Jump to content
  • Welcome to Online Baptist

    Free to join.

Standing Firm In Christ

The Widow's Mites

Recommended Posts

are you familiar with B.H. Carroll?  He was a late 19th-early 20th century Baptist minister.  When asked to address the topic of tithes, he said:  "Oh, men, forsake this new heresy not taught in the Bible, not accepted in any Statement of Faith, not taught by any reputable scholar or commentary."

It appears that modern Baptists have added Fundamentals" to the Baptist Statements of Faith that were never "Fundamentals" to begin with.  Early Baptists saw monetary tithing as "heresy."

Edited by Standing Firm In Christ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Alan said:

SFIC, why don't you just stick to your own blog (and your own book on tithing), and promote your own interpretation of the words of the Lord Jesus, and the other scriptures on your own blog, to those who are likeminded instead of forcing your teachings on us. Your teaching is repugnant.

Alan

Alan,  I can't believe you said this to "standing firm"... I have seen others post things which contradict the bible and are clearly not IFB teaching. We even have mods who believe in post-trib and other non-IFB stances here!!! I've seen Calvinist, replacement theology, and preterism on this site as commonplace discussion (sadly). 

BUT this topic of tithing is not one of those places where I believe it's "off-limits" to discuss.  "Standing firm" has given OT verses to support his stance.  It's obvious there are many of us here divided over this very subject of tithing. I believe many have brought forth their own study findings supported with verses and reasons which are contrary to yours, and I believe many have brought forth verses and reasons which agree with yours. I think both sides have made valid points (from their own interpretation and understanding of scripture).  And I don't think it was kind or Christian-like to tell "Standing Firm" that his teaching is "repugnant".  Others may feel the same about your stance, yet we all have come here to discuss bible topics such as these.  There ARE Independent Fundamental Baptist pastors who do actually preach against tithing. One of them is Dr. David Peacock from Jacksonville, Florida.  I've heard many of his sermons on sermonaudio.com and he also brings forth the same verses "Standing Firm" has.  He's not the only IFB pastor who has been teaching this. My uncle was also an IFB pastor all of his adult life (from age of mid-20's to late 70's when he went on to be with the Lord). He also taught against tithing, tithing was (he said and showed scripturally) a Levitical law, he (my uncle) also stated that we are not under Levitical law, nor are we under Mosaic law, but we are under grace... and his church never suffered because of it either... people gave willingly of a cheerful heart. They built new buildings (for a school), ran buses for children, sent money to missionaries, and paid for kids to go to bible camp in the summer (if they were needy and desired to go), they also had Thanksgiving and Christmas dinners which were taken to elderly and shut-ins.  ALL of this was done without requiring an unbiblical tithe.

There are MANY other topics being discussed/ have been discussed which also actually DO need to be called repugnant... but discussing tithing (either pro or against) should not be considered repugnant. I'm sorry we have parted ways in this one matter, however, I felt compelled to speak up in defense of "Standing Firm" because I (for one) do NOT find his stance repugnant. He has as much right as you and I (or anyone else) to defend his position, and he did so with scripture.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Jim_Alaska said:

SFIC...You conveniently leave out the part of this Scripture that I quoted, and that is because it doesn't fit your vendetta against any sort of giving to the work of The Lord.

I'm not trying to stir up anything Jim, and unless I misunderstand what you're saying...but that's not a true statement regarding SFIC. He does believe in giving to the work of the Lord...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brother Robey,

First, please understand that I have not engaged and do not intend to engage the matter of tithing in this discussion.  I have only engaged and do only intend to engage in this discussion concerning the correct understanding of Mark 12:38-44.
 

On ‎12‎/‎4‎/‎2015 at 10:37 AM, Standing Firm In Christ said:

There was no commendation in the text of Mark 12:41ff. The immediate preceding text reveals that widows were being robbed. The immediate text after shows Jesus' anger at the unjust oppression of the widows...

Except that in the passage there is no use whatsoever of the word "anger" or any of its cognates or any of its synonyms.  Nor is there any usage of such in the parallel passage of Luke 20:45 - 21:6.  So then, should we accept what God the Holy Spirit inspired in these passages as they stand; or should we accept such with Brother Robey's assumptions, additions, and adaptations included?
 

On ‎12‎/‎4‎/‎2015 at 10:37 AM, Standing Firm In Christ said:

He states that the Temple will be destroyed. Why make the statement that the Temple would be destroyed at all, if not because of the unjust actions of its leaders?

I believe that the answer to this question can be discerned through the following passages:

1.  Luke 19:41-44.
2.  Mark 12:1-12 in parallel with Matthew 21:33-46 & Luke 20:9-19.
3.  Mark 12:38-40 in parallel with Matthew 23:1-38 & Luke 22:45-47.
 

On ‎12‎/‎4‎/‎2015 at 10:37 AM, Standing Firm In Christ said:

The prophecy of the Temple's destruction is made due to the actions Christ and His Apostles had just witnessed inside,... a widow being robbed. Context shows no commendation whatsoever.

Actually, the prophecy of the temple's destruction is made due to the things revealed in the passages that I have presented above, with special consideration being given to Luke 19:41-44.
 

On ‎12‎/‎5‎/‎2015 at 8:06 AM, Standing Firm In Christ said:

Mark 12:40a "Which devour widows houses,..."

 

devour - Greek 'katesthio'

Outline of Biblical Usage: to consume by eating, to eat up, devour - of birds, of a dragon, of a man eating up the little book.  metaph. - to devour i.e. squander, waste: substance;
to devour i.e. forcibly appropriate: widows' property; to strip one of his goods; to ruin (by the infliction of injuries); by fire, to devour i.e. to utterly consume, destroy, of the consumption of the strength of body and mind by strong emotions

 

the whole purpose of Jesus sitting against the wall was to demonstrate to His followers how the widow's living was being "forcibly appropriated." She was forced to give all her living by the scribes of the Law, just as we are forced to pay taxes by the scribes of our laws.

Except through inspiration God the Holy Spirit revealed that the purpose of the Lord in this case was to behold "how the people cast money into the treasury." (see Mark 12:41)  So then, whereas God the Holy Spirit indicated that the Lord's purpose was to behold "how the people" were giving, Brother Robey indicates that the Lord's purpose was to behold how the people were being robbed.  So then, should we accept that which God the Holy Spirit revealed as the Lord's purpose; or should we accept Brother Robey's assumptions, additions, and adaptations?

Furthermore, we should recognize that the verb phrases "being robbed" or "being compelled" are in the passive voice, indicating that the action of these verbs is being performed upon the subject of the verb by a force that is outside the subject of the verb.  On the other hand, the verbs "cast" and "threw" are in the active voice, indicating that the action of these verbs is being performed by the personal engagement of the subject of the verb.  Throughout Mark 12:41-44 we do not find even a single verb concerning the giving of money that is in the passive voice.  Indeed, in this passage every single verb that concerns the matter of giving money is in the active voice.  Therefore, according to the Holy Spirit inspired grammar of this passage, the focus is upon the personal, active giving of the givers.  The focus in NOT upon the robbing or compelling of the givers by a force outside of themselves.
 

On ‎12‎/‎5‎/‎2015 at 8:06 AM, Standing Firm In Christ said:

Jesus was not commending the widow on her giving at all.  

Actually, the question as to the matter of commendation or not is rooted to the usage of the word "more."  The adverb "more" is a word of comparison, indicating that some action is being performed in a greater manner.  If the particular action is a spiritually positive action (such as giving a gift unto the offerings of God), then indicating that an individual is performing this action more than others is by definition a commendation of that individual.  However, if the particular action is a spiritually negative action (such as robbing others by compelling them to give that which the Lord God has not required), then indicating that an individual or group is performing this action more than others is by definition a condemnation of that individual. 

So then, in Mark 12:41-44 who is described by our Lord Jesus Christ as doing "more"?  The widow.  And with whom is she compared by our Lord Jesus Christ?  With the many that were rich.  And about what action of the widow and the rich does our Lord Jesus Christ indicate that the widow was doing "more"?  The action of casting money into the treasury of the temple.  Even so, the comparison is as follows:

1.  The rich gave to the treasury.
2.  The widow gave MORE to the treasury.

Throughout Mark 12:41-44 the scribes are not at all mentioned in relation to this giving, and the matter of compulsion to give is not at all referenced.
 

7 hours ago, Standing Firm In Christ said:

The Scripture shows no commendation in that passage.  But it does show condemnation.

The Lord had just warned of the scribes robbing widiw's houses, condemning the ones doing the robbing.  Keeping the passage in context, the Lord was demonstrating how the widows were being robbed... By having to give money to the Temple that was not required by God.  By having to give what she needed to sustain her life.

Brother Robey, as I am certain that you may have discerned, it is my position that the givers of Mark 12:41-44, including both the rich people and the poor widow, were giving gifts unto the offerings of God.  Furthermore, it is my understanding that you would disagree with the position, and that you would rather hold to the position that the givers were giving a type of temple tax that they were being compelled to give by the false authority of the scribes.  Am I correct in my assessment of your position?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm pretty sure that if you saw a widow being robbed of all she had to live on, you'd be angry.  (Then again, maybe not. Given your arguments here) vI would be angry.  And I have a gut feeling that Jesus was angry.  My Bible tells me that God is angry with the wicked everyday.  

 

Maybe you don't think it is, but robbing poor widows is wicked.

 

Hmmm, one of the woes in Matthew 23 is due to the scribes and Pharisees laying heavy burdens on people.  I would say taking a poor widow's money, leaving her none to sustain herself with, would be an unjust burden.

 

the context of the widow's plight does not start at verse41,... it starts at verse 38.  

 

She was being robbed, expected to support a crooked religious system and its deceitful leaders.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, you will listen to John MacArthur, and denounce all real Baptists on this forum? John is not a Baptist, he is a Community Church man. Believes in Lordship Salvation Too. He may be popular, but then again, most false preachers are popular.

I never said that tithing was a Baptist fundamental. I said that you are at odds with our fundamental (Baptist) teachings. It was a reference to your wrong interpretation concerning the widows mites.

And.....you are in error as also shown by other brethren in this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Jim_Alaska said:

So, you will listen to John MacArthur, and denounce all real Baptists on this forum? John is not a Baptist, he is a Community Church man. Believes in Lordship Salvation Too. He may be popular, but then again, most false preachers are popular.

I never said that tithing was a Baptist fundamental. I said that you are at odds with our fundamental (Baptist) teachings. It was a reference to your wrong interpretation concerning the widows mites.

And.....you are in error as also shown by other brethren in this thread.

Did you not read what I prefaced my post with?  I do NOT listen to John MacArthur.  This was the very first time I ever listened to him.

no, I don't denounce all real Baptist's on this forum.  There are real Baptist's on this forum who also see that the widow was being robbed.  They also don't bow to the monetary tithe requirement lie. I haven't denounced them. 

The monetary tithe requirement doctrine may be popular, but then again, most false doctrines are popular.

Again, reference the word "Independent".  Just because I reject your doctrine that Jesus was commending that widow does not mean I am not IFB.

No, I am not in error.  It is you who is in error.

 

 

Edited by Standing Firm In Christ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ronda said:

Alan,  I can't believe you said this to "standing firm"... I have seen others post things which contradict the bible and are clearly not IFB teaching. We even have mods who believe in post-trib and other non-IFB stances here!!! I've seen Calvinist, replacement theology, and preterism on this site as commonplace discussion (sadly). 

BUT this topic of tithing is not one of those places where I believe it's "off-limits" to discuss.  "Standing firm" has given OT verses to support his stance.  It's obvious there are many of us here divided over this very subject of tithing. I believe many have brought forth their own study findings supported with verses and reasons which are contrary to yours, and I believe many have brought forth verses and reasons which agree with yours. I think both sides have made valid points (from their own interpretation and understanding of scripture).  And I don't think it was kind or Christian-like to tell "Standing Firm" that his teaching is "repugnant".  Others may feel the same about your stance, yet we all have come here to discuss bible topics such as these.  There ARE Independent Fundamental Baptist pastors who do actually preach against tithing. One of them is Dr. David Peacock from Jacksonville, Florida.  I've heard many of his sermons on sermonaudio.com and he also brings forth the same verses "Standing Firm" has.  He's not the only IFB pastor who has been teaching this. My uncle was also an IFB pastor all of his adult life (from age of mid-20's to late 70's when he went on to be with the Lord). He also taught against tithing, tithing was (he said and showed scripturally) a Levitical law, he (my uncle) also stated that we are not under Levitical law, nor are we under Mosaic law, but we are under grace... and his church never suffered because of it either... people gave willingly of a cheerful heart. They built new buildings (for a school), ran buses for children, sent money to missionaries, and paid for kids to go to bible camp in the summer (if they were needy and desired to go), they also had Thanksgiving and Christmas dinners which were taken to elderly and shut-ins.  ALL of this was done without requiring an unbiblical tithe.

There are MANY other topics being discussed/ have been discussed which also actually DO need to be called repugnant... but discussing tithing (either pro or against) should not be considered repugnant. I'm sorry we have parted ways in this one matter, however, I felt compelled to speak up in defense of "Standing Firm" because I (for one) do NOT find his stance repugnant. He has as much right as you and I (or anyone else) to defend his position, and he did so with scripture.

Ronda,

If you look at my post I am not arguing about the tithe. I am questioning SFIC's interpretation on Mark 12 and the Scribes and the Widow.

Alan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Standing Firm In Christ said:

The monetary tithe requirement doctrine may be popular, but then again, most false doctrines are popular.

Again, reference the word "Independent".  Just because I reject your doctrine that Jesus was commending that widow does not mean I am not IFB.

No, I am not in error.  It is you who is in error.

 

 

SFIC, this thread is about the widow's mites, yet you continue to insert tithing into the thread.

This is not "my doctrine", your argument is with God's Holy Spirit and His inspiration of His word concerning the widow's mites.

I did read where you said you do not listen to John MacArthur, but I also see where you conveniently run to him because he agrees with you about the widow.

I find it very telling that you will accept the teaching of a non-Baptist over those of your own Independent Baptists.

Incidentally, the word "independent" in IFB does not mean independent from God or His Holy Spirit. It means independent from associations, conventions, or any man made influence outside of the local church. It does not give us license to interpret Scripture any way we choose.

 2Thess. 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

 2Tim 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. 
 16 But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Standing Firm In Christ said:

I'm pretty sure that if you saw a widow being robbed of all she had to live on, you'd be angry.  (Then again, maybe not. Given your arguments here) vI would be angry.  And I have a gut feeling that Jesus was angry.  My Bible tells me that God is angry with the wicked everyday.   (emboldening and italics by Pastor Scott Markle)

Brother Robey,

Do you recognize that you have now engaged in circular reasoning?  Earlier you used your viewpoint that Jesus was angry as evidence that the widow was being robbed.  Now you are using your viewpoint that the widow was being robbed as evidence (in accord with your "gut feeling") that Jesus was angry.

So then, was the widow being robbed through the compulsion of some form of temple tax that the scribes had placed upon her?  In Luke 21:1-4 (the parallel passage to Mark 12:41-44) God the Holy Spirit inspired the following:

"And he looked up, and saw the rich men casting their gifts into the treasury. And he saw also a certain poor widow casting in thither two mites. And he said, Of a truth I say unto you, that this poor widow hath cast in more than they all: for all these have of their abundance cast in unto the offerings of God: but she of her penury hath cast in all the living that she had."

Certainly, in Mark 12:38-40 (as well as the parallel passage of Luke 20:45-47) there is a condemnation concerning the activity of "devouring."  However, in Luke 21:1-4 (as well as the parallel passage of Mark 12:41-44) there is message and context concerning the giving of gifts "unto the offerings of God" and concerning a poor widow who gave more of a gift "unto the offerings of God" than the rich givers because she gave a higher percentage than they all did, that is -- 100%. 

Gift (Greek "doron") -- meaning "something given to show friendship, affection, support, etc." 

So then:

1.  The rich gave gifts unto the offerings of God.
2.  According to Jesus' assessment, the widow gave MORE of a gift unto the offerings of God.

Even so, I have a "gut feeling" that our Lord Jesus Christ was not at all angry with the giving of gifts "unto the offerings of God," and that our Lord Jesus Christ was indeed commending the poor widow for giving more of a gift "unto the offerings of God."

Edited by Pastor Scott Markle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

My argument is not with God's Holy Spirit at all.  It was His Holy Spirit that opened my eyes to the fact that nowhere in the text is there a commendation given to the widow.  It was the Holy Spirit that caused me to know that Jesus would not be praising the actions of one funding a corrupt religious system.

 

I did not run to MacArthur because he agrees with me.  I simply listened to a sermon I googled this afternoon.  You falsely accuse me once again.

 

I find it very telling that you ignore what Independent stands for.  You quote what it means, and yet cannot even seem to grasp that it means independence from man-made influence. (including your own)  ironically, you are attempting to make me believe contrary to what the Holy Spirit has revealed to me, and instead believe the man-made influence of a commendatioon that is not in the text at all.

 

So, if the traditions of other IFB's are contrary to what God, through His Holy Spirit, reveals to me, I am to reject what God reveals and instead embrace traditions of men?

 

oooooookkkkkkaaaaaaaayyyyy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Standing Firm In Christ said:

Gift, something given to show affection, support, etc..

 

what she gave was supporting a corrupt religious system.

 

i can't understand how you can believe that the Lord was proud of that.  smh

First, if indeed it was a gift as God the Holy Spirit indicated in Luke 21:1-4 (and I myself have no intention whatsoever of questioning God the Holy Spirit on the matter), then your claim to the motivation of compulsion is not accurate.  It was a gift given, not a tax compelled.

Second, in Luke 21:1-4 God the Holy Spirit not only revealed that it was a gift given, but also that our Lord Jesus Christ Himself reported unto His disciples that it was a gift given "unto the offerings of God."  So then, are we to accept our Lord Jesus Christ's assessment that it was a gift given "unto the offerings of God" or Brother Robey's assessment that it was a gift given unto "a corrupt religious system"?  I myself will choose to side with our Lord Jesus Christ's actual statement -- a gift given "unto the offerings of God" (which is the reason that I can believe that our Lord would commend her giving for being more than the others).

Edited by Pastor Scott Markle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People put into the offerings of God all the time every Sunday.  Yet, it has been proven time and again that many do so out of manipulation and coercion.  Given the fact that this account is in the context of widows being robbed, I have no doubt that this widow was manipulated into giving into the offerings of God.  

 

Again, the account makes no sense in the place the author placed it if she wasn't being robbed.

 

Makes no sense that Jesus would be commending the widow for bringing an offering into the place He had just said was now a "den of thieves".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mark 11:17 (KJV) 17 And he taught, saying unto them, Is it not written, My house shall be called of all nations the house of prayer? but ye have made it a den of thieves.

 

Jesus had just said that the Temple had become a den of thieves.  The next day, He returns to the Temple, warning others of the thieves.  Along comes a widow, giving under the assumption that she was giving to God.

She was not.  Rather, she was giving to thieves.

Why would Jesus be commending her for putting her living into a den of thieves?  Obviously, He would not.

 

God wants us to be faithful stewards with our money.  Or, does that not apply if you are a widow and thievesxare on the receiving end of your giving?

Edited by Standing Firm In Christ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Standing Firm In Christ said:

People put into the offerings of God all the time every Sunday.  Yet, it has been proven time and again that many do so out of manipulation and coercion.  Given the fact that this account is in the context of widows being robbed, I have no doubt that this widow was manipulated into giving into the offerings of God.  

 

Again, the account makes no sense in the place the author placed it if she wasn't being robbed.

 

Makes no sense that Jesus would be commending the widow for bringing an offering into the place He had just said was now a "den of thieves".

Yet the Holy Spirit reported that she was giving a gift, not that she was being robbed or compelled.  Holy Spirit, or Brother Robey?  Choices, choices.  I choose - the Holy Spirit.

Yet our Lord Jesus Christ reported that she was giving a gift unto the offerings of God, but did not say anything about her doing something wrong in supporting "a corrupt religious system" or "a den of thieves."  Jesus Christ, or Brother Robey?  Choices, choices.  I choose -- the Lord Jesus Christ.
 

Just now, Standing Firm In Christ said:

Mark 11:17 (KJV) 17 And he taught, saying unto them, Is it not written, My house shall be called of all nations the house of prayer? but ye have made it a den of thieves.

 

Jesus had just said that the Temple had become a den of thieves.  The next day, He returns to the Temple, warning others of the thieves.  Along comes a widow, giving under the assumption that she was giving to God.  (emboldening and italics added by Pastor Scott Markle)

  Ohhhh. So now she is not being compelled to pay some type of temple tax, but is giving a freewill gift unto (as she thinks, although wrongly) the Lord God and His work.

6 minutes ago, Standing Firm In Christ said:

Mark 11:17 (KJV) 17 And he taught, saying unto them, Is it not written, My house shall be called of all nations the house of prayer? but ye have made it a den of thieves.

By the way, are you prepared to say that because they had "made it a den of thieves" instead of a "house of prayer," the temple was thereby no longer God's house.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NEWS FLASH!!  Gifts can be given under compulsion.  It's done all the time.  

Parents make a child carry a gift to a party, telling them they cannot go if they don't carry a gift.

churches have parties in which gifts are exchanged.  Many times putting a bare minimum that must be spent on a gift.  

Since the thieves of the Temple were robbing widows houses, I see no reason to doubt that it was through mandated giving of 'gifts'.

Jesus said The Temple was made a den of thieves.  I have no reason to doubt Him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

She was manipulated into giving to thieves, just as many church members are manipulated into giving ten percent of their monetary income to thieves..  Both the widow and the church goers are deceived into believing God requires it.

Edited by Standing Firm In Christ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Standing Firm In Christ said:

She was manipulated into giving to thieves, just as many church members are manipulated into giving ten percent of their monetary income to thieves..  Both the widow and the church goers are deceived into believing God requires it.

That was not my question.  My question was whether or not she thought in her mind and believed in her heart that she was giving a gift unto God.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Standing Firm In Christ said:

The text does not say what she thought in her mind.  It only reveals that thieves were robbing her and that she was putting money into the treasury of a den of thieves.

False.  The text says that she was giving a gift "unto the offerings of God".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The author also reveals that the Treasury was in a den of thieves who rob widows houses.

They may have labeled that particular receptacle "Offerings of God," but it wasn't going to God.  It was going into the hands of thieves.

Mark 11:17 (KJV) 17 And he taught, saying unto them, Is it not written, My house shall be called of all nations the house of prayer? but ye have made it a den of thieves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Who's Online   0 Members, 0 Anonymous, 34 Guests (See full list)

    There are no registered users currently online

Article Categories

About Us

Since 2001, Online Baptist has been an Independent Baptist website, and we exclusively use the King James Version of the Bible. We pride ourselves on a community that uplifts the Lord.

Contact Us

You can contact us using the following link. Contact Us or for questions regarding this website please contact @pastormatt or email James Foley at jfoley@sisqtel.net

Android App

Online Baptist has a custom App for all android users. You can download it from the Google Play store or click the following icon.

×
×
  • Create New...