Carl Trueman at Reformation21 recently posted a link to a blog article by Michael Liccione titled "Why Beckwith matters". Rick Phillips at Reformation21 responded to Liccione's article with a brief reply of his own titled "Beckwith, Trueman, and the Holy Spirit".

There Phillips writes:

On the key issue of tradition and authority, Liccione's main argument is that when it comes to interpreting Scripture we must either throw in our lot with the authority of the Church or the authority of private interpretation.  He sees the Protestant approach relying on the latter.  What he fails to appreciate, in this response at least, and what many other critics of the Reformation fail to appreciate (including evangelical postmoderns) is that we are not relying on the authority of private interpretation but upon the ministry of the Holy Spirit.  This is the lynchpin of Reformed hermeneutics, our conviction from the Scriptures that the Spirit will lead God's people into truth by the Word (Jn. 16:13).  Whereas Liccione and other Roman Catholics see the divide as consisting between ecclesiastical and individual authority, Reformed theology sees a divide between church authority and the authority of the Holy Spirit.  We are not relying on private interpretation, but on the witness of the Spirit to the Word in the church to the people of God.

Everyone sees the chaos in church history when it comes to Bible interpretation and each side blames the other: Rome blames individualism and Wittenburg blames tradition.  I would blame both, but then I would turn to the witness of the Holy Spirit as the solution and hope.  I suppose that if I had to choose between the witness of the Church and the witness of private interpretation, I, too, would reluctantly submit to Rome.  Fortunately, I am faced with no such dichotomy, because in step with the Reformed faith for the last half-millennium I may rely on the Spirit's authority for both the church and the private individual.

Phillips thinks we do not have to choose between private interpretation and the authority of the Church, because Phillips thinks there is a third way: listening to the Holy Spirit. Having grown up Pentecostal, I'm quite familiar with this way of thinking. I have witnessed many instances of persons disagreeing with each other about matters of doctrine while each claiming to be listening to the Spirit. And the plethora of divisions within Christendom testifies that depending on one's direct perception of the Spirit's guidance is not a reliable way of following the Spirit. I spent a summer talking with Mormons on a weekly basis, and they continually fell back on their assurance that God had spoken to them in their hearts, telling them that Mormonism is the truth. I'm not opposing the possibility of private revelation. But it seems to me that the dependence on direct subjective guidance by the Holy Spirit is in practice no less individualistic than "private interpretation". Who determines what the Spirit is saying? If the answer is "each individual", then we are left with the same individualism and fragmentation that follows "private judgment". But if the answer is "church authority", then with Liccione we must throw in our lot with the authority of the church. Of course I agree with Phillips that "the Spirit will lead God's people into truth by the Word". But how does the Spirit do so: through each person following a 'burning in his bosom', or by following church authority? And who determines who are "God's people": each individual, or an authoritative magisterium? The former entails that "God's people" are whoever agrees with "me", and the latter means that Liccione is right. I can see no middle position between individualism and sacramental magisterial authority, and Phillips's reply does not provide a middle position. Phillips's position seems to reduce to another form of 'private judgment', with all its accompanying individualism.