http://ichthys.com/ 
Legalism, Past and Present VI
Question #1:   
I wanted to ask you a question regarding a topic that was the cause of a huge argument between two of my family members a few years ago. And when I say huge, I mean there was yelling and screaming, unfortunately. Both individuals involved didn't answer each other with grace and patience, but chose to speak in harsh words to one another which set them both off. Proverbs is so correct when it says a soft answer turns away wrath. Unfortunately, my two family members both messed up in their conduct with each other. Luckily, I was at work that night (this was back in 2017), so I didn't have to experience the whole terrible ordeal. But it was one of them who was involved in the argument who informed me of what happened. I never picked sides because they both didn't speak well to each other. Plus, I have never taken a position since then. 

Anyway, the topic had to do with when a woman should speak up after she has been raped by a man. __ took the position that any woman who has experienced this should report it immediately and not wait a million years before she decides to come forward and report the ordeal. We see examples of this in the news all the time from various individuals (I know you are aware of this). __ reasoning was based on Deuteronomy 22:23-24 which in the NIV states, If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her, 24 you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death—the young woman because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man’s wife. You must purge the evil from among you. 

With the above in mind, __ believed it right for a woman to report the incident right away. However, __ was aware that in some situations, the attacker may threaten to kill her on the spot if she makes a ruckus; so there would be nothing she could do about that. __ takes the passage to mean that if she can scream for help, she should as a way of demonstrating she takes no pleasure in the sexual intercourse because it is a sinful act committed by a man imposed upon her and that she is trying to alert others of what is going on. Of course, __ (the other person involved in the argument) agreed with this, but took issue with the idea that these victims are in the wrong for not speaking up immediately. In other words, __ believes there are perhaps many important variables as to why they didn't so that no one should fault them for keeping silent for so long. 

Anyway, __'s reasoning was that she should still report the incident as quickly as she can as soon as the oppressor releases her and she is safely away from him. The problem that ___ sees with a woman waiting so many years to report the incident is that failing to do so allows a criminal to continue going around and committing more crime. So the first victim didn't do anyone else a favor. 

So as to my question, is this a sin on the victims part (whether male or female victims of sexual abuse or rape) or are there possible justifiable and various reasons for waiting years before coming forward? I never took a position here because I'm just not sure because the answer may depend on certain circumstances. Admittedly, I do lean more toward __ position because it sounds more like the right and logical thing to do. I'm not sure using trauma as an excuse is a good enough reason to fail to report a criminal. What is the difference between a rapist/sexual abuser, and a burglar? Should that not be reported immediately before he strikes someplace else? Again, I haven't settled with any answer yet. 
Response #1:
I think you exercised great wisdom in staying out of this quarrel. Since no one involved actually did suffer this, it is doubly ridiculous to get upset over a hypothetical situation like this, and certainly no reason to sour relationships between people who are supposed to love each other.

On the point, I don't find anything in scripture which would 1) require a woman to make such a report if she does not want to do so, or 2) forbid her from making a report much later is she comes to the point of wanting to do so. 

We are not under the Mosaic Law, and the regulations regarding law and order therein are for the nation Israel at the time – a time which was different from ours in many ways. We are right to derive good principles from the Law, but not to apply the Law directly to our current country since we are NOT Israel (and since even believers are not under the Law). To take one example which is fair to apply in principle to what you ask about: in the Law there are no prisons or incarceration; they have "cities of refuge" instead for certain crimes. Adopting that system in the USA, for example, would be quite a challenge, especially proceeding from where we are now. But that is all hypothetical. The one thing we CAN say is that just because it says in the Law that the "avenger of blood" has a right to track down and kill a person who is guilty of involuntary manslaughter if found outside his city of refuge is NOT a valid justification for anyone to attempt something like that today – they'll end up in prison if they do (or certainly should).

Things which are not descriptively enjoined or forbidden in scripture are matters of application for individual believers to decide for themselves in the Spirit. It's always a mistake to draw up rules for other people to follow when they are not specifically stated in scripture (and misapplying the Law is essentially doing that).

Wishing you a very merry Christmas, my friend!

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #2:
Merry Christmas to you as well! 

Yeah, ___ have always butted heads a lot all these years, but that is a sign they are very much alike (they are both very opinionated and not afraid to speak their minds). Everyone has improved since then but the underlying problem still remains to a lesser extent. I had a little bit of an advantage over the rest of ___ because I worked with __ for almost eight years, so I got a lot of practice on how to behave and react. I used to have a bad temper myself years ago, and there were times I almost left work because of the way __ ran things. But spiritual growth fixed all those problems a long time ago. I handled tough situations far better during my final years working with ___. 

I've noticed that as time goes by, I have better learned when to speak and when to keep quiet around people at specific times and places. I have to tiptoe around a lot of individuals, especially ___ because of the way they are. There is a time and a place for everything, and I've learned to just bear through some things even if what people say is wrong and unbiblical. There is no point in breaching a dam and then getting "flooded" if you know what I mean. I just recently visited a Jewish synagogue to visit a friend who visited (she wants to move here). I chose not to express any disgust or disagreement while standing in the auditorium after the service because there were people all over the place. That would have been a bad idea. But if anyone wants to know what I think, I will tell them, but I won't open up as much unless we are more in private (say we go out to eat together or something). Anyway, I have become more like this in general wherever I go, whether I'm with my family, at home, work, in public, etc. There is a time and a place for everything, I seldom ever get those opportunities one on one with people. Maybe I will if __ and I manage to open up a house church, who knows? There is always the tribulation as well. 

I agree with your answer, but would like to note an adjustment in my view. I talked with __ about this issue and we both agreed that if a woman has proof of what happened and who did "it," then it would be better for her to report it as soon as possible because that is the better option. However, there is nothing wrong if she doesn't since the Bible doesn't say that is a sin. Does this sound reasonable enough? 

Finally, I had one more thing I wanted to ask you. I agree wholeheartedly with you on how church discipline should and shouldn't work. However, I have heard discussions about the seriousness of a pastor getting caught up in some serious sin, such as sleeping with another man's wife or pornography. I believe the Lord would still allow such a man to continue teaching as long as repents, but I do think it is safer and more logical if he steps down temporarily to take a break from his ministry so that he can recover from his struggles. I think that (in the case of porn) if the case was serious enough, then that will require more time, energy, and effort to recoup from. I know that overcoming habitual sin, especially of the nature we discuss here, is no overnight process and that to stop doing it habitually takes time. Do you think this (taking a big break) would be a reasonable and biblical path for someone in those circumstances? 

Excited for the new year! These past twelve months have been very eventful indeed! I've been here for roughly a year now and I can tell you that I was glad to leave ___. I still love my family very much, but it was time for me to leave and become independent. I would venture to say it has been the best year of my life up to this point. Never seen so much change (both spiritually and generally) in such a short amount of time. I had a rough life growing up and things didn't get good until I started living for the Lord. Can't wait to see what 2022 holds. I will be traveling up to ___ to celebrate Christmas and New Years with my family. Really look forward to that and seeing ___. Hopefully, I will get a chance to hike and run in the state park I used to go to, __ is into running now so we may go together. 

I hope you have a wonderful holiday season! 

In His grace and Power,
Response #2:
Thanks for your good testimony, my friend! That really is encouraging. I hope you'll let me post this (absent names and other personal info of course).

Wishing you safe travels!

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #3:
Yes, you can do that, I don't mind. You can disregard my other questions, I'm not that pressed anyway. I wouldn't want to take away anymore of your time right around Christmas. Thanks again! 
Response #3:
Thanks!

And sorry about the oversight.

The procedure for pastors and elders and deacons who are "openly sinning" is to have the rest of the church's officials rebuke them (n.b. not publicly: the "openly" goes with "sinning" in 1Tim.5;20); if they repent, then of course they are to be accepted back into fellowship on that basis (cf. 2Cor.2:3-11). Specifics otherwise are left up to the local church. Link to where this is discussed at Ichthys: BB 6B: Discipline

As to your addendum on to report or not, while it sounds reasonable, I would not want to make this a rule for someone else: in my view that is a question of personal application, not biblical teaching.  There is enough legalistic, extra-biblical (or misinterpreted) rule-making out there in the church-visible today without us getting mixed up in that mistaken endeavor as well.

Here are some links on the subject of legalism which might be helpful:
Hebrew chapter one: Legalism
The Trinity and Messianic Legalism II
Apologetics, Legalism, Cults and Philosophy
The Law, Legalism, and Rome
Judaism and Legalism in the church-visible
The Trinity and Messianic Legalism
Believers in the World III: Prosperity Gospel, Tithing, Cults and Legalism
Legalism, Past and Present V
Legalism, Past and Present IV
Legalism, Past and Present III
Legalism, Past and Present II
Legalism, Past and Present
The Dangers of Messianic Legalism IV: Unclean and Impure?
The Apostles, the Jerusalem Council, and Legalism then and now.
The Dangers of Messianic Legalism III
The Dangers of Messianic Legalism II
The Dangers of Messianic Legalism.
Combating Legalism VI
Combating Legalism V
Combating Legalism IV
Combating Legalism III
Combating Legalism II
Combating Legalism I
Keep safe and have a merry Christmas, my friend!

Keeping you in my prayers in Jesus Christ,

Bob L.
Question #4:
Thank you. What is the correct interpretation of John 20:22-23 brother? Catholics bring this passage up to justify their praying to saints and Mary and for their confessing to their priests for forgiveness. 

I did give them an explanation that the disciples went In The Power of The Risen Lord and whoever received His Gospel from them and came to a saving faith were the who would then receive forgiveness for their sins and the ones who rejected The Gospel would not come to a saving faith for rejecting it and thereby stand no chance for having their sins forgiven by God as only The Lord Jesus Christ can/Has The Power to forgive sins of mankind on earth and He is The one and only mediator between man and God.. The Man Christ Jesus and there is only one Forever Great High Priest who can intercede for mankind in the order of Melchizedek. But this does not seem to satisfy them and they retort saying I am twisting scripture where the passage clearly says one could turn to pray which can mean asking their saints and Mary for their priest for their sins to be forgiven and that we blatantly lie to suppress this Truth. 

What would make for a more better defense brother? 

Thank you kindly. 

In our Lord, 
Response #4:
In terms of "what would make a better defense", I'm not specially gifted in apologetics and this is not an apologetic ministry. In my experience, people who reject the truth are going to reject it regardless of who is presenting it or how that truth is presented. Stephen gave the perfect "apology" to the assembled crowd while being filled with the Spirit for special control and was given to see Christ and to tell that to the crowd directed by God (Acts 7:55) – and they stoned him to death instead of responding.

As to the passage you ask about, John 20:22-23, you are of course correct in all you say here. It should be mentioned first that no catholic priest was standing there when Jesus said this to the eleven, and neither was Mary. So it can't apply to them. It could also be noticed that the eleven were still around for a good long time (the amount varied) after this point, and no one in the book of Acts is said to confess their sins to them, let alone pray to them – which is blasphemy (prayer can only be directed to God, of course).

In terms of what John 20:22-23 means, in a nutshell this is an empowerment to give the good news about Jesus Christ, namely, the gospel through which a persons sins are forgiven (e.g., 1Cor.6:11; Eph.5:26; Tit.3:5; Heb.10:22; Rev.7:14; 22:14). When we believe – in response, e.g., to someone like the apostles telling us about eternal life through faith in Jesus Christ – we are forgiven our sins. Not before (e.g., Eph.2:1). Here is a link to where this passage is discussed in a bit more detail.

Keeping you in my prayers.

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #5:
Hello Dr. Luginbill,

I had a discussion with a question that another brother brought up to me previously. He is now attending a Missouri Synod Lutheran church. They believe, as well as this brother, that the elements of the communion have a "spiritual presence", under their doctrine they call "with, in, and under" whatever that means I don't know, neither does the brother know. But this brother firmly believes that the LORD's presence is "Spiritually" within the elements of communion.

My response was, I don't believe that, and if there is any spiritual presence it is within the person, not in the elements of the communion. I also stated that Jesus said that communion was to be done "in remembrance" of Him. It is also to be done in a reverential manner. Not like some Corinthians did.

We went back and forth on this subject, and he always referred back to what Jesus said, "This is my body, which is broken for you, do this in remembrance of me. "This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me." He then asked me to give him an explanation of the difference between "spiritual presence" and "spiritual aspect". I explained to him the difference in that the spiritual presence is the dwelling of the Godhead in us according to John 14:23.

Since this is the Lutheran denomination's belief, and we have discussed this before, but he insists on going back to the scriptures I previously related here, that is, when Jesus stated that this was His Body, referring to the body, and also the My blood also. 

I don't agree with him about the spiritual presence of the LORD being in the communion elements, but again, the "This is My body and blood, it what he always refers back to. The definition of "Spiritual aspect" I explained, especially in John Chapter 6, and throughout the Old and New Testaments that the scriptures are to be taken, many times with a spiritual meaning.

Don't know what else to tell him. Wondering if you had anything further to add, especially on the Spiritual presence part. He was a former Roman Catholic like I was, so that is probably spilling over from there?

Thanks always for your encouraging words and especially your help.

Blessings to you always,

Your friend,
Response #5:
This is definitely a relic of Roman Catholicism. 

"This IS my body" clear means that it represents His body; "This cup IS the new covenant in my blood" clearly means that it represents the new covenant we have entered into by the blood of Christ, which is itself a metaphor for His saving work on the cross (link). Clearly, bread can't BE His "body". If it were, then we could quibble that it was THAT very loaf at that time, not any other at a later time. Only by being symbolic – to remember Him – could it be the same now as then. And how can a cup be a covenant? It can represent a covenant, but it surely can't BE a covenant. And it says cup, so He can't be talking about the wine in the cup – according to this misplaced system of false interpretation. 

Honestly, this is one of those legalistic frameworks that has to be taught and believed before it can make sense, because no rational person would ever get this from the text, so clearly is Jesus giving us a ritual for remembrance of Him and NOT some special magic food. 

After all, if there is magic in the bread and wine, what magic is there? Where does it come from? What does it do? Who has the power to input this magic? What benefit do we get from this magic?

The RCs clearly see some magic there. At least they are consistent in that fallacy. But "spiritual presence" with no magic – isn't that just words then?

I always appreciate hearing how you stick up for the truth, my friend!

Here are some other links on the topic which may prove useful:
The Communion Ceremony outside of the Local Church
The Meaning of the Communion Ceremony: To Remember Christ
Communal Worship in Acts
Communion and the Blood of Christ
The Last Supper
The Leftover Baskets of Bread and Fish in John 6
The Lord's Supper and Confession of Sin
Communion and the Spiritual Death of Christ
Communion and Confession
In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #6:
Hi Bob again,

Just wanted to give you an update on the house situation as it is truly bizarre. I will leave nationalities out of this so as not to upset anyone but what makes this strange is that we see hugely divergent nationalities breezing in and out of the house so much that I am tempted to dub the place the "United Nations". So when the drug dealer from country A was living there, a man claiming to have bought the place for his family from country B never moved in. He actually lied to us. So then a man from country C told us he was moving in. His story changed to his daughter owning the place. He proceeded to trash the alleyway (fly tipping) and we haven't seen him since. Now we have a group of people from country D move in. Strangely enough they are re-doing all the DIY stuff that the man from country C has already done. Same drilling noises and hammering and scraping noises for a house that is meant to be in fairly livable condition. The kicker is that __ said that the current tenants from country D claim to be Christians. I find this all a bit odd as the house has yet to officially go on the market yet and seems to change hands using some underground housing market. I can't imagine Christians using illegal or dubious means to get hold of property. Even in a country where Christians are heavily persecuted, I still don't think they would use this route. So I'm afraid I feel doubtful.

I think it despicable to lie about such things just to gain some sort of legitimacy. I hope it is not the case. I really hope they are Christians as it is awful to think someone would just say this to gain trust! I want to have hope they are true to their word because to think they might lie about this is truly an awful thought. Then again it is strange that the house has yet to be marketed in a usual way through an agency. 

We have had the moving in noise of bang crash wallop and the persistent scraping and drilling now three times by three separate parties in less than two years. Sometimes I feel I am on the brink of pulling all my hair out or throwing all the crockery against the wall in frustration but I won't do these things.

I am so glad this place is NOT my home. Let the United Nations squabble over it and yank it all to pieces because I am very worn out and sick of all this endless clomping and stomping and buying and selling. It is very tempting to follow Percy the caterpillar's lead and pull the duvet over my head, curl into a ball and only get up again one minute before Jesus' return and not a moment sooner. I won't of course, I have to keep fighting the good fight, I know.

It does get weary though Bob. When I get successes on one front, the enemy opens fire on a front where I have less deployment and less success!

In Him,
p.s. Just found out today that they are installing chipboard walls into making the tiny terraced house next door into a HMO (house of multiple occupation). I'm not sure about the story of the "Christian family" now. They tell us a different story every time they open their lips. Could a person really lie about such a thing? p.p.s. My suspicions were well placed. Yesterday they claimed to be "a Christian family" moving in but today the same people claim to be builders only and they haven't a clue who is moving in. My other suspicion is correct that the overseas couple still own the property so it is still in the criminal cartel's portfolio. I guess Satan doesn't give up his strongholds that easily. We saw some partition boards being delivered today which will probably mean a multiple unit dwelling. We live in a tiny terraced house with only two bedrooms so you can imagine the misery these people hope to profit off. They really did lie about being a "Christian family". Can you imagine anything more despicable? How Bob can people do such a thing? How low can people stoop?
Response #6:
The devil always seems to keep counter-attacking in the same old places . . . if he has the same old success. I have observed in my own life and very many times in the lives of other Christians that there is a theme of repetition. Something that "gets our goat" seems to keep recurring, if not the exact same thing, then things similar to it. 

It's easy to say but hard to do under pressure: it's important not to let ourselves get too distracted but such things. We can't help "feeling bad" about such pressures, but we can help allowing them to dominate our lives and our thinking. It takes practice. And in this world, we do get plenty of practice.

As to people claiming they are Christians but aren't for personal advantage, there are entire religions based on that premise (the Mormons, the RC's, etc.). Antichrist will claim he is Christ and all of his devil-worshiping followers will claim they are "Christians". At that time, about the only people in the world who won't be considered Christians are the true followers of Jesus Christ. So I wouldn't be surprised about this one.

By the way, I loved your first email. No doubt your spiritual progress has been and you are coming in for extra opposition as a result. Don't give "them" the satisfaction of any great success.

Keeping you in my prayers, my friend.

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #7:
Hi Bob,

You are so right and really I should have known this by now. Today I have bounced back again and really, if it isn't to bother me now then it shouldn't either tomorrow or in eternity either! I will leave it all with my Lord and Saviour. I will keep praying for our deliverance and keep on with my spiritual growth.

I know we are not to think it strange but it still catches me off guard and I go into my usual "that's not fair" routine but I hope to bounce back quicker and quicker. Usually I would lose a day or two or more. Now I can rally the next day. It would be great if I didn't get rattled at all and for it all to be water off a duck's back!

I had let some of the weeds slip in and disrupt my study so that is probably why this got the better of me. A bit like your regular correspondent who worries about his old rewards, I sometimes read over the old emails I sent you and think that my zeal was stronger before and I was bouncing around more eagerly but I guess that was before I started being tested and before I knew that I was being tested and then my fast flow of growth seemed to slow down to a trickle as I fall down, bruise my knees up and then dust myself down and get back in again!

I'll just keep plugging away though and taking it a day at a time and confess my sins as they happen and stay in the rest that we are supposed to be in all the time! Amen!

Thanks again my friend! So looking forward to seeing you get a massive reward and being able to tell the others "I studied under that brother!" Amen!

In Him,
Response #7:
"I'll just keep plugging away though and taking it a day at a time and confess my sins as they happen and stay in the rest that we are supposed to be in all the time!" Amen! That is "the ticket" as we say on this side of the pond.

Say, do you have any plans for getting back into your web-ministry? Let me know.

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #8:
Yes Bob, I would love to get back into ministry again. I know that I would be far from perfect and I don't nearly even half way feel "ready" for it but the last day or two especially I have realised how desperate people around us need the truth.

[omitted]

I do want to start ministry in earnest again. I realise how fast this whole ship is sinking now and we need as many hands on deck as possible my friend.

In Jesus,
Response #8:
Re: "we need as many hands on deck as possible" – as long as they are prepared hands . . . as yours surely are.

I'll be looking forward to it. If we waited until we were 100% ready and 100% prepared, no one would ever do anything.

Keeping you in my prayers, my friend.

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #9:
Hello--I hope you had a blessed Easter. I have a question about St. Ignatius of Antioch. I know you have told me you aren't up that much on the ECFs but I do have a question about Ignatius' letters. Wikipedia says this about his letters:
Ignatius of Antioch - Wikipedia: Recensions: The text of these epistles is known in three different recensions, or editions: the Short Recension, found in a Syriac manuscript; the Middle Recension, found only in Greek manuscripts; and the Long Recension, found in Greek and Latin manuscripts.[4]: 120–121 [31] For some time, it was believed that the Long Recension was the only extant version of the Ignatian epistles, but around 1628 a Latin translation of the Middle Recension was discovered by Archbishop James Ussher, who published it in 1646. For around a quarter of a century after this, it was debated which recension represented the original text of the epistles. But ever since John Pearson's strong defense of the authenticity of the Middle Recension in the late 17th century, there has been a scholarly consensus that the Middle Recension is the original version of the text.[4]: 121 The Long Recension is the product of a fourth-century Arian Christian, who interpolated the Middle Recension epistles in order posthumously to enlist Ignatius as an unwitting witness in theological disputes of that age. This individual also forged the six spurious epistles attributed to Ignatius (see § Pseudo-Ignatius below).[32] Manuscripts representing the Short Recension of the Ignatian epistles were discovered and published by William Cureton in the mid-19th century. For a brief period, there was a scholarly debate on the question of whether the Short Recension was earlier and more original than the Middle Recension. But by the end of the 19th century, Theodor Zahn and J. B. Lightfoot had established a scholarly consensus that the Short Recension is merely a summary of the text of the Middle Recension, and was therefore composed later.
Wikipedia isn't the best, but it has all the information I need to ask you my questions. First of all, since he lived so early in the church, and if he wrote his letters in Greek, would they have been written all in uncials? Or had minuscules come into use by then? When did mixing the two come into practice? IF only capital letters, then writing CATHOLIC CHURCH would not help this Catholic person I know. Ignatius would just have meant the universal church. 

Also, if he had written any in Latin or Coptic back then, would they have all been written in Capital letters, or do Latin and Coptic have lower case levels? I realize you may not know about Coptic, but teach Latin. 

I ask because a Catholic I know says that Ignatius referred to the church back then as the "Catholic" church. This guy is trying to claim the church back then is the same as the Catholic Church now, but I know it is not. It took several centuries to evolve into the Roman Catholic church, headquartered in Rome and headed by Popes. 

Thanks for any help you can give me. 
p.s. the Catholic gave me the passage he was referring to:
Letter to the Smynaeans, Chapter 8: See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.
I facetiously stated that "I didn't know Ignatius wrote in English!" But pointed out that capitalizing "Catholic" is an English convention, and Ignatius just mean "universal" church, not the behemoth headquartered in Rome now. But I wonder what this letter was originally written in--Greek or Latin? If Greek it would all be written in uncials, would it not? In the second century AD? Or had minuscules come out by then? 

Thanks!
Response #9:
Clearly, you are correct in all of your assumptions.

1) The word katholos means "general" or "whole", and in the early writing of the institutional church is used to refer to the Church as a whole and in general as opposed to individual local churches. When Ignatius wrote, there wasn't even yet any schism between east and west (let alone "Protestants"). 

2) In terms of capitalization, both methods (i.e., using either all uncials or else all minuscules) were in use in Ignatius' day, but I'm not aware of any case where some things are capitalized and others not. In other words, texts would either be written in minuscules or all caps so that using caps in a minuscule text as correspondent envisions is not something I've ever seen. At this time, anything formal would mostly be written in all caps as there was not as yet a standardized way of producing minuscules (it varied from person to person). Most Latin writing at this time likewise would have been in all caps for the same reason. I believe the same was true of Coptic which uses mostly Greek letters.

So this is entirely a specious, English-only argument, mixed with a strong measure of anachronism, betraying a complete lack of understanding of writing and book production in the ancient world. 
In Jesus,

Bob L. 
Question #10:
Hi Dr Luginbill,

If you feel overwhelmed, please don't feel like you need to answer all this, or even right away:

1) So you know for a long time that I have struggled to understand certain Scriptures about how we are to love others. And this is my understanding at this point (trying to pull verses from different places together): would you please say if it is incorrect?
1 Corinthians 5:11:
But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is sexually immoral, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner—not even to eat with such a person
As I understand it: we are to help anyone who needs it, AND especially the Church. When it comes to allowing harm to ourselves, a slap is different from scourging. So that a small harm that is not a continual wearing down, we let go of. But serious harm, or even small harms continuously we do not have to bear up.

But then there are verses not to eat or extend fellowship to certain persons (who engage in certain sinful behaviors (seems to be both believers and non believers who engage in them (in the Apostolic letters, but a bit in Acts too)). I am not sure how to put together those verses and also verses to help strangers. In the Good Samaritan example, it isn't like the man did (or could) ascertain if that guy did those things.

2) Isaiah 56, is He referring to foreigners who lived in Israel before the Lord was crucified? I am trying to make sense of that He seems to tell the foreigners who join themselves to Him that they should be following the covenant/Mosaic (keeping the Sabbath, et al), and that makes sense in the context (of them living in Israel before the crucifixion). And would foreigners who joined to Him living outside of Israel-how would they have related to the covenant?

3) I have read that for the Bible, the witnesses for the Bible (in terms of manuscripts) far outweigh the manuscripts for other ancient books. Is there a book detailing this in specifics? (Hopefully more on the academic side)?

4) When they write that a papyrus dates to, say, the 2nd century AD. Are they say like anywhere for 150-250 AD or something like that?

5) I also notice that many of the sources given are in other languages. Do you need to know (for example) German and French too for textual criticism? What does an American English speaker like yourself do?

Respectfully,
Response #10:
As to 1), "we are to help anyone who needs it, AND especially the Church", I would say that it is GOOD to help others in genuine need, according to our gifts, opportunities and material means. But we shouldn't load ourselves down with the idea that ALL must be helped at all times regardless (no one could ever match that standard, and I don't find it in the Bible).
"The poor you will always have with you, and you can help them any time you want. But you will not always have me."
Mark 14:7 NIV
Indeed, there is a big difference between someone rebuking you and someone taking a shot at you (with a firearm). Any spiritually mature believer ought to be able to discern when something is trivial, tolerable and to be overlooked versus intolerable and needing to be avoided or countered.

And yes, we are supposed to be very wary about our relationships. That does affect who we might help and who not. We are not even supposed to associate with believers who are acting in a foul fashion – and I would counsel against it in the case of unbelievers as well.
And if anyone does not obey our word in this epistle, note that person and do not keep company with him, that he may be ashamed.
2nd Thessalonians 3:14 NKJV
Whoever transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God. He who abides in the doctrine of Christ has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into your house nor greet him; for he who greets him shares in his evil deeds.
2nd John 1:9-11
As to 2) if you're asking about "keeping the Law" in the case of gentiles today, all one has to do is read the book of Romans, or Galatians, or Hebrews, etc. to understand that such is not what the Bible is saying about our present age (see the link in Hebrews chapter 1: Legalism). 
Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think of anything as being from ourselves, but our sufficiency is from God, who also made us sufficient as ministers of the new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. But if the ministry of death, written and engraved on stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of the glory of his countenance, which glory was passing away, how will the ministry of the Spirit not be more glorious? For if the ministry of condemnation had glory, the ministry of righteousness exceeds much more in glory. For even what was made glorious had no glory in this respect, because of the glory that excels. For if what is passing away was glorious, what remains is much more glorious.
2nd Corinthians 3:5-11 NKJV
The purpose of the Law was to demonstrate sinfulness on the one hand, and give the physical nation of Israel a system whereby they would be clearly different from non-believing nations on the other (of course THEY never followed it correctly and we are certainly not supposed to try to follow it today since it is now defunct: e.g., Rom.10:4; Heb.8:13).

3) Here's a good one: B. Metzger, "The Text of the New Testament".

4) That's right, 2nd AD = 100 - 199 AD

5) I can read German. Also French (with a dictionary); but I can't remember ever needing either language much for biblical textual criticism.

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #11:
1) So with the case of the Good Samaritan, it wasn't that he HAD to do that for morality, but, after using a judgement call that this was a situation he should help in, then it was a good deed?

2) That is not what I was saying. I was trying to understand that verse in context. Was He talking about only believing gentiles who lived in Israel at the time or all believing gentiles at that time?

3) Haha okay I will try to finish before asking more.
Response #11:
On 1), our Lord clearly commends the Samaritan – and by contrast finds fault with the priest and the Levite. The Samaritan "acted as a neighbor". But consider: a) he saw a man in total need about to die if he didn't help and having nothing and no means whatsoever to help himself, not even being able to ask for help (this is a great deal different from, e.g., someone standing at an intersection with a paper sign asking for money); b) the Samaritan decided to help not because he was asked, no because he felt guilty, but because he felt compassion at what he saw; c) what he did for the man he was able to do: he had the gear and he had the money to help him; we don't get the sense that the Samaritan put himself into any dire straits; it cost him and it took effort, but not hyper-sacrificial on either score; and he didn't put himself into any danger since the man was clearly incapable of doing him harm. Believers, especially good believers, are easily made to feel guilty, but nothing about this parable is really fodder for that, rightly considered.

On 2), this is about gentiles who decide to move to Israel during the Millennium. The parameters of "Law keeping" during that time are not spelled out in the Bible but it seems clear, as I have posted before, that there will be major differences then from what was supposed to be the case for the Law of Moses before the cross.

Here are some links on legalism:
Legalism, Past and Present V
Legalism, Past and Present IV
Legalism, Past and Present III
Legalism, Past and Present II
Legalism, Past and Present
In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #12:
Thank you for taking time to answer all of these, and so quickly. First though, I had an idea you knew at least some German, but you know French too! Wow really how did you learn so many languages? I do 30 mn to an hour of Greek almost daily (but I do have all the other dailies too: the Bible reading, Bible study, Hist study, Greek textual criticism study, etc). What is your secret? Is it that you didn't become actually proficient until much later (over time)? Maybe I just need to study more...

1) Okay I see what you are saying and I appreciate all the details you said such as that the guy the Samaritan was helping could not have harmed the Samaritan, because I have heard news stories of things going wrong like this when someone tries to be a Good Samaritan to someone else (the person they are helping nearly murdering or actually murdering them). I mean what if the guy the Samaritan had helped was actually a very bad character? And he did far more than greet him-he fed him at his table (by proxy).

Could you please explain how the Good Samaritan passage and 2 John 1:10-11 (If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into your house nor greet him; for he who greets him shares in his evil deeds) go together though? I am not saying they don't; I am saying my understanding is faulty/incomplete.

PS: Well I just wanted to share: I have really been enjoying exploring jewelry. There are so many different kinds! Just in the red color there is Red Coral, Red Agate, Red Ruby, Red everything! I think I really like jewelry (not spending thousands, but I have bought maybe a bit much recently). It is so pretty! And yes I know not to be too attached. I am trying to balance. Though I have thought if it is my lot to live through the Tribulation, once I realize the start, it seems like a good idea to me to get rid of things like jewelry and that kind of thing to not be tempted or distracted.
Response #12:
On languages, I focused on them after I got out of the USMC, mostly Greek, Hebrew and some Aramaic (and had previously had some French in grade school and then German in high school in college before the Corps).

On "don't even greet", the issue is always the truth. If someone is purportedly a believer but is instead antagonistic to the truth, especially the basic truths about Jesus Christ, we are not to associate with them. That doesn't mean that we would have to quit our jobs if they work where we do. Nor do I think it would mean that we couldn't throw them a life-preserver if they fell off the boat. But it does mean that socializing with them is out. That's not what the Samaritan parable is about (the guy probably wasn't able to speak – barely conscious: the Greek says "half dead").

For what's it's worth, I like rocks too, especially colorful ones like turquoise and malachite. Mineralogy is a fascinating discipline. If I had to pick another career it would probably be geology. And good news! The twelve foundations of New Jerusalem are made of beautiful stones, not the ones the world esteems for their "value", but particularly beautiful ones (see the link). There will be many wonders in the new heavens and on the new earth, and beautiful geological features would seem to be part of that.

In terms of preparing for the Tribulation, there's nothing wrong with having "nice things" here and now, as long as one can afford them AND as long as they don't became idolatrous distractions. Almost anything can fall into that category, based on how emotionally dependent we allow ourselves to become on certain things. As long as the Lord and His truth is our true focus, we are allowed to enjoy the good things He has given us – because we appreciate the Giver much more than His gifts – for He is THE Gift we esteem beyond all else.

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #13:
Oh I didn't know you were interested in mineralogy. I have to admit I mostly like just looking at it and the end products. But it is really something how he makes such beautiful things even hidden in rocks that people never even see. 

On the question, I suppose that does fit what the verses are saying and also with verses like 2 Kings 6:22, that there are certain extreme situations. And as one more thing: I imagine also it is a bit different with individuals whom you KNOW personally that they do those evil things continually, if it isn't life and death where you can safely throw a lifeline, it is a bit different if those person are needing help (like a drug addict needing money for food, maybe you shouldn't give it to them even if they really don't have anything else). Do I have it right?
Response #13:
Indeed, as it says in scripture:
Therefore, as we have opportunity, let us do good to all people, especially to those who belong to the family of believers.
Galatians 6:10 NIV

Anyone who does not provide for their relatives, and especially for their own household, has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.
1st Timothy 5:8 NIV
So relationships are important to this issue. One other thing to remember about the "good" Samaritan is that this group considered themselves part of the family of God; and given the way our Lord ranks them in between Jews and gentiles, they seem to have had "one foot in and one foot out" (Acts 1:8). All of Israel were supposed to be believers, so ideally they would have operated under the first passage above. The fact that this Samaritan did so while the priest and Levite did not shows that he was more of a "neighbor", meaning a fellow believer, than were the others in terms of how he behaved, and that is what our Lord commends.

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #14:
Thank you Bob!

I am very grateful for your encouragement. I guess a teacher can gauge progress in a student not just in the answers they give but in the questions they ask also. I am also glad to know that many have the same questions..

If I may there are a few things that I do need clarification on so I'll keep it one question at a time. These is an old one I'm afraid but I still cannot get my head around it for one reason! I'll try to explain it how I see it and please let me know how far off I am. It's about the whole unforgivable sin and the judgement of works thing again. So I know now that ALL sins are forgiven and we will be judged for our works and not our sins. How does the unforgivable sin fit in then?

What I didn't understand is that it is a lack of works that send people to hell not sin (as all sin has been paid for.) But then I wondered about the unforgivable sin and how this fitted in with the judgement of works and I think last night the penny dropped.

What I struggled with is that I thought of the lack of works and the unforgivable sin was two very distinct and separate things but now I see it more as a CONTINUATION of the SAME THING.
So as I understand it, the unforgivable sin is to deny the Holy Spirit's witness of Jesus Christ because this is a sin that Jesus couldn't die for as He cannot deny Himself.

When we accept the Spirit's witness we then have faith in Jesus Christ and are saved at that moment (though we have to persist in faith to be saved as OSAS is false. See Parable of the Sower and Parable of the foolish virgins and also great apostasy). So if we apostatise we are then back where we started (but worse) in that we deny the Spirit's witness again (calling the Spirit a liar) but in a worse position because at least an unbeliever can respond in faith whereas a person who falls away are less likely to return. Not because they can't be grafted back in but because they have hardened their heart through sin and unbelief that they won't want to come back.

Going back to before. When we accept the Spirit's witness and are saved through faith, then we stand on Jesus Christ atoning works for us. He is then our cornerstone which we can then build on through further works. There are two types of works however: works of the flesh and works of the Spirit. Works of the flesh are always sinful even when we think we are doing good as it is what we choose to do not what God chooses. They are self righteous and sometimes come from a blasphemous position that we think we are "helping God". We know from the bible that the flesh profiteth nothing and we know also that the works of the flesh is sin. In sharp contrast is the works of the Spirit that we walk in. These are the works that God has already chosen for us that we walk in. We cannot take credit for these works and all the glory goes to God because no flesh can glorify itself it God's sight. So in a sense these works of the Spirit are actually done by God and we are a mere vessel for them, God's hands and feet.

So that also makes sense that the moment to moment sabbath we walk in Christ is a ceasing from our own works of the flesh and instead doing the Spirit's works. We are resting from our own works. That is why Jesus said His yoke is easy and burden is light because He has already fulfilled the saving work which we stand on and the work we do after salvation is not ours either.
Would that mean that God will reward us for work that He has done! That is mindblowingly generous!! And makes me cry to think of. That then is the very definition of "Grace" then. Unmerited favour that we didn't and cannot earn but given to us freely. 

So even the works of the Spirit are done through faith. When we don't have faith, we turn to the works of the flesh but with faith we do the works of the Spirit. All of this glorifies God as they are all HIS WORKS! Is it fair to say then that God has done it all for us then! We will be rewarded for God's works!!! (I've written this again because I am slowly understanding how incredibly generous this all is and we really don't deserve any of this at all!!)

At the judgment seat, the judgement of believers comes first and they will be judged on their works. It will be judged by fire. The works of the flesh will be wood, hay and stubble and be consumed by the fire. The works of the Spirit however are gold, silver and precious stones that the fire will not consume but stand. Will these materials which are proof of the works of the Spirit we have walked in be used to build the Kingdom of God? So we are all part of building it up through the works of the Spirit on the foundation of Christ?

So back to the unbelievers who are judged after us. As they denied the Spirit's witness (the unforgivable sin) they will only have wood, hay and stubble (works of the flesh) and nothing else. So after the fire judgement burns that all up they will have no works at all!! 

You can only do the works of the Spirit (gold, silver and precious stones) when you have Jesus Christ. Without Jesus Christ you only can produce the works of the flesh (wood, hay and stubble.)

Sorry this is such a long question but I have really struggled to understand this again and again.
I hope what I have written Is along the right lines because I noticed while writing it that everything suddenly started to slot into place and so many others parts also now make sense also (like Sabbath rest).

Hope I am not wearing your patience down my friend!

In Jesus our cornerstone and author and perfected of our faith!
Response #14:
On the unpardonable sin, scripture puts it this way:
This is a faithful saying:
For if we died with Him,
We shall also live with Him.
If we endure,
We shall also reign with Him. If we deny Him,
He also will deny us.
If we are faithless,
He remains faithful;
He cannot deny Himself.
2nd Timothy 2:11-13 NKJV
For Christ to have died for the sin of rejecting Himself would be denying Himself, and that is impossible.

"Works" are the totality of what we think, say and do – the output of the exercise of our free will. Whatever we believers "do" that is in the Spirit, in the will of God, is rewarded; everything else, as you see, will be burned up at the judgment seat of Christ. The nature of the rewards we are going to receive is something we can only see at present "through a glass darkly" (everything I have been able to glean from scripture on this subject can be found at the following link: "The Judgment and Reward of the Church").   Some other links:
The books of "works" opened at the Last Judgment

So-called "good works"
Satanic Lie #3: "God needs me"
Godly production versus dead works
"Condemned according to what they have done" (works)
As I have often remarked, scripture describes eternity mostly in terms of the absence of negatives rather than detailing the positives – no doubt because we completely lack the frame of reference to understand much less appreciate what living in a resurrection body without sin and having eternal life in the presence of the Lord is like. But we have faith, "knowing that your labor is not in vain in the Lord" (1Cor.15:58). As I also say, the smallest coin of our Lord's good pleasure on that day will be worth more than the present universe, infinitely and eternally so.

As to unbelievers, everything they think, say and do is "vain" and "in vain", done for themselves and not for God – even if it is putatively done for someone else. The Spirit empowers believers, not so unbelievers – except to allow them to receive the truth of the gospel when they are exposed to it. Rejecting that witness is the "unpardonable sin" Jesus talked about. Here are some links on this:
Apostasy and the Sin unto Death

The Unpardonable Sin
You've said a lot here so apologies in advance if some aspects of your question haven't been addressed. Please do have another go!

Your friend in Jesus Christ,

Bob L.
Question #15:
Thanks Bob,

I will try again if you don't mind. It's my fault for not saying specifically what I need to know and going all round the houses to do it (or maybe it's not as simplistic as I'm trying to make it.)

I guess the question should be specifically: If we are not judged for our sins but our works...What exactly puts people into the lake of fire? The unforgivable sin? Not standing on Christ's atoning work? Not producing work done in the Spirit? Or all three?

I remember also reading something on your site something about our Lord showing unbelievers that not one of their alleged "good works" could either glorify God or atone for even one of their sins (for the wages of sin is death.)

Also what confuses me even more is that we are judged by works not sins and yet we are saved by FAITH NOT WORKS. Does that though mean faith in Jesus' atoning work is actually "work" that we appropriate. Is faith itself a work?

Also what does Propitiation mean and is this the nub of the issue that I am getting at? That sinners fail to propitiate God and that is why they go to hell?

I hope I've been more clear this time. The difficulty is that unless I "get it" myself then I can only obfuscate this further with my own clumsy descriptions. You know the exact reason why people do to hell and I don't specifically. So that means because you "get it" you can describe the same reason as many different ways whilst saying the same thing: the correct answer. As I don't fully get it, my trying to describe it merely muddies the water to such a degree that I am unable to even be clear on what I actually think the answer is! And struggle even more to articulate it!

I've noticed this problem with understanding the Bible a lot. It's as though one can struggle to bring a doctrine into complete focus because it is so specific and needs deft handling that once it is in sharp focus (like a telescope or binoculars) your fear that even the slightest nudge or bump (of confusion) of it can blur it up all over again. 

So back to the issue again...Can you please answer 

1) the specific question in bold and underlined 
2) is this Propitiation?
3) is Faith a work?

Many thanks for putting up with me my friend!!

In Jesus,
Response #15:
It's my pleasure!
Q: What exactly puts people into the lake of fire?

A: Not having believed in Jesus Christ.

Re: "I remember also reading something on your site something about our Lord showing unbelievers that not one of their alleged "good works" could either glorify God or atone for even one of their sins (for the wages of sin is death.)" That is correct.

Re: "we are judged by works" – Believers are saved; our judgment is fundamentally different from that of unbelievers. We are judged to evaluate the quality of our production for Christ, judged to determine the level of our rewards. Unbelievers receive the last judgment out of God's mercy to demonstrate that 1) they really are not accidentally there (checking the book of life to show that they are not in it because of having not believed in / rejected Christ), and 2) that they haven't done anything which could stand in for Christ's work in dying for them. 

Re: "sinners fail to propitiate God and that is why they go to hell?" Only Christ's work effectively propitiates / satisfies the demands of God's justice. Unbelievers reject His work and Him as their Substitute so they have to stand on their own works instead – and these are insufficient (to put it mildly).

As to "Is Faith a work?"; no, faith is the opposite of working; faith is trusting God to do it (n.b., at Ephesians 2:9, "gift" refers to the gift of salvation not faith as the Greek makes certain because the "this" is neuter agreeing with "gift" and not feminine which it would have to be to agree with "faith"). True faith reaches out and respond to God's grace – and that does result in production (which is why "faith without [resultant responsive] works is dead"; Jas.2:18-20).

Best place for getting all of these questions answered: BB 4B: Soteriology: the biblical study of salvation.

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #16:
Pastor I was reading John 14:15 Jesus says if you love me keep my commands. Does this speak as well as to people that are not Christians by keeping Gods commands will that transform some into being a Christian?
Response #16:
I'm sure you've read the gospels before. Therein, our Lord was constantly rebuking the scribes and Pharisees for exactly this sort of legalistic behavior (e.g., Matt.23:16; 23:24). Without the power of the truth, following rules gets us nowhere. Indeed, the whole purpose of the Law was to convict humanity of sin and of the impossibility of salvation apart from God's grace (Gal.3:19).

If we love the Lord, we will follow Him. Love covers a multitude of sins (1Pet.4:8), and love is the truth fulfillment of the Law (Rom.13:10).

Only by being born again through faith in Christ can anyone be saved.
Jesus replied, “Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again."
John 3:3 NIV
NOT through the Law.
. . . knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified.
Galatians 2:16 NKJV
If you want to love the Lord and follow Him, that requires putting your faith in action in spiritual growth – it always comes back to spiritual growth.

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #17:
Hello Robert,
I pray you had a great Christmas and are well. I'll get right to it, I have read your teaching on tithes and found it very helpful, actually more than helpful. I have always felt compelled to tithe by the pastor of whatever church I was attending. They did not brow beat one...too much, but they did lay on a guilt trip. My current pastor told of how when he and his wife were first married they had difficulty paying bills and tithing. On one occasion they decided to forego the tithe and pay their bills, a few days later their water pump gave out and the repair was the exact amount they would have tithed. The morale being if you do not tithe (10%) such a calamity could befall you! He did not actually say that, only implied it. He then cited Malachi 3:10 as a reason to tithe.

My wife recently lost her job and I am crippled, so we are on a small fixed income, I was fretting about how I could tithe, but it is pay the bills or tithe, I felt guilty. Then I read your teaching on tithing and found peace. I may be crippled but I try to serve, I teach two study classes and am a greeter, it is not much but it is the best I can do. I also spend hours in the Word, in study and prayer. I loved giving monetarily when I could, but until our income improves I will have to serve in other forms. Thank you for your scriptural teaching on this.

In Jesus,
Response #17:
You're very welcome, my friend! 

I'm happy to hear that you've received some needful guidance from Ichthys. There is a great deal of legalism abroad in the church-visible today, and tithing is certainly an example of that.

I do need to point out that genuine spiritual growth only occurs when a Christian commits him/herself to seeking out the truth on all points, not merely on points of special concern. I always recommend either the Peter series or the Basics series to get started (and also reading the weekly email postings; see the links).

Wishing you a wonderful 2023!

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #18:
Dear Brother Bob, hope you are well and Happy Thanksgiving.

It sounds like the Protestant church has gone far from the original church. Thanks for sharing about the institutional church, as I am thinking out loud, the modern church seems more like a business rather than a church. I do have a question as we are talking about the church. I have read in recent years that Christmas has pagan origins, and I was wondering if you think it is wrong to celebrate Christmas?

Love in Christ,
Response #18:
When it comes to traditions such as this, on the one hand it is clear that there is nothing particularly godly about celebrating Christmas since it does not occur in the Bible anywhere as a celebration we are meant to honor (cf. Gal.4:9-11; Col.2:16-17). The same thing goes for Easter, by the way. Of course we should celebrate the birth of our Lord and even much more so His death and resurrection on our behalf . . . every day in our hearts. Relegating our appreciation of Him to a pair of supposedly "holy days" is a sort of legalism. On the other hand, these are cultural traditions. And whatever their original origins (pagan origins are claimed for Easter as well), it is equally clear that no true Christian is thinking of those (even if they are true) if and when they celebrate Christmas or Easter. 

We are told not to pass judgment on weaker believers, so I never criticize folks who want to think that somehow Christmas and Easter have any special spiritual importance. So while it is certainly much better to be dedicated to learning about the Lord and appreciating Him every day, if Christ is in any way glorified or called to mind in a true and godly way through such traditions, well, we should be satisfied with that, even if the motives are questionable and there is much about these traditions which is untrue and unhelpful.
What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is preached; and in this I rejoice, yes, and will rejoice.
Philippians 1:18 NKJV
In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #19:
Thanks Doc. What do you usually do for Christmas? I feel like most people spend an excessive amount on presents and decorations. We're doing modest with the decorations, using tree decorations that we already have, and had used for many Christmases before this. Present wise I don't know what we're doing yet, but I should be going shopping with my mother soon enough.

Another thing, I went to an Asian buffet 2 days ago, one with all sorts of variety, even some American favorites. I noticed however that there was a statue on the reception counter, one that reminded me of a Buddha statue but I know it wasn't. From the robe and face I figured it was one of a Chinese or Japanese god, but I'm not sure which one (I don't have much interest in learning the pagan faiths after all). I did pray for protection from any supernatural shenanigans that might be going on involving that statue and the god (or rather demon) associated with it, but I'm worried for whoever owns the restaurant, or even visits if it's being used for something occultic. Should I pray for protection of people who go there or would that be pointless?
Response #19:
Personally, no decorations and not much in the way of presents, but occasionally a Christmas card or a gift to reciprocate . . . and a nice celebratory Christmas meal. We don't want to "rain on the parade" of others who wish to make a big deal out of the day and all that leads up to it. It is all very sentimental – but it doesn't much contribute to spiritual growth in my observation and experience (for that reason no doubt there's nothing about celebrating Christmas in the Bible).

As to various venues and activities in this world which are inhabited by unbelievers and occasionally dressed up with their totems, one would have to "leave the world" to be free of such things (1Cor.5:10; cf. 1Cor.1o:25), and that is clearly not possible. There's nothing wrong with praying about it, however. Prayer is our weapon. And the more we use it – and the more effectively we use it (we get better at that as we grow) – the better for ourselves, our fellow Christians, and for everyone else too.

Merry Christmas!

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #20:
I thought about going back to church but I would have to buy a set of dresses because I don't have a lifestyle that is a 'dresses' lifestyle. And the thought of buying fancy clothes (because it would be dressier than I currently have) just to go to church seems/feels wrong/off. And like that shouldn't be the case. To buy a bunch of nice clothes you wouldn't wear anywhere else (or at least wear rarely) just to be 'presentable.'

I know there is this culture about "Sunday best" and dressing nice for church, do you know the thinking behind that?
Response #20:
There are definitely different societal standards for different venues, and our employers mostly will have some sort of standards they expect us to adhere to. In terms of "church clothes", however, I don't find anything at all in the Bible about that (n.b., the man without the proper wedding garment at Matt.22:11-13 is an unbeliever who does not have the "clothing of the righteous", i.e., is not saved: cf. Rev.19:8; 19:14). 

I do find a biblical injunction against giving preference to rich people who are dressed better than poor people who happen to show up to service in "filthy clothes" (Jas.2.2-9). And I do grant that it is not a bad application to show up to a Christian fellowship in presentable fashion as long as that is possible and does not impose a hardship, but making a competition out of it or an issue out of it or a necessity out of it is nothing but rank legalism – and there is plenty of that in the church-visible today on every hand.
In like manner also, that the women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with propriety and moderation, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly clothing, but, which is proper for women professing godliness, with good works.
1st Timothy 2:9-10 NKJV
The Christian life is all about what is going on in our inside, not what we are wearing on the outside.

Hope you were able to rest up after your long week. Here's wishing you a smooth one ahead!

In Jesus,

Bob L.
http://ichthys.com/