BITB - How to Gain a Personal Testimony?

  • Thread starter Thread starter rmcmullan
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Majick, thanks for joining me on this thread.

Every religion teaches truth? Well yes some. And probably some error. If there’s a religion that teaches nothing but truth, well, that’s the subject of a lot of discussions here.

Take a look at Matt 13:
57 And they were offended in him. But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without ahonour, save in his own country, and in his own house.
58 And he did not many mighty works there because of their unbelief.
Christ was unlimited maybe in what he could do but limited in what he would do. Performing mighty miracles infront of an unbelieving people only brings them condemnation and a loving God wouldn’t do that.

The Baal story was an illustration of faith and the power thereof. I don’t think of Catholic as Baal worshippers in the least! More the opposite.

Majick, I think we have an irreconcilable divide over the testimony of the Holy Spirit. I am not sure what I can say to show the difference between an emotional surge and a real testimony of the spirit. This troubles me. You probably know the LDS scripture
8 But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right.
9 But if it be not right you shall have no such feelings, but you shall have a stupor of thought that shall cause you to forget the thing which is wrong; therefore, you cannot write that which is sacred save it be given you from me.
 
Allweather, as you know our enthusiasm for the Spirit is so unquenched that we believe that whatever process gave us the Bible (revelation?), is still going on today.
 
Allweather, as you know our enthusiasm for the Spirit is so unquenched that we believe that whatever process gave us the Bible (revelation?), is still going on today.
Indeed it is. This is the “process” known as Sacred Tradition. Sacred Tradition gave us the Bible, and Sacred Tradition is alive and on-going, but it isn’t giving us new Scriptures. There is no need for new Scriptures. All that we need to know about Jesus is given in Sacred Tradition, which is the body of developed theology that grows out of what has gone before. The Bible, which is a very special set of documents about the early Church, helps to inform Tradition, but Tradition is much larger because it includes the theological “pounding out” of Biblical and Traditional meanings that has been done over the many centuries, all under the guidance and protection of the Holy Ghost. This guidance and protection is why the Church is free of fundamental theological error, and why it never died, but lives today as it always has.

One difference between us appears to be that Mormons believe that new Scriptures are being written or spoken all the time. New things are being revealed that may or may not jive with what has gone before. Catholics could never accept a revelation that contradicted a previous dogmatic teaching. For instance, we know that the Catholic and Christian churches have always prohibited polygamy. Any so-called revelation that enabled polygamy would be easily identifiable as false. But Mormons, since they are ready to accept as valid anything that issues forth from the mouth of a prophet, can be lead to accept even polygamy, whether or not it jives with what has gone before, even things that have been stated by previous prophets. That is not a rock anyone can reliably stand on.
 
The Holy Ghost is very real, and makes hearts burn, and frankly I don’t think this has a heckuva lot directly to do with a religion. Mormons get it, and so do people in every other religion.
Combine that whith most churches teach (at least some) truth and that holds up well! Sometimes I think that there’s a God and there’s a church. God made man but we made the church.
 
Combine that whith most churches teach (at least some) truth and that holds up well! Sometimes I think that there’s a God and there’s a church. God made man but we made the church.
The Mormon church teaches “at least some” truth, as you say. So do the Jehovah’s Witnesses, the Christian Scientists, the Moonies, and all the rest. Unless there be some element of truth, then the religion won’t be accepted by many people.

I agree with you that “there’s a God, and there’s a church.” We shouldn’t confuse God with the Church… they aren’t the same thing. There is a God-designed Church, and I’m sure you know which one I mean. There are also many man-designed churches, and the list is long. Only one Church has the historical claim to fame, and that is the Catholic Church. No other is able to trace its leadership all the way back to Jesus and the Apostles he chose, trained, and ordained. From the continuity point of view, the Catholic Church is without parallel. The only way the sects and cults can make a case for themselves is to claim a Great Apostasy of the Catholic Church, a claim which is ridiculous, but often believed by people who are being deceived by the cults and sects.

You say that “God made man, but we made the church.” I will agree with that as far as all the man-made churches… and there are many. But not with regard to the Catholic Church. In Matthew 16 it is recorded under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost that Jesus established His church on the rock of Peter and the Apostles. This is the Catholic Church. If a person wants to know what God had in mind for mankind, how He revealed, and reveals, Himself to man, he couldn’t do better than to study the Catholic teachings. In those, are found the fullness of God’s revelation to man, all these 20 centuries after the birth of Jesus.
 
There is a God-designed Church, and I’m sure you know which one I mean.
I think only the Mormons and Catholics make a claim to having God’s authority through the preisthood. All the Protestants get their authority from the Bible which just makes them fan clubs. But the spirit will testify to the truth in all these churches and to whatever degree they teach it.

That’s why one would expect that the true church (if you hold such a concept) would have an abundant flowing of the Holy Ghost. And that’s why we hold the gifts of the Spirit to be so important. The main gift of the Spirit is not necessarily signs and miracles, it’s the quiet voice inside that pierces your consicence and teaches His doctrine.
 
Take a look at Matt 13:

Christ was unlimited maybe in what he could do but limited in what he would do. Performing mighty miracles infront of an unbelieving people only brings them condemnation and a loving God wouldn’t do that.
really? then please explain the plagues of egypt which looks like miracles in front of an unbelieving people. what about appearing to saul? he certainly wasn’t a believer at that time.you own example of the priests of baal would appear to be performing miracles for unbelievers. that is EXACTLY what a loving God is willing to do for us. The wicked can still ignore those. (golden calf anyone?) but there are many examples of even Christ performing miracles for the benefit of unbelievers.
Majick, I think we have an irreconcilable divide over the testimony of the Holy Spirit. I am not sure what I can say to show the difference between an emotional surge and a real testimony of the spirit. This troubles me. You probably know the LDS scripture
of course i know them. I just don’t recognize them as valid scriptures. I think you have a very pentecostal doctrine that you try to tone down to “appear” more orthodox. I certainly DO believe in the Holy Spirit and his witness for what is true. I just don’t buy the notion that mormonism is true. The spiritual experience I have at mass when i take communion is far more edifying to ME than any experience i ever had in the LDs temples. The thoughts and impressions and “still small voice” that I experience praying a rosary all seem to harmonize with what I read in the bible and what the Catholic church teaches. The “whisperings of the spirit” that I felt in LDS temples led to cognitive dissonance and made me think that “personal revelation” could overrule scripture and it was okay to make up gospel as you go. Having now experienced both I can assure you that I have no doubt whatsoever about which church God himself founded and still leads. My understanding of the Holy Spirit and in fact all of God has grown to the point where I can recognize what is really going on. I receive personal revelation. It CONFIRMS what I read in the Bible, it confirms what I read in the catechism of the catholic church and especially in the creed. I have studied and pondered prayed. I have read the words of learned people with a critical eye and I have given my faith to God so that HE can teach me. He did. (and still does) Mormonism is false, changing doctrine based on a a charlatan. It is described quite well in 2 Peter. The Catholic church has been here since Christ established it. He never abandoned us. I know he is really present in the eucharist. I know these things because God has shown them to me. He has shown them to me in scripture and tradition and has confirmed that those scriptures and traditions are valid through the holy spirit.
 
I certainly DO believe in the Holy Spirit and his witness for what is true. I just don’t buy the notion that mormonism is true.
Huh? Do these two follow each other? I though my claim was that the Holy Spirit bears witness to the truth and that all religions had various degrees.
 
But I disagreed that all religions have truth in any degree. I also am unconvinced that the holy spirit bears witness to “degrees of truth”. I think (opinion) that you underestimate just how strong the human emotion element is. The “wanting to believe”.
 
That’s why one would expect that the true church (if you hold such a concept) would have an abundant flowing of the Holy Ghost. And that’s why we hold the gifts of the Spirit to be so important. The main gift of the Spirit is not necessarily signs and miracles, it’s the quiet voice inside that pierces your consicence and teaches His doctrine.
Over the years, especially during my “pentecostal period” when I knew very little about Christian doctrine, but was mainly trying to get a direct lightning strike of experience of the Holy Ghost, I’ve had many a “piercing of the conscience” that I “felt” at the time was from God, but turned out not to be. As time went by, I perceived that others were having the same type piercings. I came to distrust my feelings, and this ultimately led me into the Catholic Church.

I believe in feelings, don’t get me wrong. But feelings are a terrible way to find doctrine. Doctrine comes from the Church, and by Church I don’t mean just the ecclesiastical hierarchy of Pope, bishops, and priests of today. I mean the entire body of believers in all times and places. We don’t just look at the Church of physically living people. We also look back 2k years and benefit from all that has been taught and believed in all times and places, to judge what is true and what isn’t true.

In this rearward view, we can see how the Holy Spirit has guided His Church, and protected it. To me, THAT is the greatest gift of the Holy Spirit. I will have all kinds of feelings about all kinds of things. Most of them will be nothing more than puffs of mental smoke, warming cockles. I do believe that the Holy Spirit speaks directly to us, and I hear Him in my formed (and forming) conscience, convicting me of what I should do, and what I should not do. But I don’t think I get “doctrine” from the Holy Spirit. I get that from the Church, universal, spanning 20 centuries (many more including what we learn from the OT), so that it doesn’t come from a single man or handful of men, but from literally millions of people who’ve lived in all times and places.
 
Oh, okay, I was wondering what had happened?

An excellent point! How can you tell the difference between the HG and an emotional surge. I know this is an exclusively LDS scripture but
D&C 8:2 Yea, behold, I will tell you in your mind and in your heart, by the Holy Ghost, which shall come upon you and which shall dwell in your heart.
So it’s supposed to convince you in both your heart and mind. But I know that might not be any help. But discerning between your own wants and God’s will is always a problem. It does take some experience. But in a way, that’s the point of the poll. What can you do be be more in tune with the ministering of the HG.

I’m not trying to give you a hard time about being Catholic. If you believe it was the right thing to do, alright. But how did you come to that conclusion? From what you’ve said in the past, I think you “did take the yoke upon you” and thought about things alot. You also said you made it a matter of much personal prayer. I can’t imagine anyone changing the church they attend without ask the Lord about it at least once.

But regardless of church affiliation, there must be something inside you that responded to the gospel. Some part of you that is inspired by Godly teachings. So what’s the best way to encourage it? What works for you?
 
From what you’ve said in the past, I think you “did take the yoke upon you” and thought about things alot. You also said you made it a matter of much personal prayer. I can’t imagine anyone changing the church they attend without ask the Lord about it at least once.
Oh, heck yeah, I gave it lots of thought, study and prayer, but looking back on the process, which started more than 20 years ago, I think I was doing the right things, but for many of the wrong personal reasons. There was a lot of ego involved, and some personal animosities between me and some of my religious acquaintences. Long story. Still, at the root of the beginning of the process was a growing conviction that it couldn’t be possible that God intended for His Church to be split up into hundreds, even thousands of competing denominations. Alongside that conviction was also growing another one, that said I was NOT submitting to proper authority. The man who was personally discipling me talked all the time about submission to discipleship, but as I watched him change denominations, and watched the group I was part of split up over stupid arguments that had already been hashed out 1700 years earlier, I felt increasingly uncomfortable submitting to HIM. Then I started seeing a light on the porch, so to speak. I started reading Catholic materials, mostly small things, little historical things, catechisms, etc. That was how it began. The more I learned about the nature of Christianity, the more the Bible started to make sense to me, and the more the Bible made sense, the more the Catholic Church made sense, and so it went.
But regardless of church affiliation, there must be something inside you that responded to the gospel. Some part of you that is inspired by Godly teachings. So what’s the best way to encourage it? What works for you?
I’ve been inspired by Jesus from long, long before I knew anything about the nuts and bolts of Christian theology. Jesus came into my heart beginning in early morning hours, watching a TV program on the old Virginia Beach CBN, where I was stationed at the time, going to the Naval School of Music at Littlecreek, early 70s. The program was basically a DJ playing secular love songs, many that were popular, but speaking about the lyrics as if they were God’s love for ME, and my love for HIM in grateful response. In those days, the Bible was a great mystery to me. I knew nothing about the crucifixion, the atonement, any church, anything religious, and I mean I was pretty completely ignorant. But I did feel that love coming into my life. I strongly believe that this was/is a leading of the Holy Spirit. I’ll call it BITB, 'cause I’ll tell ya, my heart was filling up with Jesus, day by day. That doesn’t mean that it was all gravy after that. No, there were many desert years as I struggled with many issues, not least of which was finding a church home. Plus, my marriage was a mess. 'Nuther long story. To answer your current question, how do I encourage it today, I’d have to say it is through the Rosary and the Blessed Sacrament. Lately I’ve not been faithful in these two devotions as I usually am, and I am having some dry times, so I need to move back into these places of meditation and prayer. My life has its cycles which I’ve come to recognize. At times I am in almost constant conversation with God, Mary, Jesus. At other times, like now, I am less constantly in conversation, but I still do have daily conversation in prayer even so. I have to keep reminding myself that, when I need help with something, to call out to Jesus and Mary first, before I depend on myself to figure out the best route. Even in little things, like at work, when I’m having trouble with a project, just calling to Jesus and Mary for peace of mind, to help me slow down and realize that nothing I am doing today is of utmost importance, or compares in the least to those things that are truly important, like my relationship with Jesus, and my family and friends. So I guess it is a moment by moment turning over every little detail of life to Him.
 
Darnit, I meant Allweather.

I was looking up what we were talking about earlier, about the day of Pentacost, and I came up with this:

John 7:39 (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)

But I must admit I do find this confusing. It certainly does support the Catholic teaching about the HG starting on Pentacost but I am somewhat at a loss because there are frequent mentions of the spirit in the OT.
 
But I must admit I do find this confusing. It certainly does support the Catholic teaching about the HG starting on Pentacost but I am somewhat at a loss because there are frequent mentions of the spirit in the OT.
I’m confused about it, too. It seems like the Holy Spirit pops in and out here and there, but then there is a big whammy on the Pentecost after the Ascension. I’m sure this can be clarified. Maybe someone knowledgeable can offer an explanation. Meantime, I will plan a little study on the subject over the next few days.

One thing that occurs to me just now is that to the OT writers there was no differentiation of God persons, no Trinitarian concept. There may be hints here and there, but nothing substantial. So that, an expression of Spirit of God would not necessarily mean a distinct personage of the Blessed Trinity to the OT writer. My understanding is that this Trinity idea was made necessary by the many references by Jesus to himself as both separate from, as well as united with, the Father, and then the coming of a Helper, Comforter, Advocate, Paraclete, on Pentecost. Well, I’m no Bible expert.
 
I was listening to catholc radio last week and they talked about this a little bit. As far as I can tell, the Holy SPIRIT didn’t come until after Jesus left. The discussion hinted around that the Holy Spirit couldn’t come on the scene until Jesus left, as if it was a trade off.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top