Will the Pope's Pronouncement Set Ecumenism Back a Hundred Years? (Challenge to Apostolicity)

Progressive Theology ^ | July 07

[xzins]

Will the Pope's Pronouncement Set Ecumenism Back a Hundred Years?

Wednesday, 11 July 2007

Yesterday's Reuters headline: "The Vatican on Tuesday said Christian denominations outside the Roman Catholic Church were not full churches of Jesus Christ." The actual proclamation, posted on the official Vatican Web site, says that Protestant Churches are really "ecclesial communities" rather than Churches, because they lack apostolic succession, and therefore they "have not preserved the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic Mystery." Furthermore, not even the Eastern Orthodox Churches are real Churches, even though they were explicitly referred to as such in the Vatican document Unitatis Redintegratio (Decree on Ecumenism). The new document explains that they were only called Churches because "the Council wanted to adopt the traditional use of the term." This new clarification, issued officially by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, but in fact strongly supported by Pope Benedict XVI, manages to insult both Protestants and the Orthodox, and it may set ecumenism back a hundred years.

The new document, officially entitled "Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church," claims that the positions it takes do not reverse the intent of various Vatican II documents, especially Unitatis Redintegratio, but merely clarify them. In support of this contention, it cites other documents, all issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith: Mysterium Ecclesiae (1973), Communionis notio (1992), and Dominus Iesus (2000). The last two of these documents were issued while the current pope, as Cardinal Ratzinger, was prefect of the Congregation. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith was born in 1542 with the name Sacred Congregation of the Universal Inquisition, and for centuries it has operated as an extremely conservative force with the Roman Catholic Church, opposing innovation and modernizing tendencies, suppressing dissent, and sometimes, in its first few centuries, persecuting those who believed differently. More recently, the congregation has engaged in the suppression of some of Catholicism's most innovative and committed thinkers, such as Yves Congar, Hans Küng, Charles Curran, Matthew Fox, and Jon Sobrino and other liberation theologians. In light of the history of the Congregation of the Faith, such conservative statements as those released this week are hardly surprising, though they are quite unwelcome.

It is natural for members of various Christian Churches to believe that the institutions to which they belong are the best representatives of Christ's body on earth--otherwise, why wouldn't they join a different Church? It is disingenuous, however, for the leader of a Church that has committed itself "irrevocably" (to use Pope John Paul II's word in Ut Unum Sint [That They May Be One] 3, emphasis original) to ecumenism to claim to be interested in unity while at the same time declaring that all other Christians belong to Churches that are in some way deficient. How different was the attitude of Benedict's predecessors, who wrote, "In subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the [Roman] Catholic Church--for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame" (Unitatis Redintegratio 3). In Benedict's view, at various times in history groups of Christians wandered from the original, pure Roman Catholic Church, and any notion of Christian unity today is predicated on the idea of those groups abandoning their errors and returning to the Roman Catholic fold. The pope's problem seems to be that he is a theologian rather than a historian. Otherwise he could not possibly make such outrageous statements and think that they were compatible with the spirit of ecumenism that his immediate predecessors promoted.

One of the pope's most strident arguments against the validity of other Churches is that they can't trace their bishops' lineages back to the original apostles, as the bishops in the Roman Catholic Church can. There are three problems with this idea.

First, many Protestants deny the importance of apostolic succession as a guarantor of legitimacy. They would argue that faithfulness to the Bible and/or the teachings of Christ is a better measure of authentic Christian faith than the ability to trace one's spiritual ancestry through an ecclesiastical bureaucracy. A peripheral knowledge of the lives of some of the medieval and early modern popes (e.g., Stephen VI, Sergius III, Innocent VIII, Alexander VI) is enough to call the insistence on apostolic succession into serious question. Moreover, the Avignon Papacy and the divided lines of papal claimants in subsequent decades calls into serious question the legitimacy of the whole approach. Perhaps the strongest argument against the necessity of apostolic succession comes from the Apostle Paul, who was an acknowledged apostle despite not having been ordained by one of Jesus' original twelve disciples. In fact, Paul makes much of the fact that his authority came directly from Jesus Christ rather than from one of the apostles (Gal 1:11-12). Apostolic succession was a useful tool for combating incipient heresy and establishing the antiquity of the churches in particular locales, but merely stating that apostolic succession is a necessary prerequisite for being a true church does not make it so.

The second problem with the new document's insistence upon apostolic succession is the fact that at least three other Christian communions have apostolic succession claims that are as valid as that of the Roman Catholic Church. The Eastern Orthodox Churches, which split from the Roman Catholic Church in 1054, can trace their lineages back to the same apostles that the Roman Catholic Church can, a fact acknowledged by Unitatis Redintegratio 14. The Oriental Orthodox Churches, such as the Coptic and Ethiopic Orthodox Churches, split from the Roman Catholic Church several centuries earlier, but they too can trace their episcopal lineages back to the same apostles claimed by the Roman Catholic Church as its founders. Finally, the Anglican Church, which broke away from the Roman Catholic Church during the reign of King Henry VIII, can likewise trace the lineage of every bishop back through the first archbishop of Canterbury, Augustine. In addition to these three collections of Christian Churches, the Old Catholics and some Methodists also see value in the idea of apostolic succession, and they can trace their episcopal lineages just as far back as Catholic bishops can.

The third problem with the idea of apostolic succession is that the earliest bishops in certain places are simply unknown, and the lists produced in the third and fourth centuries that purported to identify every bishop back to the founding of the church in a particular area were often historically unreliable. Who was the founding bishop of Byzantium? Who brought the gospel to Alexandria? To Edessa? To Antioch? There are lists that give names (e.g., http://www.friesian.com/popes.htm), such as the Apostles Mark (Alexandria), Andrew (Byzantium), and Thaddeus (Armenia), but the association of the apostles with the founding of these churches is legendary, not historical. The most obvious breakdown of historicity in the realm of apostolic succession involves none other than the see occupied by the pope, the bishop of Rome. It is certain that Peter did make his way to Rome before the time of Nero, where he perished, apparently in the Neronian persecution following the Great Fire of Rome, but it is equally certain that the church in Rome predates Peter, as it also predates Paul's arrival there (Paul also apparently died during the Neronian persecution). The Roman Catholic Church may legitimately claim a close association with both Peter and Paul, but it may not legitimately claim that either was the founder of the church there. The fact of the matter is that the gospel reached Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, Edessa, and other early centers of Christianity in the hands of unknown, faithful Christians, not apostles, and the legitimacy of the churches established there did not suffer in the least because of it.

All the talk in the new document about apostolic succession is merely a smokescreen, however, for the main point that the Congregation of the Faith and the pope wanted to drive home: recognition of the absolute primacy of the pope. After playing with the words "subsists in" (Lumen Gentium [Dogmatic Constitution on the Church] 8) and "church" (Unitatis Redintegratio 14) in an effort to make them mean something other than what they originally meant, the document gets down to the nitty-gritty. "Since communion with the Catholic Church, the visible head of which is the Bishop of Rome and the Successor of Peter, is not some external complement to a particular Church but rather one of its internal constitutive principles, these venerable Christian communities lack something in their condition as particular churches." From an ecumenical standpoint, this position is a non-starter. Communion with Rome and acknowledging the authority of the pope as bishop of Rome is a far different matter from recognizing the pope as the "visible head" of the entire church, without peer. The pope is an intelligent man, and he knows that discussions with other Churches will make no progress on the basis of this prerequisite, so the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the pope, despite his protestations, has no interest in pursuing ecumenism. Trying to persuade other Christians to become Roman Catholics, which is evidently the pope's approach to other Churches, is not ecumenism, it's proselytism.

Fortunately, this document does not represent the viewpoint of all Catholics, either laypeople or scholars. Many ordinary Catholics would scoff at the idea that other denominations were not legitimate Churches, which just happen to have different ideas about certain topics and different ways of expressing a common Christianity. Similarly, many Catholic scholars are doing impressive work in areas such as theology, history, biblical study, and ethics, work that interacts with ideas produced by non-Catholic scholars. In the classroom and in publications, Catholics and non-Catholics learn from each other, challenge one another, and, perhaps most importantly, respect one another.

How does one define the Church? Christians have many different understandings of the term, and Catholics are divided among themselves, as are non-Catholics. The ecumenical movement is engaged in addressing this issue in thoughtful, meaningful, and respectful ways. Will the narrow-minded view expressed in "Responses" be the death-knell of the ecumenical movement? Hardly. Unity among Christians is too important an idea to be set aside. Will the document set back ecumenical efforts? Perhaps, but Christians committed to Christian unity--Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant alike--will get beyond it. The ecumenical movement is alive and well, and no intemperate pronouncement from the Congregation of the Faith, or the current pope, can restrain it for long. Even if ecumenism, at least as it involves the Roman Catholic Church's connection with other Churches, is temporarily set back a hundred years, that distance can be closed either by changes of heart or changes of leadership.

[Cronos]

The problem is that the term "Protestant" is too generic --> when we say "Catholic" or "Orthodox", we know what that means. But "Protestant" include Anglicans, Lutherans, Baptists, Congregationalists, Wesleyans, The First Assembly of God, etc. etc. -- a whole mess of different men's ideas here and there.

For someone from The Apostolic Churches, it's a confusing mess, we hear even Unitarians, Jehoivah's Witnesses, Christian Scientists, Mormons etc. called Protestants.

[Cronos]

I AM the church...

that's incorrectly put. A Christian is PART of The Church which is the community of believers in Christ and His teachings.

[wardaddy]

ya’’l still at it?

anyone figure out yet if Catholics pray to Mary and the saints or just talk to them?

that was the big question mark when I checked out back a few thousand replies back

;>)

[fortheDeclaration]

1 John 5:7 and a small portion of 8 are textual additions by a scribe. They were discovered and usually included by footnote or italicized to show it was not in the earliest manuscripts, similar to Mark 16:9-20. The evidence of the Holy Spirit’s safekeeping God’s word is the just this kind of comparing scripture to the earliest fragments and winnowing out the additions. The same can’t be said of man’s traditions or liturgy which change over time.

Both 1 John 5:7 and Mark 16:9-20 are scripture and do belong in the Canon.

Now, if you would like to go into the evidence for both, I would be happy to do so.

The fact that both are in the King James Bible shows that God has prevented substraction from His word as well as additions (e.g. Apocrypha books)

[fortheDeclaration]

There's always been a question about the insertion of half that verse. It doesn't bother me one way or the other since there are many other verses in Scripture that speak to the truth of the Trinity. Next to justification by Christ's sacrifice alone, I don't think there's any doctrine in Scripture as important and necessary to understand than the Trinity. Without it we are not Christians. So if someone chose to stress that point, I don't think it's so egregious. Nothing in the rest of 1 John 5 contradicts the verses. In fact, it supports them. Let's ask forthedeclaration. What do you think about 1 John 5:7-8, ftd?

1Jn.5:7 is definitely part of scripture.

Michael Maynard summarized a list of manuscripts that did not omit the verse, including: "at least four Old Latin manuscripts, over eight Church Fathers (including Cyprian who died A.D. 258), four Syriac editions, Slavic and Armenian manuscripts, over 600 distinct editions of the Textus Receptus from 1522 to 1881, 18 pre-Lutheran Bibles, and thousands of Vulgate manuscripts. Among Greek manuscripts which do omit this verse, 97% are late manuscripts, dated from the 10th century and later."1

http://av1611.com/kjbp/ridiculous-kjv-bible-corrections/1-John-5-7-Scams.html

Moreover, the Greek itself demands verse 7 to make sense in Greek!

The reason it is missing from most of the Byzantine manuscripts is because the Byzantine Church was fighting the heresy of Saballanism (God being only one, manifested in three persons).

So, it is likely that 'well meaning' scribes removed that verse since it emphasized the 'oneness' of the Godhead.

The Western Church on the other hand had to battle for Christ's equality with the Father against Arianism.

Thus, they preserved 1Jn.5:7 in the Old Latin and in the Patristic writings.

[fortheDeclaration]

But I submit to you that when you read KJV, for example, you will not know that part of 1 John 5:7-8 is a fraud (in red letters). You will read it and accept it as "inspired" word of God. For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one—1 John 5:7–8 aka Comma Johanneum The fact is that this is a later addition, penned by someone other then the author of 1 John. There are other such examples throughout the Bible, all of which point to the conclusion that we really don't know what we are reading because what we are reading may not have been said by Christ or was added at some point by someone other than the inspired author.

Gee, aren't you Greek Orthodox guys the ones who use the Koine Greek?

So, if verse 7 is missing from the passage there is a real problem with the Greek.

The strongest evidence, however, is found in the Greek text itself. Looking at 1 John 5:8, there are three nouns which, in Greek, stand in the neuter (Spirit, water, and blood). However, they are followed by a participle that is masculine. The Greek phrase here is oi marturountes (who bare witness). Those who know the Greek language understand this to be poor grammar if left to stand on its own. Even more noticeably, verse six has the same participle but stands in the neuter (Gk.: to marturoun). Why are three neuter nouns supported with a masculine participle? The answer is found if we include verse seven. There we have two masculine nouns (Father and Son) followed by a neuter noun (Spirit). The verse also has the Greek masculine participle oi marturountes. With this clause introducing verse eight, it is very proper for the participle in verse eight to be masculine because of the masculine nouns in verse seven. But if verse seven were not there it would become improper Greek grammar.

http://members.aol.com/DrTHolland/Chapter8.html

[fortheDeclaration]

Mark 16:9-20

This passage is referred to as the longer ending of Mark. Many textual critics doubt its authenticity, believing it was an addition made in the second century. It often appears in modern versions in brackets with footnotes questioning its authenticity. [Kurt and Barbara Aland, The Text Of The New Testament, 2nd ed., trans. Erroll F. Rhodes (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989), 232.] Most textual scholars believe that the text abruptly ends after verse eight. Even the so-called shorter ending that is added after verse eight is considered to have originated in the second century. The shorter ending reads:

“But they reported briefly to Peter and those with him all that they had been bold. And after this, Jesus himself sent out by means of them, from east to west, the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation.” [Revised Standard Version, footnote]

Most scholars believe the original ending to Mark’s Gospel has been lost. [Metzger, 105. Dr. Metzger footnotes the following regarding the ending of Mark. “Three possibilities are open: (a) the evangelist intended to close his Gospel at this place; or (b) the Gospel was never finished; or, as seems most probable, (c) the Gospel accidentally lost its last leaf before it was multiplied by transcription.”] If this is true, the concept of preserving the words of Scripture is forever annihilated. The words cannot be preserved and lost at the same time. However, textual scholars usually call for its inclusion even if they question its originality. Dr. Bruce Metzger departs from the maxim of modern textual critics, Brevior lectio potior (the shorter reading is preferable), and supports the longer ending even though admittedly he does not regard the passage as genuine. He considers it to be a legitimate part of the New Testament because of its traditional significance to the body of Christendom. [Bruce Metzger, Christian History (interview with Dr. Metzger downloaded from Christian History Magazine, America Online, 9/17/96).] The passage is not contained in the Alexandrian texts, minuscule 2386, the Syrian Sinaitic Version, and a few other translations.

However, it is in most of the Greek uncials (A, C, D05, K, X, D, Q, and P) dating between the fifth and ninth centuries. It is also contained in the later dated Greek minuscules (such as 137, 138, 1110, 1210, 1215, 1216, 1217, 1221, and 1582). It is the reading found in the majority of Old Latin texts as well as the Coptic versions and other early translations. Finally, it is cited (at least in part) by many of the early church fathers such as Justin (165 AD), Tertullian (220 AD), Hippolytus (235 AD), Ambrose (397 AD) and Augustine (430 AD). [John William Burgon, The Revision Revised (Paradise, PA: Conservative Classics, 1883), 422-423. Burgon also supplies additional names of church fathers who support the reading.]

In 177 AD Irenaeus wrote Against Heresies. In it he cites from Mark 16:19, establishing that the longer reading was in existence at this time and was considered canonical, at least by Irenaeus:

“Also, towards the conclusion of his Gospel, Mark says: “So then, after the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, He was received up into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God;” confirming what had been spoken by the prophet: “The LORD said to my Lord, Sit Thou on My right hand, until I make Thy foes Thy footstool.” Thus God and the Father are truly one and the same; He who was announced by the prophets, and handed down by the true Gospel; whom we Christians worship and love with the whole heart, as the Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things therein.” (3:10:5).

The difference here is extremely important. If we conclude that this passage is not authentic, then we must question what happened to the original ending of Mark. It is not logical that the Gospel would end at this place so abruptly. Nor is it likely, as some scholars have suggested, that the Gospel was never finished, calling biblical inspiration into question. The conclusion held by most textual scholars, whether liberal or conservative, that the original ending has been lost over the passage of time certainly denies the doctrine of biblical preservation. If we allow that a passage of inspired Scripture has been lost from this section of the Bible, what stops us from making the same application to other passages? It is certainly within the realm of scholastic studies to note any and all textual differences. But once we open the possibility that this or that passage has been lost, we are now trusting in the understanding of men over the biblical promises of God. Certainly it is better to embrace the textual evidence and hold to the promise of preservation.

http://members.aol.com/DrTHolland/Chapter8.html

[Forest Keeper]

I'm sorry for my delay.

No problem, as you can see I am pretty good at falling behind myself. :)

FK: "...if God's plan is micro specific, as I suspect it is, then human free will would be a problem."

Only if God's omniscience is not "micro specific."

But if omniscience is not accompanied by causation, then God's plan is wholly dependent on chance and circumstance. I don't see how God could actually get everything He wants, if man is really in control of things down here on earth. Necessary conditions are simply not perpetual if chance governs.

FK: "Now, what if God "needs" a particular pair to get together for His purposes?"

If creation did not meet his purposes, He would have a different creation. He foreknew whether this particular pair would get together or not.

OH!, well THAT would be very different. :) If God creates in a specific way to get His plan accomplished then we are in perfect agreement. I would call that "interference" and "causation" but if you don't that's OK. At least we agree then.

Knowing - microknowing if you wish - what the result of allowing free will would be God created man with free will.

As long as God created in a specific way to get what He wanted, and man was not free to thwart God's will within time because the individual was created just so, then we are coming to the same end from different directions. That is perfectly fine with me. Free will discussions often wind up like this. :)

[Cronos]

there are Lutherans who are Christians

You're right. I think all Christians should also stand by our brethern with some sections wanting to drag the ELCA down the path of the ECUSA.

We all should also stand together to support our Christian brethern in Iraq (the Assyrian Church, an Oriental Church along with the Chaldean Church is being persecuted horribly)

[Cronos]

in communion and ruled by the Pope

Sticking to that section of your sentence alone, you're wrong -- the Eastern Catholic Churchs are not "ruled" by the Pope in any way, their Patriarchs are EQUALS of the Roman Bishop.

[Cronos]

No, a heretic is following a false god.

Not really, a heretic gives a wrong "understanding" of God. Like the Arians who believed in God and Jesus Christ (TRUE GOD) but their understanding (that Christ was created by God and was an inferior demi-god) was wrong. THat's the fallacy behind individual interpretation.

What is bad is that Arius made that wrong interpretation and then led others to believe that as the truth, AGAINST the councils

[Cronos]

The scriptures were preserved not because of YOUR CHURCH, but because God preserved

That reminds me of the old joke of a man stuck on his rooftop during the floods in New Orleans. First a raft comes and offers to save him, but he says "My God will save me, go away.". Then a boat comes and gets the same response. Finally a helicopter comes and the man is waist deep but still refuses. Finally, the man dies.

when he reaches heaven, he rushes to God and says "Why didn't you save me?' and God says "Billy! I sent two boats and a chopper...."

[.30Carbine]

It is by the leading of the Holy Spirit that we are drawn into a fuller, more personal understanding of God's Revelations and their meaning for our life, now and eternally....

Bumping your loveliness!

[D-fendr]

Thanks for your reply. I'm hoping you're far enough behind that I can take a rest after this lengthy reply to yours.

we are coming to the same end from different directions. That is perfectly fine with me. Free will discussions often wind up like this.

If discussed calmly and intelligently, I've noticed that too. It shouldn't surprise since we're discussing something we have direct experience with - it's in the abstractions and redifinings and speculative systems with special vocabularies that things fly off into contrariness.

God created in a specific way to get what He wanted

God is sovereign, omnipotent and omniscient is a sufficient premise.

man was not free to thwart God's will within time

God is sovereign, omnipotent and omniscient and created man with free will is sufficient. [Else you're leading toward Man's will=God's will, unless you speculate more on God's methodology or derive a term of art for what precisely "thwart God's will without Man's will=God's will" means.]

because the individual was created just so

Unnecessary given the previous and misleading into more speculation about God's methods.

Hoping not to spoil the mood of your agreement with my previous point.. :)

It's important, very important IMHO, to resist the temptation to define God as we would a man with a plan, as "me" if I were God. We do not know God as a man; as man we can only "define" God so far. Much less than we commonly do. We end up doing such things as descibing moods of God, changes in God's mood, variations in his treatment of individuals, assigning specific reasons that God did this and that and such.

God is neither completely knowable or completely unknowable. We can know that He is One, is ineffable, eternal, uncreated, unchangeable, invariable, incorporeal, invisible, infinite, good, just, creator of all things created, omnipotent, omniscient, sovereign, judge, love..

So we can say a lot about God, but not that he thinks like we do. That he rules like we would, that he judges like we would and so on.

The problem I see with systematic theologies such as Calvinism is they read like they were written for the legal profession - and a noble profession it is; however, there's too much system, too much construct to fit man's mind of how all the pieces must fit - and all the pieces MUST fit. They're too humanized and speculative.

We cannot know the mind of God, else He would not be God.

[Forest Keeper]

FK: "... no one should struggle to merit his way into Heaven."

Perhaps you should read the lives of the Martyrs and Saints and you will see that they DID struggle to merit their way to heaven.

As you are doubtless aware, the issue of whether we can merit our own salvations is among the most contentious of issues between Apostolics and Protestants. My soteriology is based on what I consider to be inarguable, rock solid scriptural truths that all say that salvation is by grace and not earned through works (Eph. 2:8-9, and many others). I realize that Apostolics look strongly to James for scriptural support that free will works are required to merit salvation, but is there any indication within Tradition as to how many or what quality of works are required to be "enough" to get in?

I'm just trying to imagine myself as a person with this view, and since I would be very interested in getting into Heaven I would want to know what exactly I had to do. For example, would minding my own business and basically being a decent person, and following the sacraments, etc. be "good enough", or would it be more than that? I don't think any Catholic would say that we have to go through what the martyrs did to get in :), but there has to be a line somewhere, and I'm just trying to get a handle on where that line is.

I wish you a Blessed Evening!

Thank you. And, because of my unfortunate delay, I wish you a Blessed Morning! :)

[Forest Keeper]

I need to take these out of order on this one.

But it was FK who said that the Spirit has to come in before you can pray to Jesus. Man has to come to realization that there may be God, that He may exist before he can even decide if he will accept it or reject it.

I clarified the difference between "touch" and "indwell". The Spirit does not actually indwell until formal belief because the Spirit is a seal of something that has already taken place. But the Spirit DOES touch us and move us first to come to belief.

If God changes you to believe, then the faith you have is not your faith. You are brainwashed into believing.

Of course it's your faith, God gave it to you. And He doesn't take it back, either. Plus, when you think about it, is "brainwashing" really such a bad term in this context? :) I mean, were our brains "clean" before we came to Christ? NO, of course not, they were filthy and full of sin. God "washed" them and then we believed. That's really what Eze. 36:26-27 says.

[redgolum]

First of all, this thread is still going??!!!

Second, in the Catholic Church, the Pope has supremacy. The bishops and patriarchs of the Eastern rites can be replaced by the Pope at any time. This hasn’t been done very often, as the agreements are that those rites have a a large measure of autonomy.

[Alamo-Girl]

God's Revelations to us are four in number; and Truth cannot contradict Truth. In these Revelations, He tells us of Himself "truly, but not exhaustively." It is by the leading of the Holy Spirit that we are drawn into a fuller, more personal understanding of God's Revelations and their meaning for our life, now and eternally....

Amen! Praise God!!!

Thank you so very much for all of your insights, dearest sister in Christ!

[Alamo-Girl]

I would say challenge the Holy Spirit yourself to reveal himself.. He will not smush you.. honest.. He will be as real to you as you are with him.. Proof is available.. Go get it..

Indeed. Thank you so very much for all your insights, dear brother in Christ!

[Alamo-Girl]

your argument is the exact same one the atheist makes -- "prove it."

LOLOL! You and I picked up on the same thing in our replies.

Thank you so very much for sharing your insights, dear sister in Christ!