2 Timothy 2:16

Shun profane and vain babblings.

Shun

The word rendered “shun” is a strong one, and signifies, literally, to make a circuit so as to avoid; or as Alford paraphrases it, “the meaning seems to come from a number of persons falling back from an object of fear or loathing, and standing at a distance round it.” The word is used in Titus 3:9. (H. D. M. Spence, M. A.)

They will increase unto more ungodliness.

Will increase

προκόψουσιν. The metaphor is from pioneers clearing the way before an army, by cutting down all obstacles: hence to make progress, to advance. (James Bryce, LL. D.)

A lax life connected with erroneous doctrine

The close connection between grave fundamental errors in doctrine and a lax and purely selfish life is constantly alluded to by St. Paul. (H. D. M. Spence, M. A.)

Error is of an encroaching nature

Let the serpent but wind in his head, and he will quickly bring in his whole body. He that saith Yea to the devil in a little, shall not say Nay when he pleases. (J. Trapp.)

The odium theologicum, the worst of social devils

On approaching my subject I shall premise four things:

1. I have no disposition to underrate the importance of right beliefs in religion.

2. I hold it to be the right of every man to endeavour to propagate his beliefs.

3. I recognise the value of a rightly-conducted theological controversy.

4. The controversy of which I have to speak is that of a conventional theology. By a conventional theology I mean a theology which a man has received from others, rather than reached by his own research; a theology which has been put into his memory as a class of propositions, rather than wrought out of his soul as spiritual convictions; a theology which is rather the manufacture of other men than the growth of individual reflection and experience; a theology which is more concerned about grammar than grace--symbol than sense--sign than substance. Now, such controversies, in the nature of the case, must always be marked by two features.

(1) Technicality.

(2) Personality.

I. Such controversies develop the most impious arrogancy. All the arrogancy of mere worldly men pales into dimness in the glare of the arrogancy which that man displays who dares pronounce a brother heretic because he subscribes not to his own views.

II. Such controversies develop the most lamentable dishonesty. The polemic of a mere scribe theology has ever been a cheat.

1. He cheats by the representation he makes of himself. He would have his readers or hearers believe that he has reached the conclusions in debate by a thorough study for himself of the holy Book. It is false. It is a law that self-reached convictions expel dogmatism. But the polemic of a mere scribe-theology cheats also by representing himself as being inspired only in the controversy by love for truth. It is not lore for truth; it is love for his own opinions.

2. He is dishonest in his representation of his opponents, he imputes motives not felt--ideas and conclusions not held.

III. Such controversies develop a most disastrous perversity. The conventional controversialist perverts the Bible, the powers of the intellect and the zeal of the heart.

IV. Such controversies develop the most heartless inhumanity. They blind the polemic to the excellences of others. The technical theologue who looks at a brother through the medium of his own orthodoxy, will fraternise with a modern scoundrel if he is orthodox; but, like Caiaphas of old, will rend his robes with pious horror at incarnate virtue if it conform not to his own views. What inhumanities have not been perpetrated in the name of orthodoxy! What built the inquisition? What kindled the flames of martyrdom? What animated Bonner? What prompted Calvin to murder Servetus? What roused the Jewish rabbis to put the Son of God to death? The remarks made will suffice to justify the proposition that the controversies of a mere conventional theology are the most effective means of developing depravity. (D. Thomas, D. D.)

Profane babbling to be avoided

I. Profane vain babblings are to be avoided. How often does our apostle condemn them? Why are they to be avoided?

1. Because the branches which bear them are evil; as weakness of judgment, frowardness of will, and disorder in tile affections.

2. And do they not blemish our reputation? obscure the gloss of grace? hinder the acts of it? kindle corruption? and turn from the faith?

II. The causes which increase sin are to be removed. (J. Barlow, D. D.)