Skip to main content

If You Are Discouraged, It's Not From God

I bring you this dispatch from the Department of the Blindingly Obvious, because frankly, I forget this often. If we don't rebuke it in our thoughts, and our adversary who brings it to us, we give sin a foothold.

If you surrender to sin, prepare to be discouraged. Our adversary loves to pile it on when that happens. But if God is for us, who can stand against us? God loves us and died to free us from sin. We know this, but in the thick of the battle, we forget.

Happy Feast, everybody! St. Paul, pray for us!

Movie Quote Sidebar: My friends, I wanted to type "our old adverse-ary" but I figured Sean Connery jokes would be 1. a little tacky in the midst of the encouragement; and 2. fly over the heads of most of you. But here's a good chunk of the quote, from the film, "The Hunt For Red October":

"And once more, we play our dangerous game, against our old adversary, the American navy. For forty years, your fathers before you, and your older brothers played this game, and played it well. But this time is different. We have the advantage...." I remember other parts of the speech, but not the order it comes in, which is pretty shocking, considering I may have seen this movie 84 times. OOH, here's a good line: "It reminds me of the heady days of Sputnik, and Yuri Gagarin, when the world trembled at the sound of our rockets. And they will tremble again, at the sound of our silence."

It's time to put this out in the open: the movie is better than the book. However, the book provides the back story. What is motivating this celebrated Soviet submarine captain to steal a new submarine equipped with dozens of nuclear missiles and a nearly silent propulsion system, and defect to the United States with most of his officers? His wife died at the hands of a drunk doctor at a state-run hospital. Somebody alert the president! Some guy will steal our best submarine, and hand it to Singapore in protest.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Friend I Once Had, And The Dogmatic Principle

 I once had a friend, a dear friend, who helped me with personal care needs in college. Reformed Presbyterian to the core. When I was a Reformed Presbyterian, I visited their church many times. We were close. I still consider his siblings my friends. (And siblings in the Lord.) Nevertheless, when I began to consider the claims of the Catholic Church to be the Church Christ founded, he took me out to breakfast. He implied--but never quite stated--that we would not be brothers, if I sought full communion with the Catholic Church. That came true; a couple years later, I called him on his birthday, as I'd done every year for close to ten of them. He didn't recognize my number, and it was the most strained, awkward phone call I have ever had. We haven't spoken since. We were close enough that I attended the rehearsal dinner for his wedding. His wife's uncle is a Catholic priest. I remember reading a blog post of theirs, that early in their relationship, she told him of the p
Hilarious Com-Box Quote of The Day: "I was caught immediately because it is the Acts of the Apostles, not the Acts of the Holy Spirit Acting Erratically."--Donald Todd, reacting to the inartful opposition of the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium. Mark Galli, an editor at Christianity Today, had suggested that today's "confusion" in evangelicalism replicates a confusion on the day of Pentecost. Mr. Todd commented after this reply , and the original article is here. My thoughts: By what means was this Church-less "consensus" formed? If the Council did not possess the authority to adjudicate such questions, who does? If the Council Fathers did not intend to be the arbiters, why do they say that they do? At the risk of being rude, I would define evangelicalism as, "Whatever I want or need to believe at any particular time." Ecclesial authority to settle a particular question is a step forward, but only as long as, "God alone is Lord of the con

Just Sayin.' Again.

One interesting objection to this chart has been to say that one gets stuck in a "loop" that doesn't resolve. This is a thinly-veiled way of putting forward the argument that we don't need absolute certainty in religious dogma. But Fred Noltie already dealt with this in the comments on another post. And to the specific objector, no less. I'll be blunt: The only principled thing to do is put down your Bible, resign your pulpit, and lead tours in Europe. Because a man must be able to distinguish dogma from human opinion, and this epistemology doesn't allow us to do that. One of dogma's distinguishing characteristics is infallibility; another is certainty. Without this, essential characteristics of God Himself are put into question. If we say that the most important Person any person could know is God, and the content of that knowledge (doctrine) is the means by which we know Him, it must be certain. This Reformed argument that certainty is a dangerous or un