Jesus’ Demands

Posted on 01/24/2013 by Paul Pavao

I exchanged several emails with an Eastern Orthodox believer, I don’t know which branch, and in the midst of it I talked about how many “ancient church” members never think about or consider Jesus’ demand of his disciples: “Deny yourself, take up your cross daily, and follow me.”

Then I started thinking about how many people who know me, but who are not told or inspired by me to deny themselves, take up their cross daily, and follow Jesus.

I don’t want to leave Jesus’ Gospel unsaid or undemonstrated.

So I want to share some thoughts that I’ve been reading on Facebook from a fellow named Brett Hancock. He’s been posting mini-sermons every day for a few days, and they remind me that I had better look at “deny myself,” while I’m looking at helping those who are missing the Gospel (and freeing them from churches that encourage them by example and by bad company—1 Cor. 15:33—to miss the Gospel).

I am not yet perfect, so back in the gym (this world and its tests) I go. … Thank God for the Church, a people serious about this training. … Hebrews 12:4 In your struggle against sin, you have not resisted to the point of shedding your blood. (1/24/13)

Will someone explain that when we hear and read Jesus speaking like this that he really means “pick up your remote control and kick back; I did it all for you”?

  1. Matthew 10:38 And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me.
  2. 2. Matthew 16:24 Then Jesus said to His disciples, “If anyone desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me.

(1/24/13, Brett had five verses, not just two)

Finally, can any of you say that this question doesn’t make you tremble a bit? I was stung by this:

For the watered down preaching from pastors and priests today, ask yourself, why does the New Testament often say “MAKE EVERY EFFORT” if any amount of effort is acceptable to Christ? How much effort are you putting into your Christianity? (1/23/13)

Posted in Gospel, Holiness | Tagged , , , | 1 Comment

Penal Substitution

Posted on 01/23/2013 by Paul Pavao

I wrote a page on “penal substition” or the “substitutionary atonement” at Christian-history.org. However, because of the nature of my site, Christian History for Everyman, I included an exposition of the atonement from my perspective, which I hope was an educated one.

A solid explanation of the atonement is terribly difficult to nail down, both from a scriptural and historical perspective.

Perhaps this is good. Why should we humans be able to fully understand the most divine, sublime, paradoxical (God becoming flesh and dying?!), influential, and powerful act in human history? It should not surprise us that the power of the atonement is a mystery.

Today, I want to skip trying to explain the atonement and simply show that one extremely popular interpretation, penal substitution or substitutionary atonement, cannot be true.

Doing that is simple.

Penal Substitution

The idea behind penal substitution is that every sin earns the death penalty (a rather bizarre and frightening idea on its own, but we’ll leave that refutation for another post). Jesus offered pay the death penalty for us by dying on the cross. Being divine and sinless, his offering was sufficient to erase the penalty of sin for everyone.

This idea is called penal substitution because Jesus death was a substitute for our penalty. It’s also called the “paid penalty” theory for the same reason.

Problems with Penal Substitution

There’s two problems with this theory, both of them fatal to the theory. First, it contradicts several Scriptures, and second, its origin can be traced to Thomas Aquinas in the thirteenth century. No one prior to A.D. 1200 believed it.

Novelty in Christian doctrine is not good.

Contradiction of Scripture #1

If Jesus paid for all sins by his death, then no sins can be judged. Many Christians, and even whole denominations, teach that unbelievers are not condemned for their sins, but because they did not believe in Jesus.

The apostle Paul flatly contradicts this:

For this you know, that no sexually immoral or unclean person, nor a covetous person, who is an idolater, has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. Do not let anyone deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the disobedient. (Eph. 5:5-6, emphasis mine)

God … will render to everyone according to his deeds … to those that are contentious and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, [he will render] indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of mankind that does evil. (Rom. 2:5-6,8-9, emphasis mine)

Contradiction of Scripture #2

Others believe that penal substitution does not go into effect until we believe. In fact, Calvinists (whose doctrine I strongly oppose) teach that Jesus only died for those who will be saved.

Those who believe this often teach that the judgment for Christians, though according to works, will only include our good works. How can it include our sins? They have already been paid for.

Paul doesn’t agree:

For we shall all appear before the judgment seat of Christ to receive the deeds done in the body, whether good or bad. (2 Cor. 5:10)

Use of “Paid” and “Penalty” in Scripture

One final mark against penal substitution.

You would think that if penal substitution was correct, then the Scriptures would speak the way we do. It would use words like “the penalty was paid,” or “Jesus paid it all,” or “Jesus paid a debt he did not owe; I owed a debt I could not pay.”

We don’t find these things. We find the apostles teaching that Jesus paid a purchase price for us or that he was a ransom. The very word “redemption” implies a purchase price from slavery.

However, neither “ransom” nor “redemption” implies a price paid to God. Instead, ransoms and redemption money are paid to slave owners.

Most Christians I’ve mentioned this to flinch. The idea of Jesus’ death being a payment to the enslaver of mankind is horrifying to most of us.

Is that because the idea is not scriptural? Or is it because we have believed a false doctrine for about 800 years?

I’m not the one who wrote “ransom” and “redemption” in the apostles writings. They wrote it. Jesus said it, too. I’m not repeating it because I like the idea, and I decided that I’m going to try to make my idea popular. I’m repeating because it’s in the holy Writings of the apostles and prophets.

It will take thought, prayer, and revelation to understand the mystery of the atonement to whatever level we are able to understand it. However, I hope that I have helped put a bullet in the head of the novel and false idea that Jesus’ death was a substitution for a penalty that our sins brought upon us from God.

Posted in Gospel, Modern Doctrines | Tagged , , , , | 3 Comments

Yeah, But …

Posted on 01/21/2013 by Paul Pavao

My father-in-law has started sending out a “verse of the day” by email that is usually closer to a chapter a day. I wrote him and told him it was really good. Today, I got a good picture of why his little devotional is really good.

One of the verses he touched on is Galatians 5:19-21:

19 Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality,
20 idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions,
21 envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. (NASB)

This is a controversial passage of Scripture. I don’t know how many times—in the distant past—that I’ve had doctrinal arguments about this passage, but it’s a lot.

Does this mean we can lose our salvation? What does it mean not to inherit the kingdom of God?

Even now, I have to strain to avoid the temptation to answer those two questions.

The questions have their place, but they are inappropriate until some other questions has been answered:

Have I stopped my immorality, envy, anger, slander, and all the other things listed in Galatians 5:19-21? Am I able to stop those things? Do I want to stop practicing those things? Do I know what I need to do in order to stop practicing them?

If the answer to any of those questions is no, then we can have our “lose your salvation” arguments later, and we can discuss inheriting the kingdom of God later. We all know that this passage is a threat. Paul is “forewarning” us. He encourages us in other passages, but in this passage, he is “forewarning” us.

He is forewarning us because not inheriting the kingdom of God is a bad thing. We all know it is a bad thing. Discussing how bad a thing it is, rather than discussing how we obey God in order to avoid that bad thing, and thus heed Paul’s warning, is just one more “work of the flesh” to add to Galatians 5:19-21.

What does my father-in-law think about losing your salvation and eternal security? I don’t know. What he wrote was:

The Bible is God’s revealed will. It is His desire on how we should think, live and act. It also reveals what displeases Him or better yet what He will not tolerate. … What does God not want us to do? Here is what His Holy Word says …

Are we striving to please God? Do we talk about our role in obeying God (“work out your salvation with fear and trembling”) and God’s role in obeying God (“for it is God who works in you both to do and to will of his good pleasure”) so that we can find the power to OBEY him … or are we just talking about it as a distraction, while we carry on in the works of the flesh?

I discipline my body and bring it under subjection, lest having preached to others, I should be disqualified my own self. (1 Cor. 9:27)

As you read that, are you asking the right question?

Posted in Holiness | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Authority of the Apostles in the Early Church

Posted on 01/20/2013 by Paul Pavao

No written blog today. I wanted to share this video. This is a relatively comprehensive look at the early Christian understanding of the role and authority of the apostles, the source of the Scriptures, the role of tradition, the preservation of the faith of the Gospel, and how this applies to the modern Roman Catholic view of the role of tradition and apostolic succession.

Posted in Bible, Church, Gospel, History, Leadership, Modern Doctrines, Roman Catholic & Orthodox | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Revisiting Grace

Posted on 01/18/2013 by Paul Pavao

I don’t mind revisiting the word “grace” as many times as necessary until it’s understood accurately in the mind of as many people as I can explain it to. “Grace” may be the most wonderful word in the Bible besides “Father,” “Jesus,” and “Spirit,” but it is used incorrectly almost every time it is uttered by a Christian.

Hopefully, the following flurry of verses and comments will make defining grace easy.

Usually we use the word “grace” in such a way that it is a synonym for mercy.

I’ve heard Christians give a wonderful definition for grace:

Mercy is God not giving us what we deserve; grace is God giving us what we do not deserve.

That’s true! Great definition! But almost no one actually uses grace that way. Instead, we keep confusing it with mercy.

Example

Have you ever been in a situation where a person did something wrong, and they weren’t punished? Perhaps a teenager with parents, or a church member that violated some church protocol?

In Christian circles, it is common for us to say, “We gave that person grace in this situation.”

No, you didn’t! You gave that person mercy! What is it called when a person breaks a rule, custom, or law, and is not punished? We call it mercy, not grace.

The Bible doesn’t use grace in that way, either.

A Biblical Definition of Grace

This post is an adaptation of an email I sent to an excellent Bible teacher who had been lulled, like all the rest of us, into using grace as a synonym for mercy in an otherwise inspiring teaching on Rom. 1:5.

From whom we have received grace and apostleship for obedience to the faith among all nations.

Grace is actually the source of Paul’s apostleship. His use of the two words here, grace and apostleship, are related. Consider these verses:

Rom. 12:3: “For I say, through the grace given to me …”
Rom. 12:6: “Having gifts that differ according to the grace given to us …”
Rom. 15:15: “I have written the more boldly to you … because of the grace that is given to me from God.”
1 Cor. 3:10: “According to the grace of God that is given to me as a wise master builder …”
1 Cor. 15:9-10: “For I am the least of the apostles … but by the grace of God I am what I am. And his grace, which was on me was not in vain, but I labored more abundantly than them all.”
Eph. 3:7-8: “I was made a minister according to the gift of the grace of God given to me by the effective working of his power. To me, who am the least of all the saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ.”

Mercy is important, and we are saved by mercy as well as grace (Tit. 3:5), but grace is different than mercy. Grace is the ongoing power for life today. Grace is the reason we can have the obedience of faith without our salvation being by works. Our salvation is by grace. We obtain grace by faith, and our works come from grace:

Rom. 5:2: “We have access by faith into this grace in which we stand.”
Rom. 6:14: “Sin will not have dominion over you because you are not under law but under grace.”
Eph. 2:8-10: “For you have been saved by grace through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works which God has prepared in advance for us to do.”

In Eph. 2:8-10, we need to remember and apply Rom. 5:2. Faith is the access to the grace that saves us. Grace is a gift, but it is also what empowers us to do those “good works which God has prepared in advance for us to do.”

There are three more verses that I like to use to define grace because they’re so clear:

Tit. 2:11-12: “The grace of God that brings salvation has appeared, teaching us that denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly in the present age.”
Heb. 4:16: “Let us come boldly to the throne of grace, so that we may obtain mercy and grace to help in time of need.”
1 Pet. 4:11: “As every man has received a gift, minister it to one another as good stewards of the grace of God.”

Grace is that really awesome power described in these three verses (and in Rom. 6:14, breaking the power of sin), and we have access to it simply by faith!

Practical Application

One of the applications of this is the situation where you have to admonish a brother or sister, and the response is, “Remember, brother, it’s by grace, not by works.”

Once we are using the word grace properly, we can say, “Of course it is, which is exactly why I am admonishing you. If we had to rely on works, you would probably not be able not obey my admonishment. You would still be in slavery to sin living in you. However, now that you are under grace, I can admonish you, because grace is teaching you to live soberly and godly in this present age, and sin has no power over you anymore.”

I’m sure all of this is not completely new to most of you. It’s not a teaching that I invented. Christians *teach* this, but on a daily basis, as we use the word grace, we seem to forget it; grace loses its power in our mind, and it morphs into simple forgiveness. We need both!

Posted in Gospel, Modern Doctrines | Tagged , , | 2 Comments

Rev. Louie Giglio

Posted on 01/11/2013 by Paul Pavao

Anti-gay pastor Louie Giglio has decided not to speak at President Obama’s inauguration.

That’s polite. I agree with his decision. What I wonder about is how you felt about my reference to Rev. Giglio as anti-gay. (And in some other post, maybe we can discuss how you feel about the title “reverend.”)

The quote from a Louie Giglio sermon says that the Old and New Testaments make it clear that homosexuality is a sin. This, apparently, makes people think it’s fine to describe him as “anti-gay.”

I’ll bet that if Mr. Giglio spoke on homosexuality and referenced the Hebrew Scriptures and the apostles writings in the process, then he probably also noticed that heterosexual sex outside of marriage is a sin, too. I’d be willing to bet a paycheck that at some point, he said that a man and woman living together outside of marriage (assuming a non-platonic relationship here) is a sin. Yet, I have seen no references to Rev. Giglio as anti-adulterer.

I’ll bet that Mr. Giglio has spoken against theft as well, and murder, and even gossip and slander, yet I’ll bet he’s never been described as anti-gossip nor anti-thug.

I’ve been called a homophobe a number of times schizophrenic people, who apparently conglomerate towards the left end of the political spectrum. To this day, I would agree with Rev. Giglio that homosexuality is clearly condemned in the Bible. In fact, Lev. 20:13 calls it an abomination. It was punished with the death penalty in ancient Israel.

I’m not calling for a death penalty, nor even for legal action against sinners whose most obvious sin is homosexuality. I am saying that homosexual activity, like heterosexual activity outside of marriage and like theft and lying, is a sin.

“Homophobe” means a person who is afraid of homosexuals. I have excellent proof that I’m not afraid of homosexuals. I lived with one in my 20’s, even though I knew he was homosexual. That was in the military, and I didn’t turn him in; nor did I turn in his partners.

I am not a homophobe, and Louie Giglio is not anti-gay, any more than he is anti-thief. In fact, I would guess he’s a lot more anti-thief because he probably, like me, wants thieves punished by the law, while I see no point in arresting and punishing homosexuals.

One More: “Keep Religion Out of Politics”

While I agree with those who say that the founding fathers were trying to keep politics out of religion and not vice versa, that’s not what I want to discuss here.

I want to discuss an email I heard read this morning on CNN. The writer said that Louie Giglio had no business bringing his religion into politics.

What is she talking about? Is she unaware that the only reason that we are discussing Rev. Giglio in the news is because Barack Obama, the president of the United States, invited him (and others) to PRAY at his inauguration??? If Rev. Giglio, invited to the white house BECAUSE he is a pastor, should keep his religion out of politics, why isn’t she also complaining about others who were invited? Why isn’t she complaining about Barack Obama, who invited him?

The reason is that this woman is lying. She doesn’t want Rev. Giglio, nor anyone else, to keep their religion out of politics. She wants Rev. Giglio to be silenced on the issue of homosexuality because she disagrees with him.

Thus her religion, which apparently teaches that people who disagree with her ought not be allowed to speak publicly on any issue, even if they never bring up the issue she disagrees with, is the real problem. He religion directly disagrees with the constitution and threatens our freedoms.

She is an “aleithiaphobe,” a term I just coined which means someone who fears the truth.

What Is This Post About?

I’m pretty sure that a computer that read this post would pick out “homosexuality” as the most relevant topic to this post, with Rev. Louie Giglio as a close second.

This post is about neither subject. There just happened to be a real world subject on TV this morning that makes a great anecdote/illustration of a point that is at the center of almost everything I write about: honesty and self-denial.

I said “a point,” and then I mentioned honesty and self-denial. That is because the two go hand in hand.

We are, by nature, defenders of our opinions. (I wish I had bookmarked the study I read in Scientific American or Discover or on a science blog saying this was so.) It takes effort, sometimes extreme effort, to overcome our opinion and look closely at what is true.

That is the very reason the scientific method was developed, to provide a structure that would protect scientists from their own opinion. That is why the peer-review process was added to the scientific method and then formalized in peer-reviewed journal, so that scientists could police one another and thus protect each other from unrestrained and uncorrected opinion.

I’m just trying to point out, one more time, that unrestrained opinion (as usual in politics and religion, which is why we’re scared to talk about them) is running amok on the subject of Louie Giglio and his comments on homosexuality.

I’m crusading for people who will join me in loving truth: people who will bear their own anger when their opinion isn’t being heard, rather than pouring it out on others; people who will go off and get over their embarrassment before they answer someone who has given an argument undercuts their own; people who can endure and thus overcome the powerful emotions that accompany our own opinions and choose the truth.

It is my opinion that lovers of the truth will wind up at the feet of Jesus, who is the living Truth, because Truth loves his own. You can agree with that or disagree with that, but time will either bear me out on that or not.

Jesus is the one who said he was the Truth. Mohandes Gandhi is the one who said that Truth is a living being who will help, with immense power, those who become lovers of the truth.

Are they right?

You and I both know how Jesus of Nazareth and Mohandes (or Mahatma, meaning “great soul”) Gandhi would have wanted us to live. One of them lived 2,000 years ago, and most of the people on earth have heard of him. We date our calendars from his birth. The other has been dead for over 60 years and virtually single-handedly expelled the British empire from India … with suffering rather than violence!

I like taking a chance on their opinion and gathering people who want to live as they prescribed. (I think Gandhi did wind up at the feet of Jesus, acknowledging that Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7) was the best description of how people should live.

I guess that’s off the subject. I’m just trying to tell you why I write about things like this.

Posted in Miscellaneous, news | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Eucharist and the Real Presence

Posted on 01/05/2013 by Paul Pavao

I have never written, nor even attempted to write, a web page on the Eucharist (communion or Lord’s supper) in early Christian history. That is because I find the early Christian statements about the Eucharist to be too loose to provide precise, definitive answers on the ideas that divide Roman Catholics and some Protestants.

It has been very easy to say simply that the early churches—and the apostles—didn’t treat anything they did as “purely symbolic” or as “a public testimony.” Those two ideas are indefensible both Biblically and historically.

Today, though, I found a page—a Catholic page at that—which addresses the Eucharist/communion extremely well.

I was searching for early Eucharistic prayers on the web when I ran across a page called The Real Presence on Catholic.com.

I have more than my share of disagreements and battles with Roman Catholics. Almost all of the offense is because I deny their claim to be the one true church. I have several pages on Christian-history.org refuting their claim that the Roman bishop had papal authority in the early centuries of the church, and I think the horrendous behavior of the Roman hierarchy in medieval times is proof enough that it could not possibly, as an organization, be even “an” authority from God, much less “the” authority. (example)

Nonetheless, as an organization, they do have a lineage going back to the apostles, and their doctrines have evolved over the centuries from some original, apostolic doctrines. The more they have evolved, the less accurate they are, because the original job of the leadership of the Roman church, and every other apostolic church, was to preserve the teaching (also called “tradition”) of the apostles, not improve it (something which cannot be done).

It is unlawful to assert that [the apostles] preached before they had “perfect knowledge,” as some [i.e., gnostics] dare to venture to say, boasting themselves as improvers of the apostles. For after our Lord rose from the dead, they were invested with power from on high when the Holy Spirit came down, were filled, and had perfect knowledge.
   When we refer them to the tradition which originates from the apostles and which is preserved by means of the succession of elders in the churches, they object to tradition, saying that they are wiser not merely than the elders but even than the apostles!
   … [Irenaeus lists the Roman bishops up till his time here] … In this order and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition of the apostles and the preaching of the truth have come down to us. This is most abundant proof that there is one and the same life-giving faith, which has been preserved in the church from the apostles until now and handed down in truth.
   Polycarp also was not only instructed by the apostles … but was also appointed bishop [lit. overseer]of the church in Smyrna … When a very old man, gloriously and most notably suffering martyrdom, [he] departed this life, having always taught the things he learned from the apostles and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true. … Then, again. the church in Ephesus, founded by Paul and having John remaining among them until the times of Trajan [A.D 98], is a true witness of the tradition of the apostles. (Irenaeus, Against Heresies III:1:1 – III:3:4, c. A.D. 185)

The Eucharist is one doctrine that has been taken to extremes in the idea of “Transubstantiation,” but the original tradition of the apostles is still easy to find in Roman Catholic teaching, backed up both by Scripture and by the writings of the earliest Christians.

The Real Presence on Catholic.com is an excellent defense of basic Roman Catholic teaching on the Eucharist. It avoids even discussing the excesses that “transubstantiation” has been taken to. As a result, it is the best short description and defense of apostolic teaching on the Eucharistic meal I have seen.

Transubstantiation

When I mention going overboard on “transubstantiation,” I mean, for example, that one Roman Catholic wrote to tell me that scientific tests have proven that the bread blessed in a Catholic Mass turns into actual human meat. This, of course, is a myth. I’m sure that most Roman Catholics would reject such an idea, and I know that it is not official Roman Catholic doctrine. On the other hand, there are numerous stories from the Reformation Era of Anabaptists who were tortured or put to death for refusing to acknowledge that the bread and wine of the Roman Catholic Eucharist was actual meat and blood. (Martyr’s Mirror preserves a number of interrogations conducted in the 17th century.)

By the sacraments we are made partakers of the divine nature, and yet the substance and nature of bread and wine do not cease to be in them. (“Pope” Gelasius, A.D. 490, as cited by Bingham’s Antiquities, Bk. xv, ch. 5, found in note 1911 of The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. I [Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2001 reprint]; The note in ANF says A.D. 490, but Gelasius was bishop of Rome from 492-496; I cannot explain the discrepancy.)

“Eucharist”

The word “Eucharist” is from the Greek word Ευχαριστια, which means “thanksgiving.” It is the word most commonly used by the early churches to refer to the communion meal or Lord’s Supper.

And this food is called among us Ευχαριστια, of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes the things we teach are true, who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins and for the purpose of regeneration and who is living as Christ has commanded. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these, but in the same way that Jesus Christ our Savior, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, we likewise have been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of his word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. (Justin Martyr, First Apology 66, c. A.D. 150)

You’ll find many more quotes and a great summation of early Christian teaching on the Eucharist at Catholic.com.

Posted in Church, Modern Doctrines, Roman Catholic & Orthodox | Tagged , , , , , , | 13 Comments

Entertainment and Training in Overcoming Temptation

Posted on 12/26/2012 by Paul Pavao

"I’m torn between the man I love and the man I am dangerously attracted to."

We’re traveling, so we’re watching TV on occasion in our motel rooms, something we don’t get to do at home. An advertisement for some TV program started with the sentence above.

It got me thinking about the state of morality (or, rather, immorality) in Hollywood.

Addressing the dilemma described in the sentence above is not immoral. It’s mere honesty to address the fact that people get torn between someone they love (spouse, boyfriend, girlfriend, parent, sibling, child) and someone they are dangerously attracted to. We face temptations of all sorts, and there’s nothing immoral about basing a story on those temptations.

The problem is that in Hollywood’s (and America’s) current moral state, we don’t know whether the TV show’s protagonist is going to choose the man she loves or the one she’s dangerously attracted to.

It wasn’t that long ago that heroes and heroines of TV shows and movies were shining examples of moral fortitude. When faced with temptation, or when propositioned by someone with looser, or perhaps just weaker, morals, they would simply say no. Part of what made them a hero was their ability to choose what was right before God and good (in the long run) for the people involved over what would bring pleasure on the spot.

Dave Ramsey, the well-known financial adviser, radio talk show host, and author, likes to say, “Maturity is the ability to delay pleasure.”

A good movie or TV show used to inspire us to delay pleasure. Heroes were those who could deny themselves, overcoming fear and all our various versions of selfishness, even sacrificing relationships, to do what was right and good and thus save the day.

Now, though, the whole point of a TV show could be obtaining temporary pleasure, even if such pleasure would destroy lives in the long run.

It’s one thing to be torn between “the man you love and the man you’re dangerously attracted to.” All of us face temptation. The question is, will your storyteller give you a new attitude or new method to overcome temptation, or will your storyteller encourage your baser nature, telling you that the power to think long term is beyond you and that belief in a final Judge of right and wrong is out of style?

Posted in Holiness, Miscellaneous | Tagged , , , | 2 Comments

Plug for Restless Pilgrim

Posted on 12/21/2012 by Paul Pavao

You may have noticed Restless Pilgrim’s comments on some of my posts. I pop over to his blog now and then and catch up on his posts.

It’s always struck me as funny that he reads my blog at all. We’re nothing alike … well, our blogs aren’t. He’s Roman Catholic. I focus on early church history and end up disagreeing with the Roman Catholics a lot. I write long, wordy posts; it’s not unusual for his to be a mere two paragraphs long.

I have to suppose that we agree on one thing. People ought to think about their lives, and thus their faith, and they ought to live life on purpose (and under the authority of God).

Anyway, I wanted to put in a plug for his blog. (Parents beware; just by chance, his last post is a George Carlin video, which means language is rough.)

What I like about his blog is how he gives me something to think about in real short posts. He gets to the point really well, so it’s easy for me to find time to read the posts.

Restless Pilgrim’s blog is at RestlessPilgrim.net/blog.

Posted in Miscellaneous, Roman Catholic & Orthodox | Tagged , | 3 Comments

Who Am I? Who Are You?

Posted on 12/21/2012 by Paul Pavao

Today’s post is just a brief exhortation: Don’t forget who you are. In fact, make sure you know who you are!

James 1:18 says, “By his own will he birthed us by the word of truth, so that we might be a sort of firstfruits of his creation.”

We Christians are part of a whole new creation. We are no longer primarily descendants of Adam. Whether Adam descended from Australopithecines or from dirt, all he provided us is the tent in which we, brand new creations and children of God, dwell. We’ll discard that tent some day, the sooner the better.

Until then, we possess a great treasure in an earthly storage bin. We are partakers of the divine nature, recipients of great and precious promises give by Almighty God himself.

“Behold what manner of love the Father has bestowed on us, that we should be called the children of God.”

Never expect the ordinary. God has his eye on you, and you are empowered by his grace to handle every situation. Turn your life over to him and live supernaturally; don’t let the world, the devil, or your brain lie to you and tell you that you are merely ordinary.

“I have heard of you, that the Spirit of God is in you and that light, understanding, and excellent wisdom is in you” (Dan. 5:14).

Posted in Evolution and Creation, Holiness, Miscellaneous | Tagged | 1 Comment