the non- difference

[cooterhein]

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.

I’ve never had special feelings or talked in tongues. I guess it wouldn’t bother me too much if God decided to make that happen, but I don’t see any reason why He’d do either one. I don’t really want either of these things, and I haven’t ever planned on having either experience later on in life.

That’s just me, of course. Other people are different. To this point, however, I haven’t seen any of them make a contribution to this thread.

Sometimes I wonder if maybe I already had the Holy Spirit because even when I was younger I could say “Jesus is Lord”.

That’s probably worthy of consideration. Regarding total inability, there are certain things that people are incapable of doing unless God is indwelling them and taking a direct role in making it happen. Such an exercise is only as good as the extent to which you can ultimately discern the presence and activity of God in your life, though. Some actions can be produced without that kind of divine role, so you do have to choose carefully and be discerning. It’s tricky, and it can take awhile. I’ve definitely been there.

I really don’t know what it means to be “in the Spirit” as John alludes to in Revelation.

Offhand, I don’t know exactly what part of Revelation you’re referring to. Is it something that you’ve regarded as normative for all Christians, whatever it does mean? Or is it something that seems fairly unique to John? It’s not every Christian who receives apocalyptic visions from God, so if it’s just about that…?

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

A non-Catholic reading of 1 Corinthians 12:13 would probably identify that spirit as the Holy Spirit. He’s the connection. We do approach communion as a remembrance, but we try to do so in a way that’s consistent with the word’s meaning and use during the 1500 years of Passovers leading up to that one. I’m afraid that doesn’t lead to quite the same description of the connection that it entails.

This doesn’t really apply to non-Catholics who believe in the RP, though. Like Lutherans.

For we were all baptized by 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.

To the non-Catholic, being baptized by one Spirit is synonymous with being indwelt by the Holy Spirit and transformed by God into a Christian. I can see where drinking of one Spirit could be connected to the Eucharist, but for people like me, drinking of one Spirit is the same as sharing a common bond in the Spirit by virtue of many people being indwelt by the same person and enjoying the fruits of the process we go through as He indwells and works within us.

If you do make a strong connection between this passage and the Eucharist, I’d be interested in seeing what you make of Christians who don’t partake of the Eucharist or any other sacrament.

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.

From the time that I started asking Him to do that kind of work, I had to wait close to a couple of years before He did it. Most of the non-Catholics I’ve talked to about it do not report such a waiting period. I know that means my story’s a little different than theirs, but it doesn’t bother me that they didn’t have to wait as long. The end result is the same and the things God does are the same, but I wouldn’t expect the timing to be the same for everyone. And as it turns out, it’s not.

I agree with you that God’s timing and our exact experience won’t be the same for everyone. I certainly don’t demand that other people try and make God do it for them in the exact same way that He did it for me- as if they could make Him do that. What matters is that He does what we need Him to do- just as long as He does it, that’s what matters. It does happen different ways, and I would never suggest that someone should expect to pray sincerely and then wait at least a year before God answers their prayer. I would hope for a process that’s less drawn out, because I know that God can do it before, alongside, or after baptism (all of which are examples that are seen in the Bible), and He can begin these actions immediately or in a matter of minutes. It might take much longer, of course- it could go either way. But the important thing is that God ultimately does the things that we need Him to do, and if it hasn’t happened yet, that we keep asking until He does. After that, of course, we need to continue relying on His continual presence and ongoing activity- although for Catholics, there’s obviously going to be issues with losing salvation and going through the same process of getting the Holy Spirit back. That probably goes a little beyond the scope of this thread, though.

 

[cooterhein]

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.

Alright, there we go. These promises aren’t found in the Bible, and the Magisterium is making these promises on God’s behalf.

I have to tell you, it’s crazy how any conversation with a Catholic- no matter how far removed from tradition and authority- can always make its way back to those things if you stick with it long enough. It amazes me.

I guess this takes us back to our intial starting points in the Christian faith- I’ve got the reality of what God’s done within me and you have to decide whether or not to take me at my word, while you’ve got your faith in the ability of the CC to deliver on what it promises, and you take them at their word. Which…I suppose…has something to do with the mystical ability of your church leadership to make God do certain things at particular times. Although sometimes, it might seem exactly like a situation where God hasn’t done anything. But if you have faith in their ability to instantly make God do what they say He should do, that’s not a problem- they say it always works, and that means it always works.

Even if it apparently does not.

 

[fbl9]

Alright, there we go. These promises aren’t found in the Bible, and the Magisterium is making these promises on God’s behalf.

I have to tell you, it’s crazy how any conversation with a Catholic- no matter how far removed from tradition and authority- can always make its way back to those things if you stick with it long enough. It amazes me.

I guess this takes us back to our intial starting points in the Christian faith- I’ve got the reality of what God’s done within me and you have to decide whether or not to take me at my word, while you’ve got your faith in the ability of the CC to deliver on what it promises, and you take them at their word. Which…I suppose…has something to do with the mystical ability of your church leadership to make God do certain things at particular times. Although sometimes, it might seem exactly like a situation where God hasn’t done anything. But if you have faith in their ability to instantly make God do what they say He should do, that’s not a problem- they say it always works, and that means it always works.

Even if it apparently does not.

And when faced with the wall of truth non catholics always fall back on deluded charges.

 

[cooterhein]

And when faced with the wall of truth non catholics always fall back on deluded charges.

Is this what greeters do on CAF? Take untrue, overgeneralized, and unnecessarily hurtful shots at non-Catholics without fully engaging in a conversation?

 

[fbl9]

Is this what greeters do on CAF? Take untrue, overgeneralized, and unnecessarily hurtful shots at non-Catholics without fully engaging in a conversation?

 

[fbl9]

And when faced with the wall of truth non catholics always fall back on deluded charges.

 

[fbl9]

Alright, there we go. These promises aren’t found in the Bible, and the Magisterium is making these promises on God’s behalf.

I have to tell you, it’s crazy how any conversation with a Catholic- no matter how far removed from tradition and authority- can always make its way back to those things if you stick with it long enough. It amazes me.

I guess this takes us back to our intial starting points in the Christian faith- I’ve got the reality of what God’s done within me and you have to decide whether or not to take me at my word, while you’ve got your faith in the ability of the CC to deliver on what it promises, and you take them at their word.** Which…I suppose…has something to do with the mystical ability of your church leadership to make God do certain things at particular times. **Although sometimes, it might seem exactly like a situation where God hasn’t done anything. But if you have faith in their ability to instantly make God do what they say He should do, that’s not a problem- they say it always works, and that means it always works.

Even if it apparently does not.

What else would you call the bolded section.

 

[fbl9]

And when faced with the wall of truth non catholics always fall back on deluded charges.

i was mistaken by not clarifiying the term non catholics in hindsight i should have wrote certain non catholics. sorry to those that are not certain non catholics.

 

[TimothyH]

…has something to do with the mystical ability of your church leadership to make God do certain things at particular times…

**FOUL! **

Flag down on the play. Unsportsman like conduct.

You can discuss who the real Christians are and what the definition of a Christian is all you want but please don’t tell Catholics that the Catholic Church teaches something which it does not and please don’t tell Catholics that they believe something which they do not. Nowhere in twenty centuries of magesterial teaching has the Church stated anything like your comment, the triteness of which quite frankly, amplifies your ignorance of both Catholicism and basic historical facts.

The fact is that Jesus delegated authority to Peter when he gave Peter the “Keys to the kingdom.” This statement was a clear reference to a political event which subjects of ancient monarchies would have immediately recognized - an appointment to the office of Prime Minister.

Kings in those days appointed Prime (or first) Ministers who literally held the keys to the king’s treasury and were delegated authority to act on the kings behalf. The king said, “Build me a city” and went back to his concubines. It was the Prime Minister who held the “Keys to the kingdom” who actually did the work, hiring and paying the workers, acquiring land, buying supplies, further delegating authority, etc.

Jesus’ statement that Peter was to hold the keys to his kingdom would have been extremely provacative, especially in light of the fact that Roman subjects had to swear oaths of allegiance to the Roman god-man emperor which was broken only under the penalty of death. This is why Jesus “strictly ordered his disciples to tell no one that he was the Messiah”. Peter was a rash loud-mouth and would have bragged about it and then the Apostles would have been executed for conspiring to set up a kingdom of their own.

The office of Prime Miinster was always handed on, sometimes with elaborate ceremonies, attested to all through the Old Testament. People were “Put in charge of the kings house” and in doing so, were allowed to wear the king’s robe and wear the kings ring. That the office of Prime Minister was intended to be handed on is attested to by Isaiah in chapter 22

I will thrust you from your office and pull you down from your station. On that day I will summon my servant Eliakim, son of Hilkiah; I will clothe him with your robe, and gird him with your sash, and give over to him your authority. He shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah. I will place the key of the House of David on his shoulder; when he opens, no one shall shut, when he shuts, no one shall open. I will fix him like a peg in a sure spot, to be a place of honor for his family;
(Isaiah 22:19-23)

Compared to…

I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." (Matthew 16:10)

I’ll tell you what’s crazy and what amazes me! In an age where almost everyone has a university degree and where fifth grade level history books are available with free overnight shipping, very few Christians bother to try to understand the political, economic and social context under which the authors of scripture and their intended audience operated.

In the iPhone-Google age, your ignorace of history is no excuse for your misinterpretation of scripture. God does not do what the Church commands. You simply miss the historical fact that Jesus delegated authority to the leadership of his visible kingdom on earth, the Church.

-Tim-

 

[cooterhein]

**FOUL! **

Flag down on the play. Unsportsman like conduct.

You can discuss who the real Christians are and what the definition of a Christian is all you want but please don’t tell Catholics that the Catholic Church teaches something which it does not and please don’t tell Catholics that they believe something which they do not. Nowhere in twenty centuries of magesterial teaching has the Church stated anything like your comment, the triteness of which quite frankly, amplifies your ignorance of both Catholicism and basic historical facts.

I think this has more to do with what’s been said between me and jmcrae than any specific reference to Church teaching. I believe this is the material of primary concern.

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.

Not Church teaching- just a little something from a forum master. Over here on the other side of the issue, I’m asserting that God makes you a Christian and it can happen at all different times, not just when you’re baptized. I’m also asserting that God hasn’t promised to make you a Christian at the moment you receive a certain sacrament (hence the comment on which you called a foul). I don’t know whether or not the Magisterium has actually claimed to receive such a revelation from God; we haven’t gotten that far yet.

 

[cooterhein]

I almost decided to ignore the argument you introduced, but I figure I can do this quickly, so why not. A brief sketch of the passages used and the argument made.

I will place the key of the House of David on his shoulder; when he opens, no one shall shut, when he shuts, no one shall open.

Compared to…

I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." (Matthew 16:10)

The key of the House of David is just one key. The keys to the Kingdom are multiple keys. The singular key to the House of David is referenced in the New Testament, but not in Matthew. That happens in Revelation.

“And to the Church in Philadelphia write: The words of the holy one, the true one, who has the Key of David, who opens and no one will shut, who shuts and no one opens.” (Revelation 3:7).

Who has the key (not keys)? The holy one, the true one, the one whose words are written to the Church in Philadelphia. It’s Jesus. That’s who has the Key of David. He always did. He never gave the Key of David to anyone else, nor should you expect him to. Isaiah 22:20-22 is a Messianic passage. It’s not a prophecy about Peter, it’s a prophecy about Jesus.

So you really thought I’d look at a prophecy in Isaiah and say “I always thought that was about Jesus. Wow, Scott Hahn…I mean Tim is right. It’s actually about the papacy and apostolic succession.” And you really thought I’d look at that prophecy about the Key of David and say “Key, keys, it doesn’t matter, the Key of David prophecy equals Keys to the Kingdom and Peter is a prime minister.” You thought I’d say that? And you really thought I wouldn’t look up “Key of David” and find out who has it in Revelation 3? Really?

Couple of things. First, you obviously got this from Scott Hahn. He’s good at what he does, but you should give credit where credit is due rather than act like you came up with it. But you should also apologize to the man for using this, because it hasn’t been effective since December of 1990. Second, of all the arguments for Catholicism that you could have picked, the connection between Isaiah 22 and Matthew 16 has the least patristic support of any of them. There is absolutely not any shred of support for a connection between this prophecy in Isaiah (the Key) and the Keys in Matthew within the first 700 years of the Christian era.

I’ll tell you what’s crazy and what amazes me! In an age where almost everyone has a university degree and where fifth grade level history books are available with free overnight shipping, very few Christians bother to try to understand the political, economic and social context under which the authors of scripture and their intended audience operated.

In an age where you can so easily duplicate what used to be one of Scott Hahn’s favorite arguments, you should be able to find out (for yourself) the extent to which they have been effective vs. the extent to which they have been torched and effectively refuted. This time, though, I guess you had to find out the hard way.

In the iPhone-Google age, your ignorace of history is no excuse for your misinterpretation of scripture. God does not do what the Church commands. You simply miss the historical fact that Jesus delegated authority to the leadership of his visible kingdom on earth, the Church.

If you weren’t so ignorant of history, you’d realize two things: First, there’s no historical precedent for this cross-reference in the first 700 years of Christianity. And second, it’s been almost exactly 20 years since this argument died a horrible death and could no longer be used in formal debate.

You make it so easy! Do your homework next time.

 

[fbl9]

I think this has more to do with what’s been said between me and jmcrae than any specific reference to Church teaching. I believe this is the material of primary concern.

Not Church teaching- just a little something from a forum master. Over here on the other side of the issue, I’m asserting that God makes you a Christian and it can happen at all different times, not just when you’re baptized. I’m also asserting that God hasn’t promised to make you a Christian at the moment you receive a certain sacrament (hence the comment on which you called a foul). I don’t know whether or not the Magisterium has actually claimed to receive such a revelation from God; we haven’t gotten that far yet.

Sounds like you have this “mystical” power to command God to make one a christain just that He is supposed to do it whenever He feels like it.
You seem to beleive that Jesus ordered people to get all wet for no apparent reason.
The only thing recieved by being baptised is one gets all wet. Why did Jesus command that christians do something aboslutely useless?

 

[fbl9]

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.

Alright, there we go. These promises aren’t found in the Bible, and the Magisterium is making these promises on God’s behalf.

I have to tell you, it’s crazy how any conversation with a Catholic- no matter how far removed from tradition and authority- can always make its way back to those things if you stick with it long enough. It amazes me.

I guess this takes us back to our intial starting points in the Christian faith- I’ve got the reality of what God’s done within me and you have to decide whether or not to take me at my word, while you’ve got your faith in the ability of the CC to deliver on what it promises, and you take them at their word. Which…I suppose…has something to do with the mystical ability of your church leadership to make God do certain things at particular times. Although sometimes, it might seem exactly like a situation where God hasn’t done anything. But if you have faith in their ability to instantly make God do what they say He should do, that’s not a problem- they say it always works, and that means it always works.

Even if it apparently does not.

Jesus and the Holy Spirit did a very poor job of teaching these men according to what you are trying to claim here.

 

[jmcrae]

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

He wasn’t a Cistercian; he didn’t have this authority that was given to the Cistercians. Therefore, those whom he ordained (and those whom they subsequently ordained) were not lawfully or validly ordained.

 

[jmcrae]

Alright, there we go. These promises aren’t found in the Bible, and the Magisterium is making these promises on God’s behalf.

We know that Jesus commanded the Apostles to baptize “the whole world” (katholikos = “the whole world”; Catholic Church = what came into existence when the Apostles obeyed this commandment to baptize the “katholikos”) - Matthew 28:16ff

I have to tell you, it’s crazy how any conversation with a Catholic- no matter how far removed from tradition and authority- can always make its way back to those things if you stick with it long enough. It amazes me.

I guess this takes us back to our intial starting points in the Christian faith- I’ve got the reality of what God’s done within me and you have to decide whether or not to take me at my word, while you’ve got your faith in the ability of the CC to deliver on what it promises, and you take them at their word.

You’ve “got the reality” but you can’t explain how you know you have it. It isn’t a feeling, it isn’t an event, and it isn’t your trust that God is faithful to His promises when this happens or that happens.

Which…I suppose…has something to do with the mystical ability of your church leadership to make God do certain things at particular times.

The Church does not “make” God do anything He has not already promised to do. Jesus told the Apostles “Do this” (say the Mass) “in memory of Me.” And the promise is, that the bread is His body, and the chalice is His blood, for the New Covenant. The difference is, we obey the commandment to “do this” and we believe the promises that He has made for us. Protestants say, "Well, He didn’t really mean to “do this” like all the time or anything, and He was only using symbolic language because He knew it would sound good in the KJV Bible - but really, it’s just totally meaningless and shouldn’t be taken seriously at all.

Although sometimes, it might seem exactly like a situation where God hasn’t done anything. But if you have faith in their ability to instantly make God do what they say He should do, that’s not a problem- they say it always works, and that means it always works.

It always works because God is always faithful to His promises - even if you don’t really feel anything - that’s why it’s called “faith.”

 

[cooterhein]

Sounds like you have this “mystical” power to command God to make one a christain just that He is supposed to do it whenever He feels like it.

No, you ask Him to do it. Before God does (or doesn’t do) anything, you can’t guarantee that He will or won’t do it or when He might if He does. You can only pin down a yes/no and “when” (if applicable) once it happens.

What I took issue with was the idea that you could do something at church, and because of your actions, God will infallibly perform a miraculous act upon you (usually without your knowledge) and He will always do it at a particular time- whenever you perform a certain sacrament. What you’re telling me is that you can guarantee that your actions will infallibly lead to a certain act of God at a particular time. I’m saying you can’t do that. You can’t make that guarantee. No one can.

Deflection was probably not the best move there, and it wasn’t a very good one, either.

You seem to beleive that Jesus ordered people to get all wet for no apparent reason.

It’s not your reason, but I’m sure you understand that there’s more options than “What I believe” and “No reason at all.”

The only thing recieved by being baptised is one gets all wet. Why did Jesus command that christians do something aboslutely useless?

Same reason He told all Jewish males to cut off their foreskin? Oh wait, that was so they could avoid getting sand up in there. :bigyikes: Very uncomfortable.

No, seriously though, it wasn’t an exact replacement for circumcision, but it’s done for very similar reasons.

Be honest. Haven’t you had similar thoughts about that? When baby boys are eight days old, you cut a little bit of skin off the penis. Why? Because God commands it. Didn’t that sound kind of funny to you when you first heard it? What’s God going to do with the foreskin, anyway?

Haven’t you ever wondered why YHWH would command that Jews do something absolutely useless like that?

Well, whether you have or haven’t, the question has been asked before and you know the answer to it. Now you’ve asked the same question about baptism, and the answer is basically the same- the only major change is that you replace YHWH with Jesus.

 

[Mikeoffaith]

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

He was an Augustinian Friar.

 

[jmcrae]

He was an Augustinian Friar.

Right - not a Cistercian, meaning he had no authority to ordain anyone to the priesthood or ministry.

 

[jmcrae]

Same reason He told all Jewish males to cut off their foreskin?

Actually, it is the same reason - initiation into His Covenant, and the protection of His grace.

 

[cooterhein]

We know that Jesus commanded the Apostles to baptize “the whole world” (katholikos = “the whole world”; Catholic Church = what came into existence when the Apostles obeyed this commandment to baptize the “katholikos”) - Matthew 28:16ff

Ah, thank you for replying, sir. Jesus did command the Apostles to baptize the whole world…that is, katholikos…ok, not a bad connection. I can at least agree that baptism is an act that marks a believer, although I’d say it’s similar to how circumcision is the mark of God’s chosen people. But you do baptismal regeneration, and I guess that’s not going to stop. So be it; as long as we understand each other.

You’ve “got the reality” but you can’t explain how you know you have it. It isn’t a feeling, it isn’t an event, and it isn’t your trust that God is faithful to His promises when this happens or that happens.

I did say it was an event. I can tell you’re not particularly interested in it, though. Possibly because it doesn’t work out well for you? If you could tell me about a similar event, I’d be happy for you even if it happened when you were baptized.

The Church does not “make” God do anything He has not already promised to do.

You cited a rather specific promise, though. You said God has guaranteed that He will always take action whenever the sacraments are done, and since baptism guarantees regeneration by the Holy Spirit, Catholics (and, according to some of your earlier clarification, all Christians) can know with infallible certitude that God always indwells a person when they are baptized.

Thus, you pick the time and the place, and whenever you decide to do it, that’s when God responds to what you do. You do see how that works, right?

Anyway, all that aside, I will need to see some Catholic sources on this. I know it’s not in the Bible, but I have to make sure this actually is found where you say it’s found. I’ve heard different things from other Catholics- not as much of a guarantee, but more of a normative kind of thing that allows them to believe people like me when I tell them about my life.

Can you demonstrate that the actual Catholic teaching comes down hard on this with some kind of absolute guarantee and that there’s no room for calling it “normative”?

Jesus told the Apostles “Do this” (say the Mass) “in memory of Me.” And the promise is, that the bread is His body, and the chalice is His blood, for the New Covenant.

Again, we disagree on what the promise is.

The difference is, we obey the commandment to “do this” and we believe the promises that He has made for us.

You believe the extra-Biblical promises made on God’s behalf. But extra-Biblical isn’t a big deal for you. The Word of God doesn’t stop there, and you have people in charge of knowing exactly where it stops. I guess you have faith in them too, right? That means you’re not allowed to look at their process?

Protestants say, "Well, He didn’t really mean to “do this” like all the time or anything, and He was only using symbolic language because He knew it would sound good in the KJV Bible

First part’s close enough; second part doesn’t exist anywhere except in your own head. Do me a favor and see if you can get rid of that? You’d be doing yourself a solid, too.

but really, it’s just totally meaningless and shouldn’t be taken seriously at all.

You say so.

Oh, that’s not what you say. That’s like a verbal caricature, right? A quick humorous sketch that’s sufficiently off-topic for you to succeed in making fun of me while minimizing my response. Not bad, not bad. Forum master at work. I guess you’re slightly upset with me. That’s ok. It happens.

It always works because God is always faithful to His promises - even if you don’t really feel anything - that’s why it’s called “faith.”

In this case, you’re not putting your faith directly in God. Again, you’re putting your faith in extra-Biblical testimony from people who speak on behalf of God. Your faith in the promise is only as good as their ability to deliver promises that God actually makes (and your ability to know exactly what they say about the promise, so maybe you can double-check that?). It’s possible that your faith is not well placed because for these promises, it’s not placed directly in God. And if it’s not, you don’t have to feel like you’re unfaithful to God or like you were testing God. That’s not what it is.