The Holy Spirit and Me

"All you need to do," said the Mormon missionary at the door, "Is to pray to the Holy Spirit before you sit down to read the Book of Mormon. Say, 'Open my eyes, my mind, my heart, and if what I read is true, make me realize it in my heart of hearts.'" Then guess what? The new convert says, "I prayed that prayer and as I read my eyes really were opened and I realized that the whole thing was true!!" Gawrsh! Amazing!!

Of course, this is only a short hop from "If you close your eyes and wish hard enough your wish will come true." or "If you believe in fairies clap your hands and Tinkerbell will come back to life..." Nevertheless I have heard this same argument used by Catholics, Evangelicals and other Christians of all stripes. "If you simply pray to the Holy Spirit for guidance" says Brian, my Baptist preacher friend, "and then read the Bible with an open heart you will see that the Catholic Church is in error and my religion is right." Uh huh. My reply was, "Brian--that is exactly what I have been doing for the last twenty years and the Holy Spirit led me to become Catholic."

We have a very individualistic understanding of the Holy Spirit in our individualistic age. It amounts to individual, unique divine inspiration. Each person, filled with the Holy Spirit will "just know" what is true. Hogwash. Every Christian operates within a theological framework. We all select and interpret the Scripture within a particular theological and denominational tradition. We view Scripture through a lens. The Scriptures are filtered and interpreted to us through the extra-Biblical sources that we access--the preaching we hear, the Bible studies we attend, the books on the faith we read, the radio and TV we listen to, the influence of family and friends, the course we take, the conversations we have, the cultural assumptions with which we live. For the non-Catholic this web of 'interpretative authorities' are unacknowledged and even denied. They want to believe that they really do "read the Bible on it's own with an open and sincere heart as led by the Holy Spirit" and that all their views come from this simple, straightforward reading of Scripture. Because they deny the extra-Biblical sources of interpretative authority these sources are even more powerful in their lives.

This is why the Catholic Church insists that an acknowledged, extra-Biblical interpretative authority is necessary. You're going to have such an authority whether you know it or acknowledge it or not. Might as well have one that you know, that you acknowledge; an authority that transcends your own limited time and place and culture, and authority bigger and wiser and smarter and older than you, and one that claims to be directed and guided by the Holy Spirit.

Catholics certainly believe in the individual's infilling with the Holy Spirit, but we hold this in balance with the equally important truth that the Church herself is inspired and filled and guided by the Holy Spirit. The Church is the Body of Christ on earth, and as such is a living, moving, breathing, Spirit filled organism--against which the gates of hell will never prevail. It is this Spirit filled Church which provides the balance and ballast for our own individual experience of the infilling of the Holy Spirit. It is the Spirit-filled Church which provides the correction and qualification of our claims. It is the Spirit-filled Church which validates God's guidance in our lives and it is the Spirit filled lives of the saints, the teaching of the Church and the liturgy of the Church which deepen, broaden, complete and sacramentally seal the personal infilling of the Holy Spirit.

This is why the illustration of Pentecost above is so vivid and real. It shows the descent of the Holy Spirit, and the tongues of flame do indeed touch each individual, but this experience takes place in the context of a temple, the apostolic church gathered together around the Mother of God--and it is only in this fellowship that the individual experience of the Holy Spirit can be objectively validated and confirmed.

Actually, if this argumentation is the result of the submision to Rome then it is an argument against it.

Longenecker seeks to broad brush all non-Catholics together, as if Anglicans are actually pouring over their Bibles, while he equate the pure subjectivism of Mormon proselytism with his former baptist teacher who told him to prayerfully search the Scriptures, and which method he either implicitly sanctions by saying it led him to Rome, or he was led by the Holy Spirit to Rome by the using the same fallible human reasoning he censures as unreliable!

And then in its place and he advocates “one that claims to be directed and guided by the Holy Spirit.” And although this authority can claim more historicity than the Mormonic “living prophet,” its “infallible” interpretation of Scripture, history and tradition are no more open to debate or requires demonstrable Scriptural warrant than theirs are, and in reality its authority rests upon its own proclamation. According to its interpretation, only its interpretation can be right in any conflict.

Thus we are much back to square one, and the assuredly infallible magisterium of Rome can communally but autocratically channel truth just like the autocratic Protestant he characterizes as doing. Except that for Rome this also includes infallibly tweaking the concept of tradition* from what was understood early on, as well as defining “unanimous consent of the Fathers”** to make something much less than that.

The difference here is that the authority of the apostles, who appealed to human consciences by “manifestation of the truth,” (2Cor. 4:2) and who added to a yet open canon, was established by a purity and teaching that conformed that which was written (unlike such things as praying to an heavenly object besides God), with abundant supernatural attestation, (2Cor. 6:1-10; 12:12; Acts 17:2,11; 28:23)and was not based upon formulaic assuredly infallibility.

Ad paradoxically, those who contend for Sola Scriptura will agre that the modern trend toward baptized subjectivism is contrary to Scripture, and that eccelsial community and its magisterium is necessary for perfection, but that only the Scriptures are infallible, and teaching is established as authoritatve by its conformity with Scripture and ts attestation.

*http://www.christiantruth.com/articles/livingtradition.html
**http://www.equip.org/PDF/DC170-3.pdf

Longenecker seeks to broad brush all non-Catholics together, as if Anglicans are actually pouring over their Bibles

1. "Poring" not "pouring."

2. Quit with the broad brush yourself -- many of us Anglicans really do pore over our Bibles.

I agree, though, Longenecker does tend toward the use of broad brushes and strawmen -- I've taken issue on those grounds with several of his previous articles. It kinda makes sense, if this Longenecker is the same guy pamlet knew at Bob Jones University -- the zeal of a convert has to be taken into account.

In his defense, though, Longenecker is correct about the dangers of individual interaction with what one believes to be the Holy Spirit. It's easy to mistake our own desires for the urging of the Holy Spirit. Likewise, we must acknowledge and be wary of Satan's ability to mimic the feel of the Holy Spirit, to lead us astray.

Those are real and serious dangers, and Longenecker is quite correct in stating the need for something outside our personal interaction with Scripture and the Holy Spirit, to ensure that we're not being led astray.

The Church exists to provide that balance, in large part through traditions and teachings that have been guided by the Holy Spirit. That's one of the primary purposes of the Church (denomination carefully not specified), which Jesus Himself instituted.

Longenecker certainly does not claim a Church-only approach; rather, he makes the same basic point: "Catholics certainly believe in the individual's infilling with the Holy Spirit, but we hold this in balance with the equally important truth that the Church herself is inspired and filled and guided by the Holy Spirit."

I don't particularly agree with his assertion that only the Catholic Church is qualified to do that, but I do agree with the general idea of the Church acting as a buffer, and that requires a fair measure of spiritual authority.

The dangers of Churches that emphasize personal relationships (real or perceived) with the Holy Spirit, are reflected in the dizzying number of denominations and ugly schisms among Protestants, that are often driven by personal differences over interpretation of minor points of practice or doctrine -- and those splits are often accompanied by quite un-Christian rancor and outright hatred.

There's probably no one answer, but I think an authoritataive hierarchy is probably necessary. Rome's history shows the dangers of too much concentration of power at the top; contemporary difficulties in the Anglican Communion show the problems with too little central authority.

Well, thanks for the sharp eye on spelling! Now you are making me nervous:). .

And yes i was generalizing about Anglicans, but they are one denom and are quite low in stats on Bible reading*, while non-Catholics are very diverse, and many are not necessarily Protestant, as defined by its core essentials.

But in my correction of his characterization i think i made it clear that those who hold to SS do not negate the need and warrant for the Church and its authority and teaching office. The issue is between an autocratic type which itself is effectively superior authority over the Bible due to its assured infallibly claim, versus one that manifests its subjection to the Scriptures, and its means of establishing doctrine.

As for the divisions, the really ugly ones are caused by carnality, like as was the case in Paul’s day, while men like Wesley and Whitefield - who were strongly opposed to each other on the issue of election (the principal cause of division today) - showed that they could both work, even together, in bringing souls to be saved by the same gospel of the grace of God (versus that souls have truly merited eternal life by those very works which have been done in God).

And today such divisions yet work the same, and evangelicals manifest a remarkable trans-denominational unity of the Spirit, although worldliness is increasing across all denoms, and i must overcome better myself (including news mongering on FR ).

Interesting statistics here: http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/RevealingStatistics.html#Sec4

Fruits of holiness and teaching which corresponds to that which is written is a means of establishing doctrine. If eating meat turned the Christians into savages, as PETA seems to convey it does, then we might be in Juadism.

As for SS being the cause of extensive fragmentation, i do not see that the greater a commitment is to such then the more divided they really are, but it is worth analyzing. I think we need to objectively ask how fragmented they really are, despite their doctrinal differences, and if that is preferable to the unity resulting from implicit trust in an assuredly infallible magisterium.

Ask Christians from S. Baptist, Assemblies of God, Calvary Chapels, and such fund. evang. tryps who emphasize the Bible as the supreme authority and how they were saved, and basic doctrinal questions, and their moral views on principal issues. Then do the same to Catholics and see if you have greater unity. Or look at the evidence from multiple sources. Not only do the former overall to manifest unity on many core issues, and more evidence of commitment, but they seem to show greater ecumenicalism, as they come to Christ the same essential way, and realized certain common effects of Holy Spirit regeneration. I myself have met multitudes of believers from various denominations, and realized an instant and unique basic bond due to such. Of course, not all that is in the garage is a car, and many are superficial, but i became born again as a Catholic, and remained as a active Catholic for 6 years (they are the majority in this area), and i know a vast and positive difference between the two.

If we want to restrict this to official views, Rome has a greater paper unity on the very few things she has officially defined, yet Catholics have differing degrees of freedom to disagree with non-infallible teachings, though there is no unity in Rome on what all the infallible teachings are, while many priests and laity disagree with things they are held as infallible. And rendering something as such does prevent the problem of interpretations. In addition, Catholics regularly split from their church, by most typically going to a evang Protestant denomination, far more than the opposite.

Yet if Rome’s unity on an official level shows the superiority of sola ecclesia (the church is the supreme authority on faith and morals) then it still is not necessarily greater than the unity within one single SS denomination.

And as far as quality is concerned, the greatest unity is found in sola ecclesia type bodies, but overall Rome is inferior in this regard to the unity of the Watchtower society and likely Mormons. And truth requires divisions.

So both evangelicals and RC’s officially hold to core essentials, and their people and clergy can disagrees to different degrees on less clear things, while they both disagree on some important issues.

The question should be asked, why don’t Catholics split more often into divisions and why do those who hold to SS do? I think the answer is that the basic unity of the former is in their identity with the Catholic church as an institution, which provides security, but one that implicitly allows a lot of cafeteria Catholics.

Conversely, what allows the divisions among SS type churches is because their basic unity is in their identity as Biblically based born again Christians, and this security in Christ is not threatened by leaving one church to go to another or start one. And the impetus to do so is a result of commitment to truth, versus a more relaxed attitude toward doctrine.

This all should not minimize the real divisions between SS churches, but i think it also shows a unity than is more powerful than their divisions.

More can be said, but it is late. Have a God night.

Much of the Holy Tradition came from the apostles. So if one believes the Gospels and St. Paul, then one automatically believes in Holy Tradition.

It seems that you are not well acquainted with the real issues in the debate, as the above is not the issue of contention, but whether being the stewards of revelation confers assured formulaic infallibility. Holding to the supremacy of Scripture does not deny that it was and is a form of "tradition," but that the wholly inspired readings became established as such due to their unique and enduring qualities and the Divine attestation afforded them, just as a true man of God was/is. Because God made Himself real to Abraham and he believed, God supernaturally attested to his faith and overall morality, which established him as a friend of God and through whom a holy nation was born.

Moses was established as "the man of God" due to his holiness and faith which conformed to that which was prior testified to, and to whose authority God mightily supernaturally attested to, and who provided the written law (though Rome's scholars typically hold to the liberal JEDP theory, contrary to what is written). This became the standard by which further revelation was examined by, and likewise as these became progressively established as Holy Writ than they became the standard by which other writings were examined and substantiated by, a principle which is never abrogated. (Is. 8:20; Mt. 22:29-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:39,42; Acts 17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Heb. 1, etc.)

By the time of Jesus a distinct body of writing referred to as Scripture was already realized, as is evident by references to the Scriptures, though this was not the result of an infallible magisterium. Later, most of the books of the New Testament were widely accepted as Scripture in a relative short time after they were written, and in the succeeding centuries the only remaining disputed books of were almost exclusively those which were rejected by the Jews, which Trent affirmed as Divine when it provided the “first infallible and effectually promulgated declaration on the Canon of the Holy Scriptures,” (The Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent (Rockford: Tan, 1978), Fourth Session, Footnote #4, p. 17; http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm; cf. New Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. II, Bible, III (Canon), p. 390) though this was not exactly the same canon affirmed by such councils as Carthage, but which ended the debate which went on among Roman Catholic scholars right into Trent. (Hubert Jedin, Papal Legate At The Council Of Trent (St Louis: B. Herder Book Co., 1947), pp. 278, 281-282.“ More .

Such decrees can be surely helpful, but they neither make these writings Scripture nor are the real cause for their enduring volitional acceptance, which is due to their supernatural qualities, and the affirmation God gives to those who trust and obey them. Men may decree what they may, but 1 Co. 4:20 is applicable in principle here, “For the kingdom of God is not in word, but in power." and which establishes both men and writings, although i certainly comes short in what i should/could be.

“In fact the Gospel of John says that not everything is written down. Also one of his letters states a similar line.”

True, and to which i more can be referenced, (2Cor. 12:4 Rev. 10:4, etc.), and SS recognizes that, and that Scripture does not contain all there is to know, as it is not “Solo Scriptura,” but as Scripture is the only objective authority which is affirmed to be wholly inspired of God (2Tim. 3:16) thus it alone as the supremer doctrinal authority. And that it is formally sufficient to provide the Truth needed for salvation and holiness, though the body is needed for that truth to be fully effectually, and which church the Scripture materially provides for.

So if you believe in the Bible then you have to believe in Holy Tradition too because John and others tell us that not everything was written down.

Which is just what the Mormon's love to hear, who also invoke this, and interpret history and tradition as validating them.

The problem here is that, unlike Scripture which is a written revelation, often first coming or being soon expressed in writing, (Ex. 7:14; 31:34; Is. 30:8; Jer. 30:2; 36:2) 2Cor. 13:10; Gal. 1:20; Phil. 3:1; 1Thes. 4:9; 2Thes. 3:17; 1Tim. 3:14; Pt. 3:1; 1Jn. 1:4; Jude. 1:3; Rv. 1:1) oral tradition is a nebulous and potential endless source, while for a magisterial office to equate it with Scripture effectively adds to a closed canon, and renders the magister an assuredly infallible and supreme authority over both. Surely the nebulous should judged by the material of God, as God manifested Himself to and as man, and also appealed to Scripture as superior to the Jewish magisterium which presumed to teach unScriptural doctrine. (Mk. 7:6-13; Mt. 22)

The problem then goes back to authority. To reiterate, the authority of men Jesus and the apostles — who added new teachings to an open canon and affirmed that which was establish as Scripture — was established by a holiness and doctrine which conformed to that which was prior established as Scripture, and was mightily attested to by supernatural means. Rome's authority is essentially based upon a claim to formulaic infallibility, that she is speaking infallibility when addressing the whole church, in union with the pope, and which renders her very decree to be infallible, and its criteria infallible. She can claim a Scriptural basis in seeking to justify herself to others, while disallowing that assurance can be had by this means, (contra. 2Tim. 3:15; 1Jn. 3:19; 5:13) but an infallible decree renders her immune to correction, and once one is persuaded to assent to Rome, then implicit trust in her is required. And are admonished against objectively examining what Rome has so defined in order to ascertain its truthfulness, and are also warned about listening to those without (and one time were forbidden to debate.)

“having discovered the authority established by God, you must submit to it at once. There is no need of further search for the doctrines contained in the Christian Gospel, for the Church brings them all with her and will teach you them all.” Henry G. Graham, "What Faith Really Means"

"The intolerance of the Church toward error, the natural position of one who is the custodian of truth, her only reasonable attitude makes her forbid her children to read or to listen to heretical controversy, or to endeavor to discover religious truths by examining both sides of the question." “The reason of this stand of his is that, for him, there can be no two sides to a question which for him is settled; for him, there is no seeking after the truth: he possesses it in its fulness, as far as God and religion are concerned. “The reason of this stand of his is that, for him, there can be no two sides to a question which for him is settled; for him, there is no seeking after the truth: he possesses it in its fulness, as far as God and religion are concerned. were actually once forbidden to engage in debate.” (John H. Stapleton, Explanation of Catholic Morals, Chapter xxiii. the consistent believer (1904); Nihil Obstat. Remy Lafort, Censor Librorum. Imprimatur, John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York)

And once you see yourself as assuredly infallible, you tend to go to further excesses if not restrained. Regarding such, Cardinal Avery Dulles stated that “The interpretation given to infallibility in the present document [Mysterium Ecclesiae] is not something that can plausibly be ascribed to churchmen of the early centuries.”

Sorry if this is too long, but it is a critical foundational issue, and i think it should be comprehensible.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.