Let me tell you how I know for sure that with RWD and the NTCC leadership, it's not about saving souls. Please read what I'm about write and consider my words. When Bro Bean brought his brother TB over to RWD's house, RWD may not have wanted company and I understand that. But when you are a Christian and your life is devoted to saving souls it's not about what you always want. You make sacrifices and deny yourself for the sake of others. So here is my logic.RWD is a smart guy and I don't dispute that. He reads people and he often knows what makes people tick. RWD knew that if he gave Bro Bean's brother anything but a warm hearted, sincere welcome, (even though RWD didn't want someone coming over to his house) it could have an impact on TB's decision to have anything else to do with the NTCC. Then, in addition to that guaranteed fact, RWD is smart enough to know that when he sent someone to Bro Bean to notify him that he was wrong for going to RWD house, that TB would never have anything to do with the NTCC. You don't give a guy the cold shoulder and expect him to come back to your church and RWD knows that good and well. So why didn't RWD just suck it up, invite the guy in for coffee and cookies, make him feel at home, and never say a word to Bro Bean about coming to his house uninvited?
Because with RWD, it's not about souls. RWD simply didn't care if the mans brother ever came back to the NTCC and that is the reason he didn't even think twice about acting that way. The only thing that RWD cared about was not being bothered while making sure that it didn't happen again!!! All RWD is worried about is his privacy, the control he has over others, and making sure that the NTCC continues to bring in at least enough money to take care of his investments within the corporation. He doesn't have the time or patience for people to come over to his house unannounced, period. If you don't want people to come over to your house, move farther away from your cult compound and in the process forget about being a pastor/Christian leader. You are in the wrong field. Rename it the New Testament Christian Real-Estate Corporation. Take church out of the equation. RWD is a jerk. For years RWD has taught that every single solitary thing you do can affect souls but he doesn't even attempt to practice that himself when it counts. He'll run you away from his church in a heart beat before you even start coming.
How can anyone dispute what I just wrote? There could be nothing more logical in this world. If your church is the last hope for mankind, (which the NTCC has constantly maintained) and you care about souls, the last thing you would do is give a brand new guest the cold shoulder and that is exactly what RWD did to TB. RWD doesn't care about souls, he cares about control. He already has money so that is not as important to him as it is to have control over people.
Believe me when I tell you this, SOME PEOPLE LOVE POWER!!!!!! SOME PEOPLE LOVE POWER AND AUTHORITY!!!! SOME PEOPLE THRIVE ON HAVING POWER, AUTHORITY AND CONTROL OVER OTHERS BECAUSE IT'S LIKE AN EMOTIONAL HIGH.
RWD is that kind of guy and I'll guarantee it without doubt. I don't agree with it but I understand it and this is why? Because I used to work for a 3 Star General and everywhere we went people figuratively bowed down to that dude and because I was his enlisted escort / Aide, I got much of the same treatment. Everywhere we went people laid the red carpet out for us and because I was his right hand man, I got much of the same treatment. When people saw me they knew he wasn't far behind and I got treated like a King and I'm not kidding. The difference between me and RWD is that I didn't misuse my authority and RWD does constantly. I didn't treat people like they were beneath me and RWD does constantly. You think I didn't have authority? Out of over 17,000 people in Second Infantry Division, (not because of my rank but because of my position) I was one of the most powerful people in the entire Division. Full Colonels and General Officers treated me with MUCH respect because of who I worked for. If I told a Brigade Commander that the General wanted something to happen it was like it was coming directly from the General himself because people knew that I was his assistant. No one messed with me so I fully understand what it's like to have some SERIOUS Authority.
Well RWD has authority and he is a control freak and a bully and I know what I'm talking about. He doesn't care about souls. Listen to what I'm saying people. He cares about POWER, AUTHORITY, and CONTROL. These three and the greatest of these is none of them for a Christian servant. You can't understand others until you've walked in their shoes and where POWER, AUTHORITY and CONTROL is concerned I've walked in RWD's shoes. For the brief period of time that I had it (which was one year), I didn't let it get to my head. I'm currently working in a high level management position and I treat everyone with respect regardless of their position. And guess what, everyone I work with treats me the same way from the lowest to the highest. That is how you earn respect. Not by barking out orders. RWD is a control freak bully leader who is a good business man and that is all he is. I know guys like him because I work around one and no one respects him, they fear him. God help me to never become that kind of leader.
That is why I said I'd spit on RWD's front door step. My previous vulgar display of words was a deliberate show of disrespect toward RWD as a result of his disregard for Bro. Bean's family.
Jeff
319 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 319 of 319Besides, hypothetically speaking, what would it prove anyways, if you could show that these things were not mandated prior to the law? You would still have to rely on your shaky theory that "whatever God instituted prior to the law still stands in the New Testament unless expressly stated in scripture that it is not."
Weren't you taught dispensations in Bible Seminary? how that God dealt with people in different ways in different dispensations? You can not take commandments issued in one dispensation and carry them over throughout perpetual generations. God gave Adam one dietary restriction: no meat. He gave Noah liberty to eat meat. He told the Jews only certain meats. We know God required tithe UNDER the law. In the New Testament after Jesus died and ushered in the New Testament period of grace and the birth of the Christian church, we see that the church collected voluntary contributions for the poor, and Paul said to support them that teach the word, but sorry, Sir, there does not seem to be scriptural or ancient concrete evidence to show that the Church practiced tithing, and I have looked over and over again, and I do not think Paul taught it, or James, or Peter, or John for that matter. Show me where one of them taught it. On the contrary, I have showed you how that the ancient church fathers testify to the opposite, that they taught that we should give freely as we are able, and that everything we own should belong to God, and we should give to the poor, as opposed to a mandated 10 per cent.
For that matter, why don't you continue to keep the Sabbath. Did Jesus expressly state that the Sabbath was over? Yet he hallowed it on the seventh day after the sixth of creation.
We don't read of many commandments from God prior to the law. God was very lenient with Adam. He had very little responsibilities. Noah had to make an ark, but we read of God blessing him after the flood with the rainbow, and giving him the simple command that Adam received, to be fruitful and multiply. Abraham received promises of blessing, as well as Jacob. We do not read of Joseph receiving laws from God. That is why the dispensation beginning with Moses is called "LAW." That is when the laws were given to man concerning worship. And now, Sir, the law is annulled by the grace of Jesus Christ, the same grace that you do frustrate by loading the law back on to your converts and these who have been set free by Jesus and the teachings of Paul.
Wow, now those were some seriously good points Vic & Kristopher! Call me a cheezer but those were really good points.
Kris... First of all.. Ignatius you are correct was not a "student" of Polycarp... my bad... he was a student of the Apostle John... that makes it even better. Because that means the the student of the Apostle taught the tithe responsibility... so tell me... where did he learn the teaching from?
Cocnering you rebuttle it is true that God told Arbaham to sacfifice but that hardly makes a command for everyone else (though I do believe it was) because it was singlly applied. The anti-tithe argument states that "the tithe of Abraham was a one time occurance". You can't prove that God required that of everyone just Abraham. What about Cain and Able? Was there no unwritten command? That's the question... did God make known to Adam, Eve, and their sons about the Sacrifice? Was the sacrifice of Abraham a one time occurance or a responsibility of all rightoues souls? Did he know of it's existence prior to this event or was it the first time he had ever heard of it?
Concerning dietary "RESTRICTIONS" your quoting of Genesis is somewhat laughable. After all the restriction to "not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil" ended at teh competion of the dispensation of innocence did it not? In any case there was no "tree of life" left upon the earth after the casting out of the Garden.
Noah's admonision to eat everymoving thing minus the "blood" was directed to Him... using the anti-tithe lodgic given for Abraham's tithe to Melchizedeck it says nothing about making Noah's requirment a requirment for the whole of humanity (which I believe it was) but one facinating point I can bring you to is that this occurance of God's instructing the man who was to establish the human family after the flood is EXACTLY the same type of transfer of information that I think happened in the garden. But Moses been 5,000 or more years removed did not have insight to.
So in short, you have yet to show me a "command" for man kind to sacrifice, or restrict their diet you've only successfuly shown a couple of instances where individuals we asked something of God with no mention of what future generations would be required to do.
PART 1
Aaaaagh I hate the typing of all of this stuff.. I just lost the rebuttal to you Kris... so here goes again...
1) I agree that Sacrifice was required before the law.
2) I agree Dietary Restraints were also required before the law.
3) Using the "anti-tithe" argument that Abram paying tithe "one time" did not mean he continued to pay tithe or that he had paid tithe before. We have to conclude that God asking Abraham once, on a special occasion to Sacrifice did not mean everyone had to... at least as far as the scripture reveal. (Please note I believe it does but we can not prove it from the written words). Abram was told to offer the sacrifice... not Abram and his progeny.
4) The dietary scriptures you quote from Genesis are not useable because the Edenic command to abstain from the tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil had no bearing on future generations once Adam and Eve were cast out.
5) The command giving to Noah to abstain from blood is hardly a dietary requirment of "clean and unclean" animals. No distinction is made accept that the blood is the "life" of the animal.
6) Restrain from smug comments and I will dialogue with you. Keep using snide commentary and I will respond in kind.
7) The argument that it is "shaky to say the least" regarding the pre-law requirements not being taken away with the removal of the Mosaic Law is not my idea but it is scripture.
Gal 3:17 And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed BEFORE of God in Christ,
the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.
8) Two more points for now. The last OT scripture we have on the Tithe is the notorious book of Malachi.
It's interesting that in this book God strikes down the old covenant of the animal sacrifice
Mal 1:10 Who is there even among you that would shut the doors for nought? neither do ye kindle fire on mine altar for nought. I have no pleasure in you, saith the LORD of hosts, neither will I accept an offering at your hand.
Mal 1:13 Ye said also, Behold, what a weariness is it! and ye have snuffed at it, saith the LORD of hosts; and ye brought that which was torn, and the lame, and the sick; thus ye brought an offering: should I accept this of your hand? saith the LORD.
Mal 1:14 But cursed be the deceiver, which hath in his flock a male, and voweth, and sacrificeth unto the Lord a corrupt thing: for I am a great King, saith the LORD of hosts, and my name is dreadful among the heathen.
Mal 2:3 Behold, I will corrupt your seed, and spread dung upon your faces, even the dung of your solemn feasts; and one shall take you away with it.
BUT HE upholds the TITHE
Mal 3:10 Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house, and prove me now herewith, saith the LORD of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it.
Then at the dawning of the NT Dispensation of Grace Jesus stamps a final seal of approval on the tithe
"This ought you to have done, and not left the other undone".
(I know, I know, the argument goes "He was speaking from the OT side of Calvary so his words were directed to OT Jewish saints who could not yet get saved. But then this argument must be applied to Jesus words on the Divorce, greatest commandment of "Love", and virtually everything he said was from before the cross so allowing this argument (that it doesn't apply because he was still under the old vocenant) means all of Jesus teachings were useless to us.
9) The teaching of the tithe required a tenth the teaching of
the teaching of Jesus required the whole
Luk 18:22 Now when Jesus heard these things, he said unto him, Yet lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me.
10) We are told Heb 7:12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.
This is not saying the "Priesthood being eradicated, destroyed, or removed" no.. it says the "priesthood being CHANGED...of course this changes from the Aaronic Priesthood (which provided the High Priest to the High Priesthood of Christ Jesus.
The Levitcal priesthood (the servant priests that handled the day to day operation of the work of the Lord) was changed to the Ministerial workings of Pastor Preachers, Teachers, Evangelists who now perform the day to day operations of the Church much like the Levites. We get our hands dirty so to speak.
And it all culminates with this
1Co 9:14 Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel.
it's not that difficult people. just because some historian taught something doesn't make it true.
it's written in the bible that one should give not of compulsion or necessity.
why is that so hard to understand ?
aside from the above, here is something for you tithe believers. http://www.homechurchhelp.com/tithing.html
Hey little bit... I don't get my teaching from some "historian". My thoughts here are my own and not something I read.
But Hey... why complicate the issue
Show me a verse that says "tithe" has been done away and I will take it hook, line and sinker.
RB said...
9) The teaching of the tithe required a tenth the teaching of Jesus required the whole
Jeff said...
No doubt, so why hasn't RWD and Pastor sold all that they have and given to the poor? You'll never see that happen.
Jeff
"3) Using the "anti-tithe" argument that Abram paying tithe "one time" did not mean he continued to pay tithe or that he had paid tithe before. We have to conclude that God asking Abraham once, on a special occasion to Sacrifice did not mean everyone had to... at least as far as the scripture reveal."
But God didn't ask Abram to tithe; Abram volunteered. That doesn't really fit in with the obligatory theory.
Robert, it's not in there, and no amount of effort will change that. I sympathize with you, because for years I jumped through all the same crazy hoops you are trying to justify this unbiblical practice. And how do you reconcile your position that it's obligatory while simultaneously saying it's not a salvation issue? Do you believe that a person can live in habitual disobedience and still be saved? I've never met an NTCC preacher who thought that way, and I suspect you won't be the first. So who is right, you, or RW? OK, that was a trick question; you're both wrong. Maybe he's out in left field and you're over to the right, but either way, you'll be doing yourself a favor by sticking to what the bible actually says instead of "inferring" what you wish were written (but isn't).
RB quoted....
1Co 9:14 Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel.
Jeff said...
Very true. But that does not say that one must pay a tenth of all his income to the church. It simply does not say that or imply that. As I've previously said, according to scripture, God did ordain that those who preach the gospel should live of the gospel.
Questions:
1. Can that in itself be proved to mean tithe?
2. Does that scripture nullify the scripture you previously quoted where Christ told the man that if he was to follow him, he had to sell all that he had and give to the poor?
3. Does living of the Gospel mean that you get a tenth of every last soul in your entire church, and if it's a big church, you become independently wealthy?
4. Does that scripture really mean the same as 1 Tim 6:8: And having food and raiment let us be therewith content.
5. Similar to #4 does living of the Gospel mean being content with what your church provides as long as your basic necessities are being provided for such as food and clothing?
Sir, we can't ignore chapters such as 1 Tim 6 and scriptures such as 2 Cor 9:7. The scripture you quoted says nothing about paying tithe and that is the whole discussion here. I do not doubt that a minister of the Gospel should live of the Gospel but where does it stop? How rich should a preacher become at his church members expense?
1 Cor 16:2 Socialism
Acts Chapter 5 Socialism
Rom 15: But now I go unto Jerusalem to minister unto the saints.
15:26 For it hath pleased them of Macedonia and Achaia to make a certain contribution for the poor saints which are at Jerusalem.
15:27 It hath pleased them verily; and their debtors they are. For if the Gentiles have been made partakers of their spiritual things, their duty is also to minister unto them in carnal things
Sir, Romans chapter 15 has nothing to do with paying tithe. They made a good will contribution to the Saints who had made them partakers in "SPIRITUAL THINGS".
Sir, there could be no better proof that all these scriptures that you quote about ministers being provided for have nothing, I repeat NOTHING to do with paying tithe. This scripture which uses the same terminology as the others you've quoted is clear concerning what it means to provide for those who minister spiritual things.
To provide for ministers you take up a good will offering and present it to them as a contribution. Sir, I repeat that is not tithe, that is an offering, just the same as 1Cor 16:2 which the NTCC uses in their doctrinal statement to support paying tithe. There could be nothing further from the truth and the NTCC knowingly uses this scripture in their doctrinal statement deceitfully.
Romans Chapter 15 absolutely makes it plain and clear what Christians are supposed to do to provide for Ministers of the Gospel and it ain't tithe. You take up an offering and that is what, "living of the Gospel" is all about.
Jeff
Briggs said,
Kris... First of all.. Ignatius you are correct was not a "student" of Polycarp... my bad... he was a student of the Apostle John... that makes it even better. Because that means the the student of the Apostle taught the tithe responsibility... so tell me... where did he learn the teaching from?
BRIGGS!!!!
WHERE DID IGNATIUS TEACH TITHE IS MANDATORY???????
Briggs wrote...
'After all the restriction to "not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil" ended at teh competion of the dispensation of innocence did it not?"
Kris said...
Can anybody decipher this for me?
Briggs said...
"Concerning dietary "RESTRICTIONS" your quoting of Genesis is somewhat laughable. After all the restriction to "not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil" ended at teh competion of the dispensation of innocence did it not? In any case there was no "tree of life" left upon the earth after the casting out of the Garden."
Ok, I broke my Buck Roger's decoder ring deciphering all of that, but I think I figured it out. Here's my question though:
What's your point?
Thou art beside thyself and much learning doth make thee mad!
Briggs said...
But Moses been 5,000 or more years removed did not have insight to.
5,000 YEARS????!!!! Are you SURE???
From my studies, if you believe in creationism, and follow the number of years of the generations of men on earth back to Adam, I think the earth itself is only about 7,000 years old, Robert.
JEFF
1. Can that in itself be proved to mean tithe?
ANSWER: Every word must be verified by two or three witnesses. So no. That scripture ALONE does not prove to mean tithe. But again Heb 7:12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law. CHANGED not done away with as such. The handwriting of ordinances were speaking of the Theological instructions of the Rabbi’s from Moses to the time of Christ that were scroll after scroll of instruction.
JEFF
2. Does that scripture nullify the scripture you previously quoted where Christ told the man that if he was to follow him, he had to sell all that he had and give to the poor?
ANSWER: No, in fact Jesus instruction to the rich man like that command required of Abram was to test the willingness of his heart. It is highly probable that he would have stopped him at the last minute. But in any event a man or woman that refuses the “Tenth” will refuse the “Whole” EVERY TIME!
JEFF
3. Does living of the Gospel mean that you get a tenth of every last soul in your entire church, and if it's a big church, you become independently wealthy?
ANSWER: Even with a small church I do not get a “tenth” of everyone in the congregation. I get 55% of the tenth and that does not go to me directly until church bills are paid. Once a congregation gets “large” additional workers must be employed full time to accomplish the work load. They would share in that 55% of the tenth because “the laborer is worthy of his hire”.
JEFF
4. Does that scripture really mean the same as 1 Tim 6:8: And having food and raiment let us be therewith content.
ANSWER: You are hard pressed to show me how 1 Tim 6:8 is applying to Ministers, or even Christians we are told
1Ti 6:3 If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness;
1Ti 6:4 He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings,
1Ti 6:5 Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.
These are the people apposing the sound Doctrines of God and teaching or believing that “gain” is, in itself, proof of godliness. The principle applys to all but it does not condemn a person prospering. Nor does it negate Jesus (OT) teaching that
Mar 10:29 And Jesus answered and said, Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my sake, and the gospel's,
Mar 10:30 But he shall receive an hundredfold now in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions; and in the world to come eternal life.
And believe me…. If a Christian of any stature gets Houses and homes and a hundredfold more lands… he will have PERSECUTIONS.
JEFF
5. Similar to #4 does living of the Gospel mean being content with what your church provides as long as your basic necessities are being provided for such as food and clothing?
ANSWER: Living of the Gospel means that it is God’s will for the Minister – Pastor at a minimum – should labor for the Lord when it is practicable. Of course Paul as a Missionary Apostle to the Gentiles had to work with his hands. He was just laying the ground work for others to follow. But he also asserted that he had the “right” to receive of their carnal benefits. A congregation NEEDs a full time Pastor. A pastor working on a job can not be contacted at “anytime” the need arises. He can not come to the person’s aid. Come to their house when they have a problem, stand by their bedside when they are sick. This can only be done if they are full time. This is what God intends for his minister. Not solely for the ministers good but for the wellbeing of the congregation.
JEFF
Sir, we can't ignore chapters such as 1 Tim 6 and scriptures such as 2 Cor 9:7. The scripture you quoted says nothing about paying tithe and that is the whole discussion here. I do not doubt that a minister of the Gospel should live of the Gospel but where does it stop? How rich should a preacher become at his church members expense?
ANSWER: I DON’T Know do you? But is a preacher allowed to take what they ARE entitled to and invest it into stocks, bonds, mutual funds, IRA’s, Money Markets, IPO’s, Lands, houses and turn a profit?
1 Cor 16:2 Socialism
ANSWER: Emergancy Relief NOT Socialism
Acts Chapter 5 Socialism
ANSWER: you are right, but they were wrong. No command from God.. and not continued anywhere but the first church in Jerusalem.
Rom 15: But now I go unto Jerusalem to minister unto the saints.
15:26 For it hath pleased them of Macedonia and Achaia to make a certain contribution for the poor saints which are at Jerusalem.
15:27 It hath pleased them verily; and their debtors they are. For if the Gentiles have been made partakers of their spiritual things, their duty is also to minister unto them in carnal things
JEFF
Sir, Romans chapter 15 has nothing to do with paying tithe. They made a good will contribution to the Saints who had made them partakers in "SPIRITUAL THINGS"
ANSWER: I agree… but remember there is such a thing as “Tithes and Offerings”. Also, you are in error when you think that the “spiritual things” comment is in regard to Jewish preachers. It simply means that the Gentiles had been partakers of the Jewish inheritance in spiritual matters. They then were in obligation to help them in their physical dellema. Remember this is the “Jewish persecution” of the new Christian church (made up of converted Jews) it was the first of the persecutions the church was to go through. After selling off most of their goods, they then could loose anything else that they had left just by being “accused of being” of the followers of Christ.
JEFF Said
Sir, there could be no better proof that all these scriptures that you quote about ministers being provided for have nothing, I repeat NOTHING to do with paying tithe. This scripture which uses the same terminology as the others you've quoted is clear concerning what it means to provide for those who minister spiritual things.
ANSWER: Your right, the scripture acknowledges the right of the minister to be supported. The tithe establishes the amount that is used for the support of the house of God and it’s ministers. The offering of free will are shown to be used in community out reach and support.
JEFF
To provide for ministers you take up a good will offering and present it to them as a contribution. Sir, I repeat that is not tithe, that is an offering, just the same as 1Cor 16:2 which the NTCC uses in their doctrinal statement to support paying tithe. There could be nothing further from the truth and the NTCC knowingly uses this scripture in their doctrinal statement deceitfully.
ANSWER: again your understanding of the “spiritual things” is faulty and you need to look into it a little more to see what I mean.
JEFF
Romans Chapter 15 absolutely makes it plain and clear what Christians are supposed to do to provide for Ministers of the Gospel and it ain't tithe. You take up an offering and that is what, "living of the Gospel" is all about.
ANSWER: You made a valiant effort. And for someone that has not been in a Theological School of any kind you do pretty good. But you need to check the info you are providing for Chapter 15. I am pretty sure this is coming from your own “thought’s” on the subject and not any study material beause you would know what the “Spiritual things” referred to here actually mean.
Kris
using your dates like using the dates of Lightfoots brings about a lagh from the world at large. The Earth is far older. And man is far older. The generations in scripture have nothing to do with your ability to date the creation of man because you don't know how long man spent in the garden. How long he lived without a wife. How long before his first child, and how many children he had. You have too many things to be able to "figure a date" but I will give you this you sure are a spunky little fella to give it a try. Kudo's
Robert said...
"So in short, you have yet to show me a "command" for man kind to sacrifice, or restrict their diet you've only successfuly shown a couple of instances where individuals we asked something of God with no mention of what future generations would be required to do."
Are you kidding me? Can you read? I gave you point-blank instances where Noah- THE HEAD OF THE ONLY FAMILY ON EARTH AT THE TIME- was told what he could and could not eat! And you are trying to tell me that mankind was not told what to eat, because God only told one man?
Just before that, you made this statement:
"it is true that God told Arbaham to sacfifice but that hardly makes a command for everyone else (though I do believe it was)"
OK, so do you think it WAS or WASN'T a command for all?
God only told Moses that the Israelites should pay tithe? Does that mean that it is not a command for all, and ONLY for the Israelites?
The point I made is that you said there were NO commands before the law concerning:
Circumcision
Animal Sacrifice and
Food Restrictions
And YOUR point was the following:
Since there were no specific commands to do these or tithe before the law, we can assume that it was commanded to do all of them, because there were people doing them all before the law, and so we have to keep doing all of them unless the New Testament specifically says we can stop.
I showed you real scriptures that eradicated your theory that there were no other commands to do those three things prior to the law.
Your rebuttal against my rebuttal is unintelligible as far as I am concerned, but I haven't read all of them yet.
I TRIED to show you how that dispensationally, God deals with people in different ways, and it is clear from scripture that animal sacrifices were done away with and replaced with sacrifices of praise; circumcision- the circumcision of the heart; food restrictions- all food is sanctified through prayer and thanksgiving; and MANDATORY Tithing has been replaced with free-will offerings. It is called the law of the Spirit, Robert. Christians don't have to be told to send money to relieve their poor brethren in the Philippines when they are working just as hard as Rev. Kekel and Davis and they only have enough money for one meal. Do you understand that?
If you acknowledge that man knew about the sacrifice, and dietary restricitons without having written instructions to do so. He could have also had instructions to tithe. And if he could have instructions to tithe they were binding and obligatory just as the dietary restrictions and sacrifice. And if they were binding and obligatory........ THEY NEED TO BE REMOVED BY SCRIPTURE
Gal 3:17 And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed BEFORE (BEFORE WHAT: Before the Law) of God in Christ,the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.
In short this verse tells us "The covenants God made prior to the establishment of the MOsaic law were NOT and COULD NOT be taken away with the LAW!!!!
Briggs said...
"5) The command giving to Noah to abstain from blood is hardly a dietary requirment of "clean and unclean" animals. No distinction is made accept that the blood is the "life" of the animal."
Your comment shows your lack of understanding of the Bible holistically. God mandated in Genesis to Adam that he could eat herbs. The animals only ate herbs.
In this DIFFERENT DISPENSATION God told a DIFFERENT MAN at a DIFFERENT TIME while God was doing something DIFFERENT with mankind, that they would now eat meat.
In the end times if you read Isaiah, you will see that animals again will not eat meat, just as they did not KILL each other for food in the dispensation of innocence. I hope you are taking notes so you can teach your church the truth after all this.
Briggs said...
"So in short, you have yet to show me a "command" for man kind to sacrifice, or restrict their diet you've only successfuly shown a couple of instances where individuals we asked something of God with no mention of what future generations would be required to do.'
Kris said...
Do you think that might be because the dispensation of the LAW had not come yet?
Ok, Kris... you got me... if this chart can be depended upon it was more like 3,500 years.. still a LONG TIME REMOVED! Do you think that contributed to the relative silence, and great leaps of time lapse between chapters and verses in Genesis?
Briggs said...
6) Restrain from smug comments and I will dialogue with you. Keep using snide commentary and I will respond in kind.
Give me the best that you got, buddy.. Let er rip!
You really are blind to my point aren't you Kris? You really can not wrap your mind around what I am saying?
How are your home, internet chat Bible studies with your family going there Kris? Making headway? Your really burning up the devil's fields there ole chap. If you enroll in a gym, do some push ups, you just might get to the place where you can throw a table next time instead of a chair.
Briggs said ...
7) The argument that it is "shaky to say the least" regarding the pre-law requirements not being taken away with the removal of the Mosaic Law is not my idea but it is scripture.
'Gal 3:17 And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed BEFORE of God in Christ,
the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect. "
Kris said..
Folks, this is a classic example of a typical NTCC minister doing what is typical among NTCC ministers. What this poor form of hermeneutics involves is taking a single verse of scripture, RIPPING it completely out of it's context and using it to support whatever fantastical doctrine you want it to. Here in this particular case, Briggs is taking a verse from the Apostle Paul's letter to the Galatians which was largely focused on convincing them that the law was done away. In this particular verse, he was explaining that the PROMISE given to Abraham that he would be a blessing to all nations was not done away with by the LAW, and that you and I (Gentiles) through FAITH in Jesus Christ (not the works of the law) are partakers of the PROMISE (not pre-law laws) to faithful Abraham.
Nice try, once again, Briggs. Try TWO cups of coffee tomorrow.
Briggs said:
"4) The dietary scriptures you quote from Genesis are not useable because the Edenic command to abstain from the tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil had no bearing on future generations once Adam and Eve were cast out."
Kris said...
I didn't quote that. I quoted that God said they could eat herbs. It's still a pre-law command to the FIRST people on earth concerning DIETARY RESTRICTIONS, which you claimed did not exist in the Bible.
Kris.. .you wish you could teach me... in fact.. you wish you could teach anyone... but the best you can do is your' wife’s family because NO ONE else wants to listen to you.. and they probably haven't your whole life! The keyboard gives you the only voice you have... but confound the luck... you can't get a following there either... maybe it's because you are so proud as to think you can actually DATE the age of the Creation you haughty, pompous, petulant little man.
I tried to be civil with you... now go jump off the left side of the island your on and swim around the island a few times and put some meat on your scrawny little bones.... and when you come back tell your wife I said to spank you cuz your just a really BAAAAAAAAAAAD boy!
Briggs said...
"8) Two more points for now. The last OT scripture we have on the Tithe is the notorious book of Malachi."
Kris says...
Ahh.. the ol' 'last book of the OT' plan. When all else fails, and nothing in the New Testament can support our church's financial support system for nice cars and big houses, use the ol' Malachi scripture.... that was still written 400 years before Christ ended the law. That's a pretty big space of time.
Questions:
JEFF
1. Can that in itself be proved to mean tithe?
ANSWER: Every word must be verified by two or three witnesses. So no. That scripture ALONE does not prove to mean tithe. But again Heb 7:12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law. CHANGED not done away with as such. The handwriting of ordinances were speaking of the Theological instructions of the Rabbi’s from Moses to the time of Christ that were scroll after scroll of instruction.
JEFF
2. Does that scripture nullify the scripture you previously quoted where Christ told the man that if he was to follow him, he had to sell all that he had and give to the poor?
ANSWER: No, in fact Jesus instruction to the rich man like that command required of Abram was to test the willingness of his heart. It is highly probable that he would have stopped him at the last minute. But in any event a man or woman that refuses the “Tenth” will refuse the “Whole” EVERY TIME!
JEFF
3. Does living of the Gospel mean that you get a tenth of every last soul in your entire church, and if it's a big church, you become independently wealthy?
ANSWER: Even with a small church I do not get a “tenth” of everyone in the congregation. I get 55% of the tenth and that does not go to me directly until church bills are paid. Once a congregation gets “large” additional workers must be employed full time to accomplish the work load. They would share in that 55% of the tenth because “the laborer is worthy of his hire”.
JEFF
4. Does that scripture really mean the same as 1 Tim 6:8: And having food and raiment let us be therewith content.
ANSWER: You are hard pressed to show me how 1 Tim 6:8 is applying to Ministers, or even Christians we are told
1Ti 6:3 If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness;
1Ti 6:4 He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings,
1Ti 6:5 Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.
These are the people apposing the sound Doctrines of God and teaching or believing that “gain” is, in itself, proof of godliness. The principle applys to all but it does not condemn a person prospering. Nor does it negate Jesus (OT) teaching that
Mar 10:29 And Jesus answered and said, Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my sake, and the gospel's,
Mar 10:30 But he shall receive an hundredfold now in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions; and in the world to come eternal life.
And believe me…. If a Christian of any stature gets Houses and homes and a hundredfold more lands… he will have PERSECUTIONS.
JEFF
5. Similar to #4 does living of the Gospel mean being content with what your church provides as long as your basic necessities are being provided for such as food and clothing?
ANSWER: Living of the Gospel means that it is God’s will for the Minister – Pastor at a minimum – should labor for the Lord when it is practicable. Of course Paul as a Missionary Apostle to the Gentiles had to work with his hands. He was just laying the ground work for others to follow. But he also asserted that he had the “right” to receive of their carnal benefits. A congregation NEEDs a full time Pastor. A pastor working on a job can not be contacted at “anytime” the need arises. He can not come to the person’s aid. Come to their house when they have a problem, stand by their bedside when they are sick. This can only be done if they are full time. This is what God intends for his minister. Not solely for the ministers good but for the wellbeing of the congregation.
JEFF
Sir, we can't ignore chapters such as 1 Tim 6 and scriptures such as 2 Cor 9:7. The scripture you quoted says nothing about paying tithe and that is the whole discussion here. I do not doubt that a minister of the Gospel should live of the Gospel but where does it stop? How rich should a preacher become at his church members expense?
ANSWER: I DON’T Know do you? But is a preacher allowed to take what they ARE entitled to and invest it into stocks, bonds, mutual funds, IRA’s, Money Markets, IPO’s, Lands, houses and turn a profit?
Briggs hastily said...
"8) Two more points for now. The last OT scripture we have on the Tithe is the notorious book of Malachi.
It's interesting that in this book God strikes down the old covenant of the animal sacrifice"
Kris said...
I don't think so. Robert, I can see why you think that, but it if you read the whole book of Malachi, you will see that God was rebuking them for their adultery (perhaps spiritual or perhaps literal adultery, or both). And they were offering blind and stolen and sick animals for their offerings. God taught in Leviticus that the animal sacrifices should be without spot, not sick, not torn of a beast. They were typical of the Christ. Because of these sins against God's law, God WOULD NOT ACCEPT their offerings.
Robert said...
(I know, I know, the argument goes "He was speaking from the OT side of Calvary so his words were directed to OT Jewish saints who could not yet get saved. But then this argument must be applied to Jesus words on the Divorce, greatest commandment of "Love", and virtually everything he said was from before the cross so allowing this argument (that it doesn't apply because he was still under the old vocenant) means all of Jesus teachings were useless to us.
Kris said...
There is a big difference. Jesus was speaking in the past tense when he said, "these ought ye to have done..."
RB said...
The tithe establishes the amount that is used for the support of the house of God and it’s ministers.
Jeff asked...
Where in the New Testament does it say that tithe establishes that is used? The NTCC doctrinal statement says that but the Bible doesn't.
Pastor Briggs said...
ANSWER: You made a valiant effort. And for someone that has not been in a Theological School of any kind you do pretty good. But you need to check the info you are providing for Chapter 15. I am pretty sure this is coming from your own “thoughts” on the subject and not any study material because you would know what the “Spiritual things” referred to here actually mean.
Jeff quoted...
Not so fast Pastor Briggs.
1 Cor 9:11 If we have sown unto you spiritual things, is it a great thing if we shall reap your carnal things?
Rom 15:27 It hath pleased them verily; and their debtors they are. For if the Gentiles have been made partakers of their spiritual things, their duty is also to minister unto them in carnal things.
Jeff said...
Do you know how many times that the NTCC leadership took this exact scripture to justify paying tithe? Constantly. Your own hypothesis condemns them! Don't you think its rather odd that Rom 15:27 uses almost the exact same terminology as the NTCCs favorite "tithe" support scripture, 1 Cor 9:11?
I understand that the free will offering as referenced was given was specifically to Christian Jews and I understand and understood exactly what Paul was saying. The problem Pastor Briggs is that the NTCC likes to use the terminology used in 1Cor 9:11 and say that means "tithe" without making mention that Rom 15:27 which has nothing to do with paying tithe uses virtually the same terminology. Neither one of them say a single word about tithe as does not 1 Cor 16:2 which you leadership uses in their doctrinal statement.
Jeff asked and Pastor Briggs replied...
Jeff... How rich should a preacher become at his church members expense?
Pastor Briggs ANSWER: I DON’T Know do you?
Jeff's response...
Yes... 1 Tim 6:9 - 10.
1 Tim 6:9 But they that will be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and hurtful lusts, which drown men in destruction and perdition.
6:10 For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.
There is your answer and not from me but the Bible. When the Pastor seeks riches he has erred from the faith and has fallen into temptation and a snare and into many hurtful and foolish lusts. I didn't write it, the Bible clearly says it.
As you know this is one of the Pastoral epistles. This book is directed toward Pastors and applicable to all. So my answer is, I do know. When they get rich they turn into crooks like RWD, either that or Paul lied.
Jeff
Robert said ...
"This is not saying the "Priesthood being eradicated, destroyed, or removed" no.. it says the "priesthood being CHANGED...of course this changes from the Aaronic Priesthood (which provided the High Priest to the High Priesthood of Christ Jesus."
EXACTTLY! Jesus is our high priest. There is no priesthood system like under the law anymore, because we don't bring animal sacrifices to a temple. Jesus did that once and for all.
In the early church, there were elders and deacons. The only priest is Jesus, our High Priest. From then on it was apostles, prophets, evangelists, and pastors and teachers Eph 4:11.
This was the same problem that the Paul faced in his day with the judaizers that came from James as recorded in Galatians, especially chapter 2. The judaizers were trying to convince the gentiles that they had to follow the law of Moses. Paul was an apostle to the gentiles and he stood up for the gentiles both at the council of Jerusalem in Acts 15, and when certain men from James came to Antioch. The jews still practiced the law apparently and it seems that even the apostles did in Jerusalem. But Paul wasn't going to allow them to tell his Gentile converts in Antioch and the churches he reached on his missionary journeys that they had to be circumcised and follow the law of Moses.
Rev. Briggs, do you think the Gentile Roman idol worshippers were already paying tithe to Yaweh before Paul came to them on his missionary journeys? If we can assume that they were not already doing that and that they would have to be told to that as a new rule for their new religion of Christianity, why didn't James mention that in his list of 4 things from the law to obey? He only carried over 4 things from the Old Testament, namely:
To abstain from:
1 blood,
2 things strangled,
3 food offered to idols
4 and fornication
This was the compromise he made with the judaizers and with Peter and Paul (who thought that the gentiles should not have to follow the law). Rather than cause a huge controversy, he said tell them they don't have to follow the law, but make sure they don't do these things because these are an abomination to any good Jewish Christian.
Robert said ...
"9) The teaching of the tithe required a tenth the teaching of
the teaching of Jesus required the whole"
You've got it, Robert! That is just it! NOW we don't pay tithe! We give our whole LIVES and everything we have to God, and if there is a brother or sister in need, we definitely definitely don't look the other way from them and do as James said not to: say, 'be ye warmed and filled, yet you do not give them the things they need.'
Hey Jeff.. I think you have a "Bug" on the blog because there are these wide open spaces where there is nothing ledigble but ... BLA BLA BLA.....
That was directed Jeff but not at you.....
Anway back to discussing something with a big boy.
Jeff you quote
1 Cor 9:11 If we have sown unto you spiritual things, is it a great thing if we shall reap your carnal things?
And
Rom 15:27 It hath pleased them verily; and their debtors they are. For if the Gentiles have been made partakers of their spiritual things, their duty is also to minister unto them in carnal things.
They have similarities in verbage but they are not speaking to the same issues.
Romans says "they" speaking of the Jewish Chrsitian's as partakers of the Old and New Covenant by the fleshly birth and the Spiritual new birth. Paul refers to them as "They" and "them"
In 1 Cor. Paul is speaking of Himself and the others ministers of the gospel and uses the persoanl pronouns of "we".
I know you want to be right, but my friend... in this you are wrong. I hope you will trust me but if not by all means verify it.
Oh, and Jeff.. please do something about that insessant "buzzing" it's getting on my nerves ;)
Pastor Briggs said...
They would share in that 55% of the tenth because “the laborer is worthy of his hire”.
Jeff says...
I can find "the laborer is worthy of his hire" in the Bible but not the 55% or the tenth part. Which book is that one in? Just a little humor there but seriously. Great business plan but not a mandate and certainly not worthy or NTCC pastors saying every service, "All Christians pay tithe and give in the offering". And you are right Pastor Briggs, you may get a smaller piece of the pie but the NTCC leadership has it set up that way. Mike Kekel certainly didn't get a small piece. Why is it not set up that way for him? $20,000 a year to put your kid through high school is not a small piece and you don't invest tiddleywinks and accumulate that kind of money either.
I don't doubt that Pastor Kekel and RWD invested money but you don't make a million off of a dollar. You don't make a million moving all over the United States pioneering churches like Mike Kekel has never done. You do get millions sitting fat and happy in Graham cause your daddy in law never moves you while getting 55% of a huge church full of guaranteed tithe payers. That ain't no small amount. That is a silver spoon.
Jeff
Robert said ...
"The Levitcal priesthood (the servant priests that handled the day to day operation of the work of the Lord) was changed to the Ministerial workings of Pastor Preachers, Teachers, Evangelists who now perform the day to day operations of the Church much like the Levites. We get our hands dirty so to speak."
Kris said ....
Your church is NOT established the way the priesthood was. You don't need ten percent of your congregation's tithe to support a whole team of priests and levites. It's just you, Robert. And you probably work a day job or a night job, or something. They did not work. They did not OWN anything. Don't you get it? Rev. Davis says, he doesn't OWN his mansion or his suv. I think that is circumventing the spirit of the law. They collected tithes and I am sure they lived a simple life, not a luxurious one. They devoted themselves to the word of God and prayer. Do YOU do that? Or are you taking tithes PLUS working a secular job? I think that is very unfair to your congregation that you exact tithes from them as a PRIEST taken from the Old Testament model of tithing, yet you do not fulfill the Old Testament model of a priest in your ministry. How many hours a day do you spend in the word of God and prayer? You may say, well I have a building to pay for! Whose fault is that? Who said you had to buy a building? You don't even have enough money to cover your own bills and you have a church building? The people don't need a BUILDING. They need a Pastor who really knows the Bible and knows that Irenaeus was the disciple of Polycarp who was the disciple of John, and that Irenaeus taught that tithe was done away with in the New Testament- not as YOU said: Ignatius, the disciple of Polycarp, the disciple of John taught "the tithe."
Robert said ...
"1Co 9:14 Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel."
Kris said...
Do you use tithes for this, or do you use it to pay the bills of the church, and you use the money you earn from a JOB to live off of? Looks to me like you are double-dipping. Which one do you want, Robert. You can not serve God and mammon (that is generally understood to indicate money)
Pastor Briggs said...
I know you want to be right, but my friend... in this you are wrong. I hope you will trust me but if not by all means verify it.
Jeff said...
This has nothing to do with trust. I understand the Bible just like you do. You are missing my point Pastor Briggs. The point I'm making is that neither Romans 15 or 1 Cor says anything verbatim about tithing. The fact that Paul shows a pattern of using the same terminology despite it being directed toward two different types of people lends more creedence to Paul referring to offerings rather than tithe. The fact remains that Paul never used the word tithe or a tenth in 1 Cor.
Jeff
Jeff...
Since we keep going over what the apostles taught on this issue I wen ahead and pulled up the Didache or the Teaching of the Twelve Apstoles. This is a 1st century (most date it to 50 AD) and here is what it says the Apostles taught on the tithe
Chapter 13. Support of Prophets. But every true prophet who wants to live among you is worthy of his support. So also a true teacher is himself worthy, as the workman, of his support. Every first-fruit, therefore, of the products of wine-press and threshing-floor, of oxen and of sheep, you shall take and give to the prophets, for they are your high priests. But if you have no prophet, give it to the poor. If you make a batch of dough, take the first-fruit and give according to the commandment. So also when you open a jar of wine or of oil, take the first-fruit and give it to the prophets; and of money (silver) and clothing and every possession, take the first-fruit, as it may seem good to you, and give according to the commandment.
You can read abouit here
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/didache.html
and you can read the actual writing here
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/didache-roberts.html
Robert said ...
"ANSWER: I DON’T Know do you? But is a preacher allowed to take what they ARE entitled to and invest it into stocks, bonds, mutual funds, IRA’s, Money Markets, IPO’s, Lands, houses and turn a profit?"
Well, if it causes them to neglect the care of the church to the point that they become a businessman, then they better hope they can fit through the eye of a needle.
If there are poor filipina bible school student women who only have enough money for one meal and the "almost lost her once" (according to John McDonald) then should not the rich feed the poor?
Robert said...
"ANSWER: you are right, but they were wrong. No command from God.. and not continued anywhere but the first church in Jerusalem."
WRONG! If you study church history and come across the Waldenses and the Lollards who secretly conducted services outside of the Roman Catholic Church in the middle ages prior to the Reformation you will find it is recorded that there were groups among them that practiced this textbook example of Christianity preserved in the holy scriptures in Acts ch. 2. How can you say they were wrong? Would the Holy Spirit lead them into error? They had JUST been baptized with the Holy Ghost and fire in that same chapter, and the Bible says that while they were living that way, God was blessing and adding daily to the church such as would be saved. Does that happen in your tithe collecting church?
not to mention all the verses Jeff quoted to you that show that the church was taking collections to help the poor among them. Hello!!!
Robert said...
"ANSWER: You made a valiant effort. And for someone that has not been in a Theological School of any kind you do pretty good."
Kris said...
Briggs, knock it off! Where did you learn that Ignatius was Polycarp's disciple from the Old Crusty-mint Crooktian Seminary? You call that a school of theology? Did you go to another school after you graduated from the diploma mill? Look at your diploma. I don't know if you went to NTCC's seminary a long time ago when they supposedly offered a bachelor's in theology, but mine just says I'm a "Minister of Religion." From reading your comments, I don't consider you a theologian, brah.
Briggs said...
You have too many things to be able to "figure a date" but I will give you this you sure are a spunky little fella to give it a try. Kudo's
Kris said...
They go by the age of Adam, and the descendants as recorded in the Bible. Your estimation of Moses being 5,000 years after Noah was laughable. I think it's more like 400 years. I'd have to look it up to research it to be more accurate. Maybe I will later. Any ways, 5,000 years was a good one, really. :)))
No, wait i think it would be a few hundred more. I was thinking from Abraham to Moses.
Okay i was thinking it was maybe a thousand from Noah to Moses, but there are quite a few generations between them. I probably am wrong on that.
Pastor Briggs said...
ANSWER: Your right, the scripture acknowledges the right of the minister to be supported. The tithe establishes the amount that is used for the support of the house of God and it’s ministers. The offering of free will are shown to be used in community out reach and support.
Jeff said...
And that exact sentiment is precisely what can not be verified by the Bible. The New Testament does make it clear that Preachers of the Gospel are to receive support. No logical and true individual can deny that having studied the scriptures. What can't be verifed is the part where you said that "tithe" establishes that amount. Pastor Briggs, the New Testament Bible simply does not say that anywhere. The Catholic church teaches "New Testament" tithing but does that make it right? It doesn't matter to me which previous churches taught it or church leaders taught it. If the New Testament didn't teach it than it can't be legitimately made a doctrine. You claimed that Peter was wrong by practicing socialism in Act 5. Where does it say that in the Bible. You are assuming he was wrong because socialism doesn't line up with RWD'a corporate capitalism plan to justify his lifestyle but that doesn't make Peter wrong. You are assuming that Peter was wrong but John's disciple who you claim taught tithing was right? Whatever Johns disciple practiced which certainly can't be verified being that it happened about 2000 years ago is not a basis for establishing doctrine. No more than a one time act of Abram can be used to justify tithe not being terminated along with the law.
Once again, this discussion is about is whether or not New Testament tithing can be considered a mandate. Does the scripture in 1 Cor say quote, "tithing" is a mandate. NO and not only that it does not even use the words tithe or tenth.
Does laborer being worthy of is hire use the word tithe? No.
Does reaping your carnal things use the word tithe? No.
Does reaping your carnal things in Romans 15 refer to an offering, Yes.
Could reaping your carnal things in 1 Cor 9:11 possibly mean an offering? It most certainly could being that is clearly what it meant in Rom 15:27. Once again, I understand that Paul was referring to himself in 1 Cor 9 and to the Jews in general because they were originally errs to God inheritance.
The point being that one can not assume that Paul's statement, "reaping carnal things" means tithe becasue he certainly used that phrase in a setting where it meant anything but tithing.
Pastor Briggs, did you know those were the only two times you can find the words, "reaping your carnal things" used by Paul anywhere in the entire Bible? Well we know for certain the first time he used that phrase he was referring to an offering. I'm being sincere here but don't you think it's possible that he could have been referring to an offering the second and final time? It certainly didn't say tithe and of that there is no doubt.
Jeff
but the book you are using with the timeline probably uses the ages of the people in the Bible to determine that. We know the age of Adam was, I think about a thousand years. So, whether he lived in the garden for 50 or 500 years, doesn't matter. The big question that the age of the earth hinges on is whether you believe in creation or re-creation. If re-creation then, yes, the earth could be millions of years old.
Sure I think it's possible... now don't you think it's possible it oculd be a tithe?
Within 50 years of the cross of Calvary, the church leaders were teaching Tithe as a doctrine of the original 12 as the Diadache shows us. 50 years after... there could still be people alive at that point that new the aposltes, and Jesus for that matter... and they did not argue the point.
If you want me to concede that it is "possible" that you are right.. you must be willing to concede the same. Because I have shown enough information (which much more I could send your way if you want) that casts a shadow of doubt apon your theory. We have the tithe before the law, during the law, commended by Jesus teaching, and commended by Hebrews. These alone are enough to make an honest man say "yes, it is possible" and Jeff... I know you pride yourself on your honesty!
Hey BTW I keep hearing that buzzing... can you please swat that little blood sucking varmit for me... :)
Pastor Briggs quoted...
Every first-fruit, therefore, of the products of wine-press and threshing-floor, of oxen and of sheep, you shall take and give to the prophets, for they are your high priests. But if you have no prophet, give it to the poor. If you make a batch of dough, take the first-fruit and give according to the commandment. So also when you open a jar of wine or of oil, take the first-fruit and give it to the prophets; and of money (silver) and clothing and every possession, take the first-fruit, as it may seem good to you, and give according to the commandment.
Jeff responded...
Do you know what that sounds like and there is no mistake here: The Law. Sir you can see that plain as day. That is just like the law which is precisely why you can't find that written in the New Testament. Because the Apostles didn't want it there and obviously neither did God or it would be written. Sir that is the Law all day long. You could probably find something like that almost identical written in the Law.
And if there is no Prophet give to the poor? How come the NTCC doesn't teach that one? When a brother or sister is somewhere where there is not a pastor the NTCC says to "Send the money" and the NTCC doctrinal statement says specifically that tithe is not to be used for charity which is exactly what giving to the poor is. Even though that statement is the law all day long it would do more to condemn the NTCC than justify it's practices.
Since when has the NTCC ever allowed tithe money in the absence of a pastor to be used for the poor? NEVER!! That would be contrary to their doctrinal statement.
Jeff
Briggs said...
"tell your wife I said to spank you cuz your just a really BAAAAAAAAAAAD boy!"
Kris said...
Folks, this is NTCC's finest holiness preacher. This kind of sounds a little perverted, Robert.
Jeff.. please brother.. put your thinking cap on..
The Diadache dates to 50 AD... that is only 50 years after the cross. There was no NT scripture then. They were still being written. The only things they had to go on for the most part were the OT writings and a few of the letters already being circulated. The writing styles shows the early date of the churches genesis.
Does that make sense... you can say Law Law all you want to but some of the refined thoughts as outlined through the writings of the apostles was still being formed... take it for what it is... PROOF that the early church believed in TITHING!
Take a few minutes or a day or two and read about the Diadache and it's history and purpose and get a better understanding of what I am trying to say... you might be enlightened by what you read!
slap... slap... smack... smack.. please... SOMONE STEP ON THAT BUG!
Briggs said ...
"The handwriting of ordinances were speaking of the Theological instructions of the Rabbi’s from Moses to the time of Christ that were scroll after scroll of instruction."
How do you KNOW that? How do you know it was not the law itself? You just know it, huh? What if it is referring to the law itself?
Are you trying to remove the weight of genuine scripture that tells us we are free from the bondage of the law? If it was the law Paul is referring to, then tithe was one of the ordinances that was blotted out, wasn't it? You have to wrest that scripture to make it mean what you want it to say in order to keep on scripturally mandating tithes.
Incidentally.. what did the early church folks do before they had the "NT" cannonized? What did they quote? What did they use to gain their understanding of GOd? What did they use as their moral and spiritual compass?
And if you say it was what you know I know you know it was... then why can't we still use it now?
Pastor Briggs righteously said...
Sure I think it's possible... now don't you think it's possible it could be a tithe?
Jeff said...
Possible but not in the same sense as the mandate found in the Old Testament. I think from a giving standpoint, ten percent or a tenth is a good pattern. I seriously mean that and I think that is what God was trying to show all along but back to my original point, I truly don't believe that God intended to keep it as a mandate in the New Testament because if he did I believe he'd have made it quite clear which is hardly the case.
If Paul, James, John, or Peter would have said something to this effect, "You must continue to give a tenth of all your increase", we wouldn't even be having this discussion. Well they said anything but that. It's almost like they were deliberately as vague concerning this topic as possible so that it would be our choice which is truly what I believe that Gods intent was but who knows. I don't claim to know what God is up to.
It's just rather odd that if it was as serious a part of our salvation as the NTCC, (and many other churches to include the Catholics make it out to be) that there is not specific mention of it in the New Testament. It's like God left it up to us because he didn't want it to be a law any longer but that is purely speculation.
Jeff
Mat 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
All has not been fulfilled.
So only those parts of the law done away by scripture are .... gone! (Sabbaths, Circum., Dietary Requriments of clean and unclean)
Heb 7:12 For the priesthood being changed, THERE IS MADE OF NECESSITY A CHANGE ALSO OF THE LAW.
A Change... not irradication!
:>O
The title of this thread says: "Not About Souls"
Verily, Verily, I say unto you, this thread has morphed into a thread about tithe, not about souls.
How symbolic....
1Ti 6:9 But they that will be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and hurtful lusts, which drown men in destruction and perdition.
1Ti 6:10 For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.
1Ti 6:11 But thou, O man of God, flee these things; and follow after righteousness, godliness, faith, love, patience, meekness.
1Ti 6:12 Fight the good fight of faith, lay hold on eternal life, whereunto thou art also called, and hast professed a good profession before many witnesses.
Thanks Jeff... I think we brought this discussion to a close as far as I am concnered. We can agree to disagree.. but concede that each other has a valid and plausible point. I respect your opinion and belief... and I hope you can respect mine. The only difference now is that I am charged to teach a congregation of people.. which I can only do according to the dictates of my own heart... so I must stand before God if I am wrong... and this I most willingly do!
Night!
Ooooo.... how bout them Lybians... We need Reagan again... stuff would have been over before It got started good!
it's and evil and adultersous generation that seeketh after a "sign" and well.. Ceasar you get my drift.... LOL
ooops... sorry.. just one more scripture came to mind.. gotta share it before I go...
Gen 26:5 Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.
So... riddle me this what charge, commandments, statues and LAWS did Abraham keep... seeing he was not under the LAW?
and how did he get them since we did not read about them?
Me thinks.. somethings were just not written down for us to read!
Robert said...
"Anway back to discussing something with a big boy."
Kris said ...
I don't really care if you don't want to address me. I'll just keep reading what you type and endeavor to let others see that you are not as theological as you claim to be. You are a minister talking to mostly laity, and you are even being instructed by laity, and Jeff is pretty knowledgeable enough that he doesn't really need someone to help him to see your folly, but there are others who may think you actually know a lot because you went to NTC Seminary. You know just enough to fool someone that hasn't studied.
Briggs said...
"Romans says "they" speaking of the Jewish Chrsitian's as partakers of the Old and New Covenant by the fleshly birth and the Spiritual new birth. Paul refers to them as "They" and "them"
What???
What a heretic! You are completely twisting that one up, Briggs. You must be completely blind to the message of the New Testament.
Exactly what the Catholic church does when something is not in the Bible... They simply call it "church tradition," which they can do that with many of their beliefs.
And that is what ntcc mandatory money payment belief is, their tradition... Never commanded in the New Testament, it's simply their tradition... Christians don't pay money in order to continue to be a Christian! A ridiculous and unbiblical concept! Ought to be ashamed of yourself!
Briggs said...
I know you want to be right, but my friend... in this you are wrong. I hope you will trust me but if not by all means verify it.
Kris said...
translation: I know this makes no sense, but just TRUST me. I am a priest, and a theologian. My doctrine makes no sense, but just TRUST me.
Anonymous RB said...
it's and evil and adultersous generation that seeketh after a "sign" and well.. Ceasar you get my drift.... LOL
Caesar says:
Yes RB, I get your drift......LOL
Just a reply for the road:
Mar 16:17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
Mar 16:18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.
Mar 16:19 So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God.
Mar 16:20 And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen.
ennngggg ... wrong again, Briggs. This is a highly contested piece of work. It was never included in the canon of scriptures. Authorship is unknown. Dates estimated vary widely, but i don't think any reputable scholars date it to the same date as the books of the New Testament many of which were very well agreed to have been written in the 60's AD. Come on, Briggs! What is wrong with you???
Besides, the didache says, firstfruits, not tithe, Sir. Firstfruits was something in the Levitical law SEPARATE from tithes, and like an offering, it did not have a definite fixed percentage. In fact, in the didache, it says, you should take whatever seems right to you to give to the prophet. Take that!
Jeff said to Briggs...
You are assuming that Peter was wrong but John's disciple who you claim taught tithing was right?
Kris said..
Ya, Jeff.. and he still hasn't given us the quote from Ignatius or Irenaeus or whoever he was trying to use for his defense. I don't even know if he knows who it was.
Hey, Matthew Reed wrote an alarming article on the first and latest thread.
It's pretty disturbing and unfortunately I've read quite a bit of that on this blog. I really dislike the NTCC.
Jeff
Jeff said...
"Peter was wrong by practicing socialism in Act 5. Where does it say that in the Bible. You are assuming he was wrong because socialism doesn't line up with RWD'a corporate capitalism plan to justify his lifestyle'
Kris said...
That's it! That's the one! In a nutshell, buddy! Are indians wrong for sharing with each other in a communal hut? For sharing what they caught with each other because they work together as a community? What about community housing, where the Pastor buys a bunch of land and builds a bunch of houses and rents them out to preachers at a below-market rate? Is that sin? Shouldn't the preachers have to get a place on their own? That would be more towards capitalism, right? Survival of the fittest?
Briggs very very very very very foolishly just threw himself under the bus with this one:
"Jeff.. please brother.. put your thinking cap on..
The Diadache dates to 50 AD... that is only 50 years after the cross. There was no NT scripture then. They were still being written. The only things they had to go on for the most part were the OT writings and a few of the letters already being circulated."
Hahhahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahah
Can you see what you are writing? If it was written in 50AD BEFORE the New Testament letters were written, than why wasn't it included in the canon, Robert?????
So now you want to contest with the time-tested canon of New Testament scripture, namely Matthew through Revelation, that has been virtually universally accepted by most Protestant Christian Churches for centuries, and was the choice of books to be considered as canon from the time of Eusebius the early fourth century, and you want to ADD another book to the canon NOW???
You are a radical preacher, aren't you? Are you trying to form a cult of your own?
Cult leader Briggs said...
"Incidentally.. what did the early church folks do before they had the "NT" cannonized? What did they quote? What did they use to gain their understanding of GOd? What did they use as their moral and spiritual compass?"
Well, I don't think they quoted from the didache! Can you name one place in NT scripture where they quoted the didache if it was written BEFORE Paul's writings and Peter's and James' and John's? Robert, over and over again, the apostles quoted from the Old Testament, but they did not quote where it says to pay your tithe, sir.
RB wrote...
So... riddle me this what charge, commandments, statues and LAWS did Abraham keep... seeing he was not under the LAW?
Jeff said...
That may have been the most compelling point you've made concerning this one time recorded act by Abram. Still doesn't make it a mandate as can be determined by New Testament scripture.
You are right Pastor Briggs. You have to live by your convictions and I wouldn't expect you to do otherwise.
I do believe that your convictions concerning this topic are somewhat tilted in favor or your position and the desire to continue to have your worldly needs somewhat provided for. It's only natural. I have no vested interest because I don't receive tithe so my opinions and positions are purely unbiased.
No one can deny that I never missed paying one single penny of tithe and I did so gladly. No pastor ever had to ask me or remind me to pay tithe. I did it because I wanted to but frankly there is a weak body of evidence to support it during the dispensation of Grace. The NTCC doesn't help matters by including 1 Cor 16:2 in their doctrinal statement when it clearly has nothing to do with paying tithe and you admitted yourself Sir, when you expounded more perfectly upon Rom 15. 1 Cor 16 and Rom 15 are essentially the same account. They were both free will offerings made to support the poor saints in Jerusalem, neither of which have anything to do with paying tithe. The NTCC could do better than that and it's stuff like that which raises suspicion and doubt.
The NTCC needs to have you rewrite their doctrinal statement and start by pulling 1 Cor 16:2 out of it.
Jeff
Jeff I just finished reading Aw pink on tithing and he had a interesting view of that verse I will post it tomorrow.
Okay, now that Briggs has gone to bed, I will give my personal conclusion of the matter.
The law was the handwritings of ordnances that was abolished by the cross. Tithes were part of that law. The Jewish Christians continued following the law of Moses even after they became Christians, according to historians and scholars who have observed scriptures that show this. But Paul preached to the Gentiles that the law was past. Monies taken under the new SPIRITUAL law consisted of free-will offerings. The very first church (Jerusalem) in the book of Acts shows us the very best model to go by. They forsook all and lived together communally. Although this may have been because they knew that the end was near for Jerusalem because of the predictions of Jesus in Mt 24 and Luke
Luk 21:20 And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh.
So, we may not see this exact same model perpetuated in the early church. Or at least it is not recorded as being that way. Nevertheless, we definitely see many times where the churches gave to help out the needy churches.
Also, Paul quoted Our Lord from the book of Luke chapter 10 when he said that the laborer is worthy of his hire. So, that to me seems to be the conclusion of the matter which Jeff has tried to teach to the "priest/ theologian" who thinks the didache was written before the New Testament letters were written, and conversely thinks that tithe is for us today, and that this part of the Old Testament is still relevant to us.
I will leave Briggs and all of you with one more verse of scripture which, along with Briggs, should put this baby to bed...
He says, that Abraham had laws to follow... I agree. So, he thinks the pre-Moses Old Testament laws still apply if they were not eradicated after the New Testament by scripture.
How about this scripture?
Actually I have a few.
Mat 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
The law AND the prophets were fulfilled in Jesus. He doesn't say, only the parts that were just in the Mosaic law and not those that were before and were not eradicated by New Testament scripture. Robert, he said, the law is finished, sir. The law and the prophets was a Hebrew idiom for the Torah. It means everything contained in the Jewish Bible. It's finished.
Mat 7:12 Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.
The New Covenant is a spiritual covenant.
Mat 11:13 For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John.
Mat 22:37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
Mat 22:38 This is the first and great commandment.
Mat 22:39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
Mat 22:40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
Luk 16:16 The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it.
Continued ...
John the Baptist was the last Old Testament prophet.
Act 15:5 But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.
Sound like someone we know?
Rom 3:19 Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.
Rom 3:28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.
Rom 6:14 For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.
(Of course this is not a license to sin, as Paul says, but they who are spiritual need not a law).
Rom 6:15 What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.
Rom 7:4 Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.
Rom 7:6 But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.
Rom 8:2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.
Rom 10:4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.
Gal 3:10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.
Gal 3:19 Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.
Gal 3:24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
Gal 5:14 For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
Gal 5:18 But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.
1Ti 1:6 From which some having swerved have turned aside unto vain jangling;
1Ti 1:7 Desiring to be teachers of the law; understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm.
1Ti 1:8 But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully;
1Ti 1:9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, ...
Jas 2:8 If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well:
Robert, it's pretty sad that Kristopher has dismantled your leaky theology to the point that you have fled the debate. Man up, dude. You're trapped, because you won't let go of the false doctrine. You've dug yourself deeper and deeper, and must realize you'll pop up in China soon if you keep it up. Climb up out of the hole and admit that you yourself have been sold a bill of goods. Think about how much more satisfying your Christian experience could be if you weren't bound up by all that phony and extrabiblical NTCC tradion. It's keeping you back, bro. I know how it is, trying to do all that tap dancing to justify some cherished (but erroneous) doctrine. Those deceptions die hard, but I hope you'll see past them one day and quit being afraid to look at reality. You are at the point to outgrow NTCC like last year's britches; don't keep yourself down.
And I will say, in addition to that, Robert, I am sorry for disrespecting you. I got a little passionate about this subject, and I felt convicted for some of the things I said to you. I just get upset when someone is defending an org's practices like some of the stuff Matthew Reed and Deborah Shunk shared on Jeff's newest post. I really hope you will come to a better understanding like Paul of what liberty in Christ means and the law of the Spirit versus the law of the letter. If we follow the Spirit, we don't need to be told thou shalt do this and that and pay that for that matter. When there is a need, people who really love God and God's people will want to give, especially when they see that the leaders love people and God, too, and that their money is going to help people like the poor filipina bible school lady students. They are the ones I am mostly defending, because they are probably the poorest members of NTCC. I imagine that the Panamanians are probably just as poor and have the same doctrine hanging over them that if they don't pay tithe they will go to hell in a hand-basket. It's so reminiscent of Catholic indulgences. My prayer is that all tithe-preaching preachers would one day know what it is like to make about 3 dollars a day and have to support a family with that and then on top of that have a preacher tell you that you have to pay ten per cent of that to him, plus come to all the services and that if you really love God you will give one hour's wage in all your offerings. And you don't want to ask anyone for help, because the org teaches that you are a wasteful congregant if you don't have any money. I hope they all know what it feels like to have only enough money for one meal, and the leaders ARE DRIVING AROUND IN MERCEDES AND BMWs!!!!
Too little too late.. I get passionate too but you always seem to draw first blood. I will not correspond with you from this point forward. Jeff and I don't agree, neither do many others, but we have learned to get along. That's more Christian than what you do.
Vic... Kris has done no such thing... he has rebutted me but his explination is faulty. I will not engage him becuase he refuses to do it in a civil manner. I am just as passionate as the next guy. If you start taunting me you're going to get a rise. And why not... I have no one to defend me but myself. I wade hip deep in this stuff bymyself and get assulted on every side.. if that aint' Man Enough for you I don't know what elese to do. But if the little fella wanted to have an actual intellectual debate on the issue he should have stopped all the little snide comments. I told him as much but he just wouldn't listen.
And for the record NTCC didn't sell me a bill of goods on the tithe.. it's been around as we have proven from the beginning. Read A.W.'s book on TIthing... great stuff... Got a fantastic book on my blog called Gem's About tithing quoting scores of people from Church Fathers, to (then) modern preachers teaching... so I just am mainstream on this issue.
So Kris spends half of my night insulting me... he insulted me before I even had a chance to repsond yestarday... and now it all gets forgotten because he said "I kind of egged him on" and "I got convicted"...
WHY DO YOU PEOPLE INSIST ON BEING ONE SIDED ALWAYS? There have been a few Don, Sgt Johnson, and Jeff who have come to the center on this particular issue and begun to help keep the debate civil and then you have the Kristofer's of the world who have no interest in the being a peacemaker they just want to sow dischord.
Do I expect that anyone here would ever actually say "Man Briggs that's a good point" no becuase you would be defeating your own cause. But do I think I am making people stop and consider something... you better believe it.. that's why people like Kris are frantic to discredit me.
Robert, I wasn't suggesting that NTCC invented tithing; they're not original enough for that. But they sure latched on to this false doctrine, since it perfectly meshes with their materialistic focus. Does it really matter what the Didache or AW Pink says about something if it can't be found in the bible? When you have to resort to sources like that, it's an indication that you are grasping at straws. In all the multitude of words here, there has not yet been one simple clear statement from the bible indicating that we are obligated to tithe. Instead there are a collection of assumptions and deductions which together constitute a fragile doctrinal house of cards. It's distressing that you're comfortable laying this burden on people with zero biblical proof or authority. But it is the NTCC way. Come out from among them, Robert; you have way more potential.
"Too little too late.. I get passionate too but you always seem to draw first blood. I will not correspond with you from this point forward. Jeff and I don't agree, neither do many others, but we have learned to get along. That's more Christian than what you do."
Well, he did try to apologize, but you apparently want to keep the beef alive. If he's trying to learn to get along, why not encourage that? You haven't been able to effectively refute his arguments, and it looks like it got to the point where you just threw in the towel and used his "incivility" as a lame excuse. We've all been uncivil on these blogs, and you've always dished out as much as you've taken. Now you're taking the high road? Please.
Vic, thanks for your nice words....
But if you are going to state "there are too many assumptions here" you must, in all fairness acknowledge that the assumptions are on both sides.
The tithe is not specifically mentioned as being obligatory in the NT as such, and neither is it clearly removed either. A person can be on either side of this issue and have a clean heart in the matter. Of course both sides are not correct and that's where our faith must direct our own choices. My whole point is that I have enough evidence, and support information to say it is in my view still biblically required. That does not mean I am materialistic. And neither does it mean if someone does not believe in th3e tithe as a NT concept that they are necessarily greedy themselves.
Agreed?
Vic, I asked him to keep it civil at the start. He spent hours last night trying to goad me into a fight. His appology was not sincere it was an attempt after the fact to show piety. That is clear. He is rabble rousing and I've had my fill of that. I will talk with anyone that is contrary to me or this organization in an intellectually honest way. I gave about three indications that I was signing off last night why didn't he appolgoize then? Why keep the attacks coming and then say... oh.. but I am sorry! False humility is sickening. But this is his MO.. he did it on Gregs blog.. stated a bunch of his trash... then reflected.. and then asked to have his comments removed.... why not think before you speak so you don't have to back track as much later.
But enough said...
Robert you have made interesting points but honestly you have not proven mandatory cash payments from the New Testament. Paul was chosen by God as our minister to the Gentiles and talked all about supporting the ministry through offerings. I can't find one place where Paul commanded payments, if you find it I would love to see it. When people in your church give, they are giving to try to support the church. Your church tradition requires a tenth so that is what they do, most with no questions asked. But when you REALLY start digging into the New Testament you won't find a scriptural command for mandatory payments or your not Christian.
There are literally thousands of churches across the nation whose congregations provide their pastors with good salaries and pay for their buildings simply because they give as they purpose in their hearts.
I was raised in the Catholic organization/"church" and I never heard them say anything about mandatory payments but yet the people gave millions.
Oooops, honestly forgot, last post was from me --- MB
Hey, Pastor Briggs can dish it out but I have to give it to him; he does with very few exceptions keep it civil while posting on this blog. I have to applaud the guy for even taking the time to engage in the discussion. He has made some decent points however I don't see that any of his points conclusively proves tithing to be mandatory during the dispensation of grace. Vic said it right. When you start pulling literature external to the Bible to support a doctrinal mandate, you really are pulling straws.
None of this would concern me at all if it weren't for statements that I've heard made by either RWD or other NTCC pastors such as and to the best of my ability I quote:
"IF you only have enough money to pay tithe or rent, the rent goes unpaid".
"If it comes down to paying your tithe or you car note, than I guess your car will have to be repossessed."
Church member: Pastor I don't have enough money to pay my bills. NTCC Pastor: You won't go to hell for not paying your bills but you can go to hell for not paying your tithe".
Jeff said...
You see, no where is any of this stuff taught in the New Testament Bible. The NTCC leadership uses these kinds of statements as scare tactics to train their disciples that it is never acceptable to miss paying tithe for any reason what so ever.
The NTCC has absolutely allowed parents of young NTCC children, to have to scrounge for enough money just to put food on the table. This is true and the NTCC leadership saw it as acceptable as long as the parent paid their tithe and that is not what Christianity, good will toward your fellow man, loving you neighbor or common decency is all about.
Especially when there are people in the NTCC who are millionaires who are the ones accepting the money from these poor people who don't even have food to put on their table.
In the process of non-biblically mandating compulsory tithe, the NTCC has absolutely missed the most important lesson that Christ himself tried to teach and this lesson totally supersedes the law. Love thy neighbor as thyself. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
Would you sit there with millions of dollars Pastor Briggs while you have dedicated, faithful people in your church who don't even have enough money to get to conference and eat while they are there? Would you make them pay tithe right before they left for conference if their tithe money was the only money they had left?
On her blog, Sister Ashmore highlighted it as honorable that a family just two weeks before conference didn't have the money to get there. Then someone had to give them money for food while they were there. Oh but I'll bet they paid their tithe.
Is that what Christianity is all about? Davis sitting around with millions and millions and millions and the Kekels with their wealth while NTCC families exist who don't even know where they will get money for their next meal?
You said that Peter was wrong in Acts Chapter 5 because he practiced socialism? Really? How do you know Peter was wrong? The Bible didn't say so. RWD taught he was wrong? The NTCS taught he was wrong? Some book written by die hard capitalists said he was wrong?
Frankly I think the Bible was trying to show a pattern that the NTCC hierarchy just isn't interested in following. It would mean they would have to part with their money. It's just not right Pastor Briggs that the NTCC leadership would treat their own people that way. Christianity is supposed to be about love, not about greed.
Pastor Briggs, it occurred to me that you just proved my point right from the beginning. I previously said that NTCC pastors spent more of their time teaching about tithing than any other subject. Well Sir you just got seriously involved with attempting to prove your stance on tithing but what's ironic is that God showed little if any interest at all in tithing from a New Testament scriptural stand point.
Jeff
I'm sorry for the disrespect, Rev. Briggs.
Jeff,
Thank you for this forum. I am glad to see that people can post their experiences while they were in ntcc.
My family and I left ntcc three years ago. Life is great! For those who read this and are in ntcc, who think that if a person leaves ntcc, yes I say again, "LIFE IS GREAT!"
I read Bro Reeds post on how he was treated by RWD. I know the Reeds, they both are Christians! I still have very fond memories of Junction City. Bro Reed was my pastor there. I have never known him to not be a Christian.
The way his wife and he was treated, is sad. The more time that goes by and I hear of fellow Christians who leave ntcc and the way that they were treated by the upper crust, makes me sick!
Ntcc is like a lawnmower! If someone disagrees with their opinionated doctrine, teaching and preaching or starts to ask certain questions, eventually they are cut up and shot out, like a lawnmower cutting the grass!
I guess the lawnmower keeps on going. All that money given to fuel the machine!
Kris Moore, this is my #806-206-9250, call me sometime, we have some catching up to do bro!
J. Crum
Hey Kris, don't get too hasty now. It's not about disrespect. Davis disrespects everyone he knows, other than his family. It's not an issue of "disrespect". It's just an issue of having a decent internet conversation while keeping it cool. You made some SERIOUSLY GOOD POINTS. Davis is a flat out Jerk and you won't see me apologize for saying that because it's true.
Here let me take it a step further. RWD is a DICK. Is that disrespectful enough? No! He is an abusive PRICK. It is what it is. You are right. You have plenty of reason to be upset. The NTCC leadership treated you just the same way they treated the rest of us. LIKE CRAP!!!! DUNG!!! Do-DO. I'll stop there but there is another one that falls in that category that I'll refrain from using.
Bro, you don't have to get too carried away with apoligies. If you think you lost your cool with Pastor Briggs than tell him. The man is not thin skinned. He'll let it go believe me. I've got into it with him probably worse than anyone on this blog by far. He never held it against me nor I him.
If I don't agree with him I tell him and visa versa he tells me. It's no more serious than that. The man could come to my house and eat dinner tomorrow. Forget Christianity for a minute. That is what good decency is all about and the NTCC has failed on that one miserably. Pastor Briggs has forgiven me for anything that I've ever said and I him. That don't mean that I agree with his views but he doesn't expect me to either. What he does expect is to be treated with some manner of kindness and he don't care if you disagree with him all day long. Bro, Pastor Brigg don't have a beef with you. Boy I've seen him and Bro Johnson go back and forth and through it all they are kind of cool with each other.
Kris, Davis is a dick and you don't need to make any apologies for that. Davis treated Brother Reed like crap and it wasn't necessary AT ALL.
Jeff
Hey Mr. Crum. It's good to hear form you and thank you for your input. You and I are on the same sheet of music Bro. I lived in a serviceman's home with M. Reed in 1985. Davis did treat the man wrong. That's just the way it is. RWD was heartless and the Reeds left. That is the NTCC loss and the Reeds gain.
By all means post any time. I can't do this alone. This blog ain't worth the bandwidth it takes up without people getting involved.
Jeff
Thank you Kris.. I accept your appology.. now please accept mine. You are a smart man.. I don't agree with all of what you say.. but you are smart.
Hey, Brother Crum, thanks a lot for sharing your number. I was really happy to know you and your wife had escaped, too. I'll really look forward to re-connecting with you. Good points too, by the way!
Wow! I'll have to say I am surprised, Rev. Briggs. Of course I absolutely accept it.
I definitely don't want to be a smart-ALECK though. :)
Pastor Briggs, you are a good man.
Anon.. whoever you are thank you! From the bottom of my heart.
Jeff,
Uhhh... hmmm... that was pretty bold. I have to say in a respectful way to you, are you sure you want to phrase it like that? I don't want to accuse you of not being Christ-like, but could you picture the Christ speaking like that? I'll just leave that alone though.
I will say, aside from your personal convictions now, what do you think holiness preachers will think when they see you using profanity? They have been told that we leave NTCC because we want to sin. You seem to be promoting a diplomatic approach to talking with NTCC ministers, which I highly commend you on, and I am even taking pointers from you on that. Take one from me. Render not again evil for evil. If we are to win then our righteousness should exceed the righteousness of the scribes and pharisees. I just posted on a blog that I believe in holiness. Just because I left NTCC doesn't mean I have some vendetta against righteousness itself. The Bible says to let no filthiness of communication come from us. I will debate with anyone when it comes to truth and principle, it doesn't matter to me if they are pro-NTCC or ex-NTCC.
"...could you picture the Christ speaking like that?"
People would be surprised at what Jesus might or might not do. They sure were back in the day. He wasn't exactly a pantywaist when it came to denouncing hypocrites. Tomato, tomahto--there's not a whole lot of difference between calling someone a serpent or a whited sepulchre and calling him a prick (so long as he qualifies, that is, and in this case the phallic resemblance is unmistakable).
Perhaps we should be asking oursleves "what would Jesus do?" instead of telling each other what he wouldn't do. Especially when we really don't know.
Kris said...
Jeff,
Uhhh... hmmm... that was pretty bold. I have to say in a respectful way to you, are you sure you want to phrase it like that? I don't want to accuse you of not being Christ-like, but could you picture the Christ speaking like that? I'll just leave that alone though.
Jeff said...
I did it intentionally. You absolutely could say I wasn't being Christ like because I wasn't trying to be and I wouldn't take any offence to it at all. RWD doesn't try to be Christ like either. He calls someone the N word, I call him a prick. Here is a modern day definition that I found for the word:
An obnoxious, rude, unpleasant person.
Well that is R.W. Davis all day long. I was deliberately showing boldness. RWD is not the great man of God the NTCC makes him out to be. He is an abusive, unpleasant, rude, obnoxious dude. He really is. I've read so many stories about times that RWD has just belittled, ridiculed and deliberately embarrassed people just because he can. He has a history of mistreatment. I could call him, obnoxious, rude, unpleasant and so on but it's easier to simply call him a prick.
Here is the deal so everyones knows what I'm all about. I don't claim to be some holy, super righteous person. I don't claim that at all. I do claim to care about people. I try my best to be trustworthy. I try to be reliable. I definitely try to be real and sincere. I try to show people decency and treat them the way I would want to be treated. I can't see using people like the Kekels do. I wouldn't have my church members come over to clean my house. I wouldn't want to embarras someone in my congregation like RWD does. I wouldn't want to take someones money. Having said that I don't have a problem with calling someone a like RWD a prick because in figurative terms he is one. It is the same as calling someone a Jerk.
Some people are jerks. They are just deliberately nasty and unpleasant and Kris that is RWD all day long. He targets people. He made a snide remark in church one day about automobile salesman and some of the pastors laughed and thought it was real funny. Guess what kind of work I was doing at the time? Selling brand new Toyotas. Well I was providing for my family and the NTCC certainly wasn't going to. Yeah some of those NTCC folks who knew what kind of work I was doing thought RWD's remarks were real funny. You know what I think? They were a bunch of PRICKS!!!
That is not what church is supposed to be all about. Church is not a platform used to belittle people, put people down, make fun of them, try to embarrass them and so on, and RWD is notorious for that junk and so are many of his pastors and overseers. Many of them are just a bunch of Jerks but I decided to use slightly different terminology and I don't regret it.
Buddy, RWD is one seriously despicable dude and the reason I say that so boldly is because I'm sure it's the truth. All these abusive NTCC pastors that I've known learned their tricks from someone and I will guarantee it was RWD. Kekel wants to blame it on Denis but that is a bunch of garbage. Why? Because I've seen RWD act the same way in church or in conference.
Like Vic said. Jesus called people like that a Generation of Vipers, Whited Sepulchers, Hypocrites and Chrildren of Hell. Well I call them a little something different and you know exactly what that is and once again you would have been right Bro. I wasn't being Christ like nor was I trying to be. After all the abuse I've seen committed by NTCC pastors and RWD; my kid gloves are off. I'd call RWD that to his face right in from of his jerk friends, and watch them get all flustered like I'd just insulted God himself which would have hardly been the case. My friend, I'm going to take it one step further. I truly believe that RWD is one EVIL dude. I mean that.
Jeff
Kris asked...
I will say, aside from your personal convictions now, what do you think holiness preachers will think when they see you using profanity?
Jeff said...
If they weren't hypocrites, the same thing they should think when they hear NTCC preachers tell racist jokes and or use the N word. Bro, other than the fact that my reference to RWD is true, do you want to know why I do that?
So that people will see that RWD being a spade, can be called a spade, and lightning won't immediately strike the person who calls him a spade. You see the NTCC has people living in fear. Don't talk about the "man of GAWD". "Touch not thine anointed".
The NTCC brainwashing has people living in so much fear that they won't even see RWD for the jerk that he really is. They are literately afraid. They think something is going to happen to them if they think bad say no less speak negatively about RWD, the supposed "man of GAWD".
Well I got over that about three years ago and I've been calling RWD a jerk pretty much ever since accept this time. I decided to take it to another level and I did it because I felt that you got unnecessarily too apologetic. Apologizing to Pastor Briggs, I can understand but not to RWD the you know what. You don't owe RWD any apologies. He's treated many people to include Bro Reed real bad and I've had it with RWD. Any respect I ever had for him is gone.
I've got more respect for someone who sins willfully and openly than I do for RWD. There are some serious sinners who care way more about their fellow man than RWD does. That dude is something else. Call a man up in the middle of the night just because he accidentally woke you up from a mid day nap. Boo hoo. When I was in the NTCC he'd have gotten away with it but if he called my house now at 3am, he'd get chewed out and hung up on. I'd say, "What do you think you're doing calling my house at 3am you P _ _ _ K!!!" CLICK!!! That would be the conversation.
Having said all that, I do understand your point Kris. Not to long ago I wouldn't have referred to him as such but after I read how he treated Bro Reed, that man is dirt in my book, more so than he already was. I have no respect for RWD and I deliberately treated and made reference to him with disrespect, i.e. with the terminology that I used.
Jeff
Jeff, if some misfortune befalls you, you know they'll parade that around as the judgment of God, but when they face calamity (which they do, at what appears to be the same rate as the rest of the general population), it's the Devil fighting.
God isn't going to judge you or me for doing exactly what Jesus did when he denounced the Pharisees, which have their modern counterpart in the org. He may even reward us, in fact (although the satisfaction of telling the truth to the world is sufficient).
Vic said...
He may even reward us, in fact (although the satisfaction of telling the truth to the world is sufficient).
Jeff said...
I've actually considered that however I'm certainly not looking for an award. I've sometimes thought that God may have allowed me to be placed under a bunch of real abusive guys because he knew it was in my nature to get all stirred up and tell about it. That of course is purely speculation and realistically quite far fetched. Regardless, I'm quite driven and motivated to continue with this quest.
People need to know how the NTCC really operates. It can save them a lot of wasted time, money and serious emotional heartache. People, the NTCC brakes up families.
Jeff
u b anonymous bcoz u r ashamed or afraid said, "why bring up the hamptons when they don't have a problem with the issue your bringing up? I know the hamptons well...hang out with their son all the time n he is on fire for God. Are you just running out of stories that now u have to tell other peoples stories for them? If its even true" -- u-anon
March 19, 2011 7:06 PM
Don and Ange say,
anon u r admitting u have never heard of this true story about the Hamptons being homeless; or u are lying by trying to say this true story is not true. It's true. We dare u to 'ax' ur friend.
Which of Hampton's sons do you hang out with?
Philip? Anthony? David? Those three all went through it and could tell you the truth if you dare to care enough to ask. There is more I could share about this story.
Do you hang out with Diana Hampton's other two sons, Carl and Kerry? Or with Rich Hampton's daughter, Christine?
What about their grandkids? Do you keep up with them? Diana Hampton hasn't even seen some of her own grandkids. Do you know how terrible that is for a woman like her who loves her family? She should pretend she is saving money to go to conference, get on a plane, and go see her grandkids! verna davis sure made sure she saw her grandson each and every day of his life, even following along on a field trip to Canada! Why shouldn't Diana see her grandkids too? She should skip a conference and go see her family that she raised!
But let's get back to u...
Do u think it is right for a so-called 'pastor' (davis the hireling) to leave a family of six to be homeless while they work for him building a church that pays his salary????
Do u think that is right?
We dare u to answer that simple question!
Do u think that is right?
Don and Ange
Or are u too scared to admit the truth? That davis is a hireling for letting 4 kids and 2 adults, all people working for him, go homeless 15 miles from the ntcc EMPTY CAMPGROUND!
We dare u to answer!
stephanie said that in ntcc she is ...
"fed the bible" Ain't that the truth! They are "fed" the bible, just like baby birds are "fed" worms that the momma bird chews for them and pukes down their throats for them BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT BIG ENOUGH TO CHEW FOR THEMSELVES!
Stephanie also confessed,
"I have been in this church since I was 2 so you cant tell me I don't know what I'm getting myself in to."
What she is really telling us is that there is no way she could possibly know anything other than the ntcc-cult way of thinking. This is not her fault. She was, after all, raised in a carefully controlled environment designed to make sure that
-she never went to other churches
-she never asked questions about what was taught or why it was taught.
Her whole life has been controlled for her, not by her parents, but by the cult leaders of the ntcc.
Sorry, Stephanie. But if you do escape the ntcc teen-bride program and venture out into the real world you are in for a rude shock as to how weird and controlling the ntcc is.
Judging by your arguments here, you will not be able to defend any of the ntcc doctrines to people who grew up outside of ntcc. You will be frustrated and you will fail to convince them that ntcc is a good church. They will show you good churches and you will realize what a controlling, abusive, destructive cult the ntcc is. Then you will have to deal with the fact that people who said they love you have betrayed you and failed to protect you from hirelings like davis and kekel and the like.
When this does happen, you will realize the x-ers were right and you will be welcome here to share your true horror stories of watching your friends get married when they were 16 after dating grown men so they could be farmed out to the ntcc machine to make more cult members...
Stop and look around you now. You know what we are talking about. There is nothing good or normal about ntcc and their teen bride program. Sickos!
Ange consider this a rebuttal to your oft repeated and wholly inaccurate Hampton Homeless Story. When Richard Hampton moved to Mexico Mo. he had just sold a property in Graham, and had enough liquidity to purchase a home for cash at auction in Mexico Mo. which he did. The time the Hamptons spent living with the Dicksons enabled them to remodel the home purchased for cash without having to live in the construction dust. This has been confirmed with Anthony Hampton, and yes I also hang out with Phil, David, and even Chrissy several times a year as well as their children. I post anonymously because among the Rakers of Muck you are the nastiest. We'll see if you have the integrity to retract this inaccurate story you have told numerous times on numerous blogs. It just ain't true. You should probably stick to relating your experiences because those are your own, and refrain from invoking the experiences of innocents who have not asked you to name them publicly in these forums.
Ok I see where I goofed in a past conversation with Rev. Briggs. He said that Moses was 5,000 years after Adam. I just wanted to apologize for that. I scoffed at his estimate, because I didn't read what he said carefully. I am actually ashamed of all of my antagonistic arguments in that dialogue. I guess that's why I erased all of my old comments. I don't want to be a jerk.
No problem.
Pastor Briggs' comment..."Every word must be verified by two or three witnesses. So no. That scripture ALONE does not prove to mean tithe. But again Heb 7:12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law. CHANGED not done away with as such. The handwriting of ordinances were speaking of the Theological instructions of the Rabbi’s from Moses to the time of Christ that were scroll after scroll of instruction." ends the discussion, doesn't it?
Since "scripture ALONE does not prove to mean tithe (Pastor Briggs' words)", then tithe is not a command, but a custom.
This many of us already know, and many of us will not admit to (including Pastor Briggs).
So why does NTCC (the Full Gospel Organization) teach mandatory tithe again?
Gregory
Don and Ange have responded to the ridiculous Anonymous (April 01, 2011 8:43 PM) poster. (click the Hamptons Homelessness link above)
Post a Comment