Marlakins

Marla's adventure from Aplastic Anemia and beyond

24 Comments »

1. patti said,

   March 11, 2009 at 4:08 pm

   Marla,

   You weren’t raised Catholic??? Are your parents Catholic? The Pillipinos I know are all Catholic (except for one guy who just got saved!). I guess I thought *most* were at least raised Catholic. Having been a catholic for many years the idols they have actually give me the creeps now that I’m saved.

   patti

2. Administrator said,

   March 11, 2009 at 6:58 pm

   Hi Patti:

   Yes, sort of. My mom was raised Methodist and my dad was raised Catholic. But both of them were not very religious, per say (as many people who go to churches today aren’t, heheh). They basically did the “motions,” but obviously they weren’t very serious about their religion as they got married to a person outside of their professed religions. Anyway, when us kiddies came along, they brought us up going to the Catholic church and even attending regular Sunday School Catechism (yes, sang the songs, played in the plays, did confession, etc.). But we never really got into it, just went through the motions. I’d say never really got into it because I never truly understood it. And I’ve “never” contemplated becoming a nun or anything like that. I know more about Catholicism now after becoming a born-again Christian than I knew back then.

   Now having said that, the level of idols and all that religious articles that I grew up with is nowhere near the level I’ve seen there in the Philippines and possibly in places like Mexico. I’ve never been to Spain, but I’ve been to Italy, but even there I guess our tours didn’t take us to places that had so many idols. I mean I don’t think I’ve ever seen a religious “parade” here in the U.S where they have carts with idols on them. It appears fairly common in the Philippines, and not only that, but various areas/districts have their own “patron saints.” I don’t know of any place here that has it’s own patron saint. Many houses have idols inside with candles and sampaguitas (flower leis) draped over them. And others have little shrines, too. I guess there are also many non-religious people there, but there is evidence that there are some very Catholic ones, there (according to wiki about 90% profess to be Christians of one sort or another, but mostly Catholic). Keep in mind that there were friars in the Philippines already in the 1500s trying to christianize the Filipinos, so they’ve had much longer time to gather their “saints” than here in the U.S., I guess. Hmm, that reminds me that along the Camino Real here in California they do have the missions, which tend to have some remnants of all that, too, but not as much as what I saw in the Philippines. Oh, and also there are Muslims there, too. Islam was in the Philippines before Catholicism got there. As a matter of fact, you know how planes have GPS installed for each passenger on international flights? Well, Philippine Airlines had included with their GPS one page that showed at any given time which direction Mecca was during flight.

   But yeah, those idols do give me the hibbee jibbees, especially at the thought that some people actually believe there is more to them than ceramic or stone.

   I do have Catholic relatives, and my parents currently go to a Catholic gathering. I don’t think they go to church regularly, but they are part of a group called Couples for Christ. I do believe they are a Catholic group. When I was really sick with AA, several of my Catholic relatives sent those prayer cards to me that they get from their church. I think they even paid to have me put on their prayer list or something like that. Other relatives of mine aren’t so religious, but if asked, they would likely say they were Catholic.

   Whew, did that kinda explain it?

   Take care,

   Marla

3. patti said,

   March 11, 2009 at 8:59 pm

   It’s interesting learning about people’s backgrounds. After my real dad died in 1982 (I was 11) I became catholic (had been methodist prior to that). I was WAY into it. Wanted to be a nun, did the whole bead thing daily, etc. Went to a catholic high school. As I look back at what I learned it almost makes me cry for those people. I guess because I know how “sincere” I was too. The one thing that led me to Christ was I always asked, “why is it I have to go to a priest for forgiveness instead of straight to God?” That one question God used to lead me to the right answers.

   My son, since not long after he got saved (like a week, maybe) has said God has called him to preach to catholic countries. Up to now he has focused mainly on Italy but he’s open to where God sends him. I definately think catholics in other countries are far more “sincere” then what we have here in the US. Not sure why. Maybe because the religion has been there longer then here? Anyway, I find it interesting, but heartbreaking at the same time. KWIM?

   patti

4. Administrator said,

   March 12, 2009 at 10:04 am

   Hi Patti:

   Yeah, actually, I do think many people of all kinds of different religions are sincere, “as far as they know.” Sure some are just going with the flow, and others not so sincere at all, but I do think that there are other non-Christian religions wherein the person truly “thinks” it is the right way to go. I mean take a look at some of those radical Muslims who are willing to die for their beliefs. There are people who go into seclusion for long periods of time trying to meditate and find the right way. So I “think” it may be more than just sincerity that brings one close to God, but also the “search.” Yes, sincerity is very important, but I think there’s a little more to it. The Bible tells us to search things out. Draw near to God, and He will draw near to you.

   Some of my Catholic relatives, I do think are sincere with their beliefs. But I don’t think they examine it well and search out God. For instance people often times pray for what they want, but do not consider what God wants. You know how they have saints to pray for for all sorts of things like healing, riches, happiness, etc. They believe in their “religion” but I don’t think they really search out for God.

   That’s very sweet of Luke to want to preach to people in Catholic countries. But I’m curious, wouldn’t that kinda contradict your belief in the KJV only idea? I mean those people in other countries likely speak a different language as their first language–i.e. Italians speak Italian, Mexicans speak Spanish, and so they would not be using the KJV according to what I think you told me before that other nationalities would have their own Bible translation? And the reason why you don’t like to study the Greek version because you don’t speak Greek? How does that work?

   As far as other countries being more sincere than people in the U.S. I think you may be right. My first thought to that is perhaps involved with wealth. You know how the Bible talks about how difficult it is for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God? I think the idea is, a rich man generally doesn’t feel he needs God much since he’s so comfortable with his life already. Wealthy people tend to think that they are masters and control things. And so less likely to rely on God.

   Marla

5. patti said,

   March 12, 2009 at 10:15 pm

   How would Luke’s preaching in another language contradict our belief on which version of the bible we use? We believe firmly that God provided the King James Bible for English speaking people. That belief would not apply to those that speak other languages. I do believe that where those other languages take their translations from is important, but I do not believe NOT using a KJV in say, Italy, would be wrong. I would imagine he’d use a bible in Italian if he’s preaching to those people. I know that even with the spanish bible there are several versions and some are taken from the texus (sp?) receptus and others from the transcripts from Alexandria. I would look at that in determining which bible to use in the Spanish language or any other language.

   I have friends in Mongolia that use their KJV because there is no Mongolian bible they can use. They preach in Mongolian and are working on a translation for them currently. I think it’s very important for missionaries to speak, work amongst and live the way the people they are witnessing to do. I know lots of missionaries work through translators but I think that’s wrong. If God calls you to preach to a people you better be willing to learn that language and become of part of their community or you’re going to lose credibility with the people.

   I think Greek can be instructive if one is looking for specific words, etc. But when people tell me I have to go back to the Greek to *REALLY* know what God says that’s where I draw my line. God gave me a bible in my language and it defines itself quite well. I have very few situations where I need the Greek word to define something for me. Cross referencing and studying God’s Word will almost always yield what I need in a study. I think that people that constantly say “we have to go back to the originals” just simply don’t want to take God at God’s Word. We have a translation. Jeremiah is a translation. Remember how many times his transcripts got burned? The original is gone. So my beef is more with “scholars” that seem to think the Greek is some how “better” then what I have in my hand in my own language (or maybe better said, “the originals”). When one studies how God preserved and protected the KJV down through the centuries I think it’s pretty easy to see that I don’t need the Greek to tell me what God’s Word says in English. I rarely use the Greek for definitions. I use my Strongs when I’m doing word studies and I use my Websters 1828 if I’m not sure what a word means in my KJV. If there’s more then one meaning and I’m unable to discern it then I might look it up in the greek. Very basic. For reference, I have enjoyed reading Sam Gipp’s book An Understandable History of the Bible and The Answer Book. Both have very good information on the translating of the KJV, greek, etc.

   I think you may be spot on with the wealth thing and salvation. Perhaps as our country has gotten wealthier people have continued to turn their back on God (or searching for God) because they don’t “need” Him. Which makes one wonder, if there’s another depression ala 1930’s will we see some sort of revival? I’m doubtful, but one never knows.

   But I do feel like we are seeing a lot of bible prophecy being played out with all that’s going on in the middle east, Israel, etc. I’m ready for the Lord to come any time He wants to!

   patti

6. Administrator said,

   March 13, 2009 at 12:47 am

   Hi Patti:

   Thanks for your explanation, but honestly, I think that if you can learn another language to preach the gospel, then you should also be able to learn Bible Greek especially since the original is in Greek, NOT the KJV. Might I be so bold to say that refusing to acknowledge that the original Greek Bible IS GOD’s word IS refusing to take God’s word as it was originally given to us. There is nothing in the Bible that indicates that we are unable to learn the original Greek or forbidden to do so.

   Brian and the boys have been studying Bible Greek. It’s not impossible to do. Why should only the “scholars” be able to study the original Greek? That’s just like the Catholics preaching the Bible in Latin where the congregation can’t see the original works. That’s what other protestants were against. From my understanding, Greek is the oldest continuously used language in the world, used from ancient to modern times. Therefore, there is much information where the Greek language can be studied from Helenistic Greek to modern Greek. To learn the language is the help understand the culture. I would hate to discourage anyone from trying to learn the original Greek Bible.

   I can respect the view if a person were to say that the KVJ is good for you, but the Greek is better, BUT it’s a lot of work to learn Bible Greek. So they stick to the English versions. That is understandable. But to dance around the “original” Greek and say that it’s not a good version just doesn’t make sense. And I honestly do find that appalling. Anybody in any part of the world can study Greek, just like you can study Italian, Spanish, German, English, etc. To “refuse” to learn the original language and just use the English version is like using a translator.

   My bottom line is that sure, the KJV is a good English version, but if a person wanted to really dig deep into the “original” then they should make the effort to study the original, which is in Greek. You might want to consider that the official religion during King James’ time was the Anglican Church. If you recall the history of the Anglican church it was originally formed by King Henry VIII because he wanted an annulment from his wife, but the Pope would not allow it. So Henry VIII broke away from the Catholic church and formed his own church, the Anglican church. Why would the Anglican Church, which was formed primarily because the king wanted a divorce that was not being condoned by the Pope, be so special that they are the “only” ones who can make a good Bible translation? Makes no sense.

   But yes, I do agree with you that we are likely seeing a lot of Bible prophecy coming to pass. I pray that our conduct will be pleasing to God, and that we remain faithful.

   Take care,

   Marla

   P.S.  I thought there are Bibles in Mongolian?  Just a quick Google showed that even Amazon sells some.

7. patti said,

   March 14, 2009 at 6:12 pm

   Marla,

   I think that you and I have run into very different people in our lives. I have no issue with people studying Greek because they want to learn the language. If it enhances they’re study of the bible, then fine. The issue I have is there are SO many people who refuse to believe the English bible because they’ll say it’s not the “original” texts. OR, that unless we can give them the greek meaning of every word they won’t believe what an English bible says. Running into people like that aggravates me because they also know nothing of translating or translations that are available and where they came from. They use the whole Greek thing as a reason not to get saved. Here we run into people like that all the time. I want to scream, “you’ve got an English bible in front of you that you can read right now and get the answer, learn the greek later!” It’s can be frustrating to deal with people like that. Perhaps you guys don’t run into much of that there.

   My son, if the Lord tarries, will have to study Greek in bible school. It’s frequently necessary and encouraged in terms of studying bible translation and how each of the versions came about. I don’t have issue with people doing that. I am personally fine with using my English bible and my concordance as needed for study. It allows me to look up the greek words if need be, but I am not so bound to the greek that I put away the bible God provided for me in my own language. Sorry if you think that’s appalling.

   The bibles in Mongolian (according to our missionary friend there) are the equivalent of the Living Bible and others like it in the states. They are looking to do a translation that is biblically accurate. I do not consider the “living bible” a bible at all. It’s a paraphrase. Translation is just one of the works they are doing there (they’ve had added help from the states for it).

   Gotta jet.

   patti

8. Administrator said,

   March 15, 2009 at 10:22 am

   Hi Patti:

   Oh, okay, yes, were apparently were coming from two different stand points. I was thinking we were talking Christian to Christian, not non-believer to Christian. But even so, I do think that they make a good point, and should be properly addressed. After all, if I felt that the Bible was unreliable and full of errors, then I too would not want to bother with it. Consider how Jesus responded to Thomas when after Jesus was resurrected and Thomas didn’t believe it was really Jesus. Remember Thomas said that,

   John 20:25

   “Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe.”

   How did Jesus reply? Did Jesus get angry and rebuke him and say “just believe?” No he didn’t. This is what Jesus did. . .

   John 20:27-28

   “27Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing.

   “28And Thomas answered and said unto him, My LORD and my God.”

   Jesus gave Thomas a “reason” to believe. He didn’t just say take my word for it. And this is JESUS Thomas was talking to, not just some chum trying to evangelize to him.

   So if a person were to suggest that no one has the right Bible or translation or what not, I might point out the fact that all the Bibles basically have the same message. Sure they are not all exactly alike in every word, but the basic stories are all the same–i.e. Jesus came, preached among the people, healed the sick, raise the dead, performed miracles, fed the multitudes, was crucified and raise from the dead, etc. All the Bibles have that basic “same message.” It’s not like there’s all these different stories out there.

   I would also acknowledge to that person questioning the translations that sure, there are different versions, and even paraphrases of different versions because there are lots of people who have made the effort to translate it. But because of the nature of languages and the abilities of the translators, of course there will be differences. NO language can be translated word for word and convey the EXACT same meaning in EVERYTHING as the original language because every language has some words and concepts that have “no” exact counterparts and even different grammatical rules to other languages. Especially with how long the Bible is and how complicated some of the ideas and customs and stories are. BUT there is the ability to at least convey the general idea quite well, that God came down and died for our sins, and all the Bibles do that as I mentioned above. Some better than others.

   I would also go on to explain that If one wanted to get the “fine details,” then sure they would then have to parse out which Bible is the closest translation to the originals. And then even then, because of the nature of languages particularly the English language, the same sentences can be understood in different ways, and thus it becomes extremely helpful to go back to the original Greek (in the case of the New Testament), to understand the grammar structure (not only a definition of a single word). An example of this is the ongoing debate with the Calvinists vs Armenianism with verses like John 6:37-44 regarding predestination. They both use that verse to support their “opposing” positions from the “same” translations, BUT they are both understanding the “same” words differently. In this case going to the original Greek helps to clear up the “intent” of the passage. Here’s an example YouTube video on a debate between White and Hunt on this passage. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q2IBvETGVD0 When one sees how packed with information the Bible is, then it starts to become clear why so much study is needed to understand it fully. There are so many questions, and the Bible has so many answers.

   I might also explain how Bible translations are taken from a compilation of manuscripts. Each time a translation is made, they go back to the original manuscripts, not from each successive translations where errors continually pile up as some people erroneously think and claim. Course that gets a bit more complicated, too, but then if the person really is genuinely interested in “accuracy,” then this might help alleviate some of their doubts. If they aren’t really interested, then at least they can’t complain that no one has the truth, etc. Because you can explain about the different manuscripts and how manuscripts are preserved and cross referenced against each other, etc.

   Take care,

   Marla

   P.S. I don’t think using the English for your Bible study is appalling. I think that’s perfectly fine. What I thought was appalling was the idea that the Greek Bible is “inferior” to the English translations, particularly the KJV. I have read that Peter Ruckman believed/s that the KJV is superior to the Greek Bible and that the KJV “corrects” all the errors in the Greek! (what a loon!), and I have read that Sam Gipp was one of Ruckman’s students. So I thought you also believed that and that’s where I thought you were coming from.

9. patti said,

   March 15, 2009 at 10:49 pm

   Sam Gipp is his own man. He went to Ruckman’s school 30+ years ago. Ruckman is NOT the same man he was 30+ years ago. As he has gotten older his doctrine has gotten very screwy and he is not a reliable source of information. I have found his stuff from many many years ago to be doctrinally correct. And yep, he goes too far with the KJV. Gipp has studied the issue out on his own (he’s written many books on his studies) and focuses strictly on manuscripts, Greek, inspiration, etc. Two very different people. I still hear Gipp preach once in awhile and he’s still right on doctrinally. He has not gone over the edge like Ruckman. On top of that, Ruckman loses all credibility (with the exception of his inner circle of churches) because he’s been married three times (of course, divorce has become somewhat acceptable in those churches). The last time I heard Ruckman preach he preached on UFO’s. :-\ Our pastor stood up and shook his head and didn’t have him in again for a VERY long time. Although, why he allowed him to come back at all is beyond me. There’s a reason we don’t go to that church anymore (we were married there).

   patti

   patti

10. Administrator said,

    March 17, 2009 at 6:58 pm

    Hi Patti:

    Interesting about Ruckman. I’ve been able to read a little about Gipp including watching a few of his videos on YouTube. I’m glad to see that he clearly professes Jesus as the Messiah, but I was curious as to his standpoint on salvation. That is, what does he teach regarding salvation? Does he believe that a saved person can lose his salvation say if he fell away and became a serial killer or something?, or if he is once saved then even if he falls away from the faith and even loses faith, does he remain saved? Of the limited videos on YouTube, I didn’t see or hear any where Gipp addressed that.

    Thanks,

    Marla

11. patti said,

    March 17, 2009 at 10:47 pm

    Gipp believes in the eternal security of the believer. Nothing added, nothing taken away. Pretty much everyone I know would say if someone went off and became an axe murderer they’d (meaning people around the person) probably wonder if the guy was ever really saved to begin with. But if some truly got saved and fell into sin are they still saved? He’d say yes unequivocably (sp). In my mind, only God knows the answer to that person’s salvation. We can use bible standards (fruits) for judging a person’s salvation only to a certain extent. Certainly, ye shall know them by their fruits. But I do know people who got saved out of the catholic church that never left the church out of fear of their family. Maybe they have as they’ve gotten older, but at least for a few years they didn’t. Are they still saved? Absolutely. And I believe many profess to be saved that aren’t (My SIL in being one of those). Proably all sitting in a bunch of baptist churches today! ha! Seriously though, while I think we need to judge a righteous judgement in terms of who we fellowship with, etc. in the end, it’s going to be God opening the book of life, not me. We still try to witness to people and make sure they have a clear testimony of salvation if they have any testimony at all, but beyond that, we’re all only human.

    Don’t know if any of that made sense. But hey, it’s late.

    ‘night!

    p.s. I’ll have to look up the Gipp you-tube stuff later. I’ve never seen him on there. He has an EXCELLENT series on the KJV that is really worth listening to. He preached it years ago at the church we went to. It was that week that the Lord really convicted me about my bible. Although I only used a KJV because it’s what I had, the Lord convicted me regarding it being the bible he has blessed for English speaking people at that time.

12. Administrator said,

    March 18, 2009 at 5:43 pm

    Hi Patti:

    Thanks for your answer, and I’m glad Gipp believes that. We do, too, and as a matter of fact it has been a topic of discussion here with our boys, so I do like to listen to various discussions on it so that I can hear other opinions on it. Mostly, I like to hear or read their “reasons” for why they believe that. Preferably citing Bible scripture to back them up, not just they “think” it makes sense. I have heard the ongoing debate about it between the Calvinists and the Armenians, and then more recently I watched a video where Zane Hodges discussed it. Very interesting, and definitely food for thought.

    I will say that we tend to lean with John 5:13 that says,

    “These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.”

    In particular it says “that ye may KNOW that ye have eternal life.” This is not to say we know if “others” have really believed and therefore eternal life, but it’s for our own selves to know we have assurance once we have believed. Since we don’t know what we will do in the future, i.e. will we ever fall away from the faith, or what, it makes more sense that a person can lose his faith and fall away, but still retain eternal life. Otherwise you NEVER had eternal life, if you can lose it.

    So I feel it’s important to make sure my boys understand this and know where they stand on it. In the same vein, Hodges brought up a very interesting viewpoint at the end of one of his videos. This recently opened discussion with our boys. In Hodge’s video they opened up the forum for questions after Hodges spoke, and someone asked, “If a person believes that they can lose their salvation, are they really saved?” Hodges replied that he didn’t think so BECAUSE that person isn’t really believing then that belief in Jesus will result in eternal life just as Jesus said it would. So what does this say of the Armenian standpoint! Oh my! I discussed this with Brian and he questions the validity of Hodge’s view on that because he wonders “how much belief” or “what quality of belief” is required of us? I think that’s a good point, but Brian does agree that Hodges has a strong argument. Maybe not foolproof, but pretty strong. And I agree.

    BTW, the videos I watched of Gipp’s are “Knowing the Will of God,” “The Greek Game,” started on “America the Best Nation” but it was a bit late so had to quit. I have since found that he has a lot more videos so I tried to find the series on the KJV that you mentioned, if there’s one on there. What I found was one on Bible Translations, part of it includes “Where are the Originals.” I haven’t finished watching that one, yet.

    Since I do believe that Gipp is a Christian, and thus my brother in Christ, I don’t want to bad-mouth him or anything, but I will say that I respectfully disagree with some of the stuff I’ve seen him talk about thus far. I could discuss it with you, if you like OR not, if you aren’t interested. But there are quite a few. . . Aaron, my youngest son, watched some of his stuff with me, and one of the first comments he told me was the he didn’t like Gipp’s attitude. Now true that this has nothing to do with the “message” Gipp was speaking on, but I have to agree with Aaron, that attitude is important, and Gipp needs to work on his. I guess he’s trying to be funny, and for those on “his team” so to speak he’s nice enough, but he tends to be sarcastic and disrespectful to others who prefer to use other Bibles. Actually downright demeaning. I’m sure there are plenty of believers who don’t use the KJV, and as our brothers and sisters in Christ, we should be more respectful. Cripes, we should just be more respectful to people anyway. So that is distracting. But I do plan to continue to watch the rest of Gipp’s series on Bible Translations. If you find the one that you think is better of his to watch instead, let me know, and I’ll watch that one, too.

    Take care!

    Marla

13. patti said,

    March 22, 2009 at 7:42 pm

    Hi Marla,

    Sorry it’s been so long since I’ve been back here. I wanted to take a few minutes and view a few of the you-tubes of Gipp that are out and just life got busy.

    Not much to say regarding eternal life except to completely agree with you. It’s not eternal if we can lose it. I think the reference to the verse you quoted is actually First John 5:13. Not to be picky – just accurate.

    I cannot back this up with scripture so I guess you’d call it a personal opinion. We know a family closely in OR that believes you can lose your salvation. Do I believe they’re saved? I’d like to – but I think not. If you can lose your salvation then how can one place their fully trust in Christ’s atoning work on the cross? It’s almost like not trusting that what Christ did is enough. “IT IS FINISHED,” Christ said. If it’s not finished, then one must believe in some sort of works required to keep it which goes against Eph. 2:8-9. This particular family focuses strongly on character. They have great character and “appear” to be very Godly. But if they walk around “working” then they are not “trusting.” So I would also have to wonder if people like that are saved. I guess some day we’ll find out.

    The series you saw of Gipp on translations looks like it is 3 out of 8 in the series he did. I think they’re all good. As far as Gipp’s attitude, I think one needs to be careful judging what you don’t know. I’ve known Gipp (obviously not personally) for 18yrs. Heard him preach in person more times then I can count on two hands. He has not always been as “hard” as he appears to be now. I would say he was more “diplomatic.” His humor has always been somewhat “irreverant” but I found it funny enough. He uses it to make his point. A friend of mine said about a year or so ago that as Gipp has aged he has become more “crotchety” for lack of a better word. I believe part of this is because he is watching the country he loves (he is fiercely patriotic) and both christians and unsaved not doing what God wants them to do. It saddens him and he feels a need to preach harder and stronger as the return of Christ draws nearer. I do believe that people either like him or hate him and there isn’t many in between. I personally like him. Doctrinally (keeping in mind I’m “assuming” his doctrine hasn’t changed in the 10years since I last heard him in person – had tapes but not in person), I believe he is right on. However, he is a product of Ruckman and I don’t know if he still follows what Ruckman believes. Ruckman is screwed up now so if he does believe what Ruckman does then I would have to disagree. BUT, going off of what I do know of him, he has always been right on biblically.

    I think that KJV’ers in general tend to be strongly opinionated and I think this turns people off. Many in that crowd believe just put the truth out no matter how it comes out (with a sledge hammer or a wooden spoon) and let people deal with their own emotions. For some fragile christians this turns them away. For stronger ones it tends to be the meat they desire to be fed by. I would say there are people in this world that need both. God knew that my husband would not do well sitting in a church being hit with a sledge hammer so he sent us to another state where a wooden spoon was used. The Lord now has us under something in between that seems more balanced then either of those. And I believe balance is more what the Lord would want. But are either of those other ways necessarily wrong? I don’t think so. I think it’s a difference in administration (Corinth.).

    Oh, as far as disrespectful to those who use other bibles – I would say I’m probably not disrespectful to those people face to face, but I will hit them with the bible issue if it becomes clear that we aren’t even able to hold a spiritual conversation because of the version differences. And honestly (between you, me and my husband), I do believe others versions are perversions of God’s Word and are not God’s Word at all. Does God use them for men to get saved? I believe he does. But I believe that Joseph’s life showed that what the devil means for evil God can use for good. I can give testimony after testimony of that principal in my own life. I do not believe God said he would preserve his word forever and then have 200 different “Words” out there. That is not consistent with God’s character.

    Okay – gotta jet. So much going on health wise and haven’t been able to update. Hopefully soon.

    patti

14. Administrator said,

    March 24, 2009 at 11:07 am

    Hi Patti:

    Ah, yes, thanks for catching that and pointing out the proper scripture reference. You are right that I meant 1 John 5:13. Accuracy is important!

    Personally, I don’t think there is anything wrong with having strong opinions. We have them here in this house, too! There’s nothing wrong with confronting people with the truth, but how it’s done does matter. For us what those opinions are and how they are presented do matter because the Bible does tell us in Gal 5:22-23 that the fruit of the spirit is

    “love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, 23Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.”

    Those are the attributes we are supposed to exhibit as Christians, not sarcasm, belittling, arrogance, etc.

    As far as being careful not to judge what I/we don’t know, well, I was only judging what I saw, not what I didn’t see. Those videos I watched of Gipp were put out by his organization as far as I could tell. They chose them and must have felt them “fit” to show to the world both to believers and non-believers alike. I made no judgments on his personal life or anything else that I did not see. It is my responsibility to discern who I and my children should associate with or follow or not. I do find it a problem that he and those who support him think it’s just fine to belittle fellow Christians. It is not kind or gentle or any of those desirable attributes. It causes divisions and for those outside of the faith, it makes it particularly confusing.

    Regarding whether people either love Gipp or hate him, personally, I don’t know him at all to either love or hate him. I can only tell from what I have watched from him that I disagree with quite a bit of what he has taught. From what I’ve seen of him thus far it appears that he devotes much more time and effort protecting the KJV rather than delving into what is “inside” the Bible. I can give you examples.

    In Gipp’s video “Knowing the Will of God,” he speaks for about an hour and 40 minutes. Of that hour and 40 minutes he quotes about “3″ Bible passages, which takes only a few moments with very little elaboration on those passages. Then he goes on the majority of his message (which was probably an hour and 30 minutes) using “personal” experiences and personal opinions. His conclusion? That when we pray, we should give God 30 days to answer our prayers. Uh, where does the Bible support that? He quoted one passage where Daniel’s prayer was answered in 3 weeks. Eh, so does that mean that God never takes “longer” than 30 days to answer prayer? And the example Gipp gives on “how” to pray is that he tells God, “Now look, God, I’m gonna give you 30 days to answer me. . . ” That is paraphrasing, but very much the essence of how Gipp was preaching. Doesn’t the Bible tell us not to test the Lord your God? Deut 6:16, “Ye shall not tempt the LORD your God, as ye tempted him in Massah” What is Gipp teaching people here?

    Now the title of his message was “Knowing the Will of God.” Might I suggest that the message focus then on what does the Bible say is the will of God? Not once do I recall Gipp ever quoting any passages regarding what God’s will is of us. How about referencing Micah 6:8, “He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the LORD require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?” That would be more of an example of God’s will rather than whether I should go to Morocco to evangelize or Mexico. If you must go and preach, then go and preach, why make the big deal of asking God where you should go? Just do “good” wherever you go. Following the things God tells us to do in the Bible no matter where we are is doing the will of God. Rather than delving into the Bible for what it says God wants of us, Gipp’s message was a self-help type of message on how “he” prays to God to ask for what God might have him do. Whether it is right or not is all speculation on his part, not Biblical. He could have even gone into several examples of how others in the Bible prayed to God and “what” they prayed for, but no he didn’t go into that.

    I’m not sure if it was in that same video where Gipp goes into tithes. As far as I see, it shows how little Gipp seems to understand about tithes. Tithes in the Old Testament were given to the Levites, the priestly class (the priesthood of Aaron) because they were interceding for Israel to God. The Levites did animal sacrifices, and the Israelites supplied them with the sacrifices and another things because the Levites had no land. When Jesus came and died for us, there was no longer need for a priestly class because Jesus has taken their place and it is only Jesus who intercedes for us to God. So who do we pay tithes to now? There is no Levites to pay to, no priestly class to intercede for us. We pray directly to God. Pastors and priests today are placing themselves in a priestly class that God no longer recognizes. When Jesus died, the veil of the temple was torn in two (Matt 27:51). At that moment we no longer needed the priests. Even the Levites are no longer doing animal sacrifices. Consider what God did to those who tried to make themselves priests whom God did not choose. The rebellion of Korah is an example. In Numbers 16 Korah and his followers challenged Moses saying that they wanted to do some of the priestly functions, and what did God do to them? God wiped them out.

    So it’s not tithes we should be paying today to churches. The Bible does say to give freely to the needy (not necessarily a church) and it does not specify a percentage. But that is not a tithe. I do think this is an important distinction because there are things that are acceptable to God, and things that are “not” acceptable to God. Consider Cain and Able. God accepted Able’s sacrifice, but not Cain’s. Why? Because God wanted an “animal” sacrifice, not a vegetable sacrifice. Gipp said that he thought that you should give tithes to your church and more than 10%. I don’t believe that’s Biblical.

    How about the error of Balaam in Numbers 22-24? Balaam offered his priestly services for money. I think it is right to support our brothers and sisters, but I very much question the validity of pastors making a business out of preaching which should be free. Therefore, I don’t believe pastors should be asking for money for their services to preach.

    I also watched Gipp’s message on Ezra. Here again, I think his conclusion is amiss. Gipp explains that because Ezra’s name was used for the title of the book that he was more important than the building of the temple. He explains how Ezra 1) prepared his heart, 2) did what was right in the sight of God, and 3) prayed to God. The result according to Gipp was that Israel turned and came back to God. Gipp’s closing message? Now this is going to be a paraphrase, but the message that I understood from him was this,

    “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. Many people would come to know God.”

    I suppose that might sound okay to some people, but I find that conclusion problematic because it is only God who draws people to Him, not any pastor or priest no matter how prepared his heart is or how much he prays or how obedient he is to God. Jesus was perfect. Jesus prepared His heart. Jesus obeyed God. Yet, the Jews turned away from Him. Consider Jonah. Jonah tried to run away from God. Jonah disobeyed God and was “forced” to go preach to the people of Ninevah to repent. And what happened, Nivevah repented, and Jonah was even annoyed at that. How about Josiah King of Judah? He was said to be more faithful to God than King David. Did Israel turn and come back to God? Not during Josiah’s reign, that I know of. Bottom line? It’s not the heart or the works or the prayers of any priest, pastor, or whoever that will make the people turn to God as Gipp seemed to say the book of Ezra was implying. It is God and God alone who draws people’s hearts to Him. John 6:44, “No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.”

    There is quite a bit more that I heard and read that I do not agree with Gipp. To write it all here would just be too long, parts having to do with doctrine and then parts having to do with Bible translations. So much to say about that one, too! I could write more in another post. I did find this link http://www.chick.com/reading/books/158/158_07.asp which has a part of Gipp’s reply in his Answer Book regarding the Bible in different languages. Apparently, this is Q&A #7. Let me know if this is “not” what you have in your book.

    “QUESTION: If there is a perfect Bible in English, doesn’t there also have to be a perfect Bible in French, and German, and Japanese, etc?

    “ANSWER: No. God has always given His word to one people in one language to do one job; convert the world. The supposition that there must be a perfect translation in every language is erroneous and inconsistent with God’s proven practice.”

    The reply goes on, which I think is primarily speculation when it comes to why the KJV is the select version, not Biblical instruction. But from the answer Gipp gives above, it sure sounds like he’s Ruckman’s disciple.

    Oh, and BTW, I stumbled across a YouTube video where Ruckman openly supports abortion. His explanation is that the baby is not alive until it takes in it’s first breath of air! Imagine that! The baby is not human until it takes in it’s first breath of air! You can hear it here. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xH9PBLdjKA

    Take care,

    Marla

15. patti said,

    March 28, 2009 at 9:22 pm

    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

16. Administrator said,

    March 31, 2009 at 12:29 am

    Hi Patti:

    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

17. patti said,

    April 1, 2009 at 8:43 pm

    The girl’s room is adorable! They are so happy in it and I love going in there and seeing all the color. They had plain flat white walls before. Yuck.

    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.

18. Administrator said,

    April 2, 2009 at 9:37 am

    Hi Patti:

    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

19. patti said,

    April 2, 2009 at 7:54 pm

    Nope, you’re right. I did not intend to give the impression it was okay to take “some” of what Gipp says as okay but none of Ruckman. At this point, I have never heard Gipp say anything contrary to scripture therefore I think I can trust his preaching. I think more what I was trying to say is that if I disagree with something a preacher says (ie. their personal opinion) then I will eat the meat they provide and spit out what I would consider the bones (those things that are personal opinion that I might disagree with). If I think they’ve read wrongly into a scripture then I am likely to study it out for myself and see. But in the end, I will not and do not take a man’s word for what God’s Word says. It is my responsibility to make sure I know God’s Word and seek his face. I still believe the preaching of God’s Word is very important (I Corin. 1:12). But not to replace personal bible study. I did not intend to cause confusion in that.

    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.

20. Administrator said,

    April 3, 2009 at 9:51 am

    Hi 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

21. patti said,

    April 3, 2009 at 8:02 pm

    The difference between Gipp (or any preacher for that matter) and the home church was that he (Gipp) actually had a point he was making. In the home church people were all talking about different subjects with no continuity or point being made about specific scriptures. There is a difference.

    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

22. Administrator said,

    April 6, 2009 at 5:53 pm

    Hi 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

23. patti said,

    April 24, 2009 at 10:17 pm

    One of the up sides to being very busy is I do get time to really think about what is going back and forth here. When I am quick to respond off the cuff I frequently either miss the point, or am scattered enough that too many subjects get brought up (so much to think about!). So while I’m really late getting back to this post, it did give me some time to better put my thoughts together in responding.

    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

24. Administrator said,

    April 25, 2009 at 9:46 am

    Hi Patti:

    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

Leave a Comment

• Pages

  • About
  • Andrea’s Natural Anti-bug Treatment for Dogs
  • Marlene’s Natural Deoderant Suggestion
  • Onion Puree Soup Recipe
  • Packing Herbs
  • The Beginning of Steele’s Chronicle

• Recent Posts

  • 03/11/2010: Sweet 16
  • 03/08/2010: The Floating Market and an Elephant Ride
  • 03/05/2010: More on Centenarians
  • 03/03/2010: A Couple Buddhist Temples in Bangkok
  • 03/01/2010: A Slow Death: 83 Days of Radiation Sickness
  • 02/28/2010: And Now for Thailand
  • 02/26/2010: Working on My Yarn Stash
  • 02/22/2010: A Short Trek to Marikina
  • 02/21/2010: Growing Power
  • 02/18/2010: Hidden Valley Part 3

• Recently Commented

  • My Comments on Noli Me Tangere
    03/12/2010 02:53 am
    3 Comments
  • Spin Off from Steele’s Chronicle
    03/11/2010 11:10 pm
    472 Comments
  • Working on My Yarn Stash
    02/28/2010 08:22 pm
    2 Comments
  • Hidden Valley Part 2
    02/28/2010 08:19 pm
    3 Comments
  • Back In Los Angeles
    02/27/2010 09:22 pm
    12 Comments
  • Hidden Valley Part 3
    02/19/2010 08:16 pm
    1 Comment
  • Happy Chinese New Year! Or is it Happy President’s Day?
    02/17/2010 12:56 pm
    2 Comments
  • Hidden Valley
    02/11/2010 02:41 am
    3 Comments
  • Palawan Ho! Part 4
    02/08/2010 06:45 pm
    8 Comments
  • Palawan Ho! Part 3
    02/08/2010 06:35 pm
    6 Comments

• Archives

  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007
  • July 2007
  • June 2007
  • May 2007
  • April 2007
  • March 2007
  • February 2007
  • January 2007
  • December 2006
  • November 2006
  • October 2006
  • September 2006
  • August 2006
  • July 2006
  • June 2006

• Categories

  • Anything goes
  • Book Reviews
  • Church Issues and Bible Interpretations
  • cooking
  • felt projects
  • food and restaurants
  • gardening
  • God
  • Health-related–Natural Alternative Treatments
  • Historical Trivia
  • History
  • Hmmm Moments
  • hobbies
  • humor
  • knitting and crocheting
  • Movie commentary
  • museums
  • Playing the Tourist
  • quilting
  • Spin Off from Steele's Chronicle
  • Steele's MDS Herb Chronicle
  • Treatment Decisions
  • Uncategorized

• Search

• Meta

  • Register
  • Log in
  • Entries RSS
  • Comments RSS
  • Wordpress
  • 
  • 
  • options

Design by Beccary · Sponsored by Weblogs.us · XHTML · CSS