By Reese Currie, Compass Distributors

A very good friend has been petitioning me for some time to write an article about the rudeness, mean-spiritedness and spitefulness of many Christians who seem to think they are giving a witness for Christ. She has been e-mailing me various newsgroup posts of things she has read on the Internet that reek of such a hateful spirit.

I lead a Bible study for singles at my church, and one thing I've been trying to alleviate is the inability to discuss things in church without invective being hurled about. It is really working. Because people are not shot down for saying something in class, they are able to discuss things and get help they could never get in church before.

If our goal is to help people, angry and mean language is not an acceptable avenue; that is only a means of hurting people.

If you are not a frequent reader of newsgroups, you may have no idea of the kind of thing I am discussing here, so I thought I would include a few of the examples I have been sent. I have left the spelling and language as-is so people can get the full effect, but I have changed names to protect the "innocent."

"Joan, you called Catholics heathens. But all of you are the Heathens!!! You all Heritics!!!!! You believe that the bible alone is your sole authority. Then how come you don't follow what it says, huh? Remember what John 3:16 said. Believe is used in the present tense, who so IS BELIEVEING. And Faith IS a verb. You don't believe me, check the dictionary. Faith is a WORK! Christians do believe in a justification of works."

This person is responding to the horrible witness of a person who uses offensive terminology and labels rather than simply witnessing to the truth of Christ, and has decided to respond in kind.

I didn’t believe this person that faith is a verb, so I looked it up in Oxford. Oxford doesn’t believe it is a verb, either, but a noun. As for the assertion that faith is a work, one only needs to read one verse, Romans 3:27, "Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith."

This person continued, "Remember in Acts that Jesus told the Apostles to baptize people in the name of the Father, and of the son, and of the Holy Spirit. It is by baptism that you are saved!"

Jesus didn’t instruct the apostles to baptize in Acts, but in Matthew, and He did not in any sense link water baptism to salvation at any time. But these people cannot be challenged on their assertions, because they will not listen to reason. For a discussion on baptism, see our article entitled Is Baptism Necessary For Salvation?

Why do things escalate like this? It certainly does not happen because of the peaceful spirit of Christ. It is because Joan’s witness to this person was to call her a heathen rather than to simply proclaim Christ. Christ Himself preached to all sorts of heathens, real heathens. He never called them such but simply invited them into a relationship with Himself. Christ saved His angry words for the religious leaders who were deceiving their flocks.

There is another interesting form of "witness," and this is the snide, condescending attitude exhibited in this example.

"I will answer anything you want to know about 1 John 5:13. Yes you can know if you have eternal life. Your sorry interpretation says this means you can know that you are going to get into heaven for sure. But it doesn't. If you don't wrench this verse from the context, as you are in the common habit of doing, you will see that John is saying that if you lay down your life for your neighbour in love then you can know that you have the eternal life of Christ living in you. Eternal life is not a ‘thing’ is John but the presence of Christ is a person manifested in the way he lives his life (See 1 John 1:2; 5:20 to get first clue). He who has the Son has life does not mean you suddently became chronologically eternal. Otherwise you have a whole lot of explaining to do concerning the numberous passages which indicate that eternal life is something given at the end of the age."

Again, I have left in the misspellings. You would think a person with such an arrogant manner, and so puffed up with pride, would take the time to correct his spelling. When a person can’t even spell "suddenly" or "numerous", it rather deflates both him and his argument. I also think he meant to say, "Eternal life is not a thing in John" rather than "a thing is John." Such mistakes are commonplace when a person is too angry to type. Is this the Christian spirit we should be cultivating?

In any case, having read the Bible through four times, and the New Testament countless times, I cannot think of a single verse that says eternal life is something given at the end of the age. Perhaps Mark 10:30 could be interpreted that way, "But he shall receive an hundredfold now in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions; and in the world to come eternal life." Even this verse is only describing the continuation of a promise Christ has made.

I look at Paul’s statement to Timothy in 1 Timothy 6:12, "Fight the good fight of faith, lay hold on eternal life, whereunto thou art also called, and hast professed a good profession before many witnesses." How could Timothy "lay hold" on eternal life when he can’t have it in this world?

Turning our attention back to John, what Christ said about the topic was abundantly clear. "Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day" (John 6:54). Here Christ says a person presently has eternal life, and for that reason will be raised up at the last day.

John 10:28 says, "And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand." If eternal life is only given in heaven, why the need for the affirmation that no man shall pluck believers out of Christ’s hand?

One reason I find fall-away doctrine so offensive is it attempts to limit the infinite power of Christ. In John 17:2 we read, "As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him." A shot against eternal security is a shot against the power of Christ.

Let’s turn to the very book in question and see what it has to say about eternal life. 1 John 2:25 says, "And this is the promise that he hath promised us, even eternal life." So, God is going to break His promise?

What about the context that 1 John 5:13 is supposedly being wrenched out of?

"If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son. He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son. And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son" (1 John 5:9-11).

So, in the verses leading up to verse 12, we read that the record is that God has given us eternal life in His Son, and if we do not believe that, we do not have the witness of Christ in ourselves. That’s pretty powerful stuff to say about people who make the very assertion this person is making. If a person asserts that we cannot have a certainty of eternal life while living in this world, it is suggested that such a person does not have the witness of Christ within himself. Otherwise that witness would be telling him that he is saved already. This does not necessarily mean the person is unsaved; he simply has the same problem John is addressing, that is, having no assurance of his salvation. If the person is saved, he could be allowing denominational bias and tradition to drown out the witness of Christ.

"He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life" (1 John 5:12).

If we say we don’t have eternal life, we are saying in effect that we do not have the Son of God. That’s a pretty serious thing to say, isn’t it?

"These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God" (1 John 5:13).

So, these very verses are written so that you may know you have eternal life. It seems pretty plain from the context what the Bible is talking about.

Can this person really tell us all about 1 John 5:13? Personally, I certainly don’t want anyone that Christ has not assured of his salvation telling me anything about the Bible. Unless a person believes the record that God has given us eternal life, I don’t want to hear a word he has to say about the Bible because he doesn’t understand its principal message.

The fact is, most of the people who make statements like these are students of "church fathers" and not of the Bible. They know a verse here and there but the overall tone and spirit of the Bible is alien to them because they have not read it through, not even once.

I once had a person say to me that eternal security must be wrong because the Catholic Church Fathers, "who could read Greek in rings around you" did not believe in it. What he apparently did not know is that Desiderius Erasmus, a Catholic himself and the first compiler of the Greek text that became known as the Textus Receptus, criticized both Thomas Aquinas and Augustine repeatedly in Erasmus’ Annotations on the New Testament for their ignorance of the Biblical languages. Of course, this person prided himself on his supposed knowledge of the church fathers, and as the Bible counsels, "When pride cometh, then cometh shame: but with the lowly is wisdom" (Proverbs 11:2).

In Star Wars Episode 1: The Phantom Menace, Yoda said, "Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to violence." It is unfortunate that we have to derive this wisdom from an ugly green puppet, but what he is saying is true. Vitriolic speech is almost always based on fear.

What is the fear? In the first example, the person is afraid to come out from under the yoke of the Roman Catholic Church, in case it really is "the one true church" even though its doctrines by and large are at variance with the Bible. She is gambling that by associating with the oldest and largest denomination, she will gain access to heaven without having to take the time to know the truth about Christ. Her trust is in her Roman Catholic teachers.

In the second example, the person feels no internal witness that he is already saved, which would make a person naturally question if he is a Christian at all. Since real Christians have this witness within them and he does not, he must claim that their internal witness is invalid in order to be able to claim to be a Christian himself.

Now here’s a sweet witness that just makes you want to drop everything and come to Christ. Actually, I’m being sarcastic. If I had been witnessed to in this manner, I would have hated to consider becoming a Christian in case I became as spiteful and angry as this person. If the quality of a witness to Christ is based on the number of exclamation points, question marks, and capital letters, this one is tops, but if quality is based on Christ being reflected in your words and spirit, this witness is a flop.

"FRED....YOU NEED TO GET SAVED. To say that the rosary is a Christ centered meditation shows how lost you really are. Have you read the Bible?? In Matthew 6:7 the Lord Jesus teaches us how to pray & tells us NOT to use VAIN REPETITIONS like the HEATHEN do. Get it?? ...Satan loves the rosary.....he loves your anti-christ pope too ......and he loves when you kneel down & worship statues....he's right behind or inside of those idols basking in your worship...he loves it!!!.In fact he loves everything about roman catholicism...he should.....he gave birth to it. Yes....you are of your father the devil, & the desires of your father you want to do.........HE WHO IS OF GOD HEARS GOD'S WORDS; THEREFORE YOU DO NOT HEAR, BECAUSE YOU ARE NOT OF GOD............GOD HELP YOU!!"

Regular visitors to this site know that I strongly oppose Roman Catholicism, and I oppose any ecumenism whatsoever toward Roman Catholicism. However, to make statements like these is going too far. It is unfortunate that there is truth in this post that is spoiled by the angry attitude. It is true that repetitive prayers are specifically preached against in the Bible, as is calling upon anyone but God. But it is not our right to state that someone is certainly not of God.

Jesus could say a person was not of God because He knew for a certainty. God alone is the kardiognostes, the sole knower of the hearts of all people. This word is found only once in the Bible, at Acts 1:24, and only the King James Version actually translates this word accurately. "And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen" (Acts 1:24). All modern versions translate this, "who knows" rather than "which knowest" and thereby lose the exclusive sense of the word kardiognostes. The fact that Jesus Christ had that knowledge of man’s heart is proof that He is God, due to this exclusivity. Jesus could know that a person would never believe at any point in his whole life. But this person does not know that of "Fred," and should not be implying that she does by saying his father is definitely the devil.

When Jesus said that someone was not of God, He was specifically revealing that the person would never be saved. We cannot know that about anyone. You will never note any of the apostles making the same strong statements as Jesus on such matters because even with the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, it was not given for them to know who would or would not be saved and who was or was not of God.

Why is this person so vitriolic? I suppose in this case it is just anger, although when someone is this angry, it makes you wonder if they are really trying to convince others or only themselves that they have taken the right road. To me there seems to be a fearfulness there that Catholicism might be right. Or, perhaps the person is simply totally lacking in tact and intelligence, but I prefer to attribute such a poor witness to fear.

Fundamentalist Christians have very much to offer with their plain, Scriptural understanding of salvation through repentance and faith and their flat rejection of false doctrine. Evangelicals can learn very much from fundamentalists in terms of learning to completely reject error and to not be found in fellowship with organizations that preach a counter-Biblical gospel message. However, what fundamentalist Christians have to say has to be said with the grace necessary that others will hear it. The truth is already a bitter pill for many people; it needs to be stated firmly but without rancor so that one may not reject it on the basis of the way it was delivered.

If we counsel people to believe as we do because we know it is the right way to be, it is possible to be tender, loving, caring and patient as we share our counsel. On the other hand, if we are not really sure of our beliefs, we can react bitterly, angrily, and viciously to anything that questions our beliefs. It is all a matter of the difference between security and insecurity. If we are secure in Christ, there is no need to flash with anger. If we are insecure, we need to strive to become secure.

"And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth; And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will" (2 Timothy 2:24-26).

I had a very interesting e-mail exchange about this article from a sister in Christ named Cindy, who takes an opposing view. I felt her comments were of such value they should be included for your interest. Her comments are in blue and mine are in red.

Dear Brother Currie,

Regarding your article "In Meekness Correcting," just a few comments. I'm totally convinced from being involved with the newsgroups, discussion boards and so-called "Christian" chat groups that both sides come there basically ready for a fight and NOT to witness. You can 'witness" sweetly or get serious and earnestly contend for the faith (as we are certainly told to do in Jude; lots of milquetoast Christians like to pretend verses like those don't exist!) - if the listener is ready to hear the word, he or she does and moves from there. As a former roman catholic for almost 30 years, I can tell you that Christian folks' being all sweet and nice to me just never really phazed me, it was the harsher and more serious straight preaching that challenged me to check things out for myself and thus get saved, and I thank God for that kind of plainspokenness. It can be a good thing to get good and mad and check things out to see if these things "be so." I think the abovementioned newsgroups probably accomplish little in regard to getting people saved, it's the in-person one-on-one working with people and taking time with them, as the old-time folks did, that does the job right.

Well, that's my two cents' worth. I enjoy your articles (though I wish you were straight King James !)

In His Name,

Cindy

Dear Sister Cindy,

Thanks for your comments on the article, "In Meekness Correcting." I know that there are times in which we need to stand very firm for the truth, and God does provide people who can be firm and yet gentle and unemotional in the delivery. I thank you also for your comments on my other articles as well, and I am sure you know that I do take a firm stance. I try to do so with gentleness to the best of my ability although I fear at some times I may be harsh in my writings.

What bothers me about a "harsh witness" so to speak is that if a person is wounded in the words I say, they suddenly lose their ability to listen because they are angry. And they may miss the very word I had that God wanted them to hear.

In James 3, we read of some of the qualifications of being a teacher and the things that cause a person to lose that right. A particularly interesting quotation from the chapter is, "But the tongue can no man tame; it is an unruly evil, full of deadly poison. Therewith bless we God, even the Father; and therewith curse we men, which are made after the similitude of God. Out of the same mouth proceedeth blessing and cursing. My brethren, these things ought not so to be" (James 3:8-10, KJV).

I think we have to be very careful to separate the actions from the person. Now, in certain cases, we can't do that. For example, in the case of a false religious teacher, it is impossible to separate the man from his actions. Jesus Himself made no such separation when He personally attacked the Pharisees. But to a person who is not a deceiver but a person being deceived, I know of no example in which Jesus condemned them personally, though He may well have condemed their actions or their beliefs. I may be wrong on that and I will have to read the gospels again soon to find out for sure.

This is definitely a difficult balance to maintain, and as James says, "the tongue no man can tame." We cannot possibly be perfect in our words, but we can endeavor to do the best we can to say what must be said with grace and concern for the other person.

I would like to thank you again, Sister, for your thoughtful comments. I think it would add a little balance to the article if I were to add your comments to the end of it along with this reply, if you would be willing. I will print only your first name and no e-mail address to preserve your privacy, and not one word of what you said will be changed or omitted. May I have your permission to do that?

In Christ,

Reese Currie

Dear Brother Reese,

It's fine with me if you use my email and your reply, and I appreciate your comments. Yes, it can be very difficult to maintain the balance between being honest and forthright yet gentle regarding biblical truth and witnessing.

I suppose what sprang to my mind when reading your article (your lady friend's observations, specifically) and what prompted my email was the apostle Paul and his rough and ready ways ( he did say he is our pattern) in contrast to today's average Christian's reluctance to be plainspoken when necessary. I wouldn't be surprised if Brother Paul was often told he was "harsh" and "unloving" (the worn-out refrain of the modern worldly Christian), and no, we know he didn't win everyone he witnessed to, but what a preacher!

Brother Reese, I got good and angry when somebody (thank God) was good enough to point out biblical truth to me, I not only heard the word but got busy and checked things out for myself. I realize most people these days are probably not saved this way, I'm an odd one. Negative truth can be a blessed thing.

Again, thank you for your kind email and please keep up your good work. I've recommended your site to others.

God Bless,

Cindy

Dear Sister Cindy,

Thank you for letting me use your letter.

You give a good testimony. It isn't until we check things out for ourselves that we have any hope of coming to the truth. We can't just accept the lines of the denominations. We must come personally to the Bible and read "the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus" (2 Timothy 3:15b).

May God bless you in your stand for truth.

Yours in Christ,
Reese Currie

In Meekness Correcting Copyright © 2000 by Compass Distributors

All Scripture quotations taken from the King James Version