Is He a Scorner or Not?

Do you think that Stephen was a scorner in Acts 7? After all, he did enfuriate a crowd of people with his rhetoric. They were religious people with good intentions and they couldn't all be wrong, could they? He said this to them in vv. 51-53:

Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye. Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? and they have slain them which shewed before of the coming of the Just One; of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers: Who have received the law by the disposition of angels, and have not kept it.

Some today might call him a "vocal and abusive personalit[y] that dominate[s] and inflame[s] given situations with vitriol and scorn." Isn't "stiffnecked," "betrayers," and "murderers" a bit over the top, or at least flying right below the radar? And then what about Jesus in Matthew 23? Just as a tiny example of a whole lot that He says there, what about v. 13?

But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.

That is kind of harsh, inflexible, and dogmatic isn't it? And then "blind guides," "fools and blind," "full of extortion," "whited sepulchres," and "generation of vipers." Rampant name-calling. Harsh speech. And He just wouldn't stop. Someone might even say that "when confronted publicly [He] bluster[ed] and rant[ed,] pointing the finger at all but [Him]self."

Weren't the religious leaders, who were in the majority in each of the above situations, the actual scorners? You know they were. The very verbal minority is telling the truth. That makes a difference.

Proverbs 22:10 reads:

Cast out the scorner, and contention shall go out; yea, strife and reproach shall cease.

I want us to consider a little Scriptural logic as we think about this verse. First, however, let's discover what a few of the words are about. "Strife" (diyn, pronounced "deen") is used many different ways in Scripture. The base meaning of the word is "judgment." Is all of this diyn wrong? In Deuteronomy 32:36, God is involved in diyn, when it says, "the LORD shall judge (diyn) his people." He also participates in this same activity (diyn) in 1 Samuel 2:10 among many other places. If God does it, it surely isn't all wrong, and all of it shouldn't be stopped. Only the kind caused by scorners should cease. Psalm 9:4 says:

For thou hast maintained my right and my cause; thou satest in the throne judging right.

My "right" is diyn. This diyn certainly shouldn't be eliminated, but should be maintained, and God has done that. The people against this kind of judgment or discernment would be those whom God is stopping in order to protect it. If only the "scorner" kind of diyn is to cease, then we should know what a scorner is. The "scorner" (luwts, pronounced "loots") is someone who brags, speaks boastfully, puts on airs, and derides (see HALOT lexicon). So, the kind of judgment that comes from someone bragging, putting airs, etc. is the type that should cease.

Can we conclude that all strife (judgment, debate, arguing) comes from a scorner? That's where the logic comes in. If strife ceases, and it ceases because we cast out someone, can we say that it is good? We may want strife to cease, but what if the strife is coming from God? God also judges (diyn), if you remember. He has His spokesmen who do the same. I think we can all agree that we want to get rid of the ill effects of a braggard who causes problems because he puts his opinion ahead of God's Word. However, if someone comes with an open Bible and doesn't back down, so strife ensues, does that constitute scorning? No way.

I have noticed today that often during theological debate, a person who does not have an answer for a Scripturally documented point will attack the style of the rhetoric. Is it possible that the style has been wrong? Sure. But if it were true that they didn't like wrong style, they would admit the style was wrong even when they saw it practiced by someone with whom they agreed, wouldn't they? Doesn't that make sense to you? In other words, they see someone as a scorner as only someone who dogmatically asserts a position different than theirs.

Consider this scornful sentence:

At any rate, accepting what these men (such as D. A. Waite, David Cloud, and a host of like-minded lemmings) affirm in principle, let us examine how it plays out in practice.

Could this response to that statement be scorn as well?

Regarding Mr. Kutilek's use of the word "lemming," some may view it as an insult. However, I view it as truth.

People against scorn and vitriol would probably stand up against this. Right? When they don't (and they didn't), this is tell-tale. And how about this reaction to a fellow believer who was attempting to answer questions about his book on the gospel:

Oh brother...you've got to be kidding...For my part, I have never heard of you or your book, and this thread is my introduction to both. However, to this point I am not inclined to spend hard earned money on it.

He didn't attempt to help the man understand what was wrong. He just humiliated the man in the worst possible way one could to an author, and unapologetically. Of course, he wouldn't need to say he was sorry---he was in the majority. It is only the minority that can scorn, right? The same man writes in shameless self-promotion:

I couldn't agree more with Dr. Bauder's comments! It reminded me of some thoughts that I posted after they announced the T4G conference at last year's Shepherd's conference. Here is a summary of that post.

And he links to his blog. That was all he had to say on an entire article---essentially, "I posted something already about this and here's the link to prove it." That sounds like "putting forth airs"--part of the definition of a scorner. I don't think this above statement necessarily makes him a scorner, but it would by his own way of defining the same word. The scorners don't want to take the blame for their own problems. One "young fundamentalist" writes:

"We" have our problems, no doubt. But they are rooted in the inconsistencies of those that preceded us.

To which one of his cronies, the same self-promoter as above, replies:

Interesting...I just posted on my blog to that effect...

Again, I just posted on my blog, so "I kind of beat you to excusing our own problems, buddy." And what about this?

You are like the "dogs" Paul describes in Philippians 3. You are very much like the Judiazers. You are like the Pharisees. You are like those in Galatians 3 who were attempting to add to their sanctification by man-made religious rules. And like the dogs of Philippians 3, I'm not at all surprised by your teeth, disease and bark. I don't care how you view this note.

This was someone who did not go in private before he went in public. He later apologized, but those who defended his action haven't. Who are the scorners?

If you have a whole bunch of people in a room that take one position and just a few support something contrary, who do you think the scorners will be? Of course, you know who the majority will say they are. And yet, who are the real scorners? They are the ones who will not admit when they have a position that is indefensible. James 1:19 would call them antithetically slow to hear and quick to speak and quick to wrath. Democracy doesn't determine truth. God is absolute authority. What He says goes, even if we can line up opposition that circles the globe.