Predenominational
Christian Fellowship
Anchorage, Alaska.
Thanks for checking out this web site.
I'm not going to beat around the bush, or try and get you to send me any money, or anything else. If
you want to listen to these words, great. If you don't, then it's on
you. I did my job and presented this information in as clear and
simple terms as I possibly could. I hope that you do read and consider
these words. Try praying about what I have to say. This information has
changed my life. And, after studying this stuff for the past 35 years,
I truly believe these things to be true, and I have provided you with
some of the resources that have proved their truthfulness to me. I
believe that if you HONESTLY look at the evidence that you will agree.
Franz Sigel Shroy
Why are you here?
You're not "religious" right? Really? Nobody is NOT religious! Which means that everybody IS religious. You might not recognize you're religious as such, but everybody is. Your religion might be sex, or drugs, or alcohol, or work. YOU
might be the center of your religion. The thing, person, action,
throught or philosophy that you hold in the highest regard is your
religion. Could be money, could be sports.
The fact that you
spend your money on this, your time on this, your effort on this shows
that it is the center of your thought life. What will it benefit you? That man is a religious being, is universally conceded, for it has been seen to be universally true.
He is everywhere a worshiper. In every age and country, and in every stage, from the highest intellectual culture to the darkest stupidity, he bows with homage to a superior Being.
Be it the rude-carved idol of his own fabrication, or the unseen divinity that stirs within him, it is still the object of his adoration.
This trait in the character of man is so uniform, that it may safely be assumed, either as one of the original attributes of his nature, or as necessarily resulting from the action of one or more of those attributes. The object of man's worship, whatever it be, will naturally be his standard of perfection. He clothes it with every attribute, belonging, in his view, to a perfect character; and this character he himself endeavors to attain. (Simon Greenleaf)
What is YOUR standard of perfection? What is GOD'S standard of perfection?
God's standard of perfection is Jesus, the Christ!
This is why "Christians" follow Jesus THE Christ, because He is our standard of perfection. No other standard is acceptable to God.
Christ-ians. Christ-ianity. Christ centeredness.
First
things first. Most people don't have a clue what Christianity is about.
Least of all, those claiming to BE Christians. Christians are followers
of Christ, Christ-ians. If you haven't accepted the fact that Jesus is
the Son of God, and you hold teachings of your own in higher regard, or
in other words, you reject the teaching of Jesus, THE Christ, then you
are not a Christ-ian, you are a self-ian. You are a follower of you. If
this is so, then you are in a world of trouble.
Why would I say this? Because you have no power, you have no authority, and you have no future. ALL of the power and authority in the universe belong to Jesus.
"Well, I don't believe that..." "Well, I can't accept a God that would blah, blah, blah..." "Well, I think that..." "I think that everybody will got to heaven except really bad people..." "There's really no scientific proof that God exists..." "Personally, I think that God loves and accepts everybody..."
These
ideas are not in the Bible. It doesn't really matter if you think that
they, or even if you think that they should be. They're not. So when
you stand up in judgement and say these things, not only will you face
eternal judgement, but you'll look really stupid while you do it!
YOUR god, you, will have to save yourself. Can you do that?
Whose authority will you use?
Whose power will you use?
If you think that because YOU believe something that it must be true, you're wrong! In
fact, most people have created a god that is pleasing to themselves,
one that believes exactly the same things that they believe, one that
won't punish them, or even hold them accountable.
This is because they have violated the 1st and 2nd commandments, not to have any gods before the one true God. They found the one true God to be offensive so they created one they like better. Will this illusion, this false god that you've created inside your head, will this false god save you? Want to bet your life?
You'll
stand there looking like a moron saying, well I couldn't find any
scientific proof that God exists, so I'm not really responsible for my
actions. Try that in a human court! "I didn't know" doesn't cut it. In your final judgement, it won't cut it either. Not only that, but I just told you that these false beliefs are just that...
FALSE BELIEFS.
Be Warned! There are TONS of false teachers. There are way more false teachers than there are true teachers! If you want to read the arguments yourself about how false teachers manipulate the truth you can check it out here - http://www.christianarsenal.com/Apologetics.htm
If someone tells you something and that little voice inside your head starts yelling at you, check it out here before you buy into it. http://www.christianarsenal.com/
The next thing you'll need to understand is that you are all alone in your judgement. "I grew up in a Christian home..." "I was born in the US so I'm a Christian" "I'm an agnostic, so I'll believe in God when He comes down and talks to me..." "My family..." "My church..."
None of this will be relevant to your judgement. You won't be able to blame this one on your childhood. You won't be able to blame this one on your drinking problem, or your drug problem, or your messed up life. You won't be able to blame someone who told you the wrong things.
YOU,
alone, will face God, the maker of YOU and the rest of the universe and
YOU will have to explain why you rejected dozens of prophets. YOU will
have to explain how YOU ignored the fingerprint of God everywhere in
nature. YOU will have to explain that even though the Gospel was
written in the stars for thousands of years, that YOU ignored it. You didn't know? I just told you!
"Well, the Bible was written by man and we don't really know what the original scriptures say." Really? Which ones? Who told you that? Do they have any proof?
I
have been studying the Bible for the past 35 years and I can tell you
straight up... The Bible is the most amazing writing in the entire
universe. The nonsense that you've heard is just exactly that...
NONSENSE!
The
mathematical patterns, Di Rossi's logical structures, prophecy, and
typology of the Bible make it absolutely impossible for man to have
written the Bible without direct guidance of God. Not improbable, not
unlikely, but IMPOSSIBLE!
Are you now going to stand in front of God and say - "Uh, well, I didn't believe that guy." Why not? Did you read these books that I just told you about? Did you read the Bible?
You will have NO excuse.
The vast majority of people think that the Bible is a collection of good thought or ideas that help you be a good person. This is not true. The Bible was written to save YOUR life!
THE BIBLE WAS WRITTEN TO SAVE YOUR LIFE!
You say you haven't read it? Wow! Why not? This is a great resource for you to read the scriptures and do an indepth study of any topic you wish. http://www.blueletterbible.org/
Be HONEST and read it. If you don't think it is true, then at least you can say it with respect. Don't NOT read it and then say that you disagree with it, because you don't even know what it says!
Christiantiy isn't about improving your life, in fact it will definately complicate it! Think
I'm kidding? Pick up a Bible and read Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John and
see how it complicated everyone's life mentioned there. It's not about
improving your life or making your life easier because now God is on
your "side". It's about SAVING YOUR LIFE.
After you have
accomplished this, your life will become much more meaningful, richer,
and more valuable than you could have ever imagined, but that is just a
side benefit, NOT the purpose of Christianty.
Now, I understand that you've probably heard some of these things also. "The Bible was written hundreds of years after Jesus died." This is FALSE! Some of the books of the Bible were written about 23 years after Jesus died and was ressurected. Doubt this? Church fathers quoted from these books numerous times during the first 300 years after Jesus was ressurected.
"Constantine changed much of what is written in the Bible so we don't really know what the Bible says." This
is an outright fabrication (lie) that I often hear, bur when I ask
where they got this information they just mumble a lot and can't
actually tell me. Usually "some guy" told them this and they repeat it
to someone else and become "some guy" to the next person. Clement of Rome quoted from the scriptures and lived from 50A.D. and 100 A.D.. Mathetes quoted from the scriptures in A.D. 130. Polycarp quoted from the scriptures in about 100 A.D.. Ignatius quoted from the scriptures and lived from 30 A.D. to 107 A.D.. Barnabus quoted from the scriptures in about 100 A.D.. Justin Martyr quoted from the scriptures and lived from 110 A.D. to 165 A.D.. Irenaeus quoted from the scriptures and lived 120 A.D. to 202 A.D.. All these guys quoted the same scriptures that we have today.
Constantine wasn't even the Emperor of Rome until 306. YOU do the math! This evidence doesn't convince you? You need something really spectacular?
Christianity does not profess to convince the perverse and headstrong, to bring irresistible evidence to the daring and profane, to vanquish the proud scorner, and afford evidences from which the careless and perverse cannot possibly escape.
This might go to destroy man's responsibility. All that Christianity professes, is to propose such evidences as may satisfy the meek, the tractable, the candid, the serious inquirer." (Bishop Wilson)
If
the evidence in the Bible doesn't convince you that Jesus is the Son of
God and the ONLY authority on life and death, then you are trying
really hard NOT to understand, NOT to believe, NOT to be affected by
the truth. If this is the case, why put on the charade? Go ahead, leave. The Bible wasn't written for you anyway. The Bible was written for serious seekers, for honest people, for people trying to discover the truth.
Still here... GREAT! Keep reading.
One
thing you need to get your head around is that Christian and Catholic
are different. If you think they mean the same thing you are only going
to get confused when (if) you begin to study Christianity.
So, ask yourself why someone would make up a story like the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus. What
did you come up with? A bunch of con artists? These same "con artists"
traveled all over telling everyone to be nice to each other. They
taught everyone to "love one another" and to take care of each other.
They gave their money away to the poor and spent nearly all of their
time and effort teaching these messages and taking care of the sick and
the poor.
Do these people sound like any con artists or false
teachers that you've met? Every con artist I've met wanted me to give
my money to them, they weren't trying to give their money to me, or to
take care of me, or to teach me, or to feed and clothe me!
Con artists my butt!
"Jesus
wasn't God but he was a good teacher." This one really cracks me up.
Jesus claimed to speak with the Father and that God spoke directly
to Him. Jesus claimed that He existed before the universe was created.
Jesus claimed that He was the Son of God. So, either these statements
are true or they are false. If they are true, then everything I've just
told you is right and you'd better start figuring out where you're
going to spend eternity right NOW!
If these things are not true, then either Jesus thought they were true which makes Him insane, crazy, nutso, OR Jesus knew that these things were not true, which makes Him a liar and a con artist.
So,
why would Jesus go to His death via the cross, which was one of the
most painful, horrible deaths anyone could imagine if He knew these
things He was teaching were false?
You may also have heard that
all of this stuff was made up hundreds of years later, by people trying
to gain control of the masses and manipulate them. Well, this is
perhaps the most moronic statement of all! I mean, just plain STUPID!
If
someone tells you this, you should tell them to get their head examined
or at the very least to take an IQ test and see if they are more
intelligent than the shoes they are wearing.
Did I mention that this statement is really, really stupid?
Here's why... Simon
Greenleaf (1783-1853), one of the principle founders of Harvard Law
School wrote a book called Testimony of the Evangelists where he
examined the testimony of the writers of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.
Notice I said "testimony" and mentioned law school. Remember I said that you would stand in judgement?
Simon
Greenleaf is known as "the father of evidentiary procedures of all
time". During your judgement, you're going to present "evidence" in
your behalf, and "evidence" is going to be presented against you. Don't
you think that just a quick peek at the work done by "the
father of evidentiary procedures of all time" might come in handy?
Especially now that your head is filled with the words of the moron
that told you that the Bible was written or changed hundreds of years
after the fact in an attempt to control people and get rich? Simon
Greenleaf prepared the testimony of the four evangelists just as he
would any other testimony and evaluated ther credibility. What do you
think that he discovered?
"it
was IMPOSSIBLE that the apostles could have persisted in affirming the
truths they had narrated, had not JESUS CHRIST ACTUALLY RISEN FROM THE
DEAD, . . ." (Simon
Greenleaf, An Examination of the Testimony of the Four Evangelists by
the Rules of Evidence Administered in the Courts of Justice, p.29).
Greenleaf concluded that according to the jurisdiction of legal evidence the resurrection of Jesus Christ was the best supported event in all of history!
http://www.av1611.org/resur.html
So, if you have not decided to follow Jesus, and believe that His words are true, making you a true Christian... what then?
You have decided that the expert on evidence of all time, was wrong... that Jesus was wrong... that the apostles were wrong... that the most published book in the history of the world is wrong... that the evangelists were wrong... and that I'm wrong...
and that the guy that told you this is right, or the guy who wrote the book that told you this is right...
Just exactly which of these sets of evidence do you want to bring with you during YOUR trial? By the way, what was the title of the genius that told you that the Bible was wrong?
So...
You
have TONS of information at your fingertips right here. You obviously
have the time right now or you wouln't have found this web page...
YOU have RIGHT NOW to make your decision as to whether you are going to be a follower of Jesus OR a follower of YOU.
Jesus loves you SO much that He was willing to die in YOUR place. What are YOU going to do about it, right now, right here, with all of this evidence looking you in the face?
Are you going to wuss out AGAIN? Are you going to come up with some lame excuse again? Or are you going to coyboy up and take control of your spiritual life and your future?
I just have one more thing to tell you... God HATES lukewarmness and that being a coward is punished as much as being a murderer!
Revelation 3:14-22
And of the church of the Laodiceans write;
These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness,
the beginning of the creation of God; I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.
Revelation 21:8
"But for the
cowardly
and
unbelieving
and abominable and murderers and immoral persons and sorcerers and idolaters and all liars, their part will be in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death."
So, you've been told. YOU have been given all of the information you need to decide. YOU have been offered the gift of eternal life or YOU can choose eternal punishment.
In
February of 1987, “Michael Swift” (pseudonym) wrote an article for the
Gay Community News outlining the supposed “gay agenda”, by first
placing a disclaimer which states - “This essay is outre, madness, a
tragic, cruel fantasy, an eruption of inner rage, on how the oppressed
dream of being the oppressor.”
When
I first read this, I was immediately reminded of a verse in Proverbs...
Like a madman shooting firebrands or deadly arrows is a man who
deceives his neighbor and says, “I was only joking!” (NIV)
In
this essay, the writer makes several claims, all of which I believe he
was kidding us about kidding us. The writer tells us - "All laws
banning homosexual activity will be revoked ....”
Even
though the writer of this article would have us believe that he was
“kidding” about this claim, since 1987 I have watched this occur. He
went on to say - “[W]e shall make films about the love between heroic
men... “ This sounds to me a lot like some of the movies that have been
produced since then like “Philadelphia” in 1993, and Brokeback Mountain
in 2005. Kidding? Really?
He
also claimed - “The family unit -- spawning ground of lies, betrayals,
mediocrity, hypocrisy and violence -- will be abolished ... All
churches who condemn us will be closed." WAS he kidding? In 2001, just
four years later the Netherlands legalized same-sex marriage, and since
then six other countries and seven states in the U.S. have followed
suit. Kidding? Really? Australia jailed a minister a short time ago for
daring to preach a sermon stating that homosexuality is a sin. This
apparently was a shock to a homosexual couple who sought out this
particular church to attend so that they COULD be offended by listen to
a sermon that has been given repeatedly in many different countries,
and many different times, by many different people for nearly the past
two thousand years! Canada enacted bill C-250 (http://www.family.org/cforum/extras/a0032431.cfm)
which makes saying that the Bible states that homosexuality is a sin, a
hate crime, and is considered “hate speech.” Sweeden jailed a minister
for a month for offending homosexuals by saying the Bible says that
homosexualtiy is a sin. "http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39328"
So, really was he kidding?
Speaking of being "offended"...
These
homosexual activists went WAY out of their way to purposely offend
every Christian in Canada, yet their premise in changing the law was to
prevent one group of people from offending another group of people. Unless you're "gay" and then you can offend anyone you want to.
He
also said - "We shall sodomize your sons ... We shall seduce them in
your schools, in your dormitories, in your gymnasiums, in your locker
rooms, in your sports arenas, in your seminaries, in your youth groups,
in your movie theater bathrooms, in your army bunkhouses, in your truck
stops, in your all-male clubs, in your houses of Congress, wherever men
are with men together."
Maybe these people don't know that “Michael Swift” said he was kidding? THEY aren't kidding! Perhaps it is the general public that is kidding itself? And WHAT are these activists teaching our kids, our legislators, our families, putting in the media? That being homosexual is just another lifestyle, just like yours, you know... "normal".
Seems pretty normal to me... IF you are already in hell!
Even though many homosexual activists will tell
us that pedophilia is really just a heterosexual issue, in fact,
homosexual pedophilia occurs much more frequently by homosexuals than
by heterosexuals, although it is gross regardless of who engages in it.
Steve Aldwin wrote in “Child Molestation and the Homosexual Movement”,
in a soon to be published article by Regent University Law Review that
- “Overwhelming evidence supports the belief that homosexuality is a
sexual deviancy often accompanied by disorders that have dire
consequences for our culture.” Psychologist Eugene Abel, also of Regent
University Law review, states - “The rate of homosexual versus
heterosexual child sexual abuse is staggering...”, who goes on to says
the justice department study shows that “150.2 boys abused per male
homosexual finds no equal (yet) in heterosexual violations of 19.8
girls.”
Perhaps “Michael Swift” was kidding about these claims also? Paula
Ettelbrick, (formerly of Lambda Legal Defense Fund) stated - "Being
queer means pushing the parameters of sex, sexuality, and family, and
in the process, transforming the very fabric of society .... We must
keep our eyes on the goal ... of radically reordering society's views
of reality." Perhaps
she was also kidding... I seriously doubt it though. Law after law is
being forced into practice by activist judges without the public even
having a chance to vote on the issue. In my home town of Anchorage,
Alaska a debate is raging about whether “sexual preference” should be
included in the list of protected people in regards to discrimination
prevention. Several recent contributors to the local paper have claimed
that God loves everyone no matter what, except those horrible, mean
Christians who just want to judge everybody all the time, and even went
on to “hope” that Christians could “handle the heat” when the arrive in
hell for actually believing what the Bible said, while all homosexuals
were celebrating in heaven. Perhaps they have a different version of
the Bible than I do? Perhaps they’re on different “meds” than I am?
Steve
Warren of ACT UP (1987) stated in a very NON-kidding way - "we are
going to force you [Christians] to recant everything you have believed
or said about sexuality."
This
must be like when San Diego Fire Chief Tracy Jarman, a lesbian, forced
the fire departmnt to march in the city's "gay pride parade"?
Firefighters were forced to endure sexual harassment, vulgar sexual
gestures, taunted with comments like - "When they refused to respond to
the crowd, some in the crowd turned hostile and started shouting, "F--- you firemen" and others began "flipping them off."" What happened about the homosexual activists feigned sensitivity to people being offended? OH... just homosexuals! I get it.
Beyond
this, the firemen were threatened with diciplinary action if they
posted any photos of activities at the "gay pride parade". Isn't this a "pride" event, you know where homosexuals are "proud" of being homosexual? Why then would the firemen be diciplined for posting photographs of the parade?
I
guess that homosexuals in San Diego are serious about their sexual
practices, SO serious in fact, that a local ex-homosexual was
threatened with death! Read about it here.
Fire Chief Tracy Jarman
Hey! Didn't we start this article with the comment that it shouldn't matter who I love? Death threats? Diciplinary threats? Taunting? Sexual harassment?
THIS is the City of San Diego's published policy on sexual harassment... You can download it here and read it for yourself. Apparently this policy doesn't apply to homosexuals harassing heterosexuals though. You know... the "protected class" of people. In fact, the whole damn city can harass and abuse you if you're a hetrosexual, and the abuse is coming from homosexuals.
Reminds me of a job I had just out of high school... (That's another story.)
This
too seems to be happening on a daily basis. Simply being “gay” seems to
now mean that you have a special gene that allows you to be more
creative, have better judgment, have more style, and as recently
printed in a local newspaper article, are better to have in one’s local
community because the community is more prosperous. So, GAY is in being
MORAL is out? These guys MUST have been kidding! Christopher
Street (gay magazine) stated, also ins a very NON-kidding way – "To be
blunt, they (Christians) must be vilified." Well, the previous several
paragraphs will show that this is occurring. There were way, way, way
too many comments to post in this short article in the local newspaper
just from today and yesterday.
Oh goodie!!! The "gay" church we were all sooo looking forward to!
At nearly all "gay pride" events, "Christian Bashing" is one of the predominant activies, along with sadomasochism, public nudity, portrayed or real public sex acts, vulgarity, etc.
These
are real quotes, by real people, and were quite shocking to me when I
first read them in the Agape Press by Ed Vitaglaino in 2006. But things
have gotten so much worse in these past three years that it seems like
the entire world has turned upside down. You know... just like the
moments before it rained fire and brimstone on Sodom and Gomorrah!
Yes... there really IS a “gay agenda”, and no, they are NOT kidding!
Franz Sigel Shroy
Homosexual Behavior
Homosexual
activists, the press, and several way out there leftists insist on
explaining homosexual behavior to the general public as if the public
didn't already know what was going on. "We're people just like you,
we're you brothers, your fathers, your sons..."
No... you aren't.
"Just like everybody else"? Really?
Give it a shot! Dress like the woman on the left and walk around your town for a while and tell me how long you get away with it without getting arrested for public indecency. Below is a typical "indecent exposure", "lewdness", or "public indecency" law.
Indecent Exposure and Lewdness. –
I. A person is guilty of a misdemeanor if such person fornicates,
exposes his or her genitals, or performs any other act of gross
lewdness under circumstances which he or she should know will likely
cause affront or alarm. II. A person is guilty of a class B felony if:
(a) Such person purposely performs any act of sexual penetration or
sexual contact on himself or herself or another in the presence of a
child who is less than 16 years of age.
(b) Such person purposely transmits to a child who is less than 16
years of age, or an individual whom the actor reasonably believes is a
child who is less than 16 years of age, an image of himself or herself
fornicating, exposing his or her genitals, or performing any other act
of gross lewdness.
(c) Having previously been convicted of an offense under paragraph I,
or of an offense that includes the same conduct under any other
jurisdiction, the person subsequently commits an offense under
paragraph I.
III. A person shall be guilty of a class A felony if having previously
been convicted of 2 or more offenses under paragraph II, or a
reasonably equivalent statute in another state, the person subsequently
commits an offense under this section.
Notice the portion having to do with children?
In nearly all of these events, kids are brought with their parents to watch, even with live sex acts, enacted sex acts, and public nudity.
Strange though, this doesn't seem to apply to either homosexuals or lesbians when they are gather together in public. This is clearly discretionary enforcement of existing laws, which creates a "special" class of people... "gay people". Yet homosexual activists keep telling us that they just want to be treated like everybody else... Yeah right!
In
fact homosexual behavior is quite unique and disturbing. The status quo
has been that homosexuality has been a negative influence on the
general public. If this is going to be changed, and the general public
should be accepting of this behavior, let's hear the logical reasoning
behind changing what we have accepted for the past 2,000 years of
civilized history. WHY do we want to include this behavior that until
1962 was illegal in all 50 states, that until 1969 was considered a
mental disorder. Now, it is not illegal, now it is not a mental
disorder, now anyone who is not excitedly, overwhelmingly accepting of
homosexualtiy is mentally disordered and there are numerous movements
to make any rejection of homosexuality illegal.
So, people have
told me so many times that I couldn't begin to count, that "it
shouldn't matter who you love", and that "we're just like you, we just
like people of the same sex", and that "we should be allowed to marry,
just like everybody else."
Really?
I had lunch downtown just last week, and I didn't see ANYONE that looked anything near this! "Just like everybody else"... on WHAT planet?
I've been married
nearly 23 years and neither myself or my wife have had any other sexual
partners while we've been married. THIS is what marriage is. Monogamy. Perhaps there is some confusion about what this word really means?
The "legal" definition of monogamy is -
"MONOGAMY - A marriage contracted between one man and one woman, in exclusion of all the rest of mankind; it is used in opposition to bigamy and polygamy. The state of having only one husband or one wife at one time. Having an intimate relationship, usually sexual, with only one other person for a considerable length of time." (http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/m137.htm)
The lexical definition of monogamy is -
mo⋅nog⋅a⋅my [muh-nog-uh-mee] Show IPA –noun 1. marriage with only one person at a time. Compare bigamy, polygamy. 2. Zoology. the practice of having only one mate. 3. the practice of marrying only once during life. Compare digamy.
The
homosexual idea of "monogamy" is quite different though. Dr. Maria
Xiradou completed a study that shows that "stable" homosexual
relationships last an average of 1 1/2 years and that each partner in
this "monogamous" relationship has on average 8 different ADDITIONAL
sexual partners each year. So while my idea of marriage involves two
people, one woman and one man, the homosexual relationship (on average)
doesn't involve just two people, but actually 18 diferent people. This
means that while my wife and I have been married for nearly 23 years, a
"stable" homosexual relationship would have involved 352 additonal
partners beyond the original 2, which doesn't mention the fact that
this one relationship would have reinvented itself 14.6 times, as the
original "stable" relationship would have disolved and reorganized
itself including some 28 other people as well. So, instead of my idea
of 2 people, this "stable" homosexual monogmous relationship involves a
total of around just under 400 different people! (http://www.mombu.com/politics/politics/t-dutch-study-exposes-infidelity-among-homosexual-partners-2680851.html) "Stable"?
Does THIS come to mind when you hear the word "stable"?
Not
in my book! THIS is what they meant like "people just like you"? This
isn't anything close to me. And... don't forget, this is an example of
a stable relationship. What do you think the unstable relationships are
like?
This is an interesting quote that I think frames the issue pretty well -
The fact is that homosexuals are notoriously promiscuous and are becoming even more so as AIDS drugs provide them with a feeling of temporary safety. Homosexual activist Gabriel Rotello, writing in Sexual Ecology: AIDS and the Destiny of Gay Men, says that the number of sexual partners that homosexuals have keeps rising so quickly that the National Institutes of Health researchers have had to keep revising their definition of what "multiple partners" means. He noted that the first NIH definition in the late 70s referred to ten to twenty partners a year. Then it was expanded to a hundred sexual partners a year. "…now we're using the term to describe five hundred partners in a single year," said Rotello.
So,
which part of this behavior is "just like me"? Which part of this
behavior is just like everybody else, we just fell in "love" with
people of the same sex"? Love? Really? Or is it just sex.
Do
the math. This come out to about 1.34 different sexual partners EACH
DAY! So, is this "love" where you can't control your thoughts from one
morning to one evening, because you "love" this other person? Do you
"love" your morning sexual partner and then "love" your evening partner? According
to these statistics, while one parnter is having sex with their morning
partner, their partner is also having sex with a different partner, and
the same holds true for the evening.
THIS is nothing that I can recognize as "love". Period!
Perhaps this is homosexual math? Pehaps this is homosexual truth?
Is THIS the "norm" that you want to see in the future?
Clearly
this is NOT the "norm" of marriage. This lie is knowingly false. It was
designed to deceive, it was designed to maniupulate, and it was
designed to acheive a particular political goal. To destroy marriage.
Think I'm kidding? Overstating?
Homosexual activist Michelangelo Signorile has openly called for the abolition of marriage and family as we know it. According to Signorile, writing in Out magazine, homosexuals should "fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely. . . . to debunk the myth and radically alter an archaic institution. . . . The most subversive action lesbians and gays can undertake--and one that would perhaps benefit all of society--is to transform the notion of 'family'entirely."
In places where same-sex marriage has been granted there has been little interest by the homosexual community. This
has been a key point in the homosexual activism warfare strategy. Yet,
after this "right" has been won only about 6% of the homosexual
community has used this "right". Why? Because this isn't the true
agenda of the same-sex marriage battle. This battle is to DESTROY
traditional marriage.
· A nationally representative survey of 884 men and 1,288 women published in the Journal of Sex Research found that 77 percent of married men and 88 percent of married women had remained faithful to their marriage vows. (Michael
W. Wiederman, "Extramarital Sex: Prevalence and Correlates in a
National Survey," Journal of Sex Research 34 (1997): 170.)
· A 1997 national survey appearing in The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States found that 75 percent of husbands and 85 percent of wives never had sexual relations outside of marriage. E.
O. Laumann et al., The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual
Practices in the United States (Chicago:University of Chicago Press,
1994 ): 216.
· A telephone survey conducted
for Parade magazine of 1,049 adults selected to represent the
demographic characteristics of the United States found that 81 percent
of married men and 85 percent of married women reported that they had
never violated their marriage vows. "Sexual
Habits of Americans Have Changed Dramatically in Ten Years: New
National Survey Finds Both Men and Women More Committed and Caring" PR
Newswire (August 4, 1994). 12. Xiridou, 1031.
There seems to be a HUGE difference in what the general public thinks marriage is and what homesexuals think marriage is. In
fact, there is a HUGE difference in what the general public thinks a
relationship is and what monogamous is compared to what homosexuals
think. HUGE difference!
So far... I haven't seen anything
that would want me to change the entire fabric of our society to
include this behavior, a behavior that lacks any social benefit, and
that has in fact, been prevented for thousands of years because it was
considered to be destructive to the society. Now though, we live in a
society of tolerance. But this tolerance seems to be a one way street.
The Bible and many, many people consider that homosexuality is a
deviant sexual behavior. This has been the case for thousands of years.
In England for hundreds of years, homosexualtiy was punished by death.
Many people have tried to "live and let live", but this isn't enough
acceptance for the homosexual activists. You must "embrace"
homosexuality or you are "homophobic". I consider that hateful
things I read every single day in the newspapers to be Christophobic,
but you don't hear about this very much... just "separation of Church
and State".
IS there any benefit to homosexualtiy for me to "embrace" or to "celebrate"? Let's
compare the above statistics relating to heterosexual relationships and
marriage to those statistics relating to homosexual relationships and
marriage.
· The Dutch study of partnered homosexuals,
which was published in the journal AIDS, found that men with a steady
partner had an average of eight sexual partners per year. (Xiridou, 1031.)
·
Bell and Weinberg, in their classic study of male and female
homosexuality, found that 43 percent of white male homosexuals had sex
with 500 or more partners, with 28 percent having one thousand or more
sex partners. (A. P. Bell and M. S. Weinberg,
Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women (New York:
Simon and Schuster, 1978), pp. 308, 309; See also A. P. Bell, M. S.
Weinberg, and S. K. Hammersmith, Sexual Preference (Bloomington:
Indiana University Press, 1981).)
· In their
study of the sexual profiles of 2,583 older homosexuals published in
the Journal of Sex Research, Paul Van de Ven et al. found that "the
modal range for number of sexual partners ever [of homosexuals] was
101-500." In addition, 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent had between 501 and
1,000 partners. A further 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent reported having
had more than one thousand lifetime sexual partners. (Paul
Van de Ven et al., "A Comparative Demographic and Sexual Profile of
Older Homosexually Active Men," Journal of Sex Research 34 (1997): 354.)
Well,
it looks to me that that almost every other homosexual male you
encounter has had about 500 different sexual partners, and about 1 in 4
homosexual males that you meet has had about 1,000 different sexual
partners!
Just like me huh? Is this just like you? Not according to all of the studies!
"Only seven couples have a totally exclusive sexual relationship, and these men all have been together for less than five years. Stated another way, all couples with a relationship lasting more than five years have incorporated some provision for outside sexual activity in their relationships.[18] As the following chart shows, the extremely low rate of sexual fidelity among homosexual men dramatically contrasts with the high rate of fidelity among married heterosexuals." (http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS04C02)
THIS
is the sexual behavior of homosexuals NOW! Before the AIDS epidemic,
the promiscuity of homosexuals was amazing. To continue this behavior
after the AIDS epidemic, or to even increase this behavior after this
risk becamse known is reckless. The statistics from from 100 different
sexual partners to 500 different sexual partners, KNOWING that this
kind of behavior is absolutely deadly!
"U.S. Centers for Disease Control has reported an upswing in promiscuity, at least among young homosexual men in San Francisco. From 1994 to 1997, the percentage of homosexual men reporting multiple partners and
unprotected anal sex rose from 23.6 percent to 33.3 percent, with the
largest increase among men under 25.7 Despite its continuing
incurability, AIDS no longer seems to deter individuals from engaging
in promiscuous gay sex. (http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0075.html)
THIS is what I am supposed to accept as "normal"?
It isn't "normal", it is DEADLY! Deadly is NOT a good thing to incorporate into society as an "improvement"!
"Prior to the AIDS epidemic, a 1978 study found that 75 percent of white, gay males claimed to have had more than 100 lifetime male sex partners: 15 percent claimed 100-249 sex partners; 17 percent claimed 250-499; 15 percent claimed 500- 999; and 28 percent claimed more than 1,000 lifetime male sex partners." (http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0075.html)
I
haven't seen anything that would convince me that universal
"acceptance" of homosexuality is good for society. Sure, we can't stop
this behavior, nor can we stop rape, nore can we stop beastiality, or
stop sexual deviants from having sex with dead bodies. But we can
surely NOT accept this behavior as the "norm", or as another
"alternative lifestyle". It isn't... it is deviant behavior.
Is this "homophobia"? Then is wanting to prevent rape... "rapiphobia"? Is preventing beastiality then... "beastialiphobia"? Or is this just society's way of maintaining relative community health in the face of an ever-increasing threat of deviancy?
Perhaps this behavior will change if society accepts homosexuality? Yeah right!
"Gay author Gabriel Rotello notes the perspective of many gays that "Gay liberation was founded . . . on a 'sexual brotherhood of promiscuity,' and any abandonment of that promiscuity would amount to a 'communal betrayal of gargantuan proportions." (http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0075.html)
What
about Christophobia then? Homosexuals celebrated when mental health
"experts" declared that homosexuality was no longer a mental disorder.
Yet these same celebrating homosexuals will turn instantly viscious at
the mere mention of someone changing their sexual orientation! Does
this make them "straightophobes"? Why are these same homosexuals to
ready to accept the declaration that homosexuality is not a mental
disorder to ready to pounce on and destroy former homosexuals who have
changed their sexual preference? ESPECIALLY when it is the same
"experts" who say that this change is possible?
You know what? What happened to tolerance? Poof! Tolerance
seems to be a one way street. The public MUST accept homosexuality, but
homosexuals don't have to accept Christians, and they CERTAINLY don't
have to accept former homosexuals? Just how stupid is this line of
logic?
Robert Spitzer, who led the movement to remove homosexuality from the mental disorder list has publically states that "homosexuality may sometimes be changeable."
Apparently
(by homosexual standards) he was a genius in 1973 when he decided that
homosexualtiy was not a mental disorder, but by 2001 he had become an
idiot when he decided that some people can change their homosexual
preference to a heterosexual preference.
Still nothing that makes me want to change society to accept this deviant sexual behavior...
Public nudity is allowed an nearly all "gay pride" events while this same behavior would result in arrests at any other venue.
Here, in the streets of New York City, is a man with his genitals exposed, wired to an eletric torture device, who is then shocked with an electric current for the twisted entertainment of the onlookers. This kind of behavior is not permitted in regards to ANY other group, ever!
Public
nudity, public sex acts, vile acts that should never be permitted in
public ARE at nearly every "gay pride" event because of he special
status given to homosexuals. Is THIS the "just like everybody else"
homosexual activists are talking about?
So IS homosexuality as healthy as heterosexuality?
J. Michael Bailey said, "These studies contain arguably the best published data on the association between homosexuality and psychopathology, and both converge on the same unhappy conclusion: homosexual people are at substantially higher risk for some forms of emotional problems, including suicidality, major depression, and anxiety disorder, conduct disorder, and nicotine dependence...The strength of the new studies is their degree of control." (http://www.narth.com/docs/whitehead.html) "It concluded that on average, male homosexuals were 5.1 times more likely to exhibit suicide- related behavior or thoughts than their heterosexual counterparts. (Herrell et al. 1999)
CLEARLY,
with a 5.1 times higher incidence of suicidal behavior linked with
homosexuaity, homosexuality is not as mentally healthy as
heterosexuality. Both homosexuals AND homosexuals absolutely KNOW
this fact! So why then, is there such militant demands that we change
society to accept this damaging, dangerous, and anti-Biblical behavior?
Plain and simple... uncontrolled sexual lust! Makes me think of Sodom
& Gommorah!
How about phycial heath then?
"Male homosexual behaviour is not simply either 'active' or 'passive,' since penile-anal, mouth-penile, and hand-anal sexual contact is usual for both partners, and mouth-anal contact is not infrequent. . . . Mouth-anal contact is the reason for the relatively high incidence of diseases caused by bowel pathogens in male homosexuals. Trauma may encourage the entry of micro-organisms and thus lead to primary syphilitic lesions occurring in the anogenital area. . . . In addition to sodomy, trauma may be caused by foreign bodies, including stimulators of various kinds, penile adornments, and prostheses. (R.
R. Wilcox, "Sexual Behaviour and Sexually Transmitted Disease Patterns
in Male Homosexuals," British Journal of Venereal Diseases, 57(3):
167-169, 167 (1981).)
Gay and bisexual men live 20 years less than heterosexual men. Gay men contract syphilis three to four times the rate of heterosexual men. 64% of the men with AIDS had been having sex with other men
56% of AIDS cases are found in 2% of the population!
These photos may be too graphic for the "normal" viewer, but they are quite "normal" for the homosexual, even in public!
THIS isn't what you've been told in the media? This is the story you're hearing from those promoting homosexuality? THIS is what they don't want you to know about but THIS is the truth! These are all real photos of public events!
Am I willing to incorporate this deviant sexual behavior into my life, my society, my family? No.
THIS is not an improvement to our society, this will be the death of our society!
*
For those of you reading this article, nodding your heads in agreement,
who are living with your girl friend, or your boy friend, or who are
having an affair with someone else's spouse, or are "hooking up" with
people you meet on line or in the bars... don't bother agreeing with me... YOU are also wrong!
Franz Sigel Shroy
Any
intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent.
It
takes a touch of genius - and a lot of courage - to move in the
opposite direction.
(Albert Einstein)
Simplicity
is the ultimate sophistication.
(Leonardo da Vinci)
Genesis 1
The Beginning
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
John
1
The
Word Became Flesh
1In
the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was
God.
Don't
get mad because you don't understand it...
Study it until you DO understand it!
I have constantly been amazed by those claiming to love science that
simultaneously claim that Christians hate science, and that also claim
that Christianity is against science. This is flatly not true. Not just
flatly, but STUPIDLY not true! The
very word "Science" comes from the Latin word "scientia" which means
"knowledge" or "knowing". Yet the modern, yes MODERN definition of
science means where scientists use "observable" "physical" "evidence"
of "natural" phenomena to collect data, and analyze this information to
explain what and how things work. So, considering that this definition
if fairly well accepted by those with whom I constantly tangle, why
only "observable" evidence? Atomists knew that atoms existed thousands
of years before we could "prove" that they existed, and we still can
not "observe" them, we can only observe their characteristics.
Why
should science ONLY study the "physical"? What IS physical? Physical means the tangible, the
touchable,
those things having substance or material existence, those things
that are perceptible to the senses. Yet when we look at
light, we
humans that is, we can only see light in the 380 to 750 nm range. So,
should we consider that there is nothing "real" or "physical" about
light waves that fall either below 380 nm or above 750 nm? I have yet
to hear a scientist claim that pink, purple, and magenta don't really
exist, but the colors that we call pink, purple, and magenta are
actually perceived by the human brain because they are actually a mix
of multiple wavelengths.
Think that math is interesting on a two dimentional level?
What about three dimentional?
What about four dimentional?
Einstein said that there were at least eleven dimentions!
Try THIS two dimentional math problem..
So are our eyes
playing tricks on us? What about ultraviolet light, what about infrared
light? We can't see this light but we can experience the results of
these kinds of light. So apparently there are special circumstances in
which we make certain rules that violate the definition of "science"
because clearly these things DO exist. We accept pink, purple, and
magenta as colors, even though they are really a combination of other
frequencies, and we accept the fact that ultraviolet light and infrared
light do exist even though strictly speaking they are not "observable".
What of micacles?
If
you watched the double slit experiment, simply trying to record the
effects of light passing through two slits cut into a paper changed the
results of the experiment.
That is... by passing light through a
paper with two vertical slits cut into it, results in several bands of
vertical light, even though the human mind would expect to only see two
bands.
By attempting to record the results of the this experiment,
only two bands appeared. So the mere attempt at recording the results
of this experiment changed the results.
Did several bands really
exist? How would you capture the results of this experiment to "prove"
to another human that the results really did exist?
Your attempt at preserving the results destroyed the results.
Kind of makes you wonder about proving "miracles" to others doesn't it?
What about when the next person asks you to "prove" that God exists?
The fact that you KNOW that God exists can be the most real experience
of your entire lifetime... yet...
how will you convey this experience to another person?
IF you DID provide proof to a doubter that God exists, would they
believe you?
Did the Pharisees?
Did the Canaanites?
Would
they tell you that despite the astromical probability factors PROVING
that everything in the universe is designed with a pattern,
that this all came about through randomnss?
These issues are problematic to say the least, that is IF you restrict
your view of what "science" is to the narrow definition given above. I
am also constantly amazed at where these same bozo's like to begin
their argument. Random seems to be a serious stumbling block for these
anti-christian frauds. Where should one begin in a logical argument?
Why at the beginning of course. THAT'S where the biggest problems arise
for these confused people. Laws don't come from randomness, but from
organization, from intelligence. Randomness means "lacking aim or
method; purposeless; haphazard". While this sounds like the logical
result of a huge explosion such as the "Big Bang", clearly this is not
the case with science. There are many, many laws of science.
One
day, a group of modern-day scientists went to God and said, “We can
make babies from eggs and sperm! And we can even
clone animals and people. And we can change their DNA and do
just
about anything with we want with their genes! We
can create life just like you! And
God said, “Good for you. But I made man and animals out of
dirt. Why don’t you go and try to do that! So
the scientists said, “OK then! We will!” and they started to
walk away… And
God said, “Wait just a minute, that’s my dirt….Go make your own dirt!”
While this is just a funny made-up story, it does represent the lack of
logic that I hear from these anti-christian frauds. These guys try to
explain their view of "science" to me, but they take the laws of
science for granted. Where did the laws of science from? Man discovers
these "laws" but how can these laws exist in the first place. If
scientists are going to truly follow their own definition of science,
they must honestly begin with nothing. Well, there's a problem there.
Christians claim that God always existed but this idea is discredited
by these scientific frauds by saying, "Then who made God?" While these
guys reject the idea of an everlasting God they tell me that a huge
cloud of Hydrogen had always existed up until the Big Bang. Isn't this
also impossible? Why is one explanation acceptable to them and the
other not? Scientists can not simply say that the laws of science
always existed, because the elements that science studies did not
always exist. I am told by those who deny that God exists that all of
the elements came into existence through the Big Bang where Hydrogen
was changed into these different elements. IF this is to be true, then
the laws of science must have also come into existence at this same
time because nothing existed until the Big Bang EXCEPT Hydrogen. Did
Hydrogen create the laws of science? Did the random nature of an
explosion create the orderly nature of the laws of science?
Certainly there is some serious logical problem with the idea that
order and systematology came from randomness, and there is an even more
serious honesty problem in simply ignoring the fact that all of these
laws exist and merely skip over this fact and begin a logical argument
AFTER the creation of these laws.
What of the "golden
ratio"?
How would a random incident such as the Big Bang explain a mathematical
pattern such as the Golden Ratio being consistently used in the "design"
of everything on the earth?
Is it
possible that thinking a thought can affect the results of the physical?
Randomness?
That's it? Chance, accidental beneficial
mutation over long periods of time?
Chance?
Chance my ass!
The
same mathematical GENIUS who created the universe and everything in it
OBVIOUSLY wrote the Bible through the creative and obedient
minds of believers acting within His will, the creator.
Enjoy
the mathematical patterns which PROVE that one single, creative,
intelligent, mathematical mind (God) wrote the Bible, even though it was
physically
penned by over 40 different writers, in different positions in life,
with different educations, at different times, in different lands.
This
exerpt is taken from -
How
to ENJOY the Bible E. W.
Bullinger 1916
Part
II—The Words
Canon II
The
Scope of a Passage may best be
Discovered by its Structure
I.
Introductory: The History
and Importance of the Subject.
Every Word of God is pure; and His words, like all His works, are
perfect. Perfect in order, perfect in truth, perfect in the use of
number, perfect in structure.
"The works of Jehovah are great: sought
out of
all them that have pleasure therein" (Psa 111:2).
Those
who seek out His works find wondrous treasures; and see perfection,
whether revealed by the telescope or the microscope. Neither of these
exhaust those wonders. Both are only relative, and limited by human
powers of sight.
It is the same with that most wonderful of all His works—His WORD. Use
what powers of human intellect we may, we find that we know only "in
part" (1 Cor 13:9). Pursue any line of truth as far as our human minds
can go, and we come to a wall of adamant, which we can neither mount
over, pierce through, nor pass round; we return baffled, but solemnized
by the fact that we know "in part."
We shall not be surprised therefore to find
literary perfection
as well as spiritual perfection. For there is perfection of literary
form, as well as perfection of spiritual truth.
The correspondence between parallel lines must always have been visible
even on the surface to any one who carefully observed the Scriptures
even as literary compositions.
Josephus, Philo Judaeus, Origen, Eusebius,
Jerome,
Isidore,
among the Ancients, professed to have discovered metres in the Hebrew
original. They were followed by others
among modern scholars, some
of whom agreed with them, while others refuted them.
In spite of Bishop Lowth's Larger and
Shorter
Confutations,
which showed that all efforts to discover the rhymes and metres which
characterize common poetry must be fruitless, some few writers have
persevered in such attempts even to the present day.
"Bishop Lowth was the first to put the
whole
subject on a better and surer foundation; reducing the chaos of
medieval writings to something like order. His works were based on one
or two who had preceded him, and had laid the foundations on which he
built with such effect that he came to be universally recognised and
appealed to as the ultimate and classical authority in these matters."
But, as we have said, Bishop Lowth built on
the
foundations laid by others.*
* Rabbi Bon Isaac ben Jehudah, a
celebrated
Spanish-Jewish statesman, philosopher, theologian, and commentator,
born 1437. His commentaries anticipate much of what has been advanced
as new by modern theologians (Kitto, Enc.
Bibl article by CDG).
Abravanel, a learned Jew of the fifteenth
century, and Azariah de
Rossi* in the sixteenth century, were the first to demonstrate and
illustrate the phenomena exhibited in the parallel lines of
Holy Scripture.
* Azariah Min Ha-Adonim, as the Jews call
him,
was born in Mantua, 1513.
Azariah de Rossi published, in 1574-5, in
Mantua, his celebrated work
which he called Myny( rw)m
(Meor
Enayim), or The
Light of the Eyes.
It was a remarkable work and almost an encyclopedia of biblical
literature in itself. Several of its chapters have been translated and
published separately, in Latin and English. One chapter (60) was
sufficient to kindle Bishop Lowth's enthusiasm; and he translated it in
his Preliminary
Dissertation to
his last great work, his translation of Isaiah (London, 1835). But,
before this, Lowth had already used De Rossi's wonderful work to such
purpose that in 1753 he published his Proelections
on the Sacred Poetry of the Hebrews. This caused quite a
sensation in the biblical world, and soon became of European fame.
Meanwhile Christian Schoettgen (born 1687)
had
published in 1733-42 his Horoe
Hebraicoe et Talmudicoe (2 vols. 4to),
at Dresden and Leipzig;
Bishop Lowth does not appear to have
known of this work, for it anticipates him, and under the heading
"Exergasia Sacra" it lays down the very doctrine which it remained for
Lowth to improve and elucidate. Schoettgen lays down ten canons, and he
illustrates each with three examples.
Bishop Jebb (born 1775 at Drogheda)
published his Sacred
Literature
in London, 1820: and, until Thomas Boys began to write in 1824, Jebb's
work had remained the last word on the subject. It was a review of
Lowth's work and "an application of the principles so reviewed" to the
illustration of the New Testament.
But both these works of Bishops Lowth and Jebb were almost entirely
confined to the verbal correspondences in parallel lines; and never
proceeded beyond short stanzas; and, even then, did not rise beyond
what Lowth called "parallelism"
and Jebb called "Sacred
Composition."
It was reserved for Thomas Boys to raise the
whole
subject on to a
higher level altogether, and to lift it out of the literary parallelism
between words
and lines;
and to develop it into the correspondence
between the subject-matter
and truth of the Divine Word.
In 1824 Thomas Boys soon followed up Bishop Jebb by publishing his Tactica Sacra, and in
1827-30 his Key to the
Book of Psalms.*
* This was only a description of his
principles
of Correspondence,
which he applied to some sixteen Psalms. It was the privilege of Dr.
Bullinger to edit Thomas Boys's manuscript; and, from pencilled notes
in Boys's Interleaved Hebrew Bible (Boothroyd's Edition with
Commentary), to complete and publish, in 1890, the whole of the Psalms
with a Preface, and Memoir by his friend the Rev. Sydney Thelwall (who
had been a personal friend of Boys), then Vicar of Westleigh, North
Devon. An Introduction and Appendix were added by Dr. Bullinger as
editor. This work was called A
Key to
the Book of Psalms to preserve a continuity with Boys's
own
title.
While the successive works of Bishops Lowth
and Jebb were
enthusiastically and generally received, yet the works of Thomas Boys
not only had to fight their way through much opposition, but are now
practically unknown to Biblical students. Whether it is because they
afford such a wonderful evidence of the supernatural and miraculous in
the Bible, and such a proof of the Divine Authorship of the Word of
God, that they are therefore the special object of attack by the
enemies of that Word (both Satanic and human) He alone knows. But so it
is.
Bishop
Jebb, however, we are thankful to say, in the Second Edition of
his Sacred Literature
(1831),
does recognize Boys's work in a note on page 74. He says, "Since the
publication of Sacred
Literature,
this peculiarity of composition has been largely and happily
illustrated, in his Tactica
Sacra,
by the Rev. Thomas Boys."
In 1851 Richard Baillie Roe made a great effort to revive the subject
by publishing An
Analytical Arrangement of the Holy Scriptures according to the
principles developed under the name of Parallelism in the writings of
Bishop Lowth, Bishop Jebb, and the Rev. Thomas Boys.
This appears to have shared the same fate as
all
the others. Roe's book
gives us too much as well as too little. It gives too much of dry
analysis, and too little of the end for which it is made. Moreover, it
is not improved by departing from Boys's simplicity; and serves only to
complicate the subject by adding much that is arbitrary in arrangement.
It may be said of Roe's method, that what is true is not new; and what
is new is no improvement.
The facts being as thus stated, it shows
that the
subject has
either not yet been grasped nor understood by Bible students; or, that
it makes too much for the Inspiration and Divine Origin and Authority
of the Word of God; and that there are spiritual powers, working with
the human, whose one great object is to make the Word of God of none
effect (Eph 6:12 and 17).
And yet, we may say that, no more powerful
weapon
has yet been
placed in our hands outside that Word, which is "the Spirit's sword."
It affords a wondrous proof of Inspiration; it gives us a clearer and
more comprehensive view of the scope of the Scriptures, than the most
learned and elaborate commentaries can ever hope to do; and it is
capable of even turning the scale in doubtful, doctrinal, and critical
questions.
By its means the student is led to views and
truths, and
reflections which, without it, would never have occurred to him. And it
is not too much to say that until the Correspondences of the Biblical
Structure are duly recognized we shall never get a correct translation
or a true interpretation of many passages which are to this day dark
and confused in both our Versions, the RV as well as in the AV.
Preaching
on another subject,
Bishop Lowth truthfully
and feelingly observed that "It pleased God, in His unsearchable
wisdom, to suffer the progress of the Reformation to be stopped mid-way; and the
effects of it to be
greatly weakened by many unhappy divisions among the reformed."
The same may be said of the Law of
Correspondence
in the Structure of
the Word of God, so wonderfully discovered and developed; and yet,
needing to-day almost to be rediscovered, and certainly to be developed
in its application to the whole Word of truth.
Parts of the world, remaining yet unexplored, are eagerly sought out
without stint of labour or money. Would that the same zeal could be
seen applied in the interest of this great subject.
ii. The Principles Governing the Structure of
Scripture
Having said thus much on the History and
Importance of the Structure of
Scripture, it is necessary that we should present an account and
description of it in some kind of order more or less complete.
We do not propose to wade through all the Divisions and Subdivisions
which have been suggested or laid down in connection with Parallelism
as it relates to Lines.
Our general object is to understand the Word of truth; and our special
object is to consider how we may, by its means, arrive at the scope or
subject of a particular passage.
The laws which govern this Parallelism of lines we will re-state as
briefly as may be consistent with clearness. The main principles are as
follows:—
Parallel Lines are:—
(1)
COGNATE*
or GRADATIONAL, where the same thought is expressed in different or
progressive terms:—
"Seek
ye Jehovah,
while He may be found;
Call
ye upon Him,
while
He is near.—Isaiah
55:6
* This is Bishop Jebb's improvement of
Bishop
Lowth's word "synonymous," as including different
as well as practically equivalent
terms.
(2)
ANTITHETIC or OPPOSITE, where the terms or subjects are set in
contrast:—
"Faithful
are the wounds
of a friend;
But deceitful
are the kisses
of an enemy."—
Proverbs 27:6
(3)
SYNTHETIC, or
CONSTRUCTIVE, where the terms or subjects correspond in a similar form
of construction, either as equivalent or opposite. (As in Psalm
19:7-10; Isaiah 44:26-28.) It discriminates and differentiates between
the thoughts, as well as the words; building up truth by layers, as it
were, placing one on the other.
"O the happiness of that man,
Who hath not walked
in the counsel
of the ungodly;
And hath not stood
in the way
of sinners;
And hath not sat
in the seat
of the scornful."—Psalm
1:1
(4)
INTROVERTED, where,
whatever be the number of lines, the first line is parallel with the
last; the second with the penultimate (or next to the last); the third
with the antepenultimate (or next but one to the last); and so
throughout, until we come to the two corresponding lines in the middle.
This was the discovery of Bishop Jebb; and could not be seen until a
larger number of consecutive lines were examined.
"Make the heart
of this people fat,
And make their ears
heavy,
And shut their eyes:
Lest they see with their eyes,
And hear with their ears
And understand with their heart."—Isaiah
6:10
Here, the correspondence is manifest.
It was, however, as we have said, reserved for Thomas Boys to lift the
whole study out of the sphere of words
and lines;
and see the Law of
Correspondence between subjects
and subject-matter.
Instead of
occupying us with lines he bade us look at what he designated members. These
members consisted of verses,
and whole paragraphs.
And the larger
paragraphs were soon
seen to have their own peculiar structure* or expansions.
* The reader will find further elucidation
on
this subject in Figures
of Speech,
by the same author and publisher.
This brings us to the consideration of what
we
have called the
Structure of Scripture.
Most of our readers will be acquainted with the practice of marking
their Bibles by ruling lines connecting the same word or words as they
recur on the same or the adjoining page. The words recur, because the subject recurs; and
the Law of
Correspondences not only explains the practice of such Bible markings,
but shows why it can be done.
The principles and phenomena of the Laws of
Correspondence are
exceedingly simple, however perplexing they may appear to the eye at
first sight. A little attention will soon make all clear to the mind as
well as to the eye.
There are practically only two ways in which the subject is repeated:—
By Alternation.
By Introversion.
1.
Alternation.
This is where two (or more) subjects are
repeated
alternately.
(a)
We call
it Simple Alternation
where
there are only two
subjects
each of which is repeated in alternate lines. Thus:—
A.
_______________
B.
_______________
A.
______________
B.
_______________
Here, the letters are used quite
arbitrarily, and
merely for the
convenience of reference. Thus, the subject in the passage marked with
an Italic letter (A)
is the same as the subject in the passage marked with the corresponding
Roman letter (A); while the B subject is the same as the B subject, the
similar Roman and
Italic letters indicating their similar, opposite and contrasted, or
common subject.
(b)
Where the two subjects are repeated more than once we call it Repeated Alternation,
and indicate it
thus:—
A1.
_______________
B1.
_______________
A2.
_______________
B2.
_______________
A3.
_______________
B3.
_______________
And so on: all the members marked A
corresponding
in subject; and the
members marked B corresponding in like manner. There is no limit to
this repetition.
(c)
Where
there are more than two subjects alternating then we call it Extended Alternation;
and there will be as many pairs, or sets of members, as there are
subjects (unless, of course, these are repeated, when it would be a Repeated Extended Alternation):—
A.
_______________
B.
_______________
C.
_______________
A.
_______________
B.
_______________
C.
_______________
2.
Introversion.
This is where the subjects are repeated, not
in
alternation, but in
introversion; i.e. from opposite ends. In this case there will be as
many subjects as there are pairs of introverted members. Suppose we
have an example of four subjects. This will give us eight members, in
which the 1st will correspond with the 8th; the 2nd with the 7th; the
3rd with the 6th; and the 4th with the 5th. Thus:—
A.
_______________
B.
_______________
C.
_______________
D.
_______________
D.
_______________
C.
_______________
B.
_______________
A.
_______________
Now,
with these few simple
facts
and phenomena, it is
possible to have a very great variety. For they are practically
unlimited, and can be combined in so many ways, and in such varying
numbers, that there seems no end to the variety. But, all conform to
the above simple laws, in which there is no exception.
iii. Examples of
Each Principle.
We will give an example of each kind:
premising
(1) that 1-
indicates the first part of a verse, -1 the latter part, and -1- a
middle part; (2) that all the larger members have their own special
Structures, in which the Correspondences of each may be expanded and
exhibited.
We give the examples from the Psalms because
they
are not encumbered with the human chapter divisions.
Simple Alternation.
Psalm 19
A.
1-4-.
The Heavens.
B.
-4, 6. In them (mheb@:)
"The Sun."
A.
7-10. The Scriptures
B.
11-14. In them (mheb@:)
"Thy Servant."
Repeated Alternation.
Psalm 145
A1.
1, 2. Praise promised. From me, to Jehovah Himself.
B1.
3. Praise offered.
A2.
4-7. Praise promised.
From others and me for Jehovah's works.
B2.
8,
9. Praise offered.
A3.
10-12. Praise promised.
From
others, and His works, for Jehovah's kingdom.
B3.
13-20. Praise offered.
A4.
21.
Praise promised from me and others, to Jehovah Himself.
Introversion
and Extended Alternation Combined.
Psalm
105
History.
Patriarchs.
A.
1-7.
Exhortation to praise.
B.
8-12.
Basis of praise. Covenant in promise.
C.a.
13. Their journeyings.
b.
14,
15. Their prosperings.
c.
16. Their affliction
d. 17-22.
Mission of deliverance (xla#$af).
Joseph.
History.
The
nation.
C. a. 23. Their
journeyings.
b.
24. Their prosperings.
c.
25. Their affliction.
d.
26-41. Mission of deliverance (xla#$af).
Moses and Aaron.
B.
42-45-. Basis of praise. Covenant performed.
A.
-45.
Exhortation to praise.
The battle over
evolution -
A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and
making them see the light,
but rather because
its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is
familiar with it.
(Max Planck, 1920)
To
tithe or not to tithe...
but what does the BIBLE say about tithing? Do
you realize that
very, very few people actually read their Bibles?
Nearly ALL Christians simply depend on the pastor to read it for them!
But... don't forget that about 65% of all pastors and ministers
DO
NOT
have a Biblical world view! (Barna Research Group)
READ IT
FOR YOURSELF!
Many
people have asked me about tithing.
Many
people have
then yelled at me when I
answered them.
I
truly
don't understand why people ask me questions about what
the
Bible says
on a subject when clearly
they
do NOT want to know that the Bible says about their pet topic,
they
just want the Bible to say what
THEY
think it should say.
Question...
If your
pastor has
been lying to you about tithing...
what ELSE has he been lying to you about?
Matthew
15:9 But
in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of
men.
In
each generation there have been various ways and means used to secure
the attention of sinners so that they may be shown the truth and then
led into a saving knowledge and true relationship with the Lord Jesus
Christ.
It is a fact that
man is a creature of habit. He loves form, doesn't like things to
change "too quickly," and he clings to tradition.
Unfortunately (for man), God is no such person. Though something has
never been tried before, God simply does not care. His only concern is
that it is the wisest and most direct way of accomplishing His desire.
This
of course, threw the children of Israel into many a panic. "What's God
doing now?" If there was a big sea in the way, no problem, He just
split it. If there wasn't any water, snap! A drinking fountain from a
rock. Food running low? Presto! It'll rain bread in the morning. And
Jesus had the same way of dealing with things. When His disciples were
far from shore, it didn't matter; Jesus just strolled over the waves.
Problem with the weather? "Shut up wind!" And so it went.... (Exodus
14:21-22, 16:4, 17:6,; Matt. 14:25; Mark 4:39).
Now
as you can see in the Bible, God had a lot of problems with man and his
traditions. Just take a look at the Jews - how they loved their temple,
their sacrifices, their Sabbath - too bad they didn't care much for
their God. And Jesus ran up against the whole stubborn lot of them.
"Did you see that? Why, He healed on the Sabbath!" (Luke 13:14) At
every turn, Jesus tried to show them the truth, using the wisest
reasoning and the best example, but they kept getting hung up on His
methods - touching lepers, raising the dead, hanging out
with sinners,
whipping moneychangers - it scared them to death! (Matt. 8:2-3, 9:11;
John 2:15, 11:43-44) Their religion was basically peaceful, very solemn
and quiet. But Jesus...why Jesus had the whole town in an uproar at
least once a week! You can see why He bothered them; He distributed
their nice little religion...with the truth! (John 8:44-45)
It is obvious that
God anoints men
and women
who are completely yielded to His Spirit. He also anoints methods and
tools that we use - meetings, tracts, books, music, witnessing,
preaching, etc. - when they are also full submitted to Him in
faithfulness. But there is a great danger when man (or even God)
designs a tool to be used for God's glory, and then as time passes,
people's attention starts to be fixed on the tools itself, rather than
on the glory of God (which it was originally designed to promote). (See
II Kings 18:4 - Because it had now become an idol, King Hezekiah had to
destroy the same bronze serpent that Moses had made in Numbers 21:8,
which was used to stop the plague of death among the Israelites. This
is the same bronze serpent referred to by Jesus in reference to Himself
in John 3:14)
The
following is a list of just some of the tools, methods, and concepts
that I believe have become so much a part of presenting the modern
gospel, that they have become just about inseparable from it. In fact,
they are to such an extent considered necessary, that if many of them
are left out of an evangelistic meeting, Christians can hardly believe
that anyone
can be saved there.
Some
Inventions of
Man That Have Become Essential Parts of the Modern Gospel
The Term and Concept
of "Personal Savior."
I
find it very disturbing when something unnecessary is added to the
Gospel. The use of the term "Personal Savior" isn't very harmful in
itself, but it shows a kind of mindset that is willing to "invent"
terms, and then allow these terms to be preached as it they were
actually found in the Bible.
But
why must we do this? Why must we add needless, almost meaningless
things to the Gospel? It is because we've taken so much out that we
have to replace it with "spiritual double talk." That's right, double talk! Would you ever
introduce your sister like this: "This is Sheila, my personal
sister"?! Or would you point to your navel and say, "This is my
personal bellybutton"? Ridiculous! But nevertheless, people solemnly
speak of Christ as the personal Savior, as if
they've got Him right there in their shirt pocket - and as if when He
returns, he will not have two, but three titles written
across His thigh: King of Kings, Lord of
Lords and Personal
Savior!
(See Rev. 19:16) This is only one example of how a non-biblical term
can be elevated to reverence by the Church, as if to say, "Well even if
it isn't in the Bible - it should be!"
The Altar Call.
Imagine
if you can, Jesus having people bow their heads after hearing the
Sermon on the Mount, and then very slowly and softly (while Bartholomew
plays "How Great Thou Art" on the accordion) saying to the crowd,
"While your heads are bowed and your eyes are closed, if you really
want to be My disciple tonight, if you really want to show My Father
and I that you truly mean to follow this sermon I have given, then I
want you to slip your hand up slowly, so that I may see it. There
now...yes...yes...I see that hand...and that one...and the one way back
by the fig tree...yes! Now, please, while Bart plays another chorus,
I'd like you to start moving down through the center of the
crowd...yes, those who raised their hand. I want to know if you really mean business. I'd
like to lead you in a prayer..."
I
realize that there are some who will see such an illustration as
sacrilegious. And that's just the point. They think that making fun of
the "altar call" is making fun of God. But it isn't. Traditions die
hard, because they take so long to form. Once I received a very intense
letter from the pastor of a church who had sponsored me in a city-wide
concert in his area. He was upset that I had "let several hundred souls
go ungathered" because I had not given an altar call. He said, "It
seems you have no burden for souls." (Nothing could be further from the
truth.) But because I had not given the recognized "official
invitation," this pastor could see no value in my presentation of the
Gospel. Or as Tony Salerno (director of "The Agape Force") recently
remarked, "If you don't give an altar call, they think you have
committed the unpardonable sin!'"
The Gradual Altering
of the "Altar Call"
Believe
it or not, the altar call was invented only about 150 years ago. It was
first used by the American evangelist, Charles Finney, as a means of
separating out those who wanted to talk further about the subject of
salvation. Finney called the front pew "the anxious seat" (for those
who were "anxious" about the state of their souls) or "the mourner's
bench." Finney never "led them in a prayer," but he and a few others
would spend a great deal of time praying with and giving specific
instructions to each, one by one, until finally, everyone was sent home
to pray and continue seeking God until "they had broken through and
expressed hope in Christ," as Finney would say.
The
early Salvation Army, going a bit further on Finney's innovation,
developed what they called "the penitent form" or "the mercy seat."
After a rousing time of singing and preaching, they would invite any
sinner present who wanted to confess his sins to God and repent, to
come to the front, and they would be prayed for individually. I have
met a few older Christians who used to attend some of these early
meetings, and they said that sometimes people would stay there all
night, and on a few occasions, even a few days, weeping and confessing
their sins with broken hearts. There were always some who would stay
right there to instruct them further, encouraging them to make a clean
sweep of sin from their lives.
This
is what the early "altar call" was like. But gradually, it began to
become a fixed part of every meeting, and like all other traditions, it
began to lose its original spirit. The "coming forward" part started to
be more important than the "sorrow, confession, repentance, and
instruction" parts. Eventually, anyone who would "come down the aisle"
was excitedly proclaimed "a new believer in Christ!" No matter how they
felt, they still were told, "Your sins are forgiven, brother! Rejoice
in Christ!" How many a miserable, defeated, and confused person has
come away from a meeting like this? (Jer. 6:14). SeeRepentance
The Sinner's Prayer.
Can you also try and
imagine this scene where Jesus is leading some new "disciples" in the
"sinner's prayer"?
"Wow!
There are so many that came forward for salvation tonight!" (The
multitude applauds.) "Now, it's very simple. You just repeat this
little prayer after Me, and then you're a Christian! Now it doesn't
really matter whether you fully understand the prayer...it works just
the same. Now ready? Repeat after Me... Dear Jesus...Come into my
heart..." and so on...
As
you can see, when we try to picture Jesus Himself using our modern
methods of evangelism, it seems completely foolish. I think this is a
very good test for any method. "Could I see Jesus doing this?" or
"Could I see Jesus preaching or teaching this?" Since the Bible tells
us, "Walk
in the manner that He walked" (1 John 2:6), we
should always try to compare our actions and message to the Master's.
It is obvious that
there is no "set" sinner's prayer.
There are many variations, with different lengths, different wordings,
different endings, etc., but the contents are usually the same. The
prayer usually includes phrases like, "Dear Jesus," "Come into my
heart," "I admit I have sinned" (at least the better ones contain this
last statement - there are some who do not even like to mention sin
in their "sinner's prayer"), "Fill me with Your Spirit," "In Jesus'
name. Amen." Extremely harmless...nothing wrong with a prayer like
that, right? Wrong! It isn't the wording that's important, it's the
state of the heart of the one saying it.
I
believe that a true "sinner's prayer" will gush out of anyone who is
truly seeking God and is tired of being enslaved to sin. (Matt. 5:6)
The very act of "leading someone in a prayer" is utterly ridiculous.
You will find nothing even remotely like it in the Bible, or among the
writings and biographies of those in Church history. It completely
savors of crowd and peer pressure tactics, and (please forgive me)
brainwashing techniques. I do not believe that Jesus wants to have his
disciples "repeat after Me," I believe He wants them to follow after Him! (Matt. 4:19, 8:22,
9:9, 16:24, 19:21; Luke 9:59; John 12:26, 21:19,22; 1 Peter 2:21; Rev.
14:4.) Also See Is The
Sinner’s Prayer
Effective?
PrematureDeath
As
with the altar call, the practice of having someone repeat a prayer
with the minister probably originated from the best of intentions. And
no doubt, there are those who have "followed through," continuing to
pray and walk with God, entering into the path of righteousness through
God's infinite grace. But also, like the altar call, the so-called
"sinner's prayer" is one of those tools that make it alarmingly easy
for someone to consider himself a Christian, when he has absolutely no
understanding of what "counting
the cost" (Luke 14:28) really
means.
The
greatest reason I believe that God can be grieved with the current use
of such tools as the "altar call" and "sinner's prayer" is because they
can take away the conviction of the Holy Spirit prematurely, before the
Spirit has time to work repentance leading to salvation. With an
emotional splash that usually doesn't last more than a few weeks, we
believe we're leading people into the Kingdom, when really we're
leading many to hell - by interfering with what the Spirit of God is
trying to do in a person's life. Do you hear? Do you understand
that this constitutes "spiritual abortion"? Can't you see the
eternal consequences of jumping the gun, trying to bring to birth a
baby that isn't ready?
We
are so afraid that we'll see a "big one that got away," that we'd
rather rush someone into a shallow decision, and get the personal
gratification of seeing him "go down the aisle," than take the time to
fully explain things to him, even it if takes long hours and
nights of travailing prayer for his soul. We just don't "have the time"
to do things God's way anymore. (In contrast to this, look at the
amount of time and effort Jesus took to explain salvation to one mere
Samaritan woman - John 4:3-42.)
But God would rather
see one
true convert
than an ocean full of "decisions." Oh, can't you see what a mess we're
in? What we've done to the Gospel? And when those "converts" no longer
want to fellowship with us, when they want to go back to their old
friends and their old way of life, we have the nerve to call it
"backsliding," when we stood in the very way of them ever
"front-sliding" toward the cross! Oh, it breaks my heart to think of
that awesome day, when God will judge those who have "stumbled one of
these little ones." (Mark 9:42).
Other Man-Made
Methods That Have Made The Gospel Very Shallow, And
Therefore
Unbiblical
Quick
and Easy "1-2-3 Steps-to-Salvation" Booklets. I certainly cannot fault
the intentions nor the integrity of the men and organizations
responsible for these little tools. One of the best known of these
booklets has been printed in over 30 languages, and has over 100
million copies in circulation. With that in view, it is even more
urgent for me to say that unless these or any other "gospel" booklets
contain the same message that our Lord preached (and commanded His
disciples to spread "to every kindred and nation"), then they are worse
than "inadequate tools," they are wicked!
For
the Bible says in Proverbs, "Like vinegar to the teeth and smoke to the
eyes, so is the unfaithful messenger to him who sends him." (Proverbs
10:26) Paul said that if we are really Christians, then we are
"ambassadors of Christ" (2 Cor. 5:20) - we are God's sole
representatives in this foreign land called "the world."
With
that analogy in mind, consider what a president would think of an
ambassador to a foreign country, say Russia, who is told to deliver an
extremely urgent message that will involve the peace of the whole
world. And that ambassador (even with the best intentions) gives only a
small part of the message, in such a way as to make a very different
impression - in fact, the exact opposite
impression - than what the president wanted to make. What do you think
that president will do to the ambassador when he finds out the damage
done?
Booklets like these
usually mention a "sort-of" repentance like, "you must turn
from your sins, to Jesus." But they rarely explain what "turning"
really means. This is also true of such other vital terms such a "Lord"
- they usually refer to Jesus as "Lord," but again, they seldom define
"lordship" - and people go their merry way, believing they have the
full right to continue running their own lives as long as they call
Jesus "Lord." (See Matt. 7:21; Luke 6:46.)SeeRepentance
I
don't care how many letters I get saying how much good has been done by
such and such a ministry, or how many have been "saved" through such
and such a booklet. Jesus said, "You will know
them by their fruits" (Matt. 7:16) and in another place
He said
that "Your
fruit should remain" (John 15:16),
which means it
should last! I believe we shall
see in that great day, when God spreads out the lives of men in
judgment, how many were truly converted
by the efforts of these ministries, and how many were turned aside from
the path of righteousness - being led to believe the pleasant
half-truths contained in these shallow and false epistles that have
been printed to the ends of the earth by people with "the best
intentions, and the highest integrity." (Matt. 23:15)
The "Poor Jesus"
Syndrome. This is the form of preaching that misuses the Scripture in
Rev. 3:20, "Behold,
I stand at the door and knock "
How many evangelists have used that Scripture to paint a pathetic
picture of Jesus standing outside a door, waiting, knocking, knocking,
waiting, for the sinner to open up and let Jesus in? Sometimes these
preachers go on and on, until it starts to sound like, "Aw, poor Jesus
is out there in the cold, shivering, waiting for someone to let Him in.
Won't you go ahead and let poor Jesus into your heart?"
What a line of
reasoning! First of all, this statement by the Lord in Revelation is
not to the unsaved, it's to the
Church in
Laodicea
(see Rev. 3:14). The picture is truly pathetic.
Jesus is standing outside of His own church, knocking for them
to let Him
in!
(Sound familiar?) And if there's any doubt left as to whom He's talking
to, look at verse 22, "He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit
is saying to the churches."
Second
of all, the truth of the matter for sinners is the exact opposite.
Jesus is not outside of their world, knocking to come in - they are outside of His kingdom!
And they can knock all night like the five foolish virgins (Matt.
25:11), but Jesus will never let them in unless they meet the
requirements: a humble and contrite heart, and a complete disgust for
sin. Then, and only then, will God deliver them from their slavery to
sin - and transfer them by His grace to the Kingdom of His
loving-kindness. God will never repent for someone - He will take every
step possible to make the sinner see the folly of his ways, but the
final move is up to the individual himself. Each person must make the
final surrender, the desperate gasp of "I am a fool to run my own life!
Lord, show me the way to Your door, and I'll
knock and knock, and beg forgiveness ... I'll do anything, anything, anything You say!" Then, and only
then, will God save a sinner. (Psalm 34:18, 51:17; Isaiah 66:22; Luke
18:14; James 4:10) See Salvation
Bumper Stickers,
Cheap Clichés, and "Christian" Slogans.
It
pains me to see the beautiful truths of Scripture being plastered about
like beer advertisements. Many think it is wise to "get the word out"
in this way, but I believe that we are really just inoculating the
world with bits and pieces of truth - giving them their "gospel shots."
(And we're making it hard for them to "catch" the real thing!) People
become numb to the truth when we splash our gaudy sayings in their eyes
at every opportunity. Do you really think this is "opening them up to
the Gospel"? Or is it really just another way for us to get smiles,
waves, and approval from others in the "born-again club" out in the
supermarket parking lot, who blow their horns with glee when the see
your "Honk if you love Jesus!" bumper sticker?
What
about those "other sayings"? You know, the quasi-biblical ones, like
"Please be patient, God isn't finished with me yet," which can really
be a horrible replacement for "I'm sorry." (And besides, it puts the
blame on the wrong person - "The reason I'm such a creep is because God isn't finished with
me yet.")
And
if you really want to play "Stretch the Bible" there is that other
fabulous excuse that absolutely ends all quests or expectations for
holiness: "Christians
Aren't Perfect Just Forgiven!"
Ah, how convenient. You might just as well say, "Christians aren't
moral, just forgiven!" or what about "Christians aren't nice, just
forgiven!" How about the ultimate? "Christians aren't saved...just
forgiven!" (That might be a little too deep.) What we're saying by this
glorious piece of prose is, "Madam, you cannot trust your teenage
daughter with my Christian son, you'd better keep your eye on
him...he's not safe...he's just forgiven!"
Maybe I've gone a
little too far to make a point, but I think the world is completely
sick to its stomach with our sayings and "witnessing
tools." It's time for us
to be expressing the truth with our lives, and then the whole truth of God with
our lips!
"The Follow-Up
Program."
There
is one last great mistake being committed in the name of evangelism. It
is rightly called "follow-up." I say "rightly called" because it is
following up the same miserable and incomplete gospel with a miserable,
incomplete, and false replacement for what the Bible calls
"discipleship."
Our
"follow-up" usually consists of a "packet of literature," which almost
always includes a complete list of all church services and functions.
This "packet" also may include many "essential" items like a complete
Bible study on "tithing." Also enclosed is usually at least one tithe
envelope. (It's amazing that this is one "principle" that nearly every
new believer learns right away!)
See
TithingWere
one to ask most teachers of tithing to cite a passage of Scripture
supporting the practice, a few verses--I like to call them "the usual
suspects"--can be rounded up. Frequently, only parts of Scripture
passages are cited, and usually they are rendered out of context.
In
my studies of the life of Jesus, it has amazed me that He never had "a
follow-up program." It was usually His habit to let people "follow Him
up." He never had to go door to door, looking for that fellow who He
healed last week, wanting to share another parable or two. He always
seemed to have the attitude of, "If they want life, then they'll have
to come and follow Me."[See Seeker
Friendly, Church
Growth Failures in The Bible]
Can't
you see what fools we are? We preach a man-made, plastic gospel. We get
people to come forward to "the altar" by bringing psychological
pressures that have nothing to do with God. We "lead them" in a prayer
that they are not yet convinced they need to say. And then to top it
all off, we give them "counseling," telling them it is a sin to doubt
that they're really saved!
Conclusion
And
now we come to the end of this "Bible study." Yes, that's just what is
has turned out to be. I hope you will take the time to look up each of
the Scriptures given, and see for yourself what God had said in His
Word about all these things. I realize that these articles will step on
many toes, and some might even be deeply offended, but that is not my
intention at all. My only prayer is that through this little effort,
many will begin to take up the cross and preach the good news of our
salvation with the same power and anointing that Jesus promised and
gave to the early Church, and that when we ministers stand before Him
on that great day, we will be able to say with Paul, "I have fought the
good fight, I have finished the course, I have kept the faith I have
fully preached the gospel of Christ" (2 Tim. 4:7; Rom.
15:19), so that we may hear those sweet words from our King's lips, "Well done, good
and faithful servant!" (Matt. 25:21)
Beloved
family, the world around us is going to hell. Not because of communism,
not because of television, not because of drugs, or sex, or alcohol, or
the devil himself. It
is because of
the church! We are to blame! We
alone have the commission, the power, and the truth of God at our
disposal to deliver sinner after sinner from eternal death. And even
though some are willing to go...into the streets, the prisons, foreign
lands, or even next door, they are taking a watered-down, distorted
version of God's message, which He has not promised to anoint. That is
why we are failing.
And unless we admit that we are failing, then I'm afraid there is no
hope for us or the world around us. We have the choice between causing
eternal tragedy for our whole generation, or bringing our beloved a
whole family full of "good and faithful servants."See Section The
Contemporary Church
And
all that believed were together, and had all things common;
and
they
sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all, according as
any man had need. Act 2:44-45
Part I
Preliminary
Stuff
A
difficult subject to contend with is the issue of money, its place in
the Christian's life, and the believer's responsibility when it comes
to giving. A related subject, often inseparable to the subject of money
(and giving) in the minds of many Christians, is the matter of tithing.
Usually, the issue of tithing is itself a non-issue for many believers
who have been taught that tithing is a command of God for Christians
today.
Were
one to ask most teachers of tithing to cite a passage of Scripture
supporting the practice, a few verses--I like to call them "the usual
suspects"--can be rounded up. Frequently, only parts of Scripture
passages are cited, and usually they are rendered out of context. For
example, have you ever heard that The tithe belongs to the Lord, or
Will a man rob God? or The house of the Lord is neglected?
A
familiar passage of Scripture frequently used in challenging Christians
to greater spiritual, and sometimes material, reward is Malachi 3:8.
Will a man rob God? is an often repeated "battle cry" delivered from
pulpits across America. Unfortunately, this passage of Scripture is
most often encountered during annual stewardship sermons or when a
project or building needs financing. One thing seems relatively certain
these days; a predominance of teaching from the prophet Malachi will
often accompany a squeeze upon the pocketbook. When believers buy in to
the bad teaching offered from the commonly misrepresented words of
Malachi, they are often prevented from enjoying true Christian
stewardship.
In
Part I of this paper, I will examine the primary scriptures used to
finance American Christianity. In Part II I will offer a scriptural
pattern of Christian stewardship that opposes modern pulpit appeals.
Along the way, I'll refute common arguments used to persuade believers
that tithing is biblically required. One goal of this commentary is to
liberate the Christian from mechanical, legalistic, and often coercive
giving; however, the primary goal is to open evangelistic opportunities
as individual believers learn to heed more closely biblical instruction
by channeling their resources to places where need is greatest.
Evangelistic opportunities will open when Christians develop habits of
stewardship that follow scriptural patterns.
This
exposé comes as a result of numerous questions over the past
several
years regarding the issue of tithing. The matter was brought to my
attention by friends and acquaintances so many times that I decided to
write this brief paper in an attempt to provide some clarity.
The
most common--though not all--defenses of tithing are examined in this
work and a liberating, more rewarding challenge to Christian
stewardship is offered.
The
Offensive Nature of Truth Truth
often offends those who believe they already have it. Keep this in mind
as you read this exposé. It's not uncommon for those who believe
they
already know what the Bible teaches about a given subject to be
offended (sometimes even angered) about an alternative. Challenging
certain teachings that have been accepted as true tends to be
agitating. This is sometimes true of many Christian leaders--in
virtually any capacity--who generally don't appreciate challenges
(cordial or otherwise) to doctrines they sincerely believe and have
taught for years. Thankfully, sincerity and time have no
effect on
scriptural truths. Keep in mind that with regard to all
matters of
faith and practice the only standard for believers is
the Bible.
Some
Words About Tradition Because
certain practices have grown to reflect man-made traditions instead of
biblical truths, it is important to remember that tradition is good
only when it complements Scripture. The old saying: "What's popular
isn't always right; what's right isn't always popular" is appropriate
here. For many, the subject of tithing is sensitive, hotly contested,
and deeply passionate. It is, therefore, important to remember that
what we strive for in this endeavor is scriptural truth.
Ground
Rules The
ground rules for this study are quite simple. Basic rules of biblical
interpretation [1] (the plain meaning of Scripture) [2] is utilized in
this work to examine the most common scriptures used to defend modern
teaching. If the reader would like to learn about biblical
interpretation, a few helpful books are worth mentioning. How
to
Read the Bible for all its Worth by Gordon Fee and Douglas
Stuart,
Protestant Biblical Interpretation by Bernard Ramm,
and An
Introduction to Biblical Hermeneutics by
Walter Kaiser and Moisé Silva are excellent resources. Fee and
Stuart's
text is an excellent primer on biblical interpretation, Ramm's work is
a time-tested introduction used at seminary level as is the text by
Kaiser and Silva.
Scriptural
Gymnastics The
interesting things that are done to scriptures commonly used to support
a "thou shalt tithe" doctrine are actually quite abusive. These abuses
stem from either an ignorance of basic interpretive rules, or a
perceived need to manipulate people. I'm sympathetic to the ignorance
that often comes with tithing doctrines but not the outright deceit
that comes with manipulation.
Manipulating people into following modern tithing doctrines seems to be
motivated or inspired by one or more of the following: 1) greed; 2) the
financial obligations or poor management of a given church or ministry;
3) the pride, ego, or need for recognition of the teacher (usually a
pastor), e.g., the "kingdom building" sometimes associated with bigger
buildings and flashy programs, and; 4) misplaced faith, i.e., faith in
money or faith in a clever teaching to accomplish certain goals rather
than faith in God.
Adjusting
Causes Agitation One
thing that seems common regarding the matter of tithing is that people
who have been manipulated into following modern teachings have the most
difficult time adjusting to biblically liberated stewardship. This is
generally because they have been manipulated or persuaded into
believing something that has no scriptural support. Sadly, the
manipulation or persuasion often comes from people they respect who
utilize poor Bible interpretation, and weak--but sometimes
clever--arguments. Incidentally, those who have been truly manipulated
into practicing a tithing doctrine won't know they've been misled, but
if they come to realize it, sometimes anger results. This is
understandable.
Let's
begin our "journey to liberated stewardship" with a definition and
history of tithing; then, we'll examine the most common arguments used
to defend modern practice.
A Brief
Definition and History of Tithing
The
predominant concept of tithing today involves the giving of money to
one's local church. It is often regarded to be the same as the Old
Testament Jewish practice of giving first fruits.
Briefly
expounding upon first fruits will offer some help in clarifying exactly
how confused the matter of tithing has become. While it is not within
the scope of this work to comment on every Scripture pertaining to
either first fruits or tithing, it is important to note that an
examination of God's Word reveals that first fruits and tithes were not
likely the same thing. Contemporary believers equate the giving of
tithes as being the same as first fruits. This, however, is disputed
among scholars. Nevertheless, biblical evidence seems to support the
notion that first fruits and tithes were different.
That
being said, both first fruits and tithes, to the Jew, were the edible
provisions from God that were produced of crops and herds. First fruits
were primarily agricultural (with a noted exception below) and included
produce "in the raw state (grain and fruit); those prepared for use as
food (wine, oil, flour, and dough), including wool" [3]
(Ex.
22:29; 23:19; 34:26; Deut. 18:4). Offerings of first fruits were to be
the choicest portions (Num. 18:12) and the amount of the offering was
apparently left to the discretion of the giver. According to Nelson's
Quick Reference Bible Dictionary:
The
law ordered in general that the first of all ripe fruits should be
offered in God's house. It was an act of allegiance to God as the giver
of all. No exact quantity was commanded, but it was
left to the
spiritual and moral sense of each individual. [4]
First
fruit offerings were the "perquisite of the priests" [5] (Num. 18:11;
Deut. 18:4). In other words, the Temple priests received part of their
wages (or, perks) in the form of edible provisions
or
commodities, e.g., wool; first fruit offerings were one means of this
support. Tithing, on the other hand, while eventually serving some of
the same purposes as first fruits, e.g., the support and provision for
priests, was different from the giving of first fruits. The portion of
an individual's first fruits was at the discretion of the giver--the
amount could vary--while the amount of a tithe could not.
The
Antiquity of Tithing Many Christians are unaware that tithing was
not first practiced by the ancient Jews.It
was an ancient practice to be sure, but it was exercised in many
cultures. [6] Even prior to the earliest biblical record of tithing
(Gen. 14:20), it was a custom practiced by several people groups as
noted by Christopher Hill in his Economics of the Early
Church:
The
system of appropriating 10 per cent. [sic] of the produce of the
community to the maintenance of a priest is of great antiquity. It
existed not only among the Jews, but also in many pagan tribes. [7]
And,
according to Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible:
the
institution of offering tithes of the fruits of the field and of the
flocks is one which dates back to a period greatly anterior to
Israelite history. A tenth of the flocks, fruits, and possessions of
all kinds, as well as of the spoils of war, was given to their gods
[referring to pagan tithing] by many peoples. [8]
The
widespread practice in the ancient world of tithing by giving a portion
of one's profit or spoils of war extended from Greece to China.
Donation of a tenth portion was common apparently because most people
"counted in tens, based on ten fingers." [9]
The
word "tithe," it should be noted, actually means "tenth." The word's
history is tied to "the old ordinal numeral in English." [10] Phonetic
changes in the prehistory of the English language are responsible for
the word looking very different from the word ten.
The
Concise Evangelical Dictionary of Theology says that tithing
is
the "practice of giving one-tenth of one's property or produce to
support religious institutions." [11] This is quite an interesting
definition since it allows two ways to understand the word "produce."
Misleading
Definition In Elwell's definition above, the word
"produce"
could easily be understood to mean fruits and vegetables or that which
has been produced for the expressed purpose of exchange,
e.g.,
wages or money. [12] The definition allows both an ancient
and
modern understanding of tithing. [13] It
accurately reflects modern practice as long as "produce" is understood
to mean "money," but it fails to adequately represent the Old Testament
contextual institution of biblical tithing.
More
History Don't
forget, tithes and first fruits were items of consumption, i.e., the
yield of crops or herds. Biblically, tithes--as well as first
fruits--didn't involve money per se. While the giver never actually
submitted money as a tithe, transporting a tithe could be very
difficult for some people living great distances from where the Lord
desired tithes to be submitted. So, the Deuteronomic code provided
relief from the burden of transporting large numbers of animals and
produce by permitting the farmer to sell the tithe, then use the money
to buy what was needed for the feast when he arrived to the designated
place (Deut. 14:24-26). [14] Later on, this "place" was the
temple at Jerusalem. This appears to be the only instance where money
actually had anything at all to do with tithing, and it certainly
doesn't support modern practice.
It's
important to note that the Old Testament instructed tithes to be
brought to the "place where the Lord chose to put his Name" (Deut.
12:5-6; 14:23). In other words, the chosen center of worship, i.e., the
Tabernacle or Temple, was the place where the Jews were to bring their
tithes. The required tithes (possibly three different tithes) [15]
were submitted in anticipation of a festive meal and were ultimately
used in providing for the Levites and priests (Nu. 18:21) as well as
"aliens, the fatherless and widows" (Deut. 14:27-29; 26:12), i.e.,
those in need. Tithing, as it was prescribed and followed in Old
Testament times, evolved into a sort of theocratic welfare system; it
really grew to be a ten-percent tax. Today, many preachers make the
application (from Old Testament passages) that the modern "place where
the Lord chooses to put his Name," is the local church and that priests
have been replaced by today's pastors.
Tithing
was a practice that failed to enjoy consistency throughout Jewish
history. However, during some episodes of neglect, certain reforms
became necessary whereby tithing was reintroduced (II Chron. 31:4-5).
In some instances, special officers were appointed to take charge of
the storerooms (storehouses) that were established within and about the
Temple area to secure the supplies of goods (31:11-20, Ne. 12:44).
Today, a forced application drawn from such passages is that individual
churches are "mini storehouses," or "temples."
Unger's
Bible Dictionary aptly describes the symbolism inherent within the
Jewish institution of tithing, but it's questionable that it describes
most contemporary practice. Tithing "constituted a practical confession
and acknowledgment that all possessions belonged to God and that it is
he who confers them upon those who enjoy them."[16]
There
is little doubt that many who pay tithes today regard their giving as
acknowledgment that everything belongs to God. However, it seems that
most
tithing is done mechanically, out of obligation, and with little
thought. In fact, modern practice often resembles a mindless act of
habit or an exercise performed under the pressure of coercion rather
than the thoughtful and loving pattern of Christian giving outlined in
the New Testament.
While
directives for tithing are found in the Old Testament, there are only a
couple of references in the New (we'll explore these later). A reading
of New Testament passages reveals that tithing was indeed a practice
followed in Jesus' day (Matt. 23:23; Luke 11:42), but there is an
absence of any directive that designates tithing being required of
today's Christian. The Revell Bible Dictionary states the case a little
stronger when it says:
there
is no indication that a tithe is required. This is partly because the
tithe was a unique expression of God's ownership of the land of Israel,
but it is also because the NT lays out new principles of giving
(emphasis added). [17]
Though
there is an absence of New Testament directives to tithe, there is,
however, a challenging doctrine of Christian stewardship in the New
Testament that offers greater satisfaction and reward than present
practice.
The Early
Church and Tithing
Some
people wonder if the early Church Fathers taught tithing. The answer to
this somewhat depends on what is meant by "the early Church." [18]
As
far as the earliest early Church is concerned, neither the Apostles nor
their disciples (the early Church Fathers) taught that tithing was a
Christian obligation.
Prior to
tithing gradually becoming a mainstay in some corners of the early
Church, "there was no support of the clergy by a systematic
giving
of a tithe." [19] In
time (several centuries after the Cross), "the tithe came to be
regarded generally after the pattern in the Jewish synagogue." [20] Up
to this time, tithing was simply a suggestion that apparently generated
more and more support as the power of bishops and presbyters grew.
As
the power and position of Church leaders grew to reflect Temple era
priests and the provisions that supported them, the Church eventually
prescribed a tithe that included "money, clothes, and all your
possessions," [21] something generally not taught today and
which
is conspicuously absent in contemporary practice. [22]
Tithing in the early Church (ca. 4th Century) was supported by an
appeal to passages like Matthew 10:10 that says "the worker is worth
his keep" (cf. Luke 10:7), and First Corinthians 9:11 that says "If we
have sown spiritual seed among you, is it too much if we reap a
material harvest from you?" Some early Church leaders, however, "(like
Irenaeus and Epiphanus) showed the argument drawn from these texts was
not valid. Rather, freedom in Christian giving was emphasized." [23]
By
the 6th century, the practice of tithing had adopted numerous man-made
regulations which included certain portions to be designated for
priests and parishes. This practice reflects common notions that Old
Testament tithing directives regarding priest and temple
maintenance have counterparts to church leaders--usually
pastors--and church buildings. This belief in parallelism is shared by
many Christians, and even has the support of numerous Christian leaders
today.
After covering a brief history of tithing, it's now time
to turn to the common arguments used to defend modern practice. We'll
start with Genesis and work our way through the commonly mishandled
scriptures regarding tithing, beginning to end, but not before we take
a look at a few scriptures that will no doubt be eye-opening. Let's
start with a frequently cited passage that's often used as an
introduction and summary to tithing sermons.
Malachi:
Will a Man Rob God?
Malachi
3:8-10 and some related passages are the most popular scriptures used
as a foundation for many elaborate tithing doctrines. Malachi is
usually used to generate large doses of fear and personal introspection
during fund-generating campaigns. Christian teachers often use this
challenge from Malachi as an attention-grabber; after all, what
Christian would ever want to rob from God? The robber-of-God tactic is,
quite simply, an easy way to capture a listener's attention. The subtle
effect is that one asks himself consciously or subconsciously: Good
heavens! What must I do to avoid being one of those dreaded "robbers of
God?" The answer: Subscribe to the teacher's tithing
doctrine, of
course.
Teaching
from Malachi is, quite honestly, often loaded with a measure of guilt.
Too often a teacher will indiscriminately repeat what he's been taught
while utilizing tired, faithless, and unbiblical arguments to generate
funds. This is sometimes done with noble, though ignorant, intent as
churchgoers are encouraged to reap the blessings of God through the
teacher's tithing doctrine. Unfortunately, sometimes the teacher knows
these tired arguments are unbiblical, yet he still uses them to open
the wallets of the saints. When this occurs, it is plainly dishonest.
Taking a closer look at the Will-a-man-rob-God approach reveals that
this Scripture passage can't be applied in the manner so frequently
offered.
Context,
Context, Context Malachi 3:8-10 says:
Will
a man rob God? Yet you rob me. But you ask, 'How do we rob you?' In
tithes and offerings. You are under a curse-the whole nation of
you-because you are robbing me. Bring the whole tithe into the
storehouse, that there may be food in my house. Test me in this, says
the Lord Almighty, and see if I will not throw open the floodgates of
heaven and pour out so much blessing that you will not have room enough
for it.
Unfortunately,
we don't normally receive the historical context of this passage when
it's delivered during a tithing sermon. The greater context of verses
8-10 is that the Jewish people, having returned to the Promised Land
from Babylonian captivity, failed to maintain the order and reforms
implemented by Nehemiah, a contemporary of Malachi. Nehemiah played a
crucial role in overseeing the rebuild of Jerusalem as well as the
Temple upon the return of the former captives. One of several reforms
implemented by Nehemiah was that of helping the poor (Ne.
5:2-13).The
poor were being financially taken advantage of at the time and Nehemiah
insisted that the abuses cease. The book of Malachi was written after
the city's rebuild as well as Nehemiah's return to royal service in
Persia, and his subsequent return to Jerusalem. Upon his return to the
city after a thirteen-year absence, he discovered the numerous failings
of the people (Ne. 13:7-31). It was the sins of the Jewish people
during this time that were encountered by Nehemiah and which were
addressed in the prophet Malachi's words.
Now,
with the help of historical context the reader is in a better position
to determine what God meant when he chastised the Jewish people and
accused them of robbing him. This will help in applying the passage to
our own lives. Let's back up a few verses in Malachi. Reading from 3:5
to verse 12, it says:
So
I will come near to you for judgment. I will be quick to testify
against sorcerers, adulterers and perjurers, against those who defraud
laborers of their wages, who oppress the widows and the
fatherless,
and deprive aliens of justice, but do not fear me, says the
Lord
Almighty.
I
the Lord do not change. So you, O descendants of Jacob, are not
destroyed. Ever since the time of your forefathers you have turned away
from my decrees and have not kept them. Return to me, and I will return
to you, says the Lord Almighty.
But you
ask, 'How are we to return?'
Will a man
rob God? Yet you rob me.
But you
ask, "How do we rob you?"
In
tithes and offerings. You are under a curse-the whole nation of
you-because you are robbing me. Bring the whole tithe into the
storehouse, that there may be food in my house. Test me in this, says
the Lord Almighty, and see if I will not throw open the floodgates of
heaven and pour out so much blessing that you will not have room enough
for it. I will prevent pests from devouring your crops, and the vines
in your fields will not cast their fruit," says the Lord Almighty. Then
all the nations will call you blessed, for yours will be a delightful
land, says the Lord Almighty (italics added).
A
careful reading of the above passage shows that God was intimately
concerned about the indifference of his people and their lack of care
for those in need, i.e., widows, the fatherless, aliens, etc., (v. 5);
the poor and others in need were being neglected, and God attempted to
correct the people through Malachi for their failing to bless the poor
with necessary care.
Failure
to care for the needs of the Temple priests, those given charge over
the religious training of the people, was also an issue. The apparent
fact that Temple priests had abandoned their responsibilities of
training the people in religious matters (Mal. 2:1-9) seems evident in
the people's reply of 3:8 when they said: "How do we rob you?" Their
ignorance of God's law supports the idea that they were failing to be
trained in religious matters. The people, apparently unaware of their
transgressions, seemed sincere in their ignorance; they weren't aware
that they were "robbing God." Those in the Temple service weren't being
cared for through the required tithes. They were, therefore, forced
into the fields (Ne. 13:10) concentrating on their own survival. Their
vocation to instruct the people in matters of faith and practice was
neglected.
Take
notice of the connection between Malachi 3:5 and 3:8. Verse five
indicates that certain individuals are found to be quite contemptible
to the Lord, and if we heed our Lord's words in Matthew 25:35-40 (see
below), it becomes clear how it is possible to truly "rob God" today.
Application Many
tithing sermons say that to avoid robbing God the Christian should
"Bring the whole tithe into the storehouse" (Mal. 3:10). The storehouse
is usually presented as a modern-day equivalent to the local church.
It's significant that we understand what the storehouse was and how it
was supposed to function prior to applying the Scripture passage in
question.
The
Temple storehouse actually consisted of multiple rooms. There is even
some indication that there were storerooms not only located in the
Temple, but also in the town areas (Deut. 14:28). The Temple storehouse
rooms, however, were utilized for, among other things, storage places
for the goods (first fruits and leftover tithes from the festive meal)
that the people brought to the priests (II Chron. 31; Ne. 10:37-39;
13:12-13). The gifts brought to the Temple served as provision for the
Temple maintenance, the sustenance of the priests, as well as care for
the poor (Nu. 18:21; Deut. 14:28-29; 26:12; Ne. 12:44). [24] It is
within the context of the poor that attention is
directed
regarding Malachi 3:8 and "Will a man rob God?"
Narratives
Tell Stories To
draw an appropriate application from Malachi with regard to the "Will a
man rob God?" query, it's important to recognize some things. This
portion of Scripture is contained in a narrative. A narrative tells a
story or conveys facts. Proper applications of narratives are limited
and should reflect the message clearly conveyed in them. For example,
from the narrative about Noah we learn about such things as faith and
patience, not sail boating or weather forecasting. Likewise, the book
of Malachi as a narrative in itself contains particular lessons.
Malachi was written with regard to specific circumstances and to
specific people. Any application we draw from Malachi 3:5-12--and
especially the immediate contextual details of the passage--should have
a correlative for today. Before exploring what this passage actually
means, taking a look at what it cannot mean will
help us
appreciate the author's intent.[25]
What
Malachi Doesn't Mean First,
though individual churches should function like Temple storehouses to
meet the needs of the poor, the truth is that the local church simply
isn't the actual storehouse; the Jewish Temple was, and it was
destroyed by the Roman conqueror Titus in August of 70 A.D. So, when
God said to the Jews to "Bring the whole tithe into the storehouse," he
referred to the Jewish Temple, not the modern individual church on
"Fifth and Elm."
Second,
since there isn't a Temple today whereby believers are compelled by
Scripture to submit a tithe to priests (or pastors), it's an inaccuracy
to import meaning to the scriptures by assuming that tithes must be
paid to local churches, or elsewhere for that matter.
Third,
it's an improper modern-day application to say that a person is robbing
God because of a failure to pay tithes. There is, however, a clear way
that a believer can fall under the judgment of Malachi 3:8, but the
judgment must complement what Malachi and, hence, what God meant when
he conveyed the words: "Will a man rob God?"
What
Malachi Does Mean In
Malachi 3:8 the prophet uses a figure of speech [26] that proposes God
has one or more human qualities, by suggesting that it is possible to
rob him. Now, the notion that God could actually be robbed seems rather
absurd, and it should not be supposed that one could somehow really
take or withhold anything at all from the Lord--except, perhaps, love.
God
suggests through Malachi's words (and within the context of Malachi's
and Nehemiah's day) that he is "robbed" when we fail to provide for
those in need around us. God chastised the Jews for failing to bring
their tithes, or taxes (God's welfare system) to the storehouse (the
place where provisions were stored) in order that there would be "food
in [God's] house," the Temple (Mal. 3:10) to distribute to those who
needed it, i.e., the priests, widows, the fatherless, aliens, etc. This
complements God's concern noted in Malachi 3:5. It also clearly
establishes God's advocacy for the poor and those he has entrusted to
instruct people in religious matters when he essentially says that if
you refrain from providing care to those in need, you might as well
steal from him (God).
God's
concern for those in need is made clear throughout Scripture and this
idea includes ministers of the gospel (not exclusively pastors). With
regard to the poor, the intensity of God's care for them is best
expressed by him, so, consider Christ's words in Matthew 25:34-40.
Then
the King will say to those on his right, "Come, you who are blessed by
my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since
the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something
to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a
stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I
was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit
me."
Then
the righteous will answer him, "Lord, when did we see you hungry and
feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see
you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you?
When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?"
The King
will reply, "I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one
of the
least of these brothers of mine, you did for me" (italics
added).
Christ's
words are penetrating in his advocacy for the poor. His words here
complement the Parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37) and other
occasions whereby he commanded individual believers to "Love their
neighbor as themselves" (Matt. 22:39).
Robbing
God also happens when believers fail to provide for the needs of
Christian ministers. This is not limited to pastors but extends to
other Christian ministers as well. New Testament directives complement
the Old Testament instructions of assisting those commissioned to
instruct in religious matters. Some related passages are Matthew 10:10
that says "the worker is worth his keep" (cf. Luke 10:7), and First
Corinthians 9:11 that says "If we have sown spiritual seed among you,
is it too much if we reap a material harvest from you?" Clearly, then,
those committed to Christian ministry should be met with necessary
provision.
Here's
a paraphrased summary of God's message conveyed through Malachi and
supported by our Lord's own words in Matthew: "If you fail to give to
those in need, you 'rob' from me, says the Lord" (Malachi 3:5-8;
Matthew 25:34-40).
Collection
Plate Robbery
While
it would be clearly absurd--not to mention unbiblical--to oppose taking
up church collections (I Cor. 16:1), criticism is, in fact, warranted
regarding the manner by which collections are often gathered.
So
far, we've cleared some muddy water regarding what it means to rob God,
but are there any other related ways by which God is robbed? Indeed
there is. Have you ever been on the receiving end of a dramatic tithing
sermon where the account of the "Widow's Offering" is used as a
proof-text to support sacrificial giving? Frequently, this approach is
offered along side the Robbing-God sermon, so, this is an appropriate
place to expound upon it.
Give
'til it Hurts Every
time I hear a Christian minister appeal to Malachi and say, "Will a man
rob God?" before (or after) an offering plate is passed, I consider for
a moment the plight of a certain widow. [27] Often times one
will hear a tithing sermon where a certain widow is noted for her
sacrificial giving. Frequently, the passage of Scripture in Luke 21:1-4
(cf. Mark 12:41-44) that tells the story of "The Widow's Offering" is
used as a springboard to encouraging greater generosity. The poor
widow, noticed by Jesus, is often praised for her sacrificial giving
because she contributed two small copper coins-- "all she had to live
on" (v. 4)--to the temple treasury. [28]
While
there is certainly room for practical teaching regarding sacrificial
giving, and there is indeed a place for sacrifice in Christian
stewardship, the account of the widow is often removed from its
context. Frequently, this passage is used to teach people to "give 'til
it hurts."
Context
is very important to proper biblical interpretation; it can mean the
difference between understanding God's message and missing his truth
altogether. Taking a closer look at the account of "The Widow's
Offering," the passage reads:
As
he looked up, Jesus saw the rich putting their gifts into the temple
treasury. He also saw a poor widow put in two very small copper coins.
"I tell you the truth," he said, "this poor widow has put in more than
all the others. All these people gave their gifts out of their wealth,
but she out of her poverty put in all she had to live on."
Most
have been led to believe that Jesus praised the woman for her
generosity and sacrificial giving. However, closer examination yields
something different.
In
order to understand the message Jesus conveys, it's important to back
up a few verses into the previous chapter to discover his lesson.
Reading the passage again while disregarding the unfortunate and
unnatural chapter division between chapters 20 and 21 will be helpful.
Jesus was teaching and many people were apparently gathered. Luke
20:45-47 through Luke 21:1-4 says:
While
all the people were listening, Jesus said to his disciples, "Beware of
the teachers of the law. They like to walk around in flowing robes and
love to be greeted in the marketplaces and have the most important
seats in the synagogues and the places of honor at banquets. They
devour widows houses and for a show make lengthy prayers.
Such men
will be punished most severely."
As
he looked up, Jesus saw the rich putting their gifts into the temple
treasury. He also saw a poor widow put in two very small copper coins.
"I tell you the truth," he said, "this poor widow has put in more than
all the others. All these people gave their gifts out of their wealth,
but she out of her poverty put in all she had to live on" (italics
added).
Having
just warned his listeners concerning the pride and misdeeds of the
religious leaders, Jesus notes that they not only set themselves above
others, but they felt no shame in "devouring widows' houses" (v. 47).
It seemed to be divine appointment that as Jesus looked up after
warning his listeners, there, right before their very eyes, was a poor
widow contributing to the temple treasury (the Temple, the storehouse, the
place where her needs should have been met) as a real-life
example
of what he was talking about.We
can almost sense the concern for the widow in Christ's voice, his
condemnation of the religious leaders who would allow her to give her
meager funds, and the certainty of judgment against those encouraging
her gift. The religious leaders had grown accustomed to "oppressing
widows" and had no fear of the Lord (Mal. 3:5). They "robbed
God" by
accepting or by somehow compelling her gift.
Far
from a passage of Scripture that praises the generosity of the poor
widow, Christ's words in Luke are a clear condemnation of those who
"devour widows' houses" and, thus, a condemnation of those who
"devoured" the woman's limited funds, her last two copper coins.
Jesus
demonstrated much concern for the poor. His actions and commands
indicate that caring for the poor needs to be a primary focus of
Christian giving. New Testament stewardship directives indicate that
people are the most important beneficiaries of Christian giving, not
buildings and programs, or salaries and land acquisitions.
A
modern-day parallel to the account of the widow is that sometimes God
is "robbed" when collection plates are passed, and the needy within his
Body--the Church--are compelled (often coerced) into giving.
Over
and Above? A word about the proverbial
"over-and-above"
tactic is important. When tithing teachers attempt to extract additional
money "over and above"
a tithe already imposed through a misrepresentation of God's Word, they
build a doctrine that follows from their erroneous interpretation of
the "robbing-God" passage in Malachi 3:8. D. A. Carson comments on the
problem of juxtaposing texts. He says that an erroneous interpretation
of one text, gives rise to another, then another, and so on.[29]
This yields a catena of erroneously interpreted scriptures and creates
one giant error.
This
"over-and-above" notion
that tithing teachers refer to proceeds (they believe) from Malachi 3:8
where God is quoted in reply to the people's question How do we rob
you? God says, "In tithes and offerings" (italics
added).
Tithing
teachers frequently insist that believers are compelled by God to not
only give a tithe, but are equally required to give "over and above" a
tithe through various offerings. This, however, is incorrect for the
simple fact that: 1) tithes are not required in the first place; and,
2) the offerings spoken of here refer to firstfruit offerings (edible
provisions, agricultural produce) for the maintenance of the Temple
workers and priests.
A
little research yields the above truth, yet tithing teachers don't seem
to feel the import of "correctly handling God's Word" (II Tim. 2:15).
Genesis:
Tithing Prior to the Law
Abraham's
Tithe We've
dealt with a couple of scriptures thus far recognized by anyone who has
had to endure their misrepresentation during a tithing sermon. Having
offered proper interpretation for those popular texts, it's time to
examine other commonly mishandled passages--and a couple of others that
seem to be conveniently neglected--which are used to teach tithing.
A popular
defense of those who teach tithing doctrines has been to cite the fact
that Abraham--known as Abram
at the time--tithed to Melchizedek (Gen. 14:18-20), priest of Salem.
Melchizedek greeted and blessed Abraham after Abraham defeated an
enemy. Melchizedek extended a visit to him after the military victory,
and in return Abraham gave Melchizedek a tenth of the captured booty.
Many
ministers appeal to Genesis 14:18-20 as a supposed demonstration that
tithing was an institution established prior to the Law, which would
include any tithing directives--being given to Moses.
Usually, this so-called explanation is offered as a sort of preemptive
strike against those who would point out that the Old Testament
institution of tithing is no longer required of Christians since
believers are not "under law, but under grace" (Rom. 6:14).
These
same teachers sometimes also attempt to reinforce their tithing
doctrines by supposing that Melchizedek was a manifestation of God.
[30] This
notion, however, is disputed among scholars. But, even if Melchizedek
was a manifestation of God, it doesn't follow that it establishes a
tithing doctrine. An assumption that Melchizedek was a manifestation of
God simply affords an unwarranted and forced example whereby the
teacher can challenge people by saying: "Abraham tithed to God.
Shouldn't you?"
The
Abraham Argument The "Abraham Argument" of many tithing
proponents
usually goes something like this:
There
are those who say that the New Testament believer is no longer under
the Law, that tithing was a matter that was given to Moses and the
Jewish people, and that the Christian is no longer required to tithe
since believers are under the New Covenant of grace. But God's Word
clearly teaches that even prior to the Law, tithing was a practice he
blessed and established for all time. We see that prior to God giving
the Law to Moses and the Jewish people, that Abraham, one of the 'Faith
Hall of Famers' noted in the New Testament book of Hebrews, tithed.
Therefore, since Abraham tithed, and since he tithed prior to the
establishment of the Law, and since he has been memorialized in the
'Faith Hall of Fame,' God has given us an example in Abraham that
tithing is required of believers today.
Examining
this often persuasive argument shows that it doesn't hold up under the
scrutiny of proper biblical interpretation.
A
Customary Courtesy
As
we noted above in the commentary regarding the context of Malachi,
narratives tell a story or convey historical facts; their applications
are limited.
In
this account, Abraham demonstrated gratitude and customary courtesy to
Melchizedek when he tithed to him. It was a custom that was exercised
by numerous neighboring peoples (pagans included) such as the
Canaanites, Phoenicians, Arabs, as well as the Greeks and Romans.
Tithing was even a practice known to the ancient Chinese. It was
a very common cultural practice, and it wasn't until the Mosaic Law
that tithing was given the status of a compulsory contribution in the
lives and culture of the Jewish people. [31]
In
addition, Abraham acknowledged God when he tithed to Melchizedek in
that he willingly
parted with a portion of the booty of which God blessed him. His tithe
was "his confession that God was his Lord, the Possessor of heaven and
earth, and the Giver of victory." [32] This willingness on
Abraham's part is significant. Abraham, by his own free will, and in
the absence of any request or coercion from Melchizedek, submitted a
customary ten-percent, or tithe, of the material blessing
provided
by God.
Abraham's
encounter with Melchizedek shows that blessing others, especially
perhaps blessing the man of God, is something that should be done.
Abraham demonstrated that faithfulness and gratitude to God are things
to be exercised. All these things are proper applications drawn from
the story. There is, however, something that should not be pulled from
this narrative, but it is, nevertheless, often thrust upon the
uninformed believer, and unfortunately, upon the heads of new
Christians and visiting churchgoers. This, I believe, has a very
negative effect upon the uninitiated.
Not a
Teaching Passage
This
brief narrative where Abraham gave "a tenth of everything" to
Melchizedek shouldn't be used to teach tithing. The reason for this is
because this portion of Scripture is not a teaching portion
of
Scripture. [33] Teaching
portions of Scripture directly instruct us to do something, e.g., how
to pray (Matt. 6:9; Luke 11:2), or that we should put on the armor of
God (Eph. 6:11). We simply can't justify the practice of tithing as a
result of Abraham's experience with Melchizedek any more than we could
justify taking concubines or practicing polygamy because Abraham also
practiced these things (Gen. 16; 25:6). [34]
In
addition, an approach of many modern teachers is to attempt to disarm
those who suggest that tithing was an Old Testament requirement and
that Christians are no longer under the Law. These teachers say that
since tithing came before the Law, criticism of tithing being an Old
Testament requirement and no longer required of believers should be
dismissed. However, if their interpretive methods were correct, then
one could justify such things as marital infidelity (Gen. 16:4) and
deception (Gen. 20:2) using precisely the same methods since Abraham
dabbled in these things prior to their prohibition in Exodus 20:14; 16.
I think it's disingenuous that some modern teachers selectively cite
their texts and either ignore or attempt to avoid the obvious
criticisms that naturally follow their methods.
Abraham's
encounter with Melchizedek teaches many things, as noted, even some
principles of genuine Christian stewardship; however, tithing, which is
different from stewardship, isn't one of them.
Jacob's
Tithe
Here's
an example of a great Bible character who is never used as an example
of what a tither ought to do. Yet, one would think that since many
tithing teachers eagerly use Abraham's story to persuade people to
tithe, that Jacob's tithe would be a helpful example as well. While the
account of Jacob's tithe isn't utilized by modern teachers for obvious
reasons, the account in Gen. 28:20-22 is an instance whereby another
Old Testament patriarch also tithed prior to the Law. A
short commentary is included about Jacob's tithe because of its
interesting absence from modern tithing sermons. The next time a
teacher uses the Abraham Argument, ask a few questions about Jacob's
tithe and whether his example is O.K. to follow. If the teacher
believes Abraham's tithe to Melchizedek is a model to follow, then he
shouldn't exclude Jacob's tithe to God.
The
story suffers from the same or similar criticisms as the Abraham
Argument, so, I'll not repeat the interpretive issues already
discussed, e.g., narrative vs. didacticpassages.
Jacob's tithe
is worth noting for one reason: He offered a conditional tithe! The
passage reads:
Then
Jacob made a vow, saying, "If God will be with me and will watch over
me on this journey I am taking and will give me food to eat and clothes
to wear so that I return safely to my father's house, then the Lord
will be my God and this stone that I have set up as a pillar will be
God's house, and of all that you give me I will give you a
tenth" (italics
added).
It
seems that Jacob's pre-Law method of tithing loses modern-day appeal
because of its conditionality. How often does one hear tithing teachers
encouraging people to tithe only when the circumstances of life allow
it or the conditions to tithe are satisfactory to the giver? This
writer would argue that most readers of this paper have probably never
been instructed to give a tithe only when conditions were satisfactory
to them. In fact, many people have probably been instructed some time
in their Christian experience to pay a tithe even before paying the
mortgage, buying groceries, or even caring for the needs of a
struggling family member.[35] Ask yourself: "If
tithing
is supposedly a biblically required pre-Law thing to do, and if modern
interpretive methods are correct, then why isn't Jacob's conditional
tithe taught? The answer is obvious. A conditional tithe
conflicts with the pressures and coercive tactics often accompanying
modern "thou shalt tithe" sermons. Usually the teaching is insistent
and absolute, no exceptions--you must tithe according to the rules
being taught.
The
narrative of Jacob's tithe fails to complement modern tithing
doctrines. Therefore, it will never be used by contemporary teachers
who somehow seem compelled to generate funds through the
misrepresentation of God's Word.
Leviticus:
The Tithe Belongs to the Lord?
Keep
that Money Right Here
While
the book of Leviticus provides the instructions behind the ancient
practice of Jewish tithing, one verse (27:30) is important to this
study since it is frequently utilized in modern tithing sermons. It
reads:
A
tithe of everything from the land, whether grain from the soil or fruit
from the trees, belongs to the Lord; it is holy to the Lord.
This
passage is often partially quoted; usually it's paraphrased and
incorporated into a tithing sermon. Frequently, teachers of tithing
weave this verse into sermons by simply saying "The tithe
belongs to
the Lord" or "Your tithe belongs to the Lord." This,
however, can
and usually does imply a couple of things.
First,
when the teacher says that "The tithe belongs to the Lord,"
he
assumes that tithing is required of the believer.
Second,
when the teacher says "Your tithe belongs to the Lord," he
not only assumes that tithing is required but often implies that if
you're not giving a tithe to your church, then you're robbing God and
under a cursefor failing to pay it. So, quite
often Leviticus
27:30 is served up with Malachi 3:8 to reinforce that you need to
either "start givin' that tithe," or make sure you "keep on givin'
it"--to avoid divine curse, of course. [36]
A
related teaching has been to try to get around what Leviticus 27:30
clearly says. The "grain and fruit from the land and trees" are
sometimes presented as having been replaced by money. The argument goes
something like this:
The
Christian is under obligation to pay a monetary tithe today as opposed
to the edible produce of the land noted in the passage. This is because
we have shifted from a bartering society where commodities were used
for transactions, to a monetary society that uses coin and paper money
for such exchanges today.
Folks,
this is utter nonsense, and it's an argument that fades away by a
simple reading of numerous passages where the exchange of money for
goods and services was practiced.
Abraham
bought land with shekels of silver (by weight, yet prior to coinage) to
bury his wife (Gen. 23:15-16); Jacob purchased land with silver (Gen.
33:19); Joseph was sold into slavery for twenty shekels of silver (Gen.
37:28); Jewish religious leaders purchased the betrayal services of
Judas (Matt. 26:14-15); the chief priests paid soldiers money to lie
about Christ's body (Matt. 28:12-13), and numerous other passages
indicate that actual coin money was used to pay taxes, even by Jesus
himself (Matt. 17:24-27).
Some
Instructions Ignored
Back
up to chapter 25 of Leviticus. It's interesting to note that if modern
tithing practices supposedly reflect Old Testament directives, then why
is freedom from the tithe every seventh year not taught? Ask
yourself: Why don't I get a sabbath rest from tithing every seventh
year (Lev. 25:2-7)? Furthermore, why am I not free of any debt I've
incurred during that same year (Deut. 15:1)?[37]
It's
interesting that among the numerous Old Testament passages about
tithing, the only ones retained by modern teachers are those that most
easily persuade people to tithe. This is dishonest.
Nehemiah
The House of God Neglected?
Just
Look at the Disrepair!
This is an often repeated manipulation.
The passage appealed to is Nehemiah 13:10-12. Nehemiah, having returned
from Persia, found that the reforms he had established years earlier
were being ignored. The passage reads:
I
also learned that the portions assigned to the Levites had not been
given to them, and that all the Levites and singers responsible for the
service had gone back to their own fields. So I rebuked the officials
and asked them, "Why is the house of God neglected"?
All Judah
brought the tithes of grain, new wine and oil into the storerooms
(italics added).
The
idea here is that the local church is supposedly "the house of God,"
and any repairs or building programs that need financing simply cannot
proceed if God's people are going to be so neglectful. While caring for
church facilities is something that ought to be done, it's simply not
the case that the local church building is a modern "house of God."
This should be obvious to all believers since the scriptures declare
that "The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of
heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands" (Acts
17:24). We, as Christians, are the "temples of God" (II Cor. 6:16).
Churches
are Just Buildings The "house of God" was, but no
longer is, the
Jewish Temple. Nehemiah
probably referred to all aspects of its operation as being a "house
neglected" when he chastised the Jews for having not cared for those in
the Temple service.[38] The local church building
is not
a contemporary Temple counterpart, no matter how much tithing teachers
want it to be so. So, when teachers refer to the local church building
as the "house of God," it reminds me of Jesus when he responded to a
mistake of certain Sadducees. He said, "You are in error because you do
not know the Scriptures" (Matt. 22:29).
Proverbs
Honor the Lord with your Garden Trimmings?
Give a
Tithe, Honor the Lord?
Proverbs
3:9-10 says: Honor the Lord with your wealth, with the first fruits of
all your crops; then your barns will be filled to overflowing, and your
vats will brim over with new wine.
A
lot of meaning is typically imported into this passage of Scripture.
Usually the meaning of all the key words in it are construed to have
modern counterparts. For example, "firstfruits" are often referred to
as most people's understanding of tithing. Since we've already examined
the differences between these two, I'll not repeat them here. Also,
"barns" and "vats" have been offered to mean a few things, e.g., a bank
account, a cupboard, a pantry, or any general means by which one stores
what he needs.
In
the context of a typical tithing sermon, however, this passage is used
to get people to "honor the Lord with their wealth" by giving a tithe
to their church. It's sometimes supposed that honoring the Lord with
one's wealth primarily means giving firstfruits, or what's usually
thought to be a tithe--no tithe, no honoring of the Lord. However, the
contemporary Christian cannot technically give either firstfruits or
tithes since there exists no Temple or priesthood.
Certainly,
the Christian should honor the Lord with his wealth, indeed, with
everything he is and has. This means that there is nothing--absolutely
nothing--the Christian should withhold from God in honoring him.
Matthew
New Testament Tithing?
Give
your Church what's God's Sometimes
thought to mean that the believer should not withhold his tithe from
the Lord, [39] Matthew 22:21 has also been used in tithing sermons to
extract money from the saints. Jesus responds to an attempt by
religious leaders of his day to trap him in his words in Matthew 22:21.
The context is one in which the religious leaders hoped to get an
incriminating response from him, or at least one that would discourage
his followers. The verse in question says,
"Give to
Caesar what is Caesars, and to God what is God's."
This
verse, usually the focus of a larger passage, is simply Jesus' response
to those who attempted to trap him with a clever question designed to
hurt him no matter how he answered it. When they asked Jesus whether or
not it was right to pay taxes to Caesar, they wanted him to either say
"No" and, therefore, commit an act of treason against Rome, or say
"Yes" and, therefore, demonstrate disloyalty to his fellow Jew. The
question was supposed to incriminate him legally, or turn his followers
against him.
As
far as this verse serving as a modern tithing text, there is no
justification for this. It's clear that the passage has nothing at all
to do with tithing per se, but is simply a response to a cleverly
devised question.
Jesus
did, however, make it clear that giving to God what is God's is a
command. For the Jew of the Temple era, and of Christ's day, giving to
God what was God's was in fact a tithe and first fruit, but we can't
assume that the legal requirement of giving God a tithe or first-fruit--which
may or may not be implied in Christ's response--means that the New
Testament believer is likewise required to tithe. This
can't be the case since there exists no Temple, priests, or New
Testament tithing directives for Christians. But, there are new and
different principles for giving.
Christ's
Command to Tithe Often
in response to the notion that the New Testament doesn't teach tithing,
one will hear something to the effect of "What about the time when
Jesus told the Pharisees that they should have practiced tithing
without neglecting justice, mercy, and faithfulness? Didn't Jesus
teaching tithing there?" The passage in question is found in Matthew
23:23.
Woe
to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a
tenth of your spices-mint, dill, and cummin. But you have neglected the
more important matters of the law-justice, mercy and faithfulness. You
should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former.
A
couple of things should be noted about this passage. First, this is not
a passage that teaches tithing; it's a passage that calls attention to
the misplaced priorities of certain religious leaders. Jesus was
identifying certain sins of those whom he was chastising.
Second,
the religious leaders that Christ addressed followed the letter of the
law; they were required to tithe under that law. It should be
noted
that they were obligated to tithe as Temple-era Jews.
Third,
those whom Jesus chastised gave actual tithes, e.g., mint, dill,
cummin--not money. Remember, tithes were to be the
edible
provisions from God.
Jesus
simply pointed out that they focused their attention on tithes (less
important matters of law) while neglecting more important matters
(justice, mercy, and faithfulness). He told them that they should in
fact tithe--they were under the Law--while at the same time not neglect
more important aspects of it. Perhaps Jesus had Deuteronomy 6:5, "Love
the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with
all your strength" along with a certain widow in mind when he chastised
those Pharisees.
Does
the Pharisees' error and the practice of modern tithing share anything
in common? I think careful Bible reading and careful thought is
conclusive. A similar pattern does seem to emerge upon examining the
practice of tithing today. Based on scriptures explored thus far, it
seems likely that Jesus would condemn the modern practice of
tithing--perhaps with "Woe to you, teachers of tithing law!"
Some
Final Thoughts There
are several other contrived arguments to support the modern practice of
tithing not addressed in this work. None of them, however, hold up
under proper biblical interpretation. I even recall a sermon a few
years ago in which a pastor actually said that a non-tither will not go
to heaven, and yet another more recently who said that a believer's
financial security is assured when God's principle of tithing is
obeyed. Still another pastor thought aloud to a friend of mine that
parishioners should be required to tithe before being allowed entrance
to church on Sunday morning (he wasn't kidding). Imagine
that!
Folks,
such tactics are shameless in prying open the pocketbooks of believers
to finance buildings, salaries, and programs.New
Testament principles of Christian financial stewardship accommodate
genuine needs, but not at the expense of the Christian's duty to the
Great Commission, or helping the needy. Directing
financial
resources to places of greatest need creates opportunities to share the
Gospel. Isn't sharing the Gospel our primary task?
Though
there is much more, so far I've simply dealt with just the main
scriptures and arguments used to support tithing today. I hope Part I
has been helpful in conveying the truth that tithing is notrequired
of the New Testament Christian. It is no more required of the Christian
than Sabbath-keeping or animal sacrifice. No one should be bound or
compelled to tithe--especially through a misrepresentation of God's
Word. [40]
In
Part II I'll offer a more challenging method of Christian giving, a
method of Christian financial stewardship that reflects the teaching of
Jesus, the Apostle Paul, and the Early Church, not the hopes of
confused or dishonest ministers (I trust that the dishonest are in the
minority).
Summary
of Main Points 1) Tithing is an ancient practice that
predates
Israelite history.
2) Scripture indicates that first fruits and tithes were different.
Both, however, were always edible, never money.
3) Scripture indicates that poor people were apparently not required to
tithe.
4) Biblical tithing evolved into a type of welfare. It was a sort of
tax used to care for priests and poor.
5) Neither Jesus, nor the Apostle Paul taught tithing. Neither did the
Early Church Fathers.
6) The believer cannot "rob" God by failing to tithe.
7) The believer "robs" God when he fails to provide for those in need.
8) Old Testament narratives of pre-Law tithing, e.g., Abraham to
Melchizedek, do not teach tithing.
9) Christian giving extends beyond the local church; it is not limited
to to the local church.
10) Churches are buildings, not mini-temples, houses of God, or
biblical storehouses.
This
exposé is an adaptation of a larger body of research. Permission
is
granted to copy and freely distribute it under the condition that the
copyright and author's name appear on the first page.
Please
direct requests for Part II and any questions or comments to:
1
The art and science of biblical
interpretation is called hermeneutics.
2 The
plain meaning of Scripture is the grammatico-historical method, which
emphasizes that a passage of Scripture must be explained in light of
its syntax, historical setting, and authorial intent.
3 The New Unger's Bible Dictionary, ed., R. K. Harrison, (Chicago:
Moody
Press, 1988), s.v. "First Fruit," 429.
4 Smith,
William, Nelson's
Quick Reference Bible Dictionary, eds., F. N. and M. A. Peloubet,
(Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1993), s.v. "First-Fruits," 194.
5
Ibid., 195.
6
For purposes of clarity, the word "tithe" is used as it is commonly
understood today unless otherwise noted. The use of the past tense
("was") denotes that the formal manner of tithing as outlined in
Scripture is a practice that is technically impossible to exercise
today.
7
Christopher Hill, Economic
Problems of the Early Church, (Oxford: Clarendon Press,
1968), 77.
8 James
Hastings,
ed., Hastings'
Dictionary of the
Bible, (New
York: Hendrickson,
1994), s.v. "Tithe," by W. O. E. Oesterley, 940.
9
Walter A. Elwell,
ed., Baker
Theological Dictionary
of the Bible,
(Grand Rapids: Baker
Book House, 1996), s.v. "Tithe, Tithing," by Brian K. Morley.
10
[Internet] The
American Heritage Dictionary of the
English Language,
Fourth Edition, (Houghton Mifflin Company, 2000) at Dictionary.com web
site. Available from: http://www.dictionary.com, s.v., "tithe."
[Accessed 09 September, 2001].
11
Walter A. Elwell,
ed., The
Concise Evangelical
Dictionary of Theology,
(Grand
Rapids: Baker Book House, 1991), s.v. "Tithing," by D. K. McKim, 513.
12 When
a word or
phrase is used with two or more meanings, it is a logical fallacy of
ambiguity called equivocation.
13
My research on this subject has revealed that many resources seem to
have been theologically or at least denominationally conditioned to
allow a contemporary understanding of tithing.
14
Clarence L. Lee,
ed., Historical
Series (Ancient
Church), trans. Robert C. Schultz
(Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1966), vol. 3, Tithing in the Early Church, by Lukas Vischer, 4.
15
This is disputed by some Jewish historians; however, the notion that
the Jewish people paid three tithes is sometimes used to persuade
people that they are fortunate God only "requires" ten-percent in the
present era. The reader needs to be aware of this particular
manipulation so popular in tithing sermons.
16
Harrison, s.v.
"Tithe," 1290-1291.
17
Lawrence O.
Richards, gen. ed., The
Revell
Bible Dictionary,
(Old Tappan:
Fleming H. Revell Company, 1990), s.v., "Tithe."
18
When I refer to the early Church or early Christians, I refer to the
pre-Nicene Church and pre-Nicene Christians (prior to the 4th Century)
unless otherwise noted.
19
Merril C. Tenney,
gen. ed., The
Zondervan Pictoral
Encyclopedia of the Bible,
(Grand
Rapids: Zondervan Publishing, 1975), s.v. "Tithe," by C. L. Feinberg,
758.
20 Ibid.
21 Didache,
13:7 as quoted in Walter A. Elwell, ed., The Concise Evangelical
Dictionary of
Theology,
(Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1991), s.v. "Tithing," by D. K. McKim,
513. The Didache is an early second century document believed to
contain the teachings of the Twelve Apostles.
22
David W. Bercot's
edited work A
Dictionary of Early
Christian Beliefs,
(Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 1998) is an excellent resource to
gather a sense of the teaching regarding the manner and method of
giving that was taught in the early Church. Be advised, however, that
some early teaching doesn't necessarily complement the New Testament
pattern of stewardship. Indications are that tithing abuses started
centuries ago and the teaching can be seen in some ancient writings.
23
Tenney, 758.
24
The practice of providing for needs of the temple priests apparently
evolved from the local collections of tithes by the Levites, who gave a
tithe of the people's
tithe to
the priests.
25
"Pulling" or
"extracting" meaning from the text of Scripture is called exegesis. "Pushing" or
"importing" meaning
to the text of Scripture is called eisegesis. Exegesis is good, eisegesis is
bad.
26
The Bible is full of different types of figures of speech. In this
instance, Malachi uses an anthropomorphic expression. Anthropomorphic
expressions are common throughout the Old Testament; they are a
literary device, much like our English language uses idioms (also
figures of speech) to convey meaning, e.g., go jump in the lake or it's
raining cats
and dogs.
27This concept
was formulated from
a conversation with Dr. Rick L. Walston (1996).
28
A reading of Old Testament tithing directives seems to indicate that
not all Jews were required to tithe. Tithes and first fruits were given
primarily from farmers and herdsmen. Instructions indicating care for
the poor especially seem to indicate that they were exempt from tithing
(and offerings).
29 See
D. A.
Carson's Exegetical
Fallacies,
Second Edition, (Grand Rapids: Baker Book
House, 1996), 139.
30 A
manifestation
of God is called a theophany.
A theophany is a visible or audible manifestation of God, e.g., God
walking in the Garden of Eden (Gen. 3:8), or God speaking at Christ's
baptism (Matt. 3:17; Mark 1:11; Luke 3:22).
31
R. K.
Harrison, gen. ed., The
New
International Commentary on the Old Testament, (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans
Publishing
Company, 1987), The
Books of
Haggai and Malachi,
by Pieter A.
Verhoef, 303.
32 J.
I. Packer and
M. C. Tenney, eds., "Money and Economics" in Illustrated Manners and Customs
of the Bible,
(Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers,
1980), 334.
33 A
teaching
portion of Scripture is called a didactic
passage.
34
It does seem
that if we were to regard narrative
passages in the Old Testament as teaching portions of Scripture, that
ark building would be common.
35
Sometimes people are taught that giving a tithe will open windows of
heaven; if they don't give a tithe, they will be cursed. Such arguments
are based on improper interpretations of Malachi 3:8-12. Such notions,
however, are false. If tithes are not required of the believer, then
any blessings or cursings from failing to comply will not transpire.
36
Sometimes teachers resort to ridiculous statements to prevent people
from giving money anywhere but to their church. Have you ever heard
that "Food from McDonald's should not be paid for at Burgerville," or
some other rendition? This assumes 1) that tithes are required to be
paid; 2) that a satisfying meal can only be acquired at one's own
church, and nowhere else, and 3) that the giver/tither is being
exclusively fed (if at all) at his church. Such comments indicate
either the ignorance of the teacher, the lengths to which he is willing
to go in manipulating people, or both.
37
Michael L. Webb
and Mitchell T. Webb, Beyond
Tithes & Offerings,
(Tacoma: On Time Publishing, 1998), 88. I discovered this
self-published book late during the writing of this work. It is well
written and the conclusions to which the authors arrive are solid.
However, the authors fail to document their sources; therefore, while a
reading of this book would be beneficial, the lack of both proper
citation and documentation affects its value.
38 See
"The Book of
Nehemiah" in C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsh, Commentary on the Old Testament, Vol. 3, trans. James Martin,
(Peabody:
Hendrickson Publishers, 1989), 289.
39
Today,
withholding a tithe from one's church is equated with withholding it
from the Lord.
40
Using 10 percent as a benchmark for giving isn't necessarily a bad
idea. However, be reminded that there exists no binding commandment to
do so. It is not a sin to give when and where need is recognized, no
matter the destination of the gift, i.e., to one's church, to a
ministry, to a family member, to a neighbor. Recognizing need is part
of what it means to be a genuine Christian steward of financial
resources. This is the subject of Part II.
HeavenorHell?
I am always
interested in what people say when I ask them what they think happens
when they die.
Most tell
me that they will go to heaven. (About 76% of the people in
the U.S. believe in heaven). I ask them
why and they say
that they are a good person and so they would go to heaven. I ask them
where evil people go when they die people seem to be a bit split in
their answers. Some say
that evil people just stop existing, but others
say
that they go to hell. Others say
that God forgives everyone and that
even evil people go to heaven when they die.
But when it
comes right down to it, we can either make up what WE think
happens after we die, which doesn't really matter because we made it
up. Or, we can
believe what someone else has to say about what happens
when we die. THAT
someone had better know though... because we are
risking our eternal future on what they tell us. WHO should
that person
be? Hmmm, an expert would be good. Someone who has died and come back. Well, that
ONE person would be Jesus Christ!
The birth
of Jesus was predicted in hundreds of prophecies which ALL
came true. The death
and resurrection of Jesus was also prophesied by
both the Old Testament of the Bible, and by Jesus Himself. Yet, many
prefer to trust in their TOTAL LACK OF EXPERIENCE in coming
back from the dead instead of
listening to Jesus' words!
None of
this makes sense to me, but it's what people do nearly every
single day I speak with them.
Some people
have told me that we are on Earth to learn, and that after
we die we go to heaven because we have learned our lessons. Others tell
me that we come back as someone else.
Recently
I've had a lot of people tell me that it really doesn't matter
what you believe as long as you believe something, because
everyone
goes to heaven, unless you don't believe anything...
What?
I was
wondering if it was possible that any of this was true. So, you
can't get to a particular destination by going any direction,
for any amount of time, in any
vehicle, in any style... but you can get to heaven by doing and
believing anything... even
contradicting the Word of God? What?
You can't
end up with a great meal by cooking anything, anyway you want
it, with any spices, in any pan,
or none, at any heat, for any amount of time, but somehow
you can end up in heaven by doing nothing, everything,
or whatever you
want?
What?
You can't
put ANY type of fuel in your car, you can't put ANY kind of
food into your body, you can't
even get dressed ANY way you want unless you want people to
stare at you. Try trading
your underwear with your hat, your shoes with your gloves,
and your pants for your top. WHY in the
world do you think that getting to Heaven is any different?
What about
reincarnation? Who would be the great expert to ask about
this one? Obviously
someone who has died and come back as someone else,
THAT IS DOCUMENTED! There is NOBODY like this however! Sure, there
about 20,000 people that think they used to Cleopatra, but
they can't all be. People
always claim that they they used to be a Roman emperor, some
beautiful person, some powerful person, or someone really interesting. Nobody
seems to be interested in claiming a future life of a baby that
was stillborn, or someone
who died of a childhood disease, or someone
that nobody ever heard of.
And what
about the math? Our
population growth is out of control. The
teaching of reincarnation would predict a flat population growth
because as people died they would come back as someone else who would
die, etc. This would
not produce a global population boom, especially
in the pattern that we see which WOULD be predicted if man was born
once and then died as the Bible clearly states.
I can't
imagine that I come up with the same omelet by doing things any
way I wanted to.
Plan 1 I could
melt butter in a sauté pan, let it heat up, and then
separate the egg whites from the yolks, beat the
whites in a copper
bowl until they're light and fluffy, and then mix the yolks back in. Then pour
the egg mixture into a pan, and slowly add some shredded
medium Tillimook Cheddar cheese, a pinch of
salt, some fresh pepper,
some diced Roma tomatoes, some minced sweet white onion, some sliced
avocado, and some cubed pepper bacon. I could
wait until the edges get
golden brown and then take a spatula and gently fold the omelet in half
and cook it for a few more minutes. I could
then grate some fresh
Romano cheese on the top and sprinkle it with a little dill and plop on
a tablespoon of sour cream.
Plan 2 I could
throw some eggs (shell & all) into a pan, throw in a
package of bacon, throw in a package of cheese, throw in an
avocado, and poof, I have the same wonderful omelet as plan
1. Sounds a
little stupid, but if you apply what people have been telling
me lately, you should have the same results. Except... you won't.
YUCK! I
can't eat this!
Maybe this
universalistic plan only includes places you go and not
things you eat?
I'd like to
go to Maui, Hawaii.
Plan 1 I get
online and find an airline that flies to not just Hawaii, but
Maui as well. I purchase a ticket. On the correct day,
and the correct time, I get in my
car, drive to the correct
airport and park in
the long term parking garage. I go to the correct airline, and
present my ticket. I place my
suitcase in the correct
window and place a
tag on the suitcase and write my correct name, and my correct address, and my correct phone
number on the
tag. I give my
suitcase to the attendant who puts it on the correct conveyor belt which
transports it to the correct
airplane. I then go
through correct
security window, where they ask to see my ticket, they make sure that I
am not carrying anything that is prohibited, and then
they xray
everything I have with me, and have me walk through a security device
that scans for metal objects. I then walk
to the correct
gate and wait for
the correct time, so
that I can board the correct
airplane.
When they
start boarding, they call out seat numbers and I
must board in the correct
order according to my seat number. Then when I
enter the airplane, one
of the flight attendants looks at my ticket to make sure that I have
the correct boarding
pass, and they
steer me to the correct
seat. Then the
pilot makes the correct
moves to direct the plane to the correct runway, in the correct order, and takes
off at the correct
time,
in the correct
heading, at the correct
speed, and the correct
elevation, while maintaining all of the correct settings on the
airplanes controls.
If all goes
well, we approach Hawaii, and the pilot makes all the correct adjustments, and
moves that allow for a safe landing, on the correct
runway, in the correct
order, going in the correct
direction, at the correct
speed, with all the correct
settings on the controls. I land. I then go
to the baggage claim area
and show the attendant my claim ticket and can then choose the correct bag, to take
with
me to the taxi which will take me to my hotel. I have arrived at my
destination.
Plan 2
I decide to
go to McDonalds and order, well, anything. I sit down
and I wait for my airplane. I'm in no
rush because I can leave anytime. I don't have any
worries because I can head in any
direction. I don't
worry about purchasing a ticket because it might
cost anything. I wait, and
I wait. But the plane doesn't arrive. I close my
eyes and
squeeze my eyes shut tightly and really really believe that I'm about
to land in Hawaii. I grunt, I clasp my
fists and in one final surge of
belief, I open my eyes, but I'm not in Hawaii, I'm in McDonalds. I'm
disappointed! Look at the photo of Maui and the photo of McDonalds. Does it
look like the same place to you?
Plan 3 I get in a
cab and the driver asks me where do I want to go, I look at
him like he's crazy because I know that I can go anywhere, at any speed, for any time, we'll
automatically end up in Hawaii because that's where I want to go. The
driver kicks me out of the cab. I'm disappointed!
Plan 4. I go to the
supermarket and wonder the aisles (no more cab drivers for
me... they're too unenlightened for me!)... well, you get the idea.
IF I truly
want to get to Hawaii, I have to take dozens of actions to
make sure that I arrive. If I fail
to perform one of these actions, my
trip is a failure, or I don't arrive at all. And this is only going to
Hawaii!
If you can't get to
Hawaii by going any direction, at any time, and not following any of
the steps that are necessary to actually get to Hawaii, why would
it
work for heaven?
If you
can't put anything, in any kind of pan, with any other kind of
ingredients, at any temperature, and cook it
(or not) for any amount of
time to get breakfast, how do you expect to get to heaven by doing
anything, believing anything, and by just
making up stuff as you go?
The short answer is you can't! YOU will
end up in hell!
Some people
aren't afraid of hell because they have been deceived. Some people
have been brainwashed by our culture, by music, by the
materials they read. Some people
think that Hell will be fun, and I've heard it said that as
long as you're good to the devil that things can be really good in
hell. The problem
with this idea is that you won't be able to be "nice"
to the devil and he can't be "good" to you because there will be NO
good, no nice, no
comfort, no peace, NO pleasure in hell of any kind.
THAT'S why it is hell!
Some of
these people are so completely deceived that they can't even
hear the actual words of the people that are deceiving them any longer,
they just
hear what they want to hear.
Satan has
gained such control over
their minds that he speaks directly to these people, and
the original
words of those that have deceived these people don't even register with
them any longer.
Think I'm
kidding? Watch and listen to the video below. Listen to
the words of the people interviewed and then listen to the
words of the musicians and celebrities and YOU decide if they are
deceived.
Hell is
real. You know it, you feel it, you sense it. Listen to your
conscience, that little
voice inside is telling you that hell is real.
Jesus said
that He is THE way, that He is THE
light,
that He is THE good shepherd,
that He is THE door,
that He is THE
savior, that He is THE ONLY way to get to
heaven!
Where are
YOU going after YOU die?
Are YOU trying
to explain hell away? Try
explaining death away... Think that
will work? Pretending
that God doesn't exist, or that hell doesn't exist won't
work either. Pretending
that the God of the Bible really isn't the way the Bible
describes, but that
God is really the make-believe god that you have
created in your mind won't work either.
This doctor
had a near death experience before he was a Christian. Listen to
his words.
This video is
about a man who survived a plane wreck and was burned
over most of his body,
who also had a near death experience. This is a
video about near death experiences as presented as a science
experiment. People are
resuscitated within 4 to 6 minutes of the moment
of death and interviewed. A man is
slashed with a broken bottle and
bleeds to death, and is then resuscitated.
This is the
story of a 57 year old man who died of a heart attack, who
then was resuscitated and interviewed. This man
was what is known as a social Christian, or a notional
Christian, that is
someone who goes to Church and believes that they
are a Christian because they were born in the US (a Christian country),
but who had
no relationship with Christ. There is another case where a
man died in Paris while waiting for a doctor.
This video
continues from the previous video and includes some
interviews of random people on the street, who, mostly
believe heaven
exists, but don't believe hell exists. This video
also mentions the
false teaching of the Omega Faith who present false near-death
experiences.
- You can't just make up
something and think that you're going to be
saved from the fires of hell and arrive
safely in heaven, just because you have made up your own
religion, or made up your own little god, you most
certainly will NOT end up in heaven unless you do these three
specific things...
IF you want
to end up in Heaven and NOT in Hell, there are
exact, certain, and
specific things that YOU must do!
#1 You must
repent of your sins, NOT the things that YOU think are
sinful, but the
things that GOD thinks are sinful.
Have you
ever told a lie? Then you are a liar - Are you living with
your boyfriend, girlfriend? Are you
dabbling in the occult or the
astrology... even just for "fun"? Do you love money, or yourself more
than God?
Revelation 21:8
But the cowardly, the unbelieving,
the vile, the murderers,
the sexually immoral,
those who practice magic arts,
the idolaters and all liars—their place will be in the fiery lake of
burning sulfur.
This is the second death.” Have you
looked at someone else with lust in your heart? Jesus
said in Matthew 5:27,28 “You
have heard that it was said, ‘Do not commit adultery.’ But
I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already
committed adultery with her in his heart. #2. You
must accept Jesus as THE only way to heaven, as your savior. There is
NOTHING you can do on your own, you CAN NOT ever be good
enough to enter Heaven on your own merits, according
to your own
morality, based on your good works, making up your own religion. You
MUST rely on, trust in, and put on Jesus Christ!
#3. You
must do those things that help you grow as a Christian, such as
trusting on Jesus for your salvation, reading
your Bible which provides you the spiritual nourishment to grow
as a Christian, you must
pray for guidance from the Holy Spirit so that
you don't fall into sin again, you must
let others know what you have
discovered so that they too can make it to heaven.
If you have decided
to start looking in the right places so you can avoid hell and to find
heaven, STOP
listening to, or making up, stupid fairy tales and look here -
If you are a new Christian and
are trying
to figure out what you should be doing... click here
Amen, Franz Sigel Shroy
Is everyone who claims to be a "Christian",
truly a Christian in God's sight?
I have always
been confused by
people that claim to be Christians, who obviously are not, they are in
fact, Selfians.
That is, someone who makes up their own god, in their
own image, and their self-created god doesn’t require anything that is
difficult or uncomfortable,
they require no changes, no morality, no
worship, and their little god definately won’t throw them into hell for
any sins they may have committed.
Their god can’t throw them anywhere
because they don’t actually exist.
I am amazed
each time I speak
with people like this because they simply make up things as they go,
things that contradict each other,
things that can’t be found in the
Bible, things that contradict the words of Christ, but still insist
that they are “Christians”.
These same
people don’t seem to
be confused by ducks and dogs though.
“I am too a Christian, I believe
that God exists, I just don’t think that sin exists, or that hell
exists, but I believe that heaven exists”.
(For those
who
claim to be "Christians" that don't
believe
any of the words Jesus the Christ spoke... the dog is
the one
on the left and the duck is the one on the right!)
Well good for
you. Out of the
entire Bible, our of all of the words of Christ,
out of the entire
doctrine of Christianity, you actually agree with 3 or 4 things?
Well,
dog and duck both begin with the letter “d”. They both have eyes, they
both eat, and they both have feet.
Perhaps dogs and ducks are the same?
Why not a giraffe and a parakeet?
They both have eyes, they both eat,
they both drink, they both can walk, they both have an “r” in their
name...
Sounds really
stupid doesn’t it?
Yet, Selfians, or those that have made up their own religion,
use this
very pattern and will argue with you for hour upon hour that their
view,
without ANY supporting evidence at all, is actually THE correct
view!
Do these guys
actually think
that they can just make up a religion that God will respect or even
recognize as anything other than sin?
The Bible claims to be the
inspired, infallible, authoritative, and inerrant Word of God
(II
Timothy 3:15-17, II Peter 1:21).
Yet Selfians (followers of Self) only
accept those parts that they are comfortable with, despite whether the
parts they don’t like are true or not.
Christianity teaches that
there
is one God, eternally existing in three persons: the Father, Son and
Holy Spirit
(Genesis 1:1, Deuteronomy 6:4, Matthew 28:19, John 10:30). But Selfians
only
believe in a god that likes everything they do, or
that doesn’t care what they do,
or in many cases doesn’t even know what
they do.
Christianity teaches the
deity
of Christ (John 10:33)but
Selfians say that Jesus was a “good
teacher”, a “good man”, or “a prophet”.
These statements contradict not
only the words of the Bible, but the actual words of Jesus, the Christ,
and yet these people claim to be Christians, or Christ-ians, while
contradicting Christ!
Christianity teaches about
Jesus’
virgin birth (Isaiah 7:14, Matthew 1:23, Luke 1:34-35) while
Selfians
believe that this is a fairy tale, which contradicts the Bible, and
Jesus.
Christianity teaches that
Jesus
lived a sinless life (Hebrews 4:15, 7:26),
but Selfians believe that
Jesus must have sinned because He was only human.
They believe that
Jesus MUST be only human, because if Jesus really IS God, then they’d
have to believe in His words!
Christianity
teaches that Jesus
performed numerous miracles (John 2:11) but again
Selfians think
that
these are nothing more than more fairy tales, which again,
contradicts
both the Bible and Jesus Himslef!
Christianity teaches that
Jesus
had an atoning death (I Corinthians 15:3, Ephesians 1:7, Hebrews 2:9)
and then arose at His resurrection (John 11:25, I Corinthians 15:4) and
then ascended to the right hand of the Father (Mark 16:19) but again
Selfians believe that Jesus was a “good teacher” but just a man, and
the rest is just more fairy tales.
Christianity taught that He
would return to earth in power and glory (Acts 1:11, Revelation
19:11-16) but Selfians
don’t live as if Jesus would ever return.
Christians believe in the
absolute necessity of regeneration by the Holy Spirit for salvation
because of the
exceeding sinfulness of the human nature, and that all
are justified on the single ground of faith
in the shed blood of
Christ, and that only by God's grace through faith alone are we saved
(John 3:16-19; 5:24,
Romans 3:23; 5:8-9, Ephesians 2:8-10, Titus 3:5) but Selfians
don’t
believe that they sin, or at least they don’t sin as
much as really evil people,
so their little god won’t really hold them
responsible. And even if he did,
he is very forgiving and will forgive
them of anything they did anyway,
which makes their little self-created
god a very unjust, and unholy god who would make a really horrible
judge.
Certainly if their little self-made god were to be an actual
person,
they would be fired and removed from their position in ANY
earthly court since they didn’t actually dispense justice but
favoritism. Some god?
Christians believe in the
resurrection of both the saved and the lost; those who are saved unto
the resurrection of life,
and those who are not unto the resurrection
of damnation (John 5:28-29)
but some Selfians believe that their
little
god only sends people to heaven, or that only evil people go to hell,
you know... people that THEY think are evil. What Selfians think is
evil is very different than what God things is evil.
Christians believe in the
spiritual unity of the believers in our Lord Jesus Christ
(Romans 8:9,
I Corinthians 12:12-13, Galatians 3:26-28) but Selfians
get very
defensive to Christians that actually believe what the Bible teaches.
THOSE people are “fundamentalists”, they are “small minded”, “narrow
minded”, “confused”, “biased”, “backwards”, etc.
So, Selfians believe
that those people who actually follow the actual teachings of Christ,
are not Christ-ians
or followers of Christ BECAUSE they actually
believe and do what Jesus said, but that THEY are true Christians even
though
they directly say and do things that directly contradict the
Bible and Jesus, the Christ!
Christians believe in the
present ministry of the Holy Spirit by Whose indwelling the Christian
is
enabled to live a godly life (Romans 8:13-14, I Corinthians 3:16,
6:19-20, Ephesians 4:30; 5:18)
but Selfians believe in self. They
can’t
believe in the Holy Spirit because the job of the Holy Spirit is to
convict,
and Selfians don’t like being convicted very much.
Christians believe that we as
Christians are examples of the love of God in this world.
It is this
(agape) love that we desire to possess and without which we have no
right to call ourselves Christians
(I John 4:16-17) but Selfians
feel
the right to call ANY belief they hold as being “Christian”
even if it
contradicts Christ, that ANY action they take is “Christian”
even Jesus
Christ taught specifically against these actions,
and Selfians believe
that THEY alone can determine whether they will go to heaven or to
hell,
even if the words of Jesus directly condemns them to hell.
Finally, Christians believe
it
is the mandate of the whole Church to go into the whole world
and to
preach the Gospel to every living creature. (Mark 16:15, Matthew
28:19-20) but Selfians
get very angry when Christians follow this
command of Jesus to speak with them about Christian things.
So,
Selfians, or self-confessed false “Christians” believe that true
Christians should never preach
to them about Christian things as Christ
commanded because it offends them.
Selfians would
rather talk about
their zodiac sign, their false prayers, money, or ANYTHING other than
Christ!
So, if all of
these Selfians
were actually “Christ-ians” instead of “Self-ians” they would have more
in
common with Christ than just having a couple of elements in common
with Christ, just as dogs are not ducks simply
because they have a
couple of things in common like eyes, feet, and the same first letter
of their names!
Hell is real,
and Christ is the
ONLY one who can prevent you from spending an eternity in hell,
where
“the worm never dies”,
where “the fire is never quenched”,
where there
will be “the gnashing of teeth”,
and where “eternal torment” never
ends.
SELF can’t do a thing to keep you out of hell, only Christ can!