Using imperfection by Gary Rose

The Bible tells the unvarnished TRUTH. That truth is sometimes unpleasant, as in the case of people we might think of as heroes (heroines). Instead of presenting an idealized portrayal of people used by God, the Scriptures just tells the truth about them, "warts n all"!!  

What is true about Bible characters is true of us. We have faults; God works with those shortcomings and helps us, molds us.

Just consider one of the Bible's main characters- Paul. He was in fact a murderer, but to me, he comes across as a hard man to work with, someone who at times could have an adamant (unyielding, stubborn) character (Acts 15: 36-41) . I wonder what could be the basis behind this? Could it be pride, or just plain stubbornness? 

Consider...

2 Corinthians, Chapter 12 (World English Bible)

  ¹ It is doubtless not profitable for me to boast. For I will come to visions and revelations of the Lord.  ² I know a man in Christ, fourteen years ago (whether in the body, I don’t know, or whether out of the body, I don’t know; God knows), such a one caught up into the third heaven.  ³ I know such a man (whether in the body, or outside of the body, I don’t know; God knows),  ⁴ how he was caught up into Paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter.  ⁵ On behalf of such a one I will boast, but on my own behalf I will not boast, except in my weaknesses.  ⁶ For if I would desire to boast, I will not be foolish; for I will speak the truth. But I refrain, so that no man may think more of me than that which he sees in me or hears from me.  ⁷ By reason of the exceeding greatness of the revelations, that I should not be exalted excessively, a thorn in the flesh was given to me: a messenger of Satan to torment me, that I should not be exalted excessively. (emp. added vs.7 GDR) ⁸ Concerning this thing, I begged the Lord three times that it might depart from me.  ⁹ He has said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.” Most gladly therefore I will rather glory in my weaknesses, that the power of Christ may rest on me.

AND

1 Corinthians, Chapter 10 (World English Bible)

  ¹ Now I would not have you ignorant, brothers, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea;  ² and were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea;  ³ and all ate the same spiritual food;  ⁴ and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank of a spiritual rock that followed them, and the rock was Christ.  ⁵ However with most of them, God was not well pleased, for they were overthrown in the wilderness.  ⁶ Now these things were our examples, to the intent we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted.  ⁷ Don’t be idolaters, as some of them were. As it is written, “The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play.”  ⁸ Let’s not commit sexual immorality, as some of them committed, and in one day twenty-three thousand fell.  ⁹ Let’s not test Christ, as some of them tested, and perished by the serpents.  ¹⁰ Don’t grumble, as some of them also grumbled, and perished by the destroyer.  ¹¹ Now all these things happened to them by way of example, and they were written for our admonition, on whom the ends of the ages have come.  ¹² Therefore let him who thinks he stands be careful that he doesn’t fall.

¹³ No temptation has taken you except what is common to man. God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted above what you are able, but will with the temptation also make the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it. (emp. added vss. 12,13 GDR)

Paul was given a great intellect and had an almost fanatic enthusiasm for God.  I think Paul's "thorn in the flesh" was given to him to prevent him from being prideful. God helps us all in many ways and perhaps Paul's "thorn" was a good thing? If this is true, then God may help us through temptation in ways we will never truly understand.

Have faults, shortcomings? Love God and obey HIM and HE will help you overcome them. If HE could help Paul, HE can help us as well!!

Bible Reading March 6 by Gary Rose

Bible Reading March 6  (World English Bible)

Mar. 6

Exodus 16

Exo 16:1 They took their journey from Elim, and all the congregation of the children of Israel came to the wilderness of Sin, which is between Elim and Sinai, on the fifteenth day of the second month after their departing out of the land of Egypt.

Exo 16:2 The whole congregation of the children of Israel murmured against Moses and against Aaron in the wilderness;

Exo 16:3 and the children of Israel said to them, "We wish that we had died by the hand of Yahweh in the land of Egypt, when we sat by the meat pots, when we ate our fill of bread, for you have brought us out into this wilderness, to kill this whole assembly with hunger."

Exo 16:4 Then said Yahweh to Moses, "Behold, I will rain bread from the sky for you, and the people shall go out and gather a day's portion every day, that I may test them, whether they will walk in my law, or not.

Exo 16:5 It shall come to pass on the sixth day, that they shall prepare that which they bring in, and it shall be twice as much as they gather daily."

Exo 16:6 Moses and Aaron said to all the children of Israel, "At evening, then you shall know that Yahweh has brought you out from the land of Egypt;

Exo 16:7 and in the morning, then you shall see the glory of Yahweh; because he hears your murmurings against Yahweh. Who are we, that you murmur against us?"

Exo 16:8 Moses said, "Now Yahweh shall give you meat to eat in the evening, and in the morning bread to satisfy you; because Yahweh hears your murmurings which you murmur against him. And who are we? Your murmurings are not against us, but against Yahweh."

Exo 16:9 Moses said to Aaron, "Tell all the congregation of the children of Israel, 'Come near before Yahweh, for he has heard your murmurings.' "

Exo 16:10 It happened, as Aaron spoke to the whole congregation of the children of Israel, that they looked toward the wilderness, and behold, the glory of Yahweh appeared in the cloud.

Exo 16:11 Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying,

Exo 16:12 "I have heard the murmurings of the children of Israel. Speak to them, saying, 'At evening you shall eat meat, and in the morning you shall be filled with bread: and you shall know that I am Yahweh your God.' "

Exo 16:13 It happened at evening that quail came up and covered the camp; and in the morning the dew lay around the camp.

Exo 16:14 When the dew that lay had gone, behold, on the surface of the wilderness was a small round thing, small as the frost on the ground.

Exo 16:15 When the children of Israel saw it, they said one to another, "What is it?" For they didn't know what it was. Moses said to them, "It is the bread which Yahweh has given you to eat."

Exo 16:16 This is the thing which Yahweh has commanded: "Gather of it everyone according to his eating; an omer a head, according to the number of your persons, you shall take it, every man for those who are in his tent."

Exo 16:17 The children of Israel did so, and gathered some more, some less.

Exo 16:18 When they measured it with an omer, he who gathered much had nothing over, and he who gathered little had no lack. They gathered every man according to his eating.

Exo 16:19 Moses said to them, "Let no one leave of it until the morning."

Exo 16:20 Notwithstanding they didn't listen to Moses, but some of them left of it until the morning, and it bred worms, and became foul: and Moses was angry with them.

Exo 16:21 They gathered it morning by morning, everyone according to his eating. When the sun grew hot, it melted.

Exo 16:22 It happened that on the sixth day they gathered twice as much bread, two omers for each one, and all the rulers of the congregation came and told Moses.

Exo 16:23 He said to them, "This is that which Yahweh has spoken, 'Tomorrow is a solemn rest, a holy Sabbath to Yahweh. Bake that which you want to bake, and boil that which you want to boil; and all that remains over lay up for yourselves to be kept until the morning.' "

Exo 16:24 They laid it up until the morning, as Moses asked, and it didn't become foul, neither was there any worm in it.

Exo 16:25 Moses said, "Eat that today, for today is a Sabbath to Yahweh. Today you shall not find it in the field.

Exo 16:26 Six days you shall gather it, but on the seventh day is the Sabbath. In it there shall be none."

Exo 16:27 It happened on the seventh day, that some of the people went out to gather, and they found none.

Exo 16:28 Yahweh said to Moses, "How long do you refuse to keep my commandments and my laws?

Exo 16:29 Behold, because Yahweh has given you the Sabbath, therefore he gives you on the sixth day the bread of two days. Everyone stay in his place. Let no one go out of his place on the seventh day."

Exo 16:30 So the people rested on the seventh day.

Exo 16:31 The house of Israel called its name Manna, and it was like coriander seed, white; and its taste was like wafers with honey.

Exo 16:32 Moses said, "This is the thing which Yahweh has commanded, 'Let an omer-full of it be kept throughout your generations, that they may see the bread with which I fed you in the wilderness, when I brought you forth from the land of Egypt.' "

Exo 16:33 Moses said to Aaron, "Take a pot, and put an omer-full of manna in it, and lay it up before Yahweh, to be kept throughout your generations."

Exo 16:34 As Yahweh commanded Moses, so Aaron laid it up before the Testimony, to be kept.

Exo 16:35 The children of Israel ate the manna forty years, until they came to an inhabited land. They ate the manna until they came to the borders of the land of Canaan.

Exo 16:36 Now an omer is the tenth part of an ephah.

Mar. 5, 6

Mark 5

Mar 5:1 They came to the other side of the sea, into the country of the Gadarenes.

Mar 5:2 When he had come out of the boat, immediately a man with an unclean spirit met him out of the tombs.

Mar 5:3 He lived in the tombs. Nobody could bind him any more, not even with chains,

Mar 5:4 because he had been often bound with fetters and chains, and the chains had been torn apart by him, and the fetters broken in pieces. Nobody had the strength to tame him.

Mar 5:5 Always, night and day, in the tombs and in the mountains, he was crying out, and cutting himself with stones.

Mar 5:6 When he saw Jesus from afar, he ran and bowed down to him,

Mar 5:7 and crying out with a loud voice, he said, "What have I to do with you, Jesus, you Son of the Most High God? I adjure you by God, don't torment me."

Mar 5:8 For he said to him, "Come out of the man, you unclean spirit!"

Mar 5:9 He asked him, "What is your name?" He said to him, "My name is Legion, for we are many."

Mar 5:10 He begged him much that he would not send them away out of the country.

Mar 5:11 Now on the mountainside there was a great herd of pigs feeding.

Mar 5:12 All the demons begged him, saying, "Send us into the pigs, that we may enter into them."

Mar 5:13 At once Jesus gave them permission. The unclean spirits came out and entered into the pigs. The herd of about two thousand rushed down the steep bank into the sea, and they were drowned in the sea.

Mar 5:14 Those who fed them fled, and told it in the city and in the country. The people came to see what it was that had happened.

Mar 5:15 They came to Jesus, and saw him who had been possessed by demons sitting, clothed, and in his right mind, even him who had the legion; and they were afraid.

Mar 5:16 Those who saw it declared to them how it happened to him who was possessed by demons, and about the pigs.

Mar 5:17 They began to beg him to depart from their region.

Mar 5:18 As he was entering into the boat, he who had been possessed by demons begged him that he might be with him.

Mar 5:19 He didn't allow him, but said to him, "Go to your house, to your friends, and tell them what great things the Lord has done for you, and how he had mercy on you."

Mar 5:20 He went his way, and began to proclaim in Decapolis how Jesus had done great things for him, and everyone marveled.

Mar 5:21 When Jesus had crossed back over in the boat to the other side, a great multitude was gathered to him; and he was by the sea.

Mar 5:22 Behold, one of the rulers of the synagogue, Jairus by name, came; and seeing him, he fell at his feet,

Mar 5:23 and begged him much, saying, "My little daughter is at the point of death. Please come and lay your hands on her, that she may be made healthy, and live."

Mar 5:24 He went with him, and a great multitude followed him, and they pressed upon him on all sides.

Mar 5:25 A certain woman, who had an issue of blood for twelve years,

Mar 5:26 and had suffered many things by many physicians, and had spent all that she had, and was no better, but rather grew worse,

Mar 5:27 having heard the things concerning Jesus, came up behind him in the crowd, and touched his clothes.

Mar 5:28 For she said, "If I just touch his clothes, I will be made well."

Mar 5:29 Immediately the flow of her blood was dried up, and she felt in her body that she was healed of her affliction.

Mar 5:30 Immediately Jesus, perceiving in himself that the power had gone out from him, turned around in the crowd, and asked, "Who touched my clothes?"

Mar 5:31 His disciples said to him, "You see the multitude pressing against you, and you say, 'Who touched me?' "

Mar 5:32 He looked around to see her who had done this thing.

Mar 5:33 But the woman, fearing and trembling, knowing what had been done to her, came and fell down before him, and told him all the truth.

Mar 5:34 He said to her, "Daughter, your faith has made you well. Go in peace, and be cured of your disease."

Mar 5:35 While he was still speaking, people came from the synagogue ruler's house saying, "Your daughter is dead. Why bother the Teacher any more?"

Mar 5:36 But Jesus, when he heard the message spoken, immediately said to the ruler of the synagogue, "Don't be afraid, only believe."

Mar 5:37 He allowed no one to follow him, except Peter, James, and John the brother of James.

Mar 5:38 He came to the synagogue ruler's house, and he saw an uproar, weeping, and great wailing.

Mar 5:39 When he had entered in, he said to them, "Why do you make an uproar and weep? The child is not dead, but is asleep."

Mar 5:40 They ridiculed him. But he, having put them all out, took the father of the child, her mother, and those who were with him, and went in where the child was lying.

Mar 5:41 Taking the child by the hand, he said to her, "Talitha cumi!" which means, being interpreted, "Girl, I tell you, get up!"

Mar 5:42 Immediately the girl rose up and walked, for she was twelve years old. They were amazed with great amazement.

Mar 5:43 He strictly ordered them that no one should know this, and commanded that something should be given to her to eat.

Were former days better? by J. C. Bailey

http://www.oldpaths.com/Archive/Bailey/John/Carlos/1903/Articles/formerda.html

Were former days better?

"Say not thou, What is the cause that the former days were better than these? for thou dost not inquire wisely concerning this" (Ecclesiastes 7:10).

It rained last Sunday. I went to Radville to worship. A stretch of the road was under construction. I got stuck. I was late for the service. We lived in Radville many years. For many years there was not any gravel, let alone hardtop, on any road leading into Radville. To get stuck in the gumbo was not an uncommon experience. I know that what is called the “Good Old Days” is largely a myth.

I have just reread a book written by James Orval Filbeck entitled The Christian Evidence Movement. This book shows that at the time of the founding of the American nation Deism and Agnosticism were rampant. The opposition to truth was strong and more successful than it is today, as we are prepared to show. Men arose who challenged and defeated the foes of Christianity. Are we too complacent to do the same thing today?

Opposition to truth was rampant as the American nation was born. Let us look at the truth of this assertion. This is found on page 71 of Brother Filbeck's book. John Adams said on April 21, 1823: “It would be more pardonable to believe in no God at all than to blaspheme Him by the atrocious attributes of Calvin. Indeed, I think every Christian sect gives a great handle to atheism by their general dogma, that without a revelation, there would not be sufficient proof of the being of a God.” In other words, the Bible was not needed.

We quote further from Adams: “And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus by the Supreme Being as his Father, in the womb of the virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter.” Brother Filbeck shows by exact quotations that there were many others of the Founding Fathers who were not believers in the Bible as the Word of God, nor in Jesus Christ as the only begotten Son of the Father.

I want to show next that this had a profound effect on the thinking of the students in the schools of that day. Yale is one of the oldest and best-known Colleges in the U.S.A. On page 86 of the Filbeck book we have the following to show that the good old days were not different from what we have now. If anything, it was worse. The establishment of American Independence had not been affected without the moral contamination always the result of protracted wars. Licentiousness, both in conduct and sentiment, had followed the footsteps of liberty, and of the exultation of political emancipation, infidel philosophers found ready listeners, when they represented the restraints of religion as fetters of the conscience and moral obligation as shackles imposed by bigotry and priest craft.”

To show how successful the forces of evil were we quote from page 86: “At this critical period in the history of Yale, most undergraduates avowed themselves skeptics....The terrible condition for Christendom is made more evident by the fact that in the fall of 1796 only one freshman was a 'professing Christian': the sophomore class contained none; the junior, one; and the senior only had eight or nine. By the year 1800, it was reported that there were only five students who were members of the college church.”

Nor was Yale the only college so affected. We read the following about Princeton: “in the year 1782 there were only two students in the entire body who professed to be Christians.”

We learn this about Williams College: (The following was written by a member of the first class to graduate from the college): “Respecting the religious state of things in the College during my residence in it, I have no favorable account to give. It was the time of the French Revolution, which was, at that time, very popular with almost all the people in that part of the country. French liberty and French philosophy poured in upon us like a flood; and seemed to sweep everything serious before it.” So great was the flood of infidelity that we read further of still another college: “So great had been the common danger at Dartmouth College that in the class of 1799 only one member would openly make acknowledgment of his belief in Christianity.”

Nor was Adams the only man of the Founding Fathers who embraced the infidelity of the French Revolution. Thomas Jefferson was the author of the Declaration of Independence, yet Jefferson permitted Dr. Thomas Cooper, a rank infidel, to teach in the University of Virginia until opposition made it necessary that he resign.

We could use many pages to show the terrible religious condition of the country at the time of the War of Independence. Thank God there arose men who met the infidelic challenge and defeated it. Are we brave enough to meet the present challenge? We have more evidence today to show that the claims of the infidel are false than they had then.

The following gives us some idea of what happened as the battle was joined in the “good old days”: “The turbulent wave of French infidelity and aggressive English deism almost simultaneously encroached upon the American continent. As these forces moved in upon the various phases of life, there began a counter move which grew stronger and stronger in zeal and intensity” (page 95).

One of the leaders in this fight was Timothy Dwight, many years President of Yale. I quote from him: “Dwight recognized the significance for mankind of words like Reason and Liberty; but to worship abstract terms seemed to him idolatry as meaningless as that of the heathen who bowed down before a sacred cow or stone. It was beyond his understanding how intelligent man could idolize a bare word, sacrificing at its shrine the very thing which it denoted” (page 97).

As we look at history, the French groaned under oppression, they talked of liberty, but what did they do? They turned their so-called liberty into an orgy of pillage and murder. The Communists talk of liberty for the masses but no force has ever so subjected the masses to abject suffering as the Communists have. Jesus said: “I came that they might have life and have it abundantly” (John 10:10). True liberty is only found in Christ. Sin always brings bondage and slavery.

I think we can do no better than to quote Mark Hopkins who was president of Williams College from 1836 to 1872. (President Garfield was one of his students and is reputed to have said: “A log with a student at one end and Mark Hopkins at the other is my ideal college.”) Hopkins believed that the evidence was conclusive in favor of Christianity. He contended that Christianity is supported by moral evidence.

If any one would care to look around they can see how true this is. In many things we all stumble but the deeper the faith in the Bible the higher the moral standard. He that would question this must close his eyes to all the evidence around him.

Hopkins further said: “Hume does not take into account the moral government of God at all. This is a great mistake.” Our quotation from Filbeck continues: “He (Hopkins) significantly stated that 'moral government of God is a movement in a line onwards toward some grand consummation, in which the principles, indeed, are ever the same, but the developments are ever new, in which, therefore, no experience of the past can indicate with certainty what new openings of truth, what new manifestations of goodness, what new phases of morals may appear'.”

We follow the reasoning of Hopkins further: “Hopkins took special notice of the question of divine revelation -- a revelation attested by miraculous demonstration; for whatever probability there was that there would be a revelation, the same was there that there would be miracles; because miracles so far as we can see, are the only means by which it would be possible for God to authenticate a communication to man” (page 106).

The assailants change but the battle does not change. We must put on the whole armor of God that we may be able to stand in that evil day. The forces of right are much stronger than the forces of evil but we shall not succeed if we think that we can reach heaven on flowery beds of ease. Others fought and were victorious. There is no question about the outcome if we are strong in the Lord and in the power of His might.

J. C. Bailey, 1979, Weyburn, Saskatchewan


Published in The Old Paths Archive
(http://www.oldpaths.com)

Biblical Consistency and the Believer’s Treatment of False Teachers by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

http://apologeticspress.org/AllegedDiscrepancies.aspx?article=482&b=2%20John

Biblical Consistency and the Believer’s Treatment of False Teachers

by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

If Christians are to be kind and loving to everyone (Luke 10:29-37), some question why 2 John 10-11 teaches, “If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine (‘the doctrine of Christ’—vs. 9), do not receive him into your house nor greet him; for he who greets him shares in his evil deeds” (emp. added; cf. Wells, 2015). Also, why did Paul instruct Timothy to “shun profane and idle babblings” (2 Timothy 2:16; 1 Timothy 6:20-21)? Are Christians to shun those with whom we disagree, and even go so far as not to greet them or allow them into our homes?
First, Scripture, indeed, repeatedly calls for Christians to love everyone—whether family, friends, fellow Christians, or enemies (Matthew 5:43-48; 22:36-40; Romans 12:9-21). We are to “[r]epay no one evil for evil” (Romans 12:17, emp. added), but strive to “be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God in Christ forgave” us (Ephesians 4:32). But Christian kindness and love is not antithetical to such things as, for example, punishing rule breakers. A father who loves his son, and would even die for him, will promptly discipline him for unruly conduct (Proverbs 13:24; Ephesians 6:4). A school principal may genuinely love and care for every student under his oversight, but he may occasionally have to expel a disorderly child from the school for at least two reasons: (1) so that the hundreds of other students who want to get an education can safely and successfully do so, and (2) in hopes that such drastic measures will cause the unruly child to awaken to his senses before it is too late (and he does something far worse as a teenager or as an adult). An uninformed outsider, who sees a father disciplining his son or a school principal punishing a student, may initially think less of these adults and wonder how they could call themselves Christians. The logical, more informed bystander, however, will quickly size up the situation and easily see the consistency in the loving, disciplinary actions.
In the epistle of 2 John, the apostle expressed his concern for the eternal destiny of Christians, saying, “Watch yourselves, that you might not lose what we have accomplished, but that you may receive a full reward” (vs. 8, NASB). John was alarmed because deceptive false teachers who denied the incarnation of Jesus were a serious threat to the salvation of Christians. “For many deceivers have gone out into the world who do not confess Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh” (2 John 7). These false teachers (known as Gnostics) alleged that Christ could not have been incarnated because the flesh is inherently sinful. And, since the flesh is supposedly intrinsically evil, Gnostics taught that Christians did not need to resist fleshly temptations. Just “do whatever feels good” and know that such wicked actions are only physical and not spiritual. Allegedly, the soul could still be pure, even if the individuals themselves participated in wicked activity. (For more information, see “Gnosticism,” 1982, 2:484-490.)
The apostle John (who had “seen” and “handled” the actual body of Christ—1 John 1:1-4; i.e., Jesus did come in the flesh) repeatedly condemned the central teachings of certain Gnostics who were confusing and misleading first-century Christians.

Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world. By this you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God and every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of the Antichrist, which you have heard was coming, and is now already in the world (1 John 4:1-3, emp. added).

Whoever commits sin also commits lawlessness, and sin is lawlessness. And you know that He was manifested to take away our sins, and in Him there is no sin. Whoever abides in Him does not sin. Whoever sins has neither seen Him nor known Him. Little children, let no one deceive you. He who practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous. He who sins is of the devil…. Whoever has been born of God does not sin (1 John 3:4-9).

False doctrine was a real and present danger in the first-century church, just as it is today. Christians were (and are) to be on “guard” because “some have strayed concerning the faith”—profane and idle babblers and teachers of contradictory doctrines of “what is falsely called knowledge” (Greek gnosis; 1 Timothy 6:20-21; cf. 2 Timothy 2:15-26). Denying the physical life, death, burial, and resurrection of the body of Christ was heresy, and thus John and others warned the early church of such deception. What’s more, claiming that “all unrighteousness is not sin,” was to directly contradict the Law of Christ. In truth, “the works of the flesh are evident,” and “those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God” (Galatians 5:19,21, emp. added). John wrote: “Whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God,” because “all unrighteousness is sin” (1 John 3:10; 5:17, emp. added).
Christians are commanded to withdraw fellowship (lovingly, faithfully, and sorrowfully) from brethren who rebel against the teachings of Christ (cf. 1 Corinthians 5:1-13; 2 Thessalonians 3:6-15). Such actions by Christians and churches are taken for at least two reasons: (1) to keep the church and the Christian families that comprise her from being harmed spiritually by the defiantly unfaithful (whose very tolerated presence would have even more damaging affects than an incessantly disruptive student in a school room; cf. 1 Corinthians 5:6-7), and (2) in hopes of causing the wayward child of God to come to his senses (being “ashamed” of his sinful conduct; 2 Thessalonians 3:14; 1 Corinthians 5:5)—repenting of sin and being restored to the family of God.
Similarly, in 2 John 10-11, the apostle of the Lord instructed hospitable Christians to recognize the seriousness of greeting and housing deceptive false teachers. [NOTE: “The greeting was ‘Chairo!’ literally, goodspeed or God speed. This greeting was more than mere formality; it was an approval of the course being pursued by the one thus greeting, and included a desire for success in the effort attempted” (Woods, 1979, p. 349, italics in orig.).] First-century roaming teachers and preachers “depended on the generosity of the members of the church” for their housing and hospitality (Marshall, 1978, p. 74, emp. added). John the apostle, however, wanted the church to understand the serious threat that these dangerous false teachers posed to the precious bride of Christ. Doctrinal error is not something to “play with,” especially when such error involves the foundation of the Church (the life of Christ—2 John 7) and the denial of sin (the very thing that results in eternal death for the impenitent—Romans 6:23; Luke 13:3,5). By refusing to house and bid God-speed to deceptive teachers, the ungodly efforts of these misleading “messengers” would be greatly diminished. In time, they might choose to (or have to) stop their sowing of error altogether because of lack of opportunities, assistance, and encouragement. Such a result combined with genuine repentance would be the very thing for which Christians hope and pray.
Anyone who can see the reasonable and loving consistency of parents telling their children to “be nice to everyone,” but “don’t listen to these dangerous people” (showing them pictures of known child molesters), should be able to see the consistency of God’s message concerning Christian love and hospitality, and the way Christians react to false teachers who espouse damnable error. Children who shun dangerous sexual predators are protecting their own innocence, as well as keeping themselves and their families from a moment (or a lifetime) of grief. What’s more, the avoided, dangerous strangers are not given the opportunity to continue in their sins. Thus, the children’s obedient avoidance of them could be of great help to the sinful strangers in the highest way possible—if they awaken to their spiritual senses.
Christians are actually fulfilling the Law of Christ to “do good to all” (Galatians 6:2,10) even as we identify and refuse to embrace and fellowship false teachers. We are “doing good” to the “household of faith” by helping keep her pure and unaffected by cancer-spreading deceptive teachers (2 Timothy 2:17-18). Allowing error to spread would be tantamount to “rejoicing in iniquity,” which is unloving (1 Corinthians 13:6). What’s more, the false teachers themselves are in no way encouraged to continue down the road of deceit. Rather, it is the hope and prayer of Christians that false teachers would become convicted of the error of their ways and repent before the Master Teacher (Luke 2:47; John 7:46) returns and judges them eternally for their doctrinal deceit (2 Peter 2).
[NOTE: Near the conclusion of his excellent commentary on 2 John, Guy N. Woods made an appropriate observation that both Christians and critics of 2 John 10-11 should consider: “John does not here forbid hospitality to strangers, or, for that matter, to false teachers when, in so doing, false teaching is neither encouraged nor done. Were we to find a teacher known to be an advocate of false doctrine suffering, it would be our duty to minister to his need, provided that in so doing we did not abet or encourage him in the propagation of false doctrine…. What is forbidden is the reception of such teachers in such fashion as to supply them with an opportunity to teach their tenets, to maintain an association with them when such would involve us in the danger of accepting their doctrines…. The test is, Does one become a partaker by the action contemplated? If yes, our duty is clear; we must neither receive them nor give them greeting; if No, the principle here taught is not applicable” (pp. 349-350, emp. added).]

REFERENCES

“Gnosticism” (1982), The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Marshall, I. Howard (1978), The Epistles of John (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Wells, Steve (2015), “Should Believers Discuss Their Faith with Nonbelievers?” http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/discuss.html.
Woods, Guy N. (1979), New Testament Epistles of Peter, John, and Jude (Nashville, TN: Gospel Advocate).

Pluralism, Christianity, and America by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=1989

Pluralism, Christianity, and America

by	Dave Miller, Ph.D.

Since America has been methodically massaged for some 50 years by pluralistic, humanistic, multi-cultural, politically correct influences, Christians are being marginalized and are facing forthright discrimination and persecution. To see where America is logically headed, look carefully at what is happening to those nations that historically have been affiliated with Christianity, but are further along in their abandonment of the moral and spiritual principles of the Christian religion. For example, Fritz and Marianna Konrad live in Herbolzheim, Germany with their two children Rebekka and Josua. As professors of the Christian religion who avow strong attachment to the Bible, in 2000, the Konrads opted for homeschooling and sought exemption from public school attendance for their children for religious reasons on the grounds that “school education does not suit their beliefs because of sex education, the appearance of mythical creatures such as witches and dwarfs in fairytales during school lessons and the increasing physical and psychological violence between pupils at school” (Konrad v. Germany, 2006, p. 2, emp. added). The school authorities rejected their petition. So the Konrads took their case to German court.
In its 2001 ruling, a German court conceded that, indeed, “Basic Law granted the parents both freedom of religion and the right to educate their children with regard to religious and philosophical convictions, which also included the negative aspect to keep their children away from convictions which would be harmful in their opinion” (Konrad..., p. 2). Though the court did not question the ability of the parents to provide an academically suitable education for their children, nevertheless, the court ruled against the parents’ freedom to homeschool on these astounding grounds:

That freedom, however, was restricted by the State’s obligation for education and tuition. Hence compulsory school was not a matter for the parents’ discretion. The applicant parents’ wish to let their children grow up in a “protected” area at home without outside interference could not take priority over compulsory school attendance. Even if children could be sufficiently educated at home, the State’s obligation to educate under the Basic Law would not be met if the children had no contact with other children. Attending a primary school, with children from all backgrounds, would enable children both to gain first experiences with society and to acquire social competences. Neither would be possible if the parents were authorized to educate the children at home” (pp. 2-3, emp. added).

Unbelievable! The government’s right to educate children takes precedence over the parents’ right to do so (especially since the State must not be deprived of tuition money).
The Founders of America insisted that the parents had sole authority and discretion to educate their children. It was not only not the obligation of the State to do so, the State had no authority to do so. The American government was designed to receive its authority from the people—not vice versa. Indeed, the Founders of American government insisted that the people derived their rights and authority from God—not from the State—and that the State has no right to interfere with the people’s inalienable rights. Indeed, the Bible teaches that God invested the authority to educate, train, and raise children in parents and the home (Genesis 2:24; Ephesians 6:1ff.). Yet, the humanistic European judicial system maintains that the government has the right to override parents’ wishes in order to ensure that the children socialize with children “from all backgrounds,” i.e., Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, and atheists.
When the case went to the Court of Appeal, the court reinforced the lower court ruling, further insisting that

even though the applicant parents’ right to educate their children included religious education, they were not entitled...to the exclusive education of their children. The State’s constitutional obligation to provide children with education was on an equal footing. The court stressed that the decisive point was not whether or not home education was equally effective as primary school education, but that compulsory school attendance require children from all backgrounds in society to gather together. Parents could not obtain an exemption...if they disagreed with the content of particular parts of the syllabus, even if their disagreement was religiously motivated. The applicant parents could not be permitted to keep their children away from school and the influences of other children (p. 3, emp. added).

Further, the court commented on the State’s right to indoctrinate children with evolution—the very circumstance that Americans have been enduring for half a century: “As far as the applicants complained that the school’s syllabus was too scientific and denied any divine influence on the creation and the history of the world, the court found that freedom of religion did not grant the freedom to deal with any possible conflicts between science and religion” (p. 3, emp. added).
Having lost their case in the German courts, the Konrads appealed to the European Court of Human Rights in hopes of achieving their aim. They made their petition on the basis of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 which reads:

No person shall be denied the right to education. In the exercise of any functions which it assumes in relation to education and to teaching, the State shall respect the right of parents to ensure such education and to teaching, the State shall respect the right of parents to ensure such education and teaching in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions (Konrad...,” p. 6, emp. added).

Seems clear enough. Regarding the views of the Konrads, the court noted that they

find that it is their obligation to educate their children in accordance with the Bible and Christian values. They infer from numerous quotations from the Bible that their children’s education is an obligation on them which cannot easily be transferred to third persons. They submit that, by teaching their children at home, they fulfil a divine order. Their children’s attendance of a primary school would inevitably lead to grave conflicts with their personal beliefs.... Compulsory school attendance would therefore severely endanger their children’s religious education, especially regarding sex education (p. 6, emp. added).

Yet, like the German courts, this international tribunal ruled against the parents on the misguided grounds of the alleged value to society of diversity and pluralism:

The provision...aims [at] safeguarding pluralism in education which is essential for the preservation of the “democratic society”.... In view of the power of the modern State, it is above all through State teaching that this aim must be realized.... Therefore respect is only due to convictions on the part of the parents which do not conflict with the right of the child to education.... This means that parents may not refuse the right to education of a child on the basis of their convictions (pp. 6-7, emp. added).

Observe that these declarations contain misrepresentations and erroneous hidden assumptions, i.e., that parents are unreliable determiners of their own children’s education and that the “right to education” means the right to be educated in public school by the State—not the right to be educated at home by the parents. The Konrads did not “refuse the right to education” of their children. They simply refused the right of the State—with its anti-Christian bias—to educate their children. They want their children to be educated; but they want them to be educated by themselves at home.
Americans would like to think that such things do not and cannot happen in this country. Yet, the indications are that America is moving swiftly in the same direction. American judges have commenced to cite foreign and international law in their decisions. For example, retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor repeatedly declared the necessity of relying on international law (“O’Connor: U.S. Must...,” 2003; “O’Connor Praises...,” 2004). Likewise, parents increasingly are being overruled by school and political officials in their efforts to shield their children from liberal ideology. Last year, the “Left Coast” 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that parents do not have a fundamental right to control when, where, and how their children are taught about sex (Parker, 2005). The Lexington, Massachusetts Superintendent of Schools recently insisted that the school system had no legal obligation to notify parents when children were being exposed to materials that advocated homosexuality and same-sex marriage (Jan, 2006). What a shame. And what a far cry from the convictions of the architects of American civilization who insisted that public education should have as its first concern the teaching of Christian principles. As Noah Webster so poignantly expressed:

In my view, the Christian religion is the most important and one of the first things in which all children, under a free government, ought to be instructed.... No truth is more evident to my mind than that the Christian religion must be the basis of any government intended to secure the rights and privileges of a free people (1843, p. 291, emp. added).

REFERENCES

Jan, Tracy (2006), “Parents Rip School Over Gay Storybook,” Boston Globe, April 20, [On-line], URL: http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2006/04/20/parents_rip_ school_over_gay_storybook/.
Konrad v. Germany (2006), European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), September 18, 35504/03, [On-line], URL: http://www.telladf.org/UserDocs/KonradDecision.pdf.
“O’Connor Praises International Law” (2004), WorldNetDaily, October 27, [On-line], URL: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=41143.
“O’Connor: U.S. Must Rely on Foreign Law” (2003), WorldNetDaily, October 31, [On-line], URL: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35367.
Parker, Kathleen (2005), “Parents Take Another Hit in the Culture Wars,” Orlando Sentinel, G3, November 6, [On-line], URL: http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/orlandosentinel/access/922392231.html?dids =922392231:922392231&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&date=Nov+6%2C+ 2005&author=Kathleen+Parker%2C+Sentinel+Columnist&pub=Orlando+ Sentinel&edition=&startpage=G.3&desc=Parents+take+another+ hit+in+the+culture+wars.
Webster, Noah (1843), A Collection of Papers on Political, Literary, and Moral Subjects (New York, NY: Webster and Clark).