Guest Post: Roman Catholicism

By Dave Hunt

Last month, in relation to the shocking rise of anti-Semitism among Christians, we referred to the incredible claim by the Reconstructionists that Christ's promise to "come again" was fulfilled when "He came" in AD 70 in the person of the Roman armies to destroy Jerusalem and slaughter the Jewish inhabitants of Palestine. In fact they claim that the entire Olivet Discourse (Mat 24-25) and all of the prophecies in Revelation (except for Rev:20:4-22
:21) were fulfilled at AD 70.

This particular theory was invented in the early 1600s by a Jesuit named Alcasar to counter the Reformers' claim that the Roman Catholic Church was the "great whore...MYSTERY BABYLON" sitting on the beast in Revelation 17. In a stroke of genius, Alcasar realized that if he could establish the theory that Revelation had all been fulfilled by AD 70, then its prophecies could not possibly apply to the Roman Catholic Church. That scenario was eagerly adopted by the Reconstructionists, in spite of the fact that the Book of Revelation was written at least 20 years after AD 70, which destroys this fantasy. For those interested in a scholarly discussion of the date of John's writing, Dominion Theology, Blessing or Curse? by H. Wayne House and Thomas D. Ice is recommended.

In addition to data from the first century, the history of the Roman Catholic Church itself provides overwhelming evidence that the Reformers were correct: John's vision went far beyond AD 70 and was astonishingly accurate. In fact, the undeniable development of the Roman Catholic Church during the Middle Ages into all that John attributes to the "woman sit[ting] upon a scarlet coloured beast" (Rev:17:3
) is almost as powerful a proof for the validity of the Bible as the preservation and return of Israel to her land.

The Christianization of the world being pursued today with high hopes by the Coalition on Revival (COR) and other reconstructionists was accomplished 1,600 years ago under the Roman Emperor Constantine and his successors. Far from producing the benefits COR promises, however, it was the undoing of the early church. "Christianity" became so dominant that its profession was essential for those who wanted to gain social, political or even military recognition. As a result, Romans "converted" by the thousands, thus polluting the church. Augustine himself lamented,

The man who enters [a fourth-century church] is bound to see drunkards, misers, tricksters, gamblers, adulterers, fornicators, people wearing amulets, assiduous clients of sorcerers, astrologers...

He must be warned that the same crowds that press into the churches on Christian festivals, also fill the theatres on pagan holidays.

Roman paganism had simply taken on a thin "Christian" veneer to survive to this day under the cloak of Catholicism in an even more dangerous form. As head of the pagan priesthood (a position Constantine never renounced), it seemed only natural that the emperor should also function as de facto head of the church. As such, Constantine convened, gave the opening address and played a dominant part in the first ecumenical council, the Council of Nicaea in 325. Thereafter, the emperors, in partnership with the popes, maintained "the unity of the faith" by persecuting and killing in the name of Christ those who dared to disagree with their dogmas and decrees. Pope Leo I—ascribing to the secular authority an "infallibility" that would later be claimed by the popes—flatteringly declared that the emperor was "incapable of doctrinal error."

It was the emperor who was first called the "Vicar of Christ"—a title inherited by the popes when the Roman Empire disintegrated. Constantine's title of Pontifex Maximus as leader of the pagan priesthood was also taken by the popes. Thus the head of the Roman Catholic Church is called the "Roman Pontiff" to this day. In fact, during the Middle Ages, the popes circulated what is generally believed to be a forged document called The Donation of Constantine in order to give legitimacy to papal powers they were exerting over kings and kingdoms.

The Donation declared that Constantine had moved the capital of the Roman Empire to Constantinople in the East and deeded the Western Empire, with all the attendant imperial authority, to Pope Sylvester in order to "exalt the most holy See of blessed Peter in glory above our own Empire and earthly throne, ascribing to it power and glorious majesty and strength and Imperial honor." It further declared:

And we command and decree that...the Pontiff who occupies at any given moment the See of that same most holy Roman Church shall rank as the highest and chief among all the priests of the whole world and by his decision all things are to be arranged concerning the worship of God or the security of the faith of Christians.

In recompense for this we concede to...the Pontiffs who will preside over the See of blessed Peter until the end of the world...our Imperial palace of the Lateran...the crown of our head...[and] the tiara; also the shoulder covering ...the purple cloak and the crimson tunic and all our Imperial garments...

We confer on them also the Imperial sceptres...the spears and standards...the banners and various Imperial decorations and all the prerogatives of our supreme Imperial position and the glory of our authority...[and]...the city of Rome and all the provinces, districts and cities of Italy and the Western regions, relinquishing them to the authority of himself and his successors as Pontiffs by a definite Imperial grant...

Whether the Donation is a forgery or not, the fact remains that the popes used it to justify not only their power but their regal vestments, religious paraphernalia and the pomp that surrounds their office to this day. Moreover, historians proclaim with one voice that the papacy stepped into the gap left in the West by the collapsing Empire, and the sceptre of the Roman emperors unquestionably passed to the popes. Historian R.W. Southern points out,

During the whole medieval period there was in Rome a single spiritual and temporal authority exercising powers which in the end exceeded those that had ever lain within the grasp of a Roman Emperor.

Even military leaders and kings were forced, no matter how unwillingly, to bow the knee to the pope in recognition of the all-pervasive power which the Church wielded over the masses of people. Add to that fact its great wealth, and the Church was a formidable force that even the most powerful rulers found easier to join in partnership than to fight. Historian Walter James reminds us that there was another even more compelling reason why every knee bowed to the popes—which today's Catholiccatechisms still insist is valid:

The Papacy controlled the gateway to heaven which all the faithful, including their rulers, hoped earnestly to enter. Few in those days doubted the truth of this and it gave the Popes a moral authority which has never been wielded since.

During the Middle Ages the power the popes wielded reached awesome heights in remarkable fulfillment of the vision given to John in Revelation 17 of that magnificent "whore" headquartered in a city located upon seven hills (v 9) and which "reigneth over the kings of the earth" (v 18). The identification is unmistakable. As Southern points out, the medieval church held the "power of life and death over the citizens of Christendom and their enemies within and without....Popes claimed the sole right of initiating and directing wars against the unbelievers ...[and to protect] their territorial interests." For example, Pope Innocent III never lost a battle! No one could withstand him.

This astonishing power over kings and kingdoms had already been demonstrated even before the Empire's collapse. Take for example the humiliation of Emperor Theodosius in 390, who was required to make public penance upon threat of excommunication. As a later example, consider Charlemagne being crowned Emperor by Pope Leo III during Mass in Rome's St. Peter's on Christmas Day 800 A.D.or the humbled Emperor Henry IV, waiting barefoot in the snows at Canossa to make his peace at last with Pope Gregory VII in 1077. Apparently unaware that he was admitting the fulfillment of John's apocalyptic vision, Pope Innocent III (1198-1216) asserted in no uncertain terms the authority of the Church over all secular powers. Pope Boniface VIII reiterated Innocent III's assertion of absolute dominion over kings in his Bull Unam Sanctam (1302).

The Roman Catholic pope, successor to the ancient Roman emperors, continues to wield similar power today. Most nations—including the United States—maintain diplomatic relations with the Vatican. Even the Soviet Union has maintained high-level contacts with the Vatican over the last two decades, and aides to the Pope and Gorbachev have been negotiating to set up a meeting between these two powerful heads of state. Like other secular rulers, Gorbachev is driven by necessity—he knows and respects the power of the Vatican, which rules over more than 800 million Catholics worldwide. In contrast, there are less than 60 million Lutherans. Today the Lutheran World Federation has its offices at the headquarters of the infamous World Council of Churches, which works for ecumenical union with Rome.

The charismatic movement has been particularly vulnerable to union with Roman Catholicism ever since Catholics began to "speak in tongues." One wonders, however, why most Catholics who have allegedly been baptized in the Spirit become even more enamored of prayers to Mary and various "saints," the reoffering of Christ in the Mass, and other serious heresies so contrary to what the Holy Spirit has declared in Scripture.

The predominant cry today is for "unity." It was the principle weapon with which the Roman CatholicChurch attempted to stop the Reformation. Luther was urged to "keep in mind the unity of the holy, catholic, and apostolic church...." As though faith is believing anything, rather than commitment to truth for which we must contend, Earl Paulk suggests that Paul's "unity of the faith" (Eph:4:13
) has nothing to do with doctrine. Paulk advocates unity not only with Catholics but even with Mormons. A unity in which sound doctrine plays no part is very appealing to those who wish to be "positive" at all cost. It is today's major weapon in reversing the Reformation.

Among so-called Protestants today, the great issues of the Reformation for which thousands were martyred have been forgotten or are no longer considered important. Describing his feelings as he watched Pope John Paul II perform the unbiblical "sacrifice of the Mass" during his visit to Los Angeles in September, 1987, Robert Schuller reportedly said, "I cried through most of the Mass, because there was nothing that he said in words or in theological content that didn't harmonize with my own belief system." At that time Schuller confided to Catholic priest Michael Manning,

It's time for Protestants to go to the shepherd [the pope] and say, "What do we have to do to come home?"

In contrast to Schuller's attitude, we do well to remember the words of Bishop Ryle. Referring to Bloody Queen Mary's brief re-introduction of Catholicism into England and the resulting death by fire of 288 Christian leaders in four years because they refused to accept Transubstantiation, Ryle wrote with great passion,

I wish my readers to remember that the burning of the Marian martyrs is an act that the Church of Rome has never repudiated, apologized for, or repented of, down to the present day....

Never has she repented of her treatment of the Vaudois and the Albigenses; never has she repented of the wholesale murders of the Spanish Inquisition...never has she repented of the burning of the English Reformers.

We should make a note of that fact and let it sink down into our minds.

Doctrine is important. Truth is vital. We are urged to contend earnestly for the faith. One day we must all stand before our Lord to give an account. In subsequent newsletters, if the Lord tarries and spares us, we want to suggest some ways in which we can contend constructively and effectively for biblical truth. We must not only believe the truth, but we must act upon it and contend for it.  TBC

By Dave Hunt
https://www.thebereancall.org/content/roman-catholicism

Guest Post: ANTI-SEMITISM

By Dave Hunt

On the day of Pentecost, when the church was established, national Israel did not cease to exist. Israel remains God's special people and is the beneficiary of particular promises which apply to her alone and which are in the process of being fulfilled. Yet there is a growing movement today which identifies the church as Israel, denies any place for national Israel in God's future plans, and declares that all of the promises and unfulfilled prophecies that once referred to Israel now belong to the church. Earl Paulk, one of the leaders in this movement, writes,

Some of the strongest fundamental churches still preach that Christ will return to gather national Israel unto Himself, and I say that is deception and will keep the Kingdom of God from coming to pass! 

In almost any Christian bookstore, about 99% of the books will say that "God's time-clock is Israel" and that "God's covenant is still with Israel."...[I say that] prophecies about Israel as a nation [are] now transferred to spiritual Israel, which is the people of God [i.e., the church]...1

Christians in the West have traditionally been the major base of support for Israel. With the new "the-church-is-Israel" movement gaining a wide following, however, a drastic change is developing in the attitude of many Christians, especially charismatics, toward Israel. While those promoting this belief deny the charge of anti-Semitism, the increasingly bold use of sarcasm, ridicule and openly displayed antagonism by some is ominous. This trend is only in the beginning stage and is growing rapidly. Gary North writes,

When Israel gets pushed into the sea, or converted to Christ, Scofieldism dies a fast death. Rest assured, I have a manuscript ready to go when either of these events happens.2

We are witnessing a revival among Protestants of the traditional anti-Semitism of the Roman CatholicChurch. Many people have forgotten that the Church which claimed as its first pope a Jewish fisherman, whose alleged founder, Christ himself, was a Jew, as were the apostles and the entire church in its infancy, very early became a persecutor of Jews. Most Catholics are probably not aware that anti-Semitism was made the official position of the Catholic Church and it remains so to this day. As a reminder:

The Council of Vienne (1311) forbade all intercourse between Christians and Jews. The Council of Zamora (1313) ruled that they must be kept in strict subjection and servitude. The Council of Basel (1431-33) renewed canonical decrees forbidding Christians to associate with Jews, to serve them, or to use them as physicians, and instructed secular authorities to confine the Jews in separate quarters, compel them to wear a distinguishing badge, and ensure their attendance at sermons aimed to convert them. 

Pope EugeniusIV...added that Jews should be ineligible for any public office, could not inherit property from Christians, must build no more synagogues, and...any Italian Jew found reading Talmudic literature should suffer confiscation of his property, etc.3

No wonder Hitler felt that he had good precedent for his sanctions against the Jews. The Vatican was understandably silent during the Holocaust and has not yet, after 40 years, recognized the nation of Israel.

Anti-Semitism, like infant baptism, was one of several carry-overs from Catholicism from which Luther never broke free. His pamphlet Concerning the Jews and Their Lies (1542) was in fact filled with lies about Jews: that God hated them, that the Talmud encouraged lying, robbery and even the killing of Christians; that they poisoned springs and wells in order to accomplish this; and that they used the blood of murdered Christian children in their rituals. Providing Protestant confirmation to match Catholicism's justification of much that Hitler would do to the Jews, in later life Luther

...advised the Germans to burn down the homes of Jews, to close their synagogues and schools, to confiscate their wealth, to conscript their men and women to forced labor, and to give all Jews a choice between Christianity and having their tongues torn out.4

Such extremes are not yet openly expressed among evangelicals and charismatics, and hopefully will not be in the future. Yet the above shows what anti-Semitism can develop into in the name of Christianity. Those presently speaking out against Israel carefully vent their animosity only against the Jews as a nation, while professing a love for them as individuals. Earl Paulk even writes, "I have no disagreement with any who teach that national Israel is important to the fulfillment of end-time prophecy." He says this in spite of having gone on record (as quoted above and elsewhere) that the church is now Israel and that Israel has no place in prophecy.

Instead of "God is dead," we are now told that "Israel is dead." There is little difference, however, in the two attitudes, since He is so often identified as "the God of Israel." David Chilton's Days of Vengeanceattempts to justify the astonishing reconstructionist/kingdom/dominion thesis that Israel was "excommunicated" by God in a.d.70 when the armies of Titus destroyed Jerusalem.6 Under the title, "The Church Is Israel-A Vital Teaching," McKeever has written,

We love the Hebrews who live...in the nation of Israel. We support them and thank God for such an ally in the Mideast. However, the Lord has shown us clearly that in no way are they Israel. Israel is composed of all believers in Jesus Christ.

It is vitally important for the body of Christ to realize that they are Israel and that the unfulfilled prophecies concerning Israel are theirs to participate in.7

Speaking in Oklahoma City on April 11, 1988, Rick Godwin, a long-time associate of James Robison and popular speaker on Christian media, delivered the type of anti-Israel rhetoric that is becoming so typical in charismatic circles: "They are not chosen, they are cursed! They are not blessed, they are cursed!...Yes, and you hear Jerry Falwell and everybody else say the reason America's great is because America's blessed Israel. They sure have. Which Israel? The Israel—the church. ...That's the Israel of God, not that garlic one over on the Mediterranean Sea!"8 Earl Paulk's criticism of national Israel and those who look favorably upon her includes the ultimate accusation:

The hour has come for us to know...that the spirit of the antichrist is now at work in the world...[through] so-called Holy Spirit-filled teachers who say, "If you bless national Israel, God will bless you."

Not only is this blatantly deceptive, it is not part of the new covenant at all!9

Paulk and Godwin were recently lauded and endorsed by Paul and Jan Crouch as guests on their internationally televised TBN "Praise The Lord" show. Paul asked Paulk some of the questions that critics have raised, and the latter did a masterful job of sidestepping the issues and presenting himself as not claiming that the church is Israel (in spite of the quotes above), as not rejecting the Rapture (in spite of having written entire books against it), and other such deceit. Paul and Jan have now added Earl Paulk to their whitewash of Kenneth and Gloria Copeland and Robert Schuller. They endorsed him enthusiastically, promoted his latest two books (and by implication all of his other writings), and, addressing Hal Lindsey and Dave Hunt directly (in case they were watching out there somewhere), asked them if they had heard Paulk's answers and promised to give them a copy of his newest book, which would correct their false ideas.

If we are to believe the leaders in this "church-is-Israel" movement, then one of the greatest events in the history of the world—the return of the Jewish people to their own land and the rebirth of Israel in 1948—is a freak accident with no significance. On the other hand, if this astonishing occurrence of undeniably great importance is, in fact, the fulfillment of biblical prophecies that the church has so long believed it to be, then here is an indisputable modern miracle of international prominence to which Christians can point—an event which gives irrefutable validity to the Word of God. "The-church-is-Israel" advocates would rob the church of the most convincing available witness to God's existence, righteous judgment and faithfulness: the remarkable history of the Jewish people, their prophecy-fulfilling odyssey and return to their historic homeland, and the prophesied climactic future events yet to occur there.

The rejection of Israel is essential to the unbiblical Reconstruction/Kingdom/Dominion teaching that a Christian elite has a mandate to take over the world and set up the Kingdom, (a theocracy), as a condition of Christ's return. Only Jesus Christ himself can be trusted with such power. That is why it is so distressing to hear the Paulks, Norths, et al. laying claim to this absolute theocratic power in Christ's name. This is but one of many reasons why King Jesus himself must set up His kingdom and personally rule over it—a teaching increasingly rejected in the church today. C.S. Lewis said it well:

I believe that no man or group of men is good enough to be trusted with uncontrolled power over others. And the higher the pretensions of such power, the more dangerous I think it both to the rulers and to the subjects.

Hence Theocracy is the worst of all governments. If we must have a tyrant, a robber baron is far better than an inquisitor. The baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity at some point be sated; and since he dimly knows he is going wrong he may possibly repent.

But the inquisitor who mistakes his own cruelty and lust of power and fear for the voice of Heaven will torment us infinitely, because he torments us with the approval of his own conscience and his better impulses appear to him as temptations.10

Whether men are ready to admit it or not, the only choice is really between Christ and Antichrist. Nothing less than an absolutist theocracy will hold in check the evil and bring about the radical solution which the world's ills require. World events point inexorably to the establishment of such a regime. It will either be under the false world religion of Satan and his personal incarnation, or under the truth of God and His Son our Lord Jesus Christ. No mere man could qualify, all of the good intentions of COR and the Reconstructionists and assorted other dominionists notwithstanding.

It is quite clear from Luke:24:47-48
 and other passages that the disciples were not expected to inaugurate the Kingdom but to be witnesses concerning the King and His future coming. There will be no kingdom of God without the King present and ruling in power. All Christians admit this to be the case when it comes to the spiritual kingdom in our hearts—Christ must reign there. The same is true of the outward manifestation of His kingdom upon earth during the Millennium—He must personally reign there as well.

Currents of change are sweeping through the world and the church. In the crucial days ahead, the evangelical church could well suffer a division over the Rapture and the related issue of Israel comparable to that experienced by the Catholic Church as a result of the Reformation in the 1500's. Nor would it be surprising if, as a result, in the cause of "unity," the larger faction in Protestantism moved much closer to ecumenical union with Catholicism, which not only has been traditionally anti-Semitic but discarded the Rapture about 1,600 years ago.

Please do not rest with taking my word for what I say. Check it out for yourselves. Be students of God's Word, lovers of truth, and prayer warriors!   TBC

Endnotes

1. Earl Paulk, The Handwriting on the Wall (booklet self-published by Paulk's Chapel Hill Harvester Church, Decatur, GA 30034), 17,19-20.
2. Letter to Peter Lalonde, dated April 30, 1987.
3. Will Durant, The Reformation (Simon and Schuster, 1957), 729.
4. Durant, op. cit., 727.
5. Paulk, Thy Kingdom Come (Nov. 1987), 4.
6. Chilton, Days of Vengeance, 443, etc.
7. End-Times News Digest (James McKeever Ministries Newsletter, Dec. 1987), 3.
8. Rick Godwin, "Rick Godwin No. 2" audio tape (Sunday evening sermon at Metro Church, Edmond, OK, April 11, 1988).
9. Handwriting, 17,19-20.
10. C.S. Lewis, "A Reply to Professor Haldane," in Of Other Worlds (Harcourt, Brace, World, 1967), 81.

By Dave Hunt, 

August 1, 1988.

https://www.thebereancall.org/content/anti-semitism-0

Guest Post: Reconciliation

And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven. And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled in the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unblameable and unreproveable in his sight...

—Colossians:1:20-22

And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation; To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation. Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to God.

—2 Corinthians:5:18-20

There are a number of things that God our Creator desires for His created humanity, and certainly at the top of that list is reconciliation. First and foremost, He wants His created beings, all of whom have been separated from Him through sin, to be brought into fellowship with Him. That separation began in the Garden of Eden when Adam and Eve disobeyed God. The penalty was death (Gen:2:17
)—spiritual death, immediately, and physical death, eventually. In both cases death involved eternal separation (Mt 25:41).

Scripture tells us that all have sinned, a fact that no one can honestly deny, although the attempts are widespread. Yet the Bible reveals mankind’s condition with absolute clarity: “Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned” (Rom:5:12
); “For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God” (Rom:3:23
). The consequences of sin are likewise given: “But your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you, that he will not hear” (Isa:59:2
).

The penalty for sin is eternal, therefore the reconciliation must be eternal: “Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us” (Heb:9:12
). Reconciliation with humanity’s Creator is impossible for a man or a woman to achieve through his or her own efforts. Why? Divine justice demands that the penalty must be paid and the penalty is infinite—endless. Finite humanity itself cannot bring about reconciliation by satisfying divine justice because the punishment is without end, i.e., “everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power” (2 Thess 1:8-9). What is impossible for man, however, is possible for God (Mk 10:27).

Jesus, who is God, and who became a man—a perfect, sinless man—could (and did) pay the eternal penalty for all of mankind. “And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world” (1 Jn:2:2
). “But we see Jesus…that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man”
(Heb:2:9
). As God, He could experience and pay that eternal penalty; as Man, He could die physically—all of which He did on the cross. Although His complete payment for the sins of humanity is beyond our ability to comprehend, Scripture proves that the reality of His atonement is undeniable. Christ’s final words as He hung on the cross are both clear and certain: “It is finished.”

The Greek term used for “finished” is tetelestai. One lexicon explains: “The word tetelestai was also written on business documents or receipts in New Testament times to show that a bill had been paid in full…. The connection between receipts and what Christ accomplished would have been quite clear to John’s Greek-speaking readership; it would be unmistakable that Jesus Christ had died to pay for their sins” (goo.gl/no6yxC).

Christ’s sacrifice for all has only one requirement in order to bring about reconciliation between God and every human being. His death, burial, and resurrection according to the Scriptures must be believed and received as Christ’s payment for a person’s sins. Faith alone brings about God’s free gift of salvation, and anything added to that is a rejection of Christ’s unfathomable gift that brings about reconciliation.

As I said, being reconciled to God is first and foremost. What then of reconciliation in our personal lives with others once the “first and foremost” takes place? “And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation” (2 Cor:5:18
). That ministry, which all believers have been given, has to do with simply explaining the good news of the gospel to everyone with whom God provides the opportunity. Sharing the good news of the gift of eternal life that we have freely received should be one of the easiest things for Christians to do but, sadly, too many believers are reluctant to do it. There’s another aspect of reconciliation that some Christians find terribly difficult, and it has to do with our
personal relationships.

Scripture gives us instructions and commands regarding how we, as believers, are to effect reconciliation in our relationships. Matthew:5:23-24
 gives us a sense of the priority of personal reconciliation with others before God: “Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee; Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.” It seems that God won’t accept one’s service to Him when we are at the same time disobedient to His commands.

Obviously, reconciliation between individuals is very important to God and examples are found throughout the Bible. The brothers Jacob and Esau were reconciled (Gen:33:4
). After terrorizing believers, Saul, aka Paul, was accepted by those Christians whom he had terrorized! The Corinthians separated themselves from the young man who had his father’s wife, but after he repented he was reconciled to them. Regarding that situation, Paul wrote: “Sufficient to such a man is this punishment, which was inflicted of many. So that contrariwise ye ought rather to forgive him, and comfort him, lest perhaps such a one should be swallowed up with overmuch sorrow” (2 Cor:2:6-7
). Paul’s letter to Philemon consists primarily of his exhortation to receive back his escaped slave Onesimus. Paul himself had issues with John Mark, the nephew of Barnabas, which caused Paul to separate himself from him. However, those issues must have been resolved, for Paul later declared, “Take Mark, and bring him with thee: for he is profitable to me for the ministry” (2 Tim:4:11
).

Perhaps the greatest obstacle to reconciliation among believers is reluctance, even refusal, to forgive an offending individual. That’s why the Lord, knowing the heart of man, underscores the necessity of forgiveness throughout the Scriptures: “Then came Peter to him, and said, Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? till seven times? Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, until seven times: but, until seventy times seven” (Mt 18:21-22); “And when ye stand praying, forgive, if ye have ought against any: that your Father also which is in heaven may forgive you your trespasses. But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses” (Mk 11:25-26).

So what are the factors that prevent us from obeying the commands of God’s Word? Pride…self…our old nature…to name a few. Because pride is a major factor, it keeps us from availing ourselves of God’s grace, because “God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble” (1 Pet:5:5
).

Who is ever eager to admit that he or she is to blame—or willing to reconcile when not guilty? All of the things that keep us from reconciling with others can be overcome by simply doing what the Scriptures tell us to do. If we’re willing to do things God’s way, He’ll enable us to obey Him. If that sounds too simple, let’s consider a few ideas that might help a person to turn from his own way to God’s way. Although those justifications shouldn’t be necessary, the examples are much like the deterrents listed in the Bible itself, warning readers of the dire consequences of disobedience.

Just what is to be gained by being unwilling to reconcile or forgive? Nothing good! It’s all about self. But pride blinds one to the fact that unwillingness to forgive is self-destructive. Rarely does it have an effect on the person against whom the grudge is held. For many who refuse to reconcile, it conjures up feelings that feed their prideful sense of superiority. Yet Proverbs:12:1
 calls the person who rejects biblical instruction and correction brutish, or stupid. Furthermore, the longer that such feelings are sustained, the easier it will be for a root of bitterness to take hold. At the very least, a bad attitude will prevail, affecting others, especially the family members who have to live with the individual. So we see that nothing is gained, but much is lost.

Worst of all, refusing to reconcile injures a believer’s relationship with the Lord. God certainly does not change or go back on His declaration that He will never leave nor forsake a believer (Heb:13:5
), but those who disobey God will hardly draw closer to Him! By choosing their own way, they’re in the process of drifting away from Him (Heb:2:1
; Rev:2:4
), or worse. Verses such as Ephesians:4:32
 and Colossians:3:12-13
 are not suggestions but rather commands that must be obeyed: “And be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ’s sake hath forgiven you.” “Put on therefore, as the elect of God, holy and beloved, bowels of mercies, kindness, humbleness of mind, meekness, longsuffering; Forbearing one another, and forgiving one another, if any man have a quarrel against any: even as Christ forgave you, so also do ye.” Those who claim to be believers but refuse to comply need to take to heart the admonition given by Jesus: “And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?” (Lk 6:46).

Throughout the Word of God believers are exhorted to deny themselves, putting Christ first and then others: “And that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again” (2 Cor:5:14-15
); “Let every one of us please his neighbour for his good to edification. For even Christ pleased not himself” (Rom:15:2-3
); Love “seeketh not her own” (1 Cor:13:5
); “Walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called, with all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love; endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” (Eph:4:1-3
). An unforgiving heart stands in direct opposition to those verses and many more.

In my four decades of being a biblical Christian, I had to learn about reconciliation the hard way, which meant through my own experiences rather than by simply obeying what the Scriptures clearly present. I lost a number of friends during that time for a number of reasons, whether through what I did, or said, or wrote. Early on, my approach was to engage them in communication, mostly to defend myself, regardless of whether or not I was at fault. That attitude never brought about reconciliation, even when I made my case using scriptural support. More often than not, it worsened the relationship.

So what did I learn? I needed to do what the Word of God commanded. When convicted of my own wrong in a situation, I needed to repent of whatever it was and try to make amends. What about when I wasn’t at fault, or when I was biblically correct in what I had written, but a brother took offense? I would often respond in order to better explain my point of view or to clarify what I had written that would provide a better understanding. It appeared to be the right thing to do, as long as I could make reconciliation my goal rather than my defense of myself. But even when I did what I could to reconcile, rarely did my attempts meet with success, at least for a while.

What I learned over the years helped, however. First of all, it takes two to reconcile. Both parties must be willing to obey the Bible’s teachings and do things God’s way, which may involve the instructions found in Matthew 18. If, however, I’m willing but the other person is not, we can’t be reconciled. That doesn’t excuse me from doing all I can to obey God’s Word regarding the matter. To not do so doesn’t please the Lord, nor does it help to bring about the possibility of a resolution to the situation. What I’ve also learned is that when I’ve attempted to dispute the issues of disagreement, no matter how meekly, more often than not I’ve unintentionally created obstacles that thwart resolution. The more I “debated,” the greater the disagreement seemed to grow. In other words, I realized that I was hindering what might have been an eventual reconciliation.

On the other hand, I have experienced a few truly miraculous reconciliations! How did they happen? I believe they were all helped by my getting out of the Lord’s way, meaning that I stopped defending myself. Instead, I turned the circumstances over to God, doing what His Word said, with His help, and committed those situations to continual prayer. It was the Lord who turned the hearts of those in opposition toward reconciliation, which only He could do. As it says in 2 Timothy:2:25
 regarding those in opposition, “if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth.”

God knows everyone’s heart and what needs to be done to effect change, which only He can do. Others, however, cannot know or do anything about our hearts, but they can see how we as Christians handle things. God’s Word instructs us to “Be not wise in your own conceits,” not repaying “evil for evil,” but rather do good to others “in the sight of all men” striving to “live peaceably” (Romans:12:16-18
). That’s God’s way, and anyone who wants to experience peace in his own life but has departed from God’s way must begin the reconciliation process first and foremost with Him.

By T. A. McMahon
https://www.thebereancall.org/content/reconciliation