What are, "vain janglings?"

Status
Not open for further replies.

shackleton

Puritan Board Junior
This is included in LCQ 113 pertaining to the 3rd command, I am going to admit my ignorance hear and ask what a, "jangling" is or what is it to "jangle?" Maybe it is a verb.

Question 113: What are the sins forbidden in the third commandment?

Answer: The sins forbidden in the third commandment are, the not using of God’s name as is required; and the abuse of it in an ignorant, vain, irreverent, profane, superstitious, or wicked mentioning, or otherwise using his titles, attributes, ordinances, or works, by blasphemy, perjury; all sinful cursings, oaths, vows, and lots; violating of our oaths and vows, if lawful; and fulfilling them, if of things unlawful; murmuring and quarreling at, curious prying into, and misapplying of God’s decrees and providences; misinterpreting, misapplying, or any way perverting the Word, or any part of it, to profane jests, curious or unprofitable questions, vain janglings, or the maintaining of false doctrines; abusing it, the creatures, or anything contained under the name of God, to charms, or sinful lusts and practices; the maligning, scorning, reviling, or anywise opposing of God’s truth, grace, and ways; making profession of religion in hypocrisy, or for sinister ends; being ashamed of it, or a shame to it, by unconformable, unwise, unfruitful, and offensive walking, or backsliding from it.
 

Marrow Man

Drunk with Powder
So how does it pertain to taking the Lord's name in vain? :confused:

Read the phrase in its greater context.

misinterpreting, misapplying, or any way perverting the Word, or any part of it, to profane jests, curious or unprofitable questions, vain janglings, or the maintaining of false doctrines

The LC answer is saying that misusing the Scriptures is a violation of the 3rd Commandment. The janglings mentioned are quarrels or arguments. It is a warning not to engage in deliberately factious sorts of arguments resulting from the distortion of Biblical doctrine.

BTW, the LC footnotes to Titus 3:9 here as a proof-text: "But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain."
 

shackleton

Puritan Board Junior
If it is interpreted as we would the bible, in it historical and cultural context, then maybe it is referring to the Quaker's and how they worshiped God.
 

Marrow Man

Drunk with Powder
The sixth definition for "janglings" that Davidius posted refers to arguments. We are not to misuse the word of God in order to indulge in vain arguments.
 

Contra_Mundum

Pilgrim, Alien, Stranger
Staff member
As was mentioned by Tim:
Note the progression:

--misusing the Word unto:
1) trivialities or jokes
2) questions without sincere intent
3) arguments not for genuine love to truth or persons
4) maintaining and disseminating heresy

A clear and marked progression. I think the Quakers would fall into the fourth category myself.
 

pm

Puritan Board Freshman
Many Words and Empty Phrases

When you mentioned "vain janglings" my thoughts went to Matt 6:7

Matt 6:7 And when you pray, do not heap up empty phrases as the Gentiles do, for they think that they will be heard for their many words.

or

Prov 10:19 When words are many, transgression is not lacking, but whoever restrains his lips is prudent.

We don't have to fill every silent moment with sound.
 

toddpedlar

Iron Dramatist
When you mentioned "vain janglings" my thoughts went to Matt 6:7

Matt 6:7 And when you pray, do not heap up empty phrases as the Gentiles do, for they think that they will be heard for their many words.

or

Prov 10:19 When words are many, transgression is not lacking, but whoever restrains his lips is prudent.

We don't have to fill every silent moment with sound.

Unfortunately when I heard it, I thought immediately of Gene Autry.

 

Pergamum

Ordinary Guy (TM)
As was mentioned by Tim:
Note the progression:

--misusing the Word unto:
1) trivialities or jokes
2) questions without sincere intent
3) arguments not for genuine love to truth or persons
4) maintaining and disseminating heresy

A clear and marked progression. I think the Quakers would fall into the fourth category myself.

Number 2: how about rhetorical questions?
 

toddpedlar

Iron Dramatist
As was mentioned by Tim:
Note the progression:

--misusing the Word unto:
1) trivialities or jokes
2) questions without sincere intent
3) arguments not for genuine love to truth or persons
4) maintaining and disseminating heresy

A clear and marked progression. I think the Quakers would fall into the fourth category myself.

Number 2: how about rhetorical questions?

do you expect us to answer that, or is it rhetorical?
 

Contra_Mundum

Pilgrim, Alien, Stranger
Staff member
I think a rhetorical question can be sincere--it just needn't be a question the asker intends to get an answer for, but give one.
 

toddpedlar

Iron Dramatist
Depends on how you answer I guess....

btw, my question wasn't taking argument with you... i should have added a smiley I suppose. I just thought it was funny you asked a question about rhetorical questions (so I thought I'd ask whether your question was rhetorical) ;) Alas, I'm not sure the humor passed muster.
 

shackleton

Puritan Board Junior
"curious prying into,... misinterpreting, misapplying, or any way perverting the Word,...curious or unprofitable questions,..."

It almost seems like the safe thing to do is not discuss God or theology? But I thought this was the process of studying theology. We could just be like the Lutherans and say that it is all a great mystery. They say if you study theology too much you wind up either a Calvinist or an Arminian. So just stick with what can be readily proved.
 

NaphtaliPress

Administrator
Staff member
Again, this needs to be taken in context and not in the first use of curious that we normally think of. The use is clearly as in "Unduly inquisitive; prying." We should want to learn certainly.
"curious prying into,... misinterpreting, misapplying, or any way perverting the Word,...curious or unprofitable questions,..."

It almost seems like the safe thing to do is not discuss God or theology? But I thought this was the process of studying theology. We could just be like the Lutherans and say that it is all a great mystery. They say if you study theology too much you wind up either a Calvinist or an Arminian. So just stick with what can be readily proved.
 

toddpedlar

Iron Dramatist
"curious prying into,... misinterpreting, misapplying, or any way perverting the Word,...curious or unprofitable questions,..."

It almost seems like the safe thing to do is not discuss God or theology? But I thought this was the process of studying theology. We could just be like the Lutherans and say that it is all a great mystery. They say if you study theology too much you wind up either a Calvinist or an Arminian. So just stick with what can be readily proved.

i.e. Calvinism.

Anyway, the caution you're expressing is the overly cautious approach of the post-modern "nobody is more right than anyone else" skeptic. It's the false humility of the 'tolerant'.

Rather, what the passage quoted in the OP is addressing is to be cautious, when it becomes apparent that Scripture isn't going to answer a question that is raised in your mind, to be content with what Scripture does speak to, and to be pleased with what God has been pleased to reveal in it. It is to avoid needless controversy about such minutia as cannot be discerned from Holy writ.

Many today go too far in this and say that nothing can be certainly known - and that's not at all what the divines had in mind, CLEARLY, since what they have given us in the standards, what Calvin gives us in the Institutes, is detailed discussion of things many claim 'cannot be known' or which run afoul of their postmodern sensibilities (and so they reject it as one person's opinion).
 

toddpedlar

Iron Dramatist
perhaps nobody got my Gene Autry reference ;)

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nSZGXk92So"]Jingle Jangle Jingle[/ame]
 

Pergamum

Ordinary Guy (TM)
Depends on how you answer I guess....

btw, my question wasn't taking argument with you... i should have added a smiley I suppose. I just thought it was funny you asked a question about rhetorical questions (so I thought I'd ask whether your question was rhetorical) ;) Alas, I'm not sure the humor passed muster.

I know Todd, your answers are always taken well by me because they seem to lack barbs. I saw the irony and appreciated it, just had my boy wake up and so had to return a quick response as I passed through the room.
 

jaybird0827

PuritanBoard Honor Roll
Here is the associated proof text.

"Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.... From which some having swerved have turned aside unto vain jangling; Desiring to be teachers of the law; understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm."

-- I Timothy 4:6-7 (AV)
 

Mushroom

Puritan Board Doctor
Here is the associated proof text.

"Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.... From which some having swerved have turned aside unto vain jangling; Desiring to be teachers of the law; understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm."

-- I Timothy 4:6-7 (AV)
Actually 1 Tim 1:6-7, where the term is used to tranlate the Greek:

ματαιολογία
mataiologia
mat-ah-yol-og-ee'-ah
From G3151; random talk, that is, babble: - vain jangling.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top