Love Christian Fellowship 

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!

Witness of the Stars

"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!

How to Enjoy the Bible

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.

Heaven or Hell?

It's up to YOU!

This is a good place to start -
http://wayofthemaster.com/


The "Gay Agenda"


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.

These public employees were KNOWINGLY exposed to public redicule, sexual intimidation, embarassment, and sexual harassment including -
sexual gestures,
exposure of genitals,
blowing kisses,
grabbing of the crotch,
rubbing of nipples,
tongue gestures,
and men hugging and kissing one another passionately – many wearing make-up and dressed like women


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.

Origin:
1605–15; < LL monogamia < Gk monogamía. See mono-, -gamy

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.

(http://www.mombu.com/politics/politics/t-dutch-study-exposes-infidelity-among-homosexual-partners-2680851.html)

Some things to consider -

·  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!


http://www.catholicleague.org/images/upload/image_200709270442.jpg
http://www.catholicleague.org/images/upload/image_200709275428.jpg



Normal? No.
Alternative lifestyle? No.

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!


Download free booklet "The Bible, The Church, and Homosexuality" (free)
Download phamplet on health statistics regarding homosexuality (free)
Download free info on The Negative Health Effects of Homosexuality (free)


* 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







Click for Anchorage, Alaska Forecast



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:—

  1. By Alternation.
  2. 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?



Article on tithing.
Another article on tithing.
And... another article on tithing.
Another article on tithing (a bit longer)
Another article on tithing (historical)
An article on tithing as a rebuttal to Paul de Jong's tithe teaching.
An article on tithing as a tradition rather than truth.
And another one.
Are you starting to get the picture?
And, finally, my favorite article on tithing.


Amen, Franz Sigel Shroy

What's Wrong With the Gospel?

A.W. Tozer

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). See Repentance

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?
 

Premature Death

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.) See Repentance

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 Tithing 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.

 

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


http://www.inplainsite.org/html/Index.html
Tithing Today:
God's Plan or Designs of Man?

© 2001 Tyler S. Ramey

Please pay careful attention to footnotes. Important comments are contained in them.

Also See Should The Church Teach Tithing

  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. didactic passages. 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 curse for 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 not required 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:

Tyler S. Ramey
Email:
rameyts@kalama.com
Phone: (360) 577-7156

************************

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.

27
This 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.






                







Heaven or Hell?


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 -



http://www.wayofthemaster.com/



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!
 





http://www.wayofthemaster.com/



If you are a new Christian and are trying to figure out what you should be doing...
click here



Amen, Franz Sigel Shroy



More great places to start a study of your own!
Warning!
The following web sites may cause you to think!

http://bereans.wordpress.com/

http://www.inplainsite.org/






Pastor Sigel Shroy

Sue Shroy

Are Christmas and Easter Christian Holidays?
Christmas




Click here for  hundreds of
Updated Frequently!






Hollywood and God




 Click here to see The History of the Bible





Read some news you might not see otherwise.

There's a lot of resources here,
take your time, open your mind, open your heart
and let it sink in!

Interested in Biblical Typology?
Click here for my latest research regarding Biblical Typology.
(Get a cup of coffee, take your shoes off, and get comfortable... it's a bit long!)
(some of the graphics are not uploaded yet so be patient)