We call that disgenuous in our parts.

All I asked was if you knew the difference between contend and defend…

You have turned this into a very confusing discussion that seems to lead you to think I am say we do not stand up for the truth taught in scripture and that is not true at all… I am stating we are not to use scripture as a weapon and that our defender is Jesus who is the living truth incarnate…

I am pleased you “contend” but the issue is that people like Ken and Ingrid set out a full our assault using slander and lies against others in their protection and promotion of their view of truth. That is as wrong as if they taught some errant heresy and in my view is that very thing. They promote a false view of God and truth in lying to protect the God who protects us.

If that is your view also then you are in sin and under heretical teaching and need to come out and come back to faith in Christ by Grace for there is no other way… and believe me it is in no way “rolling over” as you stated.

I hope you well on your journey and pray that you grow in the Grace and knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.

iggy

Dave,

inadvertently overlooked your question, sorry….but there was something else you brought up.

re: “calling Him “Jesus” and not “Jeshuah” then you may not know him either after all, “Jesus” is possibly a left over of the pagan influence of the post-constantine era church of “Jes” and “Zeus”… we get Joshua out of the Hebrew, why not the exact same name for Jeshuah?”

There is another very strong deception coming in every crack now that you should be aware of. It’s called the “Hebrew Roots Movement” and it appears that you are being influenced by it, judging from your comment. This one is VERY subtle and very dangerous. It is also rather complex and difficult to discern without a strong understanding of Gen.-Rev. You may want to start researching HRM. I’m not going to refute that error and contend for the truth that it is destroying, here/now. This is not the time or place. Maybe another day, but you may find it worthwhile to do the research and to identify the points of contention.

Briefly though, one of those points the is against the ‘name of Jesus’, for that name is hated amongst his enemies, and so now the attack is being ramped up to ‘wrest’ the truth from the ignorant.

I knew about that stuff before hearing about the Hebrew roots movement. My point is more that these issues aren’t black and white.

Guy’s, you’ll have to contend much better than that.

Iggy,

re: I am confident in the Lord that you will take no other view

Jude 5

“I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not.”

confidence aside, many do start well but then take another ‘view’, here called what it truly is: unbelief. That’s due to some perversity in the heart of the individual.

….but still there is a need to refute that false view, warning others and ‘contending’ for the truth….the correct ‘view’, even sometimes having to ‘wrest’ the truth (”epagonizomai”) from those who would take it and pervert it. The other option is to weakly roll over and be deceived by every wind of doctrine….’not contending’.

Can you understand it now?
——————————————
Dave,

inadvertently overlooked your question, sorry….but there was something else you brought up.

re: “calling Him “Jesus” and not “Jeshuah” then you may not know him either after all, “Jesus” is possibly a left over of the pagan influence of the post-constantine era church of “Jes” and “Zeus”… we get Joshua out of the Hebrew, why not the exact same name for Jeshuah?”

There is another very strong deception coming in every crack now that you should be aware of. It’s called the “Hebrew Roots Movement” and it appears that you are being influenced by it, judging from your comment. This one is VERY subtle and very dangerous. It is also rather complex and difficult to discern without a strong understanding of Gen.-Rev. You may want to start researching HRM. I’m not going to refute that error and contend for the truth that it is destroying, here/now. This is not the time or place. Maybe another day, but you may find it worthwhile to do the research and to identify the points of contention.

Briefly though, one of those points the is against the ‘name of Jesus’, for that name is hated amongst his enemies, and so now the attack is being ramped up to ‘wrest’ the truth from the ignorant.

————————————————————–
Marty,

not going to spend time playing tit for tat, and i’m not going to do your homework either. Do it yourself.

thanks for the open invite (so to speak) to come to your Coven Community meeting…but you wouldn’t want me there. I’d tear the place up…..smash all your little nooma videos with a hammer, rip up your little workbooks, and put all of it the ‘circular file’. Then i’d make all of you sit down and get a real bible and learn some truth from the Word of God.

On second thought…might be kind of fun.

—————————————-
Chris. L

You’ll need to come up with something more solid than that lame excuse of ’style’ that you keep falling back on to overlook error. And you don’t need to keep rambling on, using all those big words too, like……..dirrative…or… naractic…or whatever you said…..and btw, what was that about Herman Munster?

Oh and you’re wearing out that word ’slander’….so here is a list of alternatives….maybe you can change it up now and then, might be a little more interesting:

asperse, assail, attack, backbite*, bad-mouth*, belie, belittle, besmirch, blacken name*, blackwash, blaspheme, blister, blot, calumniate, curse, damage, decry, defame, defile, denigrate, depreciate, derogate, detract, dishonor, disparage, hit*, hurt, injure, libel, malign, muckrake, pan*, plaster, revile, roast*, scandalize, scorch, slam*, slur, smear*, smirch, sneer, strumpet, sully, tarnish, tear down, traduce, vilify
—————————————————

I’m finished now with this thread but if you really want me to i’ll bust up another ping pong match…er I mean hijack another boring post one day, but it’ll have to be something that is worth contending for.

Now I hope all this isn’t too rough….we play rough where i’m from.

finally, if it is true that the discerner discerners have no discernment, than what is the reason?

Well, that brings us to the thought of the day:

Rambach /Sacred Hermeneutics, (page 81,)

The spiritual man only can thus pierce through the letter, and grasp the very marrow of God’s word: the carnal mind is in this respect utterly blind, for these things are only spiritually discerned.

smile

2 Peter

3His divine power has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of him who called us to his own glory and excellence, 4by which he has granted to us his precious and very great promises, so that through them you may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped from the corruption that is in the world because of sinful desire. 5For this very reason, make every effort to supplement your faith with virtue, and virtue with knowledge, 6and knowledge with self-control, and self-control with steadfastness, and steadfastness with godliness, 7and godliness with brotherly affection, and brotherly affection with love. 8For if these qualities are yours and are increasing, they keep you from being ineffective or unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9For whoever lacks these qualities is so nearsighted that he is blind, having forgotten that he was cleansed from his former sins. 10Therefore, brothers, be all the more diligent to make your calling and election sure, for if you practice these qualities you will never fall. 11For in this way there will be richly provided for you an entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

I agree that if one does not have the fullness of scripture they go off track… as you have…

Here is the passage

Galatians 5

1. Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.
2. Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.
3. For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.
4. Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.
5. For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith.
6. For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.
7. Ye did run well; who did hinder you that ye should not obey the truth?
8. This persuasion cometh not of him that calleth you.
9. A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.
10. I have confidence in you through the Lord, that ye will be none otherwise minded: but he that troubleth you shall bear his judgment, whosoever he be.

Note these things…

1. Paul is exhorting them to stand firm and not be persuaded to go to the law which is the yoke of bondage.

2. These men taught that one must be under the law first then circumcised, then they would be acceptable to God to accept the Jewish messiah.

3. Paul states to do this, then one misses the point of the freedom of Christ and then under the Law must obey the whole of the Law.

4. If one then is under the Law, then Christ is of no effect for you as you are no longer under Grace but the Law and hope in the Law that it will justify you by your own works.

5. We hope that we will have a righteousness that comes by faith… as a true believer.

6. Being circumcised does nothing… as being under the Law does nothing for righteousness, but faith works its way (expresses itself) out in Love.

7. Here I agree that Paul is stating that they “were running a good race” but have become confused. (Here I agree I did error but I did so in reference to a verse ahead of the exhortation I was speaking of.)

8. The teaching they received was not from God…

9. A little Law works through the whole batch…

10. This is the exhortation I was speaking of but misreferenced… Paul states: “I am confident in the Lord that you will take no other view.” and then Paul leaves room for God to move and judge and states, “The one who is throwing you into confusion will pay the penalty, whoever he may be.”

The issue is that I do not see by this how you defend those who preach the Law be it Mosaic or of man… Ken, Ingrid and crew add to Grace their own standard that amount to nothing and nullifies grace. We either live by Grace through faith, or we die trying to live by our own works.

I do not see where those you accuse nullify grace, but I am seeing where you might be doing so…

Also, this was off the main point of whether you understand the difference between contend and defend. So do you? Can you answer that question? It is a simple one…

Again, those you accuse adding to the grace of God, where is your proof? I think this blog is full of proof of those that do and this blog speaks out against such apostates… is that unkind to you? that I stand against those who try to add works to grace and make people fall from grace?

Be blessed,
iggy