Steve Camp has posted on battles among professing Christians in the blogosphere. Steve writes:
“So how should conflict about message and messenger biblically be handled in the blogosphere? Here are a few thoughts that I hope will prove helpful and be an encouragement to you.”
HT: Slice of Laodicea
What follows is something that may be a harbinger of things to come for Europe should it continue to self-destruct through increased secularism and abortion. 
Introduction: The following post is an exchange that I'm having with our friendly neighborhood atheist (no, it's not Dan Barker). The average atheist usually assumes that Christians rely solely on faith apart from reason and evidence whereas atheists rely solely on reason and evidence. The following post will make it clear that all people, regardless of their worldview, have faith in certain assumed and unproven axioms that are not testable through the procedures of natural science and they proceed from those non-empirically based presuppositions in order to reason about anything in the first place.Hi ____,
Please see below for my comments and criticisms.
PREJUDICIAL CONJECTURE
I noticed that you arrogantly presumed to dismiss Plantinga’s EAAN by mere ad hominem mixed with a Wikipedia reference (i.e., “silly philosophical sophistry”)? Sadly, this shows how willingly ignorant you really are. Most scholars I am familiar with (both secular and sectarian) call Wiki “the abomination that causes misinformation” or some other pejorative like it to show how inaccurate it is for doing serious research. Worst yet, you used such a poor resource to simply write off a Notre Dame scholar simply because he is a professing Christian. I would never have the temerity to arrogantly dismiss an atheistic scholar without critically reading his own materials; but of course, you are not obligated to show any kind of academic respectability. It would be actually being tough minded and reading those scholars who are diametrically opposed to your worldview so that you can interact with us more intelligently instead of sticking your head in the sand, calling us names, and ignoring what the rest of scholarship has to say about your views. It is evident that you have been very influenced by pop-atheist literature in this way (i.e., Dawkins, Hitchens, etc.), for they take the same tact and even glory in the fact that they are ignorant. I know, for I’ve read most of their works. Only a fool glories in his ignorance.
Sadly, with atheists like you, there can be no meaningful dialogue and no meaningful exchange of ideas and arguments because of your a priori commitment to materialism; instead, you level one ad hominem after another and make bare-naked assertions as a way to try to refute theism of any kind. Then you wonder why intelligent theists fail to take you seriously. You are not taken seriously because you are so ideologically committed to your anti-biblical stance that all objectivity flies out the window when you are confronted with a serious argument against your position, and thus to bring evidence that conflicts with your view to the discussion will simply be conveniently ignored (i.e., like non-fossilized T-rex soft tissue links I provided – both secular and non-secular). I re-constructed the EAAN argument for you in a way that can be understood by most people and you still don’t get it (neither does Wiki by the way). I linked to articles providing scientific evidence that comes down pretty hard against your million year old dinosaur theory; evidence that was originally provided by secular scientists and still you keep on making bare-naked assertions about how stupid all the supernaturalists are: “C’mon you silly little fundies, didn’t you know that soft-tissue can survive for 65 million years without decaying?” Again, your refusal to interact with the academic literature that opposes your deeply cherished theory reflects your adamant obscurantism. So, go ahead; keep your head in the sand. In the meantime, well-educated and well-read Christian philosophers, scientists, theologians, and archaeologists will continue to ignore your bare-naked assertions, expose your philosophical internal contradictions, and consistently demonstrate that what you believe about reality doesn’t actually comport with the facts (like the EAAN, the rational-irrational dialectic, the one-and-many problem, and the many other scientific problems with neo-Darwinian theory).
Let me give you a piece of good advice: Please get your head out of the sand and do yourself a favor by going to Amazon.com and purchase a used version of Plantinga’s Warrant Trilogy and then actually read it so that you’ll be able to intelligently interact with the arguments that I’ve presented instead of calling the John A. O'Brien Professor of Philosophy at the University of Notre Dame a “silly sophist.” Please remember that when you call Christian intellectuals names and use that as your primary method of argumentation, you are (1) committing an informal logical fallacy, and (2) doing nothing to support, prove, or make credible the case for atheism. It would also be wise to purchase a used copy of the agnostic Michael Denton’s book titled Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, then actually read it (instead of reading about it), wrestle with the material therein that contradicts your own views, then read reviews of it, and finally, come to your own conclusions. That’s how intelligent people have carefully interacted with ideas and the consequences at least since the time of the Greek philosophers. Have you ever actually thought about doing this kind of work or do you revel in remaining ignorant? I’m not trying to make a Christian out of you; I certainly can’t do that, for that is the prerogative of the Holy Spirit. I’m asking you to have half a brain and actually read those who have handed your head to you on a platter; intellectually speaking of course.
UNARGUED PHILOSOPHICAL BIAS
I have never denied that some of the material I use to argue against you or any other skeptic is biased. I actually admit to and boldly proclaim my fundamental assumptions and starting points. You however seem to think that scientists are automatically neutral or non-biased when it comes to issues of ultimacy, especially as it relates to interpreting scientific data. Nothing could be further from the truth. This is and has been admitted by even the most ardent of skeptics. In light of that, did you read the clear quotes from the naturalistic scientists like Richard Lewontin and Scott Todd? They clearly admitted what you have consistently refused to admit; namely, that naturalists are unashamedly biased against allowing “a divine foot in the door” because “Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic.” S. C. Todd, correspondence to Nature 410(6752):423 (30 September 1999)? Again, let me quote atheist scientist Richard Lewontin for you,
“We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.” R. Lewontin, Billions and Billions of Demons,
Of course, this would contradict your suggestion of “finding God in DNA” simply because like Lewontin, your driving presuppositions would read the supposed “supernatural-source” through the lens of naturalism which dictates a priori that the involvement of the supernatural in the natural world is impossible. You actually admitted this when you said, “
This is one of your ultimate faith commitments; an empirically unproven yet unassailable axiom; at least in your mind.
Let me remind you again what the philosopher of science David Hull said, “. . . science is not as empirical as many scientists seem to think it is. Unobserved and even unobservable entities play an important part in it. Science is not just the making of observations: it is the making of inferences on the basis of observations within the framework of a theory.” D.
For example, you said, “And my worldview is science and yours is religion and ne'er the twain shall meet.” You have taken it for granted and assumed that Christians exercise faith apart from reason and you pride yourself in believing that your case rests solely on reason with empirical confirmation provided via the procedures of natural science. However, what you and almost every other atheist I’ve ever interacted with have failed to understand (or at least willingly admit) is that you too are a person of “faith” in some sense. In other words, you do not have empirical “proof” to substantiate and justify your holding to certain ultimate assumptions about reality. For instance, you assume certain things about the laws of logic, the laws of science, the uniformity of nature, the philosophy of empiricism/scientism etc., in order to make your case against Christianity. You assume that the laws of logic are going to operate uniformly in the future and you go on to prove your point by using the laws of logic, which are the very thing you’re supposed to be “proving” to begin with. You assume that the only things that can be known with certainly are things that are experienced through the five senses yet that very philosophy itself (empiricism) cannot itself be touched, tasted, seen, smelled, or heard. But no, you can’t see that you’re assuming the very thing you’re trying to prove, and thus you’re blind to your own “faith-based” presuppositional system. Try to prove logic without using logic and you’ll see what I mean. Any long term student of logic knows that you must of necessity first assume the law of noncontradiction in order to argue for the truthfulness of it. You can’t use it without arguing for it anymore than you can get a fleck of dust out of your eyeball by using your own eyeball. So please get your head out of the sand, be an intellectually honest person and admit that you presuppose and use the very things that you try to prove apart from justifying those things via empirical verification. So it goes with your own worldview and so it goes with my worldview.
I posted this on Christian Newswire yesterday:
MEDIA ADVISORY, July 28 /Christian Newswire/ — Pastor Dustin Segers submits the following and is available for comment:
How safe are our blogs? That question was raised again when on the evening of July 26, 2008, a popular religious blog was shut down by an Internet service provider. A complaint filed by Christian author and apologist, Richard Abanes, claiming that one article on the religious opinion site, Apprising.org, had slandered him, caused the web host, IPower, to send its publisher, Ken Silva, a 48-hour warning to remove the offending piece or be taken down. In that the piece was not believed to be slander at all, but rather religious and theological opinion, he refused to be forced into censoring his site by Richard Abanes. The site went down.
There are serious implications here for all bloggers, regardless of what sort of blog they publish. Anyone who has a complaint about your views can claim that you have engaged in slander and the ISP Terms of Service usually allow for the companies to remove your website if you don’t take the material in question down. The First Amendment means nothing in these cases. …
Click here to continue reading the article.
Introductory Note: While Shepherd's Fellowship of Greensboro Baptist Church does not believe that the Mosaic Law can be divided up into the traditional a three-fold pattern (i.e., moral, civil, ceremonial) as held by traditional Covenant Theology, we do believe that the following is a great Pulpit Magazine article by Grace Community Church about the relationship of the Sabbath day in the Old Covenant era and the relationship that it has to followers of Jesus Christ in the New Covenant era. We believe the Old Testament regulations governing Sabbath observances are ceremonial, not moral, aspects of the law. As such, they are no longer in force, but have passed away along with the sacrificial system, the Levitical priesthood, and all other aspects of Moses' law that prefigured Christ.
Here are the reasons we hold this view:
Sunday has not replaced Saturday as the Sabbath. Rather the Lord's Day is a time when believers gather to commemorate His resurrection, which occurred on the first day of the week. Every day to the believer is one of Sabbath rest, since we have ceased from our spiritual labor and are resting in the salvation of the Lord (Hebrews 4:9-11).
So while we still follow the pattern of designating one day of the week a day for the Lord's people to gather in worship, we do not refer to this as "the Sabbath."
John Calvin took a similar position. He wrote,
There were three reasons for giving this [fourth] commandment: First, with the seventh day of rest the Lord wished to give to the people of Israel an image of spiritual rest, whereby believers must cease from their own works in order to let the Lord work in them. Secondly, he wished that there be an established day in which believers might assemble in order to hear his Law and worship him. Thirdly, he willed that one day of rest be granted to servants and to those who live under the power of others so that they might have a relaxation from their labor. The latter, however, is rather an inferred than a principal reason.
As to the first reason, there is no doubt that it ceased in Christ; because he is the truth by the presence of which all images vanish. He is the reality at whose advent all shadows are abandoned. Hence St. Paul (Col. 2:17) that the sabbath has been a shadow of a reality yet to be. And he declares elsewhere its truth when in the letter to the Romans, ch. 6:8, he teaches us that we are buried with Christ in order that by his death we may die to the corruption of our flesh. And this is not done in one day, but during all the course of our life, until altogether dead in our own selves, we may be filled with the life of God. Hence, superstitious observance of days must remain far from Christians.
The two last reasons, however, must not be numbered among the shadows of old. Rather, they are equally valid for all ages. Hence, though the sabbath is abrogated, it so happens among us that we still convene on certain days in order to hear the word of God, to break the [mystic] bread of the Supper, and to offer public prayers; and, moreover, in order that some relaxation from their toil be given to servants and workingmen. As our human weakness does not allow such assemblies to meet every day, the day observed by the Jews has been taken away (as a good device for eliminating superstition) and another day has been destined to this use. This was necessary for securing and maintaining order and peace in the Church.
As the truth therefore was given to the Jews under a figure, so to us on the contrary truth is shown without shadows in order, first of all, that we meditate all our life on a perpetual sabbath from our works so that the Lord may operate in us by his spirit; secondly, in order that we observe the legitimate order of the Church for listening to the word of God, for admin-istering the sacraments, and for public prayers; thirdly, in order that we do not oppress inhumanly with work those who are subject to us. [From Instruction in Faith, Calvin's own 1537 digest of the Institutes, sec. 8, "The Law of the Lord"].
Introduction: Our atheistic friend, 1n6, has graced us with his/her presence once again. Since he/she did not understand the questions I asked, I chose to respond with some articles that explain my questions in depth. I also have provided a somewhat detailed commentary with quotes of several evolutionists included to demonstrate my point over and against his/her position.************************************************************************************
Hi 1n6,
I originally asked, “Given naturalism, evolutionary theory, and the conjunction between those two, what basis do you have to believe that your cognitive faculties are reliable given naturalism and evolution?”
You responded,
“This would seem to question the fundamental truth of "science". Science claims to have an understanding of the natural world. Natural causes produce natural effects. Scientists test their understanding with experiments when possible.”
NO, No, no!
Seriously, your response shows that you don’t even understand the question. Therefore, go do some reading starting with the articles below and get back to me when you have time:
The Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism
You said, “There is no scientific evidence that contradicts evolution . . .”
You mean like no dinosaur soft tissue that has lasted at least 65 million years without decaying or being fossilized? I’m certainly not trying to be mean, but I hope you realize just how stupid that really sounds (Psalm 92:6; 94:8 NASB). Or how about the stellar evidence that evolutionists use to "prove" beyond the shadow of a doubt that all life originated from the pre-biotic ooze, just as these scientific articles below demonstrate?
Evolutionist criticisms of the RNA World conjecture
I said in my second question “If what you say is true, how can you can figure out your problems on your own since the very cognitive faculties you use to problem solve to answer my objections to atheism are called into question by the very process they supposedly arose from?”
You responded, “Of course this question does not make any sense.”
Your response shows that you do not understand the second question either. Tolle lege please.
“Why do you try to assert that ‘atheism’ would not allow proper mental functioning?”
I don’t. You misunderstood. I said “Given naturalism, evolutionary theory, and the conjunction between those two, what basis do you have to believe that your cognitive faculties are reliable given naturalism and evolution?”
I didn’t say that you couldn’t be rational or have proper mental functioning, I said that given your fundamental assumptions and the conjunction between them you cannot provide warrant or justification for said functioning. Again, I think you can have “proper function”, you just can’t account for it.
You asked, “Only Christians are allowed to have ‘proper reasoning’? An ‘atheist’ cannot be rational?”
Again, NO, No, no! That’s not what the question is asking. Take up and read my friend.
You go on, “But there is a ‘point’ to this. Science is not about ‘proof’. Science is about the best understanding at the present time. So it could be wrong. But if a scientist is shown to be wrong, it will be because another scientist has a better scientific explanation. So religion or atheism has nothing to do with science.”
Really? It is so convenient for you and other leading evolutionists define ‘science’ in a self-serving way that excludes God and His Word. You and they openly equate science with the philosophy of “methodological naturalism” in order to explain the universe purely in terms of observable or testable natural mechanisms. The prominent evolutionary biologist Richard Lewontin has spoken out clearly about your anti-God, materialistic bias:
“We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”
R. Lewontin, Billions and Billions of Demons,
That’s you my friend, a close-minded atheist who, from an a priori position cannot allow even the remote possibility that naturalism is false and supernaturalism is true.
You naively think that “science” follows the evidence wherever it leads. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is impossible to avoid letting our respective worldviews provide the rose-colored glasses through which we interpret the facts of nature. Nobody starts with “just the facts”. As a Christian who believes the Bible is a simple, but accurate historical account of the creation of the time-space-matter continuum, I am honest and open about the philosophical and presuppositional basis that grounds my interpretation of the facts and although you didn’t understand the argument, I have shown that without first assuming the truthfulness of Christianity, you can’t make sense out of anything in the first place nor know with certitude that anything is true because you would have to assume the reliability of your cognitive faculties in the first place to do so, and that is something that Plantinga has successfully shown that you can’t do. But I digress. Naturalists like yourself often like to pretend that you don’t operate from any philosophical platform, foundational assumptions, or starting point. Contrary to most naturalists like yourself, the late Marxist atheist Stephen Jay Gould was open and forthright about his naturalistic bias:
“Our ways of learning about the world are strongly influenced by the social preconceptions and biased modes of thinking that each scientist must apply to any problem. The stereotype of a fully rational and objective ‘scientific method,’ with individual scientists as logical (and interchangeable) robots is self-serving mythology.” S. J. Gould, Natural History 103 (2):14, 1994.
David Hull, a philosopher of science also correctly stated,
“. . . science is not as empirical as many scientists seem to think it is. Unobserved and even unobservable entities play an important part in it. Science is not just the making of observations: it is the making of inferences on the basis of observations within the framework of a theory.” D.
An immunologist at
“Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic.” S. C. Todd, correspondence to Nature 410(6752):423 (30 September 1999). See here for quote: http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/4138/
So, neither you nor I are philosophically neutral (John 8:44). However, given the atheist’s assumption of the truthfulness of evolution and it’s conjunction with naturalism, atheists can’t know with certainty that such is the case in the first place because they can’t rely on the deliverances of their cognitive faculties.
Abortion is not trivial. It is the murder of a Human Being who is made in the image of God.
Serious violation of the character and person of
Duck, Duck, Duck,... Goose! is a child's game.
Serious silliness for an adult.
What do these two things have in common? Nothing until this morning. I realized again the truth of the internal impossibility of living life in American culture today as an unbeliever, a lost man. Regularly our church ministers the Gospel of
While preaching, praying and teaching a new person about our ministry this morning, I noticed a 20-25 bird parade of Canadian Geese making their way across
The driver of a white SUV had stopped in the middle of the intersection of
The problem is that this happened withing 50 yards of a death camp. Babies being slaughtered like pigs in their mother's womb. People were KILLING HUMANS while the driver stopped for at least two dozen Geese.
Now there are two, no three, possibilities for their grace (word chosen carefully); either the driver:
1) Obeyed federal law prohibiting KILLING CANADIAN GEESE,
2) Obeyed their conscience telling them not to KILL UNNECESSARILY,
3) Did not want to mess up the cleanliness of their automobile.
Sick.
On with the account (this is NOT a story, it is an account of the behaviors of a couple, some geese and a human baby, made in the image of GOD Genesis 1:27), of the inconsistent practice of a lost man and woman.
Once the last adult Canadian Goose (there were no cute little fuzzy baby goslings present) passed the center double yellow line, the driver of the SUV slowly, very slowly passed by the three of us, the first entrance to the Killing Service, the second entrance of the Murder Store and around the corner out of sight.
I had a great picture of the irony of the valuing of animal life and the total abandonment of human life, worse, the murder of a human baby. Thinking that the SUV was a passerby, I continued to mull over what happened, Pastor Dusty and our brother, new to the abortion ministry of Shepherd’s Fellowship, continued to talk about the puzzling circumstance.
Less than two minutes later, just enough time to move out of sight, make an about face likely in a parking lot off of Pomona, the same SUV came around the curve and slowly entered the parking lot, yielded it’s driver who spared the life of several Canadian geese, and his wife.
How can a human being live this life? How can one hold the life of an animal as valuable and in the same quarter hour KILL A HUMAN BABY?
Romans 1:18-23
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. 21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.
I am calling for responses to this irony. Christians: (1) What happens if these two adults are “professing” Christians? (We experience this often; patrons of the Death clinic regularly express they are “Christians”).
After reading it several months ago, I was going to attempt a friendly critique of this book. However, I decided to do a wait and see from the scholars. As a result, what follows are two critical reviews of Pagan Christianity provided by men who specialize in the study of Greco-Roman and Jewish social contexts of first century Palestine and a thorough response by an expert in New Testament ecclesiology. The first four parts are by Dr. Ben Witherington and the final article is a summary critique by J.P. Holding of Tekton Apologetics Ministries.
Introduction: What follows is an exchange I'm having with an atheist that has chosen to emote and assert rather than argue their case; the classic sign of a fundamentalist atheist. This exchange should be instructive because in the end it will show that this person is not interested in truth rooted in serious critical inquiry and study, but only in making bare-naked assertions and admitting that they hold to absurd things like 65 million year old unfossilized dinosaur soft-tissue in order to tenaciously protect their little "precious" called atheism."Boiled down to essentials, a nervous system enables the organism to succeed in the four F's: feeding, fleeing, fighting, and reproducing. The principle chore of nervous systems is to get the body parts where they should be in order that the organism may survive. . . . . Improvements in sensorimotor control confer an evolutionary advantage: a fancier style of representing is advantageous so long as it is geared to the organism's way of life and enhances the organism's chances of survival [Churchland's emphasis]. Truth, whatever that is, definitely takes the hindmost."
And so my questions for you are twofold:
It looks like The Great Ape Project, founded by Dr. Peter Singer, Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University in Princeton, New Jersey along with Paola Cavalieri, have experienced their latest victory with the Spanish Parliament granting basic human rights to apes, namely life and freedom. Too bad they didn't see it this way with the unborn; but that is consistent with Singer's ethics anyway; ethics that admit that while the newborn is a human being, he/she shouldn't be considered a person until 28 days after being born and that the parents should have the legal right to terminate it's life during anytime before then; both before and after birth. Although Singer is too humane to eat a ham sandwich, he nevertheless said that an unborn child only acquires "moral significance" at around 20 weeks of gestation, when the baby is able to feel pain. But "[e]ven when the fetus does develop a capacity to feel pain—probably in the last third of the pregnancy—it still does not have the self-awareness of a chimpanzee, or even a dog", and so he gives greater "moral significance" to a chimpanzee and a dog than to the unborn child."[1] And so, here's a great article discussing the Darwinian and social Darwinian foundations for just such a practice: Going Ape About Human Rights. [1] Singer, Peter, Abortion: the dividing lines, Herald Sun, 25 August 2007; www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22304219-5000117,00.html See also: Singer, P., Rethinking Life and Death: The Collapse of Our Traditional Ethics, pp. 130, 217.
“But preaching in the public square, not lobbying in the halls of Congress, is the biblical way—and the only truly effective way—Christ’s church has always made His truth known. Incidentally, when Scripture speaks of “preaching” in a context like this, the reference is not exclusively—or even primarily—to a message given from the pulpit to a church congregation. Paul is speaking of every kind of gospel proclamation—evangelistic ministry—calling people to repentance. It would include even your private proclamation of the gospel to your neighbors. Everything from open-air preaching to one-on-one personal evangelism. Whatever the venue, it’s speaking of the clear and emphatic proclamation of the gospel. That’s the idea.” –Dr. John MacArthur
“Whenever the true message of the cross is abolished, the anger of hypocrites and heretics ceases…and all things are in peace. This is a sure token that the devil is guarding the entry to the house, and that the PURE doctrine of God’s Word has been taken away. The Church then, is in the BEST state, when Satan assaileth it on every side . . . . both with subtle sleights, and outright violence. And likewise it is in the WORST state when it is most at peace!” –Martin Luther
Introduction: What follows is an e-mail that I recently sent to evangelist Ray Comfort of The Way of the Master Ministries. For many years, I have appreciated Ray's ministry and evangelistic efforts, but because Ray is planning to unequally yoke himself with Word of Faith heretics in order to create a platform for preaching the gospel (an "ends justifies the means" mentality) at the 2008 Inspiring Excellence Conference, I decided to respond with a loving but earnest e-mail. Please pray that this brother will either take a stand and expose these heretics for what they are and warn the conference attendees of the false gospel of "health and wealth" or that he will decline his invitation to speak at this conference.Though we be active in the battle, if we are not fighting where the battle is the hottest, we are traitors to the cause.Brother Comfort, I pray that you'll use this opportunity to expose these false teachers for what they are in accordance with Scripture (Jude 3), or avoid partnering with them "in ministry" so as to be obedient to 2 Corinthians 6:14-18,
The following links are to a series of short articles I wrote about Inherited Sin at Strange Baptist Fire:
Introduction: What follows is a slightly modified e-mail giving some pastoral advice about how to minister to a professing Christian that is a control freak or a controlling person.
Introduction: The following article was written by Mike Adams, an elder at New Covenant Bible Fellowship in Tempe, AZ. It is a great introduction to the importance of quickly reconciling and restoring broken relationships with fellow Christians.**************************************************************************
The relationships that the Lord gives us are important and sometimes, how we handle them can make or break us. The way that we handle our relationships can be be a true barometer of our hearts, especially in times of conflict. Conflict or misunderstanding in our relationships will occur but how we deal with the conflict or misunderstanding when it arises is the true litmus test of our love for the Lord. Look at the Lord’s words in the sermon on the mount:
“Therefore, if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to your brother; then come and offer your gift. Settle matters quickly with your adversary who is taking you to court. Do it while you are still with him on the way, or he may hand you over to the judge, and the judge may hand you over to the officer, and you may be thrown into prison. I tell you the truth, you will not get out until you have paid the last penny.” Matthew 5:23-26
I want you to see the urgency in the Lord’s words in that passage. When there is a problem with a relationship - I remember that my brother has something against me - I am to seek reconciliation with a sense of urgency. I am Biblically responsible to do all I can to settle matters quickly and restore the relationship. Notice also that the Lord said that I remember that my brother has something against me. I may have nothing against him, or even be aware that there is a problem, but as soon as I am made aware that there is a problem, I am Biblically bound to seek resolution and reconciliation with my brother. This is true even in instances where the charge of wrongdoing may be false and the person may simply have the mistaken impression that I’ve wronged them. Even that demands that I seek restoration and reconciliation with no less urgency.
You’re Not Done Until You’ve Done Everything
When it comes to managing all of the relationships that the Lord in His wisdom has put me in, my work is never really done. Look at what Paul told the Roman churches:
Live in harmony with one another. Do not be proud, but be willing to associate with people of low position. Do not be conceited. Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody. If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. Romans 12:16-18
I am Biblically responsible to do everything that I can in order to keep the relationships that the Lord has given me good. “If it is possible,” Paul said, “as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone.” In other words, I am to exhaust every resource at my disposal to ensure that I have no broken relationships. I can never “opt out” of a relationship without first doing what Scripture commands, and exhausting every resource at my disposal to ensure that my relationships remain good.
The Debt of Love
I owe all of those that the Lord has brought into my life a great debt of love for the Lord’s sake. I am to love them unconditionally and never give up on them or intentionally walk away from a relationship where I know that there are unresolved issues that have placed an obstacle between me and my brother. The debt that I owe my brother is a debt of continuing love.
Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for he who loves his fellowman has fulfilled the law. The commandments, “Do not commit adultery,” “Do not murder,” “Do not steal,” “Do not covet,” and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this one rule: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law. Romans 13:8-10
If I knowingly abandon a relationship where I know there is unresolved conflict, I am doing harm to my brother and therefore, not loving him. If I am knowingly or purposefully not loving my brother as I love myself, I am breaking the Law of Christ and sinning. Paul’s meaning is very clear. I owe my brother a debt of love and part of that debt is the continuing obligation to do all that is within my control or power to reconcile and restore a damaged relationship, even if the damage is only perceived on my brother’s part and not actual. If I love the Lord and my brother, I will seek to clear the air.
Loving God Means Loving Others
Handling relationships in the Christian life is basic and it lies at the very core of determining whether I love Jesus Christ. Relationships are the tell all of my Christian experience because I can’t fool you or pull the wool over your eyes in this matter. If I have unresolved sin issues (either real, or perceived) in my relationships, they are out there for all to see. If they remain unresolved because of my lack of action to resolve them, then everything else that I do in my ministry becomes clouded and even suspect. If I knowingly ignore a bad relationship in my life, then my credibility in ministry is called into question and if, after I am made aware that relationships have been damaged and I continue to evade them, it is fair to view my ministry with suspicion because I am knowingly ignoring the commands of Scripture to seek reconciliation with a sense of urgency. It makes no difference how many times I encourage you to love Jesus or push you in that direction, if at the same time, I am not loving my brother. That is hypocrisy in action and my ministry has a giant cloud of suspicion looming over it. The Apostle John is very clear that I doing little more than lip service if, while pointing others to Jesus, I myself am not loving those He has brought into my life. I cannot love Jesus if I am not loving others by doing everything within my control and exhausting all of my resources to restore a broken relationship that have been made aware of.
If anyone says, “I love God,” yet hates his brother, he is a liar. For anyone who does not love his brother, whom he has seen, cannot love God, whom he has not seen. And he has given us this command: Whoever loves God must also love his brother. 1 John 4:20-21
