http://ichthys.com/ 
Mutual Encouragement in Christ XVIII

Question #1:   
Hello Dr. Luginbill,

May the celebration of Jesus Christ of our LORD and Savior rest upon you each and every day.

I appreciate you and cannot express in words the thanksgiving to God for all that He has done through your Website.

"He is not here, He has risen!"

My favorite Bible verse.

May the LORD pour out His great blessings on you and your family always.

Your friend,

P.S. God is moving. I will tell you soon.
Response #1:  
Thank you, my friend!

Hope you had a blessed day – curious to hear your news too.

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #2:  
Hi Bob,

I have a unusual question for you. How do we explain spiritual attack/ testing to unbelievers?

I would rather not have to explain at all as I have found it to be very much "pearls before swine". The problem for me is that when I am going through a point of struggling with my testing then I tend to "go quiet" with my loved ones until I am in a better place spiritually. As they are very probing into my life even on the best days, I find it hard to know what to tell them?

They pretty much demand to know by the way and if I don't give a satisfactory answer then they always chalk it up to ill health or specifically mentally ill health. I'm pretty exasperated with this label now but realise that they won't actually listen to the truth.

Imagine how they would take someone (who they already deem mentally unfit) saying they were being attacked by Satan? So I need to tell them the truth that buys me time and gives me peace (usually a day is enough these days) that they will actually accept.

I can really see why Jesus spoke in parables now! I really understand how frustrating it is to talk spiritual matters to someone who hasn't the foggiest. I hope as I mature that I bounce back more and more quickly and won't actually need these time outs as much. Though I know even our Lord sought time alone to pray!

In Him,
Response #2:  
I can't give you a "rule" since I don't know of one in scripture. That's probably for good reason. We are all different, our circumstances are all different, and the testing we undergo is always going to be unique to us for that reason (in spite of similarities).

You make some good points about the perils of giving others, immature Christians but especially unbelievers, explanations that might muddy the waters (especially ones which they will never accept in any case). Our main witness at these times is the witness of the life. Others see that we are under pressure, and if we handle that pressure better than they would be able to do, God has a way of causing them to recognize that. This may at some point give us the opportunity to witness THE truth to them, telling them about Jesus.

There's no law against saying, when asked for an explanation, that the Lord is bringing us through our troubles and that we have absolute confidence in His doing so.
Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have.
1st Peter 3:15b
In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #3:   
I pray all is well with you. Would you mind putting me back on the notification list when new emails and Bible studies have been posted?

Thank you.

I will also sign up for the RSS feed.
Response #3:  
You were never off the list!

Let me explain how the list works (now). I used to send out mass mailers to everyone who had expressed interest, but I got dinged for sending out SPAM. Long story short, now I only send out an announcement when I post a major study, such as the latest installment of the Peter series (next one coming this summer some time). And I usually do not send an announcement to those with whom I in regular or recent contact. I figure that of course they will know about it because 1) it's on the front page of Ichthys and 2) I usually put at least part up on the weekly email page as the weekly offering. 

In terms of RSS, let me know how that works for you, will you? RSS used to be a standard, built-in feature of all web browsers, but some of them, Firefox, for example, now require you to download and install some sort of add-on. I don't use it myself since, obviously, I know what I've posted. If you have an RSS, how well does it work? If you get one, and get it to work, I'd be grateful for you sharing the details. I do update the RSS feature every week.

Doing well! Keeping you and your family in my prayers daily as well.

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #4:   
Doc,

So many people seem to demonize the idea of fun or even enjoying life at all, even if it's just enjoying the natural world God has given us. Why? Do you think this is just legalism, or do they truly think a righteous God means He hates anything that's not explicit, inherent worship of Him? Why do they think anything that's made for entertainment or fun is from the devil? I agree we shouldn't let anything become an idol, but demonizing the idea of fun just because it's not inherent godly good is absurd.
Response #4:  
I wouldn't worry about what other people think. In terms of activities that are not inherently sinful, if something is bad for you personally, you still shouldn't do it. But if it's not causing you to stumble or stunting your personal growth, that's another story. This life is all about how closely and how well we are following Jesus Christ. Those who are doing what He wants will win top rewards from Him; those who aren't are wasting their time in this life . . . or worse.

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #5:   
[personal struggles reported]
Response #5:  
I can relate! It seems that things have gotten busier and busier – even without any particular strapping on of anything major and new. Part of that has to do with spiritual growth: when we were "young pups" in the Lord, we couldn't handle this sort of testing so we weren't given it; part of it has to do no doubt with the times in which we live; and part of it is probably gracious provision from the Lord, necessary preparation for the near future when things will become more than just "busier".

As my dad used to say, "everything is always over". It's not in the Bible, exactly, but amen to that!

And of course it makes me VERY happy to see how wonderfully you are handling this extended test. Don't let yourself get put off by momentary lapses. Those will be with us as long as we have these sin natures. Don't let "the little foxes" ruin your wonderful garden. Deal with them and move on.

In the meantime, it can't be being missed by all who are observing you that you are operating in a "supernatural gear". I'm praying that they'll act on that. The witness of the life is a very powerful thing – especially when the pressure is on and everyone else knows and can see that it's on.

"I have full confidence in the Lord to get us through this." Amen! Nothing is impossible for the Lord, and whenever we are flagging, if we but trust Him, what He does for us is always amazing.
But those who hope in the LORD will renew their strength. They will soar on wings like eagles; they will run and not grow weary, they will walk and not be faint.
Isaiah 40:31 NIV
"Can't wait to be with the Lord! Can't wait for that day!" Amen to that too!

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #6:  
Hi Bob,

I hope you've had a good day and I'm happy to hear you're enjoying the sunshine!

Thanks for your prayers for __. I had another conversation a couple of weeks ago about the Lord. I always wait for my opportunities and I'm always very gentle about it. Even after everything __ has gone through ___ says beliefs haven't changed - still doesn't believe. But as you say - we'll keep praying.

Hope you have a good weekend. Another busy one ahead for me. And I'm looking forward to the emails as always too!

In Jesus
Response #6:  
People can be stubborn about coming to (or coming back to) the Lord. I certainly was! But the Lord really knows how to get the attention of everyone who has the spark. Just because __ says nothing has changed doesn't mean that the Lord is not working the problem for us. So we keep praying.

Reminds me of a joke my old scoutmaster used to tell. A man just couldn't get his mule to move no matter how hard he yelled or pulled the bridle. His friend came over and smacked the mule right between the eyes with a 2 by 4. The mule started moving. "First", said his friend, "you have to get their undivided attention".

Hot weather continues here – but at least we're not on fire like New Mexico and California.

Keeping you in my prayers too, my friend.

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #7:   
Dear Teacher,

I didn't realize that you were back already. Happy to hear that it went well, Sir.

Amen, Sir. I look forward to it. It's very rough going right now, but I feel that things are clearer inside me everyday, like I'm breaking through the fog and gaining clearer definition as a man and a believer through this experience. There is still so much I don't know or understand and very much that I don't know that I don't know, and coming face to face with my ignorance and inadequacy every time can still be pretty frustrating.

Keeping you in our prayers here, Sir.
Response #7:  
We're all deficient in many ways. As Paul said, not many of us are mighty, wise or noble (1Cor.1:26), and of those who are, they tend not to be the most zealous believers because they are tempted to rely on themselves instead of on the Lord (along the lines of rich people having a hard time entering the kingdom). Recognizing our insufficiency is actually a plus.
And He said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for My strength is made perfect in weakness.” Therefore most gladly I will rather boast in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me. Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in needs, in persecutions, in distresses, for Christ’s sake. For when I am weak, then I am strong.
2nd Corinthians 12:9-10 NKJV
God always faithfully delivers us. Always. So we just need to trust Him that this is so, and do our best with the time and energy He has provided us with – out of that faith (rather than slacking off because we feel it is hopeless). In the end, faith always has the victory. I have seen that so many times in my own life and also in my observation of the lives of many other believers.

I wouldn't worry about the other issue. People "do what they do". Mostly, all we can do is pray for them – and steer them in the direction of the truth if they are willing.

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #8:   
[omitted by request]
Response #8:  
First, I want to commend you for NOT reacting and NOT rising to this "bait". Good for you!

Second, if I were you, I'd let this one go. This is the kind of drivel people say all the time without actually having thought about it in any depth or considered the implications. If an answer is given, a simple scripture quotation would be my choice:
Now all things are of God, who has reconciled us to Himself through Jesus Christ, and has given us the ministry of reconciliation, that is, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses to them, and has committed to us the word of reconciliation.
2nd Corinthians 5:18-19 NKJV
Once people decide to respond to the truth, they generally start asking question rather than making pronouncements (as if they already knew it all). We're unlikely to bring them to that point by arguing with them, even if we are very good at arguing (or perhaps even especially so because that will only upset them and lead them to "double down" as you note). We need to keep praying, keep setting a good example, and keep putting forth "apples of gold" when the opportunity is truly ripe (Prov.25:11), avoiding times when we know we're only going to have a fight.

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #9:  
[omitted by request]
Response #9:  
I am sorry that you're getting so much opposition, but as you have correctly concluded, it is a help to spiritual growth (pushups are never fun at the time we're doing them, but they do have positive results).

I'm very proud of the way you are fighting this fight.

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #10:   
[omitted by request]
Response #10:  
For thus says the Lord GOD, the Holy One of Israel:
“In returning and rest you shall be saved;
In quietness and confidence shall be your strength.”
Isaiah 30:15a NKJV
Indeed, it's really not possible to fix the world. That requires fixing people, and people "do what they do". Even under duress and pressure, they "do what they do". We can give them the truth, but they have to want it. It's all about free will. So while we are obligated to do certain things, like pray for others, we need to keep our own spiritual house in order first. If we are suffering the kind of anxiety you are mentioning here, then that's a sure sign that we have got our eyes off of our own spiritual advance and have become mired down in trying to fix problems which only God can fix. Our job is to do what's right in our walk with Him and toward others in love for Him, trusting Him to fix what we cannot – or at least to work it out together for good (Rom.8:28).

So, yes, I do counsel you to do what you say here (and what you said previously), namely, to leave insoluble problems to the Lord in trust that He can and will do what is right in answer to prayer, and to not neglect your own spiritual welfare. If we allow ourselves to be put out of action, then we can't be much help to anyone else or ourselves either.

Keeping you and your family in my prayers daily, my friend.

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #11:  
[omitted] 
I guess also it comes from long standing frustration of having no one to rely on, even as a Christian, knowing many Christians. I mean I thought of __ as a friend, but many times when I was concerned about ending up on the street, not because of stupid decisions, but because I just didn't have the support others did, __ wasn't there though knowing my lack. And over the freeze when you took the initiative and asked about my health, yeah you were the only one (thanks for that). So if my experience with most believers is like that, that you can't rely on them, well I am rambling but I think you get the idea.

___ is also giving charity to muslim refugees from Afghanistan. And I did not express just how much this angered me. But it did anger me. A large part of my feeling/sense is that it is like giving money to the Zeus worshipping (Caesar worshipping?) Christian slaughtering Romans when there are so many believers everywhere in and out of the country you are living in who need help. So I suppose someone might ask if it is good to give to this charity if so much doesn't seem to lead anyone to God or closer to Him except for a rare few?

Thanks for your dedication
Response #11:  
Being disappointed by other people is a universal part of the human experience (cf. Jn.2:24-25). As a Christian, especially one who is dedicated to spiritual growth, that happens even more often, it seems, because in their heart of hearts so few are actually equally dedicated. But the more we rely on the Lord, the happier we will be.

In terms of charity, I have the same basic take as you. Giving money, if one has it but even more especially if one doesn't have it, is best done in the actual service of Jesus Christ. And it is also very, very common for people with money to give to those who either don't really need it or are otherwise obviously unworthy (from a Christian perspective) while overlooking those near and dear to them or otherwise very worthy (from that same Christian perspective).

Blessedly, the Lord knows all of our needs and never lets us down in fulfilling them. Perhaps not immediately (waiting is part of basic testing to develop patience and trust) and perhaps not in the way the world would wish . . . but bountifully in terms of giving us what we need to do what He wants us to do.

So keep your eyes on Him, and don't let the failings of human beings throw you off of your good walk with Him.

Thanks for YOUR dedication in reading the email postings . . . and just a reminder that these are the dessert (after a week of reading and re-reading the major postings).

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #12:  
Well I was remembering the verse that says "There is a friend that sticks closer than a brother." Originally I used to think that friends are people who are there for you when things go bad. But now I think you can have situational 'friends' (which I'd prefer to term acquaintances in my own private thoughts), and I mean types of friends on a spectrum you might say.

So that any 'friend' is not obligated to help you in a time of need. But if they are there and aware of it, and they seem to you the type of friend you would be there for, you might rethink being that close to them and your choice to help them if they needed it. Maybe your help is better spent somewhere else? (Or maybe not...)

It also helps when I think about it like that there are billions of people and you will inherently 'reject' (so to speak) some and not others. And you only have limited resources. So what is wrong with being more proactive and self directing about that? The Bible talks about being unequally yoked, and this is kind of what I am aiming at too. If our life is a ship, we want to be circumspect about who we let help drive it, kind of thing. 

Do you think I am in the right ballpark? I used to think Christians had to try to be friends with everyone and always be willing to give charity but have been coming around from that lol.
Response #12:  
The older I get, the fewer and fewer the people in whom I personally confide. I've also learned that one shouldn't expect too much of people, being people, after all (Jn.2:24-25).

The passage you quote, Proverbs 18:24, actually says not "friend" but "one who loves". Friend is not a bad translation. The passage also says in the first part of the verse, in Hebrew, that having lots of friends is a good way to destroy oneself. So the two parts have to be taken together: there are some friends who are truly exceptional; most are not. So one needs discernment in committing to friendship (as with all things), and if a good friend is found, that is something to be treasured (as all very rare things should be).

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #13:   
And so, in James 2:14, I note a couple things. First, what the hypothetical person he is referring to is lacking is severe necessity like food (starvation) and clothes (heat or cold sicknesses). And second, it of course must be taken with other verses like John 12:8 (I am taking it to mean, for one, that this doesn't mean you have to help every dying person you come across). So with many other verses you and I have mentioned, and some of which you helped explain, it does seem like the Bible is not saying Christians have to just be friends with anyone/everyone and give to anyone who asks and just take any injury from anyone/everyone. But that actually we should be careful who we are friends with, even in the Family. And as for helping others, the verses that directly talk about them are mentioning basic necessities to survive, and even then you don't have to do it for every person who happen across. And lastly, taking injury is either only for a particular reason (witnessing, but only in certain situations, like when Paul stopped the one about to whip him), or for minor injury that is not like an ongoing thing.

Do you think I am near the Truth and understanding on this? I really am trying. I hope this doesn't seem stupid to you. I do think a lot of believers don't understand this stuff either, though why I don't see a lot of people asking then, I have no idea.
Response #13:  
First, none of us is perfect . . . or in any danger of achieving perfection. So whatever the true standard, I guarantee you that we all fall short. At the conclusion of the parable of the "good Samaritan", Jesus asks "who was neighbor to the man", and when the person replies, "the one who showed mercy to him", Jesus says, "go and do likewise" (Lk.10:37). We've discussed before the various aspects of the situation Jesus uses as an example to demonstrate that there is a big difference between that set of circumstances and, say, a woman stopping to pick up a hitchhiker in the dark – BIG difference (the latter I would never recommend). But the parable does challenge us to think in terms of mercy for those in obvious and serious need rather than in selfishness. All this has nothing whatsoever to do with friendship, however.

In terms of the James passage, yes indeed there is a question of grinding need, not merely of relative disadvantage. Also, James' purpose is to call out the hypocrisy of "talking a good game" without actually doing anything . . . as a WAY of demonstrating that true faith has results which are by no means limited to what we today call charity; James is merely giving an example of dead faith (talking when someone needs action). 

In terms of John 12:8, it's a good observation on your part. We know that we cannot fix the world and that verse confirms it. Trying to fix the world is actually evil. Helping one poor person could be a very good thing (depending on the circumstances and what's in the heart of the person helping). It is also clearly the case that even if we were rich as Croesus, there is no way we could help "every poor person we came across". I would add a reminder that feeling guilty is usually a sign of misapplying the truth. If we sin, we repent and confess and move on, making a point not to sin again. But God does not call us to impossible tasks. Jesus said, “For My yoke is easy and My burden is light” (Matt.11:30) – not impossible.

The scribes and the Pharisees made an impossible burden out of the Law (Matt.23:4; Acts 15:10). We are free of that burden entirely, and we want to use that freedom to the glory of Jesus Christ.
... whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God.
1st Corinthians 10:31b

And whatever you do, whether in word or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him.
Colossians 3:17
If we are walking in love, if we are doing what we are doing to the glory of God and in Christ's name with joy and thanksgiving, there is "no Law" against any of that (Rom.13:9-10; cf. Matt.22:34-30). So I would strongly urge all and sundry not to worry about making rules about befriending others or helping others. If the Spirit moves our hearts to help in joy, we should do so. But if we are acting out of guilt feelings, that is almost certainly NOT the Spirit prompting us.

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #14:   
Hi Dr Luginbill,

So, "love your neighbor as yourself' means more toleration, is what you were saying right? It does not mean we have to act as friends or even act friendly with everyone. (In fact, off that verse alone, I don't want someone to pretend or force friendship with me as I don't think that is not good for everyone in the long run, or even short run).

The Bible actually tells us to be circumspect who we are friends with, and if the person is engaged in certain sins, actually not to have anything to do with them. This is different when it comes to life and death situations with strangers where you might throw a lifeline. But it is not requiring us to throw a lifeline to everyone we come across in such a situation. But to remember, along with many other commands and things to balance it out, the Good Samaritan and other similar verses. This also goes the other way in that my fellow Christians are not obligated to help me in a life and death situation (but if they were someone I thought of as a friend who I'd do those things for (help them in such a situation) I may reconsider).

It isn't that I am trying to make rules. I am trying to understand what He is commanding because apparently I misunderstood for a long time, lived that misunderstanding out, and harmed myself. It is actually kind of ironic that people that ignored the Bible got it better than me in this case. I would still choose the Bible though overall at least.

Would you please tell me if I sound like I understand?
Response #14:  
Yes, I think you have it exactly right.

I'm guessing that you would not want someone whom you did not particularly like foisting him/herself on you because they are determined to "love their neighbor". Most normal people want good relations with others but NOT close intimacy with most. That is what I prefer – that is how I would like others to treat me as well. If I were about to drown, I would appreciate a stranger throwing me a life-preserver. Intruding in my life otherwise without my asking it for it, even if someone thought they perceived some need, is not something I would prefer.

It is good to keep an open heart while we read scripture, to let the Spirit work on us. We all have a lot of rough edges. But it is also a mistake to take some scripture which reminds us of our shortcomings and run too far with it, "beyond what is written", out of guilt or a false interpretation.

As I often say, spiritual growth makes all these sorts of judgments better in every way (please see the link: in BB 6A: "Spiritual Discernment").
"Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves. Therefore be wise (phronimoi: lit. "discerning" or "shrewd") as serpents and harmless as doves."
Matthew 10:16 NKJV (cf. Rom.16:19; 1Cor.14:20; Prov.14:18)
So [in all things] you should [always] be calculating what it is that pleases the Lord.
Ephesians 5:10

(9) And this is my prayer: that your love may abound more and more in full-knowledge (epignosis: truth believed) and in all discernment, (10) so that you may be able to evaluate the things that are good and appropriate [for you to do] to be sincere and without offense in regard to the day of Christ (i.e., to gain a maximum reward at Christ's judgment seat), (11) full of the righteous production Jesus Christ [commends] to the glory and praise of God.
Philippians 1:9-11

Solid [spiritual] food is for the [spiritually] mature, those who by [diligent] practice have trained their [moral] perceptive faculties to [properly] distinguish between good and evil.
Hebrews 5:14
In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #15:   
Bob,

I was just thinking about the Sermon on the Mount, the Beatitudes. When I read "blessed are the pure in heart" I feel ashamed as I know my heart is not completely pure. I have seen though that if I walk day by day and walk by the Spirit that I can make sure that my actions and my words reflect the Spirit and witness Jesus. I am getting better with my words than I was but it still feels impossible to tame the tongue.

As I am wrestling with my own tongue more, I see that the battle to do sin has switched upstairs in that it is in my thoughts now. Thoughts force themselves in that are not of my choosing. I can tell the difference now between my own sinful thoughts that drift in and the intrusive thoughts that force themselves on to me that I very quickly reject. I say a very quick "no!" or an "out!" but obviously it would be better to contend with attacks and temptations with Scripture.

I have upped my ante significantly and so I have felt more attacked in my mind than before. It seems that the enemy can see that I am trying to tame the tongue or at least stay silent and I guess that is why the war has broken out in my thoughts.

I do see the fruit of the Spirit when I rest in the Lord and trust Him like a child. This not only benefits those around me who I can witness to but also myself. I am learning not to fear and to not try to fix things myself but to trust Him with the childlike faith. The relief when I do this is enormous. I suddenly feel unburdened from the things I was trying to carry and was worrying about and then I feel I have the strength and the freedom to fulfil my material commitments as well as my spiritual ones. Yesterday ___ commented on how confident and cheerful I sounded but my confidence is not from myself but from the Lord.

I try to pray for meekness and humility as the great believers all had these strengths. I'm sure I will learn a great deal about all this in your series on the Christian walk.

Many thanks for you continued support and friendship Bob.

In Jesus,
p.s. 
A couple from Australia want to fellowship with me! They have had problems finding a church that teaches the truth so I am really excited about this! Will start off with emails at first but may move onto Whatsapp once I get a new second hand phone. This one is IPhone 5s which is prehistoric now! (Though it has served me well.)

In Him,
Response #15:  
That's wonderful!

I've been praying for your for some GOOD Christians contacts for a long time.

Hope you find a good phone soon as well!

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #16:  
I just had a quick question. Matthew 18:17, 1 Corinthians 5:11, and 2 Thessalonians 3:6-14 command us not to associate with immoral brothers or sisters. However, I don't take this to mean that if one of them came up to me and asked for a cup of water and I gave it to them that I have somehow violated this command or encouraged their bad behavior even more. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't believe giving to an immoral brother who is thirsty is in violation of the command to not associate with them. I give them a drink, perhaps say a few words, and then they go on their way. I don't see the Bible condemning this anywhere. I'm not sharing a meal with them or inviting them into my house because that would be a type of association forbidden in the passages above. For me personally, I would want to give them a drink even if it wasn't an emergency situation. They are just really thirsty and I offer them some water. I don't see how that is a bad idea. I think I would do it in good faith (feeling both obligated but also having a genuine desire to do so.) 

So you have my question above which leads me to ask, how far should we take those passages above? Absolutely no interaction whatsoever, or (as I believe) there are some exceptions? 
Response #16:  
Good to hear from you, my friend. How goes the new job?

As to your question, scripture is full of guidance that at first consideration may seem to collide with other guidance, but it is inevitably the case that this is true only when one precept or the other is pushed beyond spiritual common sense. 

As you rightly point out, even if a brother or sister has been adjudged to be unworthy of further association, we would not be right in, e.g., refusing to throw them a life-preserver if they fell overboard on some voyage we both happened to be on. 

The purpose of the non-association commands is twofold: 1) to get the attention of the wayward individuals in order to bring about a change of heart; and 2) to prevent their bad behavior from negatively influencing us (cf. Jude 1:22-23). Neither purpose is cruel in any sense but instead very much in accord with Christian love, when that virtue is properly understood.
If anyone has caused grief, he has not so much grieved me as he has grieved all of you to some extent—not to put it too severely. The punishment inflicted on him by the majority is sufficient. Now instead, you ought to forgive and comfort him, so that he will not be overwhelmed by excessive sorrow. I urge you, therefore, to reaffirm your love for him. Another reason I wrote you was to see if you would stand the test and be obedient in everything. Anyone you forgive, I also forgive. And what I have forgiven—if there was anything to forgive—I have forgiven in the sight of Christ for your sake, in order that Satan might not outwit us. For we are not unaware of his schemes.
2nd Corinthians 2:5-11 NIV
If anyone should have been tagged with the "don't associate" stricture, it was the incestuous Corinthian man, the one Paul "handed over to Satan" in his earlier epistle (1Cor.5:1ff.). But above we see that, following repentance, once that repentance is seen to be genuine, to move then to forgiveness and reconciliation is the rule – something that would be impossible to effect if, e.g., said person had drowned for want of a life-preserver before coming around.

In all such matters, spiritual common sense informed by wisdom and experience in the spiritually mature is able to "discern what is best" (Phil.1:10; cf. Heb.5:13-14), that is, to make a good, biblical application where scripture allows leeway as in this case. Trying to apply a rules-based, Procrustean standard is mere legalism (and that is something to be avoided at all costs).

Keeping you in my prayers, my friend.

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #17:   
Hello, 

Would you please explain the meaning of your symbol and Greek letters?
Response #17:  
Good to make your acquaintance. Ichthys is an acronym wherein each letter corresponds to the first letter in the words, "Jesus Christ, Son of God, Savior".

Here's a link to where the Ichthys acronym (the letters and meaning of the word) is described in more detail: The Ichthys Acronym.

Do feel free to write me back if that is not what you were asking about.

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #18:   
Hi Bob,

Very random assortment of questions here. Had a conversation today with folks in my debate group, and we ranged over quite a few things. So this is today's question selection. I'll try to give a bit of context before each question. That's all just there as background. Actual questions are bolded, if you'd just like to skip to those.

Textual criticism

Interlocutors attacked sola scriptura on the basis that according to them it is foolish on a practical level to jump up and down saying "only the original autographs in the original languages are inspired and fully accurate" because we don't have the original autographs, only copies of copies of copies (etc.) at best.

With the implication being, we must accept centralized church authority (who can be an arbiter of truth in place of scripture, I guess) or otherwise acknowledge the supposedly huge problem of never being certain of the text anywhere. (That is, admit that this is a big epistemological problem in our system that puts so many eggs in the basket of the text of the Bible itself).

I said something like:

99% (or whatever) of all textual differences don't change meaning anyhow, but only a small number do. I said we actually have to pick a meaning. Interlocutors gave examples of ancient commentators not picking a reading, but giving interpretations for multiple variant readings, and not seeming to really care that much or be exercised by the discrepancies. Supposedly this is evidence that we aren't supposed to worry about such things, or not supposed to use the Bible that way. I also said that there are principles that can be followed to get to the bottom of things, and that it's an even smaller number of places where things are truly murky in any sort of vexing way. So basically, many people grossly overstate their arguments about textual uncertainty.

Interlocutors attempted to focus things on OT textual criticism since it's a harder defense on my end. It's true we only have late copies of the MT (Leningrad codex is c. 1000 AD). I made the point that the DSS substantially agrees with the MT, so that's one thing. But of course there are differences too, like in Isaiah, so that one still must grapple with the big differences that show up in places.

They (being Eastern Orthodox) then focused in on the LXX. The LXX is so much older than the Hebrew MT witnesses we have, and it differs greatly in places, so shouldn't we hard-inspiration sola scriptura Evangelicals be falling over ourselves in uncertainty at all times? (Interestingly, my interlocutors actually think the LXX is inspired, but that's another topic for another time).

This is where things got a bit murky for me. It is true that Paul, for example, echoes the wording of the LXX in places. (Sometimes he just paraphrases too, and to be fair, there's only so many ways to convey the same things in Greek. Although that some quotes are direct quotes is pretty obvious in places).

I've always argued that whatever Paul quotes must be inspired, but that doesn't mean the whole translation of the LXX is as a whole. It's a bit reductionistic (by definition, anything Paul quotes must be inspired because it's in the actual NT), but the position works fine logically, as it seems to me.

So now we come to the question:

1) Do you have any general places to start in better arguing about the reasonableness of confidence in the Hebrew of the MT, and also how to deal with positions that try to give a high amount of significance to the LXX and its usage in NT quotations? (And also differences between the MT and DSS)?
Inspiration/inerrancy

I pushed my interlocutors hard on what is lost if one is too loosey-goosey on the Bible being literally true. (Think inerrancy).

They basically said "it's ridiculous to hold the Bible to the standard of 21st century historiography" or something along those lines. "Obviously there are points where taking inerrancy too far gets you tangled up, silly. It's just the general spiritual meaning that is important."

I spent a long time trying to define terms (e.g., "a fact is a statement that is actually true") such that they would concede that they did not believe that the Bible was completely factually accurate. They quibbled the whole way saying that I'm projecting modern materialistic sensibilities upon interpretation (eisegesis). I said "well, the meaning of the word 'fact' is pretty consistent, so isn't your position exactly that 'the Bible is not completely factually accurate'?"

The point I was driving towards was that how in the world can you be certain of anything in the Bible then?

I of course yielded the point that there are places where requiring some very narrow interpretation will get you into trouble (for example, if 1,127 people were in a field for a concert, and you said "the concert attendance was a thousand people", nobody is going to give you issues). Cf. the circumference and diameter of the basin in the OT not quite lining up to the ratio of 3.14159... (etc.).

Some points in the conversation I shook my head at:

I asked about the historicity of the Exodus and the historicity of the wealth of the Davidic Kingdom. I said "the Bible says XYZ numbers, so that's how many people left Egypt, pace what the archaeologists find plausible." They said something along the lines "well, some event like the Exodus really happened. Why should we care about the numbers since they're not really all that spiritually significant?"

I brought up "an evening and a morning, day X". They believe the whole Genesis account is metaphorical in some sense. I also asked "well, what about when it said God formed Adam's body out of earth and then breathed life into him, is that a metaphor?" Apparently. Apparently, the idea that humans evolved from whatever is cool, because somehow the account in Genesis can mean that.

At this point, I pushed hard on "well, how in the world do we know when to switch into 'we can wave our hand at this bit since it's just metaphor' mode? Kings and Chronicles are history right? How about the book of Acts?"

Misc questions relating to specifics in this general topic:

2) How does the "evening and morning" phrasing make sense in the Genesis account before the creation of the heavenly lights? Interlocutors argued that this inherently means that the words can't mean what they normally mean, so why don't we just go the whole way and say they don't even remotely resemble the normal physical meanings? (=Not literal 24-hour periods).

3) How do we know that the "evening and morning" language is not somehow metaphorical? Example wording adduced as example: "it was the dawn of a new age." Good arguments against this? (I mean, it seems mostly like rubbish to me, but saying that isn't inherently convincing to others).

4) Vis-a-vis inerrancy, the "gotcha" example they clung most firmly to was the gospels' different accounts of Jairus' daughter. Was she dead when Jairus came to Jesus, or just very sick (=still alive, but near the end)? The accounts seem to differ on that. Could you explain more formally how this one can be tackled (in terms of Greek wording, and tenses and such, perhaps)? I'm not shaken up about it, but I'd just like to be able to provide a good plausible explanation, since this was the only one off of the list of supposed "ways in the which the Bible cannot meet modern standards of factual accuracy" that I didn't have an immediate counter-argument for. (E.g., the timing of Jesus cleansing the temple is no problem if you say He did it twice).

Trinity conversations

I've clashed with my interlocutors before about the "eternally begotten" business with monogenes. They make a big deal out of the supposed eternal begetting of the Son and the eternal proceeding of the Spirit and how these hypostatic differences (that's the jargon) are "necessary" to explain the roles of the Trinity.

Here's some propositions I affirm:

The classic definition of the Trinity as three persons one essence
That the Bible outlines different roles for the members of the Trinity. The Father as the architect, the Son as the agent, and the Spirit as He who empowers, for example.
That the members of the Trinity are co-equal and co-eternal
That Psalm 2:7 has as its referent the begetting of Christ as a human being (i.e., in time), not the eternal divine person of the Son

And some that I take exception with:

That the Son is "eternally begotten" of the Father
That the "proceeding" of the Spirit has anything to do with the causal origin of the Spirit. Instead, I believe that the "proceeding" of the Spirit has entirely to do with who the one sending Him is. (So the "proceeding" is not a matter of "where the Spirit comes from", but who sends Him to humanity, to indwell us as believers).
That since God is eternal and never changes, the roles in the Trinity must also necessarily be eternal

At the time of the discussion (i.e., in the moment), I stated that I was agnostic on whether the present roles are eternal (precede spacetime). Scripture only ever talks about them in reference to this creation, so my point was that we really have no ground to stand on in speaking of "the roles of God before creation." How are we supposed to know?

My interlocutors believe the roles are inherent to each person of the Trinity, and eternal. The Son's role is inherently because he is eternally begotten. The Spirit's role is inherently because He eternally proceeds.

5) In particular, they posed this question: did each member of the Trinity have to adopt the role they did? Could the person of the Trinity taking on the role of the Father have instead taken on the role of the Son, and vice versa? If so, what differentiates the persons of the Trinity? They seemed to think that not "having reasons" for the differences in person (=eternal begetting, eternal proceeding) inherently makes one akin to a modalist.

I saw that you make the following statement in an email response:
The "differences" in the roles of the Trinity are operative only within "time and space", that is, in the conduct of the Plan of God – which is angelic and human history. Within this very limited "box" of the present universe progressing temporally since its initial creation (by the Lord Jesus in accordance with the Father's plan in the power of the Spirit), the Father directs the plan, the Lord Jesus carries out the plan, and the Spirit empowers the plan. This differentiation in roles, chosen freely by the Trinity individually, explains all of the "issues" and "problems" that any real believer in Christ might have (as in our Lord's taking on of true humanity and the self-imposed limitations thereof in order to carry out the plan of salvation in dying for our sins; see the link: "Kenosis");
6) How do we know that the roles are only operative within time and space? (Would this make the roles of Father, Son, and Spirit "not eternal"?)

7) How do we know that the members of the Trinity chose the roles freely? Why is this of import?

8) If the members of the Trinity "came to adopt" roles, as them choosing the roles individually would seem to logically require, then how can God be declared as unchanging? A good bit of the argument I had turned on this question specifically.

Well, I think that about does it. No big rush on any of this.

In Him,
Response #18:  
Good to hear from you. How is the job going, the house? I keep these and "concern #1" in prayer daily.

As to your questions, first, what I will say here if for your benefit and not meant to be taken as apologetically "bullet-proof". There are things one refrains from saying in argumentation that, while true, make one rhetorically vulnerable. As you know, while I don't discount such ministries, I'm not interested in pursuing them myself. I had a number of students back in California who were Greek Orthodox. They were really nice people and seemed to be more interested in the Bible than your average Protestant. But I couldn't vouch for them being born again. Like your correspondents here, they had an academic appreciation of things which is to be distinguished – in the heart – from true epignosis which is all about actual truth actually believed.

1) On the LXX, I think you handled this well. You can't expect, however, for your reasonable take to be accepted by people for whom the LXX is "the Bible". That is like expecting KJV-onlyists to be persuaded by a reasonable appeal to the Greek text on the longer endings of Mark, for example. This is a matter of emotional commitment, not of rational evaluation (even though it may be couched in terms of the latter). OF COURSE a translation into another language is never going to be anywhere near as good or important as the actual text, no matter what text we are talking about. If we have the actual text, that is to be preferred, as long as it is essentially intact. A translation may help us to 1) affirm that the original language text is legitimate, and 2) give insight in individual passages where there is some doubt about the precise reading or meaning. What the LXX tells us – along the other versions of the Greek Bible which have survived (i.e., Origen's trifaria varietas) – is precisely that: namely, that the Masoretic text we have IS essentially the Hebrew text of the OT as originally written. Since it IS basically the same as the MT, the LXX thus actually demonstrates that the size and scope and content was the same as what we have today as early as ca. the 3rd cent. B.C. when the LXX was first produced. As long as the MT isn't a back-translation from the Greek (and no one is saying that it is – plenty of evidence against that, the Qumran texts, just for starters), then we would want to start with the MT in spite of having the LXX, even if the latter seemed superior (which it most definitely does not . . . except to the Orthodox church). 

In the ancient world, written texts tended to be very solid, much more so than one might imagine today having no experience of such things (as you know very well from your Classical training). Just for example, the oldest mss. of Thucydides go back only to the tenth century (and most are even more recent than that). But the text of all the very many mss. we have is essentially the same, that is, the same sort of situation we have with the Bible of having far less than 1% about which one can even argue – for anyone who knows Greek, that is. And we have discovered papyri dating back to the second century which confirm the text they contain for Thucydides. And there are quotations in many later authors which confirm the text, etc. So that anyone looking into the problem will quickly discover that it's not as if there is huge potential for variation. We HAVE Thucydides' History as he wrote it; there are small textual variations. It's the same story in the MT. Ironically (for these people), it is the LXX text which is problematic because it did undergo an unknown process of compilation (clearly made up of different translators) and later assimilation (along the lines of the Latin Vulgate). But the MT was set and solid by the time the LXX was translated, and it precedes the LXX which must have been based on it (this is clear from many proofs, not the least of which are innumerable times where LXX translators struggle to understand difficult passages in MT and come up with "solutions" of the sort that might occur to us as well; in other words, we can often see "how they got" what they got in producing the LXX, even when we don't agree with their "solution" – because we are commonly using the SAME MT. Ever since the post-exilic time (at least) there have been synagogues with copies of the MT, and we know from Jewish history the great care that was taken with the text, greater care than with any other ancient document (e.g., the Masoretes counting the letters). There are no reports of different texts of the Hebrew Bible floating around and all the evidence which has survived (the Cairo geniza fragments, Qumran, other translations besides the LXX in a variety of languages, etc., etc.) all speak to the essential unity of MT. Are there textual variations? Sure. But the MT is THE text that the LXX translators used – the main point here – and they failed to understand it as well as we are able to today (with the additional resources we possess today). Is the LXX different in places from the MT? Yes, but that is because of its own convoluted history and not because it was reading a different text from the MT. 

I spent a lot of time in seminary on the LXX (took several classes on it); but I've almost never gotten anything of value out of it (and I have all the "tools" too, concordances, editions, works on it, etc.). That should not be surprising. The value of an ancient translation will consist of insight into the meaning and the original readings text of the work said translation is rendering. But if the translators where severely challenged in their understanding of what they were translating (that is most assuredly the case with the LXX) and if the text of the translation is more confused than that of its exemplar, then the value is much reduced. 

So much for the LXX. p.s., yes there are differences between the Qumran scrolls and the MT, but seldom if ever would I prefer what Qumran reads. These scrolls were not the carefully copied and cared for synagogue rolls on expensive parchment, but popular texts on papyrus much more rapidly and cheaply produced – and they show that at every point. p.p.s., yes, the NT often quotes the LXX, but not always, and it is also the case that when it is essentially quoted it is often slightly modified – along the lines of how my old pastor used to use the KJV but would "correct it" when important to do so for the doctrinal point at hand. The fact that 1) the NT sometimes modifies the LXX and 2) sometimes translates entirely anew, demonstrates that while the LXX was the translation of choice, it was not inspired nor meant to be considered so and was only used for convenience sake when the translators had gotten it right enough for the Spirit to make use of.

2) "It's the spiritual meaning that's important": This has been the (false) Greek scholarly position ever since the beginning of "the Greek fathers". But what divorcing oneself from the true meaning of scripture always ends up doing is giving a "spiritual meaning" that is in fact not true and therefore wholly devoid of the Spirit in fact. What is important is what the Spirit has actually placed in the Bible and how He illuminates it for us who are paying attention to what He actually provided. Any other approach is fraught with spiritual ruin, not special inspiration. And as to scripture, it is ALL important, even if we can't see that in a given passage a given time. We have faith about that. Without that faith, then nothing in scripture turns out to be important, merely what one "feels" is important, independent of scripture (so we are down to emotion instead of truth, and that is disaster even if it is "life of the mind" scholarly emotion).

"They believe the whole Genesis account is metaphorical in some sense." Q.E.D. You either believe or you don't believe. Once there is no respect for the Bible – and considering it a metaphor is about as disrespectful as one can get – there is no further means of arguing because the people you are arguing with are proceeding from an entirely different starting point. A bit like arguing with JWs about some point of biblical interpretation when in fact they only accept their own dogma, regardless of what the text of scripture says.

Your #2: I don't even understand how someone could fail to understand this – apart from adopting a debater's "prove it to me!" stance.

Your #3: "saying that isn't inherently convincing to others"; again, I don't have much to offer on the "convince me of that!" playing field.

Your #4: I find it a bit ironic – and sad – that putative Christians are taking delight in (what they see as) undermining the Bible. In terms of Jairus' daughter specifically, only Mark and Luke mention this man by name so I'll leave out for a moment the possible companion passage in Matthew (there were many parallel instances which can seem the same but over the course of a three and a half year ministry were actually only similar, the two cleansings of the temple at the beginning and end of our Lord's ministry being a prime example as you note). Mark says that Jairus said, "Τὸ θυγάτριόν μου ἐσχάτως ἔχει", which seems to mean "is on the point of death" (Mk.5:23); Luke says, NKJV: "for he had an only daughter about twelve years of age, and she was dying" (Lk.8:42). This legitimate translation of the imperfect tense would mean that the girl was not yet dead at that time – but nearly so – so that these two passages harmonize as far as I am concerned with no problem. The Matthew passage does certainly seem to be the same incident (Matt.9:18), and here the man says that she "died just now". Contradiction? In either case, this man was beside himself about his daughter. She was either dead or so close that he could no confidence, absent a miracle, that she would be alive when he returned. So when he spoke to Jesus, describing her as "dead" or "on the point of dying" would be equally true as far as he knew. So he could easily have said both things and truthfully so (she was, in fact, dead when they arrived back at his home). This is only a problem for those who would want to say that this man would never have come if he were sure that the girl was already dead or would be because the Lord couldn't arrive in time. But the whole point here is that this man clearly had faith that, dead or alive, if Jesus touched her, she would "be healed and live" – that is what he says in all these iterations and that is what we should be amazed about and that is exactly what Jesus did. To quibble about the verbal differences is not only to denigrate the Bible unnecessarily but also to miss the whole point of the Spirit's inclusion of this episode which is all about faith in spite of what we see and hear and feel – the same faith these Philistines seem to lack.

3) The Trinity. I agree with your seven points entirely.

Your #5: I can't be responsible for other people's flawed impressions. We teach the truth we are given to understand. Are they disagreeing that there is a difference between how the Son, e.g., acts and what the Father and the Spirit do? That is to turn scripture on its head: the Son came into the world sent by the Father and empowered by the Spirit. Not the same "role" or whatever you want to call it if you don't like that word. As to "reasons", I don't pretend to know why each has each "role". This is beyond our understanding (and our "need to know" at present).

Your #6: Since "role" is only a word we are using for convenience of description, I would not want to build or argue doctrine on the basis of it (other than give clarifications to avoid the sort of abuse you are being subjected to here). The Trinity are God irrespective of time and space. We have no idea what "things are like" outside of time and space and have no possible frame of reference to even try to imagine that. So arguing about this is pointless. We can only affirm that God created time-space, that He doesn't need it to exist, and that in fact God exists completely outside of it.

Your #7: God is coequal and coeternal. How would there be compulsion? Even more to the point, God is "one", meaning, importantly, not a shadow of difference in Will. So while I would admit that my prose in saying that they "chose their roles" is perhaps a bit out on limb, we can say that they have roles and that they agree on the roles and that they weren't compelled to accept those roles (which seems to me to amount to the same thing). Understanding the difference in "roles" can be an important element in understanding Christ's incarnation – for those who have issues with the Trinity in particular.

Your #8: Change is something that can only occur in time-space. The Trinity was always the Trinity and time-space was always preordained. When we speak of "choosing" and roles and behavior generally, in terms of describing God, we have to accept that this is language of accommodation, putting things in the only sort of terms we mortals who are subject to time-space can possibly understand. God does not change. God created time-space. So why is there change all around us, given that time-space cannot exist independently of the One who created it? The answer, it seems to me, is that the plan is all comprehensive and complete in every aspect and only seems to change from our point of view but has always existed even as God has always existed. We just can't see that yet. What I'm curious about is whether or not, given these quibbles, these individual really believe that Jesus is God? Seems to me that putting things in way they have put them has boxed them into some lesser understanding of the Lord. If there are not roles, then that must mean that Jesus is a man who is somehow less than God in their view (or at least in the logic of it).

Apologies in advance for anything not dealt with.

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #19:  
Hi Bob,

After reading my earlier whiny emails and your responses this week it occurred to me that I never gave you an update. My minor troubles are insignificant compared your other correspondents. I'm ashamed.

Things have germinated and most are growing. After praying for rain, I was blessed with 2" or so. The blackberries I thought were dead have returned to life, my vineyardette is alive, mustard and collards are coming to life and I have more tomatoes growing than I can say grace over. The Lord truly takes care of His own. Of course, the bugs and weeds are back in full force, I didn't ask for relief from the bugs in prayer and I'm reminded of the Lord's comment, "You didn't receive because you didn't ask."

I consider my minor annoyances a learning experience and pray my grumbling doesn't end as it did for the Israelites during the Exodus. (Some of the cracks in the soil had me wondering.) At worst, I now have to start mowing and may have to develop new recipes. I'm not wiped out as some are.

All in all, Bob, I have been truly blessed and the Lord has seen that I've been cared for. What more can I ask.

Stay well. I pray for you and your family daily.

In our Lord Jesus,
Response #19:  
Certain bugs I like (butterflies, e.g.); certain bugs really do "bug me" too. We have our share of chiggers, ticks and mosquitoes here. Had a nice watermelon crop coming one year but the bugle-nosed bugs got them all (not sure what they're actually called). I am happy to hear that you have had a bit of rain. Can you irrigate otherwise, at least your tomatoes et al.? Other than spices, it's all flowers here again this year (spring was too busy to get around to anything else before it was too late). We've also been blessed here to have a goodly amount of rain this year, yet not enough to make things too soggy. A lot of heat and sun in the forecast now, however, so it'll be time to turn on the sprinklers soon.

I've gotten most of my admin chores out of the way, so next week – is it June already?! – I'll be grinding back into research mode (finally). If I can finish two articles and launch them out there this summer, I'll consider it a success.

Thanks for those prayers, my friend! Still no more news. Keeping you and yours in my prayers as well.

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #20:   
Hi Bob,

Yes, I can irrigate and I'm well equipped to do that as long as the electricity holds out. It's not the same, though, as a good rain. It probably has to do with the ozone and peroxide in the water from the lightening. Biology wasn't my strongest suit so I'm just guessing.

I'm glad your school year was a success. I'll be praying for your fall enrollment. Only four for Greek?! It seems to fit, though. People I've talked with who hire complain of young people not wanting to work, come and go when they feel like it and want to surf the web while at work. The owner of my favorite hardware store went through younger people every few weeks until he finally settled on a crew that was reliable. I can imagine Greek is a challenge. Latin for me certainly was. I'm actually surprised there are young people willing to tackle it.

I'm glad you got rain but I'll bet you also got the humidity. I had to be in Ohio in July and August to settle my mother's estate and I thought I was going to die. Temperatures were only in the mid 80s which here is a pleasant spring but humidity was in the upper 90s. It was a relief to get home where temperatures were in the upper 90s but humidity was in the teens. Every place seems to have it's pros and cons.

I pray you and yours are well and safe.

Yours in our Lord,
Response #20:  
Never heard of that before – so I guess you know a lot more about it than I do! All I know about the water here is that it comes out of the Ohio – and costs a small fortune (in spite of the fact that there is no lack of it).

I'd be happy to teach only one! But the problem is that our budget model now more than ever is all about "butts in seats". So if that is the number round about August 15th or so, the class could be canceled. Then I'd have to somehow pick up another class (don't ask me how – we've established that I wouldn't be able to teach biology), or take a big pay cut (problematic).

U of L has a language requirement: two years for B.A. students and one year for B.S. students. Latin and Greek have the advantages of not being conversationally spoken (when taught via the Classical method), and that is appealing to students who don't relish asking each other what they did over winter break in some modern tongue. Also, studying Greek and Latin as you know doubt will confirm is the best way to learn how English works as well as to build vocabulary. Lots of other advantages too, so we used to do OK in the enrollment wars. But this has gotten trickier for us over the years. We have a lot more B.S. students than we used to have. Psych, our biggest major by far, has gone 100% recently and this has significantly reduced the pool of students for the second year classes. Also, we have a full blown sign language program now and they have to chase the students away with a stick. It's very appealing at present – and it doesn't require you to learn a different language in the conventional way. Add to this that Greek and Latin are hard, thought to be hard, and that Classics is less and less taught and or discussed in our country and you see why my enrollments are challenged. I did more this year, I may have mentioned, than ever before to address this problem with what I am able to do, but at present the students haven't shown up yet. That was also the case last year at this time, and the Lord provided. So I'm certainly not giving up hope. Everything happens for a reason, in any case. [note: classes made last fall and this fall too – thanks everyone for your prayers!]

I hear you on the humidity! It does make a difference. So does the angle of the sun. The same heat and humidity in Florida is far worse than in Michigan. We're somewhere in the middle here.

Thanks for your prayers, my friend. 

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #21:  
Hi Bob,

My only teaching experience was teaching French horn privately. On the whole, it was satisfying. I never had any classroom teaching experience, so I have no idea how that works. "Butts in seats" sounds like the typical big business approach; quantity before quality though I suppose the economics of tuition and overhead plays a major part.

On the whole, Latin was lost on me, I can't even remember the declension of Agricola. Of course, that was 55+ years ago. It did, however, help me with English back when I could still speak English correctly. Having spent so many years as a musician, I don't hear language as distinct words; rather phrases and intonation. Languages were lost on me. Much like listening to Italian opera. The words are irrelevant. The music is the message. The sentence structure of Latin was a major stumbling block for me which made it easy to fall back on the melody. French was the same and with all the cockeyed genders.

I pray for the best for you and yours. Your postings have become a major part of my Sunday mornings.

In our Lord,
Response #21:  
French satisfies our language requirement (but not French horn). And, yes, this is indeed a business model, one designed to have Arts and Sciences fail (since they count graduate hours much more heavily and all of the other colleges are exclusively or much more heavily focused on graduate studies since they charge more for grad classes).

You have a very good grasp of language – clear from your emails. So I dare say Latin did help you, even if you can't remember the declensions.

Thanks much for your prayers, my friend. 

In Jesus,

Bob L.
http://ichthys.com/