Archive for December 7th, 2008

I have encountered a number of verses that ADM’s and their ilk ignore, or at least insist that my understanding of the verse is woefully incorrect, and then mis-apply another verse to “prove” their “point”.

1) My stomach is particularly turned when certain scamps tacitly claim to be God and even go so (blasphemously) far as to declare who will and who will not go to heaven.  But quote 1 Samuel 16:7 to them:

… for man looks at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart.

perhaps with a reminder that they are a man, and not God, and they ignore you and stand by their claims.  Or they’ll twist Luke 6:44 (”every tree is known by its fruit”) into some divine carte blanche for them to pass judgment on anything and everything.

2) Or hear them carping about methodology of which they don’t approve and remind them of 1 Corinthians 9:22:

I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.

You’ll be told that “that’s not what Paul meant”.  And, of course, they have the insight to know exactly what some guy who’s been dead for 1900 years meant.  Didn’t you learn anything from #1?

3) Note the ungracious manner in which they “address” an issue, and quote Galatians 6:1:

Brethren, if a man is overtaken in any trespass, you who are spiritual restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness, considering yourself lest you also be tempted.

Rarely is this one ever even responded to.  (The exception being the laughable misapplication of Titus 3:9 that I noted in my last post.)

4) But it occurs to me that there’s another verse that they ignore, and ironically it’s one of their favorites — or at least would seem to be, with as often as they whip it out (emphasis mine):

2 Timothy 4:3-4 — For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers;  and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables.

This passage is, of course, applied to every teacher with whom the ADMs disagree and to those who support any 3 words that those teachers ever said or wrote.

But for some, it’s just as applicable in reverse.  If your desire is to gorge yourself on incessant slams on certain teachers (or worse yet, you build an entire “ministry” around such slams), perhaps you’re identifying the counterfeit by studying it too much, and not studying the truth enough.

  • Share/Bookmark

The ends don’t justify the means, but is it possible that the ends justify the exclusion of some means?

In Britain, a website did a man-on-the-street kind of study:

Representatives from price comparison website, wandered the streets this morning wearing sandwich boards offering a free £5 note to anyone who asked. Despite encountering over 1800 people, only 28 passers by bothered to take advantage of the offer.

That’s a whole lot of people who wouldn’t ask for the money.  If you follow the link to the press release, you’ll find the reasons people gave for not asking for the money (cynicism, unbelief, and embarrasment) and the conclusions drawn about people’s attitudes toward money in Britain.  But, I’m more interested in what that says about the effectiveness of the form of communication.  How much more would cynicism, unbelief, and embarrasment  come into play when the message is religious and/or negative?

I’ll admit (before it comes up in the comments) that sandwich boards aren’t all that popular among street evangelists (as far as I know), but signage seems to be holding strong among protestors and other angry people trying to communicate a point.  I just can’t see signs being an effective way of communicating the most important truth ever, especially after reading the story above.

  • Share/Bookmark

Tags: , ,