by Frank Turk
Happy Wednesday. Welcome.
Before we get started here, Phil, Dan and I are thinking about blog template renovation, so if you see changes in layer, design, or anything else, we're just going to engage in some once-a-700-days housekeeping. If the link breaks for a Saturday when we update the template, relax and know that at least everything we've ever posted is secure in the Google cache.
I have a head cold as I write this and I'm not really up to 3 pages today, so I'll give you a short bit which I have been considering for a few weeks here.
Before I start, let the haters be forewarned:
Don't try to unearth some crypto-hate under this one point of consideration today. I'm not trying to undermine the whole Gospel Coalition, or start a file on Dr. Ortlund, or reveal the systematic culture of blahblahblah in Nashville pastors. What percolated into this post was a single tweet by Justin Taylor back on 06 Dec 2011:
And that tweet links to a brief post by Dr. Ortlund, which is a book recommendation. I'm sure it's a fine book -- I'm sure, in fact, that what the readers of Jonathan Edwards need are more books about Jonathan Edwards.
Ahem. That's the cold medicine talking. Sorry.
So anyway: "I'm more helped by watching a genius think well than by identifying the fallacies and weaknesses of myself or others."
I've been pondering this for about 3 months now, and I admit it: I disagree. That is -- I disagree that watching someone else "think well" helps me personally more than it does to identify my own faults and weaknesses. Now, as I said, I have a head cold today and I'm just not up for running through all the Scriptural reasons I can't really hug this one like a valuable proverb -- though I do have a short list.
I think watching someone else think well is entertaining, and usually informative. But it doesn't improve me the way a frank evaluation of myself can improve me, and edify me, and further my sanctification as well as my relationships with others.
I even have a great personal example of this, but instead I'm simply going to put it the way James put it:
And with that, before the cold medicine kicks in again, be with the Lord's people in the Lord's house on the Lord's day this week. Persevere.
Happy Wednesday. Welcome.
Before we get started here, Phil, Dan and I are thinking about blog template renovation, so if you see changes in layer, design, or anything else, we're just going to engage in some once-a-700-days housekeeping. If the link breaks for a Saturday when we update the template, relax and know that at least everything we've ever posted is secure in the Google cache.
I have a head cold as I write this and I'm not really up to 3 pages today, so I'll give you a short bit which I have been considering for a few weeks here.
Before I start, let the haters be forewarned:
RAY ORTLUND = GOOD GUY
Don't try to unearth some crypto-hate under this one point of consideration today. I'm not trying to undermine the whole Gospel Coalition, or start a file on Dr. Ortlund, or reveal the systematic culture of blahblahblah in Nashville pastors. What percolated into this post was a single tweet by Justin Taylor back on 06 Dec 2011:
And that tweet links to a brief post by Dr. Ortlund, which is a book recommendation. I'm sure it's a fine book -- I'm sure, in fact, that what the readers of Jonathan Edwards need are more books about Jonathan Edwards.
Ahem. That's the cold medicine talking. Sorry.
So anyway: "I'm more helped by watching a genius think well than by identifying the fallacies and weaknesses of myself or others."
I've been pondering this for about 3 months now, and I admit it: I disagree. That is -- I disagree that watching someone else "think well" helps me personally more than it does to identify my own faults and weaknesses. Now, as I said, I have a head cold today and I'm just not up for running through all the Scriptural reasons I can't really hug this one like a valuable proverb -- though I do have a short list.
I think watching someone else think well is entertaining, and usually informative. But it doesn't improve me the way a frank evaluation of myself can improve me, and edify me, and further my sanctification as well as my relationships with others.
I even have a great personal example of this, but instead I'm simply going to put it the way James put it:
Know this, my beloved brothers: let every person be quick to hear, slow to speak, slow to anger; for the anger of man does not produce the righteousness of God. Therefore put away all filthiness and rampant wickedness and receive with meekness the implanted word, which is able to save your souls.The question we have to grapple with here is whether or not we get better by watching someone else do it well, or if we get better by recognizing how much farther we have to go before we will be doing it well -- and therefore lean on Christ while we are working out our faith with fear and trembing.
But be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves. For if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man who looks intently at his natural face in a mirror. For he looks at himself and goes away and at once forgets what he was like. But the one who looks into the perfect law, the law of liberty, and perseveres, being no hearer who forgets but a doer who acts, he will be blessed in his doing.
And with that, before the cold medicine kicks in again, be with the Lord's people in the Lord's house on the Lord's day this week. Persevere.
54 comments:
Frank said…..”But it doesn't improve me the way a frank evaluation of myself can improve me”,
Would not the law of parsimony apply here, head cold and all?
I just love it when you are “frank with us”!
I just love it when you are “frank with us”!
I prefer for Frank to be Frank with us than for Phil or Dan to try it. Just think, if Dan ever tries to be Frank with us, Frank might attempt to be Dan with us, at which point the whole Pyro community would come apart at the seams.
(Wow, I get to leave the first serious comment even though Chantry's already spoken!)
It's a cuddly but false dichotomy, isn't it? Don't we see through it if we simply ask, "According to the Bible, which should we do: identify error, or learn truth?" Wouldn't honesty compel the answer "Both"? If we ask God which is more important, identifying error or preaching His truth, would we really expect Him to say "Oh, by all means, just be positive"? Two-thirds of Jeremiah's ministry was what we'd call "negative" (Jer. 1:10), same proportion as in 2 Tim. 4:2's "reprove, rebuke, exhort."
Jesus' first sermon wasn't "Concentrate on learning good things, because the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand!"
I can see who this would light up a certain temperament, but it really doesn't express the full Scriptural truth very well, does it?
I am still on the Cold medicine, and I am self-editing any replies.
I am also hating the new Blogger comments template, unless that is also a consequence of the cold medicine.
An extra day today. Happy 29th!
It's difficult to believe JT said that.
"But be doers of the word, and not hearers only.."-James, the Lord's brother.
James didn't seem to even hear His older Brother in his earlier years.
It's imperative to hear the Word, and eat this spiritual food our Lord gives us; and hoepfully we are all eating the Bread of life daily.
But if we are not doers of this Truth, then we will either are still unregenerate, or immature.
I shall be in the Lord's house this Lord's Day, Lord willin'!
Doesn't listening to those who really are thinking well get us to examining ourselves and finding our areas of weakness? I mean, when I hear somebody preach about how God left the thron in Paul's side so as to keep him humble, I expect them to say that I need to look at my weaknesses and depend upon God for strength. And when Jesus says that the poor in spirit receive the kingdom of God, do we think that He is not saying that we need to take into account how depraved we are? And how about sanctification? How do we mortify our sin and turn away from it without identifying it first? I have heard it said that genuine humility comes from identifying our weaknesses and learning to pray to God for help in those areas.
I could go on and on (I feel like I already have) because there is so much Scripture that shows how this idea is just plain wrong!
I hope that your head cold doesn't last too long, Frank. Especially in light of Dan's recent post on his site about the flu vs. a cold.
I agree that this is not an all or nothing issue. Paul asked the Corinthians to look to him as an example (1 Cor 4:16 and 1 Cor 11:1) but he also tells them that he lives his life in such a disciplined way so that at the end, he himself would not be ‘disqualified’ (1 Cor 9:24-27). I agree with Robert that the ponderance of scripture would call for us identify where we give in to the fleshly nature rather than feeding the new man.
Thabiti’s blog entry for Feb 18th has a video of a talk he was invited to at Trinity on the issue of whether we should adopt the theology of someone who owned slaves. Was Edwards an exceptional thinker and theologian? Absolutely, but he was still a sinner saved by grace who missed the mark in certain areas of his life. This also describes me (the sinner not the brillant thinker)and I am more helped by having the light of God’s truth expose those dark corners in my life where I love to feed the old man. I need to keep my eyes on Christ rather than on a man. Does this not again speak to the sufficiency of scripture?
I was more blessed by the well-thought genius of Frank's post than by DJP's exposure of the fallacious silliness of my comment.
That said, I have some thoughts on this, but they'll have to wait until after I've gotten the kids to school and I'm at the office.
"I think watching someone else think well is entertaining, and usually informative. But it doesn't improve me the way a frank evaluation of myself can improve me, and edify me, and further my sanctification as well as my relationships with others."
Frank, I agree with your assessment, affirming with you that our eyes must not be fixed on a fellow mortal for self-improvement. This can be idolatrous.
However, I disagree with your solution, suggesting that sanctification is a process of gazing within and observing/evaluating our own weaknesses. This too can be idolatrous.
The Scriptures tell us that our gaze must be steadfastly fixed on Christ alone, beholding his glory. It is by watching and evaluating His dazzling radiance that we are changed into his heavenly image from one degree of glory to another (2 Cor 3:8).
Keeping it short and simple now days seems to be a big problem among the brethren. Remember we will be held accountable for every idle word we twitter, tweet and retweet about.
Tom said: "Just think, if Dan ever tries to be Frank with us, Frank might attempt to be Dan with us."
Soooo funny!
Here is a good tweet for the day by Robert: "How do we mortify our sin and turn away from it without identifying it first?"
Extremely tangential thought in three... two... one...
Might be fun someday to do an unsigned post and let readers try to guess the author. Funner still if the writer tried to imitate another's style.
“Contrary to what might be expected, I look back on experiences that at the time seemed especially desolating and painful with particular satisfaction. Indeed, I can say with complete truthfulness that everything I have learned in my 75 years in this world, everything that has truly enhanced and enlightened my experience, has been through affliction and not through happiness.”
Malcolm Muggeridge
The question we have to grapple with here is whether or not we get better by watching someone else do it well, or if we get better by recognizing how much farther we have to go before we will be doing it well -- and therefore lean on Christ while we are working out our faith with fear and trembling.
But that's HARD! BTW, I find it as much of a trap to look at those who do "it" "better" than I do as those who do "it" "worse" than I do.
"It" and "Better" here are whatever my sinful heart wants them to be. I just know that I either end up discouraged or self-righteous when I focus on what others do in comparison with what I do.
Chantry wrote:
That said, I have some thoughts on this, but they'll have to wait
I first read that as "I have some thongs on this," and I'm not even on cold medicine. I'm so glad I was alert enough to look within and determine this was not a proper reading.
I agree with the both/and approach, with the added proviso that too much rooting around inside is at odds with the victorious life in Christ we are promised in the NT. Some well intentioned folk are just not "happy" until they've found several instances of how they've sinned in thought, word and deed on any given day.
John Dunn --
That's why I said, "The question we have to grapple with here is whether or not we get better by watching someone else do it well, or if we get better by recognizing how much farther we have to go before we will be doing it well -- and therefore lean on Christ while we are working out our faith with fear and trembling."
I wouldn't call it "happy" that we discover sin. It only makes me "happy" insofar as it causes me again to love Christ who died for all my sins and not just the ones I am aware of today.
"I'm more helped by watching a genius think well than by identifying the fallacies and weaknesses of myself or others."
Yeah, I gotta disagree with this as well. "More helped" to do what, exactly?
I give myself as the example. For all my adult life, I have been fighting to overcome my "inner sluggard" (I fought against it less as a child.) There are all kinds of books and experts out there to help a person who has "clutter issues." But mine was more than just a clutter problem. As I was repeatedly convicted every time I came across a verse in Proverbs that discussed the sluggard, I finally came to terms with this as a sin issue in my life. James 4:17 also kept pricking at my conscience (To him who knows the right thing to do and does not do it, to him it is sin). I finally asked a woman in my church to help hold me accountable and help me build new habits to address this as a sin rather than just an acceptable way of life for me. As I saw it, it also was hindering me from ministry opportunities in my home as well.
As I said, there are plenty of "helpful" resources out there written by smart, sleek, brilliant people who have all kinds of innovative suggestions to help me live my best life now. But apart from repentance and faith in Christ, it isn't sanctification so much as it is merely behavior modification.
One more passage of Scripture that comes to mind: 1 Corinthians 1:26-
29
For consider your calling, brethren, that there were not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble; but God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong, and the base things of the world and the despised God has chosen, the things that are not, so that He may nullify the things that are, so that no man may boast before God.
Emmanuel = God is with us.
ergo
Turkmanuel = Frank is with us.
Liked Merrilee's comment about her "best life now!" Please allow me to shift another direction. I see dozens of passages in the Word where we are not told to observe some genius but rather the fool, the sluggard, the idolatrous rich, the evil, etc. "I went by the field of the slothful," "I looked upon it, and received instruction." Proverbs 24:30,32. It looks like Scripture puts a repetitive emphasis on observation of what NOT to do than do in regard to the observation of others. "Men are but men, and all men are frail. Trust not great weights to slender threads." CHS
And since changes in format is technically on-topic, I hope that blogger is not done changing whatever they are changing. I like to check the box that enables future comments to be sent to my inbox when I comment. I have learned that if I'm not already signed in under my g-mail address, I have to publish one comment, and then another before I can click that box. OR, I can preview my comment, which allows me to sign in, proof read my comment, and click that follow-up box all in one comment submission.
Currently, that little run-around is messed up. My preview text was all over the place, AND there was no box to request follow up comments to come to my email! (sigh) And today of all days, I have a 2-month-old who has a check up appointment.
Oh well. I'll consider it all joy.
This reminds me of an illustration I've heard maybe a couple-a-dozen times - one of those oft-repeated statements the truth of which I couldn't even begin to guess at. They say (a bunch of preachers say, that is, and who are they to know?) that when the government trains agents to spot counterfeit bills they spend their time examining true bills and not false ones, because if you know the real deal, you'll not be taken in by the frauds. Similarly, we should spend more time on the truth than on error, because if you know the truth well, you won't be taken in by error.
Well, I won't pretend to know how anti-counterfeit agents are trained, but when it comes to doctrine, there's truth here - provided it isn't pushed too far.
Arguably the greatest systematic theology ever written was Francis Turretin's Institutes of Elenctic Theology. "Elenctic" (not "eclectic" - please!) means "truth through the refutation of error. In other words, in examining why the Pelagians were wrong, we discover why Augustine was right. It is impossible to divorce the systematic examination of the truth from the refutation of error. The genius of Calvin and Luther was in their refutation of Rome. More recently, the major contribution of Robert Ryymond in A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith was his refutation of Clark Pinnock. So on a formal level, I don't agree that good theology happens apart from polemics. Our grasp of truth is often honed in our debate with error.
But what of the life of the local church? The above illustration is usually told to urge preachers not to refute error from the pulpit but rather to proclaim truth. There is a legitimacy in this, but again, it can be pushed too far.
For one thing, there is a time and a place for everything. Perhaps it is true that the service of worship exists to exalt God rather than to excoriate the devil. But is there not a time and a place for doctrinal disputation even in the life of the local church?
Further, a pastor must know his congregants and their circumstances. I spend more time (in our adult Sunday School class on our confession) refuting Roman error than I ever did in my previous church; the reason is that half of my congregants grew up Catholic.
Beyond that, it is in the context of pastoral ministry that Paul warned pastors to beware of the wolves. Pastors must know the dangers that exist in order to point them out to the flock. I may know that half my church is ex-Catholic and not realize that one of my members is flirting with post-modern theology. Since the latter is a serious danger in today's world, it must be addressed at some point.
(cont.)
(cont. from above)
Where I would agree with the statement is that generally we are more blessed by examination of the truth than of falsehood. The former points us to Christ, the latter to our sin. Or, if you prefer, the former is gospel while the latter is law. Both are needed; one is more of a blessing.
Further, because of this, our focus ought to be on the examination of truth. But, since there is a context for the refutation of error, we need to be careful in how we judge the polemicist. For instance, it is true that what I gained from Robert Reymond was of a polemic refutation of Open Theism, I don't imagine that he wanders about refuting theism all the time. There is no doubt more to him.
This is particularly troublesome when it comes to bloggers. We tend to imagine that the whole person is what we see in a particular context. To take Frank (since this is his post) if all you knew were Frank's open letters last year you would assume that he is a brawler. But Frank has another blog where the relative portions of examining truth and refuting error are roughly the opposite of what they are at Pyro. And he has a church, a family, a job, and next-door neighbors. Just because he posts at this site, with its "weird, gun-slinger brand of dispensationalism" (still love that quote - forget who made it) does not mean that he spends his days beating up heretics.
But if you want to benefit from Kevin's observation, examine yourself and ask, am I always looking for a doctrinal fight, or do I reflect on the beauty of God's revelation?
(cont.)
Frank Turk and his cold are each a menace and must be stopped.
Frank, I agree that you haven’t left Christ out of the equation. However, sanctification is far more than just “leaning on Christ” as we work out our faith. This statement might imply that Christ merely stands outside of us and synergistically helps us in our own efforts to be/do better.
I realize that this post was not meant to be an exhaustive treatise on sanctification. So, I’m trying not being too critical. I simply wanted to emphasize that our sanctification is 100% dependant on our spiritual union to Christ, the living Head. The saints’ obedience to the written Word is by the living power of the indwelling Spirit of God, who generates and cultivates their New Covenant heart-fidelity by the immeasurable greatness of Christ’s resurrection-life at work in them. Such redemptive transformation from the dead involves far more than the idea conveyed with the statement “leaning on Christ”. We don’t merely lean on Christ. We live Christ, as he lives powerfully in us.
Donsands - "It's difficult to believe JT said that."
Why?
The use of colons will give it away.
(cont. from above)
Which brings us back to Justin. I think that Justin knows and agrees with all of this. On the principle of treating others as I wish to be treated, I won't try to comprehend his theology on the basis of a tweet. That said, the problem is three-fold:
1. We live in such a post-modern, get-along, everybody's OK era that statements like his are dangerous in a context in which there is no context. We know exactly where lesser minds will go with Justin's tweet, so perhaps those sentiments would have been better reserved for a post in which sufficient nuance (that was for you, Dan!)is possible.
2. There's nothing that says the tweet was intended in a combative sense, but it sure is open to that interpretation. Saying, "I benefit more from this," could be a slap in any number of directions. As in, "Shut up, Haters!" Again, we trust Justin and don't think he meant it that way, but again, Twitter opens us up to these possibilities.
3. And here's what I have trouble with: the words "of myself." This sounds defensive. It sounds like "Don't tell me where I'm wrong, just tell me what is right." If, though, I am wrong, then I'll never hear what's right without having my own fallacies identified.
But again, it was a tweet. I'm with Frank in that it was a disturbing tweet that opens the door to a lot of what's wrong with our theological culture. At the same time, at the end of the day I have better thoughts about Justin than what is potentially wrong with this statement.
John Dunn --
Well let go and let God then?
#participate
Perhaps: but that would be the first thing I'd emulate. So...
@DJP half the time people thank Phil even when you do sign your name, you think it will get better if you don't tell us beforehand? ;)
@Tom Chantry Come visit me in Houston and I'll arrange a tour so you can ask some "anti-counterfeiting agents" firsthand.
@Frank Turk: get well, although I dare say you think better on cold medicine than most of us do clearheaded.
Frank, yes!
We let go of the old man and embrace the new man - Christ in us the hope of glory. We don't become mystical automatons. Rather, we are empowered to live out of a new resurrection-life that is not intrinsic to the old nature. We still work out our salvation with fear and trembling. But this new faith-obedience is 100% dependant on our living union to Christ. His Spirit produces Christ's life in us to bear His fruit and fulfill His will. Imperfect in this life? Yes. But all covered under his redeeming grace.
I am really hating the comments layout. I mean like: really. It's like we're suddenly in 1997 or something.
@ Frank,
The pictures above the comment have the effect of breaking up the text and making the conversation less observable.
I think it stinks, but I'm afraid to comment or Kaj will surf in and blame it on my anti-progressive ecclesiological prejudices.
:-)
I know, I know; I am loved.
I see Justin as a more foundational reformed Christian Dan.
I suppose I shouldn't be surprised.
JT is usually well balanced, is what I was thinking.
You might consider using the Disqus comments option.
Having never read what Mr Ortlund wrote, I have no understanding of the context in which Mr. Ortlund speaks.
I think that the quote is valuable if we think of it as limited to just the one thing the "genius" is thinking about.
For instance. If I watch a very good mathematician work through a problem, then I may be edified in my mathematical thinking. It may help me more than identifying my own "fallacies and weaknesses" in mathematical thinking. It may not do much for my evaluation of my own sin or failures in other areas of my life, but it sure might do some good for my mathematical thinking. Maybe.
Now if I watch Dan, Frank, Phil and Tom work through a thought (such as this one) then I may be edified in my thinking and theology on this particular subject. It may actually do me more good than "identifying the fallacies and weaknesses" in my own thinking on this subject. It is certainly not a substitute for "identifying the fallacies and weaknesses" in many other areas of my life (of which there are plenty).
Did that make any sense? Oh well.
Frank hasn't been the same since he lost the ability to clown people.
I'd hate to see what a hot toddy would do to you. ;)
I thought Frank wrote about nuance...or was that Dan writing as Frank? Is this some kind of weird test?
Dan and Frank both wrote about "nuance." Dan was against it. Then Frank was for it. And when Frank was for it, Dan was too. So I suppose you could say that Dan was against nuance before he was for it.
Word Verification: "yclicus kehatuti" - which this time kind of makes sense; it's the sound you'll hear in Dan's throat when he reads this comment.
I know that we shouldn't take the structure of a letter or even an attempt to outline Paul's thought as a God-given descriptive methodology for our practice (despite all the philosophizing on the supposed indicative-imperative dichotomy), but it's interesting that in Colossians 2:6-23, a great warning against falling into deep humanistic, mystic heresy, Paul spends all of 2 verses on the "positive instruction" (Walk in Christ) and the next 16 verses on the negative warnings ("don't be taken captive...don't let anyone pass judgment" etc). Yet, in those 16 verses, still most of the words, especially verses 9-15, 17, 19, are a recapitulation of the truths about Christ and the gospel that were already given in Colossians 1. Always interesting to me.
@Tom ... haha ... just jokes.
As far as the tweet, I also disagree ... if it was intended to be an "either/or" way of looking at it.
If an "either/or" I would also disagree if the statement was made in reverse.
I need truth AND correction and am edified by both. Where bloggers, preachers, parents and friends can fail is in leaning so heavily on one at the expense of the other ... and by doing so fail those they hope to minister to and fail to display, teach and live the whole gospel.
"I'm more helped by watching a genius think well than by identifying the fallacies and weaknesses of myself or others."
I guess I get to be one of the few that endorses this quote.
Theologically, I prefer to follow inspiring examples instead of *just* knowing that "Verse X says to act like this in Situation Y, and I didn't." Don't get me wrong, knowing what the Bible says to do is important, but without an example, most folks have trouble putting theory into practice.
It's part of the benefits of being in community with people. Instead of only having our own errors, we can also get examples of people who do it right. I can learn from people who are soft-spoken, instead of just knowing that I'm not. It's a question of application, not simply academic understanding.
Also, simply ruminating on the considerable extent of my own weaknesses is often a very quick way to get very depressed. I really like to be inspired by a good example instead of only being shamed by my own. It's one thing to say "Man, I need to stop this", and quite another to say "Wow, that guy did stop, so I can too!"
Which brings it back to Jesus, the genius Truth that gave a perfect example of how to do it all right.
My $.02
-Soren
"..simply ruminating on the considerable extent of my own weaknesses"
We need to always, always remember Christ saying to His Father: "It is Finished", when we do see our own sinfulness.
We need to know ourselves, and we need to know Christ. These are most urgent, not having examples, which we also need.
Here's my favorite hymn touches on this issue: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3IQUXJ_H16Y&feature=related
To me, Frank's post was in line with Romans 12:3 "For by the grace given to me I say to everyone among you not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think with sound judgment..."
We are to think truthfully and rightfully about ourselves, even when and especially when it is ugly. We are not to gloss over it, but are to be sober minded about it as our hearts are easily deceived by the indwelling sin of pride so as to think more highly of ourselves than we should. To me this is thinking well, not thinking well of myself, but thinking well about myself.
The new Blogger template is a consequence of the Fall.
And Steve Jobs was a genius who thought well. But an evil one.
....and as bad as the new Blogger template is for reading via a laptop, what it does to reading via iPhones takes it into demonic territory.
Paging Driscoll in three....two...one....
I don't think that this comment thread is about the subject in the original post. But I remain confused most of the time.
...because exceptional intellect is a largely worthless gift if not a curse.
And I'm not being facetious. One cannot teach beyond a student's capacity to grow and exceptional intellect limits the classroom considerably.
There are at least two problems to be avoided with always focusing on identifying error.
First, finding error is not such a difficult task, because in this world, it is everywhere in and around us. We might drive ourselves mad with an endless pursuit of rooting out error everywhere it may found.
Second, once one develops the perpetual habit of criticism, fault-finding and what I also like to call sitting in the seat of the mocker, the person often becomes mostly blind or narrow-minded toward their own faults and hyper-focused on the faults and errors of others. It becomes obvious when the fault-finder rarely receives and embraces the constructive criticism given by others.
In the end, cultivating an active pursuit of seeking out whatever is true and right and noble and pure, over against finding every error is a clearly better emphasis.
"It becomes obvious when the fault-finder rarely receives and embraces the constructive criticism given by others."
I disagree with that, and who are you to tell.....
Just kidding. All seriousness aside, we do need to always know who wicked our flesh is. If Paul said that he couldn't do the good that he wanted to (Romans 6) then how much more us.
The TeamPyro Three Amigos do a splendid work and minister to the Body of Christ with their wonderful posts and articles when they warn us of the craftiness of our enemy in this world.
Have a great lord's day Trinity.
Post a Comment