a phone call
Had an abusive phone call today.
An Hillsongs member rang me after reading some of the signposts discussion about Hillsongs.
With a tone that was incredibly aggressive I was told the following:
1. I am providing a space/forum for people to say lies about Hillsongs. People who have held hurts for 20 years and just need to get over it.
2. I must read a different Bible to his because the provision of signposts is unbiblical.
3. I should re-visit my oath as a minister as his Father was an executive minister and so he knows I am not doing what I should as a minister.
4. Hillsongs is attacked and called a cult but no where can see where my Church is attacked or questioned. He felt that I was saying that people should leave Hillsongs and go to my Church.
5. The forum of signposts does not convey the gospel of life but is only about death.
Why am I posting this?
Well frankly I was shocked by the aggression and bullying of this guy who was apparantly was part of the planting team of hillsongs. It is not the first time that Dan or I have received emails regarding the comments that are left on signposts. And to this stage we have not commented about the emails that we have received. But I would like to take this opportunity to say the following:
1/ I can understand how some of the things that are said on signposts would be upsetting to those who are close and/or supportive of the Hillsongs Church.
2/ This blog was not started with the intention of having a community of people who comment so regularly and vigourously about Hillsongs.
3/ I personally have a number of concerns about Hillsongs Church and I am sure (as the guy is going to do!) if Hillsongs members were to review some of my posts about what we do at Northern and my own personal theological discussions, they too will have concerns about me.
4/ I am not responsible (nor is Dan) for the comments on this blog. For us to take responsibility in my opinion, diminishes the very real people who make the comments. Some of these comments I agree with and others I disagree with.
5/ I would like to encourage those who disagree with what is being said about Hillsongs (or anything else for that matter) on signposts to comment and engage in the discussion.
My final comment is this:
The energy levels of Dan and I for signposts goes through cycles. Recently, we have been on annual leave and we have posted very little. But ringing or emailing me or Dan with the aim of pressuring us to stop signposts or to limit discussion only makes me more determined to provide a voice for the voiceless.
I disagree strongly with the assertion that providing a voice for those who are hurt, bitter, excluded, marginlised by anyone is counter to the biblical narrative. In fact I think this is exactly what Jesus is calling us to do.
<end of rant>
January 18th, 2007 at 12:53 pm
I think SilentBob might already know some this stuff….at least I hope he does. Not much point in reading all these sorts of posts and then not checking out the facts for yourself.
He certainly knows that when Thompson got home he posted an outright lie on his own website about the meetings at CCC. Thompson claimed 60% of people at the meetings responded to the altar call. SilentBob admitted that this was incorrect, grossly inflated.
It might not seem like much to exaggerate details like this but Luke 16:10 says “He who is faithful in a very little is faithful also in much. He who is dishonest in a very little is also dishonest in much”.
January 18th, 2007 at 3:36 pm
I doesn’t hurt to ‘reinforce’ it.
January 18th, 2007 at 6:04 pm
Lionfish you said:
Post 119:
Jack-of-it: Thanks for thyat interesting comment.
There would be a large number of CCC/AOG Pastors that are honest and wellmeaning, yet ignorant and scripturally illiterate that are just ignorant/suckered in by these leaders and their movements.
Other would ‘know’ what is going on but would be working away quietly just looking after their own ‘lentil’ patches. Few people in the know, and still on the inside would have the courage to speak-out.
It’s great that you have come out from a place of ignorance and are now walking in the way that god intended you to be - “free”.
One question, while you were an AOG Pastor - what were your thoughts on the doctrine of Tithing?
I’ll try to answer your points one by one - in their context.
There would be a large number of CCC/AOG Pastors that are honest and well meaning, (true … more then some might believe) yet ignorant (also true if you mean uninformed/unaware/badly informed) and scripturally illiterate (illiterate is a little too harsh but certainly the standards re Bible college training etc leave a lot to be desired) that are just ignorant (true again .. but not in the sense of being stupid … rather unaware) / suckered (unwittingly yes … but, over time, no excuses) in by these leaders and their movements (a whole book required here but essentially yes).
Others would ‘know’ what is going on but would be working away quietly just looking after their own ‘lentil’ patches (this is also true in a measure – some simply choose to distance themselves from the ‘organisation’ and get on with what they feel called to, others try to champion change within the limited confines of ‘trusted’ relationships. You have to understand that the AOG hierarchy … at every level … District, State and National as well as Departmental leaders … are hand-picked according to their ability to ‘comply’ WITHOUT questioning ANYTHING. This engenders division, fear suspicion etc and little real room is left for change. You are NOT permitted to have an opinion apart from the one you are given!)
Few people in the know, and still on the inside would have the courage to speak-out (sadly … very true).
It’s great that you have come out from a place of ignorance and are now walking in the way that god intended you to be - “free”. (No argument there my friend)
One question, while you were an AOG Pastor - what were your thoughts on the doctrine of Tithing? I’ll take this one separately…
In the early days of leading a church you are so new to everything you just follow your ‘significant others’ – kinda monkey see monkey do! As time goes by you begin to become aware of certain tensions within that signal that something’s wrong. Your first port of call is to one of the ‘appointed leaders’ mentioned above … guess what advice they GIVE
you. Stay the course … trust us!
And so like many, many others I initially towed the company line re tithes and offerings - sadly. After being convicted by God I revised my opinion and researched the topic thoroughly and changed my practise completely.
In our current Church, we don’t tithe, nor do we have offerings. People still give/make offerings each week as they feel led and the money is handed to an Elder after the service.
Jack-of-it
January 18th, 2007 at 11:02 pm
Thanks again Jack0-Of-It. It is admirable of you to speak out.
Mate, that is pretty scary stuff, when you read through the answers tomy questions. It seems that the AOG as an organisation could be deemed either “cult-like” or even as a cult.
I was rasied in a Lutheran Church (nominally).
I started a journey that questioned my beliefs in my early 20’s, and started attending a Baptist church when I was in a ‘heavy drinking’ mining town up in the north of WA.
When I attended the Baptist Church, I will never forget a man stand up and say “I attended a Pentecostal Church for 15 years. I was addicted to the movement. I now beleieve it to be of Satan”.
I did not have a clue what he meant - I did not even know what a “Pentecostal Church” was (as Pentecost was something that occured as part of our Church calendar).
Whilst the man’s comments are probably ‘extreme’, I can sort of relate to what he was saying many years later.
There is a strong element of error in the theology, a generally low level of scriptural literacy by the congregation, a level of control by leadership, large numbers of people engaged in deceitful practices (eg.Peter Popoff, Marjoe Gortner, Jim Bakker, Swaggart), people get ‘addicted’ (more so than ‘convicted’).
Some of these things can also happen in mainstream denominations, but it seems more prevalent in Pentecostals.
I don’t neccesary believe Pentecostalism is ‘Satanic’ per se, but when you look at the WOF/CCC/Revivalist/(and from what you are saying AOG) networks it is scary, and inherently deceptive in may aspects.
At the very
January 19th, 2007 at 1:08 am
I attended a funeral at an upscale Denominational church last week. The church had a bout a million people over 80 annd 3 in their 70’s 9refered to as kids). A beautiful pipe organ from 1905, that was recently restored at a cost of over $150,000 American $. They thought it was a good idea, never mind the fact you could buy a new concert organ for under 10K.
I thought about what these people who built this church were trying to say when they built it - the stained glass windows were beatiful, the organ was majestic. In 1905, when this church was built, the people were making a statement - by putting in the best and the latest for worship. I really believe they were saying God is Awesome - in their time and with their technology.
But now, it is so museum like. The stroy is about what someone else did, and all that is happening is preserving the traditions of the past. A very small (though wealthy) vision of the present and a large vision of the past.
I asked a teenager on the street, when I left the church, if they would like to go in and see the pipe organ. The answer, “what is a pipe organ”.
January 19th, 2007 at 8:39 am
Lionfish,
As much as I dislike Rick Warren (and his teaching), and at the risk of raising some hackles, let me quote from the jacket of his book ‘Purpose Driven Church’ – I kept it for some reason?
“Every Church is driven by something. Tradition, finances, programs, personalities, events, seekers and even buildings can each be the controlling force in a church” …hmmm.
Now I know, that many would contend that ‘their Church’ is not driven by anything, but rather led by the Lord – or words to that effect. But in light of the NCLS data coming out each new survey period, it would seem that if this were the case in the majority of churches then ‘God’ is not doing a very good job!
My point is, I don’t want to portray the AOG, or any other denomination in such a way as to leave the wrong impression. Whilst there is much that needs to change in the AOG in Australia, I would like to try to preserve a balance. This is not a reflection on your comments … but more a note to self!
Pentecostal/Charismatic churches are more prone to be ‘personality driven’ than say the more ‘traditional’ churches for a great variety of reasons - perhaps a subject for another time. I would however, agree that many Pentecostal Churches contain many of the hallmarks of a cult; although I would be reluctant ‘in general’ to refer to them as cults, but rather agree with your term ‘cult-like’ and ‘let the chips fall where they may’.
BTW … I avoided the term ‘mainline’ above, because I recall being in an inter-denominational meeting of Pastors in about 1995 when the convenor of the group announced that the AOG had just been accepted as ‘mainline’ in Australia! The COC Pastor quickly piped up and said: “Well I bet … ‘Jack-of-it’ … is glad to hear about that”! I wasn’t … I was shocked!
I too have a Baptist background, but my experience there (as an adult) was that while they were BIG on Bible study and their teaching was well grounded (in most cases) they also tended towards being overly critical, very political (led by small ‘power groups’ - often families). But, even having spent some years in the Baptist Church, I’m willing to concede that this may not (fairly) represent the denomination as a whole. Something for others to determine, just making the point that balance is needed when assessing others.
You also make the point that people can become ‘addicted to’ church. I would agree with this very strongly, particularly after it took quite some time for me to ‘detox’ from my time with the AOG.
On the whole I don’t regret being apart of the AOG … I learned so much (lately, a lot of what not to do admittedly) and met so many great people, and there is no doubt in my mind that the Lord was with me, as he was/is with so many others.
Jack-of-it
January 19th, 2007 at 8:48 am
Akevin the syndrome you witnessed at the wealthy but stuck in te past church is so true of much of the mainline traditinal church all over the world. I really love the Anglican Church (Episcopal in the US) in Australia…however there are so many things that frustate me and make me angry and that I’d like to see changed, the preoccupoation with maintaining old buildings and traditions (paradiung of clergy in their vestments and giving all the clergy the best seats in the church during big events (ordinations/synods/placments of new clergy in new churches). The amont of money spent is ridiculous - howver here in Australia many of the church buildings (and their internal fittings) come under preservation orders and even if th peopoe wanted to change the buildings or fittings they can’t by law! Crazy
January 19th, 2007 at 1:43 pm
Sounds like we church folks could all stand one thing. To Be NORMAL. For every reason the AoG and Charismatics can find to be controling and bazaar the traditionalist can find to be dead in the past,walking around in robes and collars. I think that one reason the charismatic has such an appeal is that they have been moreso willing to grab the current culture (or maybe the not so far in the past culture) and try to assimilate it into Christianity.
Elvis and the beatles transformed the entire music culture of the world. And the Church rebuilt the organs. Then the geoff Bullock’s of the church began to write contemporary music. Talk about church wars. I remember as a kid in Baptist Church that we were told drums were of the devil, becasue the beat in the “chirstian” rock music was from Africa and therefore pagan. We were chided for not knowing that bit of information about drums. The electric guitar was banned also, because of it’s connection to worldly rock and roll. When Bill Gaither began to writer “contemporary” music in the 70’s, it was wrong becasue he was a known pentecostal. …And the organ played on.
The very churches that said all of this stuff began to embrace Bill Gaither’ contemporary music…. about 5 years ago.
I think there is a longing in all sides of Christendom for the return to just being who we are and putting off the airs of religiousity, whether Pentecostal or traditional
January 19th, 2007 at 5:09 pm
Amen
January 19th, 2007 at 5:11 pm
An Ec-umenist
Here’s a sketch for the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity (January 18th - January 25th).
PETER: Eh . . . Jesus . . .?
JESUS: Yes, Peter . . .?
PETER: What’s an “ex-humanist”?
JESUS: Well, Peter, a “humanist” is someone who focuses on people - on human beings - so an “ex-humanist” would presumably be someone who used to but doesn’t anymore. But why do you ask?
PETER: Because Andy said that you were one. But since you do focus on people, I guess he’s wrong.
JESUS: [Smiling] I think you misunderstood your brother, Peter. He didn’t say I was an “ex-humanist”, he said I was an “ec-umenist”.
PETER: An “ec-umenist”? What’s that?
JESUS: It comes from a Greek word meaning “the whole human world”. An “ecumenist” is someone who is passionate about bringing everyone together. But first, as a stepping-stone, he focuses on bringing all Jews together.
PETER: That doesn’t sound like you, Jesus. You’ve made enemies of just about every Jewish group going.
JESUS: How do you mean, Peter?
PETER: Well, the Sadducees don’t like you because you say they’re a priestly elite who’ve turned the Temple into a business that excludes people on the basis of “quality control”.
JESUS: That’s true.
PETER: And the Pharisees don’t like you because they say you’re a liberal, soft on sin, and you take liberties with the Bible.
JESUS: Yes, I’ve always preferred the company of outsiders to the holier-than-thous and fundies.
PETER: As for the Zealots, they say you’re a collaborator and a wimp because you tell us to love our enemies and refuse to use violence.
JESUS: Yes, that too is true, though in fact my weakness is stronger than their strength.
PETER: And finally there are the Essenes. They say you’re tainted, unclean, too worldly, not fastidious and ascetic enough.
JESUS: Well, if you mean that there are no untouchables, that goodness is more contagious than evil, and that for me life is a feast rather than a funeral, I plead guilty.
PETER: So, then, if you’re at odds with all these folk and their causes, how can you call yourself an ex-humanist - sorry, I mean an ec-umenist?
JESUS: Because, Peter, ecumenism doesn’t depend on human consensus, and it’s not about ticking the correct doctrinal boxes.
PETER: Oh? Then what is it about, and on what does it depend?
JESUS: God.
PETER: Well, yes, of course God, Jesus! And what else?
JESUS: There is no “and what else”, Peter.
The Sadducees add the “and” of priesthood.
The Pharisees add the “and” of morality.
The Zealots add the “and” of nation and race.
And the Essenes add the “and” of purity and withdrawal.
But add an “and” - any “and” - and you turn a church into a sect and God into an idol.
PETER: So why do they add an “and”, Jesus?
JESUS: Because they’re afraid, Peter. Afraid of each other, each other’s “otherness”; and afraid of God, God’s “wholly otherness”. And, of course, the only antidote to fear is . . .
PETER: Love! [Pauses, thinks] How ironic, Jesus. Each group fearfully maintains itself as the “true faith” not only by excluding other people, but by excluding the God they say they have faith in.
JESUS: Exactly, Peter.
PETER: Don’t worry though, Jesus. Me and the lads will finally get it right.
JESUS: You mean my church, Peter?
PETER: Exactly, Jesus.
JESUS: [Starts laughing and slowly exits]
PETER: [Following] Jesus! . . . Jesus!! . . . What’s so funny?!
JESUS: [Still laughing] “And” bishops, “and” the Pope, “and” elders, “and” stewards, “and” believer’s baptism, “and” tongues, “and” inerrancy, “and” . . .
by Kim Fabricius http://theconnexion.net/wp/?p=2641
February 24th, 2007 at 7:51 pm
My reply to the Rev in # 26:
The Rev said:
[The problem is that Christianity is not based on rules, infact, there is a very very strong bias against rules. When these “good ideas” are enforced, they become legalism, and control. If these things become part of the culture of the church, based on the examples of others then I would have no problem with them regardless of how extreme they may be. But when people are “told” what to do, and consequences are enforced, then you put yourself in a place that even Jesus refused to go.]
The term rules should be clearly defined here. Christianity is not based upon rules OF MEN, but, for a person to remain saved, one must follow GOD’S RULES, i.e. His commandments, statutes etc. Not the Jewish law but the commandments Christ gave to us through the New Testament. People need to be told what to do. Repent, pray, read the bible, preach the gospel, etc. I understand that you are talking about mans rules though.
The Rev Said:
[Jesus was called a drunk and a glutton and a friend of sinners.]
Jesus was slanderously called a drunk and glutton but would not have been a drunk or glutton. Yes he was a friend of sinners but he never partook of their sin.
We can go to places where sinners are, but if their carnality rubs of onto us we should not be there. I hang with people who are ice addicts, alcoholics, fornicators, etc. but I wont hang at the pub with them because
1) Most of them hate the pub but are driven their by the Devil and sin. Most of my friends who are sinners continually state that they wish they had better friends etc. When someone gets saved out of that mess, they don’t need to be told that it is ok for them to go to a pub or to stand out front of a strip club and hand out tracts. Most people are fighting temptation anyway let alone visiting old haunts or places of temptation.
2) When one is strong in Jesus then they can do those things, but as any discipler of men would know, people mimic what you do not what you say, thus if I go to the pub for a chat with a friend, the next thing you know the ‘little sheep’ are there too, and then the temptation comes etc… So I just steer clear from situation that would jeopodise my walk with Jesus or cause a brother or sister to fall. I have seen this first hand when weak sheep tag with the guys to go to watch the football at an RSL or Workers Club, then they go alone a time or two, then they have one beer, then one shot of speed, then in one week they have spent 1000’s on ice an can’t string two words together. I try to never give anyone an excuse to sin. I am glad that I stayed clear from pubs for years after I got saved, because I was an alcoholic. I am glad that no Christians went there, because for a while I was very weak. I agree we need to be shocking to people, but there is a fine line between being a friend of sinners and compromising holiness.
I went to a party where me and my friend witnessed for hours. I ate some cake and had some fun. The cake was full of hash! I wasn’t to know but I learned the hard way. Looking back people were rotten drunk and couldn’t really remember anything anyway. I felt disgusting as I had hash once again, I felt violated. I wouldn’t want any Christian to feel like that.
The Rev said:
[This Jesus that we say we follow, went to a wedding where they had already finished more wine than was expected, and for His first sign recorded in John, he made around 500 litres more.]
Yes he did but it was not alcoholic. Even witout an exposition of the Greek work Oinos, in context, if it was alcoholic, Jesus would have been endorsing drunkenness because they had already had a lot, i.e. they were “well drunk”, and not drunk as in paralytic drunk, but drunk as in they had drunk a lot of grape juice.
[Our holiness is to be found in our ability to love, not in our ability to abstain from things.]
That sounds nice, but I would rather say that I love people and ALSO I live a life of abstinence. (Obviously this will open the worm can to do with Alcohol) Abstinence from fornication, drunkenness, lies, witchcraft, deception, greed, dead religion, homosexuality, pornography, as described in Galations 5:
13 For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another.
14 For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
15 But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another.
16 This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.
17 For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.
18 But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.
19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.
24 And they that are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.
25 If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.
26 Let us not be desirous of vain glory, provoking one another, envying one another.
There are 100’s of do’s and don’t in the New Testament. I think that there is nothing wrong with repeating something that the NT teaches in this modern age. Even just a quick search on the word abstain brought up:
1Th 4:3 For this is the will of God, even your sanctification, that ye should abstain from fornication:
1Th 5:22 Abstain from all appearance of evil.
1Ti 4:3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.
1Pe 2:11 Dearly beloved, I beseech you as strangers and pilgrims, abstain from fleshly lusts, which war against the soul;
Let alone other verses which have similar “rules such as;
2Co 12:21 And lest, when I come again, my God will humble me among you, and that I shall bewail many which have sinned already, and have not repented of the uncleanness and fornication and lasciviousness which they have committed.
Eph 4:17 This I say therefore, and testify in the Lord, that ye henceforth walk not as other Gentiles walk, in the vanity of their mind, Eph 4:18 Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart: Eph 4:19 Who being past feeling have given themselves over unto lasciviousness, to work all uncleanness with greediness.
Eph 5:3 But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not be once named among you, as becometh saints; Eph 5:4 Neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor jesting, which are not convenient: but rather giving of thanks. Eph 5:5 For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. Eph 5:6 Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience.
Col 3:5 Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry: Col 3:6 For which things’ sake the wrath of God cometh on the children of disobedience: Col 3:7 In the which ye also walked some time, when ye lived in them. Col 3:8 But now ye also put off all these; anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy communication out of your mouth.
1Ti 1:9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, 1Ti 1:10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;
Tit 3:3 For we ourselves also were sometimes foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving divers lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful, and hating one another.
Jas 3:14 But if ye have bitter envying and strife in your hearts, glory not, and lie not against the truth. Jas 3:15 This wisdom descendeth not from above, but is earthly, sensual, devilish.
1Pe 4:3 For the time past of our life may suffice us to have wrought the will of the Gentiles, when we walked in lasciviousness, lusts, excess of wine, revellings, banquetings, and abominable idolatries: 1Pe 4:4 Wherein they think it strange that ye run not with them to the same excess of riot, speaking evil of you:
Re 21:8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.
Re 22:15 For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.
God Bless.
Nick.
http://www.pottershouse.net.au
February 24th, 2007 at 9:06 pm
Janet said:
[… people who add legalisms to the gospel create a new gospel… which is not the gospel at all.]
I wholeheartedly agree, but to a strictly legalistic one must be introducing the Old Testament laws into Christianity. Legalism is one of the most misquoted words today, especially in Christendom. People have defined legalism as anything that is a restriction or any rule endorsed by a church. The correct biblical interpretation is that legalism is a term solely dealing with the torah, and nothing whatsoever to do with following the bible strictly, nor is it an admonition or warning to those who quote the bible or its teachings as they stand.
Many seem to think that the New Testament is a book that only set us free from the law to serve under a “grace” that enables us to do whatever we like with Jesus’ approval. People don’t seem to grasp that God has very high standards both in the dispensation of the Law and under Grace. If you compare the 10 commandments with the Sermon on the Mount, you will see that under grace it is STRICTER! Under the law you actually had to kill someone, but under grace you if you just hate someone or have prejudice you are just as guilty! Which is stricter? Under the law you had to commit the very act of adultery but under grace you only have to want to do it! Which is stricter?
I would be more inclined to say that people who add to the Gospel are basically just that, people who add to the gospel. They are not legalists unless they are trying to incorporate the law of Moses. So as we can see, legalism is not being zealous for New Testament truth. I know it can be hard to separate the two because Christianity is so used to calling anything that adds to the gospel Legalism, but worse people say that if you strongly teach doctrine or biblical standard you are a legalist! It is bizarre really, people will say I am a legalist because I say to people that they should go to church, or they should, read the bible or they should pray to Jesus etc.
People will condemn pornography and violence, murder and rape etc, but seem to think that when they watch it on TV a magical filter turns on in their brain and it is ok. Lets be real, 100 years ago imagine showing 80-90 % of shows? Imagine the Oprah Winfrey show, or the Monty Python? What about the Simpson’s or Video Hits on Saturday morning?
S.D.A. ers are legalist because they add the Sabbath and other laws to the NT. But to call my church legalistic because we have biblical standards is wrong.
Anyway, I just thought I would clear that up.
Janet said:
[I have absolutely no objection to people not having a television (although along with rubbish they might watch, they miss out on the option of watching some fantastic documentaries and some interesting current affairs shows… esp on ABC and SBS) I object to it being a legalism. To be a REAL Christian you’re not allowed a television set. What nonsense. ]
As I stated earlier, only those aspiring for ministry in the church are required to chuck out the television.
I am working on a house at the moment and I noticed that they don’t have a television. The coupe are translators for the EU and translate French, English, Luxemburgish, into English. After further investigation they told me that they haven’t had one for 10 years, and saw the Television as a waste of life! Their Kids were well adjusted and they were a great couple.
I think that there is a fear that people will wind up loopy, I know some people who are obsessively into “holiness” but something is not right. Their kids are home-schooled, not because it is a better option but because of fear. Just to look at them they seem weird, they are S.D.A.ers. Like a J.W. who has no birthdays or Christmas, we seem to think that anyone who has no TV is depriving children or will wind up a religious nutcase.
I think that besides experience, we should look to scripture on this issue. I don’t know who wrote this article but I like it:
http://www.biblebelievers.com/jmelton/notv.html
I like good documentaries also, but with the rise of evolution and other falsehoods, much of what is deemed scientific in this age is science fiction. We were encouraged to see the Passion of the Christ at the movies, and to take as many people as possible to see them saved. But like I said before, if you want a TV that’s fine, you can still attend church but just wont be asked to do ministry, like run a bible study etc. I know the AOG had a similar standard in some parts 30 years ago.
Janet said:
[Even more disturbing is to me is reports of not associating with people who leave the movement. This is frankly cult-like behaviour… it is manipulative and controlling in the extreme. I hope you can assure me this is discouraged.]
It just depends. Some people are just taken by sin and leave; others leave and mock God and the Church. The bible is clear in 2 John;
10 If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: 11 For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.
Godspeed, means basically to favorably welcome someone.
Mt 18:17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.
Ro 16:17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.
1Co 5:11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.
2Th 3:6 Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.
1Ti 6:5 Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.
2Ti 3:5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.
This was common knowledge in the days of the Methodists. I find strong biblical reasons to separate with SOME people. Most of my sinner friends have been to my church thus is we believed what you said:
[Even more disturbing is to me is reports of not associating with people who leave the movement]
I would be in trouble, but we don’t believe that, only those whose criterion for separation is in scripture are avoided.
Nick. God Bless.
February 24th, 2007 at 9:27 pm
[Nick Sayers, our first fall-on no-holds-barred cult follower at Signposts.]
Your language in the post show thats you have no respect for others, also your slanderous remark saying I follow a cult should be backed up with a strong scriptural argument. Your language demonstrates to me that you are not a Christian.
[Umm..just one question Nick…Why are you on the internet, when there’s a lot of bad stuff on it that requires discernment (that you’re obviously not capable of applying to television viewing)….So I’m a bit mystified as to why your Potter’s House cult allows you to visit this part of the real world, but why they can’t allow you the discernment to watch Play School and switch off Today Tonight….Gotta love inconsistent cults.]
Firstly the Potter’s House is not a cult. Secondly, there is much more to Television programmes that you seem to realize. The commercials appear at all hours showing big brother smut and shootings etc. I want you to do something. Write out a list of things that would offend a strict minister of the gospel. Like Smith Wigglesworth, or John Wesley. Now when you turn on the TV, grab a pen and pad and write out things that would be offensive. After you have done this, write down specifically what category of sin it goes under, i.e. Lust, gluttony, greed, blasphemy, evolution (false teaching lies), selfishness, idolatry (worship of actors and musicians), etc.
Ministers are required to have a web blocker blocking porn, pop ups, and indecent language on the net. This is a lot different from watching the TV where ads can have any sort of sin involved in it. The only stuff that is “safe” is the Doco’s like Janet said, but then again, imagine your kids started to believe arguments for evolution because you continually watched the “Billions of years ago” shows. Even the Christian shows are off the planet. Look at Benny Hinn and Copeland, those guys are wackos.
God Bless.
Nick.
February 24th, 2007 at 9:30 pm
My reply to Lionfish in post # 30
Yes we believe and teach that to tithe is a biblical principle layed out in the New Testament for the running of the church and the supposrt of ministers, just as it was for the levites in the Old Testament.
God Bless.
Nick.
February 24th, 2007 at 9:48 pm
Also another reason the Potter’s House is deemed “cultic” by some, is because the entire fellowship (1400 churches), made a strong stand against the laughing revival and is very outspoken against Hinn, Copeland, Hagin, Jakes, and other false prophets.
My previous pastor who is now in PNG as a missionary, got me onto Phillip Powell Jacob Parach, Joseph Chambers and Dave Hunt. I often read their artciles and agree with most of it.
So the Potter’s House is often coined “legalisic” or “cultic” by hyper charismatic churches, because we don’t bark, roll, or release fluids in church.
God Bless.
Nick.
February 24th, 2007 at 10:06 pm
Well.. this is what I love about Signposts I guess… There’s always strong arguments on both sides, that really gives me something to chew over.
February 25th, 2007 at 9:46 am
Thanks, Nick. It’s been a long time between drinks (excuse the pun!).
Re:
I was wondering, whether yourself or one of your Pastors would take the time to defend your assertion that:
Nick, in other words why do Potters House cling to a false doctrine such as Tithing?
As they say False Teaching comes from False Teachers, and if Waman Mitchell teaches Tithing as you have asserted then plaese give us a defense as to why we should not consider him a false teacher as is other Pentecostals such as Benny Hinn, Copeland, Brian Houston and the other WOF brigade?
God Bless you, Nick.
February 25th, 2007 at 2:19 pm
Hi Nick, thought you might appreciate this from Phillip Powell, (who generally is at the more conservative end of the spectrum)
“Tithing was an Old Testament practice to support the theocratic governance of Israel. It is impossible to honestly duplicate it as a means of fi nancing the New Testament church or Kingdom of God. It is not taught in the New Testament and those who try to teach it today end up like the hypocritical pharisees.
They add to the Word of God and by so doing they omit many weightier matters regarding “judgment (justice), mercy, and faith … and the love of God”.”
http://www.christian-witness.org/archives/cetf2006/tithing37.html
February 25th, 2007 at 2:41 pm
My least favourite but most memorable encounter with Potters House nutbars was in Darwin some years ago. The Darwin chapter is particularly rabid, or maybe they all are. Anyway, there was an annual event called the Bougainvillea Festival or something, and community groups were invited to enter a float.
The purpose of the parade is a celebration, and as Darwin is so multicultural it is quite a procession. Our whole family went down, the kids were in a school float etc. Everybody was having a particularly wonderful Saturday afternoon at the Festival.
That was until the Potter House truck came along. They had constructed a large wave the length of the truck, upon which they were all standing. The wave was the ‘Wave Of Revival’. A number of the characters standing on top of the wave were dressed up in gangster style. I recall a Grim Reaper as well [I may be mistaken].
The bad guys had toy guns and were pointing and shoving them aggressively at the crowd, which included children. A banner proclaimed that “the wages of sin is death” and these characters were engaging the crowd in a threatening way.
As a result of their aggressive posturing children in the crowd became frightened and started to cry. Parents and other bystanders abused the float and the people on it. It was a truly disturbing spectacle. I have never felt so thoroughly ashamed and humiliated about my fellow Christians as on that day. I was so ashamed I took my family and walked away, because I could not stand to see the faith so abused [by Potters House] and totally identified with the crowd.
To add third conflicting metaphor they had a band playing choruses. So we had: a wave of revival, a turn or burn, and some worship music all on one float.
Potters House in one afternoon confirmed to thousands of Top Enders that Christianity is not an option, and that you have to be somewhat unhinged to become a card carrying follower of Jesus. Well hopefully they had enough knowledge to realise that it was just a bunch of lunatic cultists and that it is possible to follow Jesus without being so wide of the mark.
February 25th, 2007 at 3:54 pm
Nick,
Welcome back. I would be interested in knowing why you think the wine created by Jesus was not alcholic? Could you expand you this?
February 25th, 2007 at 4:34 pm
And Phil, if Ellen G. White (of SDA fame) was alive today - I would be asking her eaxctly the same question!…
Most Pentecostals and SDA’s are very similar. One group holds on to Saturday Sabbath Keeping as a sign of God’s favour - and others to Tithing…
Both argue that thet are “pre-Law” concepts. The thing I can’t get my head around is that if Tithing is Pre-Law and must still be obeyed by penty’s, then, why do they not keep the Jewish Sabbath.
This is why Nick must answer my questions…. He is saying that his group is not ‘Wacko’s’ like Benny hinn and Kenneth Copeland etc, yet they are tied to the Law (of Tithing) in the very same way…
Why do Potters House (like SDA’s, Hillsong, Riverview and Careforce’s Al Meyer) teach that we must observe the Jewish Laws in part (Gal 2:14). If you want to keep one law, then why do you not keep them all…?
Thank God, I am a Lutheran-Christian…! We understand that we are Dead to the Law!
February 25th, 2007 at 9:10 pm
Just a note, there are people on the net who hate me with a passion. I often defend the Potter’s House from false accusations and try to give understanding where I can. No doubt this group will soon recieve a visit from the people mentioned in this site http://www.waymanmitchell.com/Critics.htm
When they turn up if I seem aharsh with them it is because they claim I am a homosexual, and have left CFM. They also make disgusting statements about my fathers penis and other sick and disgusting things in chat groups. I just thought that I would tell you now, before they come here and attack my character and try to make me out to be something I am not. When dealing with JW’s Mormons etc I alway try to be civil, even if I think they are off the wall. These people are not interested in my redemtion from the so called “cult” of CFM, but just mock and slander me and the church I attend. I am all for theological debate and discussion but they have never been reasonable on any forum or chat group. I pray that they repent and get saved, and I just try to laugh off the disgusting remarks they make.
Anyway…..
Thanks for the quick response!
February 25th, 2007 at 9:32 pm
Here is my veiw on tithing. Some of this is my own article and some is cut and paste, but I hope it helps. Also I am a disciple in the Potter’s house, not a leader, but I think that my view is firstly biblical, and secondly Potter’s House.
The Potters House is an advocate of tithing - or giving one-tenth of one’s personal income to support the work of God, i.e. the local church. The Potters House believes tithing is a acknowledgment that all we have comes from God. The practice checks our greed, promotes personal discipline and frugality, testifies to our faith and trust, and promotes God’s work in the world. While we do not believe tithing to be a work that earns salvation, we do believe it is a very important that when a person is born again they must begin to obey God’s Word, for to disobey the Word of God and remain unrepentant will cost your eternal life.
Matt 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
Matt 7:22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
Matt 7:23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
This biblical model, of giving 10% of your increase, should set the minimal standard for Christian giving for people in all income ranges and should be followed after one has received the free gift of salvation.
Though some people falsely believe tithing was is only Old Testament practice not intended for New Testament Christians, the Potters House believes and teaches that tithing is still God’s plan for supporting the ministry and reaching the world with the gospel. The Potters House preaches the duty of tithing and urges all Christian people to pay tithes to God.
The origin for the Christian’s practice of tithing predates the giving of the Old Testament law. Abraham tithed in response to God’s blessing and faithfulness (Genesis 14:18-20) and was no doubt blessed because of his faithful tithing. Under the law, proceeds from the tithes were directed primarily for the support of the Levites and priests who provided religious leadership (Numbers 18:21-29) and for the relief of the needy (Deuteronomy 14:22-29). Today’s church still relies on the support of obedient tithers.
If tithing is God’s plan for believers then just as when a believer refused to love his brother, (1Jo 3:14, 1Jo 3:17, 1Jo 4:20, 1Jo 5:2,) forgive others (Mt 6:15, Mt 18:35, Lu 11:4) , witness (Lu 9:26, Mt 10:33, Mr 8:38, 2Ti 2:12), etc, so too will we be in rebellion against God if we don’t tithe (Mal 3:8-10, Ro 2:21, Eph 4:28, Joh 14:15, Joh 14:23, 1Co 16:22, 2Th 1:8, 1Pe 4:17)
Christians can also miss out on God’s abundant blessing by looking only on the tithe as the total requirement for giving. The tithe is only one characteristic of support for the church and its ministry of spreading the gospel. The Bible also mentions voluntary offerings given by God’s people over and above the obligatory tithe. Primarily, the mind-set with which both tithes and offerings are given is very important. God loves a cheerful giver (2 Corinthians 9:7). God commands us to give and the giving of either tithes or offerings with a grudging spirit loses much of the blessing that can come as we faithfully give out of love rather than debt.
The Potters House is also apprehensive about people who withhold tithes when they do not like decisions and directions espoused by spiritual leaders. Christians should fellowship with a local body of believers and bring their whole tithes into that storehouse (Malachi 3:10). Though some of the Israelites may not have liked decisions made by Moses and his successors, they were given no alternative. While some may delegate a portion of their offerings (beyond the tithes) to ministries outside the local church, such as conferences, foreign missions, etc, the tithes rightfully belong in the local church, where the Christian identifies themselves. And if one is not identifying with a local body of believers, he or she takes no heed of God’s instruction; that we not forsake assembling together with believers (Hebrews 10:25).
Some “Christians” do not tithe, claiming they cannot afford to give up 10 percent of their income. Simple arithmetic may suggest that 90 percent will not go as far as 100 percent in satisfying essential family needs. But God has built a multiplication factor into our giving of tithes and offerings. Malachi recorded God’s words, “Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house, and prove me now herewith, saith the LORD of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it.” (Malachi 3:10). Though we do not give to God in order to get more back, as some suggest we should, God’s promises are still true–if our giving is according to His instruction.
Lu 6:38 Give, and it shall be given unto you; good measure, pressed down, and shaken together, and running over, shall men give into your bosom. For with the same measure that ye mete withal it shall be measured to you again.
Easton’s bible dictionary states:
Tithe
A tenth of the produce of the earth consecrated and set apart for special purposes. The dedication of a tenth to God was recognized as a duty before the time of Moses. Abraham paid tithes to Melchizedek Ge 14:20 Heb 7:6 and Jacob vowed unto the Lord and said, “Of all that thou shalt give me I will surely give the tenth unto thee.” The first Mosaic law on this subject is recorded in #Le 27:30-32 Subsequent legislation regulated the destination of the tithes Nu 18:21-24,26-28 De 12:5,6,11,17 14:22,23 The paying of the tithes was an important part of the Jewish religious worship. In the days of Hezekiah one of the first results of the reformation of religion was the eagerness with which the people brought in their tithes 2Ch 31:5,6 The neglect of this duty was sternly rebuked by the prophets #Am 4:4 Mal 3:8-10 It cannot be affirmed that the Old Testament law of tithes is binding on the Christian Church, nevertheless the principle of this law remains, and is incorporated in the gospel 1Co 9:13,14 and if, as is the case, the motive that ought to prompt to liberality in the cause of religion and of the service of God be greater now than in Old Testament times, then Christians ought to go beyond the ancient Hebrew in consecrating both themselves and their substance to God. Every Jew was required by the Levitical law to pay three tithes of his property
1. one tithe for the Levites;
2. one for the use of the temple and the great feasts; and
3. one for the poor of the land.
The tithe means ten percent. By comparing Gen. 14:20 with Heb. 7:2 we see that the tithe is ten percent of one’s income.
OLD TESTAMENT GIVING. There were at least nine different occasions for giving in the O.T. economy under the Law of Moses. All giving and sacrifice is a way of honoring and worshiping God (Pr. 3:9). Consider the following types of offerings Israel brought to God:
TITHES UNDER THE LAW (Le. 27:30; De. 14:22; Ne. 12:47; Mal. 3:8-12). Apparently there were two tithes in Israel: The first tithe was given to sustain the priests (Nu. 18:21-24; De. 12:19). The second tithe was eaten before the Lord by the offerers (De. 12:17-18; 14:23- 27). This second tithe was taken out of that which remained after the Levites were satisfied, and was given every third year (De. 14:28-29).
Redemption money (Le. 27:3-7). Firstborn (Ex. 13:2,12; 22:30; 34:19; Le. 27:26). The firstborn animals were not to be worked or sheared, but sacrificed before the Lord (De. 15:19-20).
Sacrificial offerings (Le. 1-6).
Corners (Le. 19:9-10; De. 24:19).
Freewill offerings and vows (Le. 22:17-19; 27:1-29; Nu. 6:13-21; De. 12:6,11; 23:21-23).
Firstfruits (Ex. 23:19; De. 26:1-4).
Sabbath of the land (Le. 25:1-7).
Year of Jubilee (Le. 25:8-34).
IS TITHING TO BE PRACTICED BY THE N.T. CHRISTIAN?
Abraham Commenced it (Ge. 14:18-20).
Jacob Continued it (Ge. 28:20-22).
Moses Confirmed it (Le. 27:30).
Malachi Commanded it (Mal. 3:10).
Jesus Commended it (Mt. 23:23).
God Commissioned it (1 Co. 9:14).
Paul Conformed it (1 Co. 16:2).
A study of these Scriptures shows that tithing is a scriptural principle. Abraham and Jacob tithed 500 years BEFORE the Law was instituted. Moses, Malachi, and Jesus spoke of tithing DURING the period of the Law. The Apostle Paul explained tithing AFTER the Law. Christians ought to tithe!
HOW SHOULD CHRISTIANS PRACTICE TITHING? Under the Law tithing was commanded. Under Grace, we do not tithe legalistically, but because we love the Lord (2 Co. 5:14), we give in the power that grace gives us. Do you think God would ask less love, less faith, and less cheerful giving from a N.T. Christian than from a Jew under the Law? Tithing, for the Christian, is not a matter of legalistic bondage; it is obedience to the Spirit that brings freedom.
WHERE SHOULD A CHRISTIAN PLACE HIS OR HER TITHE?
(1) According to Mal. 3:10, the tithes were to be brought into the storehouse. For the Jews, this storehouse was the Temple at Jerusalem.
(2) According to Acts 4:35,37 and Acts 5:2, the Christians brought their tithes and offerings to the Apostles’ feet.
(3) According to 1 Co. 16:2, we are to lay up our giving in store. Subsequent verses show this store was the Church at Corinth, to whom the Epistle was first addressed.
(4) Today the storehouse for your tithe is your CHURCH. It is not God’s plan for you to give your tithe wherever you decide.
WHY ARE WE TO PLACE OUR TITHE INTO OUR CHURCH?
The tithes and offerings in the O.T. were used for the Temple and the Temple ministry (i.e., the priests, etc.) (Mal. 3:10). 1 Co. 9:13-14 applies this principle to the N.T. church. “Do you not know that they which minister about holy things live of the things of the temple? and they which wait at the altar are partakers with the altar? EVEN SO hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel.” Verse 13 relates to the O.T. practice. Verse 14 carries this practice over to N.T. churches. Your tithes and offerings are for the support, upkeep, and ministry of your Church. Tithes should never be designated–they are to be left free for use as the church decides.
WHAT DOES GOD CALL US IF WE REFUSE TO TITHE? “Will a man rob God? Yet ye have robbed me. But ye say, Wherein have we robbed thee? In tithes and offerings” (Mal. 3:8).
WHAT IS THE PROMISE GOD GIVES TO THOSE WHO FAITHFULLY TITHE?
“Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house, and prove me now herewith, saith the Lord of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there should not be room enough to receive it” (Mal. 3:10).
WHOSE IS THE TITHE?
The tithe is the Lord’s (Le. 27:30). Ten percent of your gross income is not yours–it belongs to God.
HOW CAN I PLEASE MY LORD WHEN TITHING?
(1) Give the Lord first place in everything (Mt. 6:33).
(2) Honor the Lord with your first fruits (Pr. 3:9-10). This means to set aside the tithe first–before all other bills and expenses. If you leave the tithe until last, God usually misses out.
(3) Bring the tithe on the Lord’s day (1 Co. 16:2).
God Bless.
Nick.
February 25th, 2007 at 9:34 pm
Thanks Nick,
For the record I know some great people in PH, and I have some good friends that left the Potter House…
For the records, we are not here to attack your character, just some of the false beliefs of Potters House. Potters House should be ‘Big Enough’ to take it as !) The calim to be custodians of the Truth, 2) They label most mainline Churches / Christians as “Lukewarm”.
So are you going to engage us in theological discussion and give us a sound theological justification as to why Wayman Mitchell teaches tithing or will be left believing that he is a false teacher…?
February 25th, 2007 at 9:35 pm
phil said:
[Nick,
Welcome back. I would be interested in knowing why you think the wine created by Jesus was not alcholic? Could you expand you this?]
Like I mentioned, in context the party was almost over, everyone had already “well drunk” (KJV) and then Jesus comes through with the good stuff and lots of it. If it was alcoholic then of corse He would be endorsing drunkeness.
Sometimes context best defines a word.
God Bless.
Nick.
February 25th, 2007 at 9:37 pm
Sorry scrub comment 144, we crossed paths.
Thanks for your thoughts on tithing. Either I or Dr. Russell kelly will respond shortly.
February 25th, 2007 at 9:53 pm
anick,
In the meantime, whilst we critique your doctrine, can you plaese explain to me:
1) Why you keep the Tithe but not the Saturday Sabbath observance…?
2) Would you be able to publically admit error if your doctrine is demonstrably erroneous …?
February 25th, 2007 at 10:36 pm
1) The disciples layed down a clear pattern in Acts for the celebration of the Lord’s Day i.e. Sunday. Thus for me to go against that would be going against clear biblical revelation and against concience. Paul also said in 1 Cor 9:
7 Who goeth a warfare any time at his own charges? who planteth a vineyard, and eateth not of the fruit thereof? or who feedeth a flock, and eateth not of the milk of the flock?
8 Say I these things as a man? or saith not the law the same also?
9 For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen?
10 Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written: that he that ploweth should plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope.
11 If we have sown unto you spiritual things, is it a great thing if we shall reap your carnal things?
12 If others be partakers of this power over you, are not we rather? Nevertheless we have not used this power; but suffer all things, lest we should hinder the gospel of Christ.
13 Do ye not know that they which minister about holy things live of the things of the temple? and they which wait at the altar are partakers with the altar?
14 Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel.
To me this is clearly stating that ministers should live off the people just as the Levites also did.
2) I am always learnig, as we all are. I apreciate other people points of view. If I am proven wrong I will admit it. If you are proven wrong, will you admit it also?
February 25th, 2007 at 10:55 pm
Nick,
Thanks … of course. If you have followed the Blogs over time, I have admitted errors. Even the way I viewed homosexuality as “the most repugnant of sins”. My sins are all just as repugnant. Others I have been wrong in a Freewill vs Predestination. I am learning also.
Though I have studied the doctrine of Tithing for eighteen months now - and it has failed the test on all counts - except as a matter of personal conscience (Rom 14). However, that is not how Tithing is taught in many neo-pentecostal.contemporary churches. It is the “camshaft” that drives the Church (as opposed to the Grace of God) and the ‘enrichment’ of Pastors such as Brian houston, Benny hinn, Kenneth Copeland, Pat Mesiti and others (including Riverviews Phil Baker) via the speaking circuit.
BTW: The laying of gifts at the feet of the Apostles is not the same as “Tithing”. Give it up - and get into ‘freewill giving’.
February 25th, 2007 at 11:07 pm
Nick,
Could you also let me know, why Martin Luther rejected tithing - but potters House do not…?
http://www.shouldthechurchteachtithing.com/