# How to avoid an argument?



## JM (Jun 2, 2008)

Every time my brother and I get together it always leads to arguments. He's a rabid liberal unbeliever who repeatedly tries to find a way to pick a fight with me. I prayed, gave him the Gospel and left it at that. I've also tried sitting silent while he rants about this or that and that and prayed. I've also sat down and hashed out his arguments using logic to show him just how silly and inconsistent his world view is [thank the Lord for Clark, VanTil, Robbins and Bahnsen] but he keeps reading _new_ liberal fascist literature to find new things to argue about. 

How can I avoid arguments of this nature with an unbeliever I'm related to? I've asked before but I thought I'd repost after my last battle. [  ]


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jun 2, 2008)

Sounds like he has a problem with God so he transfers it to you. Tell him to take his fight up with God. You and God have already settled the old account long ago. You can't settle it for him. 

Also tell him you will discuss things with him as long as they are civil and not combative. His fight isn't with you.


----------



## Herald (Jun 2, 2008)

Just don't argue. Refuse to engage. It sounds as though you've told him you don't want argue. That's good. Now it's time for you not to play his game. Discuss things that are not argumentative.Stay far away from political discussion. When you discuss the gospel do so without entertaining debate. Apologetics is great but it is not your job to answer all his objections. Allow God to do that. Above all, pray for your brothers salvation.


----------



## JM (Jun 2, 2008)

Good advice guys, thanks. I think part of the problem was I did engage him and answer his questions. I know he was embarrassed a few times when he realized how silly some of his conclusions were, perhaps he is trying to prove something now? I don’t know.


----------



## raekwon (Jun 2, 2008)

Before I saw the actual content of the post, I saw the title and said to myself "Easy. Stay away from the PuritanBoard". 

The advice from the guys above is good.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jun 2, 2008)

raekwon said:


> Before I saw the actual content of the post, I saw the title and said to myself "Easy. Stay away from the PuritanBoard".



I was thinking exactly the same.


----------



## Zenas (Jun 2, 2008)

Well, one good way to avoid an argument is when you see him begining to engage in one of his tares, stand up abruptly and punch him in the throat. 

He won't do it again if he has any sense.

(kidding... duh!)


----------



## Presbyterian Deacon (Jun 2, 2008)

Zenas said:


> Well, one good way to avoid an argument is when you see him begining to engage in one of his tares, stand up abruptly and punch him in the throat.
> 
> He won't do it again if he has any sense.
> 
> (kidding... duh!)



Zenas-- Diplomacy is not your strong suit, is it?


----------



## Zenas (Jun 2, 2008)

No, my suit is black, as the picture plainly conveys.

Actually though, diplomacy isn't my suit. I am abrupt and brash with little regard as to whether I offend another or not. It's a struggle.


----------



## Presbyterian Deacon (Jun 2, 2008)

*Wise Counsel*

The counsel of Berridge to Rowland Hill when once he was almost engaged in a Calvinist controversy in a certain area:

"My dear friend, keep out of all controversy, and wage no war, but with the devil." on October 20, 1771

From: The Life of Rowland Hill, by Edwin Sidney (1834) page 398.


----------



## Josiah (Jun 2, 2008)

I would politely excuse myself when it becomes intolerable and leave. His fight is indeed with God and not you. Perhaps you could take him aside and explain that to him? I wouldnt ignore him altogether though, as that could embolden him more.


----------



## Kevin (Jun 2, 2008)

Brother, I do not have any simple advice. But I will pray for you.


----------



## staythecourse (Jun 2, 2008)

Have you tried silly string?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVrxddbiow4]YouTube - WHAM-O Silly String[/ame]


----------



## Benjamin (Jun 3, 2008)

I won't add much. I was just wondering if you(all here in general) think it is EVER right to argue, or be involved in controversy such as Calvinism between Arminianism?


----------



## Mushroom (Jun 3, 2008)

Tell him if he starts to argue you'll flick a booger on him. Always works with my family... 

Edit: My son walked by and saw my response and said that was disgusting. I asked him if he disagreed with it, and when he said he did, I threatened to flick a booger on him and he ran away. I believe that confirmed my point.


----------



## staythecourse (Jun 3, 2008)

Benjamin said:


> I won't add much. I was just wondering if you(all here in general) think it is EVER right to argue, or be involved in controversy such as Calvinism between Arminianism?



Good question Benjamin,

Yes. It has mattered for thousands of years! Doing it humbly an lovingly is the important thing, even if you have to get in their face (ala Paul towards Peter with the Christian Jews)


----------



## Zenas (Jun 3, 2008)

Use good judgment via the Calvinism thing. There are many, many out there on both sides of the fence that just want something to argue about, and that's a readily available topic that's highly inflammatory.


----------



## staythecourse (Jun 3, 2008)

Zenas said:


> Use good judgment via the Calvinism thing. There are many, many out there on both sides of the fence that just want something to argue about, and that's a readily available topic that's highly inflammatory.



Here, here. I got tired of fighting about Calvinism and usually take the blows rather than give them anymore.


----------



## DMcFadden (Jun 3, 2008)

Zenas said:


> No, my suit is black, as the picture plainly conveys.
> 
> Actually though, diplomacy isn't my suit. I am abrupt and brash with little regard as to whether I offend another or not. It's a struggle.



Reaaaaaly?
One of my sons is a civil litigator. Sounds like you two would make a pair!

When it comes to theological arguments, I learned the hard way that they generate more heat than light. Debates over Calvinism are especially prone to misunderstanding and hard feelings. 

With an unbeliever, as in the original post, a benign attitude buttressed by a few presuppositionalist arguments and a lot of serving my brother in love would be my approach.


----------



## Zenas (Jun 3, 2008)

DMcFadden said:


> Zenas said:
> 
> 
> > No, my suit is black, as the picture plainly conveys.
> ...



I will hopefully be bringing the pain to the legal world here soon.


----------



## JBaldwin (Jun 3, 2008)

Benjamin said:


> I won't add much. I was just wondering if you(all here in general) think it is EVER right to argue, or be involved in controversy such as Calvinism between Arminianism?



Martin Luther sure did do a lot of arguing, and he was very strong in some of his statements. If I recall he used some pretty strong words when addressing his opponents.


----------



## staythecourse (Jun 3, 2008)

I admit I should not find this funny, but apparently when Luther was really on a roll he made up insulting words in his writing. Anybody hear that before?


----------



## DMcFadden (Jun 3, 2008)

I never heard that one, but I know that a quick look at his Complete Works turns up *153 instances of the barnyard words for excrement.*


*No. 5418: A Story About a Dog who Was Lutheran Between April 11 and June 14, 1542*
The doctor [Martin Luther] said, “I just received a letter from Jonas. He wrote that a dog had s*** into the grave of the bishop of Halle. I believe it’s fatal, for it has also happened to others before. Once when there was a procession with banners around a church, the verger put the holy water pot on the ground. A dog came along and p***** into the holy water pot. A priest noticed this because he was sprinkling the water, and he said, ‘You impious dog! Have you become a Lutheran too?’ ”

Luther, M. (1999, c1967). Vol. 54: *Luther's works*, vol. 54 : Table Talk (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald & H. T. Lehmann, Ed.). Luther's Works (54:421). Philadelphia: Fortress Press.

*Even at a funeral for the Elector, Duke John of Saxony, he said . . .*
Lo, when I believe this with my whole heart, then I have the greatest treasure, namely, the death of Christ and the power which it has wrought, and I am more concerned with that than with what I have done. Therefore, devil, begone with both my righteousness and my sin. If I have committed some sin, go eat the ****; it’s yours. I’m not worrying about it, for Jesus Christ died. St. Paul bids me comfort myself with this, that I may learn to defend myself from the devil and say: Even though I have sinned, it doesn’t matter; I will not argue with you about what evil or good I have done. 
Luther, M. (1999, c1959). Vol. 51: *Luther's works*, vol. 51 : Sermons I (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald & H. T. Lehmann, Ed.). Luther's Works (51:241). Philadelphia: Fortress Press.

*And, in private correspondence . . . *
I shall not answer Emser. Anyone who seems fitting to you may answer—perhaps Amsdorf, if he is not too good for dealing with this ****. 
Luther, M. (1999, c1963). Vol. 48: *Luther's works*, vol. 48 : Letters I (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald & H. T. Lehmann, Ed.). Luther's Works (48:257). Philadelphia: Fortress Press.

*And, writing about the Jews . . .*
Therefore we must not consider the mouth of the Jews as worthy of uttering the name of God within our hearing. He who hears this name from a Jew must inform the authorities, or else throw sow **** at him when he sees him and chase him away. And may no one be merciful and kind in this regard, for God’s honor and the salvation of us all, including that of the Jews, are at stake!
Luther, M. (1999, c1971). Vol. 47:* Luther's works*, vol. 47 : The Christian in Society IV (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald & H. T. Lehmann, Ed.). Luther's Works (47:286). Philadelphia: Fortress Press.

*His venom, however, was reserved for the papists . . .*“Yes, we afterward established in our decretals that only the pope should convoke councils and name the participants.” But dear one, is this true? Who commanded you to establish this? “Silence, you heretic! What comes out of our mouth must be kept!” I hear it—which mouth do you mean? The one from which the f***s come? (You can keep that yourself!) Or the one into which the good Corsican wine flows? (Let a clog s*** into that!) “Oh, you abominable Luther, should you talk to the pope like this?” Shame on you too, you blasphemous, desperate rogues and crude a****—and should you talk to an emperor and empire like this? Yes, should you malign and desecrate four such high councils with the four greatest Christian emperors, just for the sake of your f**** and decretals? Why do you let yourselves imagine that you are better than crass, crude, ignorant a**** and fools, who neither know nor wish to know what councils, bishops, churches, emperors—indeed, what God and his word—are? You are a crude a**, you a**-pope, and an a** you will remain!

Luther, M. (1999, c1966). Vol. 41: *Luther's works*, vol. 41 : Church and Ministry III (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald & H. T. Lehmann, Ed.). Luther's Works (41:281). Philadelphia: Fortress Press.


Historical distance and the problem of particularity apply here as well as in interpreting the Bible. The sensibilities of the age were far different from our own.


----------



## staythecourse (Jun 3, 2008)

I have come to believe that the word had a different nuance than today (if such a crude word can have nuances) since the old KJV uses it. So, it's not sin to use that word per se if you were coming out of the Middle ages, in my reckoning.


----------



## DMcFadden (Jun 3, 2008)

That was my point in the last paragraph about historical distance.


----------



## staythecourse (Jun 3, 2008)

Missed it. I agree.


----------



## Benjamin (Jun 4, 2008)

Hi DMcFadden.

I agree with you on controversy often causing heat and no light. Truth should be presented in a gentle way, yet there does come a time when we need to take out the Sword of Truth, not only to defend ourselves, for we have the shield already, but to attack the lies of the Devil, for how is God's Name Glorified if we stand back and say nothing while His truth is being opposed? Yet I do agree that we should strive for peace with all men, as much as we are able to ourselves.


----------



## Abd_Yesua_alMasih (Jun 4, 2008)

My ability to avoid arguments was one of the reasons my ex-girlfriend dumped me so long ago... apparently when I didn't respond to her raised voice and complaints I made her look irrational and angry when she lost her temper compared to me sitting there doing nothing. The answer of course was not to stop loosing your temper but to dump me for making you look crazy. Fortunately for you your brother can't do that.


----------



## JM (Jun 4, 2008)

Here's a clip of Apostle Paul in Athens:

[ame=http://youtube.com/watch?v=0Smi_3gS164&feature=related]YouTube - Bruce lee vs japanese school eng dub[/ame]


----------



## Presbyterian Deacon (Jun 4, 2008)

Yep, "Paul" was tough!






Remember when he withstood Peter to the face because he was to be blamed:
[ame="http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r94AJzJZZaU"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r94AJzJZZaU[/ame]


----------



## DMcFadden (Jun 4, 2008)

Benjamin said:


> Hi DMcFadden.
> 
> I agree with you on controversy often causing heat and no light. Truth should be presented in a gentle way, yet there does come a time when we need to take out the Sword of Truth, not only to defend ourselves, for we have the shield already, but to attack the lies of the Devil, for how is God's Name Glorified if we stand back and say nothing while His truth is being opposed? Yet I do agree that we should strive for peace with all men, as much as we are able to ourselves.



No argument here. The problem is that the wrong people try to be "gentle" and the other group of wrong people try to be "prophetic truth tellers." Most Christians I know are too quiescent, using the excuse of gentleness. On the other hand, most of the ones I see being confrontational are just plain abrasive and obnoxious. If they were not Christians, they would be irritating and alienating pagans.

Maturity comes in knowing when to speak and when to remain silent.


----------



## Benjamin (Jun 5, 2008)

Hi DMcFadden.

If I understand you correctly you are saying that there are 2 people who are in error concerning their understanding of God's Word, and that the one thinks he is right(the prophetic truth teller) and the other one also thinks he is right, by being "gentle" in how he speaks to the "brother in error".

If that is what you mean then I agree that the character of both is often false. The one is not truly gentle and the other not truly earnest for truth.

I think the first step then for the obnoxious one is to humbly ask God to show Him the Truth in the Scriptures and seek it by prayer and good cousel, like a Matthew Henry commentary.


----------



## Benjamin (Jun 6, 2008)

I don't like what Luther said in his statement about the Jewish people,

"And, writing about the Jews . . .
Therefore we must not consider the mouth of the Jews as worthy of uttering the name of God within our hearing. He who hears this name from a Jew must inform the authorities, or else throw sow **** at him when he sees him and chase him away. And may no one be merciful and kind in this regard, for God’s honor and the salvation of us all, including that of the Jews, are at stake!
Luther, M. (1999, c1971). Vol. 47: Luther's works, vol. 47 : The Christian in Society IV (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald & H. T. Lehmann, Ed.). Luther's Works (47:286). Philadelphia: Fortress Press."

I can understand that it is often irritating to hear Jews who are not Christians using God's Name as if they knew Him, but are we to treat them as dirt because of that? We must pray that the Lord would show them the true God in Jesus Christ. Men are blind and we should have compassion on them, not disrespect them.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jun 6, 2008)

Benjamin said:


> I don't like what Luther said in his statement about the Jewish people,
> 
> "And, writing about the Jews . . .
> Therefore we must not consider the mouth of the Jews as worthy of uttering the name of God within our hearing. He who hears this name from a Jew must inform the authorities, or else throw sow **** at him when he sees him and chase him away. And may no one be merciful and kind in this regard, for God’s honor and the salvation of us all, including that of the Jews, are at stake!
> ...



You want to read the whole extract. I won't post it here in case it offends, but he pulls no punches.


----------



## wallingj (Jun 6, 2008)

Daniel Ritchie said:


> Benjamin said:
> 
> 
> > I don't like what Luther said in his statement about the Jewish people,
> ...


 
Warning OT from Original Post but following up on Martin Luther and Jews
We have an arminian friend who brought that up last week of why our soteriology views are wrong because of Luther's views of Jews, that he held latter in his life. . We are talking sound logical reasoning 
here.


----------



## Benjamin (Jun 7, 2008)

Dear James N. Walling,

Don't you think that your dear Arminian friend might have a point? I am not Arminian, and I feel rather offended by Luther's strong tone. How is throwing **** at Jews going to help bring them to Christ? It doesn't seem to fit the picture of witnessing in gentleness and respect.


----------



## wallingj (Jun 7, 2008)

No ones behavior in one area does not invalidate the truth he taught in others. If that was true we couldn't believe 90 percent of scripture teaches. David and Paul the murders, Matthew the thief, when you look at the heroes of the faith, their lifes were not exemplary. This type of reasoning is a logical fallacy.


----------



## Benjamin (Jun 8, 2008)

Hi Wallingj

Thanks for the reply. I am sorry, I misunderstood you. I was just sympathizing with the Arminian friend because it can _seem_ that Luther's soteriology was wrong on the Jews because of some of his statements. Yet, your point is valid. Luther was not a perfect person, nor Calvin, yet we are not to reject their work where it agrees with Scripture no matter how much they may have diverted in other places with regard to the manner of speech and also the content of it. Sorry again for the confusion, and thanks for the good point.


----------

