http://ichthys.com/ 
Believers in the World XXV

Question #1:  
Hi Mr. Luginbill,

Thank you, I did have a good week! I hope you did also!

I was looking at 1 Timothy 6:16-17 this morning, as I had written it down in my notebook. When it's talking about "richly provides us with everything for our enjoyment" is that in the context of wealth, as in "don't trust in your money, trust in God, since it is God Who gives it to you to enjoy" or in a different context? Is it all things in life that are good? I'm just unsure on that part of the passage.

Respectfully,
Response #1:   
Yes, the context is one of telling those who are monetarily rich to keep their eyes on the true wealth of the things related to the Lord both now and in eternity.
Command those who are rich in this present world not to be arrogant nor to put their hope in wealth, which is so uncertain, but to put their hope in God, who richly provides us with everything for our enjoyment. Command them to do good, to be rich in good deeds, and to be generous and willing to share. In this way they will lay up treasure for themselves as a firm foundation for the coming age, so that they may take hold of the life that is truly life.
1st Timothy 6:17-19 NKJV
As to what is enjoyable, that depends on us as individuals, but all things that are truly good come from the Lord. So we (probably) enjoy our food – and we thank Him for it (e.g., Jn.6:23; Acts 27:35; 1Cor.10:30). Clearly, we're not talking about sinful things, but, as Paul says, "if we have food and clothing, we will be content with that" (1Cor.6:8), and most of us are blessed to have a roof over our heads as well. We have a right to be thankful for these things and to enjoy them along with all the other good things the Lord has given us, such as family and friends and decent health and a job and, and, and, etc. It's not wrong to enjoy a beautiful sunset. One of many of the wonderful things in this otherwise sinful world that God has given us which we have a right to enjoy without guilt or remorse.

Wishing you a good week ahead – and keeping you in my prayers.

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #2:  
Hey Dr. Luginbill, 

I've had some questions that I've been holding onto for a while that I wanted to ask, some smaller for clarification and further refinement. 

I think I remember reading somewhere that you said there is a difference between disliking and hating someone and that it is ok to dislike someone as long as we love them (maybe I already asked you about this?). I believe I agree with that (or so lean in that direction) but just wanted to ask if you could explain that statement a little more and what you mean by it. Is there any Scripture that qualifies this belief by mentioning it directly or indirectly? If not, how can we be sure this teaching is true? Would a good example be many of the Psalms where David says "I hate those who hate you (God)?" As in, David (or some other Psalter in some cases) has a strong dislike for these people but does not actually hate them and thus violate the command to love all men (since Jesus commands us to love even our enemies)? I've heard someone say that God loves and hates certain people (His enemies) at the same time (although that leaves a person in confusion because they never adequately explain what "hate" means in that case). What do the Psalms mean when they say He hates those who oppose Him or practice this or that? 

A quick question regarding 1 John 5:4; back in January (I think), I asked you about the meaning of 1 John 5:18 regarding the first and second use of the phrase "born of God" or "is born again." 1 John 5:4 says (quoting from the NIV here, "For everyone born of God overcomes the world. This is the victory that has overcome the world, even our faith." You mentioned that the second "is born of God" in 1 John 5:18 is in the aorist tense (as opposed to the perfect tense which we have with the first phrase, "is born of God." My question is, is the phrase "born of God" in 1 John 5:4 also in the aorist tense (looking forward to when the "game is actually over")? And if so, would that mean "overcomes the world" refers to a believer's completed glorification, not their present justified status they enter into initially upon faith in Christ? 

Moving on from that, is the word "soul" in 1 Thessalonians 5:23 being used as a synonym for the heart (the interface between the body and Spirit)? If not, why does this verse make it look as if the soul (nephesh?) is some separate entity (which we both know it isn't)? Why does the English translation put it this way (I think there might be other verses that phrase it this way as well)? 

Second to last, does it really matter what method a pastor teacher uses to teach when he first begins his teaching ministry? As in, do you think it is a bad idea for a teacher to jump right into verse by verse without teaching some basics first (whether through topical studies, systematic theology, or some series)? I get why some would say initially jumping into verse by verse may not be the best approach but it just comes off as legalistic to try to make rules about what people should or shouldn't do on this score because everyone is called to different things with differing gifts and approaches to teaching (hence I'm not sure I agree with those who oppose utilizing the verse by verse approach initially). I get why some would say "You're doing it wrong if you start off doing verse by verse without teaching a lot of basics first" but this just seems to me to depend on a person's calling because there is a "division of labor" among pastor teachers. Do you think it's ok if a teacher begins his ministry with verse by verse teaching (let's say he just opened a website and that is the first material he has to offer)? Or what of teaching ministries that do verse by verse only (even if they aren't opposed to topical, systematic, series, or a combination of verse by verse and topical)? 

The Peter series and the Coming Tribulation (as well as the Hebrew series) are a combination of verse by verse and topical, correct? 

Finally, not a theological subject, but, considering I'm close to the dating phase now, I thought I would ask a question regarding a concern related to dating. It is not all that uncommon for some Christian fathers to "drill" prospective husbands of their daughters on their doctrinal beliefs and biblical views. 

As one example, one of my uncles drilled his now son in law on some of his beliefs (before he proposed to his daughter), such as whether he adhered to absolute eternal security, etc. etc. (this uncle of mine is a calvinist). I think he asked him whether he believed whether salvation could be lost and his answer was no (incorrect as it was). I think it's good that fathers engage in this practice (my dad did with my soon to be brother in law who just recently got engaged to one of my sisters and he admitted that he could have "drilled him more" by asking more questions). This is all good and completely understandable since a woman's parents want to make sure their daughter will have a good spiritual leader who is solid in their theological beliefs (even if they are wrong on some of them). 

This leads me to ask, suppose I date a woman and she comes to agree with me that salvation can be lost (as but only one good example seeing as how that ruffles a lot of people's feathers). I know this is something I just need to leave in the Lord's hands by trusting in Him but what if her father finds out and doesn't approve of it and is reluctant to let us marry for that reason? Does a Christian father really have the power and right to refuse the marriage because of his own dislikes, or do you think it's the case that the decision to marry is within the right and power of the couple? As in, who gets to decide? What if the woman's father doesn't approve of the young man (even though he's right) and refuses to allow them to marry? What then if they really are meant for each other, elope, (lol)? 

Your brother in Christ, 
Response #2:   
I'll do my best!

1) Love, usually agape in the NT, is, of course, the premier Christian virtue (link). But there is a difference between agape love and what we might call "personal love" (sometimes represented in contrast to agape as philia in the Greek NT, but there is also sometimes overlap in the terms). The former is subject dependent: we love because of who we are, responding to God's love, not at all because of the objects we love, who may be despicable. The latter is something all human beings experience, and has to do with the attractiveness (in one way or another) of the object of our love. So they are not at all the same. God loves all in this first way, wanting the best for everyone. So then should we as well, desiring the salvation of all. But that does not mean that we need to socialize with people who despise us and who are out to harm us. Not at all. We may pray for them (or do whatever the Spirit moves us to do), but God does not expect us to try and develop (philia) friendships with our enemies. That would be foolish. So while I don't recall ever putting things the way you remember (link or citation?), it is certainly true that we Christians are called to view all human beings as creations of God whom God wants to respond to His grace in Jesus Christ, and to act in ways conducive to that where opportunity in the Spirit offers. So, yes, we do not have to like everyone; we are supposed to love (agape – impersonal, tolerating, seeking their genuine best) everyone. Further, since you include it, God clearly hates evil even as He in His grace has provided the means for evil-doers to be saved; we should have the same attitude – and make the same distinction.

2) Your remembrance of the tenses in 1st John 5:18 is correct. In 1st John 5:4, we have a perfect participle which expresses vividly a state rather than looking to the past entirely: "Everyone who has been / is in the state of being born again". That is to say, someone who entered into that state in the past and continues therein (the standard meaning of the perfect also in English). For me, this emphasizes the need for believers to remain where they are in terms of their faith in Christ, for it is only those who still are believers who are going to be saved ultimately even as we are positionally saved now.

3) Re: "other verses":
So he answered and said, “‘You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind,' and ‘your neighbor as yourself."
Luke 10:27 NKJV
Judging from the above, if we go by appearances the heart and the soul and the strength and the mind could be considered four separate things, and then I suppose we have six if we add the spirit and the body of 1st Thessalonians 5:23. Or maybe both verses merely mean "your all and your everything": that is the way we should love the Lord, and that is what Paul wishes for his readers to be "preserved blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ". All six words mean something, but just because in one passage there are three of them together is not dispositive regarding the constitution of human beings to the point of saying that the three are separate and distinct entities . . . anymore than such is the case with other passages. If one does a concordance search of nephesh / psyche, the results will make it clear (even if one does this in the English Bible via Strongs or sim.), that this word (in either Hebrew or Greek) is a synonym for "the [mental/emotional] heart" (when the focus is internal) and for "the [whole] person" (where the focus is external). Thus in all instances "soul" is not a separate part of the human being but a way to describe him/her as a whole person, often with the emphasis on the internal "heart" of said person, or of persons in general, calling attention to their value as human beings (as we might say, "the ship sank and a hundred souls were lost"). 
Then sent Joseph, and called his father Jacob to him, and all his kindred, threescore and fifteen souls (<psyche).
Acts 7:14 KJV
In the above citation, we can be sure that it is talking about the entire person, not just a part of a person. Q.E.D. Plenty about this in BB 3A: Anthropology, section II.4, "The Dichotomy of Man" (link).

4) Re: methodology. I think this falls entirely into the realm of the individual pastor-teacher's prerogative. He wants his congregation to grow. So he needs to teach them the Word. It's not possible to teach verse-by-verse correctly without ever going into doctrinal/topical issues; similarly, it's not possible to teach doctrinal/topical studies without spending time exegeting verses. Both are clearly essential. If a pastor-teacher is doing Basics but bumps into a verse from, e.g., Genesis, that opens up issues the congregation needs to hear about, nothing wrong with spending some months doing a chapter there. And vice versa if a pastor-teacher is doing Genesis but bumps into a doctrinal topic his congregation needs to hear about, nothing wrong with a long digression on that subject. As long as the congregation is getting fed good spiritual food, I don't see the problem.

5) The specifics of what you ask about here seem to me to fall into the category of "We'll blow up that bridge when we come to it". Or, as Steve Martin used to quip, "How do you not pay taxes on a million dollars? First, get a million dollars . . . " If you are blessed to run into (i.e., if the Lord leads you to), the right woman, then you have done better than getting a million dollars, and you'll be helped to get over that river even if the bridge has been blown. Relatives always present problems for married couples and crosses to bear – on both sides. But if the marriage is meant to be and if both parties work hard at it, these problems can be overcome (along with all the others). But it does take a lot of sacrifice.

Keeping you in prayer about this, my friend.

In Jesus,

Bob L.
p.s., how go your efforts to reach out to various churches in your area?
Question #3:  
Re: So, yes, we do not have to like everyone; we are supposed to love . . .

I think the above is more of what I was getting at. So if I were to say, I dislike said person over there while still loving them, there would be no contradiction because I "agape" love them as all believers should while disliking them because of how they behave and act toward me. 

For example, there are some people (both believer and unbeliever) I know who I dislike because of how they speak and act toward me (sometimes in sinful ways but not always). You don't think there is anything wrong or sinful about that, right? Of course I agree that we should "agape" love everyone in all the ways that looks like and what that entails but I don't have as much of a personal love (philia) for those people that I actually "like." I still love my enemies and long to see them improve and get better (I still hope for their betterment in every way) but I dislike them for what they say and do. Does that make sense and is that alright? 

To me, it seems the issue boils down to "what do we mean when we say we "dislike" someone." I imagine it's just a matter of explaining what we mean instead of just leaving that statement isolated by itself. Am I seeing all this right? 

2) Re: the tenses in 1st John 5:18. I ask because OSAS (calvinistic perseverance of the saints) advocates can look at this verse and say "everyone who has believed will continue in the faith because those who are in the process of sanctification will overcome the world (reach eternity guaranteed) and that there is no possibility for anyone who has truly believed to fall away. In all fairness to them, the verse does seem to allow for that interpretation (even though we know it's wrong). But there is only one correct answer and we know what that is. But to their minds, it sounds to me like they would take the meaning "everyone who is in the faith being sanctified will overcome the world" to mean that all believers will endure with their faith intact, thus removing the possibility that some have, can, and do fall away. 

3) understood on point three regarding "soul" but I'll look into it more (nothing else to say about it to you in this email though). Thanks! 

4) Re: methodology. These were my thoughts exactly! I just wanted to get your take on it because I've discussed this with someone before a while back and they didn't quite agree. If I'm teaching verse by verse, well of course I'm gonna go "off the side" in my teaching when explaining some basic principles and critical doctrines as I go along which is why I don't know why some have made this such a big deal. I agree entirely and thanks for sharing your view on that! 

5) Thanks, that was helpful. Makes perfect sense. I was gonna respond and ask "would it be a sin to marry even if the father forbids the marriage" but the whole truth that "if it is meant to be, it can be overcome" seems to override any concern there. It really DOESN'T matter because (and I just thought of this) the plans of a man (whether the father or the son) are many, but, in the end, it is the Lord's way which prevails. No need to worry about tomorrow. 

On the churches... not much to really give any updates on there. I'm still in this one church I mentioned previously (it's nondenominational) and will not be trying any others now and probably not in the future. As for the one I'm trying now, after extensive "research" and attending it for some time now, I will say that, although not to the standards you and I would prefer, it is better than most of what's out there. So I'm gonna stick with it unless and until I feel led to move on for good. 

If you could just pray for me at work [omitted] There are problems all over the place from just about everyone (although I'm not perfect either), but you're going to get those at every job to greater or lesser degrees. 

In His grace and power, 
Response #3:  
Scripture never tells us that it's "OK" to dislike people, so I'm very reluctant to sign on to that. In fact it tells us to love our enemies. Granted, that doesn't mean loving them in a personal way, but it does mean, it seems to me, setting aside as far as is possible all rancor of every sort, committing ourselves to tolerate them and pray for their spiritual best – even as we endeavor to stay as far way from them as possible. Otherwise, we are merely going to upset ourselves and compromise our own spirituality – in the same way that this happens in marriage (e.g., 1Pet.3:7). Here's what I read about agape love, moreover:
Love exercises patience. Love does what is honorable. Love is not envious. It does not go about boasting vainly. It does not swell with pride. It does not behave in a shameful way. It does not seek after its own advantage. It is not easily provoked. It does not bear grudges. It does not rejoice over wickedness, but it rejoices together with the truth. It protects everything [which ought to be protected]. It believes everything [which ought to be believed]. It hopes everything [which ought to be hoped for]. It endures everything [which ought to be endured].
1st Corinthians 13:4-7
Re: "everyone who has believed will continue in the faith", I don't see that in this verse at all. The perfect tense describes a present reality, namely, "everyone who has been born of God in the past with the result that they are now at present God's children on account of their faith in Jesus Christ". In other words, "believers". But ONLY believers are saved. Unbelievers are NOT saved. And if a believer abandons their faith entirely, they are not saved because they are no longer a believer. It is and it has always been all about faith. If faith is lost, so is this status of belonging to God.

On marriage, that's right. It is a wise perspective to understand that marrying anyone also to some degree marries the person's family et al., but it is the relationship between the two individuals which counts.

I am and will continue to be praying for you in the job, and that the Lord will honor your hard work and integrity in giving a good witness for Him.

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #4:  
Thank you for your prayers- they are much needed! [omitted]

I have a lot of questions about our topic below so forgive me if I've made it difficult for you to catch each and every one. Sorry to throw a lot at you here. 

On dislike, I mean, no one should "like" disliking someone but the Bible doesn't say it's bad or sinful either unless... this leads me to my next set of questions- in the biblical sense, are hate and dislike synonymous or different in that they really aren't the same thing? In your honest view, what does it really mean to dislike someone and is it sinful (sometimes or always)? I understand that hate involves having a strong dislike but my understanding of the matter is that hate takes it many steps further by basically wishing someone dead, which is why first John states that the one who hates is a murder who does not have eternal life abiding in them. Many people will tell you they dislike such and such but nowhere near to the level of wanting to see them fail or die (you get the point). 

Does dislike have to carry "baggage" with it? Is it impossible to dislike someone while being at peace with them in your heart without rancor and intolerance? Or is the main concern that, like anger, if you don't suppress your dislike for someone, it can lead to sinful thoughts, words, and actions toward them, with hate being the worst possible outcome? In other words, like anger, don't let it continue? Or was it wrong or sinful to have any dislike to begin with? 

I suppose I emailed you about this because, to be honest, I never really knew what I was saying when I said I "dislike" someone (which is funny now that I think about it because I've been asking you whether it's ok or not). So I'm really just confused, which is why I believe the Lord led me to email you about this because this is no small or insignificant topic (getting this wrong can have serious implications). I would often follow up by saying that I dislike what they do and say (assuming it's sinful or wrong) but that is different from disliking the actual person. However, I still did say I did not like them, so I suppose that would still make me guilty assuming I was in the wrong to think and say such a thing (the very thing I'm trying to figure out). 

I only ask this because of the way you worded it but what do you mean by saying "we do not have to like everyone?" Can you explain that statement? This begs another question. If I say I like someone (men and women in general, so no sexual love, of course), does that equate to loving them? Does dislike equate hate and like, love? I don't mean to get all caught up in terms and words but we use them all the time for a reason and they have meaning, so I do think it's important. 

Finally (regarding this topic) how would you explain Psalm 139:21-23? The ESV reads, 21 "Do I not hate those who hate you, O Lord? And do I not hate those who rise up against you? 22. I hate them with complete hatred; I count them my enemies." What is the meaning of the word hate in this context? I looked this passage up on Blue Letter Bible and got multiple meanings. I understand the Psalmist "hates" these people because they are God's, and, therefore, his enemies. They also do wicked deeds which both he and God hate. But the translation doesn't say he hates their evil deeds but he hates them, as in, the individuals themselves. The word love doesn't show up in this passage either so I don't see how the difference between philia and agape change the playing field here. So what am I missing? If this verse refers to God and the psalmist hating evil deeds, why not just state it that way instead of saying (paraphrasing here) "I hate those who do these things?" 

Re: "everyone who has believed will continue in the faith", Well of course I agree that this verse isn't saying believers can't fall away but I just wanted to see how that isn't the case (working out the details). I think you already addressed that concern in one of your prior emails so forgive me for the unintentional oversight. 

In His grace and power, 
Response #4:  
I worded things the way I worded them for a reason. The Bible says what it says. It doesn't say what it doesn't say. We can make applications in all of those areas, and we may be correct in doing so, but we, as Bible teachers especially, have to keep that distinction clear. "Does God hate communists?" The word is not in the Bible. It would be very easy to pick out certain behaviors of such regimes and say definitively that they are not consonant with Christian behavior, however.

So I'm reluctant to say that "it's OK to dislike" anyone because 1) the Bible never puts things this way – it says we should love/agape our enemies; 2) as you point out very well, what that means may be different from person to person. So, again, as a Bible teacher, I would counsel you not to say things that way or to put things that way. You can say and teach what the Bible says and teaches, then leave it to others to make their own personal applications. In that case, it will be pretty easy to tell when someone is applying things correctly on the one hand, or using scripture as an excuse to do what they want on either end of the spectrum on the other (i.e., being overly solicitous of those who are evil or not nearly tolerant enough of those who are not so).

If you are asking if we have to change our norms and standards in ways that the Bible does not demand, of course we do not. If we are naturally not inclined to like someone in a personal way, for whatever reason, that is not something we need to apologize for or "correct". People have differences and so the number of people we are naturally inclined to like will be by definition much smaller than those who fall into the neutral or negative category. As long as we are not mistreating them and as long as we are tolerant of them, especially when it comes to our desire for all to be saved and to grow in Christ, then I don't see any problem. We are not supposed to play favorites (Jas.2:1-9). We are supposed to be open to those who are positive to the truth even if they are not naturally attractive to us (Rom.12:16). We are supposed to love everyone (agape), even our enemies (Rom.12:17-20). But suggesting that we can force ourselves to "like" people we naturally find "unlikable" is not something I find scripture commanding.

In fact, that is probably impossible. Back when I was in service, we had mandatory training in "human relations" which was designed to diffuse racial and other cultural tensions by exploring different cultural perspectives and discussing them. I suppose it might have done some good. But I do remember one sailor quoted as saying, "What this training did for me was that previously I just disliked [group X]; now I know why I dislike them". This principle, it seems to me, probably applies across all manner of differences wherein someone might not like someone else for whatever reason. Exploring the dislike might just make it worse. Operating on a policy of professional toleration of everyone and studied equal treatment of everyone regardless of personal likes and dislikes strikes me as the best approach for a Christian whether we are talking about social or work situations.

In terms of "hate" in the Psalms and especially the imprecatory Psalms, these are written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and thus reflect God's truth. Being opposed to evil is a godly position. So I don't see a contradiction. We can wish for someone's salvation even as we also may wish for them and their evil activities to be stymied. 

I don't think this last question rests on vocabulary. God is love (agape: 1Jn.4:8). And it is much better to be on the good side of Him than on the bad side. Because, as in the example above, if He wants a person's best but the person is essentially forcing Him into judging them instead, that is going to be bad for said person. On the other hand, He loves us who belong to Him with a perfect love, but even here we don't want to be in a position of forcing Him to discipline us; rather, we ought to want to be in a position to benefit from that perfect love to the greatest extent possible by drawing as close to Him as possible and giving as little offense as possible so as to maximize blessing that comes from Him (as opposed to the opposite).

Apologies in advance if I didn't get to everything, but you can always write me back, my friend.

Best wishes for a good week ahead – and congrats on the upcoming vacation!

In Jesus,

Bob L. 
Question #5:  
Regarding the phrase "It is ok to dislike anyone"- is it the word "Ok," "dislikes," or both that bothers you? As I mentioned earlier, it isn't or may not be bad to say I dislike this or that person. You just don't like it when we phrase it "It is ok to dislike someone" by stating that as a principle because it can be true at times but not at others? Am I understanding you correctly? Although, truth be told, a wise pastor probably wouldn't go around telling his listeners he dislikes so and so. But I'm not limiting this to just teaching or just pastors speaking with their sheep but general conversations anyone has with anyone. I know this email is all over the place so please forgive me but I couldn't think of any other way to write it. 

or... 

Are you saying you just wouldn't like it if someone said "there are people I dislike" because that word (dislike) doesn't show up in Scripture and that we should just stick with making the only distinctions Scripture does- that being the difference between philia and agape love (and hating the deeds and not the person)? So instead of saying "I dislike someone," you would prefer if I said that I have a more personal love for so and so over here than I do that person over there, correct? Or perhaps, if they are an unbeliever, I don't have philia love for them because they aren't a brother or sister but I still love (agape) them? Then, like you said, how that lack of philia (more or less of it) shows itself is an area of application that may or may not be right? 

Not to play devil's advocate to express a, perhaps, mute point, but Psalm 139:21-23 does use the word hate, which you seem to take to mean to be referring to God's hate for the evil deeds and not the person themself (I agree with that but am still left wondering why the Bible doesn't just put it that way). So what if someone uses the word "dislike" to describe their view of a person's evil deeds or negative behavior toward them? Sure, the word "dislike" doesn't show up in Scripture yet most people consider it to be a much softer and civil way of putting things then hate so that I don't see how you could say it is unwise to put things that way solely based on the argument of "the word isn't in Scripture." These verses in Psalms say, "Do I not hate those who hate you?" Someone could also say "Do I not dislike those who practice evil" (the dislike not being for the person themself but their evil deeds or foul behavior). But that presents a problem because we are supposed to hate evil and saying you simply dislike it (evil) seems to fall short of doing that. Again, this is all probably mute and of little consequence but necessary to sort out in my view. 

This begs the question (which you may have already answered but what is still not clear to me yet), can "dislike" in our modern English language be synonymous with hate? To you, what does it mean to dislike someone (you may have already answered this but I may have missed it)? You mentioned that what that means may mean different things to different people. Can hate be one of those meanings? If our English word "dislike" does not have that meaning, then why should there be any concern of running afoul of possibly hating someone just because you said you disliked them? Are you concerned that people may or could confuse hate with dislike and that is another reason we should avoid using it? In other words, like the word meditation, is it unwise to use the word "dislike" as a technical term because, like meditation, the word can mean different things to different people? But does the word have one meaning in the English language? If so, then why would/should it mean different things to different people? 

To make it even more interesting, even though Psalm 139 says what it says, you and I would probably counsel people not to go around saying "I hate those who hate God" (even though it is the evil we hate and not the person/people themself/themselves) simply because people can too easily misunderstand and take that phrase the wrong way. In other words, just because Scripture puts it that way doesn't mean we should too (that can be a very bad idea for multiple reasons). Do you agree with that? Of course Psalm 139 was written by inspiration of the Holy Spirit but that is true of all Scripture. 

Re: "so the number of people we are naturally inclined to like will be by definition much smaller than those who fall into the neutral or negative category . . ." I agree but what do you mean by this phrase? Or I should ask, how do you know that and how do you qualify such a statement? I get that if you don't know someone they will probably remain in the neutral category but how can you say that for sure regarding the negative just because there are differences? 

So is it correct to say God loves all people equally? That is to say, having a more personal love for someone else (as is the case with God's love for His children) doesn't mean you love them more overall? 

In His grace and power, 
Response #5:   
Wondering on this end if maybe starting over might not be the worst idea. At present, we are in grave danger of "committing theology", something I am always averse to. If the Bible says something, it is true. Our job is to explain what the Bible says from the passage itself and from other similar passages and from the overall system of truth the Bible contains. Whenever one wanders too far away from this, theology results. And the worse sort of theology is when hypotheticals take on authority and are used to back-inform biblical study. That's how they got Roman Catholicism et al.

I'm not aware of anywhere in the New Testament where we are given any kind of go-ahead to be negative towards other people. We are told not to associate with other believers who are not acting as Christians should, but we are also always told to walk in love, love one another, love our neighbors (fellow believers) as ourselves, etc., etc. When asked "who is my neighbor", of course, our Lord used an example that put the widest possible interpretation on this (although even so most commentators take that farther than they should and in the wrong directions too).

In terms of the Psalms, I explained that these present God's attitude towards those who oppose believers and thus fill us with confidence that He is with us even when we are unjustly attacked. But I don't think we can draw conclusions about that beyond what we've said, namely, that He loves all but not the behavior of all, and that this is the pattern we should follow as well. Since we're not required to socialize with anyone and since we are required to act in a godly, professional way in any situation we find ourselves where others are present (e.g., in the workplace), I'm not sure where we even really need to worry about having an opinion about someone else – except to be negatively disposed towards bad behavior of course; and even here, we still want them to be saved and would rejoice with the angels in heaven if they did turn around. 

This is probably important, because if we are walking in love, walking in forgiveness, seeking the good and not giving in to negative emotions in any way, we will be happier and less likely to fall afoul of some very insidious satanic traps. So for all these reasons, I'd rather tackle this with a passage centered approach if you want to take it further.

Re: "but what do you mean by the phrase 'so the number of people we are naturally inclined to like will be by definition much smaller than those who fall into the neutral or negative category'; how do you know that and how do you qualify such a statement?" This is my observation from a lifetime of personal experience and study of people and history. If it's not your experience, that's OK. It's not really critical to the discussion one way or another.

Re: "So is it correct to say God loves all people equally? That is to say, having a more personal love for someone else (as is the case with God's love for His children) doesn't mean you love them more overall?" I'm not really sure what you mean by this, especially the last part. God is love. God created us all. God wants all to be saved. Jesus died for all. But it is also true that scripture uses anthropopathisms like "hate" to express what God does not want us to be or do. And it is also true that Abraham, for example, is described as God's "friend". The Lord spoke with Moses "face to face" uniquely. Clearly, some are closer to Him than others. And so that is what we all should want too, namely, to be as close to Him as possible. 
Come near to God and he will come near to you.
James 4:8a NIV
When we do what the Lord tells us to do, He is pleased with that; when we don't, He is not. We finite human beings can't really detach that from the ideas of personal love and enmity – which is OK, as long was we respond in the correct way.
"You are my friends if you do what I command."
John 15:14 NIV
Do feel free to write me back.

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #6:  
I know I've asked a lot of questions thus far, so sorry about that. If I may briefly deviate from the present discussion by asking something related (since you just mentioned it) but also unrelated to our present topic (because it has nothing to do with liking, hating, etc) is the question of, what do you mean by "theology?" Obviously, you have the "systematic theology" which is the study of God which we don't take issue with (you have your own study on that located in the basic series). But could you describe in more detail how you differentiate between "that type" of theology and the negative kind you describe here? I know (after studying under your ministry for almost 8 years now) that you don't like getting into theology and I've heard you say you don't like getting into "theological gymnastics." I always nodded my head in agreement when you said that because I always had a partial idea of what you meant but never fully grasped the meaning of those words. What do you mean by "theological gymnastics?" 

Re: "I'm not aware of anywhere in the New Testament where we are given any kind of go-ahead to be negative towards other people-" I have heard people (and I'm sure you have as well) tell me "I don't like this person." The "application" of "how" they express that "dislike" is between them and God and may be right or wrong depending (as you yourself said). But if you hear someone say they dislike so and so over there, would you say they shouldn't have said it that way? People (many believers included) say stuff like that all the time (which doesn't make it wrong or right, of course). I think I agree that saying "it's ok to dislike someone" is not a good way to put things for reasons you've given. But does that mean we have the right to go around telling people to stop saying they dislike someone else or to never put it that way ever (even if they don't mean it in a wrong or sinful way)? This is not a hypothetical- I have heard this many times and you heard it from me. Maybe I should rephrase my question- is it wrong for a person to say "I dislike that person over there?" Is that something you think no believer should ever say at any time (even if it wasn't sinful per se?)? That is more of what I'm trying to figure out. Do you think that is something totally different than telling someone "It is ok to dislike someone?" Does all this make sense? 

You counseled me not to say (especially when teaching others) "It is ok to dislike someone" because that is not a good way to put things (it can encourage and lead to sinful behavior, granted) and I will heed that counsel. But is this the same as telling me "you are not allowed to say (to someone else in private even when not teaching) 'I don't like that person over there (because the word never shows up in Scripture)?'" I promise you I'm not trying to drag this discussion out but don't want to withdraw until I've understood the matter due to its significance. 

"In terms of the Psalms" Agreed. I know there is no contradiction, of course there isn't! But does Scripture put it that way (I hate those- instead of their deeds)? Is it because we are expected to use some spiritual common sense? Or perhaps it's meant to be difficult to test our faith? Perhaps both? 

Re: "So is it correct to say God loves all people equally?" I mean, being honest, I don't understand the confusion because that is actually a pretty common question that I've heard some people ask others over the years. Are you saying it just isn't the right question to ask? So should we just say, God loves all men but has a more personal love for His children and just leave it at that? I mean, if I said I love my mother (who is not only my physical mother but also a sister in Christ) in a more personal way than some unbeliever over in whatever direction, that isn't the same as saying I love her more than any unbeliever? 

In Christ, 
Response #6:  
The classical example of this sort of "traditional theology" or we might term it "speculative theology" as opposed to "biblical theology" is the medieval question, "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" On the face of it, it is ridiculous, of course, but it exemplifies "theological" inquiries which suffer from similar problems: 1) it makes assumptions about what is possible and attempts then to answer questions based upon such assumptions as if they were possible; 2) it thus tends to validate and enshrine the assumptions that lead to the question in the first place; 3) it has nothing whatsoever to do with the Bible and is not a question that arises directly from reading the Bible.

Our present inquiry is not this bad, of course, but I reiterate that I don't find anyone asking our Lord or any of the apostles whether or not it is "OK" to dislike someone. As mentioned, the closest thing I can think of is the man who wanted to reduce the set of "neighbors" so as not to have "love them" as himself. And while, also as mentioned, many people have misunderstood much about the story of the "good Samaritan", it clearly does expand the meaning of "love your neighbor" beyond what Jesus' interlocutor was apparently hoping for.
"This is My commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you."
John 15:12 NKJV
Reconciling imprecatory passages in the Psalms with the "love" of the NT has always been an issue with which some have struggled. There's nothing new about that. As explained, my understanding is that 1) hate for evil is legitimate and 2) understanding that the pleas for cursing evil will be fulfilled gives us believers today confidence that WE can let all that go because God WILL take care of it for us. 

Similarly, it doesn't matter whether or not we like people or don't. Our job is to manifest Christian love to all in the hopes that all will be saved. That does not mean that we go out of our way to be "nice" to strangers with whom otherwise we would have no dealings at all, or put on a phony front, or do anything stupid – as if the world were not a dangerous place. It does mean that the attitude with which we are to approach the world is one of the higher perspective of God seeking to reconcile the world to Himself through the Gift of Jesus Christ. Since that is the case, walking in continual tolerance and forgiveness towards others, even towards those who are naturally not appealing to us (or even far the opposite) seems to me to be the correct procedure.

How all that works out in what we say and do is one matter. How in works out in what we are thinking is what we are talking about here. What we think/feel usually works its way out in what we say and do of course, and so is the critical point in this discussion. If we are allowing ourselves negative feelings towards others without setting them firmly in the agape perspective, we are likely not going to be doing what the Lord wants on this score. Mind you, there is a lot about this which only each one of us can correctly parse in our heart of hearts, and since scripture doesn't do that either (beyond what we've discussed), I'm also reluctant to do anything like "make a rule". Here's the "rule" I find in scripture.
"For if you forgive other people when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive others their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins."
Matthew 6:14-15 NKV
In terms of telling other people that we don't like someone else, well, we all have close friends and acquaintances with whom we are more frank than with others, but it seems to me that expressing displeasure with someone in this way would not be disconnected from the "why?", which, one would hope, has to do with behavior that is legitimately censurable. So as long as we direct it to the behavior and try to stay away from being personal, especially in our hearts, then I have no problem with that as mentioned before. In terms of telling other people what to do, I'm not a big fan of that . . . unless they ask (and even then I tend to tread very softly). We are down here to make our own decisions, and for believers these decisions ought to be informed by the Bible and directed by the Holy Spirit. Bible teachers teach to a congregation so that the individuals receiving the message can accept it impersonally, so to speak. But if we tell someone directly, especially when uninvited, how can they NOT take that personally? And in my experience the damage done to the relationship – to ours and theirs and possibly also between them and the Lord when they get upset – has the potential to far outweigh any possible "good" to come from trying to "straighten them out". 

Lastly, of course there is personal love in addition to impersonal love. And of course we can commit to a standard of treating everyone with the same standard of agape love without at the same time suggesting that we don't personally like, esteem, love some people in a personal way more than others. We human beings can't detach these types and degrees of love from our emotions. But God is God. So when it says He loves someone but not someone else or is a friend of someone more than someone else, that reflects the greater degree that said person is "pleasing Him" more than others by doing better and more consistently what He wants. After all, that is the basis for our eternal rewards. God does not play favorites but He does justly evaluate our conduct and our Lord does "like it" (for want of a better way of putting things) when we do what He tells us to do, when we are enthusiastic for Him and His truth. 
By faith Enoch was taken away so that he did not see death, “and was not found, because God had taken him”; for before he was taken he had this testimony, that he pleased God. But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him.
Hebrews 11:5-6 NKJV
On the other hand, if we are merely lukewarm, we risk being spit out of His mouth.
"I know your works, that you are neither cold nor hot. I could wish you were cold or hot. So then, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will vomit you out of My mouth."
Revelation 3:15-16 NKJV
I assure you that it is OK to dislike those whose deeds are "dislike-able". Jesus knew Judas was a traitor and called him "a devil", but He treated him well. On the other hand, it is also fine to have personal preferences for others, to like some more than others for whatever reason, and not just because they are "better" in their behavior. As long as we don't shortchange anyone of our agape, having philia for some greater than for others is part of what being a human being is all about. Our Lord is said to have loved John in particular (the gospel uses both terms for that relationship, so you can see the overlap too).
Then she ran and came to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved (philia), and said to them, “They have taken away the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid Him.”
John 20:2 NKJV

Therefore that disciple whom Jesus loved (agape) said to Peter, “It is the Lord!” Now when Simon Peter heard that it was the Lord, he put on his outer garment (for he had removed it), and plunged into the sea.
John 21:7 NKJV

Then Peter, turning around, saw the disciple whom Jesus loved (agape) following, who also had leaned on His breast at the supper, and said, “Lord, who is the one who betrays You?”
John 21:20 NKJV
And yet, He loved (agape) all of His disciples.
Now before the Feast of the Passover, when Jesus knew that His hour had come that He should depart from this world to the Father, having loved (agape) His own who were in the world, He loved them to the end.
John 13:1 NKJV
It is true that in the last three of these four passages above have agape and not philia, but since the phrasing is identical this just shows that John uses these verbs and their corresponding nouns as near synonyms (just as in the famous passage where the Lord asks Peter if he loves Him and where both are used interchangeably: Jn.21:15-17), so there is definitely overlap in the NT usage.  We are using the two words to demonstrate the distinction between what we have termed personal and impersonal love (which is clearly present as a concept in scripture, even if it's not always discernible in the specific vocabulary absent consideration of the context).

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #7:  
Hey Dr. Luginbill, 

Understood on the "theology" subject. Thanks for the explanation. 

Like I had mentioned in my earlier emails, I never really knew what I was saying when I told people I disliked another person other than that I disliked them because (the why) of how they act toward me (I don't like what they do or their behavior). I never put any other meaning to it than that. However, I wasn't entirely sure if there was more meaning to it, hence I asked you about it. After reading your response above, I gather that there should be no other reason why we should dislike someone if we remove the "why," correct? It should never be a personal thing because that runs afoul of sinful behavior and can lead toward hating said person (or negative patterns in thought, word, and deed). If I say I dislike someone, it should only ever be because of what they do (the negative things they say and do to me). In other words, I dislike their behavior (what they do) and not the person themself and that is what I and, perhaps, most believers do/should mean when they say they dislike person x over there. Chances are, they will inform us of "why" they "dislike" said person so that the other individual won't take it the wrong way by thinking it's a personal matter or something without any good reasons behind it. Have I understood this correctly? 

This leads me to conclude that (just like you've been saying), it is never a good idea to say "it is ok to dislike someone" because that can have multiple meanings and applications to different people (just like you said- plus Scripture doesn't put things that way). Some may take this to mean we can have a personal dislike for someone which is not good because the Bible tells us to love even our enemies (love is what ultimately matters so that dislike shouldn't be the issue even if we should avoid said person(s) for whatever reason(s)). Making it a personal matter risks going in the opposite direction of love, the path we should be on at all times. Have I nailed it down? If so, I suppose this really wasn't that complicated after all and I just misunderstood because I kept getting caught up in a bunch of unnecessary details (the theology part of all this, lol). 

If everything I said above correctly reflects what you are saying ( I believe I get it now?), then I understand and agree with everything else written in your email (it all fits together and makes perfect sense). 

One last thing unrelated to the above. I was just parsing through ecclesiology and read the section on pastor-teachers/elders, and deacons. For a while I've gathered that you believe the only offices/positions/or whatever the Bible mentions as being for today are what I just mentioned. Based on my own reading of that study, it seems that you're saying pastors and elders are the same ministry/gift?, right? In other words, an elder (the meaning in Greek being "old man") is a pastor and a pastor is an elder (overseer, bishop, presbyter? are also synonyms to describe a pastor-teacher), correct? Or is there a slight difference between an "elder" and a "pastor-teacher?" Also, what exactly do you mean by "church governance" and in what ways do deacons serve (what does their job description look like more precisely?).

I bring this up partially because back when I was in the Bible study one of the leaders mentioned that our group gathering didn't count as church because we didn't have all the ordained leaders and church organization. Of course, as we both know, we have to be flexible there and that stuff matters little as long as the truth is being taught in-depth and seriously. I privately shook my head in disagreement to what he said because our Bible study (whether everyone present realized it or not) did count as church because we were gathering together to be taught the truth and discuss it (even if the truth wasn't that much of a priority and wasn't being dispensed all that in-depth, but you get the point). To me, Bible studies do count as church. Everything should be fine as long as there is someone there qualified to teach. And what you said regarding deacons in ecclesiology was spot on to my own thoughts of the matter- you don't have to have them unless you actually need them. Because if you don't need them, why force a group to elect any? 

In His grace and power, 
Response #7:   
On church governance, I can't really add much of anything new to what I've written in BB 6B (link). The Bible is deliberately non-specific about organization from which we conclude that instead of developing elaborate systems (as all denominations and many stand-alone churches do), flexibility is the order of the day. Deacons are optional. If you only have eight people in the church, who needs to hand out titles? Everyone would just pitch in. What a church DOES need is a pastor-teacher, otherwise there is no point to it because the point in assembling is to hear the Word of God taught. It doesn't matter if there is one or two or a number of such, as long as they and the congregation get along in terms of the doctrine taught. These men would be the authorities in the church, whether one or many. How this has worked out historically, given human nature, is that most of the successful churches I have seen cede the teaching duties to one man while a few others who are qualified to weigh in constitute a "board" (often called "elders") to share the administrative oversight (which they then hand over to others, often called "deacons", to carry out). As I said, this a pattern but it is not detailed in scripture in terms of how to organize things (the Bible does talk about qualifications for pastors and deacons of course).

On the first part of the email, I would not be telling anyone (except maybe a spouse and/or my closest confidants) that I "dislike" anyone. To me, in any case, that is the wrong mindset to get into. If I dislike someone, it's probably for some perceived offense; if there is a perceived offense, then I ought rather forgive said person in my heart (not personally) and move on; if I don't, then I place myself beyond the Lord's forgiveness (Matt.6:14-15); and if I forgive them, what basis do I have to then focus on "disliking" them? That is the way I see it, anyway.

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #8:  
Much appreciated. So, just to be sure, I did understand what you said based on my last response, correct? And, yes, of course (no worries) I wouldn't go around telling people I dislike someone. It is rare when I say it and it only happens in private with those I'm closest to. Ultimately, I never want/wish to have to say it about anyone and would prefer not to except when I feel I need to be really honest (frank as you put it). 

Regarding church governance, understood on most of what you wrote (the question about what we mean by church governance really was mute now that I think about it) but (I can't tell from your response whether you answered it or not) are pastor-teachers and elders the same thing or are there slight differences? 

In Christ,
Response #8:  
My pleasure.

Re: "So, just to be sure, I did understand what you said based on my last response, correct?" As far as I am able to judge about what you understood, yes.

The Bible doesn't distinguish between elders and pastor-teachers when the former are mentioned; it does mention the latter in speaking of authoritative gifts. From this and all the other info about elders in scripture I conclude that they are the same gift, but of course everyone is different. As mentioned, it's not clear from scripture that there were elder boards in all ancient churches. When Paul tells Titus to "appoint elders in every town", it's unclear whether that means multiple elders in every town or at least one elder (pastor-teacher) in every town. I believe it was the latter. Making a strong distinction between the two as most denominations do is probably necessary if a church is going to have a group of men who govern the church but only one man who teaches. The elders should in any case be "able to teach" (1Tim.3:2), even if for the most part this duty is left to one man.

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #9:  
Thanks Bob,

I am glad you got your AC working! 100°! It is so cold and wet here that we have given up on the idea of an Indian summer.

Thanks for setting me straight. You are absolutely right. Just before we went away I had a huge break from rocky ground people who were completely burning me out. I will withdraw and work on the things quietly that I am supposed to do like my daily commitments, study and ministry. I was already roughing out a plan to do this yesterday.

It seems hard both physically and emotionally for me to remove myself from guiltily made obligations that become quagmires and useful to the enemy.

Please pray that I manage to break through this temptation and to truly do what the Lord wants of me.

Thanks my friend!

In Jesus,
p.s. I always hasten to add..I do really love my family. 
Response #9:   
I know that it is true that the evil one does try to (and often effectively succeeds in) using our acquaintances, friends and families against us. After all, we have plenty of indications from the gospel that he did this repeatedly with our Lord. So most of us have things like this to cope with. 
This is all part and parcel of the process of doing more to disentangle our main interests from the things of this world. Getting to the point of turning away from unnecessary things is an essential first step. But there are many "fronts" in this life upon which we believers must fight simultaneously. We have the job front (we have to earn a living, after all), the homestead front (we have to have some place to lay our head and keep the roof from leaking), the financial front (in this day and age, that is a separate problem we have to keep in hand), the relationship front (we are not independent actors), and the health front (we need to eat and do other things to keep these bodies from breaking down), and of course there is the world at large which can be frustrating and aggravating, not to mention intimidating and dangerous at times which, even when it is not actually impinging on our actions is often oppressing us psychologically and or emotionally. Praise God for the other "front", the spiritual growth, progress and production front -- and here our "logistical train" is always secure . . . because it is entirely in God's hands.

Keeping you in prayer and special prayers to get through this tough patch, my friend.

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #10:  
Hi Mr. Luginbill,

Just want to say thank you for this week's email posting! It was so encouraging and timely - I especially enjoyed the 1st Peter 5:7-10 passage. Thank you for all your hard work in ministering to us, it's a huge blessing in my life and I know many other's lives too! Take care!

Respectfully,
Response #10:   
Thanks so much for the encouraging words, my friend!

Wishing you a good week ahead – and keeping you in my prayers.

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #11:  
I pray for you too! I try to pray every day, but what happens is that I have a long list I want to do daily but can't but try anyway, so I end up doing multiple hours on Greek or Bible study and then another day do multiple prayers. But I am trying to balance it better to pray daily.
Response #11:   
Life is a balancing act for sure!

I appreciate your prayers, my friend – whenever and however you get to them.

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #12:  
Hi Bob,

I hope you're settling into your first week back and are not too tired. 

Thanks for your prayers for me too. [omitted] So avoiding that situation is another blessing from the Lord! Still lots to do but I was very pleased with what we achieved on Tuesday. God is good!

Friday tomorrow, Bob. Our favourite day to reach - LOL!

Well done on getting through the first week. Keeping you in my prayers!

In Jesus
Response #12:   
That's great news! Here's hoping the whole thing is resolved quickly and easily now . . . and you can get back to "regular order".

Today was the first time in about a month that I woke up to no new catastrophe. Yesterday my chair emailed me at 7AM letting me know that "they" were about to cancel all of my upper level Latin classes for low enrollment. These are all essentially independent studies, mind you. So with just a few hours before having to be down on campus teaching day #2 of the new semester, I had to write a long careful email defending my program's existence and also get as much data as possible about the students presently in the courses and why they needed them et al. It was a little frantic but I almost had to smile, unfunny as it was, given all that has happened (lots more ups and downs with my PTL's hiring last Monday and Tuesday as well). In any case, today dawned and the classes are NOT cancelled and it looks as if they aren't going to be. The rules of the game are always changing. Just tell me the rules when you change them, please. If you want me to call these classes "independent studies", no worries about that.

Thanks for the typo help!

Keeping you in my prayers, my friend.

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #13:  
Dear Teacher,

I don't remember if I've discussed this with you before. Someone just asked whether people could be born disposed to preferring the same sex. My instant response was that any manner of variation is possible in our sin nature, but then I considered the language of Romans 1:26,28 and wondered if it is possible that that perversion is only due to a stubborn rejection of the natural revelation of the Lord.

How does the Greek read, Sir, and what is your thought on the question?

Your student in Jesus,
Response #13:  
I think you are correct, but the distinction I would make is the one between temptation and succumbing to (or embracing) temptation. The former is, as you say, different for different people with every one of us being unique (with a unique "cocktail" of temptations from our individual sin natures and life circumstances); but engaging whole-heartedly in this particular category of sin is indeed, as the verses you cite show, a symptom of rejecting the truth to a very hard-hearted degree. The Spirit restrains much; to do some things requires breaking through barriers beyond the norm.

Keeping you and your families in my prayers, my friend.

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #14:  
Dear Teacher,

Thank you very much, Sir. That firms things up for me then.

People may be born with a natural susceptibility to that temptation then, but the act of succumbing to the temptation is a symptom of hard-hearted rejection of the truth.

That is very helpful.

Always deeply grateful for your prayers, Sir. We continue to pray for you too.

Your student in Jesus,
Response #14:  
You're most welcome, my friend, and I think you sum it up nicely. In this regard, it's analogous to most any other temptation to which we as individuals may be more susceptible than others. In each and every case, "it" is only a problem if we give into it – or worse, justify "it" as "not wrong" because we are loath to give "it" up.

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #15:  
Thanks Bob,

Yes I do hear you on this and I have listened to the promptings of the Holy Spirit to move on. Sometimes we only need to say one thing to get a person's attention and then move on. If they want to know more about what we meant by what we said we can then point them to the truth.

People go through life hearing the same old lies from the devil over and over that it is like a kind of sedative that has lulled them to the point they almost sleepwalk into death. I have seen the effect of saying a few rare truths to someone who is in a living coma and I have noticed that it has a visceral effect on them, something akin to throwing a bucket of water in their face. I don't mean saying anything cruel or edgy of course but something very truthful that they are unlikely to come across normally.

An example of this was talking to my (now moved on) neighbour in the supermarket. She had a fixed grin on her face as many now do when they pretend everything is wonderful. I asked how things were and she said 'fine, fine' (as people do whether they are fine or not) and I told her that we were 'getting on alright despite how crazy the world now is'. As soon as I said this, that fixed smile dropped and it was as if I had doused her in cold water. I didn't say anything mean, cruel or controversial but I told her like it really is and it really stopped her in her tracks.

I remember bumping into an American Christian on holiday once. We were just talking to him and his friend and he said to us 'It's just another day here in paradise' and my smile just fell off my face when he said that! I gave him a look as if to say 'you've got to be joking!' It's funny as he immediately clocked my reaction (he obviously said it to provoke a reaction) and he then said 'she knows what I am talking about' and we then ending up talking about our mutual faith.

It may seem an unorthodox way of reaching people but it does open the door a little. Most people are walking around dissatisfied and it seems that addressing this dissatisfaction is a way to reach them. They are walking around in pain whilst simultaneously telling everyone they've never been better. I have realised that this is Satan's counterfeit to what the Lord commands us to do. The Lord doesn't want us to complain about our time in the wilderness and because Satan wants to be like the Most High, he demands people to look happy when they aren't. The HUGE difference is that us believers don't really have anything to complain about as the Lord is with us even in suffering and that is why we can abound and be abased and still count it all for joy - not so in Satan's counterfeit kingdom. Satan has nothing to offer a person who suffers except more lies. 

It is not a coincidence then that when the Lord reveals and exposes all the lies people have believed in that Satan's response will be to give his 'new and improved' lie in the Antichrist. Again it is not a coincidence that the huge success in conspiracy theory is the fact that they are currently exposing Satan's lies but only to sell an even bigger lie which is Gnosticism. They will be blaming God for all that Satan has influenced here.

I have noticed that with unbelievers, if you address this frustration and lack of trust and couple it with the witness of the life (Christian love) and prayer then you can reach people. I have moved on with this though as I used to be fixed on one unbeliever to the detriment of the ministry but now I am focused on my ministry for believers but giving little bits of my ministry to unbelievers (to see if they 'bite the bait') and then move on. That is the key bit, say something truthful, show Christian love, pray for them and then quickly move on. It is up to them to pick up on it or not.

I have realised that people already have burgeoning Gnostic ideas in them and it won't take much to set these sparks ablaze. People seem to know that God exists really but they are already blaming Him in their hearts for their suffering and the way the world is. We can easily get through to people about their frustrations with the world and their own suffering, addressing their own sinfulness though is a heavier lift.

If I was brutally honest about my own journey to the Lord, it began because I stopped believing in the lies of the world and I was smarting from the suffering I was going through. I didn't immediately look at my own sin but the sins of others. I then got caught up in the conspiracy theory mindset which does address the lies of the world but never our own sinfulness. That path leads to self worship (new age) and Gnosticism (blaming God for Satan's system).

So many have Christianity and the Church all wrong. They see the church as being inextricably linked to the evil system we have here and I know the Antichrist will capitalise on this.

Your writing on the Satanic Rebellion seemed completely shocking to me when I first came to your ministry but I realise that it is entirely backed up with scripture. I knew when I was saved that God is good but the world system in place is evil but I couldn't put these two things together..obviously reading the Bible and the Satanic Rebellion actually does just that. 

That's the main problem I find I am up against. People are starting to see how corrupt and crazy things are. They see what they 'think' is the church (such as unChristian cults or the Laodicean church) and they think the church is in bed with all the evil.

People think they know what Christianity is. I talk to people about Jesus and they immediately shut down as they have 'heard it all before'. They think they know who Jesus is and who the church is, but they don't.

It is showing them the fruits of our faith, that we are not ignorant of Satan's devices and then guiding them to the truth, that is what we have to keep doing whilst being as wise as serpents but as harmless as doves.

Commenting on the deceptiveness of Satan's kingdom is often a way to test if someone is receptive to hear something that is truly new and that is the Gospel. They all think they know it. I thought I did it until I really believed it.

You can print this if you think it will be edifying.

In Jesus,
Response #15:   
Very wise, my friend. We have to "pick our shots" and also protect ourselves, especially if this sort of thing, namely, interacting with unbelievers in an apologetic way, is not precisely how we are gifted and not the precise ministry we have been called to.

Re: "That's the main problem I find I am up against." Yes, this is usually the very first thing I have to explain, the very first distinction I have to make regarding Ichthys, namely, "Please don't judge me and/or this ministry by what you see 'out there' that goes by the name 'Christian' ". 

But those who have hardened their hearts are not really looking for the truth. They amass all manner of armor to protect themselves against uncomfortable truth. Tarring all Christians with the worst excesses of "the church" of which they are aware (or think they are) is a standard defense so as not to have to face the issue of God's truth head on.

Thanks for the permission. Hope you've had a good weekend. We have a long one here in the States . . . and very needful at this juncture it is too!

Keeping you and your ministry efforts in my daily prayers.

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #16:  
How are you? I saw the latest update on ICHTHYS where you said you got the sense you would be around for a while. I understand the desire to go be with God. But being able to read ICHTHYS and the updates gives a sense of community I don't really have otherwise, and it is really encouraging to be able to talk to you. I do think God has helped me to grow, and still going, so that it won't be so bad when you go be with the Lord, and I don't mean to be self-centered with this, I am sure there are a lot of ICHTHYS readers who feel the same way too.

I just wanted to tell you that I really appreciate you and am very glad that you are still here, and I hope things like your family and garden and other things help so life doesn't seem too hard for you too.

I don't know if I said what I was trying to say right. I mean God's Will be done; if it is His Will that you go, then He will help us to do the right things. I just wanted to say that it is great to talk to you, I hope you don't feel bad that you are still here, and just to read the ICHTHYS community message updates. 
Response #16:  
I greatly appreciate this, my friend!

As you say, it's God's choice, not ours. All other things being equal, of course we'd all like to be with the Lord, but we are here as part of the Body to serve the Body and we all have our own unique roles to perform for Jesus Christ and His Church. Personally, I am happy to be able to serve as long as the Lord desires. But I also know that none of us is indispensable. The Lord will never let His sheep go without pasture.

Keeping you in my prayers – and wishing you a good week ahead!

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #17:  
Bob,

I am really struggling with depression and despair at the moment.

I am reading this to get me through:

https://ichthys.com/6A-Peripateo.htm#6._Focusing_on_Christ

Please pray for my speedy deliverance.

I have noticed that when I am at my lowest then people's hearts always harden against me. I am praying the Lord will deliver me through. I know He is faithful and has always been there for me in the past even when I was alone and isolated from people.

In Jesus,
Response #17:   
I'm very sorry to hear this, my friend!

Sticking to routine and the daily work the Lord has given us to do is often a good way to get through such difficult periods. If we persevere with forward progress on all fronts (i.e., work, exercise, Bible study, ministry, etc.), we usually find that our emotions eventually will follow along. 
Many are the woes of the wicked, but the LORD’s unfailing love surrounds the one who trusts in him. Rejoice in the LORD and be glad, you righteous; sing, all you who are upright in heart!
Psalm 32:10-11 NIV
How was the expedition to __?

Second week started well here. Given the last two preceding it, that is real blessing. Thanks for all of your prayers, my friend.

I am praying for you.

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #18:  
Hi Dr L,

Jesus said, "I have come into this world for judgment, so that those who don't see might see, and so that those who see might become blind." Some of the Pharisees heard this and said to Him, "We're not blind too, are we?" Jesus said to them, "If you were [physically] blind, you wouldn't be committing sin [by saying this]. But, as it is, because you say 'We can see!', your sin continues."
John 9:39-41

I thought He was saying that if the Pharisees recognized they were metaphorically blind (they would turn to Him) and not have sin, but since they claim they could (metaphorically) see and that they did not have sin (they therefore would not turn to Him and so-) their sin remained. But you have it as them being physically blind. Do you know what I am not understanding?

PS: The writing in this Bible study (Hebrews chapter 3; link) is the best so far, in my opinion. It is beautiful and challenging (in a good way).

On another note I bought the famous Book of Common Prayer. I did not realize it had three versions, and had to go with the third due to the language. If I read the laws in the front right, it looks like England at times had very specific laws about that you MUST go to an approved church, and they MUST say these exact things in this exact order (if I read right), and that is, I don't know...

The language is pretty though. 
Response #18:  
Thanks for the good words, my friend.

Interesting about the Book of Common Prayer. Somewhere around here I have an American copy my dad used as a Presbyterian minister. I don't think it has that any of that "C of E" stuff though.

On John 9:39-41, it is a passage which has confused many. Clearly, the main point is that the Pharisees claim to know the truth but in fact they are embracing lies, and this will lead to damnation since only through embracing the truth, Him who is the truth, can their sins be forgiven. But if they were "only" physically blind, as the man healed had been, they would not be guilty of the sins they were committing by claiming to know the truth when they do not.

Do feel free to write back about this.

Keeping you in my daily prayers, my friend.

In Jesus,

Bob L.
http://ichthys.com/