|
Sophists And Sophistry By Steven Harper The original Sophists were some Greeks who travelled the regions surrounding Greece in the 5th century B.C., arguing and debating any and all topics just for the sake of argument. Their influence was powerful on the Greek culture and their methods are still seen in Western thought and philosophy still today. [The word philosophy itself is tied to these men. Philo- (love of) + sophos (wisdom, or knowledge).] Many centuries later, their disciples were still in Athens (Acts 17:21), and Paul sparked their interest when he spoke of something they had not yet heard. But, like most Sophists, they were not really interested in truth; they just wanted to debate, orate, or obfuscate. Some, particularly a man named Protagoras, believed that truth itself was relative to the individual [relativism’s beginning] and “has no independent absolute existence, but is dependent upon the individual and the particular situation in which one finds oneself.” [What we call moral relativism, or situation ethics.] Note the following description of these men: “The most popular career of a Greek of ability at the time was politics; hence the sophists largely concentrated on teaching rhetoric. The aims of the young politicians whom they trained were to persuade the multitude of whatever they wished them to believed. The search for truth was not top priority. Consequently the sophists undertook to provide a stock of arguments on any subject, or to prove any position. They boasted of their ability to make the worse appear the better reason, to prove that black is white. …To attain these ends mere quibbling, and the scoring of verbal points were employed. In this way, the sophists tried to entangle, entrap, and confuse their opponents, and even, if this were not possible, to beat them down by mere violence and noise. They sought also to dazzle by means of strange or flowery metaphors, by unusual figures of speech, by epigrams and paradoxes, and in general by being clever and smart, rather than earnest and truthful. Hence our word “sophistry”: the use of fallacious arguments knowing them to be such.” [From The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy; http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/s/sophists.htm ] It seems the Sophists have not gone away! No longer do they travel the Greek countryside, arguing and debating — now they make the rounds of the pulpits across this country, in churches, brotherhood papers, and Internet e-mail lists far and wide. They are found in religious discussions and debates everywhere they may be found and, as of old, the search for truth is not the top priority. The Sophist and his sophistry is found in the words of a Baptist minister who, referring to Acts 2:38, said since ‘repent’ was in the imperative mode, aorist tense-active voice, 2nd person plural, that it was a command, while ‘be baptized’ was in the optative mode, aorist tense, passive voice, 3rd person singular, indicating that it was ‘optional’ and not commanded, nor connected to ‘forgiveness’ later in the verse. [Dr. David McAlpin, from a sermon entitled ‘Am I saved through faith alone, or must I be baptized?’ delivered February 22, 1998, at the First Baptist Church of Harvester, MO.] What we have is a lot of fancy argumentation [i.e., sophistry] to say baptism has nothing to do with forgiveness of sins, though Peter clearly said it did in the context [and later, in 1 Pet. 3:21, he said it saves us through the resurrection of Jesus]. And to top it off, he concluded the lesson that was filled with his many arguments about why baptism is unnecessary for salvation with the statement that he, personally, believed one could not be a ‘real Christian’ and not be baptized. Huh? Sophistry! The Sophist and his sophistry is also seen in the Roman Catholic who debates the matter of human tradition versus the word of God by beginning with the claim that the word of God survives today only because “the church” [i.e., the Roman Catholic Church (RCC)] preserved it. The point being argued is, if it weren’t for the RCC [who follows the traditions of men], we wouldn’t even have the word from which we find the reasons to argue against the traditions of men (cf. Matt. 15:1-9)! Such argumentation is presumptuous and egotistical, in the least, and pure sophistry through and through. Did we forget the RCC was responsible for burning any writings that conflicted with their ‘traditions’ — and those who possessed such papers? Sophistry! But the Sophist and his sophistry can also be found within some churches of Christ across this country! When I hear men say that they do not personally support the doctrine that one man is preaching because it is false, but at the same time, say we should join in hearty and boundless fellowship with him because “his motives were pure,” I have discovered the Sophist among us! These Neo-Sophists claim that one is not a false teacher unless he intends to deceive. Sophistry! And then I hear brethren who lambast such arguments then turn around and say they have no problem having fellowship with a different brother because his [false] doctrine [on the same topic, no less] is “only a difference in application.” Sophistry! Instead of a sincere search for truth, these Neo-Sophists are striving about words [just read their articles, and you will see what I mean] and are trying “to entangle, entrap, and confuse their opponents, and even, if this were not possible, to beat them down by mere violence and noise. They [seek] also to dazzle by means of strange or flowery metaphors, by unusual figures of speech, by epigrams and paradoxes, and in general by being clever and smart, rather than earnest and truthful.” Honest men who are trying to get to the heart of the matter are being prevented by a few hypocritical ones from being widely heard because the truth is not what is being sought! Should some folks actually hear what some of these preachers are teaching, even the babe in Christ could see through the flimsy arguments and would recognize error for what it was. Right now, there are preachers who are defending a man — a man! — because he is their friend. Some have at least admitted that they cannot support what he teaches [though they omit calling it ‘false teaching’ for some reason], but they are defending the man! Those who are trying to get him to lay out his beliefs on the matter are rebuffed by the ‘guardians of truth’ [as they so hypocritically call themselves] and, instead, they continue to post article after article from this man that dances all around the issue and does not reveal what the issue is all about! And if that were not bad enough [teaching by proxy], these men continue to write lengthy articles about issues that are not the point of contention! Sophistry! I issue a challenge to those involved. [You know who you are. If I must name names, that will happen.] For those who believe [or support] this teaching that a man [or woman] may put away his or her spouse after they have already been divorced, please show me the Scripture where this is taught! Notice, I said nothing about “civil divorce.” THAT IS NOT THE ISSUE! ‘Procedure’ is not the issue! The issue is: Can an individual put away his spouse after he has already been divorced? Will we continue with sophistry, or is someone out there really interested in the truth? I await.
From: The Burns Park BEACON,
a bulletin of the Burns Park church of Christ,
North Little Rock, AR. |
|