Posted on 01/04/2019 8:20:14 AM PST by Salvation
Rest on Flight to Egypt, by Caravaggio (1597)
At Christmas we celebrate the Word becoming Flesh, but what does this mean for us today? Fundamentally, it means that our faith is about things that are tangible. As human beings, we have bodies. We have a soul that is spiritual, but it is joined with a body that is physical and material. Hence, it is never enough for our faith to be only about thoughts, philosophies, concepts, or ideas. Their truth must touch the physical part of who we are. Our faith must become flesh; it has to influence our behavior. If that is not the case, then the Holy Spirit, speaking through John, has something to call us: liars!
Therefore, away with sophistry, rationalizations, and intentions. Our faith must become flesh in the way we act and move. God’s love for us in not just a theory or idea. It is a flesh and blood reality that can be seen, heard, and touched. The Word of God and our faith cannot simply remain on the pages of a book or in the recesses of our intellect. They must leap off the pages of the Bible and the Catechism and become flesh in the way we live our life, in the decisions we make, and in the way we use our body, mind, intellect, and will.
Consider the following passage from the liturgy of the Christmas Octave:
The way we may be sure that we know Jesus is to keep his commandments. Whoever says, “I know him,” but does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him. But whoever keeps his word, the love of God is truly perfected in him. This is the way we may know that we are in union with him: whoever claims to abide in him ought to walk just as he walked (1 John 2:3ff).
Note some teachings that follow from it:
Faith is incarnational. What a practical man John is! Faith is not an abstraction; it is not merely about theories and words on a page. It is about a transformed life; it is about truly loving God and making His commandments manifest in the way we live. It is about loving our neighbor. True faith is incarnational. That is to say, it takes on flesh in our very “body.”
Too many people spout the phrase, “I’ll be with you in spirit.” Perhaps an occasional absence is understandable but after a while the phrase rings hollow. Showing up physically and doing what we say is an essential demonstration of our sincerity. We are body persons and our faith must include a physical, flesh-and-blood dimension.
Keeping the commandments is a sure sign. John said that The way we may be sure that we know Jesus is to keep his commandments. Now be careful of the logic here. The keeping of the commandments is not the cause of faith; it is the fruit of it. It is not the cause of love; it is its fruit.
In Scripture, “knowing” refers to than an intellectual understanding. It refers to deep, intimate, personal experience of the thing or person. It is one thing to know about God; it is quite to “know the Lord.”
In this passage, John is saying that in order to be sure we have deep, intimate, personal experience of God, we must change the way we live. An authentic faith, an authentic knowing of the Lord, will change our behavior in such a way that we keep the commandments as a fruit of that authentic faith and relationship with Him. It means that our faith becomes flesh in us. Theory becomes practice and experience. It changes the way we live and move and have our being.
For a human being, faith cannot be a mere abstraction. In order to be authentic, it must become flesh and blood. In a later passage, John uses the image of walking: This is the way we may know that we are in union with him: whoever claims to abide in him ought to walk just as he walked (1 John 2:6). Although walking is a physical activity, it is also symbolic. The very place we take our body is physical, but it is also indicative of what we value, what we think.
Liars – John went on to say, Whoever says, “I know him,” but does not keep his commandments is a liar. This is strong language! Either we believe and thus keep the commandments, or we are lying about really knowing the Lord and we fail to keep the commandments.
Don’t all of us struggle to keep the commandments fully? John seems so “all or nothing” in his words, but his point is clear. To know the Lord fully is never to sin (cf 1 John 3:9). If we know him imperfectly, we still experience sin. Hence, the more we know him (remember the definition of “know”) the less we sin. If we still sin, it is a sign that we do not know Him enough.
It is not really John who speaks too absolutely; it is we who do so. We say things like “I have faith,” “I am a believer,” “I love the Lord,” and “I know the Lord.” Perhaps we would be more accurate if we said, “I am growing in faith,” “I am striving to be a better believer,” or “I’m learning to love and know the Lord better and better.” If we do not, then we risk lying. Faith is something we grow in.
Many in the Protestant tradition reduce faith to an event such as answering an altar call or accepting Christ as “personal Lord and savior.” We Catholics do it too. Many Catholics think that all they need to do is be baptized; they don’t bother to attend Mass faithfully as time goes on. Others claim to be “loyal” even “devout” Catholics yet dissent from important Church teachings. Faith is about more than membership. It is about the way we walk, the decisions we make.
Without this harmony between faith and action, we live a lie. We lie to ourselves and to others. The bottom line is that if we really come to know the Lord more and more perfectly, we will grow in holiness, keep the commandments, and be of the mind of Christ. We will walk just as Jesus walked and our claim to have faith will be the truth, not a lie.
Faith and works cannot be separated. This passage does not claim that salvation is by works alone. The keeping of the commandments is not the cause of saving or of real faith. Properly understood, the keeping of the commandments is the result of saving faith actively present and working within us. It indicates that the Lord is saving us from sin and its effects.
The Protestant tradition erred in dividing faith and works. In the 16th century, Protestants claimed that we are saved by “faith alone.” Faith is never alone. It always brings effects with it.
Our brains can get in the way here and tempt us to think that just because we can distinguish or divide something in our mind we can do so in reality, but that is not always the case.
Consider, for a moment, a flame. It has the qualities of heat and light. We can separate the two in our mind but not in reality. I could never take a knife and divide the heat of the flame from its light. They are so interrelated as to be one reality. Yes, heat and light in a flame are distinguishable theoretically, but they are always together in reality.
This is how it is with faith and works. Faith and works are distinguishable theoretically, but the works of true faith and faith itself are always together in reality. We are not saved by works alone or by faith alone; they are together. John teaches here that knowing the Lord by living faith is always accompanied by keeping the commandments and walking as Jesus did.
Therefore, faith is incarnational. The Word became flesh and dwelt among us, really and physically. Similarly, our own faith must become flesh in us, in our actual behavior.
Enjoy this incarnational Christmas carol:
Verbum caro factum est The Word was made flesh
Porque todos hos salveis. for the salvation of you all.
Y la Virgen le dezia: And the Virgin said unto him:
‘Vida de la vida mia, ‘Life of my life,
Hijo mio, ¿que os haria, what would I [not] do for you, my Son?
Que no tengo en que os echeis?’ Yet I have nothing on which to lay you down.’
O riquezas terrenales, O worldly riches,
¿No dareis unos pañales will you not give some swaddling clothes
A Jesu que entre animals to Jesus who is born among the animals
Es nasçido segun veis? as you can see?
Reading some of these historical evidences of various Catholics doing their thing is a way to understand just what Catholicism is capable of.
I assume you are now going to expound on the DIFFERENCES found in today's Catholic schisms and sects?
I don't know WHY our FR Catholics have no assurance of heaven...
You nailed it, sister.
I don’t either bro. I surely have assurance of Heaven. If others don’t, that’s on them. 😁
While using whatever Catholics place under the big Unitarian/Scientology/Swedenborgian/Mormonic;Baptist/etc. tent called Protestantism in comparison with Catholicism with her various various flavors of Catholics is an invalid comparison, the fact is that both early historical Protestantism and evangelicalism overall preaches that "both good deeds and faith in God are needed to get into heaven" - meaning a living effectual faith is that which justifies. And evangelicals are the ones who must evidence that, as compared to Catholic s.
No less a historical document on SS and Sola fide than the Westminster confession states that faith,
yet it is not alone in the person justified, but is ever accompanied with all other saving graces, and is no dead faith, but works by love. - Westminster Confession of Faith, CHAPTER XI. Of Justification
Luther himself in sermons rejected the idea that a faith which did not effect characteristic obedience was salvific, stating,
You mean the same scribes and pharisees that Jesus called hypocrites and white washed tombs full of dead men's bones?
Do Catholics?
And as for Protestants, no we don't do everything the scribes and pharisees bid us to observe and do. For one thing, we are no longer under the Law. It's not a requirement for Christians.
Another is that that was the priestly system of Judaism. That does not apply to Christians. Matter of fact, God did away with it and had the Temple destroyed on top of it, to prevent any further practice of it.
And none of that is still any excuse to ignore the clear concise command of Jesus to not call religious leaders by the title *Father*, as the context VERY CLEARLY shows.
All this nonsense that we keep hearing spouted about *Well, kids call their fathers *Dad* and Paul called himself a father to others* is nothing more than rationalization to disobey Jesus.
It's a very weak argument to that has been used too many times to rationalize disobedience.
So instead of excusing doing it, why doesn't Roman Catholicism demand that it's membership not use the word at all, instead of demanding they use it and rationalize it away?
RCs themselves actually have a great deal of liberty to (abuse) interpret Scripture within the Catholic parameters, seeing as there is no official commentary on the whole Bible (and the CCC hardly suffices for that).
And requiring notes in official RC Bibles has resulted in decades of many liberal interpretations , as said.
And dispensing with the fallacy that whatever fits under the tent called "Protestantism" examples what SS , with its accompanying view of Scripture, results in, the reality is that those who most strongly hold to the authority and integrity of Scripture as the accurate and wholly inspired word of God testify to being far more unified in basic beliefs than those who Rome manifestly considers members in life and in death.
And unlike us, you must consider them to be your brethren if Rome manifestly does. And yet RCs insist we should leave our conservative evangelical fellowships and join this unholy amalgamation
Who do those two YOPIOSers go to to truly determine which of those two opposing interpretations of Scripture is correct, and the truth?
Well, as RCs are to submit to a limited scope of basic beliefs, so this is essentially require in conservative evangelical churches, while both can disagree on many things.
A known proabortion, prohomosexual public figure with their spin on Scripture s far far more likely to call Rome their home than a evangelical church, who are considered religious enemy #1 by both liberals and trad. Catholics. And who then play victim when reproved for their promotions and defense of Mother Church.
In addition, contrary to the false version of SS that Catyhs rely on, in which only the Bible is to be used, and nothing more is needed at all, inn historical Protestantism no less that the Westminster Confession affirmed,
“It belongs to synods and councils, ministerially to determine controversies of faith..and authoritatively to determine the same; which decrees and determinations, if consonant to the Word of God, are to be received with reverence and submission,” (Chapter XXXI)
Now the questions for you are,
1. Can common souls ascertain which writings are of God, or must the historical magisterium do this in order for an authoritative body of wholly God-inspired writings to be established?
2. Can itinerant preachers, not ordained by the historical magisterium and even sometimes reproving the same, be correctly ascertained by the people as being valid ministers of God, or must they be ordained by and faithful to the valid historical magisterium
3. If the answer to the above is that they can be, on what basis can these preachers be ascertained by the people as being valid ministers of God, if not upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power?
On further reflection on your emotive charge, rather than my use here of my standard practice on my initial post to a thread of pinging those who wanted to be pinged to threads as this being because I cannot handle the likes of you by myself (ask your cohorts), it is fitting that they be invited to Catholic threads that attack Protestantism. Especially seeing as as multitudes of Catholics are pinged to such (see post #2), and in responding to which the very few evangelicals who respond may be of some help, and which you should welcome under the premise that we are the ones so hopelessly divided (and we do disagree on some things).
However, the list mainly serves as inviting witnesses to to the reproof of Catholic propaganda, and which ping list is a missing feature on most forums. Such as one where for as number of days i have, by the grace of God, been countering atheists and liberals who also attack evangelicals, though in this case I presume it is on an issue you also concur.
“Amen! Isn’t it funny how some RC “apologists” trot out the straw man of “Protestants don’t all agree with each other on...”, when the SAME thing can be said of Roman Catholics? ”
Most don’t even agree with their “pope.”
“And when two people interpret the Scriptures in contradictory, mutually exclusive ways, (as often happens, such as the question involving whether or not the Scriptures still prohibit active homosexuality), which of those two biblical interpretations is right, and why?”
Indeed.why does the Roman “magisterium” oppose homosexuality, while the Vatican, seminaries, Cardinals, and bishops make Roman Catholicism into the gayest of gay and abusive churches??
Which is correct and why??
But Teddy K Catholics were given strong assurance that such will make it to Heaven. Now you sound like one of those Reformers.
faith and good works should be so closely joined together that the essence of the entire Christian life consists in both.
Oh, afvet isn’t one of the Reformers. He was just quoting me from upthread in his attempt to argue that works earn salvation.
Still kinda sad.
Or Paul
I write not these things to shame you, but as my beloved sons I warn you. (1 Corinthians 4:14) For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel. (1 Corinthians 4:15) To Timothy, my dearly beloved son: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord. (2 Timothy 1:2) To Titus, mine own son after the common faith: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ our Saviour. (Titus 1:4) I beseech thee for my son Onesimus, whom I have begotten in my bonds: (Philemon 10) But ye know the proof of him, that, as a son with the father, he hath served with me in the gospel. (Philippians 2:22)
Also, that "call no man father" reference comes from Matthew 23:9. Just before that, in Matthew 23:2-3, Jesus instructs folks to observe and do whatever the Scribes and Pharisees bid you to observe and do.
Even more contextually, "Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ.? (Matthew 23:10) Yet, "ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him." (Ephesians 6:9) My brethren, be not many masters [instructors], knowing that we shall receive the greater condemnation. For in many things we offend all. If any man offend not in word, the same is a perfect man, and able also to bridle the whole body. (James 3:1-2) What is taught in Matthew 23:1-12 is a comparative form of speech, using hyperbole to denounce love of titles, and instead to exhort aversion to them and to heady exaltation thereby, instead being clothed with humility, taking the lowest place, and focusing on God the Father as the Christ a master. But which does not exclude that such titles as descriptive can be used.
The classic commentator Matthew Poole states,
Ver. 8-10. It is most certain that our Saviour doth not here forbid the giving of the titles of masters and fathers to his ministers, for then Paul would not have given himself the title of father, 1Co_4:15; nor called the Galatians his little children, Gal_4:19: nor called Timothy his son, and himself his father, Phi_2:22; nor called himself a doctor of the Gentiles, 1Ti_2:7 2Ti_1:11. That which he forbids is,
1. An affectation of such titles, and hunting after them.
2. Rem tituli, the exercise of an absolute mastership, or a paternal, absolute power; so as to require any to believe things because they said them, or to do things because they bid them, without seeing the things asserted, or first commanded, in the word of God.
And yet we have such acquisition of such honorary titles as "Doctor of Divinity,” Rev., Right Rev., Lord Bishop etc.. And while "call no man father" is not unconditionally absolute, it has no place as a formal title (nor does "reverend"), any more than calling Mormon leaders "elders" has. For no Cath. priest is my father (though I was baptized by one of my two uncles who were priests), for that act simply does not effect regeneration, which makes a mockery of the Biblical description of it with its basic transformative effects.
Well; Catholics are under Rome's law. It IS a requirement for them!!
Your catechism does NOT say that!
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.