It would seem that mostly this is refering to Christians arguing over Old Covenant issues such as family trees and points of the Law.
No doubt that is included–there was always the ‘party of the circumcision’ who wanted Christians to continue in all the Jewish traditions–which Paul often addresses and the book of Hebrews as well–but I don’t think we should stop there. In my opinion, the application is much broader than only those things. Those were the ‘big issues’ of Paul’s day.
I don’t think he means we’re never to discuss things–that Christians should never argue–but the ‘discussions’ should not supercede the reality of salvation and the carrying out of the practice of our faith.
The principle I would draw from this is that to be true to our Lord and his salvation, and that resulting in our giving attention to good deeds, is more profitable than engaging in ‘foolish controversies.’
Sonia
And what qualifies for a “foolish controversy”? Isn’t the matter of the extent of Christ’s victory something far from foolish?
The extent of the Victory is hardly foolish, but perhaps the controversy itself becomes foolish, because it is unprofitable? What do you think?
This particular conversation, for instance, seems to be going exactly nowhere–and doing no good to anyone–or maybe it is and I’m just not aware of it.
There’s a very similar passage in 2Tim 2, part of which is:
The Lord’s bond-servant must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all, able to teach, patient when wronged, with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth,
The question that comes to mind there is: what is the difference between quarreling and patiently correcting another who is in opposition to oneself. And is it presumptuous to assume that oneself is correct and the other is incorrect and in need of repentance?
I can see that much good lies in both parties being humble, patient, and gentle with each other–and that, if that were the case, their discussions would not be charactarized as “quarrelsome”.
Sonia
For me, the problem is in the topic itself and the round and round nature of the discussion and each side is going by different hermeneutics - literal, symbolic, historical ways of looking at the same text. Of course, I’ve never seen a discussion based on The Rev that didn’t end in a morass.
A solid case for universalism can be built on the Gospels and Epistles and is undone when TheRev is taken in isolation which is where it always heads because of the stark contradictions that surface. But it’s not the last word if it’s the Word at all.
Sonia,
What does this mean: “in opposition to oneself”?
Thanks,
roofus
That wasn’t the best choice of words on my part. I was thinking specifically of an opponent in a debate such as this–differing opinions over the meaning of scripture.
Sonia