Fine Doc, I am not looking for a debate, just noticed that despite numerous epistles from several authors given to the church and the book of Acts, an admonition or command to tithe wasnâ€™t given to believers so was wondering where you found the requirement in the New Testament.
the Bible is clear in more than one spot that any ability to get wealth is from God. My thinking is that all the money I have belongs to God , 100%. Money spent to support my family, help others, or give to church is of equal significance in glorifying God and fulfilling His purpose in my life. (Thus money going to the church isnâ€™t a more spiritual use than providing for my family â€”I Timothy 5:8)
There is a pattern given by our Lord of raising the standard. â€śYe have heard it saidâ€¦, but I say unto youâ€¦). If the Old Testament believers gave a tithe, then that can only be the starting point for New Testament believers in giving to the work of God.
Dr. Tim, would you share the N.T. admonition or command to tithe. When our Lord healed the leper He told him to go and make the appropriate sacrifices as Moses commanded and the night before His crucifixion He and the disciples had the Passover Seder, so He clearly operated under Old Testament law. His admonition to the Pharisees about tithing would have fallen under the same.
Havenâ€™t read Jimâ€™s comments so not agreeing or disagreeing with anything he said
John in reading through the comments it looks like you choose to ignore more than one person who tried to show you the fallacy of your quest, so we wonâ€™t address that.
I can think of two examples in Scripture that parallel the situation in Wheaton where the action of a government was changed due to existing granted government laws, which is what these young people are attempting to do.
One was already cited in Acts 22 where Paul stopped a government ordered scourging by claiming a privilege already granted him under Roman law. In Ezra 5&6 where Jews Were able to continue to build that had been stopped by local authorities and used the law to change governmental violation of rights granted to them.
There is your Biblical warrant whether or not you choose to accept it is up to you.
John UK wrote: Bro US, thank you for your post, and I will try to answer. Note, an actual example: "Mike, my own opinion on this dilemma is that in order to argue with Adriel from his own theological position, you obviously would have to understand his theological position, or you will end up arguing a strawman to no avail." Is this what you mean? If not, I will inevitably end up building mine own strawman. The onus is on you to be clear and concise in what you are saying. Is this example suitable? If so, I will use it to show you exactly what I'm saying, and why Mike was building a strawman to knock down again. It's up to you bro. If it is not suitable, please give me one example which is suitable and we can look at it and dissect it. Thanks.
Sorry I didn't get back to you earlier John but I do believe Mike responded to your question.
Adriel quoting Calvin specifically said
"God, therefore, ordained that which should come to pass, because nothing could have been done had He not willed it to be done."
Mike responded to what he posted, pure and simple.
B. McCausland wrote: Whatever you say, it is terribly worrying to observe how much pragmatism governs actions, standards, and decisions in the church today. Realistically is not the Word that governs but what it might work, the innovative, the feeling-good, rationalised opinion, or the convenient. It is understandable for governments to take such line of action as they do not care for the word, yet the church continually goes on paying the price for this accepted and habitual trend.
B. McCausland wrote: US We can make assumptions out of pragmatism, which is what invented scenarios are, but it is not safe to make them a matter of faith and conviction. We anchor from the Word to draw conclusions, not pragmatism. This is a grave error. E g. We can pragmatically distribute free contraceptives to curve unwanted teenage pregnancy, yet the solution is the implementation of thou shall not commit adultery. Please stop going round and round trying to find a way out of this basic principle of hermeneutics placing flaw where it is not due.
Thanks for your response. Whether you agree or not it is a matter of personal opinion. I have rightly divided the Word of Truth as I see it.
Just passing through here. But BMacCausland I get what they are saying.
You and John UK are discounting what people are saying by stating they are using a straw man and thus what they are saying is of no value, but your assessment is wrong. You are also saying that what you are saying is Scriptural and what others are saying is not.
Youâ€™re entitled to your opinion, but it is just that, your opinion. We appreciate the fact that you base your beliefs on the Bible and are trying to admonish the brethren. However I did use Scripture to back my thinking. The fact that you donâ€™t see it that way doesnâ€™t make you right and me wrong and vise versa. It means we see things differently and we should respectfully discuss things instead of insisting we have superior intellectual skills and deeper spiritual understanding of the Bible.
This, Lord willing will be my last post in this thread, although I will take the time as a common courtesy to read any responses that people feel obligated to give.
Adriel, John UK, and BMac among others have spent time sharing with us the great need we have to trust God. Great verses, thoughts and testimonies have been shared for which we should all be thankful.
I firmly believe the problem is the premise is flawed. The one that says no self defense. On both sides of the Atlantic a woman defending herself and/or her children from an abusive spouse or significant other is not persecuted for any bodily harm they cause even it results in death It is seen by both countries as a lawful act. One would hope we wouldnâ€™t condemn the woman for her actions. Also taking out a person who is about to commit mass murderer before he or she becomes one is a lawful act. Thus, both in my thinking fall under Romans 13.
Trusting God is not a measure of blind faith. We still lock doors, have insurance policies and avoid things that put ourselves in harms way. We trust God for our physical well being (Acts 17:28; Daniel 5:23) but still use medicine, physicians, and bodily care.
If John were being forthright he would truthfully say his discovery of â€śerrorsâ€ť of premillennialism and dispensationalism came at the hands of men he read or heard not from some â€śrevelationâ€ť that suddenly hit as he was reading his Bible.
B. McCausland wrote: 1. Not interested in your scenarios, US, which are only strawmen at best, but in the Word, which after having been presented has been laid to rest with you. 2. Erraticly over extrapolating some approximate facts, US, but regretfully distorting and misconstructing truth from them 3. Coming a little closer to a real faction of the entire picture Fare well, US, take a rest and God bless you, and yours
Thanks for your kind wishes and I pray the same for you.
Please tell Adriel to take heart, the NHS should be able to see him in a couple of months at the earliest.
Jim got his â€śfactsâ€ť discombobulated once again.
In 1971, only about 32 percent of all Americans enjoyed air conditioning in their homes. By 2001, 76 percent of poor people had air conditioning. In 1971, only 43 percent of Americans owned a color television; in 2001, 97 percent of poor people owned at least one. In 1971, 1 percent of American homes had a microwave oven; in 2001, 73 percent of poor people had one. Forty-six percent of poor households own their homes. Only about 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. The average poor American has more living space than the average non-poor individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens and other European cities. Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 30 percent own two or more cars. Seventy-eight percent of the poor have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception; and one-third have an automatic dishwasher.
Note neither John, Adriel or BMac answered my scenarios. So it might be safe to assume that if John was painting and had a glass full of turpentine to clean his brushes and Adriel came in and picked up the glass because he was thirsty that John wouldnâ€™t stop him because thereâ€™s no example of that being done in the New Testament and BMac wouldnâ€™t warm him because itâ€™s just a stupid American thing.
Adriel there are several examples where a mass shooting was stopped by an armed citizen. The leftest press in America doesnâ€™t cover it. We obviously would have taken any necessary to stop any mass shooting
Not straw grasping John just applying Scripture correctly
You come across two young teenage thugs beating up on an elderly lady to rob her.Â Â Do you say, I am sorry maâ€™am I cannot find any example in the New Testament where a Christian helped defend someone who was been beaten and robbed, carry on boys.Â Â Â
You at setting where you are eating and many people start getting sickÂ Â The chef says donâ€™t eat this because it has botulism.Â Â Someone unawares sits down to have the food but you donâ€™t say anything because there are no New Testament examples of Christians stopping someone from consuming food that causes sickness.
A flood has washed out a bridge but you donâ€™t attempt to warn a car driving onto it because there are no examples of Christians in the New Testament stopping someone about to drive into danger.
John I gave you Biblical warrant.Â Â Defending one against bodily harm is doing good for them. (Galatians 6:10).
Biblical principles are found in the Scripture which includes both the Old and New Testament.
II Samuel 21
Moreover the Philistines had yet war again with Israel; and David went down, and his servants with him, and fought against the Philistines: and David waxed faint. 16 And Ishbibenob, which was of the sons of the giant, the weight of whose spear weighed three hundred shekels of brass in weight, he being girded with a new sword, thought to have slain David. 17 But Abishai the son of Zeruiah succoured him, and smote the Philistine, and killed him.
Every known instance of what we do is NOT detailed in Scripture.Â Â Where is your Biblical warrant for enjoying a cup of tea, driving a car, taking a shower, using electricity, listening to a sermon in mp3 format from somewhere you have never been?Â Â Are you thus saying that if a child about to enter a busy street that you donâ€™t make an attempt to save their life, because there is no â€śBiblical warrantâ€ť to do that?