Grace Believers and Tithing like under the Law?

      I hear preachers all the time saying, although we are not under the Law but under Grace, we should still give just as much as they did under the Law.  Did Paul make such a statement in Romans through Philemon?  No, and I thought he was our Apostle that gave the church instructions under Grace?  Paul says, concerning giving in 2 Cor 9:7, "Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver.  There are some grace believers giving "of necessity."  They think it is necessary to still give according to the Law, even without a Pauline verse to back that up.  Under the Law paying tithes was not just to benefit those serving religiously at the temple, but it was also to support the widows, orphans, and needy of Jewish society.  In the next paragraph I am going to make the argument that the average employed grace believer is already giving more than they ever did under the Law. 

     In the United States employees are forced to pay 6.2 % Social Security and 1.45 % Medicare. Their employer is also required to match those percentages as an employee benefit.  In addition to that the average American worker pays 14.5 % tax to the federal government. Also each state in the US has some form of tax to help the needy and local government "concerns" (sales tax, property tax, income tax, etc). Google search says the average American pays a total between 25 and 30 percent in federal and state taxes to support the government and "needs" of society. So when all of this is added together (25-30 percent in federal and state taxes, plus the employers match for Social Security and Medicare), the average working grace believer is paying between 32.65 % to 37.65 % in taxes of which part of that is going to help the widows, orphans, and needy in society. 

     In light of the above, I am not saying to not give to the church, but these pastors that hammer people over "tithing" using the Law, need to understand that the average working American Christian is already being forced to "tithe" to support widows, orphans, needy, as well as a government. Yes, we should still give towards the ministry of the Gospel, but the average working Christian in America is already paying more in the form of taxes than the average Jew ever paid in "tithes" under the Law to support the theocratic government of Israel and the needs of the people.  

     The real problem with a lot of these preachers guilt tripping people into giving more is they are too lazy to "make tents" if their church can't afford to pay them a full time salary.  They had rather continue to tell people a false narrative that "you have to give as much under Grace as they did under the Law" rather than getting a job.  If grace preachers really want to follow Paul, then if a church can't pay you full time, then do what 2 Thes 3:7-9 says:

[7] For yourselves know how ye ought to follow us: for we behaved not ourselves disorderly among you;
[8] Neither did we eat any man's bread for nought; but wrought with labour and travail night and day, that we might not be chargeable to any of you:
[9] Not because we have not power, but to make ourselves an ensample unto you to follow us.

     My advice to any aspiring grace preacher would be to plan on having to do some "tent making" like Paul in order to support your family.  If AI is correct 47 % of denominational evangelical pastors work a second job in addition to preaching.  Since Grace Churches are on average smaller in membership than the average evangelical church I would not be surprised if the number of bivocational Grace preachers is not closer to 75%.

Easter and Grace Believers

 The grace believers Biblical guide regarding observing or not observing "days" is found at Col 2:16

"Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days"

    Easter Sunday will be here on April 5, 2026.  I do not know of any believer (even those that fail to rightly divide) that thinks bunnies or eggs have anything to do with the resurrection of Christ.  However, you will hear a bunch of "Christians" and preachers complaining about bunnies and eggs as if there is some great emergency going on in the "church" because of this.  I hate to say this but you will even hear Grace Believers carried away with this nonsensical complaining.  My position is that although these traditions are pagan in origin nobody is equating these things with the resurrection of Christ.  Simply put kids just think it is fun to hunt eggs and eat chocolate bunnies.  When I was a kid I hunted eggs and ate chocolate bunnies, not because I wanted to worship some false god named "Ishtar," but because I wanted to find the prize egg and eat candy. I never knew who "Ishtar" was until I was a grown man and heard people complaining about parents allowing their kids to worship this false god by hunting eggs etc.  I can understand all the denominational preachers and "Christians" getting caught up in all the complaining about "Easter," but I don't understand the Grace Believers doing so?  These complaints are simply a form of legalism that Paul spoke of in Col 2:21 ( Touch not; taste not; handle not;). If you do not want your kids eating candy eggs or chocolate bunnies, then it is your right as a parent to forbid it.  However, I do not appreciate my liberty in Christ to allow my children fun at Easter to be equated with the worship of "Ishtar."  

     The answer to the question of Easter eggs and bunnies should be settled like Grace Believers claim to settle all other matters.  Consider what our apostle (Paul) has to say about such matters!  I know of one deceased grace preacher that used to say you could not be a "Mid Acts King Jame Bible-Believing Pauline Dispensationalist" if you took part in things like Easter, Christmas, etc.  My question to those that share this conviction is where in Paul's writings do you find such teaching?  The answer is "nowhere."  My position on Easter eggs and bunnies is based on what our apostle says in 1 Corinthians 8:4-8:

[4] As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one.
[5] For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)
[6] But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.
[7] Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge: for some with conscience of the idol unto this hour eat it as a thing offered unto an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled.
[8] But meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat, are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse.

     Did you get what Paul just said above?  He says you can eat food even if it was offered in a worship service to an idol!  No food or lack of food under grace commends us to God.  We are not better or worse spiritually based on our diet.  In light of this scripture I take the position my children and I can eat Easter eggs and bunnies because we do not eat them as a thing offered to an idol, "Ishtar," but we eat them for enjoyment.The same is true of Halloween Candy and Christmas Candy!  

 

Israel Falls in Acts but is not Counted "Out" until Acts 28

      In boxing after a fighter falls down, the referee begins a ten-second count, giving the boxer a chance to recover and get back on his feet.  Boxers get knocked down fairly often but are able to get back up before being counted out and continue the fight.  Sometimes the boxer that gets knocked down ends up getting back up (before the 10 count) and goes on to win the fight.  Many Acts 2 and Mid Acts dispensationalists argue that since Israel has fallen by the time of Paul writing Romans 11 that God did not allow Israel another opportunity to repent and receive another offer of the kingdom. 

Romans 11:11-12 states:

 [11] I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy.
[12] Now if the fall of them be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fulness?

I agree that Israel has fallen by the time Romans 11 is written; however, I would argue that they have not been counted out of the fight to use boxing terminology.   In boxing terminology God has not counted to 10 in Romans 11.  It appears God does not say "ten" until after Paul preaches one final time to Israel's leaders in Acts 28.  If Paul thought Israel had been counted out, then why does he pray for their National Salvation in Romans 10:1.  In my opinion Romans 11:23 should make it clear that Israel has not been counted out of the fight at the time of Paul writing Romans.  Romans 11:23 states:

[23] And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again.

The very people that had fallen can get back up by not abiding in unbelief according to Romans 11:23.  The unpardonable sin is not charged to Israel until after they reject the kingdom for the final time at Acts 28.  Once Bible believers understand this, then they can quit making excuses as to why Paul acted the way he did during the book of Acts.  In Acts Paul preached a pure grace message to the Gentiles called the gospel of the uncircumcision.  However Paul recognized for Israel that their kingdom offer was still on the table, so he never once called out believing Jews for observing ceremonial ordinances of the Law because those things would continue as memorials when the Kingdom is setup.  For example, study Ezekiel 40 through 48.  Remember, if Israel had repented in Acts, then those same people would see the return of Christ and the setting up of the Kingdom (Acts 3:19-21).

My Position on the King James Bible

      My position on the King James Bible is very simple.  Although the King James Bible is not the original manuscripts, I believe it is the preserved, inspired, and infallible words of God.  Although I am not a "Ruckmanite," I agree with what Dr. Peter Ruckman said many years ago in a study on Greek Manuscript Evidence concerning the King James Bible and the preservation of the Scriptures.  Dr. Ruckman says in regards to the preservation of Scripture, "A verbatim reproduction of the originals, wherever they are, is not necessary to prove that what God said has been preserved intact the way he wants it said."  He goes on to state,"...I mean the King James Bible is the exact form and shape and size and content of the Bible that God wants the world to have from 1611 to the second coming of Jesus Christ..."

     In conclusion, what is one to do that has trouble understanding the King James Bible?  I will offer the same advice that I have heard from many King James Bible Believers, "Get yourself a good English Dictionary and concordance."  I would say most people now days have a dictionary and concordance available on their cell phone, which makes the task of reading and understanding the King James Bible easier than ever before.

C.R. Stam Corrects the King James Bible at Acts 28:28

 Acts 28:28 in the King James Bible states, "Be it known therefore unto you, that the salvation of God is sent unto the Gentiles, and that they will hear it."  Note that "is sent" is present tense.  In other words the sending of the salvation of God unto the Gentiles without Israel was happening at Acts 28.

In C.R. Stam's commentary on Acts he changes the verb tense of Acts 28:28 from "is sent" to "has been sent."  See the copy of the page from his commentary below:

Why would C.R. Stam change the verb tense at Acts 28:28?  Also why have I not seen any KJV Defenders of the Acts 2 Dispensational persuasion or KJV Defenders of the Mid Acts Dispensational persuasion call him out on changing the text of King James Bible.  It appears to me that C.R. Stam changes the verb tense because as the KJV text stands at Acts 28:28, it teaches a dispensational change takes place at Acts 28:28 (present tense "is") concerning Gentile salvation totally apart from Israel, and not earlier!  My guess as to why the KJV defenders, whether Acts 2 or Mid Acts, do not call out Stam on this, is because they do not believe a dispensational change takes place at Acts 28:28.  They all believe the change takes place earlier in the past tense.  The Acts 2 crowd will say the dispensational change is at Acts 2.  The Mid Acts crowd, in giving themselves more "wiggle room" (I have seen Mid Acts theology range from Acts 7 to Acts 19) say the dispensational change is Mid Acts.   

At Acts 28:28 the salvation of God is sent to the Gentiles totally apart from Israel.  Stam tries to imply that this had already been going on before Acts 28:28, but that is simply not true.  Up until Acts 28:28 Gentiles either had to become proselytes (as in early Acts) in order to get the salvation of God, or they had to wait until the Jew first got a chance to hear the gospel, and then afterwards the salvation of God could be sent to them (see Romans 1:16).  Please note that I did not say the Body of Christ starts at Acts 28:28 as most Acts 28 Dispensationalists teach.  The Body of Christ exists before Acts 28:28.  In fact I think the Body of Christ was probably formed at the cross, and was revealed to Paul during his Acts ministry.   The Body of Christ experiences a variety of dispensational rule changes as the gospel goes from the Jew only to the Jew first in the book of Acts.  As has been stated in prior posts, After Acts 28 the Gentile believers not only receive the salvation of God apart from Israel, but they also become "fellow" citizens and heirs.  In other words the Gentiles become equal, and the Jew is no longer first after Acts 28.

As a King James Bible believer, my dispensational position is not traditional Acts 2, traditional Mid Acts or traditional Acts 28.  I think all these positions have some things correct, but I can not fully join any of these camps, because they all at times deviate from the text of the God honored King James Bible.  I remain a Bible Believer first, and a Dispensationalist second.