# Shun Profane and Vain Babblings



## py3ak (Nov 4, 2006)

I have a question:

*2 Timothy 1:13*


> Follow the pattern of the sound words that you have heard from me, in the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus. (ESV)


*2 Timothy 2:14-17a*


> Remind them of these things, and charge them before God not to quarrel about words, which does no good, but only ruins the hearers. Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth. But avoid irreverent babble, for it will lead people into more and more ungodliness, and their talk will spread like gangrene. (ESV)


*Titus 3:9*


> But avoid foolish controversies, genealogies, dissensions, and quarrels about the law, for they are unprofitable and worthless. ESV)



From Titus 3 and 2 Timothy 2 it is obvious that there is a strife about words, terms, etc., that is useless, stupid and indeed sinful. But from 2 Timothy 1 it is also evident that words are important (compare also Jeremiah 23-33-36).

So, the question. How do we distinguish? How do you determine when it is a quarrel about words and when it is following the pattern of sound words? What identifying marks can we give for grasping when we have fallen into irreverent babble, into foolish controversies, as opposed to earnestly contending for the faith?


----------



## py3ak (Nov 13, 2006)

No one has any thoughts on distinguishing when an argument is vain striving about words and when it's contending for the faith?
Notice that I am not attacking anyone or making any insinuations. But we obviously live in a time where a number of controversies are raging. How do we determine what sort of squabble it is?


----------



## non dignus (Nov 13, 2006)

Ruben ,
Good thread.
I've known some fellows who seem to major in the minors. To them everything is essential. Nothing is too small to discuss, but we ought not devour each other over non-essentials.
That's my personal thought. It's not good to make hard feelings on quibbles.


----------



## Lauren Mary (Nov 13, 2006)

*Value of arguing the word "Yom"*

Lately I have been wondering at the value of arguing (in a scholarly sense arguing) the use of the word "Yom" with an "old earth" brother. I lean toward "young earth" and the whole argument hinges on the appropriate interpretation and application of the word "Yom."

But this is not the main point of my response to this thread. Pertinent to your orginal question, Ruben, the nature of my wondering about this impending argument's value may sugest some criteria for us determining vain babbling or not. 

1. I wonder if this argument has any eternal value, or 
2. If it will result in either or both of us growing closer to Christ, or 
3. Either of us shining brighter for Christ. 
4. I wonder if the argument is pivotal to others credibility of God's word and hence it could then be critical to their motivation to grow closer to God.
5. I wonder if new believers will be stumbled by our argument.
6. I wonder if new believers will be side-lined by this "old-earth" brother pressing his opinions on certain ones of them.
7. In the greater scheme of things, is God more glorified by our arguing the question, or not?

I too look forward to other's responses to your question.


----------



## py3ak (Nov 13, 2006)

Lauren, those are some very good points. I think they would be very helpful in determining one's own involvement in a controversy. The problem, of course, arises, when one side tries to dismiss stuff as "vain babbling" and someone else says, "this is the heart of the Gospel". Which, of course, ties in with your point, David. Recently I saw in a magazine (not one I get) the line: "Understanding the difference between the kingdom of God and the kingdom of Heaven is the key to understanding the Scriptures". Some guy wrote a whole book called "Eight Kingdoms" based on this. And, of course, it is vital and must read, and what not (though he discovered it studying the Scriptures from scratch --something I guess the rest of us cannot do).


----------



## non dignus (Nov 13, 2006)

Titus 3:10,11
"_ A factious man after a first and second admonition refuse; 11. knowing that such a one is perverted, and sinneth, being self-condemned. "_

Sometimes it could be hard to make the call on 'factious'.


----------



## Lauren Mary (Nov 14, 2006)

*Accusations have many faces.*

Refering to Titus 3:10-11, Christians must be so careful how they/we weild that sword of the Spirit, the word. Our intentions must be pure if/when we pick up that sword. I know of a person accused of being factious because on one occassion they pointed out that the church was ignoring a clear Biblical command. They never got as far as having a healthy discussion about the problem. People in the church were not willing to be held accountable for their departure from the word of God and so they effectively silenced the person by accusing the concerned person of being factious. It was and is a handy and effective method to silence righteous "trouble-makers."

The actual perversion in this case resided with the majority of church members who wanted their way and didn't want anyone calling their attention to the word of God and thereby exposing their error. 

Sorry if this story is a little off the topic of the thread. But maybe another criteria suggested by the situation described above is that if we find ourselves arguing a point, it would be wise to check our intentions. Are our hearts, our motives pure? Or is there some pride, or pontificating, or working a personal agenda involved in our arguing a point. Then it would indeed be vain babbling.


----------



## py3ak (Nov 14, 2006)

Precisely, David. Because no one ever says, "I am schismatic." People always say, "I am defending the truths of the Gospel." On the other hand, heretics never say: "I am egregiously altering fundamental truths." On the contrary, they may well try to accuse their opponents of vain strivings about words. So far we've gotten some good suggestions on telling as far as oneself: but how does one tell with regard to a controversy _per se_?


----------

