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?
Sorry I gave you too many words for you to handle there, Elsie. In the future, I'll try to make the posts shorter, so the volume of words won't overwhelm you like that. (That helps to explain the difficulties with biblical interpretation your posts so often display. The volume of words in the Bible must totally pulverize you, in your quest to comprehend the truths "buried" there.)
That is another stinking, bald-faced lie from your typing fingers, Mr. Elsie. I NEVER ignore the words of Jesus, and you should be thoroughly ashamed for typing that filthy, disgusting, damnable lie. (You forgot to add, "Thank you, father of all lies" for your totally false and contemptible post content there.)
I prayerfully study ALL the words of Jesus, and I interpret them correctly (exactly like the Apostle Paul did, when he also called a man father in Romans 4:11-12). Your own interpretion obviously does not jive with the interpretation displayed by the Apostle Paul and the Holy Spirit, in that text in Romans 4:11-12, no matter how, or how often, you try to obfuscate it.
Now, to address your other points, that's pretty weird, boatbums, that you think that is creepy to tell the truth about something. I didn't say anything that was false, and I didn't say anything at all about Elsie being a homosexual. That "homosexual" term came completely, 100% from your own mind, boatbums, so you might want to more closely examine your own strange thoughts, before you begin throwing despicably false stones at others.
I just pointed out the 100% honest truth that a male poster here uses a female screen name (Elsie). Do you deny that simple truth, boatbums? Do you have a problem with hearing the truth, boatbums? Do you prefer to hide the truth, boatbums?
Do you have a problem with reading that Bible text, Deuteronomy 22:5, boatbums? Does your Bible also contain the many texts that tell you (via St. Paul and others) that we Christians should admonish one another, when we think it is possibly needed, boatbums, as the Holy Spirit says that is the right thing to do? Do you really believe those texts are the inspired Word of God, boatbums?
Quite frankly, I believe YOU should apologize, boatbums, for falsely claiming that I was implying Elsie was a homosexual, which is an utter, complete, bald-faced lie! I implied no such thing. That is all your own mind, boatbums. I just used a text from the Holy Scriptures to warn Elsie about how God looks at men who falsely and deceptively pretend to be women. Falsely pretending to be a woman, and being a homosexual, are two completely different things. In fact, many transvestites are heterosexuals (just do a quick Google search on "heterosexual transvestites"), and it's likely that many men who prefer to use girly names are heterosexuals too.
The Bible talks about homosexuality in several other spots, but Deuteronomy 22:5 is not referring to homosexuality, but is referring specifically to men who pretend to be women, and declares that that kind of behavior "is an abomination to the Lord your God". In the future, try to stick to the truth in your posts, boatbums.
LOL. You come up with some good jokes bro. At least you didn’t randomly generate some verses. When I was a catholic, I was always told I had to earn my salvation, by hoping my good works, outweighed my bad works. Do all Catholics actually believe that? I don’t know, but I did. Now, that I am happily an ex catholic, I surely don’t. I no longer accept the worship of Nimrod either. I wonder why so many people do?
No, this one, Brother Elsie.
"A woman shall not wear man’s clothing, nor shall a man put on a woman’s clothing; for whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord your God."
Deuteronomy 22:5
RVG placemarker
(Just to recap them for you, Catholics are NOT obligated to believe private revelations, one of which you are quoting there again, just like Protestants are not obligated to believe your fellow Protestants (like this popular preacher) either.)
|
The main guideline to posting on the Religion Forum: ”Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.”
Whereas posters may argue vigorously for and against beliefs on “open” Religion Forum threads it is never tolerable to use ad hominems in religious debate because they invariably lead to flame wars when the subject is one’s deeply held religious beliefs.
For something to be "making it personal" it must be speaking to another Freeper, personally.
"Protestants are heretics" is not making it personal. "You are a heretic" is making it personal. "Catholics worship Mary" is not making it personal. "You worship Mary" is making it personal. "Mormons worship many gods" is not making it personal. "You worship many gods" is making it personal.
However, when a poster paints with a brush that accuses an entire religion of criminal behavior - his post will be pulled as flame bait. For example, posts that say "Protestants kill babies" or "Catholics molest children" or "Mormons kill non-Mormons" will be pulled. However, if the post is specific about a non-Freeper, I will not pull it. For example "Rev. Doe says abortion and infanticide are not sin" or "Father Doe was convicted for molesting those kids" or "Mormons killed non-Mormons at Mountain Meadows" would not be pulled.
Statements formed as questions are rarely "making it personal." "Are you a heretic" is not making it personal. "You are a heretic" is making it personal.
Forms of "making it personal" include mind reading, attributing motive, accusing another Freeper of telling a lie (because it attributes motive, the intent to deceive) - making the thread "about" individual Freeper(s), following a Freeper from thread to thread and badgering a Freeper over-and-again with the same question.
The words "prevarication" "dishonesty" "slander" "deceit" "calumny" and "subterfuge" are synonymous with "lie" because they entail intent.
Words such as "false" "error" "wrong" "inaccurate" "misstatement" do not attribute motive and are not "making it personal." Other words push the envelope of motive but are not synonymous with "lie" for purposes of modding the RF.
However, they can be "making it personal" if applied to another Freeper, personally, in such a way the discussion becomes "about" the individual Freeper instead of the issues. Those words include "misrepresentation" "detraction" "disinformation" "distortion" "hyperbole" and "doublespeak."
Another example, calling a group of Freepers "anti-Mormon" attributes motive to them as a group which is not technically "making it personal" - but saying that another Freeper, personally, is anti-Mormon instead of anti-MormonISM is an ad hominem. It is "making it personal."
Another example, a poster may say on an “open” RF thread that a particular belief, diety, religious authority, etc. is "Satanic." But he must not say "You are Satanic." That would be "making it personal." The Bible is always a legitimate source on the Religion Forum, so a poster might quote the Bible where Jesus called Peter "Satan." If a post serves no debate purpose (flame bait or 'making it personal' by devious means) - it would be pulled. When in doubt, avoid the use of the pronoun "you" and Freeper's names - or put yourself in the other guy's shoes.
So, boatbums, in your post #297, you said it was "creepy" of me to criticize a fellow FReeper, and called my criticism "off-the-wall" and "snide", and falsely accused me of "implying he [Elsie] might be a homosexual/transexual based on his screen name", and said that was "dumb", and yet all of that nonsensical garbage you posted there is not "making personal attacks on others"?!?!?
Let me then rephrase what I told you in my post #304.
Your claim that I was implying that Elsie was a homosexual/transsexual, is 100% false, 100% inaccurate, 100% wrong, 100% erroneous. I said absolutely nothing about Elsie being a homosexual. You are the only one there who brought that "homosexual" term up, not me. I was simply referring instead to the Bible text from the Holy Word of God that has you all upset there (Deuteronomy 22:5), which essentially says that when a man (falsely and deceptively, of course) pretends he is a woman, that is "an abomination to the Lord your God". That has absolutely nothing to do with "homosexuality", like your post # 297 falsely claimed.
The only transsexual I spoke about in my earlier post, was Bruce Jenner/Caitlyn Jenner. He didn't start out as a full transgender, but first changed his name, then started dressing up like a woman, then finally had the radical "sex-change operation".
If you catch one of your kids taking their first puff on a cigarette, you don't wait until later, when they're dying in the hospital from lung cancer, to warn them of the dangers of smoking, but you try to warn them as soon as you detect their first few puffs. You might even go so far as to show them videos of painfully dying smokers, or even live cases at a clinic someplace, in order to try to safely redirect their steps in that smoking regard.
The same should hold true for Christian brothers and sisters, who start giving some small signs or indications that they like to somehow pretend to be the opposite sex (like self-applying name changes -- Bruce ==> Caitlyn). Knowing that pretending to be a woman is "an abomination to the Lord your God", it is actually a very good thing to gently admonish them about the way God really views their falsely and deceptively pretending to be a woman.
You may not like that, boatbums, but God does.
You castigate me for falsely accusing you and making it personal in my defense of Elsie, demand I apologize, then you proceed to school me on what the Bible says about cross-dressing - as if I wasn't aware - and then try to mom-splain why you don't like an anonymous FReeper's screen name! Yeah, I do think it is creepy and unnecessary. Elsie has been here for 20 years, if he hasn't transitioned yet, I doubt he will.;o)
Repeating the same PERSONAL attacks - that have NO basis in facts - doesn't enhance nor prove your contention. I've not met Elsie in person but I have no doubt in my mind that he is a normal, Christian, heterosexual man who is happily married and likes to push people's buttons who don't seem to be able to tell when someone is joking, jesting, jousting or just sharing his knowledge and beliefs about the serious issues of the Christian faith - and he certainly can.
Maybe spend some more time reading through the threads to get a feel for the many personalities that contribute to this great Conservative site and you might just find you grow less offended with opposing views and start to experience growth in grace, love and tolerance.
Have a nice Sunday.
You have a nice Sunday too, boatbums. I have to head back to my studies now, but I really do wish you (and Elsie) well, and pray that the true light of God illumines both your paths in the future.
Call no man father.
Call no man father...
(Umbrage duly noted.)
Francis; I think one of your followers has exposed a frailty in his spirit.
I suggest remedial CC classes to begin at ONCE!!
--As always, Screwtape
Yes; you do.
Yes; YOU do!
YES; you sure as heck DO!!!
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.
