Demanding the Tithe

You are confused. It is not name it claim it.
The principle is in the Bible.
"He that sows sparingly shall reap sparingly."

Of course our attitude toward giving has something to do with it. There is no denying it. But as you just said based on how the Lord prospered us. is proportionate giving.

You just admitted he did.

Again, "based on how the Lord hath prospered us. What do you think that phrase means?

You are not giving if you are "giving" no percent. Your statement does not make sense. You are not praying if you are "no-praying."

Thus cheerfully and purposefully decide in your heart what portion (on a regular basis) you will give.

 

"Thus cheerfully and purposefully decide in your heart what portion (on a regular basis) you will give"
Exactly! That is what I have been saying. That means no mention of the tithe to gage the giving against. We give in proportion to our heart not the tithe. To teach that the church is to do their giving by the tithe or use the tithe as a starting point or example of how to give is sin and legalism. I am glad we agree. Praise God
! :thumbs:

 

We don't. It has nothing to do with legalism. In that you fail. If you believe that those who believe in tithing believe it is a part of their salvation you have laid a false accusation and slandered many. That is what legalism is. I have defined it for you. I have given you references. Don't redefine legalism. It is what it is.

 

DHK I simply refuse to be bullied by you. I do not accept your definition as the only one. There is more to legalism then just trying to get saved by works.
To teach that the tithe is for today or that it is to be used to gage ones giving its legalism and sin whether you like it or not. A believer can live their Christian life under legalism and never experience the freedom of grace yet they are saved because of grace through faith.
The tithe has no place of being mentioned when it comes to a believers giving practice. it is not an example. It is law.
I am praying for you. God bless.

 

You don't get it do you?
Whether I believe in the tithe or not is irrelevant.
Many of the posters on this board do, and accusing them of being legalists is the same as accusing them of believing in a works-based salvation. That is what a legalist is. You cannot change the definition to fit your own philosophy. That is what we call neo-orthodoxy. The cults use it. Do you have any good reason to change the meaning of legalism? Please explain.

 

I am praying for you. God bless.

 

Move on to the next church.

 

What is your prayer based on, that they do not agree with you? What makes your opinion the Biblical standard? By the way, I believe that giving is between the Lord and the member, and not others, but there is nothing wrong with those who believe in the OT standard. The comment "I am praying for you" is an obvious inability to discuss an issue in a logical and civil manner.

 

from dictionary.reference.com:

le·gal·ism   [lee-guh-liz-uhm]
noun
1.
strict adherence, or the principle of strict adherence, to law or prescription, especially to the letter rather than the spirit.
2.
Theology .
a.
the doctrine that salvation is gained through good works.
b.
the judging of conduct in terms of adherence to precise laws.
3.
( initial capital letter ) (in Chinese philosophy) the principles and practices of a school of political theorists advocating strict legal control over all activities, a system of rewards and punishments uniform for all classes, and an absolute monarchy.
Origin:

 

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/church

Only one of these definitions is right according to the Word of God.
According to the Word of God, there is only one definition of Legalism. You can find it in Acts 15.

 

Since the Scriptures do not have the term legalism we are left to deduce the teaching from Scripture.

Sure, there is a form of legalism that pertains to justification, but the whole of legalism can be summed up as any teaching that determines one's approval from God based on rules that are either not found in Scripture or are clearly no longer in effect.


Let me ask you, if the above is not a definition of legalism, does it describe any other term? Is there some form of check against doctrine that can say one is merely justified by grace but still has to observe stringent, Pharisaical rules to maintain a fellowship with God and not face His wrath on earth? It seems to me that many pastors focus on the "works-salvation" facet of legalism only so they can scream and shout draconian rules for "sanctification."

 

And that teaching is given in Acts 15 and expounded on further in the Book of Galatians. The Judaizers were followers or adherents of the Law, hence the term legalists or legalism. They believed it was required for salvation. They followed Paul wherever he went. Paul spends the entire book of Galatians dealing with this subject.

Legalism amounts to a works based salvation as is shown so clearly in Acts 15.

And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved. (Acts 15:1)
--The requirement for salvation, according to these Judaizers (legalists) was circumcision and keeping the law. Unless you adhered to these two things you could not be saved. This is what the Jerusalem Council was about--legalism.

The issue that you are speaking of is holiness (or sanctification) not legalism. It is worldliness vs. holiness. Many pastors have those "draconian rules" as you see them, because they are worldly and they believe their standards of conduct are more Godly or will keep a person more Godly.

Remember that all Baptist churches are independent and autonomous. That is one of the Baptist distinctives. That is what makes us different. Thus when you join a church you ought to know what you are getting into before you join. If you do, you have no right to judge another church's standards. They are independent from yours. Some churches don't believe in musical instruments (like the COC). Does that mean they are legalistic? No, it means they have come to that conclusion through a study of Scripture. And their conclusion is different than yours.

Another Baptist distinctive that we have is soul liberty. Every church has the FREEDOM to believe what they think is right, and not to be judged or persecuted by anyone else. As someone gave the example, if the pastor (and church) decided that all male members ought to wear blue shirts is it wrong; is it legalism? No, it is not wrong and it is not legalism. It is their right to make the decisions they want to make. The decision is neither Biblical or unbiblical. It is outside of the Bible. Many businesses and schools have uniforms. This is really a needless tangent, but it is just to illustrate a point.

Every church is autonomous and can decide on what standards they want for their own church. That is not legalism. Most of the time it has to do with holiness vs. worldliness. If you don't like the standards of the church then don't go there. It is as simple as that. But don't condemn it either. They have their rights.

 

You are correct legalism is not limited to the plan of salvation. Legalism is also trying to please God other then what he has called for. Thus a person can be saved and live a legalistic life.

 

One cannot force a modern English definition or concept into a book (the Bible) written over 2,000 years ago in a non-English language.

 

There are 12 pages, so I must confess I may have missed this. . .but has anyone discussed that the tithe was around before the law was given?

We talk about Hebrews 11 being the list of those that were justified by faith even before receiving the law; and those very same people obviously practiced the tithe, not out of a sense of obligation, but out of a grateful heart.

Should we not work out for ourselves whether to tithe or not, and have a good, scripturally-based reason for why we choose to tithe or not? And if so, who are we then to condemn another brother or sister for tithing or not? (see Romans 14)

Unless you actually want to make tithing or not a salvational issue. . .which I'm not seeing, but would caution all to keep in consideration. . . .

 

It was dealt with, early on actually. The tithe always deals with non monetary items.

 

There is no tithe for the church. The tithe was law, we are grace. The Lord stated how he wanted the church to give and it is not based on the tithe. The tithe is a legalistic practice and the Lord wants a heart practice without pressure of any kind.

 

This is your opinion. It is certainly not legalistic. And you haven't backed it up with Scripture. Thus it remains an opinion. There are many with clear-cut Scripturally backed beliefs that tithing is for this day and age. It is not your place to tell them what God wants. If you want to do that then quote: "Thus saith the Lord..." Otherwise your opinion is not what God wants, for it is simply opinion.

 

Were Cain and Abel following the law?

 

I am not sure of how your reference is applicable to the op but there was no law for them to follow.