garyarnold:

Webster's Unabridged Dictionary copyright 1999, CD rom edition, using definition of TITHE.

American Heritage Dictionary, Third Edition, copyright 1994.

I also have my mother's dictionary she got when she graduated from college:

MacMillan's Modern Dictionary - 1938 edition: Tithe - tenth part, or any small part, of
produce, profits, or the like paid as a tax or as a voluntary contribution, esp. for religion
or charitable use.

How is this different from what I tried to explain? The Tithe is a tenth part - that is the basic meaning, no?

garyarnold:

viaro - even the definition YOU furnished shows it doesn't have to be a tenth:

That is not the issue. The question was whether the tithe has changed meaning from being a tenth part of something.

garyarnold:
3. a. A tenth part. b. A very small part.

It can be a very small part.

Yes, for 1 out of 10 is a small part, innit? If 1 out of 10 is a small part, what quarrel do we have for the understanding of the tithe basically meaning a tenth part? You seem to have been arguing as if current definitions of the tithe have completely erased its meaning from "a tenth part" to something else so that the "tenth part" meaning has been completely lost! However, from all points considered, we find that even current definitions have maintained that the basic meaning of a tithe is a tenth part of something - that tenth part is a small part compared to the half of something (50%). This is not difficult to understand, is it?

garyarnold:

And the Webster's I used also has:

a tenth part or any indefinitely small part of anything.

There again - I wondered why that Webster distionary did not argue that it is not "a tenth part"? In post #315 the previous page, the Webster dictionary of 1913 I posted also recognized this basic meaning -

"2. Hence, a small part or proportion. Bacon.
[1913 Webster]"

It holds no big difference as I explained about 1 out of 10 being a small proportion of the whole, as compared to a half like 50% or a third like 33%.

garyarnold:

ANY INDEFINITELY SMALL PART OF ANYTHING.

So modern-day dictionaries do NOT limit a tithe to a tenth.

I did not argue a limitation with you - rather, you have argued long and hard that "current" definitions of the tithe IS tax, as if all current definitions anywhere and in any dictionary limit the meaning of a tithe to tax and nothing else!

In post #336 above, I already said just about the same thing -

'If that one current definition IS tax, you are trying to sound as if that is
the only definition that source gives of tithe. . . .

The current definition of tithe still shows that basically it is
a tenth part of something - it is not just a 'tax' without a specification.'

What you have often missed out is the fact that the sources we have contacted are saying that the basic meaning of a tithe IS a tenth part of something, and as such it is a small proportion of the whole. That "tenth part" or small part/portion then is used AS either a voluntray contribution or AS a tax (as in the Saladin tithe). Even where that "tenth part" is used AS a tax, it did not fail to highlight that "It was a literal tithe of 10% on revenues and movable properties".

The point is that "current" definitions of the word "tithe" STILL have the same basic meaning of what it points to - (a) the tenth part of something; (b) a proportion of 10%; (c) a small part of something [small part since it is only 1 out of 10 compared to a half like 50% or a third like 33%]. If anyone today is seeking out the basic meaning of the word 'tithe', it is clear that the "current" definitions are all STILL pointing out that it is the TENTH PART of something! That is the fact you should not ignore.

@noetic16,

I would rather like to respect the feelings of other readers and contributors in this thread and leave it off here. Cheers.

garyarnold:

WHY recommend anything? It should come from THEIR heart, NOT your recommendation.

When you argue against tithe, are you not recommending that people should not tithe? Why put your own anti-tithing arguments before others rather than let the decision come from their hearts? If others have decided to tithe, why argue to the effect that you would rather they don't tithe otherwise they are sinning?

@Gary,

Thank you for still making the effort to show me what you feel persuaded about. However, let me try to point out something crucial which might be beneficial to both of us (I'm hoping) -

garyarnold:

viaro said, "Current definitions of tithe is not tax - that is the point."

CURRENT DEFINITION FROM WEBSTER'S DICTIONARY:
any tax, levy, or the like, esp. of one-tenth

CURRENT DEFINITION FROM THE AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY:
A tenth part of one's annual income contributed voluntarily or due as a tax,

Do you NOW see the word TAX from both dictionaries?  The current definition of tithe IS tax.  To be more accurate, ONE current definition IS tax.

Let me ask you something, please: just tell me which edition of Webster's dictionary you are quoting from, and the page, year, etc. Ditto with the American Heritage Dictionary. That will help sort out a few issues for us.

I make that request because it seems that someone just put it up on the internet in that manner and everyone is just parroting the same thing. I don't want to jump to conclusions; that was why I have pointed you to WEBSTERS dictionary of 1913 available ONLINE for you to check and see that the tithe is basically (again, please note: "basically" a tenth part of anything.

It is NOT a tax, in so far as we are trying to see what Scripture says; and those which you have argued repeatedly (like the American Heritage Dictionary) note that the tithe is "A tenth part of one's annual income" - it makes that basic definition before saying that such a "tenth part" is 'contributed voluntarily or due as a tax' - that is not saying that tithe is tax, but that it could be due as a tax - tremendous difference from arguing that the tithe is tax!

Before taking you up on this, I was quite aware that other uses of the word tithe could point what is levied as a tax - such as the "Saladin tithe", which was a royal tax, 'or more specifically a tallage, levied in England and to some extent in France in 1188, in response to the capture of Jerusalem by Saladin in 1187'. But what basically was the "tithe", if not the same meaning as a tenth part? "It was a literal tithe of 10% on revenues and movable properties" - this was the tithe; and that "literal tithe of 10%" in the case of the Saladin tithe was what accrued as tax. This is not to argue that the meaning of tithe is tax - no. Rather, it shows us that the meaning of the tithe here is "a literal 10% on revenues and movable properties", and that this is what is then taken as tax.

garyarnold:

Do you NOW see the word TAX from both dictionaries?  The current definition of tithe IS tax.  To be more accurate, ONE current definition IS tax.

If that one current definition IS tax, you are trying to sound as if that is the only definition that source gives of tithe. The American Heritage Dictionary says that the tithe is defined in various ways -

   a. A tenth part of one's annual income contributed voluntarily or due as a tax,
   especially for the support of the clergy or church. b. The institution or obligation
   of paying tithes.
   2.   A tax or an assessment of one tenth.
   3.   a. A tenth part. b. A very small part.
     © - The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language,
           Third Edition  © 1996 by Houghton Mifflin Company.

The current definition of tithe still shows that basically it is a tenth part of something - it is not just a 'tax' without a specification.

garyarnold:

I have shown you these definitions twice now.  YOU furnish a definition from 1913 - that, my friend, is NOT a current dictionary.

Okay, if Websters Dictionary of 1913 does not suit you, then let me give you another one which is "current" with a 2010 date -

[size=14pt]tithe noun /taɪð/ n [C]
a tenth part[/size] of someone's produce or income which they give or pay as tax to a church

^^ That there is from Cambridge University Press [size=14pt]2010[/size].

Happy now?

debosky:

Thanks to viaro for shedding light on the usage of tithe in the bible - this renders the argument about being able to use the word tithe ended.

I should rather be thanking you for helping to make sense in many things in few words.

garyarnold:

viaro is STILL confused!!!!!

I would very much appreciate if you make your point and leave off worrying over my confusion. I'm quite content as it is until you clarify your point and distance those terms the one from the other - especially seeing you gave a definition from Webster that says tithes are ANY TAX!

garyarnold:
I didn't give the tax definition of tithe until AFTER your comment that tithe was not a tax.

The tithe is NOT a tax - and we all know that. That was why I left you a link from Webster 1913 to show that it basically has the meaning of a tenth part of anything - not "ANY TAX".

garyarnold:
I show you, by current definitions, that tithe can, in fact, be a tax.

Current definitions of tithe is not tax - that is the point. And that was why I left that link to Webster 1913. Please go check it out and let's talk if you're not satisfied. A tithe has always had the basic meaning of a tenth part of anything - not a tax.

garyarnold:
NOW do you have it, or do I need to say VIARO IS STILL CONFUSED!!!!!!!!

You don't get it, do you? Please let me know if I have to repeat myself until you take the effort to check that link out.

garyarnold:

viaro said, "the difference is that I don't think it either sides (between anti-tithing or pro-tithing arguments) should be made a Law for Christians. Let each one decide as he/she is led in their hearts."

Most protestant pastors don't teach "Let each one decide as he/she is led in their hearts."  THAT is the problem, Bro.  Pastors teach it wrong, and more people need to stand up to their pastor and correct him.  It's the teaching that tithing is a requirement in the NT that is so disturbing.  THAT, my friend, is why we need to STOP using the word tithing for giving.  IF pastors taught that tithing was voluntary, not required, and by not tithing you were not robbing God, I wouldn't have any problem with this whole topic.

By using the word tithing when you are giving, you now become part of the problem.

I don't think we need to muddle up issues, nor make a case for standing up against "pastors" - since not every pastor who teaches on tithes is actually preaching or teaching it wrongly.

TITHES are not the problem; I think the twin problem of misinformation and motive is at the core of the worry over tithes. Some say (as you suggest) that we should eliminate the word tithe from our Christian vocab - that is their view, and I can well respect them even though I do not agree at all. That is just being reactionary, and if we adopt that as the remedy for the abuses, the scandal will be multiplied for any other term you choose to replace tithe.

I once had a very long talk with a close friend about tithes and he wondered why I was neither pro- nor anti- tithing, yet I have no qualms tithing personally. He favoured "freewill offering", and I immediately asked him to open his Bible which he was holding and show me where the term "freewill offering" appeared even once in the NT. He excused himself and promised to come back after a few days. That was like 6 months ago, I'm still waiting. But he sure didn't like my pointing out that what he favoured was found in the OT - and usually associated with ANIMAL SACRIFICES!

I know people who have taught on "freewill" and yet come out forcing that teaching on their hearers. Others use other terms such as 'please donate generously' and yet there is always the catch-22 in their appeal to make the hearers feel as though God cannot save their relations UNLESS the call in to the program and make a "generous donation" - they don't call it tithe; but it has the same effect (happened a lot when I was still watching TBN programs - so I don't know the latest now as I have switched off completely from that station).

However, I know of several churches that teach tithing in a healthy and balanced manner. We cannot therefore use the case of others abusing tithes to then criminalize those who are not guilty by association.

^^Yes sir. Thanks for being there for us.

garyarnold:

viaro is STILL confused!

NONE of my example said that tithe was a tax.  All you have to do is substitute the word TENTH in the examples to see what they say, NOT the word tax.

Sir, you cited 'Webster' not long ago on tithes with the meaning: "any tax, levy, or the like, esp. of one-tenth" - am I to take from that to say that "tithe" is ANY TAX?!?

garyarnold:
WORDS SHOULD BE CHOSEN CAREFULLY.

Agreed.

garyarnold:

viaro is STILL confused but won't admit it!

No, I'm not. If you choose your words carefully, you won't find it difficult sorting out issues instead of confusing issues for yourself so far.

manmustwac:

@viaro
you really do have a passion for any subject related to tithes don't you?

Not really. I'm quite interested in tithes and other things - the difference is that I don't think either sides (between anti-tithing or pro-tithing arguments) should be made a Law for Christians. Let each one decide as he/she is led in their hearts.

garyarnold:

Yet in the same chapter of Hebrews, when referring to Levi, the KJV uses the word tithe. WHY does the KJV distinguish between Abraham's TENTH and Levi's TITHE? And WHY does almost every other version of the Holy Bible use the word TENTH in Genesis, and also distinguish between Abraham's TENTH and Levi's TITHE in Hebrews 7? The scriptures DO make a distinction between the two.

The Scriptures do not make any "distinction" between them - they are the same thing in reference. If there is a world of difference between them, then you should have shown us from Scripture what exactly that difference is!

However, the KJV actually uses "tithes" with respect to Levi in verse Heb. 7:5; but in verse 8 and 9, the word in Greek understood as "tenths" - "And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes (δεκάτη - dekatē), payed tithes (δεκάτη - dekatē) in Abraham" (Hebrews 7:9)

Whether one wants to use "tithes" or "tenths", they are THE SAME THINGS being spoken about for Levi in those verses. There is not a single verse where we read that Levi had seperate commandments for tithes and tenths as if they are two different things.

garyarnold:

And WHY does almost every other version of the Holy Bible use the word TENTH in Genesis, and also distinguish between Abraham's TENTH and Levi's TITHE in Hebrews 7?

That is not true, Gary. First, the Hebrew word for "tithes" in Genesis 14:20 is (מעשׂרה / מעשׂר / מעשׂר - ma‛ăśêr/ma‛ăśar/ma‛aśrâh) which is the very same word used for "tithes" in Leviticus 27 and Numbers 18.

However, it is NOT true that every other Bible translation uses "TENTH" in Genesis - here are a few others you probably are not aware of that uses the word "tithes" -

[list][li]'. . .And he gave him a tithe of all' - Gen. 14:20, NKJV[/li][/list]

[list][li]'. . .and Abram gaue him tithes of all' - Gen. 14:20, Bishops Bible (1568)[/li][/list]

[list][li]'. . .And he gave him the tithes of all' - Gen. 14:20, Douay Rheims (1899)[/li][/list]

[list][li]'. . .And Abram gaue him tythe of all.' - Gen. 14:20, Geneva Bible (1587)[/li][/list]

[list][li]'. . .And he gave him a tithe of all.' - Gen. 14:20, Literal Translation of the Hokly Bible (LITV)[/li][/list]

[list][li]'. . .And he gave him tithes of all' - Gen. 14:20, Webster Bible (1833)[/li][/list]

There are a few others hanging in my shelf; but the point is that not every other version used TENTH as you claimed! The Hebrew word in that verse is the same used for TITHES in both Leviticus 27 and Numbers 18.

garyarnold:
The Hebrew word translated in Hebrews 7 for Abraham's tenth is NOT the same as the Hebrew word translated in Hebrews 7 for Levi's tithe. Again, the scriptures make a distinction between tenth and tithe.

There's no dictinction - they are referring to the same thing.

garyarnold:

Once God defined His tithe in Leviticus 27:30-33, we have a NEW definition for "The Lord's Tithe." The Lord's "tithe" is not just a mathematical term.

Scripture does not give any new definition to the word TITHES in the OT. Go through yourself and see that the hebrew word used in Genesis 14:20 is the same used in Leviticus 27 and Numbers 18 in the exact same connotation.

garyarnold:

viaro said, "You cannot argue away what he gave as if Scripture does not clearly declare what it was - it calls it "tithes" in both the OT and NT!"

Yes, I said so.

garyarnold:
NO IT DOES NOT. The KJV calls it a tithe in Genesis and a TENTH in Hebrews.

Could I show you that the same KJV calls it "tithes" in both the OT and NT, sir? Here goes -

[list][li]And blessed be the most high God, which hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand. And he gave him tithes of all - Genesis 14:20, KJV[/li][/list]

[list][li]But he whose descent is not counted from them received tithes of Abraham, and blessed him that had the promises - Hebrews 7:6, KJV[/li][/list]

I understand your problem here is one on definition - so, you argue that it was supposed to be tenth and not tithe, no?

If that is the case, we know that Hebrews 7:6 is referring to the same thing Genesis 14:20 calls Abraham's tithes. To be technical and pedantic, the Greek word in Hebrews 7:4 & 6 for Abraham's tithe is δεκατόω which is usually translated a "tenth" - yet, is the "tenth" in those verses not the same thing that is referred to in Genesis 14:20 as TITHES?

To say they are not the same is like arguing that Abram is not Abraham simply because Gen. 14 says "Abram" while Hebrews 7 used "Abraham" instead! We know that Abram is the same Abraham (1 Chron. 1:27) - and so, there is no argument likewise that the "tithes" in Genesis 14:20 is the same "tenths" in Hebrews 7:6.

Another way of forcing this argument as you do is to argue against Hebrews 7:9 that Levi who received tithes actually does not recive tithes but a mathematical "tenths"! The same word (δεκατόω) is used in Greek in that verse, so are you going to maintain that just because this verse in Greek uses "δεκατόω", it cannot be understood that Levi received tithes?

You see, this argument between a so-called 'mathematical tenths' and "not tithes" is just unnecessary. What Genesis 14:20 calls "tithes" (מעשׂרה / מעשׂר / מעשׂר - ma‛ăśêr/ma‛ăśar/ma‛aśrâh) is the very same thing that Hebrews 7 was referring for Abraham's tithes/tenths. There is no justification for the differentiating between them as if they spring from two entirely different universes!

I hope this explanation helps resolve your deep concern between "tithes" and "tenths" with regards to Abraham?

garyarnold:

Here is even more to show that VIARO is now confused!

Lol, viaro is NOT confused. My reply to that was because I was carefully checking you out on those lines - I don't hastily rush a reply lest I am made to suck in my tongue!

garyarnold:
Vario said, and I quote: "Gary, a tithe is NOT a tax - unless you are going to start arguing that God taxed His people whne He spoke about tithes in the Law."

No, I am not arguing that God taxed His people when He spoke of tithes in the law. I am not talking about the law at all - just like those who say we are not under the law.

Good. Then what was the proint in your connecting tithe and tax then?

garyarnold:

From Webster's Dictionary.

Another definition of tithe:
any tax, levy, or the like, esp. of one-tenth

From the American Heritage dictionary - one definition of tithe:
A tax or an assessment of one tenth

You see, viaro, many people use a modern-day dictionary when reading their Bible. Not everyone has Hebrew and Greek dictionaries.

I think YOU have proven my point that choice of words used IS very important.

No, I did not "prove" your point. Please see the following on tithe harvested from Webster Online Dictionary of `1913 -

Tithe (?), n. [OE. tithe, tethe, properly an adj., tenth, AS. teó&unr_;a the tenth; akin to tién, t&unr_;n, tēn, ten, G. zehnte, adj., tenth, n., a tithe, Icel. tīund the tenth; tithe, Goth. taíhunda tenth. See Ten, and cf. Tenth, Teind.] 1. A tenth; the tenth part of anything; specifically, the tenthpart of the increase arising from the profits of land and stock, allotted to the clergy for their support, as in England, or devoted to religious or charitable uses. Almost all the tithes of England and Wales are commuted by law into rent charges.
[1913 Webster]

The tithes of the corn, the new wine, and the oil. Neh. xiii. 5.
[1913 Webster]

&hand_; Tithes are called personal when accuring from labor, art, trade, and navigation; predial, when issuing from the earth, as hay, wood, and fruit; and mixed, when accuring from beaste fed from the ground. Blackstone.
[1913 Webster]

2. Hence, a small part or proportion. Bacon.
[1913 Webster]

Great tithes, tithes of corn, hay, and wood. -- Mixed tithes, tithes of wool, milk, pigs, etc. -- Small tithes, personal and mixed tithes. -- Tithe commissioner, one of a board of officers appointed by the government for arranging propositions for commuting, or compounding for, tithes. [Eng.] Simmonds.
[1913 Webster]


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tithe, v. t. [imp. & p. p. Tithed (?); p. pr. & vb. n. Tithing.] [As. teó&unr_;ian.] To levy a tenth part on; to tax to the amount of a tenth; to pay tithes on.
[1913 Webster]

Ye tithe mint and rue. Luke xi. 42.
[1913 Webster]

That is just one example - from Webster. Other resources abound if you care to check. However, I don't think I have proven your point; and a tithe is NOT a tax.

garyarnold:

viaro,

One definition of tithe from Webster's Dictionary:
a tenth part or any indefinitely small part of anything

We are not dealing with the Biblical tithe in my examples which show how confusing my comments would be.

Tithe is just a tenth part - no matter how you define it. Webster does not tell you that the 'tithe' in the Bible amounts to anything other than the meaning as used today. It has always been basically a tenth of anything - before and after Abraham.

garyarnold:

Although the following would be correct, I believe people would be confused if I said:

The New Health Care law in the US adds a tithe to the cost of tanning services.

Employers must withhold a tithe more in state income taxes.

The tax change means people who would have paid a tithe, will now have to pay a double tithe.

Jun 2, 2010 , Business tax receipts down a tithe.

The Recovery Act also provided a tax credit for plug-in electric drive conversion kits. The credit is equal to a tithe of the cost of converting a vehicle to a qualified plug-in electric drive motor vehicle and placed in service after Feb. 17, 2009.

Get the point? Better to use a word that causes less confusion or misunderstanding.

Gary, a tithe is NOT a tax - unless you are going to start arguing that God taxed His people whne He spoke about tithes in the Law. You guys should not confuse issues further for yourselves on this subject.

Image123:

Viaro
I may be wrong on this but it seems that Noetic doesn't regard the epistles or perhaps the NT as the Word of God, but as men's view. That may explain his 'stand'.

That's closer to my suspicion, but I'm quite reserved on that because I don't want to preempt it since he has not come out to declare it himself as such. I just wonder how someone in his capacity would be making very strenuous arguments against "teachers" and "doctrine" without recognizing there IS a difference between the type that is troubling him and those who God has set in the Church.



_________

@InesQor,
God bless you too, many times over. Your daily input to the 'digest' is refreshing.

toba:

when will noetic and viaro start behaving like adults and will not challenge each other?

Senior, how are you today? I'm willing and trying to behave and have not "challenged" neotic16. When someone arrogates to himself the privilege of spouting absolute rubbish because he has some axe to grind with false teachers, should we leave such rants to poison the well and then conclude that 'doctrine' has no essence in the life of the believer?

I initially didn't want to take him up; but he just seems to assume he knows it all - how much of what he thinks he knows that he can't recognize that God has given us teachers, that is one thing I would like to find out from him.

garyarnold:

Some of you criticise me for the legalism arguments, yet you don't seem to have the ability to see a "principle."

Er, Gary. . . I don't know any other poster who has "criticized" you - as far as I'm aware, viaro is the one who particularly criticized your arguments for its legalism. I didn't find your argument funny or helpful to the believer at all, that was why my replies were quite strong. I apologise for the fray.

Some of us are all for principles - not literalism, such as you have recommended. The "principle" does not point to a clone of an event, that was why I gave you examples.

garyarnold:

YOU want to take Abraham's tenth of war spoils and use it as a principle of giving ten percent. You ignore what Biblical historians say that it was custom.

Should I remind you once again about what Abraham's tithe is regarded or interpreted as by historians? The only fellows I ever heard interpreting Abraham's tithes to be pagan tithes are anti-tithers - and that argument is fast losing its ground. However, even if it were a "custom", what would make for the interpretation that Abraham was obeying any such "custom"? WHY would it have been to Melchizedek that he would have tithed, and not to any other king? That is the most basic of all questions you guys have to ask and answer before writing it off as a "custom".

garyarnold:

IF there is any principle, it would be that Abraham GAVE to a priesthood. NOT the percentage.

There is a principle - so the question of "IF" just simply does not arise at all! And should we see that it was a priesthood that stands out in the principle, that is the same thing I for one have often maintained, as reiterated again on this page. Yet, what Abraham gave was marked out to be a "tithe" - it was a determined statement that could not be ignored or taken for granted. However, because we would not like to push this point too far (at least, I speak for myself), that is why I stand to agree with those who tithe without seeking to "bind" any particular amount or percentage on the neck of any believer!

One could tithe (10% or as they so choose) - others could prefer to NOT tithe. Neither the one who argues against tithe nor the pro-tither has the argument so water-tight to become a Law for the Body of Christ. Let every man decide in his heart what to do - but let the one who chooses to NOT tithe not then seek to argue that others should not tithe!

garyarnold:

Too many use the definition of tithe from the current, modern-day dictionary. In Abraham's day, the word tithe meant a tenth and had nothing to do with God, priesthoods, giving, paying, etc. It was a mathematical term.

You're shooting yourself in the leg. In Abraham's day, the tithe is the tenth - if you have any other argument with substance on that one, please show us that they are "different" in a very strong way. Second, Abraham's tithe had everything to do with God - for right after the priest of the most High God blessed God and Abraham, the patriarch gave Melchizedek a tithe.

Third, if Abraham's tithe had nothing to do with priesthood, why then does he choose to give to the priest of the most High God and not to some other king? Melchizedek was not even the king of the place where Abraham lived/sojourned - so why Melchizedek?!? Fourth, of what use is it to keep maintaining that Abraham's tithe was mere a mathematical term - as if after all the mathematics involved, it failed to be called "tithes" in the Bible? Why does the Bible refer to it as tithes?!?

I don't think your comments yet has captured the essence of the "principle" of which we speak - but that's okay. . . fingers crossed, you shall get there (Php. 3:15).

garyarnold:
Abraham did NOT tithe as the word tithe is used today. He gave a tenth of certain items, NOT even from his regular income.

What is the difference, bro? Just what is the difference in meaning between "tithes" in Abraham's case and tithes as appear in other passages of the Bible? Why this push away from Scripture in principle to argue for non-essentials?

garyarnold:

The ONLY principle here (if there even is one) is that he gave to a priesthood - NOT the percentage or amount, and not what he gave. OR, some could even say the principle is that Abraham kept nothing for himself.

Your effort to make that^^ "the only principle" does not necessarily make it so. Both what he gave (tithes) and the priesthood (Melchizedek) are what we find in the "principle" we talk about in Genesis. You cannot argue away what he gave as if Scripture does not clearly declare what it was - it calls it "tithes" in both the OT and NT! We are not saying that in "principle", the only thing that should define our giving is an exactitude of "10%" - no, the Christian should endeavour to do more than that as he/she is able. If therefore believers draw from Abraham to start at the tithe as a principle for themselves, what sin is in that - especially since even you agree that it has to do with the priesthood?

garyarnold:

You are dreaming when you say the principle is giving ten percent ESPECIALLY since the later mosaic law used a much smaller amount of war spoils to be given to the Levites.

The Mosaic Law does not pre-define Abraham's life; nor does it pre-define the priesthood of Melchizedek. If you want to stretch this argument, please recognize that even Levi to whom the Mosaic Law pertained, are said to have given tithes in Abraham - to the same melchizedek (heb. 7:9). The Law under Judaism does not supercede the priesthood that was first recognized before the emergence of the nation of Israel.

^^The very best advice anybody has given me in a decade! I'm humbled, bro!

noetic16:

2. there is no where in the epistle above, where u told us the similarity between doctrines and knowledge?

You didn't ask for a similarity or dissimilarity - you flat out made categorical statements that deny the value of DOCTRINE in the life of the believer, and I responded to show you in God's Word that He desires to teach His people knowledge and make them understand doctrine. You did not set forth the difference between them either, other than just yapped a blank statement about them as if the one is opposed to the other. If they are mutually exclusive and have absolutely no connection between them, let's see how you exemplified them below -

noetic16:

For example: A. God tells Adam that "the day u eat of the forbidden fruit u shall die" . . .this is knowledge for man to live at peace with God.
B. God tells the children of Israel to pay a tithe of their farm produce to the priestly elite every 3/7 years. . . . . .a man tells his church to pay one-tenth of their income as a tithe.
God's instruction in A is a word of knowledge and not a doctrine. God's instruction in B is a doctrine and not a word of knowledge. man's instruction in B is his own doctrine and a misrepresentation of God's teachings.

Thank you - perhaps you should see that the very example in A. forms Christian DOCTRINE in the NT. For example, Romans 5:14-21 shows us what Adam's disobedience effected in humanity. If that is not the case, what then could have been the reason behind Romans 5 saying anything about Adam's disobedience in Genesis?

Doctrine is connected with knowledge - they are not disconnected. However, the value of doctrine in the life of the believer is such that it sets the parameters for fellowship among believers: for us, we are urged to abide in the doctrine of Christ (2 John 1:9) ; and if anyone comes without that doctrine, we are to receive him not (2 John 1:10). It is not just a question of "knowledge" being far more important than "doctrine" - for whetever "knowledge" anyone might claim, the doctrine of Christ is the defining grounds for fellowship!

This is why when we go back and remind you about the statements you made on doctrine -

(a) "of what essence is doctrines to a believer?", and
(b) "Doctrines come from man's ridiculous attempt of placing God's counsel
under the microscope of human reasoning]"

. . .it is clear from these that there's every reason to show your statement is false and because it is unqualified. "False doctrine" would have better qualified your statement in (b); but that in itself does not mean that 'doctrine' is of no essence to the believer as is implied in your statement in (a). If you recognized that there is value in "doctrine" to the believer, one would not have read that statement in (a), let alone your unqualified assertion in (b) above!

noetic16:

This is rather Lame. can u please highlight the growth a believer should experience outside of my analysis. . . .but please start by defining GROWTH

Growth is the maturity a believer attains as he/she continues in fellowship with the saints in the things of God (see 1 Peter 2:2). Such a growth finds the "apostles doctrine" an essential part of that fellowship - Acts 2:42 and 1 John 1:3.

Now, in Hebrews 5 we learn that when believers are not maturing in fellowship where the Word is taught, the situation presents such believers as "dull of hearing". Why? For the simple reason that they are stuck on the same "elementary principles" which seem to be your hallmark -

[list]Of whom we have many things to say, and hard to be uttered, seeing ye are dull of hearing. For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat.[/list]

[list]For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe. But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil. - Hebrews 5:11-14[/list]

Then follow through with Hebrews 6:1-2 >>

[list]Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of - [/list]

[list][li]repentance from dead works,[/li]
[li]and of faith toward God,[/li]
[li]Of the doctrine of baptisms,[/li]
[li]and of laying on of hands,[/li]
[li]and of resurrection of the dead,[/li]
[li]and of eternal judgment.[/li][/list]

Synopsis: on the one hand, those who are recommending that the "elementary principles of salvation" is all that the believer needs are in effect falling into the same idea that Hebrews 5 shows will tend only to those who are dull of hearing! Those "elementary principles" are the foundation - but that is not all there is nor should they be all that a believer should be concerned with! Those who want to stay on that note are babes and thus cannot digest 'strong meat' - whereas, those who go on to maturity beyond those elemtary/foundational level are showing they have their senses exercised to handle 'strong meat'.

Therefore, chapter 6 recommends that we leave those elementary principles behind and MOVE ON to maturity! This chapter does not say it is alright to stay with the elemtary principles you recommend (under the guise of "principal elements of salvation". It says: noetic16, LEAVE THOSE ELEMENTARY PRINCIPLES and GO ON to maturity BEYOND that foundation!

Your analysis, therefore, is just a laugh - it is more the arrogant chirpings of a self-satisfied know-it-all who concludes there's nothing more than his own "analysis" where elementray things are your hallmark! Stay there - it suits you just fine!

noetic16:
typical viaro, making senseless deductions from people's posts. was the above made in reference to my post?

It certain does - that is why you cannot respond other than excuse yourself lamely.

noetic16:

Fortunately for you, I am not very forthcoming for a "debate".

The thread was not for a debate either - perhaps this is one point you have been missing all along.

noetic16:
1. Your posts (#62) recommends human teachers but teaches discernment. why should errors come from these human teachers? why should they not always teach the mind of God and the HS? the bible NT consists of Paul's teachings because God approves of his teachings. . . . .why should that not be the case for latter day teachers? and why is discernment more important than the teacher? does that not tell of unGodly doctrines? why not go to the right pulpit to learn messages from God? is this rocket science?

You're arguing far from what I posted in #62. I did not "recommend" human teachers for heresies or errors. Instead, I sought to address basic questions: why are there heresies at all? How do they occur? What does God's Word say on the subject? Second, having sought to address those basic questions, I noted that even where these things are evident, the believer is to exercise discernment. This is not the same thing that you're talking about here, and it shows a serious lack of discernment on your part and casts doubt as to whether you even read that post at all.

noetic16:
2. You assertion of a careless statement. . .remains your opinion and an uninformed opinion at that. Latter day doctrines have only divided the body of Christ and confused the would-be saints of Christ. So tell me, should believer pay tithe or not?, cover their hair or not?, walk bare footed in a white garment or not?, speak in unknown tongues or not?, ask for love offerings or not? attend church service thrice a week or not?, worship on saturday or sunday? should believer consult prophets for personal prophecy or not? should the presence of the holy spirit be marked with shakings or not? should believers sow seed for blessings and break through or not?

Your statement on "doctrine" was careless indeed. That is the point you're struggling to excuse, but doing so poorly! All the questions you've asked above have to do with doctrines at some level - and whatever you recommend as answers would again be your own interpretation that mirrors your 'doctrine'. You cannot ask these questions and wave them away as if you have nothing to say about them - and what you say would definitely mirror your own teaching, no?!?

But when you argue as you did initially that (a) "of what essence is doctrines to a believer?", and (b) "Doctrines come from man's ridiculous attempt of placing God's counsel under the microscope of human reasoning", you only tend to confuse issues all the more for yourself. You have nowhere acknowledged the distinction between the doctrine of God and that of men - once you acknowledge this distinction, you will see that all your arguments against "doctrine" is absolutely unnecessary and useless.

noetic16:

It is your rejoinder to my assertion that is both misguided, careless and ignorant.

Thank you - only you understand the mind of God, nevermind that you never seek to calmly see that you're confusing issues for yourself. Is it any wonder that you alone can't understand yourself?

noetic16:
Perhaps u should simply have asked me for clarification. And I gave u the opportunity to do so in my last pot.

Clarification? You had all the opportunity in the world to have corrected yourself without much ado - but when you make very arrogant assertions about "doctrine" and yet can't see how very arrogant your statements are, you expect us to waste time asking you to clarify your obviously WRONG conclusions?!? Is it not clear to you that something is patently wrong in some of your assertions?

noetic16:

3. And before u answer 2 above, tell me where these doctrines came from? who influenced them? are both sides of these doctrines from the holy spirit? is God the author of confusion?

Please stop being childish - as if you didn't read the distinctions I made between the doctrines of men, doctrines of devils, and the doctrine of God!! Scripture does not just flat out conclude that "doctrines" come from men - it quite clearly shows the difference between these various doctrines and points out what God would have us receive! Is that too hard for you?

noetic16:
1. This is part of the lies being sold as a doctrine. does growth come from doctrinal teachings of from fellowship and walk with God?

It comes from both - it is because you are too far gone with your sanctimony that is why you keep polarising your arguments against "doctrine". What does Acts 2:42 tell us? "And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers." Did you miss that "doctrine" is listed first in that verse? Your problem here is that you can't bring yourself to see that there is a vital place for "doctrine" in Christian fellowship - that word seems to irk you so badly that you react so badly to it and can't see any distinction between false doctrine and that which points us to doctrine in Christian fellowship!

noetic16:
where does growth come from, is it by believing the ridiculous scriptural interpretation of pastoral thieves or by simply walking with God? who revealed these teachings to the pastoral thieves in question? was it from their knowledge or from God?

Did I point you to 'pastoral thieves' in quoting verses for "doctrine" in the Bible? Why is it so difficult for you to see the difference? You can argue all you want against "doctrine" - please calm down and open your own Bible and re-read those verses already cited to point out the difference!

noetic16:

2. how does the teachings of hebrews 5 and 6 differ from my primordial analysis?

I've already explained earlier. Just don't play games and try being difficult to yourself.

noetic16:

blah blah blah . . . the above is simply irrelevant.

The tune you always sing when you have nothing to say. Well done.

noetic16:

1. There is no dispute about the doctrines of God, devils or men.

What do you mean by that? Did you ever anywhere try to make such a dictinction, huh? If you ever had attempted recognizing that distinction, would you have been yapping vacantly and reacting all around against "doctrine"? Are you so confused between these distinctions that you just can't see how your obviously flat statement about "doctrine" is careless and disgraceful?

noetic16:

The fundamental question is how does a believer learn the doctrines of God? is it through human teachers or through the counsels of the holy spirit?

Tell me - does the Bible not point to TEACHERS as human beings in the Body of Christ? Ephesians 4:11 sound familiar? What about Acts 13:1? Oh, God Himself set teachers in the Church, according to 1 Corinthians 12:28, no?!?

All these are the gracious gift of God to the Body of Christ - they are not to be confused for the "false teachers" bringing damnable heresies, of whom we have been warned against (2 Peter 2:1). The teachers in the Body of Christ are gifted and mature believers who are set in the Church by God Himself - that is His Word. You may argue long and hard against this fact, but that would merely be your own problem and has no bearing whatsoever on what Scripture says to the believer who is reasonable and calm enough to see it for himself or herself!

@noetic16,

noetic16:

there was nothing careless in what I said . . . it was u who did not comprehend the full point I was making. what do u imply doctrine? is the various division between the many denominations a result of different doctrines? if the body of Christ be the same, why are there so many contradicting doctrines? why should a believer be involved in such divisions?

You didn't make yourself clear enough, and the way you talked about doctrine was quite careless. However, the questions of your concerns have been addressed in my post at #62 - and I also noted that the believer ought to exercise discernment in these things.

noetic16:
why not get involved in just the principal elements of salvation and subsequently walk with God?

Again, I addressed that when I made reference to Hebrews 5 and 6. If one were to be limited to just the principal elements of salvation, that is simply ignoring what those two chapters in Hebrews are saying. Worst of all, it does not tend to growth and maturity, but makes the believer who recommends 'just principal elements' to become dull of hearing (Heb. 5:11-14).

noetic16:

This is a far cry from the point I raised. There is a whole difference between doctrine and knowledge. knowledge comes from teachings, which are universal as they are from God. Doctrines come from man's ridiculous attempt of placing God's counsel under the microscope of human reasoning. doctrines are NOT knowledge.

I disgree. You are making out your own narrow view and drawing hasty conclusions. There are doctrines of men (Colossians 2:22); and also doctrines of devils (1 Timothy 4:1) - but we can't confuse them for the doctrine of God nor forget that in the time of prevailing decadence, there exists still the doctrine of the Father (John 7:16).

It is the latter (the doctrine of the Father) that we often forget just because there are perverse doctrines around. However, God has always looked for His own people who desire to be taught of Him, and thus we find in Isaiah 28:9 that He seeks to impart both doctrine and knowledge to His people -

          'Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make
           to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk,
           and drawn from the bosoms.'

One immediately sees that "doctrine" and "knowledge" are not strange phenomena with God; nor can anyone maintain that "Doctrines come from man's ridiculous attempt of placing God's counsel under the microscope of human reasoning" - to maintain such simply means you're set to confuse issues further without being careful enough to distinguish between the doctrines of men and the doctrine of God. Jesus indeed came with a doctrine, and the life-changing effects upon His hearers made them marvel (Matt. 7:28 and 22:33; Luke 4:32).

noetic16:

There is nothing u mentioned above that could not be deduced from previous rejoinder with u.

You didn't care to see it was a direct response to your hasty conclusions previously. The believer is to grow beyond your very limited recommendations - that was the point in Hebrews 5 and 6.

noetic16:

narrow? how narrow, if u could discern the source of most of the prevalent doctrines in the church today, u might get have an appreciative understanding of the darkness disguised as light.

Sorry, you're too occupied with the negative to the utter exclusion of the postive! Dude, doctrines of men and of devils do not mean that the doctrine of God should be completely forgotten. So when you begin to draw unbalanced conclusions about "doctrine", you make your reader wonder about your ideas. Be clear in what you say, distinguish the one from the other, let your concerns be in context of not being too polarised to just one side - and perhaps others can more easily grasp your views.

nimma:

the way some of U who claim to be christians speak is suprising!! some of u talk without wisdom and understanding. U even go to the extent of quoting scriptures to suit u! instead of going around judging and criticising,why not use that time to pray and ask God to give u more understanding. anyone who judges another is automatically placing themselves on the same level with God. pls lets watch what we think and say!!

We would be very glad to hear from your own understanding - for it seems only sensible that the one who asks others to pray has done so herself and gained understanding. So share with us so we don't continue to 'suit' ourselves.

ttalks:

I'll also give some examples to show that this "eternal" or "everlasting" which we're all used to do have some culmination/end at some point.

Although I would agree with you that some examples in Scripture on the words "eternal/everlasting" have reference to a beginning and age. However, the problem here is that many people want to take this "some" and apply them across board to make all occurences of the word 'eternal/everlasting' to be the same for all! This was why I asked you directly if that also applies to God - if God is not Eternal, what then is He? To say that 'eternal' connotes 'age'long' and has an "end" would make some of us wonder if you have carefully examined the claims of the links you recommend in light of Scripture.

ttalks:

as regards your question; "Is God eternal?" ,
my answer would be this:

God is the eonian God; meaning he is the God of the ages, tha age-abiding God.
He makes/creates the ages and abides through them.
Eternal is not a proper concept so I can't really place him as eternal(since the word is definitely foreign to original scripture).

If you can't place God as being Eternal, then what would be the implication of an "age-abiding" God, in the sense of your "age-long" also having reference to beginnings and ends (your quote earlier: "ages do have beginnings and do have ends"?!?

Between all expressions, even if I am open to the possibility that I'm not quite following your meaning, at the very least it would seem that those who decline the word 'Eternal' yet do not have any concrete alternative rendition - and the interpolation of "age-long/age-abiding" does not help, if indeed you have noted that "ages do have beginnings and do have ends"?? How does this apply to God Himself?

ttalks:

Now, I know I have somehow been sidetracked from my postings on what this "Lake of Fire" is supposed to be.
I will get back to that but can't say when at the moment cos i'm going to be offline for a while.

No problem. The basic questions I've been asking are essential to that as well.

I'm not picking on you, Gary. . . but I think that the legalistic arguments you often make for your literalism should begin to be squarely faced. The goal is to help you go back to your study and see what you are deliberately missing. Here is another example:

garyarnold:

IF you follow Abraham's example as given in The Word, you will give a tenth of war spoils to a King and keep nothing for yourself.

Not necessarily. The first question is to ask yourself: what is an EXAMPLE?

An example is NOT a clone of a situation or event. It does not asks the recipient to condition all things and all materials and all events and all stakeholders to exactly the same thing as the prior event - to do so otherwise would be literalism and not an "example".

I've pointed out a good analogy that we find in the Bible about an "example" - 1 Peter 2:21 >> "Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps". We know, from the Gospels, how Christ suffered - from His arrest, torture, imprisonment, trial, condemnation, and ultimately the Crucifixion. We do not have to follow and replicate every detail in order to satisfy them as "EXAMPLE". No. For to replicate every detail is no longer an "example" but rather trying to clone the same event step-by-step and end up on a literal Cross!

So again with Abraham. When believers speak of following the example of the patriarch in tithing or any other aspect of faith, for you to recommend that they tithe only war spoils and give to a king and keep nothing to ourselves, etc - all such talk is merely LITERALISM that seeks a cloning of that incident, and that is not the meaning of an "example". An example would simply in this case mean that believers give a portion of what accrues to them in recognition of a divine priesthood - and believe it or not, Hebrews 7 reveals that priesthood!

It was Abraham's recognition of how great Melchizedek was - not "great" merely as a king, but more so as the priest of the most High God. While some assume that Melchizedek was a pagan priest, Scripture reveals otherwise and shows how such people are only interested in pushing their agenda!

Yes, many believers who look to Abraham's tithes as "example" are not seeking to clone the war and spoils and whatnots. Rather, it is a matter of the priesthood which Melchizedek stood for, and which now operates in the new covenant upon which Christianity is built.

garyarnold:

The command to tithe was not a principle, it was a law, to be followed as it was written.

This is the sort of literalism and legalism that I've always noted trails your arguments. Abraham did not receive any LAW to tithe; but he indeed tithed - and you don't find any principle there, no? Okay, if you want to drag a literalism for your anti-tithing arguments, let's follow it through and see how well your legalism can stand when scrutinized:

1. We can also say that the command in Deuteronomy 25:4 about not muzzling the "ox" is not a principle but a LAW - to be followed as it was written. Gary, that verse appears TWICE in the NT to Christians (1 Corinthians 9:9-10 and 1 Timothy 5:18) - are you following Deuteronomy 25:4 AS IT WAS WRITTEN? Where's your farm ranch? Don't come back ducking, because the Bible clearly says that the verse in Deut. 25:4 was written for OUR sakes (see 1 Cor. 9:10). So please tell us: are you following that verse AS IT WAS WRITTEN?

2. We can also say that the verse Exodus 16:18 which was quoted in the NT to Christians in 2 Corinthians 8:15 is not a principle but appears in the LAW - to be followed as it was written. The verse says: "he that gathered much had nothing over, and he that gathered little had no lack; they gathered every man according to his eating" (Exo. 16:18). Go back and read the chapter in that Exodus 16, you will not find anything there about offering or collection for the saints or any thing we talk about in terms of "the fellowship of the ministering to the saints". Rather, it was talking about the gathering of manna in the wilderness of Sin. Since it was not a principle, please Gary answer us: how many times have you sat down to gather manna in the wilderness of Sin? Where is your Israelite family? Since you want to push this legalism of your "follow as it was written", please show us when YOU have ever sat down in the wilderness of Sin to eat manna!

Oh, I could show you tons more scattered all over the NT where the apostles cited directly from the Law for Christians in the NT. One more -

3. In 1 Corinthians 9:13-14, the apostle was pointing back to the Law of Moses when he said: "Do ye not know that they which minister about holy things live of the things of the temple? and they which wait at the altar are partakers with the altar?" Compare this with Numbers 18 - that well-known passage on TITHES! Since you don't want to see PRINCIPLE but LAW, then read verse 14 of 1 Cor. 9 - "EVEN SO hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel." That is a direct command - do EVEN SO as you read in 1 Cor. 9:13. Don't come back cutting corners with "principles" - according to you, it is "to be followed as it was written", so go back to the TEMPLE and the OT ALTAR and follow the directions there AS IT WAS WRITTEN! Gary, how much of that have you personally obeyed?

You know what legalism does to the Christian? It just strains at a gnat and swallows a camel!^{Matthew 23:24} Most of the teachings in the NT for CHRISTIANS are taken directly from the OT LAW and applied as PRINCIPLES for our walk and testimony!

There are tons of examples scattered all over the New Testament - and if you can't see anything about their principles, good: just go ahead and follow then as they were written! You have to go back to the Land of Israel, obey the verse that says you should not muzzle the ox while it treadeth out the corn, you should gather manna in the wilderness of Sin and eat, you should also observe what happened in the OT temple and altar - do all these things as you have argued: they are "to be followed as they were written!!"

If you can't apply the same "followed as it was written" in these examples, you are hypocrite! You want to force legalism upon the necks of others; but when the same thing is presented to you and you're challenged to follow what you recommend, you begin to convulse!


Anyone who wants to tithe, do so without worrying about the fallacious arguments of "tithing was agricultural products. . . from the holy land. . . only farmers tithe. . . yada-yada-tada!!" All these stupid childish anti-tithing arguments are nothing but legalism that most anti-tithers would NEVER apply all through when it comes home to them! Yea, you read the OT, see no principles in them, and have the temerity to shout that they are "to be followed as it was written". You obey the examples I gave you above first, then I can listen to any other noise you make!

aletheia:

But you have no quibbles with. . ."eternal life" as in John 3:16. Aren't you cherry-picking?

ttalks:

The eternal life which we've all been used to is still subject to this interpretation issue I pointed out.
Rather than eternal life, it should be "eonian life" which connotes "age-abiding/age-long" life.

There seems to be a serious problem with your assumption, ttalks. If eternal life connotes "age-abiding/age-long", would that not indeed suggest that there would be an end when that 'eternal life' would end? Could you guarantee that when mirrored against John 10:28 -

And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish,
neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.

You said indeed concerning the word 'eternal', that: "It does not mean eternal; rather it connotes "age-long/age-abiding", and we know that ages do have beginnings and do have ends." Hence, perhaps you might help unravel the mystery as to the 'end' of 'eternal life'.

However, if we follow your reasoning about 'eternal life', there seems to immediate be a contradiction. One the one hand, you noted that 'eternal' connotes 'age-long' and does have an end. As such, it would basically mean that it does not continue to exist forever. If that is so, how do you reconcile the idea of something that does not last because it has an "end" and another that has no end because it is immortal?

ttalks:

The chosen who believe in Christ have this life.
After death, comes their resurrection when Christ returns. They are given immortality which refers to "deathlessness"
which is not a concept of time but rather a state of being.

1Co 15:52-54
(52) In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.
(53) For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.
(54) So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.

Those in Christ will surpass the ages as they come and go.

ttalks:

You ought to be aware that the concept of "eternal" damnation is false and alien to scripture.
Translations showing eternal are very very wrong.
There has been a lot of disagreements on the fact that aiōnios means eternal.
It does not mean eternal; rather it connotes "age-long/age-abiding", and we know that ages do have beginnings and do have ends.

Eternal is very foreign to original scripture(but very conversant with most available scripture translations of today).

Please go through this - - - > Whence cometh eternity? to understand what I'm saying here.

I do not expect everybody to suddenely agree with the point I'm making here; i just want you to realize that this is a position that is standing
and is worth looking into.

Well, I tried to look into the subject and also consulted the link you recommended. On reading the first paragraph, the question that came to mind was: Is God Eternal? I patiently tried to read through to see the author's answer to that question, and this is what I initially found:

Even to God the Scriptures do not ascribe eternity. What need is there to describe Him as eternal? Would it not be almost an affront to use such an epithet of One who must, in order to be God, be eternal?

I haven't read to the end of that article, but I would here at this time ask you directly, ttalks: Is God Eternal? And in what sense? Your would help contextualize our discussion, rather than appealing to what others think.

ttalks:

Christ spoke metaphorically mainly when he spoke to the public. He mainly spoke in literal terms when he addressed the 12 and the 12 only.

I understand what you mean - Mark 4:33-34.

However, the import of what He was saying to both the multitudes and His disciples with regards to salvation and judgement are clear enough to show that the idea of a 'universal salvation' is untenable - see Mark 3:29 ('eternal damnation', KJV) and John 5:29 ('they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation', KJV).

Image123:

Wow, what can I say sing.
Thank you for saving me, thank you viaro (2ce)
Can we safely say viaro is propping(hope that's the dear new vocab) debosky? So I was saved from the jaws of nl critics, how christlike. Keep up the saving christlike attitude viaro. Truly, the Lord knows how to deliver the righteous.
I'm wondering when this people will learn to look at issues from the Word, instead of looking for imaginary enemies of the gospel to attack. They don't even know simple Bible principles, and they'll come hia claiming Pauline status talking anyhow. God will smite YOU. Amen

^^^ Hehe. . . Image123!  You guys are making me fall off my chair with laughter! Well, viaro didn't save anyone, so don't let them smite you back! As they say in the UK: 'God save the queen' - and us first!

ogajim:

@viaro: Nigerian Christianity is something else, we would love to know where you worship regularly as some of us might want to drop by there anytime we find ourselves in your neck of the woods. I am happy none of what Gary described happens anywhere you've worshiped.

Haha. . . ogajim!! Howdy bro?
I understand what you mean by 'Nigerian Christianity' - I must've over-reached myself in teasing about "Nigeria is not the only place where Christians live". I see some of what happens when visiting and spending the weekend in London and other places where we find Nigerians aplenty. When at home and not travelling, I'm quite at home in the Baptist Church where I fellowship regularly though.

^^ No problem - the Lord is your Strength and will refresh you.