the non- difference

[JHow]

Cooterhein:

I have been thinking about your transformative experience, which to me sounded like you had in your late teens? I can also think of examples of people I know who have had these types of experiences and completly turned their lives around, just 180 degrees from what they were before, and if God didn’t have a hand in it then no one did, in my opinion. Evangelical Christians are famous for these stories and often talk about them - they are what I call a kind of “first-generation” conversion, the really secular person who becomes a Christian. My question is about the “second-generation” Christian, the family that comes after. I don’t know your situation, whether you have family or not, but suppose you do, you raise your children in a faith community, they read the Bible regularly, they soak up your piety and instruction from an early age. They may even request Baptism at an early age, and have an emotional experience at that time, and they never stray too far and are well-behaved, moral people - but they also never really experience the dramatic transformation from radically secular person to suddenly saved that the “first-generation” person does. How do you explain it to them if they never experience that great emotional transformation, for as bad as their sins are (all sin is bad), they were never as bad as the first-generation person, or at least it seems to them that way? Or, what if they experience a transformation when very young, but then later struggle with sin as a teen or young adult? Remember, they believe, they know the truth, they confess Christ as Lord, they work hard to live a pious life, but their emotion may never be as strong as that first generation convert who goes from real depravity to real saintliness? Would you have doubts about whether your child was saved if they told you they believed, but couldn’t say the moment the Holy Spirit entered their lives? Or if they told you they felt something when they were really young, but now they are adults they have doubts? How would you re-assure them in this case? Would you admit that not everyone has a dramatic road-to-damascus conversion? Would you not tell them that it was far better to grow up in the Church as you raised them than it is for the child that grows up with nothing?

 

[Drew0426]

…

Gotcha! Thank you

 

[cooterhein]

There were some very good questions from JHow, and I finally got around to answering them. It took me a little over 6000 characters, though- more like 13k, I’m afraid. So I had to do this one in three posts. Sorry about that. I did try to break them up into sections that stand alone, though.

Cooterhein:
I have been thinking about your transformative experience, which to me sounded like you had in your late teens? I can also think of examples of people I know who have had these types of experiences and completly turned their lives around, just 180 degrees from what they were before, and if God didn’t have a hand in it then no one did, in my opinion.

It wasn’t exactly a 180 degree turnaround in my case. I was raised in a family of super-Christians that stuck out as exceptionally religious people even in a crowd of very religious people. There was hardly anything about my actual behavior that changed- the main thing that changed was the motivation for that behavior and the possibility of perseverance in this way of life.

Evangelical Christians are famous for these stories and often talk about them - they are what I call a kind of “first-generation” conversion, the really secular person who becomes a Christian.

I’m second-generation on one side and third-generation on the other. Once this happened, though, I did find that I was able to better relate to first-generation people than than I ever would have expected.

My question is about the “second-generation” Christian, the family that comes after. I don’t know your situation, whether you have family or not, but suppose you do, you raise your children in a faith community, they read the Bible regularly, they soak up your piety and instruction from an early age. They may even request Baptism at an early age, and have an emotional experience at that time, and they never stray too far and are well-behaved, moral people - but they also never really experience the dramatic transformation from radically secular person to suddenly saved that the “first-generation” person does.

In terms of external behavior and overt lifestyle, that was me all the way through, sans emotional experience with the baptism. I would have strayed a bit once it was entirely up to me, though- nothing too extreme by secular standards, but without immediate familial influences or divine intervention, I have a pretty good idea of what would have happened.

How do you explain it to them if they never experience that great emotional transformation, for as bad as their sins are (all sin is bad), they were never as bad as the first-generation person, or at least it seems to them that way?

I’m really not sure why everyone so far is consistently interpreting this as an emotional experience of some sort. Maybe because most of the “born again” testimonies are uber heavy on emotion? Idk.

For me, it wasn’t emotional. It was an answer to prayer that I’d wanted pretty badly for a long time, but the answer to that prayer wasn’t accompanied by an extreme wave of emotion along with it. God gave me what I asked for, and I was very glad that He did, but that’s all it was. It was more of an event than an experience, really- an act of God whereby He indwelt me. He indwelt me and I was indwelt. After the initial event, God continued to indwell me and do a variety of other things that provided more evidence of His presence and work. There was no stage in the process where I felt extremely emotional, though. Maybe that’s just how I am in general. I’m pretty sure most people would have a different reaction, but that’s just not how I roll.

Right when it happened, I spent the better part of an hour in the exercise of cautious optomism and prayer, asking myself and God if that was what really just happened. I rehashed the list of additional things that God does within a Christian once He initially indwells a person and decided that it would take at least a few days to fully explore all the contents of the “package deal” (as I like to call it), and while I thought about withholding full assent to the reality of what had just happened until I got full confirmation, it was inside of an hour before I decided that I had enough to go on and I could be confident that God would continue to do more- and that He would be doing so from within me.

 

[cooterhein]

Or, what if they experience a transformation when very young, but then later struggle with sin as a teen or young adult? Remember, they believe, they know the truth, they confess Christ as Lord, they work hard to live a pious life, but their emotion may never be as strong as that first generation convert who goes from real depravity to real saintliness?

Here’s what I’d say. (Pretend I’m talking to my theoretical kid, somewhere in high school). Assurance of the present reality of your salvation is predicated on whether or not God indwells you and that when He initially indwelt you, He transformed (or regenerated) you in such a way that He caused you to become a Christian. If He hasn’t done that yet, decide whether or not you really want Him to do that (which probably leads to some additional tangents) and if that’s what you want, ask Him for it and don’t get discouraged if He doesn’t do it right on command. Just keep asking and don’t give up, even if it takes years.

And if you’re telling me this has happened, the affirmative response should not be predicated on any of the following, though the list is certainly not limited to these things. If you believe Jesus died for you and you’re grateful that He did, that doesn’t necessarily mean God has done any of the aformentioned things to you. He’s only done them if He’s done them. If you’ve had varying levels of emotional experiences in a variety of religious settings, they may accompany this sort of activity by God, but not necessarily- He only did those things if He did those things. I know that you know the truth, you’ve always been a really good kid, and you stick out as the Christian kid from a Christian family. (Been there, seen it, I can tell you all about it). But even with all of that, it’s possible for someone to be just like you and not be indwelt by the Holy Spirit, who is the sure sign of salvation. So you should only say He’s there if He’s there.

If it’s kind of hard for you to tell, take the time to figure it out. And if He’s not, maybe you still think there’s enough going on in your life that you shouldn’t have to hesitate in calling yourself a Christian. That’s fine, you don’t have to agree with me about everything. But we should be able to agree that the presence and activity of the third person of the Trinity is something to be desired, not despised, and at the very least, it’s normative for Christians to have that going on in some way. So even if you don’t think it impacts your eternal destination, you already know by way of what you’ve grown up in that it’s not all about whether you go to heaven or hell- there’s the rest of your life right in front of you, and there’s a big difference between trying to live it for God on your own and living it for God while being indwelt by God. The first situation is not so good and the second one is very good and vastly preferable, so (assuming that’s what you want God to do and that God wants it for you, too), you should ask God to let you get started on the second one as soon as possible. But if and when He actually does these things, I think there’s a chance that you’ll have a new perspective on their significance that isn’t possible until God is actually indwelling you.

At this point (assuming my kid has concluded that God isn’t present within him…for ease of communication, let’s say it’s a son), this is where we’d talk about how he feels about that, the conclusions he’s drawn, prospects of what might happen in the future, and whatever tangents we might have to run down. I’d also let him know that I hope this is a pre-game talk and that we’ll have a chance at a post-game chat so I can get his thoughts on what it’s like to be indwelt by God (right when it happens, as well as what it’s like as a continual state), how the God-indwelt/God-transformed experience is different from the one before, and what, if anything, about his perspective has changed since the pre-game talk. Who knows…if I ever have a kid, maybe they’ll have more of an emotional experience than I did. That’s fine with me- it doesn’t really make a difference, as long as God is doing what we’re asking Him to do.

Would you have doubts about whether your child was saved if they told you they believed, but couldn’t say the moment the Holy Spirit entered their lives?

I wouldn’t be focused strictly on a recitation of the exact moment, but I would be more broadly focused on an ability to delineate between the unregenerate part of their life and the regenerate part while having a high degree of confidence in God’s agency rather than lookalike activity by some agent besides God. Like parents who are Christians and therefore raise their kids to behave like Christians…not that that’s a bad thing, of course. If I have kids, that’s exactly what I’ll do. But for the job of actually making them Christians, I leave that up to God.

At the core of the question of assurance, I’d be looking for a good reason for them to know that God really is indwelling them. On the surface, it’s as simple as asking “Is God indwelling you, yes or no?” Or maybe you can rephrase that as “Are you the only person inhabiting your body, or is God there too?” Either way, it can be kind of hard to know right away without some additional exploration. There’s a variety of ways to explore the issue, though, and one of those has to do with regeneration-related demarcation that can be attributed to God. That’s just one of them, though.

 

[cooterhein]

Or if they told you they felt something when they were really young, but now they are adults they have doubts? How would you re-assure them in this case? Would you admit that not everyone has a dramatic road-to-damascus conversion?

I don’t think reassurance would necessarily be the first thing on my mind. If I ever have kids, I’ll do my best to give them all the tools they need in order to discern what God is and isn’t doing within them. I’ll also make it clear that it’s not up to me, another adult, or any religious figure to tell them when God is and isn’t doing something to them, and even though I hope that God does transform you, it shouldn’t be something you tell me about just because it’s what I want to hear. You should tell me about it because it’s something that God actually did. And if it’s not, go ahead and say that.

As far as road-to-Damascus conversions go, I’m sorry if I implied that I had one of those. I don’t think it was nearly that dramatic. It’s just a collection of things that God does- regeneration, justification, sanctification, conviction, transformation, indwelling presence, etc.- that’s common to all Christians. The only thing that’s even a little unique about the way I’m handling it is an emphasis on ascertaining a divine agency in all of this, rather than something that’s actually a product of your emotions or a combination of a religious and home environment that elicits a certain combination of behaviors and responses that aren’t necessarily happening because of anything that God is doing.

Would you not tell them that it was far better to grow up in the Church as you raised them than it is for the child that grows up with nothing?

I would tell them it’s better to grow up in a solid church (as I was), and here’s why.

During the year-plus period of time when I was (unexpectedly) waiting a pretty long time for God to indwell and transform me, that was very uncomfortable. I was wondering what I’d wind up doing if it kept going that way. At a minimum, I knew I’d gradually stop doing all religious activities and maybe recommence some of them for the sake of marriage and/or kids. I just didn’t know how far I might slide without God’s help. If it hadn’t been for some of the people I grew up in church with, I might have doubted that God ever does this kind of thing. Actually, it was during this period of time that I ran into a couple of people who experienced something very similar but became discouraged and gave up for lack of hope. I knew I didn’t want that to be me, but after some questioning, I found out that I had some people in my life that they never had.

I don’t think I could point to anyone who was close to my age, but there were a number of elderly people in my church and a few of the more experienced missionary families that really stuck out in my mind as examples of people through whom God had spent decades testifying to His presence, activity, and faithfulness. It really helped that my parents are great examples of this, as well. When I expanded my vocabulary a little further, I learned to refer to this as an “incarnational epistemology”- incarnational because it’s an example of God manifesting His presence in and through their lives, and epistemology because it provided me with a way of knowing that God is real and He actually does these kinds of things. They were living, personified evidence of God’s reality. They let me see what God could do in their lives, and it allowed me to hope for a similar testimony near the end of my life, even though I didn’t have any firsthand experience at that point in time. I’m glad that I had this kind of evidence available to me, because I’ve seen where others has fallen without it.

On my dad’s side, he’s a first-generation believer (although a skipped-one-generation believer might be more like it). The kind of evidence he was initially working with was (don’t laugh) evidence for a young earth that’s around 10,000 years old rather than a few billion, and that’s why he wound up believing in a God who created it all. This developed into a genuine relationship with a personal God who didn’t just create the world but also saved him, regenerated justified indwelt transformed and sanctified/sanctifies him (thus, in a non-subtle way, making Himself known in a way that’s more substantial and reality-based), but it was YEC that got the ball rolling. While I’m glad that something got it going, I don’t think that’s the ideal way to start since the earth actually isn’t young…but that’s a topic for a different day. Bottom line is this- if I ever have kids, I want them to know that God exists because they see what He’s doing in the lives of their parents and at least some of the people at church. I don’t want them to depend on arguments from a natural theology that tend to fail or be inadequate in some way. Some say they all do if you poke at them long enough, and while I don’t give entirely unreserved assent to that, I think they have a decent point. Instead, I want them to see God at work and know that He does this stuff because they see it happening. You never know just how important it might be for them.

 

[cooterhein]

If you’ve only ever received them in a Protestant church, then other than baptism, they were in fact, symbolic only, since Protestant pastors don’t have the ability to actually do the Sacraments, since they are not Catholic priests - they can only outwardly act out the Sacraments, but there is no power there, because Protestants don’t have the Sacrament of Holy Orders, which is what gives priests the ability to actually be used by the Holy Spirit in the Sacraments.

Well, this has the potential to be a huge can of worms. I’ll try to keep it under control.

You said the ability to actually do the Sacraments is limited to Catholic priests. I’ve seen some things around here about what Orthodox priests are doing, but I haven’t really gotten involved in them to the point where I know what each side is claiming of themselves or of the other. Not that you’re really “two sides” like Catholic and Protestants are on two sides, but you know what I mean. I’m sure you wouldn’t say the Orthodox baptism is “merely symbolic,” and I’m also pretty sure you wouldn’t say they’re actually able to do what Catholic priests do. That puts it somewhere in the middle ground of “I don’t really know.” If you could provide a touch of clarification on this thread, I don’t think it will do too much to derail the conversation. Just a little something about what happened to the sacramental mojo of the Orthodox priests and I’ll be good.

Additionally, I think I recall something (most recently, from Dominus Iesus) about how baptism even unites some non-Catholics to the only one…of several churches that claim responsibility for saving the world, although it is far from being the fullness of communion that is ideal. Even with all the qualifications, this seems a bit more than symbolic and a description of some kind of grace-infusion that’s supposed to happen even when the baptism’s done in a Bible church as a symbolic ordinance. It also seems like there’s no effort to distinguish between that kind of baptism and something that happens in a Lutheran church, where sacramental grace (I am told) is taken far more seriously- in the eyes of the papacy, it seems they’re all the same. Your comments on either of these things?

Just because you didn’t feel or experience anything tangible at the time, doesn’t mean that the Holy Spirit didn’t indwell you at the time of your baptism.

I’ve had a lot of time to consider this very carefully, and as it turns out, the Holy Spirit did not indwell me at a time that was consistent with modern-day Catholic expectations or with the thoroughgoing Evangelical/Protestant born-again kinds of expectations that tend to characterize America today.

The fact that, later on, you began to experience the consolations of the Holy Spirit, shows that He was already with you, prior to the time of receiving the consolations.

That’s not accurate of what happened to me. I do know what happened to me, and I am the one who will tell you about it. I’m afriad that’s how it has to be, because everything you know about me is dependent on my ability to tell you the truth about myself.

One more quick thing: I just saw an earlier post from you that escaped my notice until now.

if it’s not an emotion or other kind of feeling, and not Christian habits of life such as attending Church and doing one’s best to do as Jesus would have us do, then what is it?

It’s the Holy Spirit. He’s a person. He’s not a feeling, He’s not an emotion, He’s not a habit or a behavior (although He is reliable about causing the last two). He’s a person, and He’s also the “it” that you were asking about. Not that I usually like to refer to Him as “it,” but in this case, “it” deonotes a particular kind of sign that ignatius777 was curious about- the sign of this indwelling “that Protestants are so proud of.” God is the sign; more specifically, the Holy Spirit. If He indwells you, here’s your sign.

(The comedic reference at the end happened almost entirely by accident…please don’t think about it too long or read too much into it).

 

[jmcrae]

You said the ability to actually do the Sacraments is limited to Catholic priests. I’ve seen some things around here about what Orthodox priests are doing, but I haven’t really gotten involved in them to the point where I know what each side is claiming of themselves or of the other. Not that you’re really “two sides” like Catholic and Protestants are on two sides, but you know what I mean. I’m sure you wouldn’t say the Orthodox baptism is “merely symbolic,” and I’m also pretty sure you wouldn’t say they’re actually able to do what Catholic priests do. That puts it somewhere in the middle ground of “I don’t really know.” If you could provide a touch of clarification on this thread, I don’t think it will do too much to derail the conversation. Just a little something about what happened to the sacramental mojo of the Orthodox priests and I’ll be good.

The Orthodox are Catholics in schism - they have everything that we have except for the authority of the Pope - their priests can confect all of the Sacraments.

Baptism is unique in that it can be done by absolutely anyone, including (if necessary) an unbeliever, if the unbeliever means to do what the Church does, although he doesn’t understand it. This is how it is that nurses in hospitals can baptize babies who are in danger of death, even if they themselves aren’t Christians - they do it because they know that the Christian parents would want them to do it, and this is sufficient knowledge, as long as the baptism itself is done validly (“I baptize thee in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,” while pouring water over some portion of the body, or while immersing the body in water).

Protestants can also have valid Sacramental marriages, because it is the spouses who are ministers to each other in the Sacrament of Matrimony.

But for the rest of the Sacraments - Holy Communion, Confession, Anointing of the Sick, Ordination, and Confirmation, a Catholic priest (even if he is in schism) is required.

 

[jmcrae]

I’ve had a lot of time to consider this very carefully, and as it turns out, the Holy Spirit did not indwell me at a time that was consistent with modern-day Catholic expectations or with the thoroughgoing Evangelical/Protestant born-again kinds of expectations that tend to characterize America today.

So, are you saying that your Baptism was not valid? Or are you saying that, in general, Baptism is nothing but a ceremony, and cannot be expected to have any real effect?

 

[JustaServant]

What is this even supposed to mean? What is a “pretty good person”? Is this person saying yes to God as much as he can? Is he trying to grow ever closer to Him? Does he even believe in God?

There is no way a person could be in such a state without “God indwelling in him”. God is there if we let him.

**You are essentially relegating God to a feeling in your life, whether it comes down to a feeling of connectedness, or like you are living well, or whatever. You are asking him for a proof or sign. These kinds of feelings may have as much to do with your hormones, or the amount of sun in the sky, or your general health, as anything spiritual - feelings are just chemical sensations in the body. **

Many very holy people have carried on loving God and obeying him, even when they felt abandoned by him - sometimes for years. I think of Mother Teresa, or Christ himself.

When we feel most abandoned by God can be when we grow closet to the kind of person he wants us to be. Relegating our relationship with God to a singular event or a feeling doesn’t do God justice, and it doesn’t do us justice either.

Great post Bluegoat, especially the bolded.
I’m gonna plagerize this and not give you any of the credit.

 

[cooterhein]

So, are you saying that your Baptism was not valid?

That’s interesting. I don’t think I’ve attempted to answer such a question before. If by “not valid” you mean performed or carried out in a way that was somehow “wrong,” I don’t think the pastor did anything wrong in the way that he carried out the process. The things he did were ok.

I am saying that the things God does- ie., indwelling a person- are entirely dependent on whether God does them or not. I’m also saying there’s nothing we can do to guarantee that God will do a particular thing at a certain time. For example, there’s no magical prayer that, when recited with feeling, will automatically cause Jesus to come into your heart (which is kind of inaccurate to begin with). You’re really asking a different person of the Trinity to indwell you, and He does it when He does it- the most we can do is ask Him to do it, wait for it, and keep asking if it doesn’t happen right away.

By the same token, there’s no combination of holy man, holy water, and holy site that will infallibly cause the Holy Spirit to indwell you upon reception of a certain sacrament. It’s something that God does, and He does it when He does it. If He happens to do it when you’re baptized, that’s fine. He does it when He does it, and I know He’s done it at that time in the past. But He also does it at other times, and that’s fine, too.

You’ve made it clear that you believe in a rule where appropriate sacramental action on your part infallibly leads to a certain response from God, but this claim is falsifiable and it has been falsified. I think we’ve had some difficulty on this matter because I’m approaching it in a way where I want to find out when God did something based on when He did it, and you’re approaching it as a person who isn’t really concerned with finding out whether or not God did anything. You’re just worried about defending the sacraments, even though that’s not really what I’m asking you about. I’m focused on what God is and isn’t doing, while the sacraments are peripheral. It looks like you’re focused exlusively on the sacraments and not at all on the question of what God may or may not be doing, and I’d like to see that change.

The sacraments are things that you do, whereas God indwelling you is something that God does. You need to treat the second thing as an act of God whose reality can be determined on its own merits- ie., knowing that God did it because He did it. The alternative appears to be something like this: Knowing He did it because you did something and your rules clearly state that God is supposed to respond in a certain way. But then if I ask you whether or not God actually responded in that way, I usually get a repeat of the initial rule instead of something that could affirm or deny it in that particular instance.

Or are you saying that, in general, Baptism is nothing but a ceremony, and cannot be expected to have any real effect?

From what I can tell, most baptisms don’t have any effect beyond what the human actors can initiate. There are and have been some baptisms that are accompanied by an act of God, but that only happens when God decides to do it. In my experience, that seems to be rare, but it can be a little difficult to check on it- particularly when people are unwilling to make an attempt at confirming or denying the reality of such an act based on something like “whether or not it happened.”

Instead, some people insist on a rule where their actions must infallibly lead to a particular kind of response by God. When I ask them “Did God actually respond in that way when you were baptized?”, it can be a little frustrating when I don’t get an actual response to the question. From some Catholics, I get confirmation with a few details, which I accept. From others, I get a denial and some details about how God did it at a different time- though it’s something that tends to happen via PM and not on an open forum. I accept this as well. But from most Catholics, responses range from ones that complete ignore the question to ones that imply that I’m doing something wrong by asking it.

When either of these things happen (which is pretty frequent), I tend to conclude that this Catholic is not able to confirm that God caused them to become a Christian at any point. That doesn’t mean I can positively deny it- it just means the Catholic appears to be unable to confirm it, and that means I can’t either. With regard to the OP, this question-answer exchange is a key point at which Catholics can help themselves out in their interactions with non-Catholics.

 

[jmcrae]

When either of these things happen (which is pretty frequent), I tend to conclude that this Catholic is not able to confirm that God caused them to become a Christian at any point. That doesn’t mean I can positively deny it- it just means the Catholic appears to be unable to confirm it, and that means I can’t either. With regard to the OP, this question-answer exchange is a key point at which Catholics can help themselves out in their interactions with non-Catholics.

Well, what we believe is that God is faithful to His promises, and He has promised His grace to us, whenever we make use of the Sacraments, so we can know with certainty, even if we don’t feel any kind of “burnin’ in the bosom” at the time, that God is acting in us through the Sacraments.

So, a Catholic certainly knows that he became a Christian at the moment that he was baptized, even if there were no emotional fireworks taking place at the time. But the fact that you don’t believe in the Sacraments, is what hinders you from knowing that Catholics can know that they are Christians. We don’t know it based on feelings, but rather, based on the fact that God keeps His promises, even when we can’t necessary perceive that He has done so.

 

[Mikeoffaith]

Martin Luther was an Augustinian priest. He had no authority to ordain anyone (he was not a Bishop), so those he ordained did not receive what he did not have the authority to give them - authority to confect the Sacraments. John Calvin was a lay man, so those whom he ordained also did not receive anything that he neither had, nor had authority to pass on - that is, authority to confect the Sacraments.

And the what of the Lutheran Churches of the Nordic countries that have maintained their line of Bishops? And the same difficulty that you have with Anglican Bishops would now be the same issue with a goodly amount of Lutheran Bishops in the US.

 

[cooterhein]

Well, what we believe is that God is faithful to His promises,

I agree.

and He has promised His grace to us, whenever we make use of the Sacraments,

I don’t agree, and I don’t believe you can demonstrate that God ever made such a promise.

so we can know with certainty, even if we don’t feel any kind of “burnin’ in the bosom” at the time, that God is acting in us through the Sacraments.

This is not the first time that you’ve attributed such a colloquialism to me. I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt and clarify something for you- I’m not a southern guy and I have a Chicago accent, so if these are little ways of trying to endear yourself to me, it’s missing the mark.

On the off chance that your intent is to insult my intelligence or otherwise undermine what I’m saying to you, please stop. I’m asking you nicely this time. Take care of it and make sure it gets better now; otherwise, it gets worse before it gets better.

So, a Catholic certainly knows that he became a Christian at the moment that he was baptized, even if there were no emotional fireworks taking place at the time.

I haven’t said anything about emotional fireworks. I’ve specifically told you it wasn’t an emotional experience at all. Perhaps you read what Bluegoat said and mistakenly assumed that it would be right for you to attribute it to me.

The idea behind this whole thing is really pretty simple. When God indwells you, He does a number of things right away and a few other things over the course of the rest of your life. One of the things He does is make you aware of His presence. That’s it. It’s not any more complicated than that. You should not assume that this implies emotional fireworks, burning in the bosom, or any other cutesy colloquialism that you may have heard in the past and thought was kind of funny. I do not wish to use any of those phrases, and I will thank you to stop attributing these things to me, especially now that I’ve asked you to do so in extremely specific terms. Most of the phrases I do wish to use are found in Romans 8. This is what they look like.

“You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him.”
The obvious question is this: Does the Spirit of God dwell in you? This question is not intended to elicit a story about an emotional roller coaster or a tale about your faithfulness to the sacraments. It is what it is; nothing more, nothing less. Does the Spirit of God dwell in you? Base your answer on whether or not the Spirit of God dwells within you. Focus on what God does and where He dwells. Try to avoid getting distracted, and don’t talk about what you’re doing. Talk about what God’s doing.

“If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit who dwells in you.”
This is pretty much the same thing. Does the Holy Spirit dwell in you? Again, base your answer on whether or not He dwells in you. Don’t base it on anything else. You can see why the answer is important.

“For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the Spirit of adoption as sons, by whom we cry, “Abba! Father!” The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God.”
Ah, there it is. Instead of making guesses about the way I talk and attempting to make fun of an accent that I don’t have, you could look to this reference. The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God. How does He do it? It doesn’t say anything about an emotional ride, a burning sensation, or any of the equally stupid things that you’ve said. What it refers to is the Holy Spirit bearing witness with your spirit. So what’s happening; how does He do that? He bears witness. To your spirit. That’s what it says, that’s what I’m referring to, and that’s all I’m saying. If you wish to attribute something to me, attribute this.

But the fact that you don’t believe in the Sacraments, is what hinders you from knowing that Catholics can know that they are Christians.

Elaborate, please. If I were not hindered in this way, what would I be saying about the sacraments that is different from what I’m saying now? I won’t ask you to try and reproduce what I am saying about it; I know you’re really bad at that, so please don’t try. Just go with an answer to the question, and please try to make it realistic.

We don’t know it based on feelings,

No one is saying that. I’m not sure if you noticed.

but rather, based on the fact that God keeps His promises

These can’t be promises that are found in the Bible. Where did you get them from, and who is making these promises on God’s behalf?

 

[John1]

Hi,

This is just a thought about baptism. Since the Catholic Church accepts the validity of other baptisms, and since were all baptized into one Body which is Christ, and since there is only one Holy Spirit that indwells all believers in Christ, then doesn’t that mean that God accepts and has salvation for all believers, whether are not they are Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, Lutheran, or Angelican, etc., as long as they are Christians.

 

[John1]

Hi Cooterhein,

I was baptized in the Baptist church before I joined the Catholic Church. When I was baptized I didn’t get any special feeling and I didn’t start talking in tongues. Sometimes I wonder if maybe I already had the Holy Spirit because even when I was younger I could say “Jesus is Lord”. I really don’t know what it means to be “in the Spirit” as John alludes to in Revelation. I don’t really feel anything strange when I take communion either, but I recognize that the Eucharist is the spiritual connection that we have with the rest of the Body of Christ in the remebrance of Jesus. I know that we were given one spirit to drink as it says in 1 Corinthians 12:13

For we were all baptized by[a] one Spirit so as to form one body—whether Jews or Gentiles, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink.

So I think you’re probably correct; God will work on his own time schedule, not ours, and I think that the Christian experience is probably different in regards to receiving the Holy Spirit for most, if not all believers.

 

[jmcrae]

These can’t be promises that are found in the Bible. Where did you get them from, and who is making these promises on God’s behalf?

It is Jesus who gave these promises to the Apostles, and it is the Apostles who passed them on to the Church. The same Tradition that the Apostles gave with regard to the Sacraments, is the same Tradition that tells us of what the Bible consists, and gave us the canon of the Scriptures, so that you can have a Bible to quote from, or to say, “But that’s not in the Bible!” - not everything is in the Bible - the Bible is part of the Holy Tradition of the Apostles; not the other way around.

 

[JonNC]

Well, what we believe is that God is faithful to His promises, and He has promised His grace to us, whenever we make use of the Sacraments, so we can know with certainty, even if we don’t feel any kind of “burnin’ in the bosom” at the time, that God is acting in us through the Sacraments.

So, a Catholic certainly knows that he became a Christian at the moment that he was baptized, even if there were no emotional fireworks taking place at the time. But the fact that you don’t believe in the Sacraments, is what hinders you from knowing that Catholics can know that they are Christians. We don’t know it based on feelings, but rather, based on the fact that God keeps His promises, even when we can’t necessary perceive that He has done so.

I don’t think any Lutheran I know would dispute any of this.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Originally Posted by jmcrae
Martin Luther was an Augustinian priest. He had no authority to ordain anyone (he was not a Bishop), so those he ordained did not receive what he did not have the authority to give them - authority to confect the Sacraments. John Calvin was a lay man, so those whom he ordained also did not receive anything that he neither had, nor had authority to pass on - that is, authority to confect the Sacraments.

And the what of the Lutheran Churches of the Nordic countries that have maintained their line of Bishops? And the same difficulty that you have with Anglican Bishops would now be the same issue with a goodly amount of Lutheran Bishops in the US.

There is also the fact that in the 15th century some popes, Boniface IX, for example, allowed Cistercian abbots (who were priests) to ordain.

Jon

 

[jmcrae]

There is also the fact that in the 15th century some popes, Boniface IX, for example, allowed Cistercian abbots (who were priests) to ordain.

Jon

Martin Luther was an Augustinian monk, up until the time he separated from the Church, which was four years before he was officially excommunicated.

 

[JonNC]

Martin Luther was an Augustinian monk, up until the time he separated from the Church, which was four years before he was officially excommunicated.

While I would disagree with your assessment of his “separation”, it is true he was excommunicated. I’m not sure how that relates to my post about Cistercian abbots performing presbyter ordinations.

Jon