You know as we started to get a little deeper into the topic of tithing, I started to revisit my study on tithes and found some really interesting stuff that I think has really enhanced my understanding of scripture. So I’m really happy that this topic came up. I think I want to eventually write up a separate post to share what I found and what I think it’s implications are. I found it really stunning that understanding what tithes were all about confirms the notion of helping the needy and particularly a fulfillment of Christ’s Law to love one another. One of the things I read was that a good understanding of tithes helps one to understand the gospel a bit better, and I have found that to be true.

And you are right, I believe a study on tithing does confirm that God is “not” schizophrenic, and so since we are no longer held to the OT Law, we are no longer held to tithing, which was part of the OT Law.

To claim that tithing is a “principle” that we must follow as an instruction of righteousness can be applied to “all” the OT Laws, so really it is you who is cherry picking. Of all the OT Laws to follow, you cherry pick tithe as the one that we should continue to follow. If you do a study on tithes in the NT, you may find that tithes are commonly mentioned in a negative light regarding the practices of the pharisees such as in Luke 11:42:

“But woe unto you, Pharisees! for ye tithe mint and rue and all manner of herbs, and pass over judgment and the love of God: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.”

It appears in Luke that the Pharisees were cherry picking, too, when they regularly tithed, but left the rest of the law undone.

Might I suggested since you feel so bound to tithing that you revisit what tithes were in the OT and see what tithes were really all about, so that you can tithe the way the Bible stipulated tithes should be given. The Bible is pretty clear what tithes were, how they were given, to whom were they given, and why. You may find that giving a tenth of your income in money/currency is very different from what tithes were in the past. There’s really a lot of info on tithes, but for ease I thought I’d link to a video that I stumbled unto with a guy preaching about tithes. It’s about 33 minutes long. I found it quite enlightening, and wish I could find the part 2 of it. Here’s the link to part 1, though.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2981687085027375128

I also found this link interesting.

http://www.acts17-11.com/dialogs_tithe.html

While I’ve been a born again Christian longer than 19 years, I still don’t think it’s length of time that makes one a more mature Christian. I’m sure there may be many Christians out there who have been born again longer than I have but still may be babes in Christ and don’t understand grace and the Law of Christ. I think there are groups to the likes of Benny Hinn who cherry pick the importance of speaking in tongues and such. Which brings me to another thought. You mentioned blessing/s. Now again, I am very happy we discuss these things because now I am more encouraged to do a study on “blessing.” In particular I think that what we think of as blessings or what is “good” may not be what God thinks of as blessing. I’m thinking in the light of James 1:2:

“My brethren, count it all joy when ye fall into divers temptations”

Joy? I’m sure none of us strive to fall into temptations and thus don’t think of being tempted as “joy.” Anyway, I think a study on blessings and what it is and all would be very interesting. I mean I wonder if God is pleased and blesses those who tithe to people like Benny Hinn or all those other TV evangelists or even other false preachers? Are those people blessed? Or are we to be discerning as to how we handle the blessings God has given us? I.e. we should be discerning as to how to be good stewards and care where our donations go, not just give blindly as the Bible tells us not to give to the rich (I think this principle is in Proverbs somewhere, but I’m running out of time to search for the proper reference). Even non-Christians have blessings. Would be an interesting study.

Anyway, got things to do so better quit for now. Just for clarity, I am not saying not to donate money, in case that’s what scares you. It’s the legalism of tithing that I’m addressing and trying to focus on being under grace under Christ’s law.

John 13:34-35

A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.

35By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.

Have a great day,

Marla

It seems to me that the concern you have is that christians (or me?) understand the difference between a biblical tithe and NT free will offering. Lest you think I did not know the difference, I clearly do. We often give offerings to different causes, missionaries, etc. Whatever amount and whenever God lays it on our hearts. And sometimes, just because with no particular leading.

Where we disagree (apparently) is on the biblical principle of tithing. You say that it leaves christians as “babes in Christ” when a pastor teaches on the principle of tithing. I believe the exact opposite. It is the christian who can’t take the principal of the scripture, “All scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction and instruction in righteousness” and accurately apply it that remains the babe in Christ. The OT method of tithing is not doctrine to the NT christian. But it is the maturity of a christian that they see that the principle of tithing scripturally is most definately instruction in righteousness. You seem to me to have tossed that aside like a dirty rag. We are to view ALL scripture under the microscope of the verse above. Not all scripture is going to apply to us doctrinally (not even the NT). The book of James is written to the tribulation Jew. But that doesn’t mean there isn’t a whole lot of reproof, correction and instruction in righteousness in it for the christian today. So, in my mind, it is the christian who has not gotten down the principle of tithing scripturally that remains a babe in Christ with much to learn about God’s desire to teach us that HE provides all things and that in giving back to him via a tithe is not going to bankrupt us. He owns the cattle on a thousand hills. I have lived my life both ways (tithing/not tithing). I have seen God’s reproof and correction severely on my life when I chose not to follow the biblical principle of tithing. Not because someone pointed it out to me or taught me over the pulpit. But because I learned first hand from reading the scriptures and applying instruction in righteousness to my life from ALL of the scriptures.

If ALL scripture is not profitable for us, why read what doesn’t apply to us doctrinally? If you do read all of the scriptures, then you must have a reason for doing so. If it’s not to be instructed, taught, reproved, exhorted, or to obtain doctrine, then what is it? Cherry picking what one wants to believe or apply to their life because it doesn’t apply to the NT christian doctrinally is exactly how we get denominations today. Which, BTW, I do not believe are of God at all.

A simple example of this would be women’s dress. If we decide to cherry pick and use NT verses that state a woman ought to be modest, but then we don’t use the rest of the bible to see what God lays out as modest, then it leaves things pretty wide open for what they can wear because everyone will interpret modesty differently. If we start looking to OT scriptures for “instruction in righteousness” we find that God said the thigh was not to be uncovered. Well, we can deduct from that that mini skirts clearly are not biblical. Neither would shorty shorts be. I have not carried this out to the nth degree, but do you get my point? Yes, there is a difference between free will offerings and tithing. But to throw tithing out because it was an OT doctrine but not apply it as a NT instruction in righteousness is cherry picking in the worst way.

I presume the next thing you’re going to say is it’s not our righteousness that matters. Yes, you are right. But we are being instructed in the righteousness of Christ. It’s Christ righteousness that saves us and keeps us, but God calls us to become more like Christ daily as we walk with him. Christ was obedient to the Father. Tithing as an instruction in righteousness is simply teaching us to obey the Father in all things (as Christ did).

If one wanted to be technical regarding free will offerings vs. tithing (if one says they give free will offerings instead of tithe – vs. in addition to), it would be more bibilical to give greater then 10%. 10% was the minimum man was to give. To whom much is given much is required. I would say that in today’s world of tremendous wealth (compared to bible times) that people should be giving free will offerings of much greater then 10%). But I would venture to say few do. If one gives free will offerings greater then 10% of their income by the end of the year in addition to tithing, I would say they are at least more in line biblically then the one who doesn’t tithe but gives less then 10% in free will offerings. Personally, we keep them separate. And frequently, we do our free will offerings anonymously as God directs us.

Nothing about tithing takes away from God’s grace. It simply instructs in the way of righteousness. I do not believe God is schizophrenic and I do not believe we are both right. One of us is right and one of us is wrong. God will surely sort that out when we stand before the judgement seat. But after being saved 19yrs, I do believe it is immaturity that keeps one from obeying the principle that God lays out in the scriptures and I think it’s immaturity that prevents one from viewing all scripture under the light of, “is it doctrine, reproof, correction, or instruction in righteousness?”

patti

I read the stuff on Wiki about George Mueller, then realized that I had heard of him before from Brian. I didn’t remember his name, but I remember the story of him sitting with the orphans for a meal when they didn’t have any food, then after they said grace, they got a ring on the door with food! Ha ha! Yes, I definitely remember that story, but didn’t remember his name. And what a man he was!

I agree with you that we shouldn’t be arguing about petty things, but I think there are certain concepts in the Bible worth discussing. For me, it’s not a matter of “agreeing” or “disagreeing,” but trying to get at the heart of what the Bible is telling us. I do believe that the Bible has specific things to tell us, not just understand it however which way makes us feel good. Can we both be right on the issue of tithes when we seem to be contradicting each other? Either we are both wrong, or one of us is wrong, but I don’t think both of us are right. So I’m gonna to make a few more comments on tithes at the risk of belaboring the issue because I think Biblically it is important in regards to Christian maturity and to adhering to the Bible to distinguish the difference between tithes and free-will offering. It boils down to being under grace or under the law. Tithes were part of the OT law, and free-will offering is NT teaching under grace. Tithes and free-will offering are “not” synonymous so I think it “does” matter which term you use. Galatians 3 explains how under the law we were under a curse. Galatians 3:3 even addressed those believers who were “still” trying to follow the law even after they became believers,

“Are you so foolish? Having begun in the Spirit, are you now being made perfect by the flesh?”

People even way back in Paul’s day still felt the need to bind themselves to fleshly works (the law) even after they came under grace.

Certainly there are OT verses wherein they gave tithes because at that time they “were” under the law. Even in the NT tithes were given until Jesus’s death. I think it is irresponsible for any pastor who understands how we Christians are now under “grace” to teach their congregation to “tithe.” What it shows me is that he is too concerned about getting his paycheck to bother to “properly” explain to his congregation that what we give today is a free-will offering because we are “no longer under the OT law,” and thus no longer under a curse. He obviously isn’t concerned enough for the maturity of his congregation or has faith enough that his congregation will continue to “donate” if he clearly explains how giving is voluntary and that there is “no” designated percentage requirement. As such he keeps his congregation “babes” in Christ as they have little understanding of the full meaning of grace. The NT tells us to give according to our ability. That is, if you are blessed with much, then give much. If you have little, then it’s okay to give little. That means a person can give anything from 0% to 100% however they are moved to give. Course everyone will have something to give be it monetarily or physical/labor support. That is a “free-will” offering given from a “cheerful” giver. Not a tax, which essentially were what tithes were. I know there are many pastors who understand this, and I think George Muller understood this as I read on Wiki that Muller “refused” a salary for his preaching because he did not want people to feel obligated to give. He obviously understood that we are no longer under the law to tithe. YET, he received hundreds of thousands of dollars of which he spent building and supporting orphanages. Very honorable! And also exactly what the NT teaches we should do–visit orphans and widows in their time of distress.

I think the difference between tithes and free-will offering should be very clear to Christians. Tithes and free-will offering are not the same and the terms should not be used interchangeably because they mean different things (curse vs grace). I could use a lot of other Bible passages to explain and support that concept. As mature Christians we need to know how to understand scripture for what it means and not just take passages out of context so that we get disjointed messages. I sincerely believe this is an example of how many Christians remain babes in Christ when even such a simple concept is so broadly misunderstood and that many people don’t even care to bother about it. We try to teach new believers about free grace, then we turn around and teach them to follow the OT law and tithe. I think it’s a shame.

Okay, I think I’ve said my peace on tithes for now. Better work on din din.

Take care,

Marla

Ya know, I’m in church twice a week. Sometimes when my pastor preaches he’ll share a personal experience that expounds on the scripture he’s focusing on. Basically showing how God brought that scripture to pass in his ministry/life, etc. He’s also an ex-history teacher so he will frequently use history to prove out how God’s Word is always correct. But he has never done those things and by-passed teaching the meat that christians need. You’re absolutely correct that people have to get into the meat of the Word. And I would venture to say most people don’t know the difference between the different kingdoms of the bible (talk to any Jehovah’s Witness). That is the fault of the preacher for sure. It’s their job to teach the whole counsel of God. It’s also the fault of the christian for not studying their own bible. And there are good preachers and bad preachers. I’ve sat under both. The latter is no fun at all. We breathed a major sigh of relief when we moved here and God put us under a very Godly man who knows his bible and preaches the whole counsel of God with no fear of man. And there are people (like the church we got married in) that over the years have come to worship a man and not God. But they started out good. I think that happens more and more the longer a church is in existence and/or the larger it gets. That’s probably one reason we shy away from large churches. I think you see too much “man” worship in those churches. BUT, they’re not all that way and I won’t paint every preacher or church with that broad of a paintbrush.

We are absolutely all called to “give an answer to anyone that asketh of the hope that lieth within you.” Every christian is called to be a witness and be able to give the gospel message out. I was focusing on preachers specifically because it seemed that’s who we were talking about.

I was reading in Proverbs 3 today where it talked about giving of the firstfruits of all thine increase and the blessing that comes with giving the firstfruits. It’s been many years since I did this study but when I did a study on “firstfruits” it basically bore out that giving God 1/10 of all we make brings God’s blessing. Whether you call that a tithe or firstfruit, I don’t care. The bible calls it firstfruits. When Abraham gave it was a tithe. So I don’t have a problem with a church biblically calling it a tithe. If memory serves me correct (and I admit to not having a good memory!), there were 3 types of firstfruits. The first of the harvest, the first of anything one received and ?????? I can’t remember the third. I’d have to go digging to find that study so those two will have to suffice for now.

As I said earlier, we will have to agree to disagree on tithing (or firstfruits) or whatever you want to call it. In the end, God will sort it out for us when we see him. In my mind, it’s not a topic worth arguing about because neither of us is going to change the other’s position. We will only find bible to defend our own position.

I completely understand that it was the lying that got Aninias and Sappira in trouble. Not only were they lying, but they were also stealing from the apostles (God it you will). I believe it’s stealing from God not to give him what is his. And it’s lying as well because it’s like saying, “this doesn’t belong to you Lord.” When in reality, it does belong to God.

It is possible that some of what I know as Ruckman’s “newer” teachings (last 20yrs), he always believed. I got saved 18yrs ago next week so my view is limited to that. I know for sure that most of the people that like the work he’s done on the KJV have no clue what he has written on issues like abortion, aliens, etc. I think that’s sad that they haven’t looked into it more! AND, when we point it out to them they don’t care!!!! That’s the part that gets me. I had not heard any of that stuff until recently (last 10yrs) and assumed (apparently wrongly) that this was “new” stuff of his. The only stuff of his from years ago (pre-1990) I have looked at have been actual bible commentaries and not specific books he’s written. I think I have his commentary on Hebrews around here somewhere. His Hebrews commentary (1986) was “okay” but I felt like he missed half the book of Hebrews because he kept hammering the KJV. So in that sense, I think that commentary was completely ineffective for any new insight. What he did actually comment on in terms of the actual book of Hebrews is stuff that was biblical so didn’t set off any bells to me. Oh, and the KJV not being copyrighted is ONE thing is a long list of things that tend toward the KJV. It’s not THE reason I use the KJV.

Why is there this assumption that because people might believe the KJV is the Word of God in English that somehow we’re different from other christians? I don’t run around telling people that. If it comes up in conversation, fine. But generally it does not and I can fellowship with other believers around other subjects. So once again, I think Ruckman has done the cause of Christ a disservice as everyone gets lumped into the same category as him. What you are seeing of Gipp and the KJV is because that’s the information he chose to post because most of his life’s work has been in the study of where different bible translations came from. He’s a whole christian though and studies much more then just that. And I am not comfortable trying to defend either man because quite frankly, they are men. They are fallible and ultimately, what I learn from my bible from God directly trumps anything a man would teach. The fact that I think Gipp has some good info is no different then you thinking a particular author has good info.

I do think there are different “camps” and Ruckman and Gipp definately fall into a more fundamental militant christian camp. Seeing the christian life as a fight more then a walk. I tend to see it more as a walk then a fight. I don’t want to go fighting through life. I prefer to walk with Christ beside me guiding and teaching. I don’t see anything anti-biblical with either way. I think one camp appeals to a certain group of people and the other camp appeals to another group of people. One camp would say David had to “fight” through his life. The other would say he “walked” with God at times and not at others. Both camps will find a biblical reason for how they are.

Well, Gipp’s sarcasm does not offend me. I’m sure it does some people. To each his own. My husband didn’t do well under a church where a ball pean (sp?) hammer was used over the pulpit. Didn’t bother me a bit. But once my husband was under a more “meek” church he did well. AND, once he grew to a certain point, he was no longer offended by that ball pean hammer. So who knows? Perhaps it depends on where one is in their walk/growth that makes them like or dislike a certain type of preaching or style at different times in their lives. I also know men that are extremely meek and humble in their lives but can preach the skin right off a cat. Some using sarcasm and humor, some using history and humor, some using no personality at all (all using the bible). I don’t think one can make a case that they aren’t meek because of how they sound when they preach. Perhaps that is personal opinion?

Okay, I need to post on the health thread while I have the chance to. It’s monopoly night so everyone is busy but me (I hate monopoly!)!!

patti

Have a few moments to add to this conversation, so will see how far I get.

No I had not heard of George Muller, but I did a quick look-see of him on Wiki, and he looks like he was an interesting and compassionate man. I would like to look further into his life. Thanks for sharing info about him.

As far as using personal experience as one’s preaching material, I suppose that could be okay as in “everyone has a psalm, a revelation, etc.” I do think there is a place for that, and reminds me of our previous conversation on home churches vs institutionalized churches. I recall you mentioning that you didn’t like the home church you visited because they were all just shooting the breeze talking about whatever they wanted to talk about. Well, sharing your personal experience is like that, as far as I see. Like Mueller (as you described) and Gipp in the video I watched of his, Knowing the Will of God. So yes, there is a place for that, I will admit. Perhaps since you and Gipp seem to place so much emphasis on the KJV, I would have expected that you and Gipp would preach more out of it than you do.

While I do think it’s okay to use personal experiences, I think that many sermons don’t spend enough time expounding upon what’s inside the Bible. Thus once we are saved, we remain perpetual babes in Christ, never growing to maturity. We don’t get fed much meat. You may notice that’s my pet peeve. For instance, I think there are some very basic and not so basic information that most Christians are completely unaware of like the differences between heaven, the kingdom of heaven, entering the kingdom of heaven, inheriting the kingdom of heaven, seeing the kingdom of heaven, eternal life, etc. because people rarely talk about it, and most don’t even know to differentiate those. I think not knowing to differentiate those have lead to so many misunderstandings. I personally believe that the Bible was inspired by God, and the Bible is a way God used to tell us things that we would not otherwise know. Therefore, I think we should spend much more time trying to understand what was written, rather than spending too much time on personal experiences. Gosh, like I said, Gipp spent about 10 minutes quoting and referencing scripture and then about 1 1/2 hours on personal experience, of his method and conclusion, I didn’t even really agree with. I think that’s imbalanced. But like you said, that was only “one” of his sermons, so I won’t use that as the only guide by which he preaches. However, as I said, I don’t agree with some of his conclusions as he presented them.

As far as anyone being able to preach, yes, I do think any Christian can preach. I don’t think you need a degree or anything fancy. If you know what it means to be saved or what the Bible teaches to obtain eternal life, then as far as I know, you are qualified. No one knows every single thing about the Bible, so if knowing everything about the Bible is necessary, then no one is qualified to preach. I think a big problem with Christians today is that they have fallen into the trap of idolizing select men thinking that they somehow are more reverent or more worthy than the rest of us. This is evident with how we put them on pedestals and pulpits apart from the rest of believers. Remember “each one” has a psalm, a hymn, a revelation, etc. 1 Cor 14:26 As the person continues to search God out more, he will continue to grow in knowledge. But the very basic message that saves all is so very simple, the acceptance that believing in Christ gives us eternal life. Anyone can preach that. And then the more involved, more detailed study (to gain maturity) can come later. Anyone can go out in the street and preach. You don’t need a fancy building. One caution, tho, and this is for “anyone” who preaches whether they are a street preacher or a preacher of a fancy 10K congregation church, is that they remember that “if” they teach the wrong doctrine and lead people astray, then they will be judged for that. So regardless of your level of Biblical knowledge, at least make sure that whatever you are preaching is Biblical, no matter if it’s just a few passages or a whole series.

As far as tithes, again I don’t think many people really understand it. Basically it’s “tithes vs free-will offerings.” Tithes were like taxes given to the priestly class for their functions as intermediaries. Those tithes were typically goods for sacrifices and the physical consumption of the priests–i.e they actually ate some of the tithes. Those tithes were not designated for the poor. Today since we follow the NT we know that we are no longer bound by the OT laws, including tithes. The NT tells us that anyone bound under the OT law is under a curse. Gal 3:10-14. The NT instead encouraged giving and caring for the poor. This is what we know as a “free-will” offering, not a tithe. There is no mandated percentage and it’s given to the poor, not the priests. Regarding Ananias and Saphira, they were not giving a tithe. They were “claiming” to give “all,” not 10%. And the reason they were killed was not because they didn’t give all, but because they “lied” and tried to make it seem like they were giving all. I think this can be likened to what happened to Moses in the wilderness when Moses struck the rock and water poured out. God became angry with Moses for that because by striking the rock Moses gave the “appearance” that he was the source of the water, not God. The explanation for why God killed Moses was due to that incident. So with Ananias and Saphira, they were trying to make it look like they were giving all by claiming that they were giving it all, when in fact they weren’t. They were lying and deceiving. It wasn’t a matter of they wanted to hold back some money or how much they held back. It was the “appearance” that they were trying to give that I think angered God.

Okay, it’s about time for me to quit, but really quickly (again, heheh). I started watching Ruckman on YouTube regarding “Why I Believe the KVJ 1611 is the Word of God.” I guess I was trying to look up what his “early” teachings were and got caught up in this video. Still not finished watching it, but I will say that I think he’s promulgating a bunch of malarky. I’m amazed at how much stock he’s putting into the validity of the KVJ just because it has no copyright! Among other very subjective things like that! And just listening to his audience yelling and cheering sounds kinda cultish to me. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFx6B3Lwwoo&feature=PlayList&p=596B5467A2ECF3FC&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=3 Last night I also came across some info on Ruckman’s book “The Mark of the Beast,” which was published around 1969 and again around 1975. It appears he had some pretty strange ideas way back then, too, like racist stuff particularly against black people and I think he was into the alien and angels thing a lot longer than you know. Anyway there are now other manuscripts available online that essentially have no copyright, and we even have The New Testament in the Original Greek Byzantine Textform 2005, which also has no copyright. Does that make them special? LOL

Anyway, better get off and start my day. Cripes, so much more to comment on. I didn’t even get to reply on the toughness thing. . . Quickly, speaking the truth and being sarcastic are not synonymous. Gipp’s attitude is offensive, not any “truth” he’s trying to convey. My 15-year-old can understand that difference.

Okay, now I’m off, really. . .

Marla

Have you ever read anything by George Mueller? Today I finished a book about him and made an interesting observation. After 50+ years preaching and taking care of children, when he preached around the world he spent most of his messages on “personal experiences” of God answering his prayers. He used scripture, but by that point in his life he had seen God answer scripture to him personally so much that what he ended up “preaching” was much of his personal experiences. I view Gipp the same way. Just because he doesn’t spend an hour covering every scripture that you think he “should” have, I think the experience of the scriptures coming alive in his life is valuable and an encouragement to the believer. Just as I found George Mueller’s experiences an absolute encouragement to me today. I guess I don’t see how “much” scripture someone quotes as a judge of whether or not God has given them a message to preach to me. If what is being preached is being backed up by scripture and is showing scriptural principles coming alive, is that wrong? I’m not sure it is. And I don’t care if someone spends an hour only quoting scripture. Although, might I get the point they’re trying to make if they don’t preach somewhere in there too? Also, it’s one message. Of the 50 or so I’ve heard him preach, I’ve heard him cover the “how’s, why’s, etc.” enough to be satisfied that he is preaching biblically.

Holding a KJV in one’s hands and “preaching it” doesn’t mean everything about that person is right. No more then being in a car show room makes a car a good vehicle.

Ruckman on the other hand has said things contrary to scripture and therefore I do need to be suspect and careful. Actually, Ruckman’s position on divorce has changed to my understanding. Since I wasn’t saved back then, all I have is hearsay that he did not believe in divorce when he first started preaching (and his first wife). The other doctrines are ones that I believe he has developed over the years (alien abduction, angel worship, etc.). It’s those “additions” and the few changes that have made him very suspect to me.

John 1:1 says “the Word was God.” Which Word was God? If you go by what you’re saying, one has to accept that God has 200+ “Words” in the English language. I do not believe God is that schizophrenic. We know Christ was “the Word” and the “Word was God” (Father/Son). So which Word “was” God? Because the third Word it’s talking about is the written word of God. The “Word of God” you received, was Jesus Christ. You didn’t receive his bible word. You received his son, The Word. Big difference.

Acts 2:40-41, “And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation. (41) Then they that gadly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.”

The word being talked about here is what is being preached by Peter. It’s the place I could think of off the top of my head when you mentioned “you received the word.” It’s not talking specifically about the Word of God here. It’s talking about the words Peter preached.

So while you gladly received the Word as in Jesus Christ’s Words, it was not the “Word” as in the bible itself.

I gotta get kids off to bed but one more thing real quick. When I talk about Christians toughening up, I’m talking about their ability to receive hard preaching (not liking what is being said). When I think back to people like George Mueller, Billy Sunday, Sundar Singh, etc. those people preached hard. No one worried about offending people. Yes, we are to have a spirit of meekness, but I don’t think that preaching hard or with a rough edge means someone is not meek. My only point in stating needing tougher skin is not so much biblically based as it is an observation of comparison to 100yrs ago. People today wouldn’t be able to sit five minutes through an old time sermon and I think that’s a huge statement about our pride, lack of honesty with ourselves, and inability to take the truth head on. The truth hurts. I more often see people get mad or sad before I see them get saved. That doesn’t have anything to do with the meekness of the person presenting the word to them. That has to do with the realization of sin and need of salvation in their own lives. So this is more of an observation of times then a mandate from the bible I was trying to make.

I think I’ve come to the conclusion I’m much better discussing in “person” then via writing. It’s seems too easy to not be clear. Writing what I’m thinking is not my forte.

Okay – bedtime for the kids.

patti

p.s. before I forget – I have to recommend reading George Mueller’s biography. Excellent, excellent book and so encouraging when it comes to praying for every detail of our lives.

Ah, so the girls’ room is finished. Isn’t that a nice feeling? I love to look at newly finished projects no matter what they are, ha!

Okay, back to our discussion. I’m gonna try to address your responses, but try to do it briefly (if that’s at all possible) because I’m suspecting that what I’m trying to say is getting lost in a lot of words. Even when I use bible verses even quoting book, chapters, and verse to support my beliefs, you seem to just discount those verses for some odd reason. So let’s try this a different way.

First of all the reason why I commented on Gipp was because you recommended him and a couple of his books. Before I go out buying books by people especially evangelists, I like to know about them first. So I thought it responsible that I look him up. Frankly, I was not impressed by what I found, and I briefly explained to you why. I was NOT angry like you seemed to think I was. Very strange that you got that impression, but you did. Just because I disagree doesn’t mean that I’m angry. There are some preachers that I highly respect, so it’s not like I have anything against preachers per say., either.

Next point is I think you tend to go around in circles. For instance above when referring to Gipp and other preachers you wrote that just because a person disagreed with some things some pastors say doesn’t mean they should throw the baby out with the bath water. So what I’m getting from that is that sure there will be things in which we don’t agree with them, but you still think they are okay. I think that’s fine to a certain degree, too, however, then at the bottom of your post when referring to Ruckman you wrote,

“If Ruckman is wrong on one issue, how can we believe anything else he teaches? Like I said, he has lost his credibility.”

So what I see you saying here is if Ruckman is wrong on one point, then you can’t trust him, but if people like Gipp are wrong in one point that’s okay because we don’t all agree on everything. I found that very strange especially since you presented them on that “same” post. Now the reason I bring this up is because if you keep going in circular reasoning mode like that and changing the goal post, then these discussions won’t likely be productive. And we might do better to abandon them.

Next regarding prayer, you seemed to think that I do not value prayer. How did you get that? I never said not to pray, I was commenting how I thought Gipp’s message on “The Will of God,” was weak and hardly expounded upon biblical principals. For a man who snaps and pokes fun at anyone who doesn’t use the KJV, he doesn’t seem to use it much himself. That was my point. He spent an hour and a half talking about personal experience, not expounding upon what the Bible says is the will of God or even “how” and “what” prayer was used for in the Bible.

Now this brings me to another point pertaining to the KVJ and Ruckman. You wrote that Ruckman’s “old” teachings were right on and had he just stuck to those, then he would have done fine. I’m curious to know what his “old” teachings were? And which ones he departed from? Are you saying that he used to teach against divorce and against abortion, but now he changed and is for them? Did he switch his positions on salvation? What other doctrines has he abandoned? And further, since you listened to Ruckman on Youtube preaching “for” abortion, you may have noticed that he “still” held that the KVJ was the correct Bible version, and he was using the KVJ to support his stance on abortion.

Now I will share a personal experience. I personally do prefer the KJV. However, the church where I was first lead to Christ favored using The New American Standard Bible. That was the Bible I used when I first learned and believed that Jesus was the Messiah. When I believed (even while using the NAS), I received God’s word. So if other Bibles don’t have the word of God, then how did I receive the word of God using the NAS? I do agree that the KJV has the word of God, however consider what it says, John 1:1,

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God”

Notice that the “Word was God.” It doesn’t say that the word is the KJV. The KJV “does” contain the word of God, but that’s not the only way God comes to His people. Consider illiterate people. You mean to say that if they can’t read the KJV then they can’t receive the word of God? I don’t think you believe that, but the KJV only stance would logically lead to that conclusion.

Okay, this is getting long, so better stop here and resume later, but I did want to make one more comment. And that is regarding your assertion that Christians should get some “toughness.” Now I completely think this is speculation on your part and not supported by the Bible. Perhaps you can point me where the Bible supports that view, but from my understanding the Bible tells us different. Consider Ezekiel 36:26,

“A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.”

In Ezekiel God spoke of “taking away” a heart of stone and giving a heart of flesh. Consider Matthew 24:12,

“And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold.”

Matthew was writing that in the end times, people’s heart will grow cold. People will love “less.”

Consider Galatians 6:1 where Paul explains to admonish a man who has fault with meekness,

“Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted.”

How about 2 Timothy 2:25

“In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;”

There again we are told to have meekness.

There are many, many references in the Bible regarding love, gentleness, kindness, etc. The primary message to us is that of “love,” not developing a tough skin. I don’t think that is Biblical. I would definitely be interested in scriptural references to support your claim.

So much more to say, but I’ll stop there for now and find breakfast and start the day. Will try to continue more later.

Take care,

Marla

Okay – here’s my Word file. Please let it go through computer……

Whew. Finally a little chance to breathe. It’s very busy with school in full swing and also trying to prep the garden already. I’ll try to hit each of the points you made.

Yes, we are to speak the truth in love. I absolutely believe that. But I also believe that Christians today have lost some toughness. People should be able to handle a little sarcasm or whatever without getting their feelings hurt or being angry. God gave us all personalities and everyone person I know that has grown older has gotten a little more “rough” in their older age. Beyond that, I guess I think people need to toughen up a little. Also, learning to “eat the meat and spit out the bones” is extremely important as a Christian. The reason why is because there are going to be people/preachers that say some very good things pertaining to the bible but we might not agree with everything they believe. Should we throw the baby out with the bath water or eat the meat they do provide and spit out the bones? I prefer the latter. We had to do that for 12yrs in a church because it was the only church we could attend at the time.

Gipp is not an “organization.” He is his own man with is own ministry and puts up his own stuff (or has someone do it with his approval). I only say that so you know how he works. Gipp is a well-rounded preacher. What he has up on the web is there because he’s trying to teach people that there is a difference in the Word of God. If someone is reading a translation that has the word “blood” removed 72 times, what are they missing? Gipp’s calling is as a teaching evangelist. I’ve heard him preach on all subjects. If a pastor asks him to he will do his series on the KJV for that church on request. Our pastor did this years ago because he wanted his people to understand there is a difference in bible versions and be able to defend why they use what they do. I sat in church for 12yrs where no one knew why they used a KJV. As such, many people switched to other versions which brought confusion and division in the church. That confusion and division is what I believe Satan’s plan was for having all these others versions where so many important things are removed. But if the people had been taught they could have at least made educated choices and been able to defend their choices one way or the other.

I’ve heard all of the messages you reference in your post above and will have to respectfully disagree on some points. I’m not going to defend Gipp. The guy is a human, he’s a big boy and can defend himself. He has done some great stuff for teaching Christians. But I will respond to what you said you disagreed with. Gipp did not say we should only give God 30 days to answer our prayers. What I do remember him teaching is sometimes we wait for a long time for an answer from God. Like Gideon, putting a fleece before God is not unheard of. While some say that was done in unbelief, I think it could be said that Gideon wanted to clearly know God’s will. Asking God if he could respond within 30 days is not Gipp’s ONLY method of seeking God’s will. The best way I can explain this is with what my best friend and her husband just did. They have been praying for a very long time about which direction God wants them to go on an issue. They have waited but are clearly getting to a point that if they don’t make a move then they will lose the opportunity to do something. They have asked God to do 3 specific things if God wants them to move ahead. And they’ve asked God to do it in 30 days. That’s not putting God in a box. If God doesn’t do those things in that time period (like Gideon) then they aren’t going to make that move. They will stay right where they’re at trusting that that is what God wants. God is capable and able to do what they’ve asked in the time period they’ve provided if it’s what God wants. He’s God. Are they testing God? No. They asked God specific questions and are seeking specific answers. They have fasted and prayed and meditated on God’s Word (and continue to do so). I do not believe they are wrong for what they’ve asked anymore then I think Gipp is wrong for teaching that this is one method of knowing God’s will if you cannot clearly see the forest through the trees. Having heard Gipp preach many times I KNOW this is not the method he uses every time. There’s a time for every season and every purpose under heaven. There’s a time to use this method and a time not to. So I think you are taking what he is saying like he thinks this is the ONLY way to know God’s will. And none of it was anti-biblical as far as I’m concerned. If you don’t think he provided enough bible for it I think, “too bad.” I think he made the point he was trying to make. There are ways to know God’s will when we aren’t being clearly led.

I take issue with your statement, “if you must go preach, then go preach.” So, then just anyone should be going out to the mission field even if they aren’t called of God to do so? I have seen more disasters because men tried to start churches under their own power and desire to be a pastor rather then God’s calling. I am blown away by your statement “why make a big deal of asking God where you should go?” Please tell me you’re not serious?! When we moved we absolutely asked God where we should go. We asked God what church he wanted us to attend; we asked God what home we should buy. We don’t move in most matters in our home without God’s clear direction either from his Word from our direct reading or through the preaching of the Word that the Holy Spirit speaks to us. I’m thinking I must have misunderstood your statement? Men who do what they think “they” should do because the bible says it are working under their own power, not God’s. All men are called to share the gospel with others (we are all missionaries in that sense), but not all men are called to preach. God didn’t just any man coule be a prophet. He chose men. The same with judges, kings, etc. God chose those men. Why wouldn’t someone pray about what God’s will was for them in those instances?

Tithes – we will have to part ways on tithes because I disagree with you on their purpose for today. II Timothy 3:16 says, “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.” Every ounce of God’s Word has got to be viewed from this scripture. It’s either doctrine, reproof, instruction in righteousness or correction. I know why God gave the OT command to tithe and I understand its purpose. So doctrinally, does it apply to us today? No. But you completely look past Ananias and Sapphira. While the giving going on there was for the apostles to distribute as needed, how is that different then a tithe today? Churches take these funds and distribute them to missionaries, pastors and families in need. Spiritually, tithing is an instruction in righteousness. I believe from scripture both old and New Testament that God clearly finds it unacceptable for his people not to tithe. I’ve seen in my own life (before marriage) both the blessing and curse of not doing so and I’ve seen in our business God’s blessing for doing so. So on this one we will have to agree to disagree. If God owns the cattle on a thousand hills and lets us have some of it, giving 10% back to him is not biblical? And quite frankly, He’s owns it all. So really, he’s letting us keep 90% of what’s His. The biblical principal even back to Abraham is man gave God 1/10 of ALL that he had. I think that principal clearly still applies today. Spiritually, tithing is instruction in righteousness and I believe a strong bible principal. God doesn’t lay out every little thing in the bible, but he clearly lays out biblical principles so man knows what to do in every situation based on the Word of God. He left no guessing to be done. Tithing is still a biblical principal.

“Imagine all the people who could be saved if our pastors today did as Ezra did and prepared their hearts, do what’s right, and prayed to God. “
Yeahhhhhh. Rom. 10:14 “How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher?” Yes, it is God that draws people to him, but look at Romans 10:14. Are you completely dismissing the job that God gives preachers to do? I have seen more preachers whose hearts have not been right with God and as a result the people who are lost that listen to them go away either mad, or confused or disillusioned with God. Yes, God draws all men unto himself but he also uses preachers to do that. Peter preached, Paul preached, Timothy preached. Were they any different then what Gipp is saying? No. While these men were preaching to the church, they also preached to the lost. God still draws men to himself when they’re saved. God draws me closer in at various different times. Sometimes through reading the bible sometimes through the expounding of the bible in the preaching. If men go to preach unprepared and doing what’s wrong, how are they going to be effective? If God didn’t want to use preachers to put the Word out to draw men to him you’d think he would have found another way then to use Paul, Peter, Timothy and for that matter, Christ to do it. So I think you are way off base here. What do you think the likelihood that he was preaching this message to a pastor’s conference is?

Based on what you said, what comes across is someone who is so totally against churches and pastors that when anyone says something that could be remotely true, you get mad. That may not be the impression you wanted to put across, but that’s what is.

What you posted from his book, “The Answer Book” is one sentence of his answer to this question. I just looked in my book and there are 2 ½ pages of this explanation. No justice can be done to that in one sentence. He clearly explains what he means by this. Suffice it to say I would recommend you read the whole book before you throw away your KJV.

I think in some ways you misunderstand people who are KJV’rs. The only reason I believe it is the Word of God for an English speaking people is because if you look at all of the new versions (of which I have only ten), and compare them verse by verse, and see what has been taken out of them you’d have to ask yourself why God would do that. He wouldn’t. But Satan would if it keeps people from ultimately getting saved. And yes, God does use for good what Satan meant for evil. But how many more would have come to Christ if God’s Word had not been fiddled with? When one looks at the history of the KJV, how it was written, by whom it was written and how God orchestrated all of it, it’s pretty tough to not see God’s hand clearly in it. Why would I not want to use a book that is the closest translation to what God made originally and doesn’t demean or take out things that God himself said are important (the trinity, the blood, etc)?

Gipp’s point is to teach people what they have so they will love it, read it, and most of all share it. You cannot defend what you don’t know or understand. Another excellent book is An Understandable History of the Bible.

Gipp is not a Ruckmanite. He went to Ruckman’s school 30+ years ago. If you went to Harvard back in the days when it was actually a biblical school would you want me to associate you with the school it is today? I think that’s painting with a broad brush. Gipp completely and totally disagrees with Ruckman on marriage, aliens (oh my!), abortion, etc. They are on different planets with way too much stuff. I do not like Ruckman in so many ways. I think he has done more to damage the cause of Christ this past 15yrs then anything. And it’s sad. Because in the beginning, he was doctrinally strong and right on many issues. I think his own sin (3 marriages – or is it 4?) has clouded any effectiveness he could have had in these later years. I also think there are too many other good preachers out there (Gipp isn’t the only one) that can preach and teach effectively that there is no reason for anyone to go to Ruckman for anything. If Ruckman is wrong on one issue, how can we believe anything else he teaches? Like I said, he has lost his credibility. I don’t worship at his feet (oh, there are some who do!). But I also didn’t toss out his really old stuff because it was back before he got married and divorced so many times and seems to be doctrinally sound. Would I send my kid to bible college there? NO WAY. Not on God’s earth!

I shared that video with Ron. We had never heard Ruckman say that about abortion. It freaked both of us out. Ron disputed it with 3 bible verses right off the bat. I did talk to someone who had heard that and they also agreed with us. BUT, then we shared it with someone who does go to a “Ruckman” type church (the pastors went to PBI) and he said while he disagreed with it he still liked Ruckman. THAT, made us sick. Because to me, that is worshipping at the feet of a man, not God or God’s Word. I think that’s where some of us KJV’rs get lumped with others who don’t care about his sin, or alien stance, etc. Thanks for posting that video. We’ve been trying to tell these people for a while that where they are going is not a good place anymore but they wouldn’t hear of it. Now we know why.

Better jet. We’ll see if any of this made sense.

Not to worry, I know how life takes time!

I bet your girls’ room must look very cute! I’m sure they’re really going to enjoy that!

Take care!

Marla

I have not forgotten this post! I’ve been buried in painting the girl’s room this past week and just finished tonight. It came out beautiful! Three lavendar walls and one pink wall. Very girly. I will need to type my post in Word first and then get it to here. I’ll try to get to it tomorrow maybe after church.

Chat later!

patti