is present and working in believers within the RCC and EO traditions and all other parts of the Body of Christ.

Sorry, I meant Rick. Danged keyboard.

John, this is a great exhortation and challenge. And I agree with the post. But as I have thought about it I have a few questions.
How would a text like Romans 1:24-27 fit with this? Isn’t Paul making allusions to the Old Covenant here? At the very least it seems that this is a directive or at least a specification about sexual sin (and I do not say this to pick on gays or lesbians).
I think many struggle with what you have written because they are afraid people will abuse this and justify all types of behavior upon “the Spirit gave me the green light.” I once dealt with a woman who told me that “God told her” it was alright to pursue her adulterous relationship and that she was going to marry the man. Of course she did not see it as adultery because “God” had said it was OK – they were meant for each other. What do we do with this if there is no “directive” from Scripture?
Finally, in your opinion, how do we learn to discern the Spirit’s real leading and how do we teach others to do the same?
I think the freedom of life in the Spirit is wonderful! And again, I wholeheartedly agree with what you’ve written. These are just some questions I’m wrestling with.

If there is anything that church history should teach us it is that neither scripture alone nor community and church alone are sufficient to keep us on the right path. We need Spirit, scripture, community (church) – all of these. And we need community in conversation with each other and with scripture, sensitive to the leading of the Spirit.
This is a great post and question. I agree with J.L. the Spirit is at work in all parts of the Body – even though we all get things wrong.

RJS and J.L.:
“…the Spirit is at work in all parts of the Body – even though we all get things wrong.”
How do we decide which parts are wrong (which touches upon Scott Eaton’s point)? Reminds me of N.T. Wright’s statement that 1/3(?) of his views are wrong, he is just not sure which 1/3.

Scott,
Discernment cannot obliterate Scripture.
The slippery slope logic works the other way too: so afraid of Spirit we become legalistic. So, we face two ends: legalism (where there’s no Spirit) and libertinism (where there’s no stricture or control). The whole issue with discernment is a Spirit-shaped life that is guided by Scripture because the same Spirit is at work.

Replying to John re: #3
Thanks for your kind reply. I’m with you, and you’re right about the argument from silence – it’s also possible that while Paul could have taught in detail on these things, he may have chosen to emphasize other things as having more immediate impact and simply trusted the Holy Spirit to do what Jesus promised (i.e., “guiding us into all truth”).
The further I go, the more I support the idea that while our minds must be transformed away from the old patterns, that we’ve been given a new heart where the Spirit resides in fulfillment of Ezekiel 36:25-27 and the old deceitful heart per Jeremiah is removed and gone. So we can trust our Spirit-indwelt hearts in a way that we can’t necessarily trust our minds where each thought must be brought into captivity to the obedience of Christ. It’s not a self-centered, Disneyesque “follow your heart”, but it might look like it to those who don’t understand the distinction.

I have alway’s known this was the way that God wanted us to be? Why do other’s pretend to not know this rule! I have practiced this my whole entire life. So, has all the women in my family. WE are Native American’s from Oregon tribes. I will alway’s teach and follow this teaching, until the day that I die. I think it’s one of the most important teaching’s of them all. To be a better Spiritual person and a true real person you should alway’s remember this always!

Rick #12, I think you have answered your own question. If I knew which third (perhaps a conservative estimate) of my own views were wrong, then there would be no need for me to humbly listen, think, and engage in conversations with other Christians who may think differntly from me and honor the mysterious work of the Spirit in them as well as in myself.
Isn’t it interesting that in the Apostles’ Creed, right after “I believe in the Holy Spirit,” we say “the holy catholic (universal) church,” and then we say, “the communion of saints.” Those two doctrines — catholicity of the Church and communion of the saints — are precisely the ones that evangelicals seem to have most neglected over the past century or so. And over that same period, we have seen (a) hyper-individualized notions of how the Spirit works, and (b) a downplaying of the role of the Spirit in understanding Scripture.

Scott,
I think we do have scriptural teachings and examples to guide us on your questions (not to mention in Church history, both current and ancient) but part of our problem today on this issue is that too many try to avoid the Spirit entirely or keep such activity to an individual level and, thereby, isolated. So there is a shortage of personal experience in many congregations, or the experience that’s there is isn’t shared often and is largely encouraged to stay underground (we focus on the Word here).
I think some branches of the faith are afraid to encourage any shared/communal attempts to work with and discern the Spirit because of all the “what if’s”. What if someone speaks in tongues? What if someone does or says something even weirder than that? What if? What if!? What if!?! It doesn’t take that many of those thoughts to just forget about the whole thing. But again, it’s not an either/or thing. Working with the Spirit together can be done with both freedom (even to make mistakes) and order. We can disagree with people’s take on what God is saying to them, give them our reasons and invite others to do the same for us. Honest, loving community and the scriptures are both invaluable to hearing the Spirit well.

T #17, Amen and amen.

Friends at Jesus Creed,
I am learning a lot about discernment as I read the comments. I have also written this: “Discernment, Scripture and the Spirit are happy allies. Discernment presupposes that Jesus is in the process of making all things new. Discernment is *newness* directed to a specific situation or person, to a specific community or missional venture. Discernment is much more like a compass in a wilderness than like a GPS on a busy urban freeway. Discernment will never violate Scripture or the character of Jesus Christ. To the contrary, discernment will always honor Scripture and express the presence of Jesus. Discernment will rarely feel like a law. It will feel like a strong, loving arm around the shoulder of someone confused or questioning. Discernment, moving in the strong currents of the Spirit, will often carve *new paths in old ground.* The ?rivers of living water? that the Spirit is will not be bottled and sold for profit. Discernment is not for sale like so many of the packaged holy moralisms of our day. Discernment will never be a commercial template on sale at the local Christian bookstore. Discernment is ferociously local and specific, communal and situational. Discernment is the Spirit guiding a surrendered *community* who are fascinated with the person and mission of Jesus Christ.

John (19), that’s fantastic.

It seems to me that there is a frustration in Paul’s writings. At one point, he writes to many people who are not from Jewish roots, and on the other hand, he seems to assume that these people have a working knowledge of the Old Testament.
So when he writes to Thessaloniki, it is difficult to discern what exactly he assumes for their underlying base of knowledge. I agree with Frye that resorting to Levitical interpretation for the definition of sexual ethics is lacking, especially if the teaching of that code does not mention Jesus’ sexual ethics.
The path to maturity can be difficult, can’t it?

Discernment also assumes we have someone to whom we listen because he is speaking. Jesus is not silent and is currently speaking to His followers.
Amen.

I also think we learn to discern the voice of the Spirit even if some “famous Bible teacher” resorts to old and inappropriate methods. We “learn” the difference between the blah-blah-blah we spew and the life-giving words of Jesus. If life, love and truth are not imparted, you can bet it ain’t Jesus.

Thanks, T. (#20).

I like this John Frye guy!

I see some discrepancy on discernment in regards to individual, local community, and the universal church. Some seem to be emphasize some over others”
“So we can trust our Spirit-indwelt hearts in a way that we can’t necessarily trust our minds where each thought must be brought into captivity to the obedience of Christ.”
“we say “the holy catholic (universal) church,” and then we say, “the communion of saints.” Those two doctrines — catholicity of the Church and communion of the saints — are precisely the ones that evangelicals seem to have most neglected over the past century or so.
And over that same period, we have seen (a) hyper-individualized notions of how the Spirit works, and (b) a downplaying of the role of the Spirit in understanding Scripture.”
“Discernment is ferociously local and specific, communal and situational. Discernment is the Spirit guiding a surrendered *community*”
Do people here see one, or a couple, as more valid than others? Is the Holy Spirit speaking to an individual less valid than to a local community, or the universal church?

Rick #26, you make an important observation. I believe that the Spirit speaks to individuals and through the Body on a regular basis, and one is not more valid than the other. My earlier point was that we live in a time when the corporate aspect has been deemphasized, and recovering that (without losing the individual aspect) has been very helpful to my faith.

John,
You raise some good points, but I think you’re slightly off on your analysis. A couple of things to consider are:
(1) the Holy Spirit always testifies to the truth revealed in Scripture. It never gives additional revelation (this side of the closed Canon), except by way of contextualizing the truths of Scripture for specific people in specific circumstances. I realize my Pentecostal brothers and sisters will disagree, and that’s okay. The question you raise really does not depend on one’s view of the Spirit in this instance (unless, of course, you leave open the door for the Spirit to contradict Scripture).
(2) What really matters in this discussion is your interpretation of the NT’s appraisal of the OT, and the relationship of the New Covenant to the Old Covenant. It’s a complicated issue and certainly not one that’s going to be able to be explored in depth on a blog. It took hours and hours of lectures and pages and pages of notes from Richard Averbeck for me to get this straight, and I’m still iffy on parts. But what I do know is this: Both Jesus and Paul upheld the Law as good in one sense and worthless in another. Both affirmed the continued relevance of the Law?the whole thing, not just the so-called “moral law.” The issue is not relevance but contextualization: in what way(s) does the Law still apply to God’s people, including Christians? That is the question.
I realize this is extremely unfamiliar and evokes all sorts of intense reactions from people who are used to thinking of the Law as obsolete, if not antithetical to the gospel. It did for me when Averbeck introduced the concept. But returning to your original question, John… your discomfort with the Bible teacher’s exposition of Leviticus rests on the faulty presupposition that the only valid teacher of truth is the Spirit (this is the logical implication of your question), which clearly cannot be justified from a Christian point of view. We discern and decide upon truth through the Spirit’s guidance into our interpretation of Scripture. And the Spirit guides not only us, but others (such as, perhaps, the Bible teacher you mention) as well.
Shalom,
matt

Terrific Post–I read it yesterday at John’s site!
I think he puts his finger on two important issues;
1. The power of the Spirit and his absence in much of evangelicalism
2. Christians are afraid of freedom–especially as articulated and embodied by Christ and the Apostle Paul

Matt (#28) re: “the Holy Spirit always testifies to the truth revealed in Scripture. It never gives additional revelation (this side of the closed Canon), except by way of contextualizing the truths of Scripture for specific people in specific circumstances.”
How could possibly know this? Your use of “always” and “never” imply dogmatic certainty, effectively limiting the king of the universe based on some man-made teaching. When he walked the planet, Jesus was not gentle with people who did such things.

Matt (#28) re: “the Holy Spirit always testifies to the truth revealed in Scripture. It never gives additional revelation (this side of the closed Canon), except by way of contextualizing the truths of Scripture for specific people in specific circumstances.”
How could possibly know this? Your use of “always” and “never” imply dogmatic certainty, effectively limiting the king of the universe based on some man-made teaching. When he walked the planet, Jesus was not gentle with people who did such things.

(sorry about the double post, and this third post to apologize for it!)

John (19), I agree with T, that was fantastic. This has been a very helpful post and comment thread.

Amen to this post, and to John’s comment on discernment (#19). We need it all the time from God so that it is ongoing. If one’s discernment really doesn’t hit home with others, than we have to wonder if it’s really of the Spirit. Just like John is saying. I’m reminded of what Paul said concerning prophesying, which to me is related to this. It is for other’s in Jesus, for their strengthening, encouragement and comfort.
How this relates to the question of origins though, I’m not sure. But I am sure that the Spirit will give us necessary discernment and insight God knows that we need in all of it, as we keep working through scripture and general revelation as seen in science.

Matt #28,
I appreciate your comments and your recommendation to be clear. Regarding revelation beyond the Canon, I don’t believe anywhere in my posts or comments here I ever hinted at that (see comment #19), even though Paul was not hesitant to use the term “revelation” in a non-canonical, yet Spirit-empowered sense (1 Cor. 14).
Regarding contextualizing the Law for the New Covenant communities, I’d still rely more on the New Testament (in particular Paul) and the Spirit. Certainly if Paul wrote under the inspiration of the Spirit and was as familiar with Law as he was (not just the “moral” law), I think we’d see a lot more direct quotes/applications, contexualizations than we actually do in his letters. I think the Detroit experience was a blatant case of the Galatian heresy—bringing Gentile believers under the Levitical Code selectively. Like Paul writes to the Galatians, you cannot be selective with the Law. If you obey one item of the Mosaic Code, you are obligated for it all…all 613 commandments. Selah.
Again, thanks for interacting with the post.

This is an outstanding post and one that is very important for the church. (BTW I also appreciated your comments and T’s comment #5)
John’s example in this post is very important both theologically and pastorally. So why do we sit there spellbound as someone leads us away from the teaching of Galatians? I think that far too often the possibility (or promise) of results lures us away. After all (we reason) don’t we want people in our churches to live holy lives in such an immoral culture?
Yet, John has reminded us that work of the Spirit in our lives is where we place our confidence not on controls and structures that seem to promise better results.

Jim #36,
I am so glad you commented because it seems that many pastors get mesmerized by the need for results that their discernment capabilities get numbed or weakened. I highly value your integrity and wisdom. Thanks, brother!

Hey John,
I can’t speak to your experience w/ the Detroit Bible teacher, so I won’t. But I don’t believe there has to be (or should be) a dichotomy between Old and New Testaments. As Christians, we are people of the Bible, cover to cover. The NT, as you said, is our key to interpreting the OT… but the OT also helps us to interpret the NT. Furthermore, as people of the Bible, we have to engage the whole of the OT in light of NT. That means we should have people teaching from all passages of Scripture, incl. Leviticus. The key is how they’re teaching it. Hermeneutics is really the point of debate: how do we interpret the OT. It sounds like you took issue with the DBT’s hermeneutics. If so, then that should’ve been the focus of your critique, rather than on “Spirit vs. Law.” Does that make sense?
I appreciate the interchange as well.
Shalom,
matt