₦airaland Forum

Enigma, 4get_me, Morning ,

Read your comments with interest.

4get_me, let me say this, it's obvious (and good, I think), that we take/have different approaches to our common faith. One thing I hesitate to do, is moderate anyones walk with God. Share? yes, influence and inform to some degree? Of course that'll happen. But moderate? no way, otherwise it's not really their walk.

Now, about tithing, please don't take it personally, a lot of what I see and indeed where I am in my walk, started from my coming to the understanding that it is simply dead work. You may or may not agree, no problem, I used to withstand those who didn't tithe and rail against those who argued for net as against gross income. But 2 things;

1. I found that a conclusion for or against tithing, is but the beginning of a deeper discussion. Whenever there's a crime, of whatever nature, good police will always investigate the money trail. I'm sure you'll continue your personal search, but please consider that.

2. The debate is not strictly between the two of us, it's open forum. No one else has complained or even mentioned my bundling this in with other threads. If I feel the discourse will deepen our understanding of the tithing issue as well, why not? However, as a mark of goodwill and the fact that I treasure our sharing, I will desist.

On to the question of Apostles, gifts and offices. Please don't take this personally, but, although I really applaud your research, sometimes I feel it gets very technical and doesn't speak much to the "outworking" of real live Christianity.

So for example, you insist on quantifying numbers and identifying names. No problem. Now my question was "How does the apostle operate in church today. You respoded with the quote from Ph 4 about edifying etc. etc. Yes sir, I know that is the reason for all Christian ministry, office, gifts, but my question was very specific. Not why, but what & how. You've mention "apostolic commission and capacity". Please sir, elucidate. Commissioned, how?, capacity, what?

As I stressed repeatedly, God is sovereign, He can do whatsoever He pleases. I quoted the opening of Hebrews 1, about how God once spoke through the prophets, but has now spoken to us through His Son. Does that mean prophets no longer exist? That's a pick 'em question. But does it mean that if the prophetic is required, God can't/won't use someone for the purpose? Likewise the apostolic.

We can argue the point endlessly. Paul said "last of all" in referring to himself as an apostle. How technical do you want us to be? It's why I said numbers are a mute point to me. I am not so much interested in scoring points or winning arguments, as in being better informed and hearing how other believers are living it.

I think this insistence on delineating offices, functions, hierarchies, is typical of one who sees the Church as organisation. I sense that you sometimes research to prove a point, or maybe validate what is practiced in your mode of worship. Maybe it would help if (as I feel I have tried to do), share your denominational leaning or mode of worship. After all, surely that's as important as sharing doctrinal positions?

Apologies for having to reference scripture off the cuff in this one, can't really access my resource just now.

Let the dialogue continue.

God bless

4get_me,

TV01:
To be honest the number of NT Apostles would be a mute point to me.
I consider grasping the "how & why" of the apostolic to be sufficient.

Paul walked/worked with a whole group of people.
Both Timothy and Titus, where to "appoint elders". I see that as "establishing" the church/churches, so in a sense it's definitely apostolic. Are they to be considered apostles?
Are they to be considered Apostles like Peter? or maybe like Paul? All good questions, but I'm not sure how important it is.
I must say the True Apostles were personally selected by the Lord himself, even Paul as "one out of time".

So perhaps we can make a distinction between an "Apostle" a title/position/selected, and "the Apostolic" as a function?

As you can see by my use of the term True Apostles, I am fully aware that not only the Apostles of the Lord moved in the apostolic. What about Timothy? or Titus? But does that make them Apostles like "The 12"?

Andronicus and Junia were notable among the apostles (not as apostles) is a possible reading of this.

But lets not get bogged down in semantics, others moved in the "Apostolic". Let me ask you this,

How does an "Apostle" operate in daily church?
Is what present day apostles do in anyway foundational?

When Peter wrote giving instructions (especially to those in the dispersion), he was talking things foundational, and as was sensible he lent the weight of his apostolic authority to his missives

As for the tithing references. You have long promised a rejoinder, but so far none has been forthcoming. So as far as I am concerned that conversation is ongoing, and I find it convenient to buttress my position, where the turn of any discussion allows.

The Lords supper? Pray tell, what has that to do with Jews? or the Law?

Say on sir,

God bless

Hi TayoD,

Like I said "your plan" based on "your walk"
All I meant was, it's no one's place to tell you how to plan or walk. That's something everyone should do themselves

Who in their right minds chooses to be poor? I believe this is the "mature Christian" position.
Philippians 4:11 - Not that I speak in regard to need, for I have learned in whatever state I am, to be content:

No I don't believe poverty  equates to righteousness, is there any reason (Biblical or otherwise) why I should?

Prayers are not granted just on desire, there is also a question of motivation.

If you are content, why do you desire to be super rich?
1Timothy 6:9 - But those who desire to be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and harmful lusts which drown men in destruction and perdition

Poverty is not my "heartfelt conviction"
I pray and thank God for meeting my needs.

Besides, if one wants poverty, why pray? you can simply give everthing away and quit work   !

Over to you sir

God bless

Hi TayoD,

TayoD:
Okay, let me say this unequivocally. I plan to be rich, infact, super-rich. Though Jesus said indeed that "the poor you will always have with you," but I don't plan to be amongst those. I plan to be amongst those that cater to the need of the poor instead.

As you said, "your plan". If that's how your walk with the Lord is developing, who is to say otherwise?

Money is not the only need of the "poor". Plus the term itself is relative.

TayoD:
Not that I am super rich now, but I know I don't wake up each day wondering where the next meal is coming from and not knowing where to sleep tonight. That is a great blessing.

As Christians, I don't think we can ask for anything more.

1 Timothy 6:8 ~ And having food and clothing, with these we shall be content.

God bless

Hi 4get_me,

Me, dodge? If only you knew.

There were 13 Apostles in the NT. The 12 and Paul.
Or I could say 12, as one, Judas, fell by transgression.

That's foundational.

Now sir, whats your position and what are you saying?

God bless

Why am I  starting to detest that word leader/s?
It's such a buzzword in some cirlcles. Whole conferences  .
Used only 3 times in the NT (NKJV) and never to describe Christians

Sorry, just rambling.

4get_me,

As far as I can make out I have answered all the questions posed.
If you think not, could you please specify very clearly what I have omitted.

I asked at the end of my last post "why".
A response can be more precisely worded if the question is more specific.

Yes the Bible is very specific about those called "Apostles".
I spoke to that, as those selected by the Lord.

If there is a hierarchy, why would Peter an Apostle refer to himself as an elder? And what "Apostolic" work was he performing in Jerusalem? When the question of Laws to be obeyed came up (the conference in Acts 15). Then they came together and discussed matters that were foundational to the church and hence acted in their capacity as Apostles. What is the need for an Apostle in the day to day running of a church?

And I won't get tired of stressing this, note how the gentiles who were turning to God where to abstain from only three things. The law of Moses was in now way, shape or form to be enforced on the Gentiles - NO TITHING! (Acts 15:19-25)

Later.

God bless

Hi 4get me,

By number and in turn.

1.
If there is a "lack" that can be answered by money.

1John 3:17 - But whoever has this world's goods, and sees his brother in need, and shuts up his heart from him, how does the love of God abide in him?

James 2:15 If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, "Depart in peace, be warmed and filled," but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit?

2.
You are right in that my use of the term is narrow. I use it in a pejorative sense at best and as evil at worst. I realise that is not a pure dictionary or even biblical definition. The bible is neutral in it's use of the word, and maybe I have been remiss in not clarifying how I use it.

However, I don't ascribe the term religious to those who do not "fall into my system". I don't belong to any system. I am simply a Bible believing Christian. I have some default positions, some literally taken ones, some researched ones and some revealed ones. All are subject to change if I come across a deeper understanding. No dogma, and no forcing my views on anyone. So for example,  I see this as sharing and not teaching, but we can all come away taught, sharpened and edified.

Religion (still in the pejorative sense) is essentially a system, and there various "systems" within Christianity. Please don't get me wrong. I do not subscribe to, champion or rail against any tradition, I believe there are God's people in them all (but not all in them are God's people). My posts are always on a position by position basis and not a denominational one. So, I agree with certain parts of most traditions, but am bound by none. I see some truth in all and varying degrees of error in all. One thing is that "error" when codified can be/become heresy, if that abounds, then when does error become outright "apostasy"?

Interesting to note, you can trace religion (again in it's pejorative sense) in the Bible right back to Cain and Abel. Simple faith and religion are never compatible. It's why Cain slew Abel. Trace it all the way to the Lords day, and it's why the "Religious system" of the day killed the Lord. And of course it's still with us. I can even see it here on this forum. Religion as dogma, ritual, obligation, temples, priesthoods and all that entails is deadly. It's where the evil one does his best work. That's why he goes to church (as in the religious system) like everyone else! Maybe we'll have opportunity to share on that sometime.

3.
I see the church of God as all those who "repent towards God and put their faith in Jesus Christ". Nothing added or taken away. Wherever they are.

4.
I didn't say or mean that money is evil in God's eyes. Just noted, it wasn't originally of God
It's a human invention and perhaps a needed one given the way we live.

God's "currency" was gold silver, precious metals etc. Inflation proof, a real store of wealth and unchanging value. Our paper money is debt driven. But again, it's a whole other topic and one I'm still on (although not currently, as I don't see it as that important).

Hope it clarifies things somewhat.

Your observations where on my take. Pray, share yours with us.

God bless.

Hi again 4get_me,

To be honest the number of NT Apostles would be a mute point to me.
I consider grasping the "how & why" of the apostolic to be sufficient.

Paul walked/worked with a whole group of people.
Both Timothy and Titus, where to "appoint elders". I see that as "establishing" the church/churches, so in a sense it's definitely apostolic. Are they to be considered apostles?
Are they to be considered Apostles like Peter? or maybe like Paul? All good questions, but I'm not sure how important it is.

I must say the True Apostles were personally selected by the Lord himself, even Paul as "one out of time".

So perhaps we can make a distinction between an "Apostle" a title/position/selected, and "the Apostolic" as a function?

Why do you ask?

God bless.


Aren't I rambling today? See how passion is dealing with a brother .

TayoD, hello and well spoken,

Scripturally, in the body of Christ, money only moves for one reason. That reason is "Need". Be it to those within or without the household of faith. It's a form of Christian love and witness.

One of the biggest lies in Christendom today is the saying "It takes money to spread the Gospel". No it doesn't. It didn't in the book of Acts did it?

Can anyone show me one scriptural example (NT) where money moved for anything other than personal need?

It takes money to build temples, pay salaries, host programs. It takes money to create a religious system. Religion is a devourer of widows houses!

The "prosperity Gospel" is not the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. It's "Another".
A place where it is preached may well be called a church, doesn't mean it's a church of God.

Money is not evil, the love of money is!
I think the example was more about not taking thought or paying undue attention to material things.
Material abasement or abounding should make absolutely no difference to a true Christian.
There will always be poor people, ergo there will always be poor Christians.

My starter for 10.

And one last thing, God didn't invent money!

God bless

Morning Gentlemen,

Hope the day finds you well. Great weather here. Now, to the business at hand.

~ Apostle: Sent one. Presumably one is sent to do something? Establish something? The church
   has been established.
~ Evangelist: Evangelism is the outworking of being a Christian
~ Whats a pastor? show me from the Bible a pastors remit/mandate.
~ Brother 4get-me, haven't I taught you a lot? But I don't demand you call me teacher  . I've   
   enjoyed learning from you, but it's still Bro' 4get-me. Learning is by being with. That is what
   Ephesians 4 is really speaking to. Our coming together means transference of gifts,
   knowledge,  experience. We are thus edified. We grow, we mature, we become more Christlike.
   Hebrews 5:12 For though by this time you ought to be teachers

The way these offices/functions/titles tend to play out in denominational Christianity is to foster a dichotomy (the totally unscriptural clergy/laity split), and make some dependent on others. Some never really mature and stay carnal, like at Corinth, legal, like at Galatia, or babes, like the "Hebrews". (small wonder many labour under this nonsensical "MOG" fixation). It becomes rigid and develops an "organisational" feel. Christian interaction is relational and not functional. "I Paul, an apostle" a brother first, acting in a certain capacity, charged with a particular role (at that time). I meet people today and they always introduce themselves as Pastor this or Reverend that (often without even a first name!), immediately establishing functionality and not relationship.

Let me say this, God is sovereign, if He chooses to work in certain ways, at certain times, through certain people and mediums, who am I or anyone else to question that?

The living Christianity I see is way beyond the functional paradigm that so many try and squeeze it into. Offices, functions, positions, titles? It's a family not an organisation.

A 10 year old, the second of five kids. His chore is to take out the trash. Does he assume the title/office/role of "waste disposal expert"? No, it's just a function. He'll grow, the task may be reassigned, he'll do other things, as and when necessary and according to his maturity. Remember the apostle Paul grew and worked through different roles, as was needed, as was beneficial and as God willed.

Why did Peter call himself a "fellow elder"? Because he was based in Jerusalem. The church there had been established. He took his place amongst the comity of elders. No senior, no better. That's living, practical Christianity. Paul was being used to establish the church outside Jewry, an "apostolic" role (plus he was itinerant). After pioneering is done, you either (1) go and pioneer in another virgin territory (2) stay and become part of the locally established church or (3) return whence you came, job done, no need to be called an apostle.

What's a Prophet? I'm sure most are beyond thinking of it as a"predictive" ministry. Prophets where always first and foremost about warning and repentance. Prophets are used to speak to people.

Hebrews 1:1 God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, 2 has in these last days spoken to us by His Son,

I could go on, but hopefully you get my drift. Ephesians 2:20 from my post of yesterday, you can see that some roles are foundational. The foundation has been laid, just take care how you build on it.

TayoD
A bishop is the same as an elder/shepherd/pastor. They are just different facets of the same role.

God bless

Brother TV01 

Apologies for rambling a bit today. It's summer, and a young mans thoughts turn to love. She's got me going!  , please remember me in your prayers.

4get-me,

How are you sir?

You know I have been eagerly awaiting this promised post for some time now. I appreciate your busy work schedule and packed social diary permit little time for web posting. At your convenience sir.

Some have insinuated that your posts are overblown & wordy. I on the other hand greatly appreciate your research.

I would suggest that you apply the KISS principle. But as ever, anything less than sterling work will meet with my strenuous rebuttal.

"Faith & good sense", presumably that is the 4get_me doctrine of "No it's not a law, but we do it because it's madness not too". I said research sir, but I meant research leading to sterling not shoddy scholarship. And please non of that jumping through hoops to maintain a denominational position nonsense!

BTW,
As for "Tithing preceding the law", so did circumcision. Don't even!!!

God bless

Hi,

Would any of the 3 people who voted "something else" in the Creation or evolution vote, kindly like to share what that is?

Just interested.

Regards

Yes and no!

In the sense that The Lord used the apostles (all of them) to found and propagate His church. Well, yes!

1Corinthians 3:11 - For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ

Ephesians 2:20 - having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief corner stone,

But in the sense that Peter was solely charged with the office of high leadership, whose lineage was to be maintained by dynastic succession! Please!

There are only two offices in the church today elders (always in plurality) and deacons.

Everything else is needless religion.

God bless

Hi again biggjoe,

biggjoe:
U can't prove its wrong.

No I can't, but the Bible surely does.
A mediatory Priesthood is the epitomy of "religion" (I use religion in a pejorative sense here. As ritual, obligation, man-made tradition, laws etc. etc.).

A few verses from Hebrews chapter 7, one of the most wonderfully expository of Bible books should help!

Chapter 7
11 Therefore, if perfection were through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further need was there that another priest should rise according to the order of Melchizedek, and not be called according to the order of Aaron? 12 For the priesthood being changed, of necessity there is also a change of the law. [/color]

[color=#990000]A change of the priesthood & the attendant law (tithers take note!)

19 for the law made nothing perfect; on the other hand, there is the bringing in of a better hope, through which we draw near to God. 20 And inasmuch as He was not made priest without an oath 21 (for they have become priests without an oath, but He with an oath by Him who said to Him: "The Lord has sworn And will not relent, 'You are a priest forever* According to the order of Melchizedek' ",+ 22 by so much more Jesus has become a surety of a better covenant. 23 Also there were many priests, because they were prevented by death from continuing. 24 But He, because He continues forever, has an unchangeable priesthood. 25 Therefore He is also able to save to the uttermost those who come to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them. 26 For such a High Priest was fitting for us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and has become higher than the heavens; 27 who does not need daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins and then for the people's, for this He did once for all when He offered up Himself. 28 For the law appoints as high priests men who have weakness, but the word of the oath, which came after the law, appoints the Son who has been perfected forever.

biggjoe:
why were there titles like deacons, disciples and even apostles in the bible.

Sir, not everything is a title? What you have enumerated are a function, a name and an office. Even the word "Mr." is a title. What already?

An obsession with titles and office is a sure sign of religious obsessiveness. Isn't it startlingly clear that the "religion" of Temples, Priests & hierarchies, sacrifices & ritual, laws and such like is exactly what the Lord died for. All that stuff is nailed to the cross.

God bless

Morning biggjoe,

Kind of a weird way of defending your position.  

Every so often, our politicians over here trot out a similar line after an right royal screw-up. It goes a little something like this

"Yes we made a right pigs ear of the situation, but if the opposition had been in power, things would have been even worse"

Is that the best you can do?

For you information, I am not a Pentecostal, and many of the teachings of that particular religion, which adopt equally bogus terms, such as "Daddy GO" Apostle "this" and Reverend "that", are every bit as unscriptural as the Papacy and all it entails.

Although I must say Catholics have better outfits. The Pentecostals have not quite got the hang of "ecclesiastical chic". Cheap suits and bad hair just don't cut the mustard against finely embroidered robes and a decent mitre.  

biggjoe:
Whether you call it catholicism or pure biblical christianity, the dinstinction is all your invention.

Wrong sir, the distinction is as clear as glass. "Catholicism (a man made religious system) is the invention.

So in summary, you are not wrong about your criticism of Pentecostalism, what you are, is every bit as bad!

God bless

otolorin hi,

Re your quotes below

otolorin:
truth is, the bible say "touch not my annointed and do my prophets no harm"

Yes it does! Twice. In 1 Chronicles16:22 and again in Psalm 105:15. Both in the OT. Does that mean we simply disregard all the NT has to say about "testing", "judging" (judging as in critically appraising) and "discerning"?

otolorin:
and this includes ow we talk about these annointed ones.

Is that too say some are "anointed" and some are not?

otolorin:
whether true or not, we have no right watsoever, as christians or any-other individuals, to question these MEN.

Please listen to yourself? "Whether it is true or not"?

Let me attempt to summarise what I am hearing;
~ They are anointed
~ They therefore have carte blanche to say anything
~ We should be aware of that and therefore check our brains at the door?

Christianity did you say? Surely not the Biblical kind?

otolorin:
i hope we get to see things clearer, by the day.

I wouldn't hold out much hope of that if you keep your eyes tightly shut, and simply follow blindly!

God bless

You guys are really making this difficult for me. Same thread with two titles. Moderator, what's with that?

Hi 4get_me,

I note with interest your arguing that obsolescence of the law removes the requirement for a fixed sabbath. We could of course go on to discuss how the NC spiritually fulfills the physical aspects of the OC. And of course, I'd absolutely agree.

I find it a little odd though, that when it comes to tithing you conveniently forget this.

At least virozuru has shown some degree of consistency in holding to the law (however futile I personally believe that may be).

Have a good weekend sir.

God bless

You guys are really making this difficult for me. Same thread with two titles. Moderator, what's with that?

Hi 4get_me,

I note with interest your arguing that obsolescence of the law removes the requirement for a fixed sabbath. We could of course go on to discuss how the NC spiritually fulfills the physical aspects of the OC. And of course, I'd absolutely agree.

I find it a little odd though, that when it comes to tithing you conveniently forget this.

At least virozuru has shown some degree of consistency in holding to the law (however futile I personally believe that may be).

Have a good weekend sir.

God bless

Hi virozuru,

virozuru:
you are supposed to tithe.

No you are not supposed to tithe (not as a Christian anyway).

virozuru:
I don't understand why people feel that you aren't supposed to.

Simply because the Bible does not anywhere, at anytime demand it of NT Christians.

I appreciate your stance on this, but I do not share it as I believe it is quite wrong and in a sense very dangerous.

God bless

Hi virozuru

Apologies for my belated response.
Re your response to my post below, I'm not quite sure if the bit you found insulting was also the bit you did not understand, or it was parts of both?

Please don't take offence, I realise I can be facetious at times.

Quote from: TV01 on April 28, 2006, 11:06 AM
Hi Nwoke,

Thanks very much for your last post.

Christians, some of you love the law so much, you've morphed into Jews. Beware the leaven of the pharisees  .

My advice (which you are not obliged to follow); don't burn yourselves out ushering at three services on a Sunday, carrying the "MOG's" bible, or otherwise working yourselves into the ground serving those religious institutions that some pranksters call church.

I rest my case (pun intended  ).

God bless

We are having an intelligent conversation which does not call for insults. i don't even understand what you said.

The essence of my post was as follows;
Sabbath keeping is not required of NT Christians.

Presumably you are aware that there are other Sabbaths besides the 6pm to 6am Friday/Saturday one. Do you keep those as well? Why/why not?

God bless

Hi biggjoe,

I was, and have been following this thread with passivei nterest until I came across your quote below;

biggjoe:
Even though all priests are not  Pope, a Pope is a priest. A pope is a high priest.

Can I take it that you are making a distinction between "Catholicism" and pure biblical Christianity? If so, my point becomes a mute one and I apologise up front.

If however, you take them as synonymous, I'd just like to point out that in true biblical Christianity, there is currently only one eternal holder of the office of "High Priest" and that is the Lord Jesus Christ, not some German bloke!

To ascribe that office or title to any other is at best utter blasphemy and at worst plain "Antichrist.

And please, don't think I'm "Catholic" bashing, I say it as it reads.
The priesthood is of all believers. There is no longer an intermediary priesthood (outside of the High Priesthood). No human mediators between man and God are required. The "Papacy" and all it entails is not a Christian notion.

Have a nice day.

God bless

Hi Kinglarry,

I am not holding brief for Nwoke, but blasphemy can be summed up as follows;

~ Profanity in action, speech or writing against God.
~ The act of claiming the attributes, rights or privileges of God.
~ An irreverent or impious attitude towards the holy or divine.  

Pray tell, how people discussing the utterances of a man is blasphemy. It was I presume, posted so that people with an interest in "religion" or religious things could discuss.

And one other thing, the "level", specifically in the spiritual. Could you explain with reference to the Holy Bible.

Thank you.

God bless

Kimba, go to your room! .

Th only thing preventing the eradication of malaria from the African continent is the "will" to do so . .

Hi Nwoke,

Thanks very much for your last post.

Christians, some of you love the law so much, you've morphed into Jews. Beware the leaven of the pharisees .

My advice (which you are not obliged to follow); don't burn yourselves out ushering at three services on a Sunday, carrying the "MOG's" bible, or otherwise working yourselves into the ground serving those religious institutions that some pranksters call church.

I rest my case (pun intended ).

God bless

4get_me, good morning to you sir,

I greatly appreciate you scholarship, but I usually end up questioning one of two things,
1. the premise or
2. the conclusion.

Let me explain;

Re: Alcohol ~ your conclusion was
Wine, permissible
Strong drink not encouraged

Are we encouraged to drink wine? No. Are we permitted to drink strong drink? Yes. There is very little distinction between the two. So too sum up, one can do one, both or none (obviously with moderation in mind). You have essentially agreed with me.

Re: Tithing ~ you opened thus (on 21/04/06);
"Tithe or no tithe, even giving is NOT an obligation in the NT to Christians".
(seemingly agreeing with me)

You then go on to say that, there is a difference, you do both and that there are different benefits accruing as a result of doing so.

So as to the question “to tithe or not?” you seemingly agree and then in a convoluted way disagree? If the question had been “to pray or not?” We all know that it’s not a law, but it would be madness not to do so, which is essentially what you are saying about tithing. And that sir, is at best misguided (my view of course, please don’t take umbrage at my choice of words).

(Why do I still think there is a hint of trying to "fit scripture to tradition" here?)

As for the notion of “give to get”, you are not the first I have had this discussion with (I have previously discussed this with Welborn and Baby4u2). I don’t see this as NT Christian motivation. God blesses His own. Simple. Christians give/bless as a consequence of Christ’s love flowing through them, it’s a response to need, a form of “Christian witness”. “Giving to get” smacks, of an investment strategy. Gods promise is to “supply need”. Even your breakdown of “types of giving” sounds questionable. Giving to ministry, giving to the poor, giving to orphans etc, etc, and claiming that there are blessing associated with each “type”. Sir you appear to be talking income streams. In 2Corinthians 8 the Macedonians gave beyond their abilities (sacrificially). Is that to be taken as some sort of risk free gamble on their part? Knowing that God would sooooo bless them as a result? And yes I know that “fruit abounds” to one’s account, but the drawings are not just material and not solely in the here and now. Am I hearing a more “user friendly” version of the “prosperity Gospel” (which is unquestionably “another”)?

Does God bless when we give? Do talebearers cause strife?
Do we give with an eye on a return? Do grizzlies fish for tinned salmon?

Maybe I’ll get round to developing my Letter vs. Intent theme one day, but for now let me say this. Material blessings where the promise of obedience under the OT Law.  There is a deeper meaning under the New Covenant.

And no I am not championing poverty.

“Though He were rich, yet for our sakes He became poor”

May grace & peace be multiplied to all.

God bless

[quote author=4get_me link=topic=272.msg319226#msg319226 date=1146146035]That is part of the issue. The problem is that for the mere mention of 'tithes' (besides other types of giving), people feel that some of us have qualified as ___![/quote]4get_me,

Further to your quote above and for a better understanding, could you please illustrate what you mean by "other types of giving".

It's just that your wording seems to suggest that tithing is giving? and that there are different types?

If you equate tithing with giving, I'm not sure there is any point to our discussion, except my question above about "types of giving", as I still maintain that Christians simply give.

Am I missing something or are we not discussing whether there is a biblical injunction to tithe as in a tenth?

God bless

4get me,

Agreed on your first 2 sentences.
But not everything that labels itself "Christianity" is.
And while I don't subscribe to any denomination (in fact, I would go as far as to suggest most are outright apostate!), I know that some of those within are God's people.

1 Samuel 7 And the Lord said to Samuel, "Heed the voice of the people in all that they say to you; for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me, that I should not reign over them.

It was God the Israelites were rejecting, not theocracy, democracy or any other kind of government. And the consequences are clearly outlined. It clearly evident in todays man-made traditions, from "Popery" to the "MOG" syndrome.

I see (mostly young & single) people working themselves into the ground for "Gods work". They are not and it is not. They are simply being chewed up by a man-made religious system,. That is what the narrative of 1 Samuel 8 speaks too.

Why wouldn't I agree? It's clearly outlined. I'm not at loggerheads with you, and as ever I appreciate your scholarship.

Speak soon.

God bless

Hi All,

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/malcolmbowden/indexx.htm

Hows about some Christian bias? .

God bless

4get me, I thought you were away?

Abraham gave a tithe once. There is nothing to suggest it was a lifetime practice. Even if it was, like Jacob, he took it upon himself to do so.

Tithing as part of the law was given to the Jews for specific purposes. Said law has now been done away with. Christians give.

Like I said before, maintaining that it is not obligatory and then saying it should be done, sounds to me like jumping through hoops to justify what is probably a traditional position.

The reason I hate it is because when preached as demanded by God it is blasphemy and binds the ignorant. Additionally, enforcing it by reference to the OT, is a perverse way of re-introducing the law. Attempting to be justified by the law means you fall from grace.

So, not only are you not cursed if you don't tithe, you are putting yourself back under the law and therefore abide under wrath if you do!

I appreciate your time Sir, please don't take any of this the wrong way.

God bless

Hi 4get_me,

Hope you are well, apologies for the delay.

"Curse on the Church"
Do I mean God's "elect/chosen/set apart ones"? No. I mean the Institutionalised, corporate man made religion that masquerades as Christianity.

The 1 Samuel 8 narrative clearly shows consequences when men reject the Lord as their King and want to be like the other nations. Yet another thread   .

I take your points on Communion and the Love feast.

As for Law & Grace. I also believe you are mistaken, but we are still talking, so no probs.

God bless

Morning KAG,

KAG:
I wouldn't call them lame attempts, nor would I call it unbelief. It is infact what has gone on for centuries, when christians realise that the world operates in a way that contradicts their biblical interpretation, they either conclude the Bible was wrong, or their interpretation was wrong.

I quite agree with "interpretations" possibly being wrong. But if the Bible itself is wrong, that effectively nullifies it and all it's claims. As a matter of integrity, if one come to the conclusion that the Bible is untrue, why not simply place your faith elsewhere?

KAG:
Are you perchance a geocentrist?

No, I am not, or perhaps I am but don't know it, or maybe I will be! I'm not a scientist or expert in any field and I don't feel the need to become one. Faith and the Bible are essentially simple things. That's not to say I despise or shun intellectual or scientific discussions, especially where the Bible is concerned, and whilst I try to keep abreast of things, I'm more about living my faith than proving it.

I'm a Christian. A  Bible believing Christian. A fundamentalist if you like. I believe in the divine inspiration, inerrancy, infallibility and immutability of the Bible as Gods word. Could there be errors in translation ? maybe, but I don't see that as affecting the essence of the Bible, or the Bible as being God's revelation.

Lets abandon the "mythical/allegorical" thing is a bit of a mute point.

KAG:
And there are those who claim to be God's people, yet are not, even though they believe every word of the Bible. By the way, I've yet to meet any christian who in some ways does not disregard some doctrines in the Bible.

I can't speak for others, but I live my faith by what I know from reading, researching or what has been revealed. Some of my positions are literally by default. So for example I used to tithe as I was taught. I now understand it is not a Christian notion, so I stopped. I hope this speaks to the "geocentrist" question as well.

KAG:
The Torah does have multiple authors, and realising that the creation narrative in Genesis isn't literal, doesn't mean denial of the virgin birth etc.

The Bible records Moses as the inspired author of the Torah. To deny that is to deny Biblical Christianity. To a Christian, "believing God" is righteousness. A half truth is a lie.

Quote:
By the way, some of the strongest and most fervent christians I have met accept evolution.

Creation & ToE are mutually exclusive.
Believe God or don't believe God.

Romans 3:4 - Certainly not! Indeed, let God be true but every man a liar. As it is written: "That You may be justified in Your words, And may overcome when You are judged."

God bless