arguments – La Vista Church of Christ

Persuasive Arguments

Jeffrey Hamilton — Sat, 07 Mar 2026 16:27:53 +0000

by Hugh DeLong

We are drowning in a sea of false information. The internet can be useful, but it appears to me to overwhelmingly contain bad and misleading information. If you do a quick search for almost anything, the titles that are present for you to read contain countless hyperboles: “This destroys all…”, This changes everything we knew about…,” Whether it be about history, science, or religion – ‘everything’ that was known by anybody upto a few years (moments?) ago is wrong.

These are especially prevalent on YouTube. Here in Colossians 2:4, Paul warned us about ‘persuasive arguments’ that lead away from revealed truth. Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life (John 14:6). The chosen apostles were led into all truth (John 16:13). We have been warned many times within the New Testament revelation about false teachers (I Timothy 4:1-5; II Timothy 3:1-5, 13; II Thessalonians 2:3; 9-12; II Peter 2:1; I John 4:1, 6; etc., etc.!)

As Paul was coming to the end of his life, he instructed Timothy: “You, however, continue in the things you have learned and become convinced of, knowing from whom you have learned them" (II Timothy 3:14). Many of you will immediately remember that this was the introduction to Paul’s statement: “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work (II Timothy 3:16-17).

For us, we simply can not believe everything we read without knowing the source of such information. Men who have no real credentials can (and will and do) write articles and arguments. Do you know from whom you have learned what you believe?

Raising Doctrinal Concerns the Right Way

Jeffrey Hamilton — Wed, 14 Jan 2026 15:41:17 +0000

by Matthew Allen
via From Fear to Faith

Truth matters. Scripture never calls God’s people to ignore error. Elders are told to guard the flock, preachers are charged to handle the word accurately, and Christians are warned that some will depart from the faith.

But Scripture is equally clear about how concerns are to be handled.

Faithfulness is not measured only by what we believe. It is revealed by how we respond when we think something is wrong.

Start by Distinguishing Concern from Suspicion

Not every uneasy feeling is a doctrinal crisis. Concern is rooted in evidence. Suspicion is rooted in assumption. Scripture warns us against confusing the two.

“Anyone who answers before he listens is foolish and shameful” (Proverbs 18:13).

“The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him” (Proverbs 18:17).

Before speaking, ask: What exactly is the issue? Is it something clearly taught, or something inferred? Is it a pattern, or a single statement taken out of context?

Being careful at the beginning prevents damage later.

Go to the Source Before Going to the Crowd

The biblical pattern for correction is personal before it is public.

Jesus taught that when a brother sins, the first step is private conversation (Matthew 18:15). While that passage addresses personal offense, it reflects a broader kingdom ethic: correction should begin with the least destructive, most redemptive approach possible.

We see this principle lived out when Priscilla and Aquila recognized that Apollos was off in some of his teaching. Though Apollos was preaching publicly, they “took him aside and explained the way of God to him more accurately” (Acts 18:26). They did not go public. They did not stir suspicion. They cared about Apollos as a brother and a leader, and they addressed the issue personally.

Public teaching does not automatically require public correction.

What About Paul Naming Names?

Some object and say, “But Paul named names. He corrected people publicly.”

This is true.

When Paul rebuked publicly (Galatians 2:11–14; I Timothy 1:19–20; II Timothy 2:17), several things were true. The error was established, not speculative. The issue was persistent, not a single misstatement. And the harm was already public and influencing others.

Paul’s public corrections were not first responses. They were necessary responses once the facts were known and the stakes were clear.

The New Testament does not model immediate public criticism based on rumor or distance. It models restraint, investigation, and a desire for restoration, with public correction reserved for clear, ongoing, and harmful error.

Modern social media platforms do not change biblical ethics. The fact that teaching is public does not automatically make every response wise.

Test Teaching Carefully, Not Casually

Scripture commands discernment, but discernment requires effort.

“Test all things. Hold on to what is good” (I Thessalonians 5:21). The Bereans were praised because they examined the Scriptures carefully, not because they reacted quickly (Acts 17:11).

Listening to full lessons, reading in context, and separating disagreement from error takes time. Soundbites and summaries rarely tell the whole story.

It is not uncommon for a single paragraph to be lifted from a larger body of work and used to construct extensive objections, assigning positions the author has explicitly rejected elsewhere in the same document. The fuller context is often available. Clarifications may be stated plainly. Yet they are ignored because engaging the whole argument requires patience.

That is not discernment. It is a distortion.

Faithfulness requires more than finding a sentence one dislikes. It requires the honesty to read carefully, the humility to listen fully, and the discipline to represent another person’s position accurately before critiquing it.

Aim for Restoration, Not Victory

The goal of correction is not to win an argument. It is to help a brother.

Paul instructed that those caught in error are to be restored with gentleness (Galatians 6:1). The Lord’s servant is not to be quarrelsome, but patient and able to teach (II Timothy 2:24–25). Truth handled without love becomes destructive.

A simple question helps here: Is the aim restoration, or reputation damage? Tone usually reveals the answer.

Know When Silence Is Not Faithfulness

There are times when escalation is necessary. Persistent, unrepentant, public error must be addressed for the sake of the flock (Titus 1:9; Acts 20:28–31).

But process still matters. Skipping steps and rushing to exposure can cause damage, even when concerns are real. Faithfulness does not ignore error, but it also refuses shortcuts.

Guard Your Heart While Guarding the Truth

Jesus gave a searching rule that applies here: “Whatever you want others to do for you, do also the same for them” (Matthew 7:12).

If concerns were raised about one’s own teaching, how would one hope they were handled? With fairness or suspicion? With conversation or commentary? With care or with labels?

That question keeps the heart in check.

A Final Word

The church needs people who deeply love the truth. It also needs people who handle the truth wisely.

Rumors divide. Careless accusations wound. Biblical correction strengthens. If something causes concern, do not rush to label. Do not recruit allies. Do not speak before listening. Go to the person. Open the Scriptures. Speak the truth in love.

That is how the church stays faithful without tearing itself apart.

Why Everything Is Personal Now—and Why Disagreement Is Treated Like Sin

Jeffrey Hamilton — Sat, 20 Dec 2025 18:36:42 +0000

by Brad Harrub, Ph.D.

We are living in an age when disagreement is no longer viewed as a difference of thought—it is treated as a moral failure. If you don’t hold my position, you are not just wrong…you are evil, unloving, or sinful. Every discussion is personal. Every debate is emotional. And every challenge feels like an attack on someone’s very identity.

Don’t believe me? Just write an article on modesty, youth ministers, public schools vs. homeschool, homemaking, or parenting, and post it on Facebook. People will absolutely lose their minds in the comments (and some will lose their Christianity). Because after all, if you don’t believe the way they believe—or do things the way they did things—then you are not just wrong, you are on the other team. You are now the evil opponent.

This wasn’t always the case.

There was a time when people could disagree, argue passionately, and still walk away respecting one another. Ideas were debated. Evidence was weighed. Scripture was opened. But today, disagreement is often met with outrage because many people have tied their identity to their opinions. To challenge the belief is to challenge the person. Forget unity, I have to be right!

And that’s dangerous.

When Feelings Replace Truth:

Scripture warns us about this exact mindset. Proverbs 18:2 says, “A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion.” Notice the emphasis—truth-seeking is replaced by self-expression. Understanding takes a back seat to validation. Sound familiar?

Modern culture has trained us to elevate feelings above facts. If something feels right, it must be right. If something feels offensive, it must be sinful. How dare you question the way my momma (or my favorite Big-name preacher) does it! But feelings were never designed to be our moral compass.
Jeremiah 17:9 reminds us, “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked; who can know it?” When we allow emotions to define truth, we shouldn’t be surprised when disagreement feels like persecution.

The Rise of the Self:

Sociologists and psychologists have noted a dramatic rise in narcissistic traits over the last few decades—especially among younger generations. I have preached on this increase in many places. While the exact numbers vary by study, the trend is consistent: people are increasingly self-focused, image-conscious, and intolerant of criticism.

That shouldn’t surprise Christians.

Paul warned Timothy that difficult times would come because “men will be lovers of themselves” (II Timothy 3:2). When self-love becomes supreme, disagreement becomes intolerable. After all, how dare someone challenge me?

This explains why so many conversations feel less like discussions and more like emotional landmines. We are no longer debating ideas—we are defending egos.

“Oh, you didn’t handle Santa with your kids the way I did? Well, let me tell you, you’re wrong, buddy…” And just like that, the person you are talking to becomes “sus” because they hold a different opinion. Church, it really shouldn’t be this way!

When Opinions Become Doctrine:

One of the most sobering developments in modern Christianity is how quickly lines of fellowship are drawn—not over the gospel, but over opinions.
Entire congregations fracture and split over secondary matters. Christians label one another “liberal,” “false teacher,” or “legalist” with remarkable speed. Fellowship is extended or withdrawn based not on obedience to Christ, but on alignment with my conclusions. If you don’t do it the way I do it or believe the way I believe—even on these opinion issues—then you are in sin.

If you don’t affirm my political view, my parenting choice, my career ideology, my theological nuance, or my cultural preference, then you are “on the wrong side of everything—including God.” Sadly, many miss the amount of pride wrapped up in this position.

Scripture is clear that pride does not always announce itself loudly. Often, it hides behind strong convictions and religious language. The problem is not having opinions. The problem is thinking so highly of our opinions that we confuse them with divine revelation.

James warned against this spirit when he wrote, “For where there is envy, strife, and self-seeking, confusion and every evil thing are there” (James 3:16).

We often justify our divisions as “standing for truth,” when in reality, we may be standing for ourselves or our own egos.

A Better Way Forward:

If the church is going to be salt and light in a hypersensitive, self-obsessed culture, we must relearn how to disagree biblically. That means humility. That means listening. That means rooting our convictions in Scripture rather than emotion.

Philippians 2:3 gives us the antidote: “Let nothing be done through selfish ambition or conceit, but in lowliness of mind let each esteem others better than himself.”

You can still love someone who made choices different from yours! It’s okay! After all, there is the possibility they may be right, and you could learn something from them.

Imagine how different our conversations would be if truth mattered more than winning, and humility mattered more than being affirmed.

Not every disagreement is an attack. Not every opposing view is a sin. And not every challenge to our ideas is a challenge to our worth.

Sometimes, it’s simply an invitation to think—and to grow.

And in a world obsessed with self, that might be the most radical act of all.

I’ll Keep On Until They Quit

Jeffrey Hamilton — Tue, 05 Aug 2025 00:19:09 +0000

by Alan Smith

There was once an older man who went out for a jog. He was running around a track that circled the high school football field while the team was conducting its practice. When the football players began running their sprints up and down the field, the man said to himself, "I'll just keep running until they quit." So they ran. And he ran. And they kept on running. So he kept on running.

Finally, in total exhaustion, the man had to stop. When he stopped, an equally exhausted football player walked over to him and said, "Boy, I'm glad you finally stopped, mister. Our coach told us that we had to keep running wind sprints as long as the old guy was jogging!"

It seems to me that we can sometimes find ourselves in a similar kind of situation when it comes to anger and conflict. We have a disagreement with someone and get into an argument. Voices get raised. Neither side wants to be the first to give in, to stop speaking in anger. Everyone has the attitude, "I'll just keep on till they quit." So the other party stays mad. So we stay mad. And on we go, eventually finding ourselves emotionally and even physically exhausted by the ongoing animosity.

Let me challenge you to do something challenging. The next time you get in an argument, be the first to give in. Be the first to stop the yelling and the name-calling. Be the first to say, "I'm sorry." It's the quickest way to stop the vicious cycle.

"A soft answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger" (Proverbs 15:1).

Have a great day!

Propaganda Wars – Rhetoric

Jeffrey Hamilton — Wed, 29 Jan 2025 23:11:16 +0000

by Terry Wane Benton

Interestingly, the rhetoric used in truth vs. propaganda often turns to prejudicial phrases. Elijah was called a "troubler" in Israel by the wicked king. Who really was the troubler? Was it not those who grew to accept immorality and idolatry? But Ahab used the word "troubler" to close minds against God's messenger. I have noticed through the years that members of the church get drawn into such useless rhetoric. When false teaching is being spread or a brother is living in sin, if such is addressed, the "troubler" is whoever speaks up to oppose sin or false teaching. It becomes a convenient propaganda war to make the good guy look bad and to protect the bad guy and his "friends." The good guy gets labeled "divisive" or with other convenient terms. Often, we find that "truth" is not what people want to hear or stand for. Truth is often inconvenient.

In our society, it is easy to swallow the rhetoric. "Racist, white supremacist, Xenophobe, homophobe, hate, insurrectionist, divisive, etc." are terms that can be used against innocent people for prejudicial purposes. It is all part of the propaganda wars to actually label innocent people and isolate them, treating them as the "troublers in Israel." But who is actually being the thing of accusation? That takes more thought and investigation. It often comes down to a sense of fairness, not being quick to judge, and taking time to analyze what you can gather in evidence and relevant information.

Jesus knew no sin, but propaganda succeeded in crucifying an innocent man. They claimed he was an insurrectionist who would replace Caesar, and that if you respected Caesar, you would not let this insurrectionist live. The truth was that Jesus was no insurrectionist and was not here to destroy the Roman government (John 18:35-38). But propaganda seemed to prevail. The truth takes investigation. Propaganda is often emotion-driven, and people are more easily swept up in emotion than they are in a rational search for evidence.

Truth is not always self-evident, but it wins in the end; if not now, it will when we stand before the judgment seat of Christ (II Corinthians 5:10).

Be careful not to be swept up into the propaganda wars. Seek the truth. The truth will win and make you a winner.

Propaganda Wars

How do we resolve a conflict between two brethren?

Jeffrey Hamilton — Sat, 20 Jul 2024 02:12:07 +0000

Question:

Greetings sir. I trust you have been doing well.

I have a matter that needs your advice on dealing with conflict resolution.

I have these two brethren who had a misunderstanding over a report on the church building project. They belong to the team overseeing the project. One is the leader, and the other a member. When the secretary presented a report, the church treasurer noticed some differences in the amount given by the church. He mentioned that it should be corrected before reporting. That was done amicably between the reporter and the treasurer. Later, the treasurer went to the team leader overseeing the church project to inquire about the records. Personal donations would have to come through the church's account, and there was a deficit that the church would have to pay. The team leader grew annoyed and started exchanging words. He asked why he had to come to him after verifying and strengthening the records from the other team member who presented the report. He started calling him a fool for picking on little things to make cases out of them. They had a falling out, and both left in anger.

The treasurer was offended by the team leader's words and vowed not to have anything to do with him again. After I spoke with the team leader, he went to reconcile with the treasurer, but he refused. Another brother attempted to reach him several times, but he refused to pick up his calls. After several encouragements to seek reconciliation, he still refused.

During a church meeting, he brought up the issue before the church and wanted to resign from the team overseeing the building project. Despite pleadings with him by members to implement Matthew 18:15-17, he still was adamant. The church appealed to the preacher to come in and initiate a reconciliation. The team leader was ready, but the offended brother failed to comply with the call.

In this case, would it be out of place to have them both come before the church? And if he still refuses, won't the church have to do what is necessary (Matthew 18:17)?

Thank you, sir.

Answer:

"A brother offended is harder to be won than a strong city, and contentions are like the bars of a citadel" (Proverbs 18:19).

Brothers are people you can rely on most when things are difficult. There is an expectation of trust and mutual goals. However, if a brother is offended, he is also the hardest to win back. He resists any efforts to settle the dispute. Thus, care should be taken to avoid letting disagreements between brethren get out of hand, which is what happened in this case.

The treasurer was doing his duty. He noted flaws in the reporting of funds used for the building project. He straightened out the report, but the source of the information reported by the secretary came from the building team. Thus, he properly went to the man overseeing the building project to ensure the mistakes were not repeated. The team leader wrongly took offense at being questioned and told to be more careful. I guess that in the leader's eyes, the amount that was off was minor, and since it was resolved, he didn't see why he should be scolded for poor bookkeeping.

The team leader was wrong due to his pride, and eventually, he was made to see his error. When he went to apologize to the treasurer, he refused to talk because his ego was wounded, and he was being prideful.

The church was wrong in putting off a decision by saying that Matthew 18:15-17 needed to be followed. However, it already had been followed. The treasurer tried to resolve the problem directly. The team leader tried to apologize directly. Other people tried to talk to the treasurer but were rebuffed. You have sufficient witnesses in regard to the problem for the church to make a judgment and attempt to get the two men to be at peace. Asking the preacher to solve their problem also avoids doing their duty. It is nice if the preacher, as a church member, attempts to get the two sides to talk, but it doesn't change the fact that the church should be settling the problem.

The best thing at this point is for the entire congregation to gather and discuss the matter. The church should admit its faults. It should point out the team leader's faults and thank him for seeing reason and changing. Then, the treasurer should be told that he was right in being diligent in his duties, but it should be pointed out that he is disobeying the Lord's command: "For if you forgive others for their transgressions, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive others, then your Father will not forgive your transgressions" (Matthew 6:14-15). He should be told that forgiveness is not an option. The team leader should be asked if he repents of his behavior with the treasurer. If he says "yes," then the treasurer should be asked if he forgives the team leader for the insults given to him. If the treasurer continues to refuse (I don't think he will), then the church should express its sorrow and tell him that he cannot be a member until he forgives.

Ad Hominem Arguments

Jeffrey Hamilton — Mon, 17 Jun 2024 19:14:47 +0000

by Doy Moyer

One of the most common logical fallacies is the ad hominem. It occurs when a person attacks the character of another rather than addressing the argument. There are many ways this happens, but one that I have seen several times is in questioning the honesty of one who differs. You don’t agree with what I just said? You’re not being honest, obviously. Otherwise, you’d agree.

Questioning integrity and motives quickly shuts down a conversation. It’s a lazy way out because it bypasses the argument and dismisses both the person and the position held by that person. After all, if the other person isn’t being honest, why should I have to answer the argument?

Is it possible the other person is being dishonest? Yes. And it’s possible that I’m being dishonest, too. But this is not a charge to be taken lightly or thrown around as a catch-all for those who don’t agree with my “obviously well-thought-out and flawless position.” If only you see what I see, know what I know, and can think as sharply as I think, you’d be right there with me. Case closed.

But this isn’t how solid or fair communication happens. Love gives the benefit of any doubts, and we have to be able to trust each other to have decent motives when we disagree. Now multiple interactions may expose dishonesty, but that’s ultimately for the Lord to decide, not me.

It’s on me to check my integrity and honesty, and it’s on you to check yours. Then, if we discuss something we disagree with, we can focus on the arguments and perhaps help sharpen one another.

Should a couple marry because they will be having a child?

Jeffrey Hamilton — Tue, 21 May 2024 23:57:28 +0000

Question:

Hello,

What do you think about a couple who have been dating for five months, argue often for various reasons, and she gets pregnant? The guy is not sure she could be a good wife because he doesn't like things about her. Do you think they should get married just because they're having a child?

Answer:

I'm wondering why you skipped over the fornication and worded your question as if it is totally the woman's fault that a child is coming. It seems that you think unmarried sex is fine so long as there are no subsequent responsibilities.

Sexual intercourse has consequences, and pregnancy is the most obvious one. It is one of the reasons why God states, "Now concerning the things about which you wrote, it is good for a man not to touch a woman. But because of immoralities, each man is to have his own wife, and each woman is to have her own husband" (I Corinthians 7:1-2).

Even though you've been arguing, you've been putting up with it because you were getting something from the relationship. Now that there is a child on the way, you decided the cost of the relationship is too high. I can't say that I'm impressed.

No one can force you to marry. Marriage is a union of two people who willingly enter into a covenant relationship. If you are unwilling, then the marriage will not work.

However, you are responsible for bringing this child into the world. In most countries, you must support the child financially until the child becomes an adult. Morally, you should help care for and raise the child. You decided to put your pleasure ahead of God's Law and this is a consequence of it.

What should I do? My mom and I are always arguing

Jeffrey Hamilton — Sun, 09 Nov 2014 02:21:00 +0000

Question:

I'm 23 years years old and a single mom. My mom has helped me out a lot financially, but she can be confrontational and a bit abusive in her speech. I always argue with her over things, and we never can seem to get along for very long. My mom always points out what I'm doing wrong and things I'm failing to do. It seems that as I grow closer to God the more we fight. What is your advice?

Answer:

Not knowing the situation, I cannot tell you whether your mother is correct and you don't want to believe it or whether your mother is wrong about her conclusions.

"Do not correct a scoffer, lest he hate you; rebuke a wise man, and he will love you. Give instruction to a wise man, and he will be still wiser; teach a just man, and he will increase in learning" (Proverbs 9:8-9).

"A wise son heeds his father's instruction, but a scoffer does not listen to rebuke" (Proverbs 13:1).

"Poverty and shame will come to him who disdains correction, but he who regards a rebuke will be honored" (Proverbs 13:18).

"He who disdains instruction despises his own soul, but he who heeds rebuke gets understanding" (Proverbs 15:32).

"Rebuke is more effective for a wise man than a hundred blows on a fool" (Proverbs 17:10).

If you find living with your mother intolerable, then the obvious solution for an adult is to move out into your own home.

As a couple, we seem to be arguing too much

Jeffrey Hamilton — Tue, 10 May 2011 23:56:00 +0000

Question:

What advice would you give a Christian couple dealing with a long-distance relationship for a while? We've had several arguments over the phone, and it seems like things aren't going well and might not get better. I feel like there's something going wrong that can be helped with scriptural advice, but I have no idea how to start. I think if we both humble ourselves to whatever principles Scripture might have for such a situation we would be able to fulfill the good plans we've made for a future together. We're both New Testament Christians. We've been together for two years. We're a year apart in age. I'm in college two hours away, while she is in high school in our hometown area.

Answer:

I've known several couples who successfully had a long-distance relationship before they got married, including one of my sons. Distance is easy to blame for a relationship not going well, but it is rarely the real cause.

If I had to guess, the biggest problem at the moment is the difference in your experiences. You are in college and she is still in high school. The environments are different. The way people look at life is different. And the maturity level of fellow students is vastly different. I suspect that it is the differences in what is happening in your lives that is causing you two to have less common ground than you have had in the past. That difference is putting a strain on your relationship.

A good relationship doesn't mean the couple has no arguments. When you put two people together with different backgrounds, there are bound to be clashes. What makes a good relationship is how the couple disagrees and how they resolve the difference.

It is here that I get stuck. I don't know enough about your particular situation to say which principles of God you need to learn. Without narrowing the discussion, I probably could end up writing a small book on the possibilities. If you would like to tell me more about the nature of the arguments and why you feel you are drifting apart, I will be better able to give you a detailed answer.

Question:

"What makes a good relationship is how the couple disagrees and how they resolve the difference."

One thing we'd both write is we fail so miserably here. What's the proper way for followers of Christ in a relationship to disagree and resolve differences? I think this may be our primary if not only issue.

Your help is so much appreciated Brother Hamilton, prayers to the congregation at La Vista too!

Answer:

If I had to pick the biggest cause of disagreement between couples, it is due to the assumptions people make about the other person. I remember talking to one man who was having a conflict with his wife. As he told me about the nature of the disagreement, I asked him if he discussed a point with his wife. He then proceeded to tell me in detail everything she would say counter to the point. He had the entire argument mapped out in his head, what he would say, what she would say, and how it would end. Just one small matter was missing -- he never talked to her about it. He was so certain that he knew what she would say that he never bothered talking to her. When I finally convinced him to ask anyway, he was shocked to find out that he was completely wrong.

More arguments are over what people assume that what someone actually did or said. Isaiah talks about those "Who cause a person to be indicted by a word" (Isaiah 29:21 NASB). Just a word or two and a person decides they know exactly what a person is guilty of doing. Instead, if we must make an assumption, we ought to be assuming the best of another person. "Let all bitterness, wrath, anger, clamor, and evil speaking be put away from you, with all malice. And be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, just as God in Christ forgave you" (Ephesians 4:31-32).

So consider the last few arguments you've had. Are they based on actual facts, or are you assuming the other person's motives and thoughts without the other person telling you?