Jump to content

Photo

Need A Break


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
51 replies to this topic

#41 candlelight

candlelight

    Super Contributor

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,358 posts
746
Excellent

Posted 05 May 2014 - 07:27 AM

It will be so nice to have you back, Bro. Garry.  Also, I miss your scrumptious recipes in the "What's For Supper" thread:)

 



#42 Salyan

Salyan

    Super Contributor

  • Moderators
  • 3,104 posts
994
Excellent
  • LocationSP AB CA

Posted 05 May 2014 - 09:23 AM

Contending for the faith (Jude 1:3) doesn't require or expect one to be contentious. Contending for the faith is a matter of standing firm in the faith. Contention and strife is not the way, but rather speaking the truth in love.

 

According to Scripture, if we believe a brother to be wrong in some thing we are to kindly and patiently speak the truth in love to them, with the hope and aim to restore and edify them; not to beat up on them, nor to demean them or cast disparaging words at them.

 

This. Yes.

 

No one is ever told to rebuke a fellow Christian?
 

 

That's not what he said. He is making a difference between contentious (a wrong attitude) and contending, and he is exactly right. Comparing Scripture with Scripture, we have to both earnestly contend and speak the truth in love - God gives us both commands and does not seem to think that they are mutually exclusive. So they must not be.  One can do a necessary rebuke out of a contentious (prideful, angry) spirit and actually be in the wrong themselves for coming at the issue in such a manner, or someone can do that rebuke as instructed - 'them that are spiritual, restore such a one' 'in the spirit of meekness'. Being spiritual does not mean that they think they are so much more spiritually advanced than the other - that would be pride. It is coming with the acknowledged help of the Holy Spirit Who is the one that produces meekness in us in order to seek to restore the other without our own pride or anger getting in the way. We can contend for the faith with the same spirit. There are very few times when a 'cleansing the temple' approach is actually required, I think. More often it is our own pride or stubborn spirit insist on such a bombastic approach rather than the Holy Spirit.



#43 2bLikeJesus

2bLikeJesus

    Member

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 340 posts
388
Excellent
  • LocationRoseburg, OR

Posted 05 May 2014 - 09:26 AM

Thank you Candlelight.  Hotpockets and Pizza delivery are not very exciting for dinner, but I haven't had the time to prepare a proper meal in a couple of weeks. I'm actually caught up on homework today, the weather is nice and my barbecue has not been pulled out of winter storage yet.  Maybe time to fire it up today.



#44 candlelight

candlelight

    Super Contributor

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,358 posts
746
Excellent

Posted 05 May 2014 - 09:51 AM

Thank you Candlelight.  Hotpockets and Pizza delivery are not very exciting for dinner, but I haven't had the time to prepare a proper meal in a couple of weeks. I'm actually caught up on homework today, the weather is nice and my barbecue has not been pulled out of winter storage yet.  Maybe time to fire it up today.

I know what you mean, Brother Garry.  As soon as things calm down with your schooling, you will be back to being the chef that you are.  Good for you!  Sounds like a plan to me.



#45 ASongOfDegrees

ASongOfDegrees

    Super Contributor

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,085 posts
675
Excellent

Posted 05 May 2014 - 01:14 PM

This. Yes.

 

 

That's not what he said. He is making a difference between contentious (a wrong attitude) and contending, and he is exactly right. Comparing Scripture with Scripture, we have to both earnestly contend and speak the truth in love - God gives us both commands and does not seem to think that they are mutually exclusive. So they must not be.  One can do a necessary rebuke out of a contentious (prideful, angry) spirit and actually be in the wrong themselves for coming at the issue in such a manner, or someone can do that rebuke as instructed - 'them that are spiritual, restore such a one' 'in the spirit of meekness'. Being spiritual does not mean that they think they are so much more spiritually advanced than the other - that would be pride. It is coming with the acknowledged help of the Holy Spirit Who is the one that produces meekness in us in order to seek to restore the other without our own pride or anger getting in the way. We can contend for the faith with the same spirit. There are very few times when a 'cleansing the temple' approach is actually required, I think. More often it is our own pride or stubborn spirit insist on such a bombastic approach rather than the Holy Spirit.

No contention here, "TheSword" believes that every word in the KJV to be an potential error because of how "definitions change over the years". He'll let us know when he gets his lexicon out.

 

The problem in this forum, as in all of America, people think being nice is being spiritual and nobody wants to call it like it is. 

 

Anyone who waves his bible around proclaiming it to be the word of God without error then corrects it at every chance he/she can is a lying hypocrite.

 

How's that be being kind?


Edited by ASongOfDegrees, 05 May 2014 - 01:15 PM.


#46 Salyan

Salyan

    Super Contributor

  • Moderators
  • 3,104 posts
994
Excellent
  • LocationSP AB CA

Posted 05 May 2014 - 02:04 PM

No contention here, "TheSword" believes that every word in the KJV to be an potential error because of how "definitions change over the years". He'll let us know when he gets his lexicon out.

 

The problem in this forum, as in all of America, people think being nice is being spiritual and nobody wants to call it like it is. 

 

Anyone who waves his bible around proclaiming it to be the word of God without error then corrects it at every chance he/she can is a lying hypocrite.

 

How's that be being kind?

 

Terrible. How about you stop poking at TheSword and trying to stir up trouble?
BTW, definitions do change over the years. That's why it's important to understand what the definitions meant at the time the KJV was originally published in order to understand the true meaning of the text.

And no, being nice does not equal being spiritual. Plenty of nice, lost people out there. However, like I said, being contentious does not equal contending either.



#47 heartstrings

heartstrings

    He shall feed his flock like a shepherd....

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,308 posts
1,135
Excellent

Posted 05 May 2014 - 02:32 PM

No contention here, "TheSword" believes that every word in the KJV to be an potential error because of how "definitions change over the years". He'll let us know when he gets his lexicon out.

 

The problem in this forum, as in all of America, people think being nice is being spiritual and nobody wants to call it like it is. 

 

Anyone who waves his bible around proclaiming it to be the word of God without error then corrects it at every chance he/she can is a lying hypocrite.

 

How's that be being kind?

Can I say something here, brother? I, for one, believe the KIng James Bible to be the absolutely "very pure" Word of God without error and don't believe in correcting a single "jot or tittle" of it. Our English language has suffered and continues to suffer something called "linguistic drift". The word "conversation", for instance, once meant "manner of life" but now we use it to refer to having a chat. The word "cattle" was a general word which referred to all of your hoofed critters including cows, sheep and goats. Today "cattle" is specialized to only mean "moocows" whereas the King James specifically calls those "kine". Did you know that? There are many more words like that in the King James. That doesn't mean the Bible is inaccurate; it means our modern language has "dumbed down". What we have to do is study by looking up the origins and "roots" of the words.



#48 candlelight

candlelight

    Super Contributor

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,358 posts
746
Excellent

Posted 05 May 2014 - 03:14 PM

Can I say something here, brother? I, for one, believe the KIng James Bible to be the absolutely "very pure" Word of God without error and don't believe in correcting a single "jot or tittle" of it. Our English language has suffered and continues to suffer something called "linguistic drift". The word "conversation", for instance, once meant "manner of life" but now we use it to refer to having a chat. The word "cattle" was a general word which referred to all of your hoofed critters including cows, sheep and goats. Today "cattle" is specialized to only mean "moocows" whereas the King James specifically calls those "kine". Did you know that? There are many more words like that in the King James. That doesn't mean the Bible is inaccurate; it means our modern language has "dumbed down". What we have to do is study by looking up the origins and "roots" of the words.

 

:thumb: heart!



#49 Genevanpreacher

Genevanpreacher

    Seeker of God's Wisdom

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 544 posts
173
Excellent
  • LocationIndiana, USA

Posted 05 May 2014 - 03:20 PM

If people would treat their English Bible as importantly as their Greek apparatus, we would all be the better for it.

God has never 'spoken' to me through the Greek language, but good ol' proper English!   :godisgood:

It's what I's understandest da bestest! :clapping:


Edited by Genevanpreacher, 05 May 2014 - 03:21 PM.


#50 candlelight

candlelight

    Super Contributor

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,358 posts
746
Excellent

Posted 05 May 2014 - 03:34 PM

God has always spoke to me through the KJV, GP.  It is my final authority.  However, when I would like to know the meaning of those archaic words, I have a little book called "The King James Bible Companion - OVER 600 ARCHAIC WORDS DEFINED by David W. Daniels", Webster's 1828 dictionary, or the Greek.  Little helps are okay, brother.  I don't see anything wrong with that.  :) 



#51 TheSword

TheSword

    Senior Member

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 840 posts
664
Excellent

Posted 05 May 2014 - 03:52 PM

No contention here, "TheSword" believes that every word in the KJV to be an potential error because of how "definitions change over the years". He'll let us know when he gets his lexicon out.

 

The problem in this forum, as in all of America, people think being nice is being spiritual and nobody wants to call it like it is. 

 

Anyone who waves his bible around proclaiming it to be the word of God without error then corrects it at every chance he/she can is a lying hypocrite.

 

How's that be being kind?

 

You know...with most things in life I’m able to let personal attacks false accusations roll right off of me; but you’ve taken it beyond too far.

 

How dare you presume to know what I believe. If you had actually read any of my posts you would know that I consistently tout the unparalleled accuracy of the KJV in rendering the Greek/Hebrew and that it is without error. If you actually read any of my posts you would know that I have never attempted to correct an KJV English rendering with a Greek or Hebrew word, and that I am overly careful not to. If you actually read any of my posts you would know that I only ever use the original languages to narrow range of meaning for the English word and enhance the understanding of it. How dare you bear false witness against me. What? Know ye not that a false witness that speaketh lies and he that soweth discord among brethren are an abomination unto God (Pro  6:16-19)?

 

How dare you call me a hypocrite.  I’ve made all of this plainly clear every time it’s come up and always uphold the authority, accuracy, and inerrancy of the KJV and only supplement other resources for better understanding it. How dare you call me a hypocrite when you sit there and claim English superiority and show a remarkably poor grasp of the language, its usage, or its history. How dare you call me a hypocrite when you claim to be a Christian and then seethe contention and malice rather showing love to your neighbors and brethren (Matt 22:39; John 13:34-34, 15:12, 15:17). Why do you call Him Lord and do not the things that He says (Luke 6:46)? What? Know ye not that revilers will not inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor 6:9-10)?

 

After taking a few days of cooling off I got on to respond to a couple of personal messages. I let my curiosity get the better of me and decided to check a notification from this thread. Why, I’ll never know. You’ve cemented the decision to leave this forum for good because you’ve sullied the environment beyond the point of Christ-honoring edification. Shame on you. I hope for your sake and the sake of those who will continue on OB that you take some serious prayer time and figure out how to treat your brothers and sisters in Christ with love and respect, because this vile garbage absolutely breaks the heart of God and if your unkind and unloving attitude chases away someone earnestly seeking Jesus Christ you'll have to live with that for eternity...and so will they.



#52 HappyChristian

HappyChristian

    Waiting patiently (ahem) for grandchildren...

  • Moderators
  • 17,150 posts
1,826
Excellent

Posted 05 May 2014 - 04:32 PM

And with that, I think we'll close this thread.  Sword, I do hope you change your mind about leaving. 

 

I think it would be a real good idea for all of us to stop and take stock of how so many have been addressing each other on this forum.  I know there are some who believe that being contentious and nasty is a good and proper way to address people who don't see eye-to-eye on every last jot and tittle with themselves, but it is not biblical, no matter how often one tries to assert their rightness in employing it.

 

I echo Sword.  Shame on you.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

The Fundamental Top 500IFB1000 The Fundamental Top 500