Response: Hold up there, Turbo. If I listen to what you just said, I shouldn't be listening to what you want to say. Or to what you just said. So... I guess we're done here!
NEXT!
(Proverbs 21:22)
18 September 2013
The Bible-only(-except-for-me!) dodge (NEXT! #37)
by Dan Phillips
Challenge: I care not for the words of mortal man. I only study the Bible. So let me tell you what I think the Bible says about...
Response: Hold up there, Turbo. If I listen to what you just said, I shouldn't be listening to what you want to say. Or to what you just said. So... I guess we're done here!
Response: Hold up there, Turbo. If I listen to what you just said, I shouldn't be listening to what you want to say. Or to what you just said. So... I guess we're done here!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
19 comments:
That’s good!
My response is usually, “That’s nice, what did the Bible say before you were born?”
I really am concerned about how little Christians seem to know their Bible.
Including myself.
This post brought to you by Dan Phillips and his other brother Daniel Phillips.
You forgot: < /InsideJoke >
You lost me at Turbo. I almost shot coffee cake out of my mouth.
I actually got that from a SWAT officer who was a black-belt at our dojo. He's the guy who made me throw my knee out and effectively ended my karate course. Not his fault; he was one of four "attackers" I was having to answer, and that pivot did me in. He was really SCARY-good, and a good guy. Teaching this one impetuous kid, he said "Slow down, Turbo." Stuck with me.
And now... you know that.
Is this a close cousin to "I don't listen to the Bible because it was written by men. Now let me tell you what I think about the Bible..." ? They seem to have the same relative root...
Thanks for the idea for my next Next!
I read the whole exchange on FB yesterday. It was hard to get past the bad grammar and misspelling, but you and Rebecca handled it very well. I wonder if Phil. 1:18 could be applied here?
And @gregalong wins the prize for Best Blog Comment!
sizzle!
Yes!!
Dear DJP,
I really think you failed at discretion in this post. I know it was meant to be pithy, and concise, but a post like this and a lawsuit following can effectually end Pyromaniacs once and for all. Henceforth, please mention who owns the copyright to what you post. This time, as a fellow believer, I'll help you:
Challenge: I care not for the words of mortal man. I only study the Bible. So let me tell you what I think the Bible says about...*
Response: Hold up there, Turbo. If I listen to what you just said, I shouldn't be listening to what you want to say. Or to what you just said. So... I guess we're done here!
*© AD 250 - AD 2013 Arius and Fellow Heretics. Permission is granted to fellow schismatics and apostates to use the argument. For more details, visit us at http://homoousion-is-not-in-the-bible.net.
Dan:
So noted. I might just have to add that phrase to my list of comebacks.
This is very good; I wish I had this defense years ago. I attended a Bible study where the leader pulled this out whenever a challenge was made to his interpretation of the Bible. Sadly, it usually shut down any wrestling to understand the text.
This is akin to many churches who claim to be "Bible-believing" churches. Now there are indeed plenty of churches who don't follow them Bible, but too often this by-line is intended to imply that their second-order or even third-order distinctives are the only ones legitimately based on the Bible.
You know, there's a reason I come here less and less, and the space seems to be fading away.
Mainly, I don't get your point. Are you really criticizing people who are too Bible focused, because that seems well foolish.
Your same argument is why we don't really treat the Constitution as binding and the words of Scripture as unchangeable, and it was the same charge Christ laid at the pharisees, you have taught as doctrines of God the teachings of men. Same thing when people say well the Supreme Court said, the real response should be "and so...." Plain language is really far easier to understand that we tend to admit (although it is inconvenient.)
Gov98,
If Dan will allow, let me explain:
The irony is the fact that, though the challenger rejects things taught from the Scriptures by men, he does however accept his own reading of the Scripture. See what I mean? Maybe he thinks that because men are fallen and prone to sin, even Chistians, that they could have some ulterior motive, or some erroneous thinking, or maybe some hobby-horse that would influence the purity of their teaching - but in any case he finds the teaching of men to be inadequate.
What he fails to realize, or worse, what he pretends isn't true, is that the same fallen nature that remains with those teachers he abhors is in him. His mind is fallen too. He has jaded perspectives and hobby-horses and remaining besetting sins that easily entangle. And since, when he reads the Scriptures, and when he pieces together his theology he is using his still-fallen, not yet perfected mind, he is in no better place than the teachers he refuses to listen to.
So basically, this man would have to be suspicious of everyone who thought about, recited, taught, wrote about God's word, even himself - if he was honestly consistent about what he believed. And so in this the man is an arrogant fool - he perceives in himself a perfection that's not in anyone else that allows him to see clearly at all times and correctly translate and think through what he reads in Scripture, and in doing that he refuses to believe the very Word of God he thinks he's defending - because God assigned His own regenerated men to humble themselves before Him, to rightly divide His Word, and to teach it rightly with fear and trembling; He commands men to go and make disciples with the pure Word entrusted to them.
That's why the response is what it is - because there's only two types of folks you can't teach; dead men and arrogant fools who know everything.
Right, Web. And the Scriptures listed under the last hyperlink add a great deal, as they usually do.
I defuse such arrogance by simply asking. "Which translation do you use?" If they use one, they are already accepting the opinions of men. If the use the original languages, I can simply ask, "Which version and who compiled it?"
I have been learning all my born again life to listen, because I don't really listen, like I should. And I need to know God is 110% sovereign in setting forth His truth, which is His Word, and it is eternal and wonderful and I love it, and there are many of His under-shepherds who love Him as well, and even moreso, though we do need to watch out for the wolves with lambs clothes.
Good word. A lot there.
@Mark B. Hanson,
That is really, really, really slippery ground there. You could end up making an atheist of someone by accident.
A translation does require some interpretation. But equating a translation to opinions of men might be pushing things too far.
Just a friendly word of caution.
Post a Comment