• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Baptist Preferences

BrandonA

New Member
Is it common among most types of Baptists to teach tithing? Prohibition from alcohol? Or dispensationalism? Well perhaps the last one various from Baptist to Baptist. Okay what of Deacon/Congregational rule government? Is that common among most Baptists?

Or I have one is it common among some Baptists to have a pastor rule government with no elders or deacons? I know of one Baptist church where the pastor calls all the shots and has no elders or deacons to hold him accountable.

I know that music style various from Baptist to Baptist so no need to ask on this one. Thanks..

My Baptist church teaches tithing and congregational government. We don't teach prohibition and dispensationalism because we don't believe they're Scriptural.
 

evangelist6589

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Why do you find that odd? (Mine also holds to congregationalism and teaches tithing as it is viewed as biblical ... on both accounts).

It was an OT tax to the government and likewise the only mandatory giving in the NT is to the government. In the NT we have free will giving. Tithing is never mentioned in the NT and those that view it as biblical always fail to understand its history in the OT. You know it was common to give 10% to pagan deities? God wants a cheerful giver and why He insists on free will giving and not tithing in the new covenant.
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
It was an OT tax to the government and likewise the only mandatory giving in the NT is to the government. In the NT we have free will giving. Tithing is never mentioned in the NT and those that view it as biblical always fail to understand its history in the OT. You know it was common to give 10% to pagan deities? God wants a cheerful giver and why He insists on free will giving and not tithing in the new covenant.
How do you determine that the tithe was an OT tax to the government when Able offered at least a tithe in principle (portions, and apparently specific portions)?

Now, I actually agree with you that the Tithe was an OT concept as I believe it foreshadowed a time when we would be delivered from the slavery of sin and death and become heirs. But what it foreshadows is that now all we have and all we are belong to God. But you have misrepresented the history of the OT tithe here, brother. God did actually demand of his people a tithe under the Law. But even more, Abel is said to have tithed to God (not to some pagan deity). Abraham offered a tithe to Melchizedek as a priest of God (not some pagan deity). Perhaps it was his "free gift offering," but we have no evidence that it was not a "tithe."

So I agree with you that the tithe is not for today (and yes, this is different from what my church holds to be true), but you are failing to discern OT history here. There are many genuine principles of Scripture that find similarities within ANE religious thought (e.g., tithing, sacrifice, temple structure and symbolism, etc). But the OT tithe was biblical in principle centuries before the Law was ever given. If not, then we need to look at the reason God adopted paganism into the Law.

And this is not a hill upon which I'd choose to die.

My question, however, was why you thought it odd that a congregational church would also be a tithing church?
 
Last edited:

evangelist6589

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
How do you determine that the tithe was an OT tax to the government when Able offered at least a tithe in principle (portions, and apparently specific portions)?

Now, I actually agree with you that the Tithe was an OT concept as I believe it foreshadowed a time when we would be delivered from the slavery of sin and death and become heirs. But what it foreshadows is that now all we have and all we are belong to God. But you have misrepresented the history of the OT tithe here, brother. God did actually demand of his people a tithe under the Law. But even more, Abel is said to have tithed to God (not to some pagan deity). Abraham offered a tithe to Melchizedek as a priest of God (not some pagan deity). Perhaps it was his "free gift offering," but we have no evidence that it was not a "tithe."

So I agree with you that the tithe is not for today (and yes, this is different from what my church holds to be true), but you are failing to discern OT history here. There are many genuine principles of Scripture that find similarities within ANE religious thought (e.g., tithing, sacrifice, temple structure and symbolism, etc). But the OT tithe was biblical in principle centuries before the Law was ever given. If not, then we need to look at the reason God adopted paganism into the Law.

And this is not a hill upon which I'd choose to die.

My question, however, was why you thought it odd that a congregational church would also be a tithing church?

I found it odd that a Congregational church would not teach teetotalism from alcohol and also teach the tithe as the combinations do not match. All congregational churches that I have visited teach prohibition from alcohol and also tithing.
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
I found it odd that a Congregational church would not teach teetotalism from alcohol and also teach the tithe as the combinations do not match. All congregational churches that I have visited teach prohibition from alcohol and also tithing.
Ahhhh, I see. I misunderstood what you were putting together there, brother. I have always attended a baptist church (which is congregational government) but have not attended any that teach drinking is a sin. Most do, however, teach that it can be dangerous and perhaps is not the best option to glorify God. But all of them that I've attended teach tithing. Our experiences are different.
 

evangelist6589

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Ahhhh, I see. I misunderstood what you were putting together there, brother. I have always attended a baptist church (which is congregational government) but have not attended any that teach drinking is a sin. Most do, however, teach that it can be dangerous and perhaps is not the best option to glorify God. But all of them that I've attended teach tithing. Our experiences are different.

Its not that they teach drinking is a sin, they teach that it is not the high road. However this takes away the christian's liberty and freedom and is quite legalistic.
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
Its not that they teach drinking is a sin, they teach that it is not the high road. However this takes away the christian's liberty and freedom and is quite legalistic.
Well, drinking isn't the "high road," and some (myself included) appreciate discipline and self denial for at least characters sake. And our "Christian liberty" doesn't work that way. You are, I believe, replacing "liberty" with "entitlement" or "right.". That said, it doesn't bother me if someone drinks or abstains.

But you and I both abstain. Why make an issue of drinking alcohol?
 

evangelist6589

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Well, drinking isn't the "high road," and some (myself included) appreciate discipline and self denial for at least characters sake. And our "Christian liberty" doesn't work that way. You are, I believe, replacing "liberty" with "entitlement" or "right.". That said, it doesn't bother me if someone drinks or abstains.

But you and I both abstain. Why make an issue of drinking alcohol?

It becomes legalistic when a church forces their preferences and convictions down others throats. For example a church having a policy to abstain from all alcohol to become a member is legalistic and no I do not abstain. I enjoy the beverages that the Lord has allowed me to drink.
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
It becomes legalistic when a church forces their preferences and convictions down others throats. For example a church having a policy to abstain from all alcohol to become a member is legalistic and no I do not abstain. I enjoy the beverages that the Lord has allowed me to drink.
It's called congregational church government. The local church interprets Scripture as prohibiting drinking and to be faithful they act on their convictions. You wouldn't deny their Christian liberty to do that would you? They certainly are not denying anyone a drink, but they have the liberty to exercise church discipline within their own walls.

I don't know if you realize it or not, but your argument is the same one that people have used to permit SSM in churches. We need to be careful, brother, lest we redefine liberty as right.


Oh, and sorry for the assumption. I have been gone a few months. Last we spoke you had quit drinking for the benefit of your wife. I didn't know you started again. I have not been keeping up with things here.
 

Salty

20,000 Posts Club
Administrator
Does your church have a rule that children cannot run in the sanctuary? If so - is that legalism? (unless you can give me chapter and verse)
 

John of Japan

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Well, drinking isn't the "high road," and some (myself included) appreciate discipline and self denial for at least characters sake. And our "Christian liberty" doesn't work that way. You are, I believe, replacing "liberty" with "entitlement" or "right.". That said, it doesn't bother me if someone drinks or abstains.
Well put. My way of saying it is that he means "license" and not "liberty."
But you and I both abstain. Why make an issue of drinking alcohol?
Actually, evan doesn't abstain. That's why he defends drinking so much. ;)
 

John of Japan

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Its not that they teach drinking is a sin, they teach that it is not the high road. However this takes away the christian's liberty and freedom and is quite legalistic.
It doesn't take away anyone's freedom. There are so many churches in the US that anyone who wants to drink liquor can soon find a church that will pat him on the back and say, "Go ahead and get soused. It's your right!" Confused
 

HankD

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Here is an acrostic of "BAPTISTS" that the GARBC uses for the distinctives:

Biblical Authority
Autonomy of the Local Church
Priesthood of the Believer
Two Ordinances
Individual Soul Liberty
Saved, Baptized Church Membership
Two Offices
Separation of Church and State

HankD
 

evangelist6589

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
It doesn't take away anyone's freedom. There are so many churches in the US that anyone who wants to drink liquor can soon find a church that will pat him on the back and say, "Go ahead and get soused. It's your right!" Confused


Wrong! Many Bible believing churches preach as the bible teaches in that alcohol "abuse"is a sin but the drinking of a beverage that will not get one drunk after a few drinks would be okay. Something that will cause drunkedness after a drink is to be avoided.

However there are seeker churches that are not to be confused with bible believing 9 Marks or masters seminary churches whom take a loose view on alcohol. Your problem is that you blend them all together which is not fair.

The local Calvinist church down the road in my area just teaches as the bible does in this area. Also not to forget RC sprouls church that uses wine in communion.
 

John of Japan

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Wrong! Many Bible believing churches preach as the bible teaches in that alcohol "abuse"is a sin but the drinking of a beverage that will not get one drunk after a few drinks would be okay. Something that will cause drunkedness after a drink is to be avoided.
Which is wrong? The fact that there are many churches in the US? The fact that anyone is free NOT to go to a church which preaches against alcohol? You apparently think that one IFB church forbidding alcohol has some kind of power or authority outside of its doors, and that is just ridiculous.

However there are seeker churches that are not to be confused with bible believing 9 Marks or masters seminary churches whom take a loose view on alcohol. Your problem is that you blend them all together which is not fair.
This is irrelevant to my point and I really don't care. My point is that you can always find a church in the US that teaches what you want. This is a well known fact to anyone conversant with church growth nowadays. Just consider the term "seeker sensitive."

The local Calvinist church down the road in my area just teaches as the bible does in this area. Also not to forget RC sprouls church that uses wine in communion.
This too is irrelevant to my point and I really don't care.:p

I think you lost your logical side on this post, because you really did not answer my point with any logic. Were you imbibing when you wrote it?? Confused
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
Not to speak for JoJ, but when I read his comments what comes to my mind is the fact that the moment you find yourself fighting for your Christian liberty is the moment it ceases to be Christian liberty.
 

blessedwife318

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Not to speak for JoJ, but when I read his comments what comes to my mind is the fact that the moment you find yourself fighting for your Christian liberty is the moment it ceases to be Christian liberty.

So true, and I would add the moment you begin to push your "liberty" onto someone else, you are now doing the same thing you accuse the "leaglist" of doing with their standards.

Of course I think the bigger issue is the fact that he lied to his church. If being a member requires that one not drink and he said he agreed with that stand to become a member and now he is has a drink now and then, he has gone back on his commitment to his church. He made the choice knowing full well what their standards were, he either should not have become a member if this was going to be an issue, or he should suck it up and not drink as long as he is a member there.

I think the same thing about people that go to colleges with rules they don't agree with. If you chose to go there you also chose to deal with those rules for the time you are there. Complaining about rules you knew about in advance is just ridiculous.
 
Top