Prestor John
Well-Known Member
All offerings, including tithes, are to be considered sacrifices given with a cheerful heart.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Baptism as a public declaration and "spirit of Jezebel"
- Thread starter e.r.m.
- Start date
e.r.m.
Church of Christ
That is true, and sure we give offerings, but who gives tithes these days, from a Biblical perspective? I don't know if Jews do, so they may. We can't say tithes are what we want them to mean, tithes are what the Old Testament says they are.
Last edited:
Prestor John
Well-Known Member
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints gives tithes today.
e.r.m.
Church of Christ
Do they have geneologically confirmed Levites in their organization and literally give a tenth of their crops (not currency) to these Levites?
Prestor John
Well-Known Member
I have an interesting answer to this question, but first I need to ask why you consider these factors important considering that the Law of Tithing was practiced before the Law of Moses and also after the Resurrection of Christ?
Muffled
Jesus in me
So if you are "saved" as the verse says by confessing Jesus as Lord does not that make Him Savior?
Doesn't Matthew say his name will be Jesus because He will save His people?
I believe smuggle is a false view. The verse attains to it even though it is not directly stated. Any attempt to detach it appears to be a smuggling out to me.
I believe that is a non-sequitur. Confessing is not baptism but it is why one gets baptized, otherwise one is just getting wet. If you preface your baptism with a belief that Jesus was a good man you would like to follow then the baptism is meaningless.
e.r.m.
Church of Christ
I believe my original reasoning was that people use the passage in Malachi to transfer the practice of Old Testament tithing to Sunday offering. Those are apples and oranges.
I hope that answers your question, so you can also answer.
Last edited:
e.r.m.
Church of Christ
The idea is that it is not our place to accomodate a verse into one's belief system. You're saying one can make a logical deduction and say this verse can mean accepting Him as Lord AND savior, in order to be saved. Instead of trying to fit a passage into one's pre-existing belief system, we ought to be seeking the original intent of said passage.
And again, when Saul confessed the Lord Jesus with his mouth Acts 22:8, 10, he did not confess Jesus as his savior, nor was he saved at that moment as he was still in need to have his sins washed away three days later Acts 22:16. Why would he prescribe something for other people in Romans 10 that did not happen with himself?
Last edited:
Muffled
Jesus in me
I believe when Saul asked: "what shall I do Lord" that He confessed Jesus as Lord. I also believe that Jesus by saying what He should do acknowledged Saul as repentant. The water doesn't wash away sins. And it didn't save him. What the baptism did do was to testify that his sins were forgiven and that he was saved.
e.r.m.
Church of Christ
I agree.
Then why weren't his sins washed away by this point Acts 22:16? Why was he prescribed baptism calling on Jesus's name expressly to have his sins washed away?
To who? Ananias. Ananias was the one who conveyed this instruction, he didn't need that testimony. Others first learned of his conversion through spending time with disciples and his preaching, not his baptism Acts 9:19-21. Oh yes, and there's that pesky problem that being baptized to testify that one's sins were forgiven and that one is saved, is never once written in the Bible. In no possible way therefore, can that be the Biblical purpose for baptism in Jesus name. That's just a made-up false teaching. Come on now, Muffled!
Last edited:
e.r.m.
Church of Christ
That's part of it. You know that the confession in and of itself is not enough Matthew 7:21
And it makes him savior after confessing him as Lord, you don't confess him "as" Savior first, in order to make him savior. That's not even part of the discussion.
Yes, and that what Jesus has done. But before Jesus was born the angel didn't go into a lot of detail.
It is smuggling "in". The evangelical teaching is not confessing Jesus as Lord toward being saved, but confessing him as Lord and confessing him as Savior toward being saved, as if confessing him as Savior is a precursor and component to getting saved, not just an outcome of confessing him as Lord. And again, Saul DID NOT confess Jesus as Savior, but only as Lord, and he spoke of it as such Romans 10:9-10. If Saul confessed Jesus as his savior in order to be saved, then he wouldn't still be in his sins three days later. It's just evangelicalism "straining" to make certain passages fit into its theology. The passages don't fit certain parts of evangelical theology for a reason.
The "why" is stated in Acts 22:16 and Romans 6:4-7. As in Acts 22:16 confession and baptism work together.
Of course.
Last edited:
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
Great, so what does 'confess him as Lord' mean?
e.r.m.
Church of Christ
Surrendering verbally, as well as inwardly, to Jesus being one's master henceforth, unto salvation.
Also in
Colossians 2:6 Therefore as you have received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in Him,
Here Paul doesn't make reference to this being involved in getting saved, he just quickly refers to them having receivied Jesus as Lord. Receiving Jesus as Savior was never part of their vocabulary.
Last edited:
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
Isn't that semantics? If the baptism is in Jesus's name, there doesn't seem to be much difference in meaning.
e.r.m.
Church of Christ
If I understand you correctly, and if not let me know, If we compare similar wording back then to the catchphrases today, people can and have tried to make a case that their belief system existed back then. One example is
John 1:12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name,
Sounds very similar to receive him as savior
The difference is the mindset. Different words mean different beliefs. Being that receiving Jesus as a direct means of being saved started with John Calvin, then the absence of such talk in Biblical times means a different belief system. According to what's "written" in the Bible, the first century Christians believed broadly that believing in Jesus and surrendering to Him as one's Lord ultimately led to being saved. When one got down to the details, it also involved repentance & being baptized in His name Acts 2:38, 3:19, 22:16. That's all that the "written" scripture actually supports. The written scripture, Romans 10:9-10 in particular, doesn't support or mention "confessing Him as Savior", nor the resulting getting saved method known as "accepting Jesus as one's personal savior", sinner's prayer, altar call, placing one's hand on the tv screen, etc., because the textual foundation was never laid down. Filling in perceived gaps in the "written" text here and there like
Romans 10:9 that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord and as savior and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved;
John 1:12 But as many as received Him as savior, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name,
to make a bridge to one's belief system is insidiously deceptive.
Leave the scripture alone, and try to find out what "they" meant with what they wrote.
Last edited:
e.r.m.
Church of Christ
That's an assumption. What you stated is a possibility, not absolute and immovable. If this parable was also to teach that a faithful son, even a prodigal repentant son, receives all of God's powers, authority, and their own planet to preside over, (and not just God's forgiveness and generosity) then it would be confirmed somewhere in scripture. Scripture never goes that far.
Muffled
Jesus in me
I believe since sins are not washed away as Peter said then it is a derived concept just as baptism as a testimony is a derived concept. The only thing that can wash away sin is the blood of Jesus.
I believe that is true and Paul didn't need to be baptized however believers were commanded by Jesus to do it anyway.
I was saved a long time before I was baptized and perhaps longer before my sins were washed away. I was in repentance long before I was saved. My baptism was a testimony to the church that I was saved. Cleansing from sin came through the movie The Exorcist which caused me to realize guilt and a demon took advantage of that to cause me trouble but my cleansing came by the Holy Spirit in the form of a song: "What can wash away my sin, nothing but the blood of Jesus."
I believe your problem is that you just don't understand how this all works.
Muffled
Jesus in me
I believe I Cor. 12 tells us that God gives what He wishes to give to those He wishes to give it.
e.r.m.
Church of Christ
Ok.
e.r.m.
Church of Christ
Thank you for replying. Do you mean Ananias? At least it's a derived concept by someone in the Bible, whereas baptism as a testimony is not a Biblical derived concept.
How so? He already confessed the Lord Jesus and believed in him by this point Acts 22:8,10, yet he still needed his sins washed away. How did he not need to get baptized, if Ananias prescribed baptism calling on Jesus name to do just that? Did he not need his sins washed away? And did Jesus just command it without a reason, did he say "Just do it" ? One difference between the belief system you ascribe to and the scriptures is that the scriptures don't just say it's commanded, they say why it's commanded Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38-39, Acts 22:16, Romans 6:4-7, Galatians 3:26-27, etc. There's never a testimony reason for getting baptized mentioned in any of the scriptures. At least having sins washed away is mentioned.
With all due respect, this isn't evidence. This is just expressing your belief of what happened.
You stated your belief that you were saved before your sins are washed believe you were saved before your sins were washed away. do you believe a person to save them before their sins are washed away?
Is there an operation at work aside from what's written in scripture? Can you explain how this all works through scripture? From what I'm seeing Acts 22:8-16 throws a serious monkey wrench into "just" believe and confess which Romans 10 doesn't say.
What am I not understanding?
Last edited: