₦airaland Forum

May kelly:
All of you are unbelievers, you can go ahead and marry him.

A bit too harsh I would say even if it is true.

epain:
been dating a guy 4 a while. i love him, can live with the person he is but i cant attend his church i love him, he wants to marry me but i know my parents will also object cos of the church. wots ur opinion

Hmmm, I know the feeling.God has his answers in the bible.
But you know,I believe he has a reason for everything and would work things out properly as long as ur faith and trust is in him.

But the funny thing is that this freewill we're debating about is only in relation or within the context of being saved or not being saved.That is ,whether we choose to be saved/believe or harden our hearts to the saving grace.Can we say that this freewill is not free in the choice of meal we will decide to eat or the time we will decide to sleep,or the shirt we will decide to put on?

mazaje:
these are your opinions because nothing like that is written in the bible. . . . .

They are not written in the bible but they are the sum total or conclusion of what the bible is saying about humans and their wills.

mazaje:
you have made the point yourself, why are you still talking about "free will"?

Why then are u disgreeing with the article?
The freewill that I am talking about is that which the bible expresses;and not the popular freewill,
and that is the will expressed by humans but in subjection to their nature;with God or without God.

refer to my second reply on this post /topic of urs:

[quote author=ttalks link=topic=254595.msg3671283#msg3671283]I didn't post that link to explain the verses u quoted.
Rather,I posted it to help u understand the true position of the Christian's will in relation to God.
To help u understand that the understanding you probably have as regards freewill as bandied about by most Christians is wrong.

A true Christian is subject to the will of God.
A Christian life is one about denying one's self and being subject to the will of God.

Maybe most of the "Christans" u know are probably not bound by/subject to the will of God, but that does not distort the truth from what it is.[/quote]The popular freewill is that which is brought about without the influence of any condition or state,but the freewill as expressed by the bible is that influenced by the factors i stated above.

So it's a kind of will in bondage to particular states.It does not look or sound free but when u look at the whole bible,u have no choice but to call it freewill;but as i've said before;bound within the rule or laws of the states or conditions which the humans are in.

The fact simply is:

Without God, we cannot be saved.
Without God,our freewill would not have led us to believe in Christ.
It is God that enabled us to be saved;and anybody being saved is saved due to God enabling him/her to be saved.
Anybody saved or being saved by God has been ordained to salvation,so everything is just flowing as God purposed it to be.

In Christ,our will is subject to the will of God.

mazaje:
you have failed to show me how they are my own opinion and you have definately failed to show me how the passages i posted are in isolation from the entirety of the bible's message. if they are truly in isolation i believe you our the famous bible defender on nairaland davidylan would have quickly pointed or showed me. . . .

Those verses in the bible are definitely from the bible,but the whole scenario or argument u're raising is definitely ur opinion.
The article I posted deals properly with the issue of freewill.

Human beings (without God)have freewill,but this freewill is subject to their nature which is designed as part of God's purpose.
Human beings (with God) have freewill,but this freewill is subject to their new nature which is powered by the grace of God.

mazaje:
thou hypocrite is that not how the bible is? is that not how you guys quote the bible? you take verses and mix them up to form a narrative but when you read the verse in context it means something else completely, you have done that so many times on nairaland you qoute a particular verse and paste to support your assetions but when you read the verse in context it says something else. . . . .

The portion which I boldened is a blatant lie in relation to davidylan and some particular Christians on this site.There definitely are some Christians who quote verses out of context but "some" Christians aren't all Christians.

But,even if it were true,must u follow a wrong example to prove ur wrong case?

You quote verses in isolation of the whole message of the bible so ur theories or undertandings are false.

You said the article I posted is just someone else's opinion.Ur own post about freewill is definitely ur own opinion and not a proven fact so save ur energy.

What exactly do u want to counter,@mazaje?

All u could ever do is to bring up isolated verses to buttress ur point.
But one thing u should know is that every point pushed by the bible is supposed to be understood based on the whole message driven by the bible.
From what I've seen so far,ur points are verses viewed in isolation of the entirety of the bible's message.
You can't understand the bible in that manner.

The article I posted above is definitely somebody's write up based on his understanding.
But if u are honest with urself(and not being by default;unable and unwilling to see/acknowledge the truth),u will see that by proper reasoning,all that the article pushes forward makes complete sense and is in proper line with what the bible says in it's entirety.

Another Christian might disagree with some of what the article pushes forward,but as should be known,what we know is based on the amount of effort we've put into studying.

Hope u are ready for a bit of reading.
This article has been in my gmail inbox for a long time now.I dug it up to paste here since I think it bears some relevance here.
It was written by Yomi Adegboye.


Freewill and bondage of the will

Freewill may be described in very simple terms, in the context that we speak, as the liberty to choose between good and evil.

Bondage of the will is a term I use to describe a Biblical fact that the will of a person is in bondage to his nature i.e. he cannot engage his will outside of his nature. An example: because God is holy, He cannot sin. That is clear from Scripture. Another example: because man is sinful, all his thoughts, actions and choices are influenced by his sinfulness. According to the Bible, even his apparently “good” or “righteous” works are all evil before God. That is why Paul was bold to write:

Romans 3:10-12 ESV
10 as it is written: “None is righteous, no, not one;

11 no one understands; no one seeks for God.

12 All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one.”

We may say a man is good, but before God all men are evil and unrighteous, without the imputation of the life of Christ.

A brief outline:

Adam was created indeed with a free will
Adam was originally neither good nor evil
When Adam disobeyed and ate of that tree, he chose the path of evil, and became corrupted by nature. That corruption has been passed to every man born of man and woman ever since. We are all born with freewill, but now that will is limited to the boundaries of fallen humanity. That will only exercises itself towards evil


The two-fold nature of God’s will

A study of the Bible shows a two-sided dimension to God’s will. One, there is God’s will in the sense of what He has planned for to happen, chosen to do or has chosen to allow happen.

Two, there is God’s will in terms of what He has commanded men to do. For the purposes of brevity, we may call the former “God’s sovereign will“, and the latter “God’s will of command“.

Reconciling these two dimensions of God’s will has always proved difficult for man. But let’s see an example: God had a plan for man that He knew would involve sin. He knew man would sin, and chose to allow that in His plan. Sin didn’t catch Him by surprise. He knew it would happen and He wove it into the plan. It was His choice.

But still, God commands man not to sin. He knew Adam would exercise his freewill to bring humanity into subjection and bondage to sin. He chose to allow this happen, but His commandment to Adam was, “Don’t eat of this tree“.

God knew murder would happen. He allowed that in His plan; yet His command to man is that man is not to kill.

The dilemma of many people here is that if God allows evil, surely that makes Him bad. No; it doesn’t. God’s nature is not subject to human opinion and sentiments. Let me put it to you as Scripture puts it: all of creation was subject to corruption by the will of God, and for a greater good. Here:

Romans 8:20-23 ESV

20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope

21 that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God.

22 For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now.

23 And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies.

God worked out His plan for man such that all creation (man inclusive) would be subject to corruption. Romans 8:20 says He subjected it. There’s no way around that. God did it; yet He didn’t sin. He didn’t whimsically do it, for no reason, or because He is maverick, or has an ego that needed to be satisfied. But He did it all the same. It was His plan.

To suggest otherwise is to suggest that God has not always been sovereign, and that He failed at some point, having been caught unawares, and now is attempting to rectify the mess. But God has always been sovereign. He has always been in control, even when evil seems to be triumphing.

I ask: how would man know what mercy was, if he never messed up and needed mercy? How would man know what submission was? Love? Hope? Faith? These values would mean nothing if God had not acted as He did. But enough of that for now.

I believe I have presented a clear-cut, Biblically valid case of God’s will in its two dimensions.



Why command what is impossible?

Since Adam, man has been unable to choose good without God’s intervention. Another dilemma people face is that they wonder if God is not evil to command people to do things He knows that they are unable to do. No; He is not. He gave Adam a clean slate. Adam planted humanity in corruption. It was Adam’s choice, as our representative. The rest of us are subject to the results of that initial choice. That’s the way God ordained it to be. It was His choice.

Let’s look at the Law: God gave the Law of Moses, knowing fully well that no man could live successfully by the Law. He knew men would break it again and again. So, why did He give the Law?

Romans 5:20 ESV: Now the law came in to increase the trespass, but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more,

Romans 7:7 ESV: What then shall we say? That the law is sin? By no means! Yet if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. For I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.”

God gave the Law to make clear to man that he is incapable of doing good by himself. It is the same lesson from Adam and Eve’s fall. Though created sinless, they went astray almost immediately.

Now, see what this passage in Romans 8 says:

Romans 8:1-8 ESV

1 There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.

2 For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death.

3 For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh,

4 in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.

5 For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit.

6 For to set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace.

7 For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot.

8 Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

See it right there? Natural man is in bondage to sin and death. Man cannot get free on his own. Those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh. Who lives according to the flesh? All men. Who cannot set their minds on spiritual things? All natural men. All unsaved men. They cannot. They are not able to because their will is in bondage to their nature.

Verse 8: those who are in the flesh cannot please God. Natural man is “in the flesh” and cannot please God. It is an inability. Natural man is in bondage to sin and death. His will is always exercised in that direction. Yes; that will is free, but limited to WHAT HE WANTS TO DO. And all he wants to do are fleshly, carnal, sinful, and anti-God.

Those in the flesh cannot please God. And without faith it is impossible to please Him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that He exists and that He rewards those who seek him (Hebrews 11:6 ). Those in the flesh (sinners) cannot please God; they cannot have faith apart from God; for without faith it is impossible for them to please God.

Yet, God specifically commands all men to believe. Here is the sum total of Scripture - that man apart from the intervention of God (specifically as made possible through the cross of Christ) CANNOT and WILL NOT go in the right direction.

Let me lay it clear again:

1. those in the flesh cannot please God
2. sinners are those who are in the flesh
3. without faith it is impossible to please God
4. as such, sinners cannot exercise faith
5. faith is a gift imparted by God (I have provided Scripture for this earlier)
6. if God does not enable a man to believe, that man cannot be saved
7. as such, only those that God selects/elects/chooses and enables to be saved are saved

mazaje:
What makes you say that? what is the will god the biblegod if i may ask? [b]most of the christians i know are no different from any other christian out there because they pick and choose what to follow in the bible, keep in mind that there is no universally acceptable christian doctorine. its just all a bunch of gimmick and confusion because every body just creates his own god or deity out of the writings of the bible. . . a good example is the christian ection here on nairaland no two christians agree on anything, as far as daviylan is concerned lady and the entire catholic church are going to rot in hell for the beliefs they hold and he has every point to back his belief against theirs from his own interpretaion and opinion of the bible, sir john as long as he knows think he is saved while donnie, pepeye and all the members of christ embassy are misinterperting what the bible says, he also can provide evidence to support his assertions from the bible, the christ embassy members believe that donnie is an agent of satan out to destroy the word of god, they also have more than enough evidence from the bible to prove their case. seven day adventist, jehovah witness etc all have created their own deity out of the bible, any body can do this, even the early christians do not agree with each other, read pauls letters and you will see it for ur self[/b]. the whole thing is just a circle of confusion and disagreement(nigerian pastors are presently fighting each other, TB joshua vs the pentacostal movement adeboye and his crew). most christians i know are like any other christian out there because they create their own god in their own image out of their understanding or interpretation of the bible.

But you should not be surprised that there are varying understandings about the word of God.The bible itself has already said that there would be such a case.It is up to every Christian to rightfully divide the word of God.

The fact remains that there is one particular truth that the bible portrays and it is those who rightfully divide the words within that would discover that truth and live by it.

mazaje:
I went through your link and the apologetics is very ridiculous it does not even address any of the verse i posted above. i just dislike it when christians keep lying and using the free will argument to explain away tbiblial assetions that make no sense at all. here is the bible in its own words.


There is no free will according to the bible besides there is no such owrd in the bible. the bible god choses to save or destroy whom ever he wants according to his will. . . . what a god. . . . . .

I didn't post that link to explain the verses u quoted.
Rather,I posted it to help u understand the true position of the Christian's will in relation to God.
To help u understand that the understanding you probably have as regards freewill as bandied about by most Christians is wrong.

A true Christian is subject to the will of God.
A Christian life is one about denying one's self and being subject to the will of God.

Maybe most of the "Christans" u know are probably not bound by/subject to the will of God, but that does not distort the truth from what it is.

I don't expect people that are anti-bible or anti-Christian to believe anything the bible says.But below is an article that really makes clear
the position of a Christian's will in relation to God.

Check it here.

hubreality and pepeye,

You two are so brainwashed to a really alarming level.I've never seen such expression of brainlessness.
It's only the grace of God that can free ur minds from the locks upon them.
But still,that depends on if u guys are ordained unto salvation.

Very funny.

Bobbyaf:
You still have not stated what the covenant was. What is a covenant in the first place? This is where we need to begin.

Putting it kinda simply,

a covenant is simply an agreement.

Then, the laws are the terms and conditions by which that agreement is upheld.

@away4real,

Do you know what it meant to be a priest after the order of Melchizedek? Note: Melchizedek was not called after the order of Christ as u put,it was the other way around.
Your answer to this qustion would determine my response to you.

You keep attacking Kunle with statements saying he's preaching heresy. I do not think you know what u are talking about.

Expecting ur answer.

away4real:
Brother Kunle na wah oh, so he made a conditional promise and didnt keep it. So which should be emulated and Why did he make the promise in the first place?? Wat was the concept of tithing in biblical times and how is it different from what obtains now.

Please be careful not to give unscriptural responses which has been your trade mark.

So,if Jacob is an example for u tithers to follow, that means u guys should not pay tithes unless God blesses u first or does something for u first, right?
Your tithes should be conditional then.

Jacob made a promise of his own accord.He was not required to make such a promise or to keep the content of the promise.
And most importantly,it was never recorded or shown that he redeemed that promise so we cannot assume he did.
Remember, Jacob was a sharp guy; a wuru wuru player.

@Image123,

As proven earlier,Tithing is of the law.
Circumcision is also of the law.
As they are both of the law,they were necessary for justification.
Anything required of the law was necessary for justification.

You said salvation is not of the law or by doing the things of the law.
If you know u have been justified through Christ,then u have no business practicing a requirement of the law.
Tithing is a requirement of the law and should not be practiced by a Christian.The reason u gave for tithing has no scriptural basis to back it.

You mentioned the other parts of the law mentioned by Christ in Matthew 23:23;justice,mercy,etc.
All those were embedded within various requirements in the law and definitely had their ways/methods of being carried out.The new covenant has it's own version of these things.

Let me put it this way:
The old covenant is like an old version of an application or certification.It had it's own patterns and steps for handling.
But with the introduction of the new covenant;which is an upgraded and better version,the old version has been discontinued.Definitely,the upgrade would have some similar requirements that were included in the old,but they definitely would have been upgraded beyond what existed before.And also,some procedures or steps would have been dropped and new/novel ones included.
Eg. Loving ur neighbour as urself instead of trying to accomplish the different and individual aspects of the 10 commandments or the other parts of the law.
That simply means that if u are using the upgraded version,u cannot apply the pattern of the old and discontinued version to achieve the aim it was acquired for.

The new version/new covenant has it's procedures for everything.You are simply required to apply those procedures within it to achieve the purpose for it's acquisition.

bekus:
ttalks,

1. Of course there is only one TRUTH. As i said, we each choose whether to obey it or not.

2. There will always be arguments regarding the understanding of God's word even amongst Christians. This has been the case right from the time of the early Christians and I'm sure you know that. Again it boils down to what you choose to believe. The problem is not with the Word/Truth, it is that we each try to understand it through the eyes of our individual experience(s).

3. I do not accept your 'boldly' and wrongly purporting to tell me what to or not believe. You see, you don't have that right or authority over me for the simple reason that I am not accountable to you. That is the exclusive preserve of the Holy Spirit . It is like an atheist telling you that you have a wrong belief because you believe in God and he/she doesn't. A catholic could also call you deluded if you believe in the second birth and he/she doesn't. A pentecostal could also be right in scoffing at a catholic who builds an altar to Mary. Kapisce?

When a person claims to be a Christian and chooses not to do as the guideline of Christianity(the word of God) says, such a person cannot rightly claim to be a Christian.

Nobody has any right or authorithy over any body in this issue, but that does not stop one from stating a fact about a situation. You can choose to accept it or not.
If we say that people can choose to believe as they feel they can, there would have been no need for the people who laid down the gospel to ask us to earnestly contend for the faith,watch out for false doctrine and false teachers and rebuke them that promote false doctrine.

This issue about what the bible says about particular things is very easy. If a person honestly decides to study properly,the right message will be gotten.
And as far as Christianity is concerned,ur own opinion or experience about something does not count;only what the word of God says is what counts.

Choosing to do what the word of God says implies one thing - being a Christian
Choosing not to do what the word of God says implies one thing - being a non-Christian.

A Christian lives by the truth of the word of God; a non Christian lives by his or her own understanding of issues.
So,if anyone claims to be a Christian,and then does stuff or believes stuff which are contrary to the Christian belief,he/she is sure going to get rebukes and bold faced statements which say that he/she is wrong.

The plain and simple truth is - those who believe they have a commandment from God to tithe as Christians are very wrong.

Bekus,

God did not expect us to have varying understandings of his word.He expects a unified understanding of the word that is why we are admonished to study to get the proper understanding.

It is not about what u believe about the word but about what the word communicates as a whole.

Proper study of the word of God reveals that God did not and is not commanding Christians to tithe.The commandment to tithe was within a past covenant that isn't in force and it was directed at a selected set of people.

If u believe u are commanded to tithe,then I have to say it boldly that u have a wrong belief.

This is not about personal belief;this is about what the word says.
And if u are a Christian,u are to obey what the word communicates as a whole;personal feelings,convictions or beliefs aside.

Proof that Tithing is of the law:

Levicticus 27:30-34
(30)  And all the tithe of the land, whether of the seed of the land, or of the fruit of the tree, is the LORD'S: it is holy unto the LORD.
(31)  And if a man will at all redeem ought of his tithes, he shall add thereto the fifth part thereof.
(32)  And concerning the tithe of the herd, or of the flock, even of whatsoever passeth under the rod, the tenth shall be holy unto the LORD.
(33)  He shall not search whether it be good or bad, neither shall he change it: and if he change it at all, then both it and the change thereof shall be holy; it shall not be redeemed.
(34)  These are the commandments, which the LORD commanded Moses for the children of Israel in mount Sinai.

Deuteronomy 14:22
(22)  Thou shalt truly tithe all the increase of thy seed, that the field bringeth forth year by year.

Malachai 3:10
(10)  Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house, and prove me now herewith, saith the LORD of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it.

Hebrews 7:5
(5)  And verily they that are of the sons of Levi, who receive the office of the priesthood, have a commandment to take tithes of the people according to the law, that is, of their brethren, though they come out of the loins of Abraham:

Above are a few verses showing that tithes are of the law.

Now below,are proof that Christians are not under the law:

Romans 6:14
(14)  For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.

Galatians 3:23-26
(23)  But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.
(24)  Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
(25)  But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.
(26)  For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.

Galatians 5:18
(18)  But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.

Romans 10:4
(4)  For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.

Hebrews 8:8-13
(8 )  For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:
(9)  Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.
(10)  For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:
(11)  And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.
(12)  For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.
(13)  In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.
The above verses are also a few that show that we as Christians are not under the law.

2Corinthians 3:6-11
(6)  Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.
(7)  But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away:
(  How shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious?
(9)  For if the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory.
(10)  For even that which was made glorious had no glory in this respect, by reason of the glory that excelleth.
(11)  For if that which is done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious.


The truth is that there are commandments from God to people to tithe,but the question is,"Is that commandment to us Christians or those that were under the law?"
The answer is that the commandments to tithe were to those who were under the law just as every other commandment within the law was to those under the law;it is not refering to those those under grace.Such is clearly indicated by:

Romans 3:19
(19)  Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.

Now,to those who still feel that tithing is part of a Christian's walk with Christ, this is what you need to be thinking about:

Galatians 3:1-14
(1)  O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you?
(2)  This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
(3)  Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?
(4)  Have ye suffered so many things in vain? if it be yet in vain.
(5)  He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
(6)  Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.
(7)  Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.
(8 )  And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.
(9)  So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.
(10)  For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.
(11)  But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.
(12)  And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them.
(13)  Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:
(14)  That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

And besides,
@Image123,

The argument against the tithe you guys pay is not rooted in the fact that it might be different from that of the bible.
The main thrust of the argument is that tithes(the same or the different types) were all part of the law/old covenant;that is a proven fact from the bible and not any form of speculation.

The law/old covenant is not part of the Christians' requirements with God since a new covenant/agreement is in place.
The argument against it is not because some people find it difficult to pay it or whether some people are just pissed off about pastors who advocate its payment.
The argument is because Christians are not supposed to be paying tithes.
Some might say, "leave us alone to pay our tithes." but the reason why we do not leave u alone is because we need to sound it clearly to you that:

Galatians 5:1-4
(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.

It is very clear from this passage immediately above that carrying out a requirement of the law as a Christian such as circumcision;or in this case,tithing,makes one a debtor to do the whole law(everything in it;which we know u tithe payers aren't doing) and this makes such a person to fall or be cut off from the grace of God.

This is the basis of our argument.
Tithes are of the law.Christians are not under the law.

@Image123,

You've listed so many passages about tithes,but it still does not change the fact that tithes are tithes and were a law unto the Israelites.They're all the same thing no matter the different forms in which they were handled.The levites had a commandment from God to deal with/handle/take the tithes of the people.The tithes were a law unto the people within the old covenant.

When Jesus made the statement in Mattew 23:23 to the pharisees,he meant that the tithes too ought to be paid.He said that because he expected everybody to keep to the requirements of the law/old covenant because it was the existing covenant then.

But Christ's death and resurrection brought about the end of that covenant and established a fresh and new covenant which is in force till today.That simply means that the old and it's requirements which include tithes are no longer necessary and have been done away with.

Several verses in the bible point out this fact.
Eg. Galatians 3:23-25,Romans 10:4

Love can be shown without tithing and giving can do a whole lot of things without the inclusion of tithes.The new testament supports giving of various kinds but not a fixed stipulation of tithes.

Image123:
Who told you that tithe is a law?.Don't you know that freewill offerings were done under the law?You guys always miss it.Tithe is not the law.Giving is not the law,yet love is the fulfilling of the law.Tithe is a form of giving and it should be done cheerfully as love should be done cheerfully

I agree that tithes are a form of giving, but as I said before, it does not conform to the standard of new covenant giving. This is the standard:

2Corinthians 9:7
(7)  Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver.

- Giving in the new covenant is as a man purposes in his heart. That means, he is free to determine the amount, the purpose, and the time to give.
- Tithes are not as a man purposes in his heart because it is a fixed stipulation of 10%.Man cannot determine the amount and the purpose and the time to give as those have been stipulated.

- Giving in the new covenant is to be done without any grudge in mind and not because of a necessity/compulsion of any kind.
- Tithes according to the bible must be adhered to notwithstanding how u might feel about it. It is a command/law and definitely would breed some grudge whenever it has to be done in a probable unsuitable situation. Since it is a law,it is of necessity/compulsion.All this to avoid the cost of disobeying the command/law.

- Giving in the new covenant are done cheerfully and this is so because the giving is determined solely by the giver;which is what the new covenant requires.
- Tithes are given either cheerfully or not cheerfully. Cheerfully when conditions enable the giver to give the tithe without any negative impact/effect on his/her plans and needs that need to be met. Not cheerfully when the reverse is the case.

Image123:
Who told you that tithe is a law?.[/b]Don't you know that freewill offerings were done under the law?You guys always miss it.Tithe is not the law.Giving is not the law,yet love is the fulfilling of the law.Tithe is a form of giving and it should be done cheerfully as love should be done cheerfully

The answer to the bold portion of ur question above is within Deuteronomy 14.

Deuteronomy 14:22
(22) [b]Thou shalt truly tithe all the increase of thy seed, that the field bringeth forth year by year.

Image123:
@ttalks
I'll like to ask a question.Numbers 18:26 says  Thus speak unto the Levites, and say unto them, When ye take of the children of Israel the tithes which I have given you from them for your inheritance, then ye shall offer up a heave offering of it for the LORD, even a tenth part of the tithe.   and then that Deuteronmy passage says they are to eat their tithes.
Is it possible for the children of Israel to eat their tithes and then give their tithe to the priests at the same time? Is that place contradicting?

The answer to this question is still within Deuteronomy 14. The levites,the widows,the orphans,the strangers,etc all have a portion in the tithes.

Deuteronomy 14:27-29
(27)  And the Levite that is within thy gates; thou shalt not forsake him; for he hath no part nor inheritance with thee.
(28 )  At the end of three years thou shalt bring forth all the tithe of thine increase the same year, and shalt lay it up within thy gates:
(29) And the Levite, (because he hath no part nor inheritance with thee,) and the stranger, and the fatherless, and the widow, which are within thy gates, shall come, and shall eat and be satisfied; that the LORD thy God may bless thee in all the work of thine hand which thou doest.

The levites have a portion in the tithes.

For u to ask if those portions are contradicting indicates that the way in which u choose to understand the message is wrong.

Image123:
yes sir

Very funny!

Image123:
@kunleOshob


How many times and years will it take to tell you and remind you that tihe is not a Jewish law.it was practised before Israel was conceived.Do you keep forgetting,or you just decide you must be correct by force

Tithes practiced before Israel was concieved were not a law to man. They were done of freewill and not of commandment or law. Abraham gave his to Melchizedek of his freewill and not of his property but of the spoils or gains from war.He also returned the 90% to the owners.
Jacob made a promise to tithe only if God did something for him,but there was no record of him fulfilling that promise.

Tithes practiced after Israel was concieved were a law to man. They were done according to the law and they had expected benefits for obedience.

The tithes being preached by various Pastors are those according to the law;howbeit wrongly, that is why Malachi 3 is the portion they use to enforce it. The tithes in Malachai 3 were the tithes according to the law.

Pastors always run to that line saying, ", tithes existed before the law." once they see that they have been backed up into a corner with evidences showing that tithes are not a part of the Christian walk.

And besides,there are three time frames in the bible:
1. The time before the law
2. The time within the law(old covenant)
3. The time after the law (new covenant)

We as Christians are operating within the time after the law;not the two previous times,so why should the practice of a time gone away be part of the Christian faith as a law or doctrine when the time we exist in has it's own laws and doctrines.
Can't we see that as Christians,we are operating within a new way of life(new covenant) and not an old(old covenant) or former(before the law)?

Hebrews 10:19-20
(19)  Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus,
(20)  By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh;

The new covenant preaches only one type of giving and that is freewill giving that is determined solely by the giver and not by any law or percentage or any neccessity.Tithes do not conform to this type of giving because it is a law,the amount is not determined by the giver rather it is a fixed 10% and it is of necessity.

If a person decides of his own accord to give 10% of his earnings to the church or the work of God,that is beautiful,but only as long as it isn't done based on the false teaching about tithes of today.It should be of his/her own personal decision and not of compulsion of a law or threat from pastors.
It should be done based on a freewill.This freewill encompasses:

1. The earnest desire to do so
2. The ability to do so
3. The comfort to do so
4. The joy in doing so

If at any point in time the person is not able to do so maybe due to some constraints or situation, he/she has no problem. Whenever he/she feels he/she can and wants to, he/she can give.

Freewill giving is what is preached by the new covenant teachings,not compulsory,mandatory or law backed giving.

@image123,

I haven't been able to reply for a while now.
I see ur points and understand you. But I still insist that you are wrong

The conclusions u make on this issue cannot seriously be made when studying the verses and passages that have to do with the baptism of the Holy Spirit.The two passages from Acts 8 and 19 seem to suggest that the baptism of the Holy Spirit could happen at a different time from conversion or belief in Christ.
Unless u look at what other passages say about the Holy Spirit,being born again,being part of Christ,etc., u will hold the belief that those people mentioned in those passages were truly saved.

It would take me a while to start explaining myself,so i think it's best u read what some one else has to say about this issue:

May 19, 1991
Bethlehem Baptist Church
Pentecost
John Piper, Pastor
WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO RECEIVE THE HOLY SPIRIT? (Acts 8:14-17)

Now when the apostles at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent to them Peter and John, who came down and prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit; for it had not yet fallen on any of them, but they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Then they laid their hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit.

This passage raises the question of whether the Pentecostal understanding of the baptism in the Holy Spirit has a good basis here. What I mean by the Pentecostal understanding of the baptism of the Holy Spirit is simply the view that there is a definite experience of the Holy Spirit to be sought and enjoyed after conversion that is different from the indwelling of the Holy Spirit which starts when we first believe, and that this second experience is signified by speaking in tongues. There have been many non-Pentecostals who agree that the baptism with the Holy Spirit is a distinct second experience but not necessarily accompanied by tongues. For example, A.J. Gordon, Reuben A. Torrey, Dwight L. Moody, Charles Finney, etc.

Those who believe that there is a distinct second experience use this passage in Acts 8 to support their position. The Samaritans seem to be already converted--that's the first experience--and yet there is an experience of the Holy Spirit that they don't have--that's the second experience. Verse 15 says that Peter and John came down from Jerusalem and "prayed for [the Samaritans] that they might receive the Holy Spirit; for it had not yet fallen on any of them, but they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus." So it is obvious they are missing something. The Spirit has not "fallen on them." They have not "received" him.

But in spite of this lack, they seem to be genuine believers. Not everyone agrees with this. Since James Dunn's book, Baptism in the Holy Spirit, many now think that the Samaritans were not true believers before Peter and John came down to pray for them. There are good arguments on both sides, some suggesting that the Samaritans were not yet true believers, and some suggesting that they were.

For example, here are some clues that make it look like they are indeed true believers.

1. In verse 6 it says that they "gave heed to what was said by Philip." That same phrase is used in Acts 16:14 where it says about Lydia, "The Lord opened her heart to give heed to what was said by Paul." So giving heed to what a gospel preacher says seems to be something that is genuine because it is possible because the Lord opens the heart to make it happen. So it looks like the Samaritans really were giving heartfelt heed to the preaching of Philip.

2. Verse 8 says they were experiencing much joy, like the Ethiopian eunuch after his conversion (8:39).

3. Verse 12a says they "believed Philip as he preached the good news about the Kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ."

4. Verse 16 says that they were baptized in the name of Jesus. And when the apostles came down to lay hands on them there is no mention that they baptized them again, even though Paul re-baptized the disciples who only knew the baptism of John in Acts 19:5.

All this suggests that the Samaritans were true believers when Peter and John came down to lay hands on them to receive the Holy Spirit. This was the view of John Calvin and Matthew Henry and Henry Alford and most commentators until recently.

Therefore many teachers conclude that this event here in Acts 8 is an illustration, just like Pentecost, that there is a definite receiving of the Holy Spirit to be experienced after conversion. And many identify this with the baptism in the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:5; 11:16).

There are three reasons that other commentators think the Samaritans were not true believers when Peter and John came down from Jerusalem:

1. Verse 12a says that the Samaritans "believed Philip" instead of believing the gospel or believing in Christ.

2. Simon the Sorcerer is also said to believe (v. 13) and yet we saw last week that he was not a true believer (v. 21--"you have neither part nor lot in this matter".

3. If we assume the Samaritans do not have the Holy Spirit in any sense then Romans 8:9 proves they are not Christians: "Any one who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him."

If these arguments are compelling then what Peter and John were praying for when they came down from Jerusalem was not a second work of the Holy Spirit, but the first work of converting grace. This is the view of Anthony Hoekema (Tongues and Spirit-Baptism) and James Dunn.

Many interpreters would say that even if the Samaritans were already true believers and the Holy Spirit was given in two stages, this was not meant to be normative for all Christians. Instead it was an exceptional pattern so that (for example) the Jewish apostles would come down to Samaria and signify by their laying on of hands that there is oneness between the Samaritan and Jewish church in spite of age old hostilities between Jews and Samaritans.

Now what are we to make of all this? It can get very confusing. The approach I want to take this morning is this: I want to come at this issue of the baptism with the Holy Spirit indirectly by asking what we can say with a good deal of certainty about receiving the Holy Spirit in the book of Acts.

I would start by saying that in the book of Acts everywhere the receiving of the Holy Spirit is described it is experiential. What I mean is that it's not just a logical inference that you know has happened to you only because something else has happened. Instead it has effects that are clearly discernible. In the book of Acts a person knows when he receives the Holy Spirit. It is an experience with effects you can point to.

Let me illustrate this from Acts 19:2. The situation is that Paul has come to Ephesus and found there some disciples who, as it turns out, only know the baptism of John the Baptist and have not been baptized into the name of Jesus. Paul detects something wrong and breaks the whole thing open by asking a key question in verse 2: "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?"

Now that is a remarkable question for contemporary American Evangelicals who have been taught by and large that the way you know you have received the Holy Spirit is that you are a believer. We have been told that you can know that you have the Holy Spirit because all who believe have the Holy Spirit. It's a logical inference. So if we want to know if someone has received the Holy Spirit, we would ask, "Have you believed on Jesus?" If the answer is yes, then we know the person received the Holy Spirit. Receiving the Holy Spirit is a logical inference, not an experience to point to.

But Paul's question isn't like that is it? Paul says, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?" We scratch our heads and say, "I don't get it, Paul. If you assume we believed, why don't you assume we received the Holy Spirit? We've been taught that all who believe receive the Holy Spirit. We've been taught to just believe that the Spirit is there whether there are any effects or not. But you talk as if there is a way to know we've received the Holy Spirit different from believing. You talk as if we could point to an experience of the Spirit apart from believing in order to answer your question."

And that is in fact the way Paul talks. When he asks, "Did you receive the Spirit when you believed," he expects that a person who has "received the Holy Spirit" knows it, not just because it's an inference from his faith in Christ, but because it is an experience with effects that we can point to.

That is what runs all the way through this book of Acts. All the explicit descriptions of receiving the Holy Spirit are experiential (not inferential).

It's possible to sum up all Luke's ways of describing the coming of the Holy Spirit. There are seven words or phrases. He speaks of

1. the Holy Spirit being given to people (as a gift)--8:18; 5:32; 15:8 (as we); 11:17 (gift: 2:38; 8:20; 10:45; 11:17);

2. the Holy Spirit falling upon people--8:16; 10:44; 11:15 (as we, pointing back to Pentecost);

3. the Holy Spirit coming upon people--1:8; 19:6;

4. the Holy Spirit being poured out on people--2:17f.; 10:45;

5. people receiving the Holy Spirit--2:38; 8:15,17; 10:47 (as we, pointing back to Pentecost);

6. being baptized in the Holy Spirit--1:5; 11:16 (as we);

7. being filled with the Holy Spirit--2:4; 9:17

All these ways of describing the coming of the Holy Spirit are found in six stories or instances in the book of Acts and in every one the coming of the Spirit is with experienced effects.

1. At Pentecost there was speaking in tongues and praising the mighty works of God and power to witness (1:8; 2:4, 11);

2. in Samaria there is something so obvious in experience that Simon saw it and is amazed and wants to buy the power to make it happen (8:18);

3. in Caesarea at the house of Cornelius there was speaking in tongues and praising God (10:46);

4. in Ephesus where Paul found the disciples of John the Baptist there was speaking in tongues and prophesying (19:6);

5. at Paul's conversion there is extraordinary boldness and empowering to witness (9:17, 22);

6. and in Acts 5:32 Luke says that God "gave the Holy Spirit to everyone who is obeying him." So obedience to God is a mark of his presence.

So in every case of the Holy Spirit's coming or being received in the book of Acts there are definite effects that one can point to as evidence that the Spirit has been received. The ones mentioned are speaking in tongues, prophesying, freely praising the great things of God, boldness and power in witness, and obedience to God. And if we take the subsequent empowering of the Spirit into account after the initial one the list would, of course, include the working of miracles, signs, and wonders (Acts 6:8, 13:9-11).

The point is this: whether Luke expects these kinds of effects to happen in one initiatory receiving of the Holy Spirit or in a two step process with "baptism in the Holy Spirit" after conversion, or in an ongoing sequence of fillings (or some combination of these three), one thing is clear: Luke expects the receiving of the Holy Spirit (however we receive him) to be a real, identifiable experience of the living God, not just a logical inference from a human act of will.

And we can say more about this experience. There is no promise in the book of Acts that everyone who receives the Spirit will speak in tongues or prophesy. But there is the promise in Acts 1:8 that when the Spirit comes upon us we will receive power; and in this power we will be able to evangelize the whole world. That promise is made to everybody on whom the Holy Spirit comes, not just a few.

Then what we see in the book of Acts are illustrations of what this power looks like as it comes on different groups. It comes with speaking in tongues for some (2:4; 10:46; 19:6). It comes with the gift of prophecy for some (2:17; 19:6; cf. 10:46). It comes with free and overflowing praise of God's greatness (2:11; 10:46). It comes with obedience to the commands of God (5:32). It comes with courage and boldness of witness (2:14-36; 9:17-22). And it brings the working of various gifts (Heb. 2:4) and miracles (Gal. 3:5), and signs and wonders (Acts 6:8 ).

But however it comes, it is an experience of divine reality. It is not just an idea about our spiritual condition that we infer from a decision we have made. It is supernatural. You can use it to answer the question, "Did you receive the Spirit when you believed?"

You can say,

B Yes, I have seen the Spirit of obedience at work in my life subduing sin and inclining me to acts of love.

B Yes, I have seen the Spirit of praise in my life filling my heart and mouth with worship to Jesus and God the Father.

B Yes, I have seen the Spirit of courage at work in my life overcoming fear and giving me a will to risk things for the cause of Christ.

B And yes, even though I know that speaking in tongues and the gift of prophecy are no sure sign of God's grace, yet together with other evidences they too are a precious evidence that the power of God is on me.


From what this article suggests, it's clear that the Baptism of the Holy Spirit occurs once and the same time with being born again and that it is evidenced by different experiences;not exclusively the speaking in tongues.

I can't say for sure that you will be convinced by this,but the fact remains that we are baptized with the Holy Spirit on conversion to Christ.Each individual then experiences different things according to the will of the Spirit.

Just thought I should add this:

Galatians 3:27-29
27. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
28. There in neither Jew nor Greek,neither bond nor free,there is neither male nor female:for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
29. And if ye be Christ's,then are ye Abraham's seed,and heirs according to the promise.

The verses above show that one is Christ's by being baptized into him.We know it is when we have faith or believe in Christ that we are Christ's and become part of his body.So,the question is:how do we get baptized into Christ/become Christ's?Or what baptism makes us Christ's?

Answer:
1 Corinthians 12:13
13. For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body,whether we be Jews or Gentiles,whether we be bond or free;and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

See the relationship between the verse immediately above and the preceeding ones?
We become Christ's by the baptism of the Holy Spirit.

Conclusion on becoming Christ's:
The when: When we believe in Christ/the gospel of Christ.

The how: By the baptism of the Holy Spirit.

The result: The inheritance of the promise of God to Abraham and his seed which is righteousness/salvation.

Three things tied into one single moment.

Image123:
@ttalks
see I appreciate and I enjoy your inputs,but please you're wrong on this.

Image123:
No thats not true.Not every person that is born again is baptised in the holy ghost.Salvation is a different experience from the baptism.They could both happen the same day o,but they are not the same.What I'm saying is that The holy ghost baptism is evidenced by an initial experience of speaking in tongues.
Now I don't know if the eumuch of ethipia was baptised.The Bible doesn't say if he was or not.What is said is that he believed and was baptised in water.Acts 8 doesn't say if he got baptised in the Spirit.Please quote and embolden it if it said so.God dwells in every believer.whether it is the Father o,or the Son Jesus,or the Holy Ghost.The Spirit dwells/abides with every believer.But the baptism of the Holy Ghost is different.It is an enduement of POWER.Its lke a fullness of the Spirit.It is for ministry.It comes with power gifts.It is what the apostles got at pentecost,different from their salvation

@Image123,

It seems ur conclusion or understanding that the Holy Ghost baptism is something that occurs differently from the being born again experience is derived from what happened with the apostles in Acts;the pentecost time.
There was a reason that such happened.The apostles believed in Jesus Christ even when he was still on earth,but there couldn't be a holy Spirit baptism for them and others who believed because Jesus was still with them and had not yet ascended to heaven/been glorified.This is shown in:

John 7:38-39
(38) He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.
(39) (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)

Having the Holy Spirit is the same thing as being baptized with the Holy Spirit.And this occurs when one is born again.

1 Corinthians 12:13
13. For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body,whether we be Jews or gentiles,whether we be bond or free:and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

Is it not when we become born again that we become part of the body of Christ?
The verse above states that it is through the baptism of the Holy Spirit that we become part of the body of Christ.
Put two and two together.

Galatians 3:2
(2) This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?

The speaking of tongues and the cloves of fire that occured on the pentecost day were things that God allowed to happen for the purpose of establishing the gospel and the fact that salvation had come.The speaking of tongues are not a must sign for baptism of the Holy Spirit.Below is the explanation of what hapened on the day of pentecost and other subsequent days:

Hebrews 2:1-4
1 Therefore we must pay much closer attention to what we have heard, lest we drift away from it.
2 For since the message declared by angels proved to be reliable, and every transgression or disobedience received a just retribution,
3 how shall we escape if we neglect such a great salvation? It was declared at first by the Lord, and it was attested to us by those who heard,
4 while God also bore witness by signs and wonders and various miracles and by gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his will.



As I said before,the baptism of the Holy Spirit is the same thing as when a person becomes born again.They are not two seperate events in a believers life.
Christ's purpose was to bring salvation unto man.John the baptist also said Christ's purpose was to baptize man with the Holy Spirit.
It simply means that salvation and the Baptism of the Holy Spirit are one and the same thing.

Acts 11:15-17
(15) And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning.
(16) Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.
(17) Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I, that I could withstand God?

Most people believe that the baptism of the Holy Spirit is a seperate occurence from being born again.That is completely wrong.Salvation is brought about by the baptism of the Holy Spirit;and the baptism of the Holy Spirit is brought about by the belief in the gospel of Jesus Christ.
Therefore, when a person believes in Christ,he is baptized by the Holy Spirit which brings about the salvation.

Again,i repeat,the manifestation of tongues on the day of pentecost were/are not 'must happen' signs of the baptism of the Holy Spirit; they were simply occurences ochestrated by God for the establishment of the gospel.
The gospel has been established already, so there is no need for the manifestation of tongues as sign of being baptised of the Holy Spirit.Any proper manifestation of tongues are according to God's will and not the whim or will of any man, and also not a sign of being baptised by the Spirit.
The popular belief about the tongues and the baptism of the Holy Spirit is brought about wrong teachings pushed forth by the pentecostals and some others.

Christ's ministry;which is to bring salvation to man,is the promise which God made to Abraham,and that is the promise of the spirit.That can be understood by reading the whole of Galatians 3.

So,based on these undeniable facts above,it is a simple case to put two and two together and know that the Eunuch in Acts 8 was definitely baptized with the Holy Spirit based on the simple fact that he believed in the Gospel of Christ.