For someone that has no objective standard for morality, you sure have much to say about morals.

For someone who does not care to read the Bible, you sure desire to be a theologian.

I do not read all his posts. Most of the time we are like tag team partners. He is confronting one issue while I am confronting another. While I focus on what the context states; he focuses on how that truth is reconciled with the whole of Scripture. I believe this is good for the reader, because together they are presented with a wholistic approach to Scripture. Having said that, I do not preffer JD's approach personally since it always ends up opening up a dozen can of worms and rabbit trails which is nothing more than a dozen disagreements.

I am not sure what JD said on imputation but I suspect it was misconscrued somehow.

You keep making the error of non-sequitor.

It's a rabbit trail because whether or not the I celebrate the sabbath has nothing to do with the doctrine of the tithe. Any more than the tithe has to do with the doctrine of atonemen, miracles, or anything else you can find in the Old Testament.

Stick to the point. We are talking about the tithe, if you have to go to other areas to support your view, then I would reevaluate your position from the ground up for obviously it cannot stand by itself.

I just stated that I do practice the sabbath and you still seem to be hung up on it. I told you that I do not believe that the Sabbath is Sunday. Now can you get back on point.

Now do you believe that the Old Testament is authoritative for faith and practice or merely a good story book from which we can gain good allegorical truths?

Abigail, I am not judging you based on the modern Pentecostal movement, I am judging you on your own admissions. Pentecostalism from its inception has created havoc in the church.

Nope I do not consider Sunday the sabbath.

Like I said you have fallen into the error of the Calvinist. You have just created a definition that exists nowhere except within your theological system. Revelation 19:10 provides no definition so you might as well quote Genesis 1:1 to support your fabricated definition.

"If God has done away with prophets, He has done away with evangelists, pastors, and teachers."

God has done away with the miraculous gifts. He could have not stated it more clearly in I Corinthians 13. The above statement is a logical fallacy. Just because God has done away with one thing does not mean he has to end another. Just because God ended the ritualistic law does not mean that he ended his moral law as well. One does not necesitate the other.

"If people would study the Word of God more-- instead of the commentaries and books written about the Word of God, there would not be so much confusion in the "church"."