Free Republic

Teddy Roosevelt was governor for the same length of time before he was VP and he was President after only a few days. How’d that work out for everyone?

I’ve covered that in an earlier post.

What was “tithed” before it became a law? Abraham never tithed his income - he tithed the spoils of war. Jacob refused to tithe (give a 10th) unless God blessed him first.

A tithe in the Old Testament was food, crops, livestock, wine. It was given to the temple to celebrate God’s blessings - it was not a seed offering in expectation of a blessing.

Tithing was not taught to the gentiles, nor was it taught by the early church.

Tithing was not one of the ten commandments either. WE are not bound by the laws of Moses nor was tithing ever preached to the gentiles.

Maybe you have hit on something there in your response. If you give from your heart without expectation then He blesses you in return. However, you say that the promises are still in effect. There cannot be promises without expectation. Those are mutually exclusive statements. How can you give without expectation and also expect something?

“For the law of the SPIRIT of LIFE in Christ Jesus has made me FREE FROM THE LAW OF SIN AND DEATH” (Rom. 8:2). Why do people teach that only the tithe is to remain from the law of Moses and yet Christ freed us from the law (all of it)?

The tithe originated before the law as a tradition (although a tithe was included in the law) and Abraham never tithed of his personal possessions (he gave a percentage of what he won in war) and Jacob would not give anything until AFTER he was blessed (Gen. 28:20-22). So, why are some pastors promising a blessing in exchange for a tithe if God wants you to give BACK from your blessing. If you are not to expect anything in return, what blessings come from tithing? It is an offering in thanks of increase, not in expectation of that increase. Jacob also used his tithe to have a feast and feed the poor in his community (Deut. 12:6-7). Tithes are not offered so some tv preacher can buy a rolls royce or build a megachurch. The term is no longer in effect.

Deut. 12 tells us what was to be tithed (food and livestock, oil and wine), to whom (the Levite Rabbis), and what was to be done with it (you were to feast on it with the Lord). It never said you were to give 10% of your money. Nor did it say you were to tithe on your poverty expecting more - only on your increase which is your blessing. How many tv preachers say the opposite? There are 613 laws in the old testament and aside from the 10 commandments what other ones do we cling to aside from the tithe?

You absolutely should give (cheerful giver), but you shouldn’t call it a tithe, as we are not commanded to give a percentage of our crops just like we are not commanded to offer sacrifices in the temple anymore. Jesus did away with that too.

Tithes were offered to the temples as a “heave offering” to God but Acts 17:24 says God no longer dwells in man made temples.

Ah, but the thing is that you are living out a “law”. That is where the error is located. Binding yourself to the “law” is binding yourself to sin because no man can follow the law. Do you follow the diets of the law, all of the other restrictions? You cannot pick and choose laws that suit you.

For sin shall not be master over you, for you are not under law, but under grace. (Rom 6:14)

Therefore, my brethren, you also were made to die to the Law through the body of Christ, that you might be joined to another, to Him who was raised from the dead, that we might bear fruit for God. For while we were in the flesh, the sinful passions, which were aroused by the Law, were at work in the members of our body to bear fruit for death. But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter. (Rom 7:4-6)

But the Scripture has shut up all men under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed. Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, that we may be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor. (Gal 3:22-25)

For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes. (Rom 10:4).

Galatians 5 speaks of binding yourself to the yoke of slavery (the Law) and warns that if you accept the law then Christ is no use to you. If you bind yourself to one part of the Law, you bind yourself to all of it. You are cursed and a slave to the Law. That is what the Bible teaches and in Acts 15 Paul chastises the Jewish leaders for demanding that Gentile converts follow the Law and he pointed out that they should not place a burden on others that they were unable to follow.

All of this to say that you should give, but don’t bind yourself to some law that does not exist. How many people give their “tithe” expecting a blessing that never comes? That can cause people to fall away but it is because they are bound to the yoke (theology) of slavery. 2 Corinthians clearly teaches that one should give freely what their heart leads them to give without compulsion or reservation.

Grace is greater than the law.

you beat me to it. Excellent.

Same here. I am a Methodist, although not from a traditional congregation. If we embrace every belief of ANY denomination, we are straying from God’s word. What we have to do is get involved where we can serve and let the doctrine be the worry of people why worry about such things.

The Methodists are wrong to seek to punish the people of a nation because they disagree with some aspect of the government there. Israel has a right to exist, and the people there have a right to do business on the free market.

Party at Dave’s!

“I keep laying hens.”

Sounds painful.

I have shopped at the Whole Foods here, in Birmingham, many times although I prefer our local grocer for most things. Whole Foods (Whole Paycheck) is a nice store, but you can’t do all of your shopping there. However, when asked I always insist on a paper bag. Plastic bags suck. If the eco-weenies don’t want paper (it is recycled by the way) let them buy some of the reusable cloth bags there at the store.

We should conserve things where we can in the Teddy Roosevelt fashion and we should be good stewards where we can. The eco-weenies have never gotten it because liberals don’t believe in personal responsibility.

That’s true in more than elections too.

Didn’t they do something similar to that in the Philippines in the late 1800s when a faction of muslims there were causing problems?

will do. thanks.

“For whom did Christ die? Everyone, or only His elect?”

Everyone. The “elect” are people he has selected for a purpose, but anyone can accept Grace. The Bible says it numerous times. The translations were different for the ease of cutting and pasting. They are not significantly different in any. My favorites are the NAS, NRSV and I just bought an ESV (too early to tell). All of them are useful for study.

On the contrary, if he only died for the “elect”, then there was no point in the cross. Let the saved be saved and the damned be damned if they were picked before time. Why go through the effort and endure the cross? He didn’t have to come to convert anyone, he just had to select them and wait. What would be the point of evangelism?

Why argue with Jonah if fate was predetermined? Why create people and reject them? Why allow original sin if there is no free will? The idea attributes an immorality to God that simply does not exist.

It would be a great thread if you are interested, but it may be a few days before I can put a lot of effort into it.

I like a lot of your other points though.

Thanks, I will. It is not my translation of choice, as I think there are more accurate Bibles out there - but it did serve a great purpose for many years.

“My dear children, I write this to you so that you will not sin. But if anybody does sin, we have one who speaks to the Father in our defense–Jesus Christ, the Righteous One. He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world” (1 John 2:1-2 NIV).

“But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, now crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone” (Hebrews 2:9 NIV).

“For Christ’s love compels us, because we are convinced that one died for all, and therefore all died” (2Corinthians 5:14).

“Therefore just as one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all, so one man’s act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all” (Romans 5:18 NRSV).

“The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance” (2 Peter 3:9 NIV).

“We have put out hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, and especially of those who believe” (1Timothy 4:10).

Christ ‘gave himself as a ransom for all men’ (1Timothy 2:6). ‘For the Son of Man came to seek and to save what was lost’ (Luke 19:10)

It doesn't imply that Grace is offered only to some, it is offered freely to all. Not all will accept, but the price was paid for sin on the cross. Babies are born under the burden of the original sin, and for that death exists, but Grace came from the cross and we cannot argue that God chooses to punish infants who die.

One could just as easily argue that Grace applies to everyone, but not everyone accepts it. The Calvinist idea of predestination of who will be saved is not what the verses you mention imply. They say clearly that “we” (he includes himself) believers have a predestined reward to be adopted as the sons of Christ. The reward was determined beforehand.

True, infants cannot accept it, but since you argue from a Calvinist perspective I will reply with one. If you believe in predestination then God chooses which infants will die and Calvin argues infants are saved because those whom he chooses are predestined to be saved.

“And if death in infancy does depend on God’s providence, it is assuredly God in His providence who selects this vast multitude to be made participants of His unconditional salvation . . . This is but to say that they are unconditionally predestinated to salvation from the foundation of the world.” ( Two Studies in the History of Doctrine)

Grace is the answer.

1 Corinthians 7:14

For the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through her believing husband; for otherwise your children are unclean, but now they are holy.

The Bible does not show children raised in Christian homes going later to accept baptism on a profession of faith (age of understanding). However, it does clearly say that children are made Holy through the faith of one believing parent. It also says that entire households were baptized by the apostles.

As I mentioned earlier, and it is inarguable, Grace precedes Faith, not vice versa. Since Grace was offered to us at the cross, and the price was paid for our sins there, can we truly say that infants are born guilty? I don’t think so. Infants are innocent or the cross meant nothing.

“As the translators of the KJV said in their origional preface...”

Did they mention their ecclesiastical words and phrases which were church words not used in the original texts?

The KJV served a great purpose in allowing the scripture to be translated into the vernacular, but a preference was given to word interpretations that helped establish the status of church leaders rather than the importance of the individual relationship to Christ. Some examples are the use of “church” instead of congregation, the use of baptize instead of wash or cleansed, and the use of priest instead of elder.

On a side not of some importance to the KJV only crowd (and not sure if anyone here is) but King James, according to history, had many homosexual affairs in his life. That has nothing to do with the translation, but it is an interesting point.

He did decree that they were to keep the church words where they were present in earlier translations.

Yes and no, but I understand your point.

Christ was circumcised at 8 days and presented in the temple after 40 days according to the law. Those were two separate events according to the Laws of Moses.

Paul equates circumcision to baptism but both he and Jesus emphasize a spiritual circumcision and baptism. The word baptism means washed or cleansed, and that is what happened in the temple dedication ceremonies. The mother and the infant are cleansed by the priest (rabbi) and a sacrifice is offered. The male infant is “washed” after 40 days and a female after 80.

The point I had been making is that both are outward acts of obedience but the real baptism is a spiritual one. The Bible tells us also that the spouse is sanctified through the faith of their spouse AND that our children are sanctified through the faith (obedience) of the parent. So, there is some validity to infant baptism because Christ was obedient to the circumcision AND the temple dedication even though he was perfect and did not need to be cleansed.

Romans 2:29 Rather, a person is a Jew inwardly, and circumcision is something that happens in a person’s heart. Circumcision is spiritual, not just a written rule. That person’s praise will come from God, not from people.

Titus 3:5 he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit,

This (titus) is significant because “washing” is the meaning of the word baptized. It is a spiritual thing, an acceptance of the covenant and signifies a spiritual rebirth (not a literal water ritual) and the passage from Romans backs this up.

Paul compared the two as equal signs of obedience.

We accept Baptism in the religious tradition, and rightfully so, as a sign of cleansing (washing away) our old sinful lives and being reborn in Christ - although we were extended that forgiveness before Baptism. Grace precedes faith.

Anyway, I am going off on a tangent on a minor point. Jesus was circumcised according to the Law on the 8th day AND presented in the temple for cleansing at the time of purification. His adult Baptism was simultaneously a sign to the gentiles, an ordination (cleansing by a priest before the start of his ministry (which was required by the Law), and an outward sign of obedience.

Both Jesus and Paul spoke of a spiritual baptism and a spiritual circumcision and not just a literal physical act. The cleansing of the spirit is different than the water ritual, and that was the point I was making initially. The outward sign of obedience is important, but it is the cleansing by the Holy Spirit, not the ritual, that is a requirement for salvation. So, one cannot ordain the dead for ministry (getting back to the context of this discussion).

So, it doesn’t matter if the presentation in the temple was a baptism ritual or a baby dedication, it was a cleansing ritual which is what a baptism is.