MikeWatson1

The principle of tithing is taught throughout the Bible, Old and New testaments alike. Many Christians nowadays try to do away with this principle with statements like "give cheerfully," or "that was for the Jews in the Old Testament."  The Bible speaks about people giving sacrificially, ie, the widow who gave two mites, being all she had. The book of Acts tells of Christians selling possessions and giving ALL the proceeds to the church. I'll continue to support the position of tithing. 

Its crazy how something so illogical was around for years and years, with men going into women's change rooms, not being allowed to call a transgender person by their biology etc..
For over 5000+ years its not been an issue and suddenly the last 5 minutes it got imposed on everyone.

https://www.smule.com/sing-recording/124877437_5004989679
I sung this with this fella. I don't know his church background, but he loves old time christian country

Love this!!!

https://www.smule.com/sing-recording/124877437_5004989679
I sung this with this fella. I don't know his church background, but he loves old time christian country

Oh well I didn't think you were.  I just encounter the belief alot that while a believer wont lose salvation,  they also will be faithful.  A carnal or unfaithful believer is an impossibility for them. 
The bible has believers who struggle with sin, serious sin even.  
But anyways, no offense taken. 

I understand your view, and I apologize if my words seemed harsh. I was not implying any form of the idea of loss of the salvation of a believer.

My friend, I disagree with your confusion of baptist bridism and landmarkism. I would say that I agree with the landmarks of the baptist faith, I would also assert I agree with the statements of the cotton grove resolutions. This would make me a landmarkist, this does not make me a brider, as that would require me to claim that only a baptist can be saved, or only specifically baptist baptisms are valid, which is undeniably false.
Oldtyme

I understand we don't have the originals.  But I thought the copies of them are in such a massive amount that we can trust that we know what the originals said.

Here’s a plot twist to this story. The church that prompted this thread recently had their pastor resign. They have a building but no pastor, and we have a pastor who needs a bigger building. They approached me to ask if we could merge congregations. It's amazing how God works.

Repent from unbelief; turn around your heart so as to face God in reverence with thankfulness, believe His testimony and have faith in Jesus Christ.
Believe God for righteousness, trust Jesus Christ for salvation.
 
 

Brother Joe,
     I appreciate your post's and at the same time I would like to suggest that a New Testament Church which is "a body of Christ," be referred to as just that, without having to describe it as "local" since it is implied in what it stands for and the redundancy only creates confusion as if there really is a "Universal Church or Body".  For instance, what if I referenced a verse of Scripture like this: 
(Matthew 3:11, King James Bible)
“11 I indeed baptize you with [WET] water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with [HOT] fire:”
The Scriptures are clear on what makes an assembly, "called together in one place," whether it is a Jewish assembly called a synagogue, a Roman assembly called a church or Jesus's assemblies called His Church.
Hope my two cents helped!
Brother Michael
 
(1Corinthians 11:20, King James Bible)
“20 When ye come together therefore into one place,..."

I use the term "local church" as a matter of clarity, not redundancy. I do not want to be associated with the universal church folks. I'm glad that you recognize that the church is a local assembly.

John 3 is the conversation of Jesus and Nicodemus where Jesus explains that being born again is the only way to see and enter the kingdom of God. Then he says this, John 3:10 Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things? It sounds like Jesus expected Nicodemus to know this as a master of Israel. And Jesus is described as Revelation 13:8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. So I agree with you.

Verse 12 is referring to the sign gifts, mentioned all throughout 1 Corinthians 12-14.
Also, personal “perfection” doesn’t make any sense in this passage. God is not going to stop the use of sign gifts for each single individual when they have arrived. They stopped as a whole st a certain point in time. When was that point? When that which is perfect/complete came - the end of the first century. And there are historical accounts of the fading away and ceasing of the sign gifts later on in the first century.
Biblically, an individual can be perfect now (ie. mature spiritually). There are various places in the NT where this is taught. Just look up the word and see how it is used. It is not used in reference to being sinless (the Bible never uses it this way) or meeting some spiritual height, except in the following verse:
Philippians 3:12
Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect: but I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus.
We are not yet what we will be one day when we see Jesus, though another verse a little further on says this:
Philippians 3:15-16
Let us therefore, as many as be perfect, be thus minded: and if in any thing ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you. Nevertheless, whereto we have already attained, let us walk by the same rule, let us mind the same thing.
We can be mature spiritually as we walk daily with the Lord and apply His Word to our lives.

The church still exists and is not perfected yet. However, as far as the spiritual sign gifts, they were until the perfect came (ie. complete canon of Scripture - ending with Revelation). God is no longer giving ANY new revelation; therefore, the signs of an apostle are no longer needed. But the maturing and edifying of the churches will keep going on until the rapture, when the church is no longer on the earth.
For those who need a breakdown of how 1 Corinthians 13 teaches that the sign gifts were done away with the completion of the Bible, this might help:
https://ewministries.earnestlycontending.com/1-corinthians-1312/

I have to chuckle because this subject has come up in conversation the last couple of days for reasons I'll explain below. I will first state that we are very like Pastor Matt. IOW, hubs wears suit and tie, and those who teach/preach from the pulpit are so required. Ushers are required to wear a dress shirt/tie (or a sports shirt since many of them look like a dress shirt). Jacket not required for them.  Hubs has not preached that men must dress thusly and women must dress thusly. Rather, his focus is on holiness. We have seen many changes - including dress - as the Holy Spirit has worked on folks in regards to holiness.
(explanation:) That said, I found something interesting Sunday afternoon. Photos of William and Catherine (the British royals) and their oldest son and their daughter were taken as they arrived at different events (his in Germany, hers in England). William and his son (and all the men around them) were in suit and tie. Throughout the entire game. Catherine and her daughter were in dresses. 
I mentioned to my husband how interesting it is that they attended SPORTS events dressed like that - and were comfortable doing so, as pictures made obvious - and yet here in America, a broo-haw-haw is made about folks wearing what has always been termed "dress" or "church" clothes to church. (now, I understand that not everyone can afford fancy duds, and I am not advocating that...I'm sure William's suits cost more than my hubs' and I know Catherine's dresses cost more than mine lol) Now in our culture folks that WANT to dress nicely (you know, not in ripped jeans, tee shirts, mini-skirts, shorts, etc) are reviled. My husband was told by a gentleman who attended for a while that he needed to stop wearing suits because it would make people feel unwelcome...my hubs told him he dresses the way he believes God would have him do, and he doesn't tell anyone else how to dress (unless involved in ministry). 
Many folks I know like to throw around the words "pharisee" and "legalist" when talking about folks that wear traditional church clothing. Regardless of whether or not those folks try to force/guilt/manipulate others to dress the same. IOW, so many folks who stand against suits/ties and dresses are actually hypocritical. They want to wear whatever they want yet don't extend that grace to others. Could it be that seeing folks dressed "traditionally" brings conviction and instead of submitting to the Holy Spirit they attack to justify their own desires? Not saying it's always the case, but I do have to wonder.  
I know that a suit and tie do not make a man holy. Nor does a dress make a woman so. I think it's legitimate to bring to light that there are churches that teach (or at least SEEM to) that holiness only comes if you dress just so. That is a product of the 1970s, when churches began really pushing dresses on girls and short hair on guys. Don't get me wrong...long hair on guys is unbiblical for sure. But when the external became the basis for holiness, true holiness didn't happen. And I think we're seeing the fruit of that today.
Ugh. Wrote more than I intended, and I'm tired, recuperating from several days of sickness. So I don't know if this even makes sense. Hope it does.

A friend of mine was saying tithing is an OT law practice and not required under the NT system.
I thought the principle remained of giving a tenth to support your church.
Giving to your church is obviously in the NT.. my friend said that was offerings, not tithes. 
It got me thinking about the Biblical base for tithing.  My impression is although it was an OT practice,  the standard remains in giving to your church..and the standard amount always having been a tenth or more.

A friend of mine was saying tithing is an OT law practice and not required under the NT system.
I thought the principle remained of giving a tenth to support your church.
Giving to your church is obviously in the NT.. my friend said that was offerings, not tithes. 
It got me thinking about the Biblical base for tithing.  My impression is although it was an OT practice,  the standard remains in giving to your church..and the standard amount always having been a tenth or more.

We do not have the originals.
We have copies of them.
God preserved them.
The present thinking of many modern scholars is that yes, God preserved His ideas, but not the words.
There are no verses that state this, but plenty that say, for example, "Heaven and earth shall pass away but my words shall not pass away." (Matthew 24:35).
The "copious amounts" of copies for the modern versions come from manuscripts and fragments that are other than the Textus Receptus (TR), which are about 10% of the TR's 5,000 manuscripts and fragments.
 
https://www.preservedword.com/content/antioch-or-alexandria/
 
Antioch or AlexandriaHow did God preserve His Bible?
Luke Mounsey June 1, 2004 Manuscript Evidence Print   I have previously established that God has preserved His Word, listing many Scriptures affirming this.   But exactly which Bible is the perfect Word of God?   If God preserved His Word, then it must be around here somewhere.   In order to find the perfect Bible, it is necessary to determine which manuscript text-type is the preserved line.   (A text-type is a group of manuscripts that generally agree with each other.)   There are two major text-types, the Byzantine/Antiochian/Majority/Universal text-type and the Alexandrian text-type.   The Byzantine text-type had it’s origin in Antioch, Syria, where the disciples of Christ were first called Christians (Acts 11:26).   The Alexandrian text originated in Alexandria, Egypt, which was probably the first place that the pure doctrine of Christ was perverted with false teaching.   95% of ALL known New Testament manuscripts fall into the Byzantine text-type.   (Even those who prefer the Alexandrian text are forced to admit this.)   Only a very few manuscripts fall into the Alexandrian text-type, and these manuscripts are known to have many serious problems.   Of the two most popular Alexandrian manuscripts, one (Vaticanus) is owned by the http://www.mag-net.com/%7Emaranath/OLDBEST.HTM for more information.
There are those who prefer the Antiochan/Byzantine text and those who prefer the Alexandrian.   Each group has different beliefs about how God preserved His word.   Here is a brief overview.
Antiochan Alexandrian God inspired the original manuscripts using holy men as His pens.   They wrote what He inspired them to.These manuscripts were faithfully copied and translated by other holy men.   But some evil men started producing their own modified version of the scriptures.  
The Roman Catholic Church arose, making the perverted Scripture the official Bible of Catholicism.   All copies of Scripture were banned, pure or perverted, and only church leaders were allowed to possess a copy.   True Christians prevailed dispute horrible persecutions, refusing to join the idolatrous Catholic Church, and being used by God to preserve the pure Bible for all generations.
The Protestant Reformation ended the Dark Ages as multitudes fled from Rome to the pure gospel of Jesus Christ.   The Bible was translated into many languages from the preserved text, making God’s pure Word available to the masses.   Revivals continued for centuries as people used God’s Word.
In the 19th century, a push was made by the Vatican and some apostate Protestant scholars to declare that the perverted Roman Catholic manuscripts were superior to the God-honored preserved text.   New versions of the Bible were produced, which were not accepted at first, but slowly grew into acceptance.   Most Protestants did not realize that these new “Bibles” came from the corrupt line of manuscripts, not the preserved line.   But some did realize it, and when they attempted to warn others, were ostracized and declared divisive.
God inspired His word using men, who were not necessary holy (see below).   About 300 A.D, the Christian church revised God’s Word to make it better and “more orthodox.”   Thus the true Word of God was lost at this point.  
The Catholic Church united Europe in Christian unity, but then the Protestants destroyed that unity by braking with Rome.   The Protestants ignorantly made their Bible translations from the revised manuscripts.
In the mid 1800’s, a glorious discovery was made.   Two ancient manuscripts were found that predated the revised text the Protestants were using.   These differed significantly with the traditional text, and therefore were considered to be pre-revision.   After being lost for 1600 years, God’s word had finally been found!!   So they began cranking out Bibles translated from the new manuscripts.   
As for the pure, preserved, inerrant Word of God, it of course was nowhere to be found, since it was perfect only in the “original manuscripts” which are long vanished.
The “Byzantines” believe God used holy men to inspire His word and holy men to preserve His word.   For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. (2 Pet 1:21).   On the other hand, Alexandrians believe that you don’t necessarily have to be holy to be used by God to preserve His word.   You don’t have to be holy to help with a Bible translation.  Maybe this is why there are so many liberals, heathens, and homosexuals on these Bible translation committees!   You’ve got to be kidding, you say.   They certainly wouldn’t allow anyone on their translation if they were living in sin!   Surely they would demand that they must be holy.   Well, their own new Bible versions have stripped being holy as a requirement for helping to inspire AND preserve the Word of God.   The word “holy” is clean gone from 2 Peter 1:21 in these new Bibles!   
So the Alexandrians believe that you don’t have to be holy in order to work on a Bible translation!   Is it then no wonder that many of the modern translators are either apostate liberals or flat out heathens!!!   Is it no surprise that the fruit of their “Bibles” is not great revival but great apathy and apostasy!!!   But this will be covered in more detail in a future article.   
So we see that the Byzantine/ Majority Text proponents believe that God inspired His word using holy men, and preserved it using holy men to make it available for all generations.   The Alexandrian proponents, however, believe that God inspired His word, then lost it!!   After not having the word of God for centuries, they finally found it again in the “oldest and best” Alexandrian manuscripts.   What kind of preservation is this?   This is NOT preservation!   If you believe that the oldest manuscripts are the best, then you do not believe that God has preserved His word.   IF you believe that the scriptures were inerrant only in the “original manuscripts” then you do not believe that God has preserved His Word.   If you don’t believe that God preserved His word, you disbelieve the Bible and are calling God a liar!!   Therefore, you must make a choice.   You must chose between the Antiochan or the Alexandrian text.   For the Bible-believer, this choice should be an obvious one.
(Views: 15429)
Updated: February 24, 2015 — 2:07 AM  
 
 

As far as at church, I would think it comes from the idea of giving our best to God. That's how I see it, anyways. Our culture still knows how to dress up for a funeral, or job interview, or to go to the symphony, or to see the Queen.  We know how to be respectful; shouldn't that same respect apply to the house of God? Suits and ties are still the definition of proper dress for formal attire and business wear.
Our men don't dress in suits/ties when witnessing for exactly the reason you mentioned above. 

Covenant eyes?
Net nanny?
Content watch?
I've been looking for a filter that can't be uninstalled/turned off.  I think the way to do that is to have a trusted friend be the Admin. 

Calvinists teach that God’s elect have eternal life before they can come to Christ to receive eternal life.
Calvinists teach that we must be born again with life from the Holy Spirit before we may respond to God in any way.
“A cardinal point of Reformed theology is the maxim: ‘Regeneration precedes faith.’ [R.C. Sproul Chosen By God, pp.72-73].
“A man is not saved because he believes in Christ; he believes in Christ because he is saved”. [L. Boettner The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination, Page 75]

If Calvinism is true then faith in Jesus is secondary to election and logically faith plays no part in your salvation, election is what matters not faith.

The Calvinist asks: “How shall they believe if they have not been regenerated?” whereas Christianity asks: “How shall they believe if they have not heard?” Rom_10:14; Joh_5:39-40

Exactly.. as that is the repentance that God is looking for....
We know that "Jesus came into the world to save SINNERS">. ... and we find those Religious Fakirs who are trying to pretend they aren't because they can stop for 15 or 20 mins.....and want to offer this to God as Cain offered some veggies and was told by God to "get out".
People who understand the Blood Atonement, understand that God came  down here, wrapped in human flesh, to offer HIMSELF  a Body as His entire Eternal Salvation SACRIFICE.......=  that is our only forgiveness and Justification.
John 14:6

Only "throw it out" if you are trying to offer it to God to be accepted by God.
For example..
"God, i'll promise to stop sinning............will you save me now'"" ?????
See that?
"God says"  =  NO I WONT, as that is not my GRACE. and you are "saved by Grace", or you are not saved at all.