Pages

Wednesday, May 26, 2010

Reply to Chris, Reformed Baptist

Russell Kelly Replies to Pastor Chris Papas, Reformed Baptist, 2

101: Chris Papas to Russ Kelly: Reply, the error is in point 2, are you saying that the law is discussed and what is said has no application to us under the New Covenant? Are you saying that the Old Testament, the Old Covenant is completely done away?

Russ Kelly: Again, only that part of the Old Covenant law which was eternal and moral FOR ALL PEOPLE was repeated as part of the New Covenant to the Church in terms of grace and faith. And, “yes,” the entire Old Covenant Law ended at Calvary per Hebrews 8:13 and almost all of Galatians 3. The Old Covenant Law, as a covenant, was only commanded to Israel. If you disagree, then show me where God commanded uncircumcised Gentiles to obey the Old Covenant Law.

102: Chris: And is it only Jews that are required under the law to exercise “judgment, mercy and faith”? Are these not required of all men under both covenants?

Russ: You ignore the context. God was not addressing Gentiles and He did not command them to observe any of the Law. Of course He would have wanted them to exercise “judgment, mercy and faith” but Jesus was not addressing Gentiles when he said that in Matthew 23:23 –Jesus was discussing “matters of the Law” to those who “sit in Moses seat” per 23:2-3.

103: Chris: Furthermore, the entire text stands or falls together. The tithe and judgment, mercy and faith are discussed together with the emphasis is upon the latter, judgment, mercy and faith. A proper understanding of the passage is that both are required.

Russ: Of course they stand or fall together –as part of the Old Covenant Law for the Jews. They are just as much part of the Law as was killing disobedient children, not marrying Gentiles, not marrying mixed fabrics and not eating unclean food.

104: Chris: What you are saying is these do not apply to us under the New Covenant. This is poor exposition of the Scriptures!

Russ: O really! I suppose you obey the whole law and, as a tithe recipient, KILL anybody else who attempts to enter the sanctuary and worship God directly. I suppose you do not own or inherit property. You, sir, have no consistent principle of interpretation when deciding how to interpret the OT Law in the New Covenant after Calvary. Do not dare say that I have poor exposition if you will not clearly state your own hermeneutic.

105: Chris: What I said was Paul never distinguished the ceremonial law, civil law and moral law when he referred to the law. He simply spoke of the law.

Russ: So what do you do with this information about Paul’s use of the Law? Say something. You are straddling the fence here. As a Jew, Paul DID not distinguish between the commandments, statutes and ceremonial law because he believed that they all either stood or fell together. Discarding even the “least” part of the law violated Jesus’ explicit teaching of Matthew 5:19.

106: Chris: Also He did refer to the 10 commandments as the law, Romans 13:8-12.

Russ: Yes, and Jesus referred to Deuteronomy 6:5 and Leviticus 19:18 as the Law. The commandments, statutes and judgments were all equally the law. And Paul added Isaiah and Psalms to the law in Romans 3.

107: Chris: What I have said is what the New Testament says is fulfilled in Christ is what is fulfilled. We do not simply say the entire Old Covenant, the Old Testament is done away with.

Russ: The entire Old Covenant vanished per Hebrews 8:13 “In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.”
The entire Law had an ending time (until) in Gal 3:19 “Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.” Again, show me where that Law was ever commanded to Gentiles. Gentiles never were “under the law” as the Old Covenant.

108: Chris: in response to the above: Please be careful not to assume what I may have said.

Russ: I try not to do that. I am enjoying the dialog, my brother. You are not always clear.

109: Chris: I said the shadows or the types that were fulfilled in our Lord are done away with as the substance of those things promised is come in Him. For an example the sacrificial system is done away with once and for all. Jesus Christ has fulfilled the shadows as they all pointed to Him and His death on Calvary.

Russ: a) Gentiles never were under the Old Covenant law, b) the entire Old Covenant ‘vanished” per Hebrews 8:13 for Hebrews, c) you have eliminated the sacrificial system in violation of Matthew 5:19 “Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven,” d) I believe that Christ perfectly fulfilled all the “righteousness of the law” per Mt 5:20; Romans 3:21-22 and Gal 3:19-26. The whole law was a shadow of God’s righteousness in Jesus Christ who is the NEW STANDARD OF RIGHTEOUSNESS per John 14:6; 16:8-9; Heb 1:1-2.

110: Chris: This is also true as the believers are now a holy priesthood and are the temple of God. Therefore there is an end to these blood sacrifices.

Russ: There was an end to the entire Old Covenant law: Temple, priesthood, Levites, sacrifices, land, Levitical cities, festivals, holy days –and tithing. Why do you want to keep tithing and dump most of the rest? Tithing was a statute-ordinance of the CERMONIAL RELIGIOUS law which you say ended. Is not Numbers 18 the statute-ordinance of Law-tithing? Have you forgotten what this discussion is all about?

111: Chris: Dispensationalism teaches that the Jews will rebuild the temple and return to offering sacrifices. I affirm this is contrary to the Scriptures. Hebrews 10:4-10 “For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins. Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me: In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure. Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God. Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law; Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.”

Russ: When dispensationalists read the Old Testament prophets, we see hundreds of un-fulfilled un-conditional promises made to national Israel which have not been fulfilled by the Church. The Temple in the last chapters of Ezekiel is not described in conditional terms. Therefore we believe that it is a future temple in which sacrifice will be made AS MEMORIALS instead of made in order to atone for sins. There is no tithing in Ezekiel’s temple either because the Levites and priests will own their own land. I prefer to attempt to explain the hundreds of unconditional promises rather than pretend they are not found in my Bible.

112: Chris: This is what I mean when I said the types and shadows were fulfilled in Christ are abolished. “It is finished”, Christ made an end of those things “once and for all.”

Russ: Yet you want to keep teaching tithing although the Temple, priesthood, Levitical cites, holy land and covenant in which tithing was legislated to serve have all vanished and been replaced by the priesthood of every believer. I simply do not understand how you dare to do that.

113: Chris: However dispensationalists teach the temple shall be rebuilt and sacrifices again reinstituted by the Jews at the end of this dispensation of grace. One minute the Old Covenant is abolished and then it is restored?

Russ: You abolish the OT Temple and priesthood and keep the tithing part to support Gospel workers. On the other hand I resurrect the Temple and abolish tithing since it is not supported by Ezekiel 43 or after Calvary. I can show you a new temple in Ezekiel and Revelation 11 but you cannot show me tithing after Calvary.

114: Chris: I do not hold to Covenant Theology of the Presbyterians.

Russ: What hermeneutic do you hold to? It seems that you are in the middle and teach no consistent principle to bring laws over from the Old into the New Covenant.

115: Chris: You say we observe the moral law. All laws are either moral or immoral.

Russ: It was sin and immoral for a Hebrew food producer living inside Israel under the Old Covenant NOT to tithe. However it was NOT sin for OT Gentiles who were not living under the Old Covenant NOT to tithe. Am I right or not? Is this what we learn from Acts 15 and 21 or not? A Hebrew food producer living inside Israel ROBBED God by not tithing and was cursed under the conditions of that covenant. A Gentile could not be cursed for robbing God because the Gentile was NOT under that covenant.

117: Chris: As for civil laws do you have any problem with them?

Russ: I am not and never was under the civil laws (judgments) of Old Covenant national Israel. Are you? Are you? Are you? Answer my question.

118: Chris: The civil laws given were to protect men from men. I find no fault in them and we as a nation would do well to consider them. Our Lord is not harsh but full of grace. He hates sin and we should also.

Russ: The civil laws given in the Bible (called judgments) were primarily to protect Hebrews against Hebrews. As an inseparable part of the Old Covenant Law, they vanished at Calvary along with the rest of that Covenant per Hebrews 8:13 and Gal 3:19. I am a New Covenant Christian.

119: Chris: I do understand dispensationalism. Dispensationalists cut up the Scriptures and take most of it away from the people.

Russ: You do NOT understand dispensationalism. Dispensationalists take ALL of the Old Covenant away from Christian Hebrews and teach that the Gentiles never were under any of it as a Covenant.

120: Chris: Little of the gospels are left and leaving them with the epistles.

Russ: Until Calvary the Gospels are in the context of the Old Covenant upon which New Covenant light is shining. The Holy Spirit took Paul away for as many as 13 years to re-orient him in the new covenant law. Acts and the epistles are post-Calvary for the Church.

121: Chris: They have a hard time with James …

Russ: James is called by you the “Catholic epistle” because you do not understand James. The “perfect law of liberty” in James is not the Ten Commandments. Rather it is the “royal law” of “love,” the “golden rule” and “not respecting others.” You can keep the Ten Commandments without keeping the royal law but you cannot keep the royal law without keeping the whole moral law. You have trouble teaching the Ten Commands while ignoring the Sabbath commandment which teaches Saturday worship and slave ownership.

122: Chris: ... and they take away the Revelation with exception of the first 3 chapters.

Russ: You attempt to cram all of Revelation into the first century AD or spiritualize it. We teach that most of it is future as “things to come.”

123: Chris: They have a taint of the old Gnostic heresy. They are under grace and it matters not how they live. Holiness is not imperative to the new life. And as for repentance, that too goes out with the Old Covenant. Christ Jesus is presented as Savior but not as Lord.

Russ: You claim to know what I am. What are you? Identify yourself. Your understanding of Dispensational holiness is pathetic. We teach that a truly “born-again” person is in-dwelt by the Holy Spirit as a completely “new creation in Christ” and that person’s character has been changed to the point that he/she will obey God naturally as part of the new nature. Rom 8:3 “For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh.” True believers are severely punished by God until they return by repentance to a right fellowship with God per 1st John 1:1-9.

124: Chris: However what I said was the Bible speaks of the Law and does not break it up as many seek to do. Context distinguishes what aspect of the law is under discussion. I thought we agreed on this earlier. Look back to point 2.

Russ: But you DO BREAK IT UP when you teach that the commandments and judgments survive while the statutes have ended. This is also what most Covenant Theology teaches.

125: Chris: You have done away with the Old Covenant completely. When you fellows are confronted you waffle. Furthermore, all law is moral or immoral. There is no such thing as amoral!

Russ: “All law is moral or immoral” –to those to whom it applies. The U.S. law requires its citizens to pay taxes to it. U. S. law does not apply to other countries. In like manner tithing from the Law did not apply to Gentiles.

126: Chris: You have put away the Old Covenant. Apparently Paul did not know to do this. He quoted the Old Covenant and applied it to the Christians under the New Covenant, interesting!

Russ: Paul did not teach that all the Old Covenant WAS A COVENANT to Gentile Christians and you know very well that I am right! After 13 years of being re-oriented, Paul recognized what part of the Old Covenant was eternal and moral and applied to all people. Interesting –Paul did not teach tithing, circumcision, multiple wives, unclean food laws and killing disobedient children to the Church.

128: Chris: Abraham paid a tithe that preceded the law. And the Hermeneutical principle of first mentioned is totally ignore by you.

Russ: These are the hermeneutics you totally ignore here: a) The Bible does not call Abraham “Abram” here because he was still an uncircumcised Gentile from Babylon, b) the Bible does not say that Abram was either “commanded” to give by God or else “freely chose to give,” c) while Abram’s tithe preceded “the Law” it most certainly did not precede “the law of the land, Arab law” which required him to tithe spoils of war to his local king-priest. If you are going to literally follow “first use hermeneutics” here, then you must a) only tithe pagan spoils of war, b) only tithe once, c) only tithe to a Canaanite king-priest, d) only tithe to somebody who does not know God as Yahweh, e) keep nothing and f) give the 90% to the equivalent of the king of Sodom.

129: Chris: And Abraham was before the Law that came by Moses. And as for the tithe coming from within the Holy land and only in produce, that is absurd.

Russ: Don’t merely say it; prove it from God’s Word. Abram and Jacob’s tithes did not qualify as HOLY tithes under the Law. Absurd?? I have 16 texts to prove my point that HOLY tithes were always only food from inside Israel. Absurd? Put your texts where your mouth is! Prove from God’s Word that my argument is absurd if you can.

130: Chris: When you speak of the Old Covenant do you mean the entire Old Testament which is the Old Covenant or do you mean the Book of the Law the Covenant our Lord made with Israel through Moses on Sinai. Exodus 19-20? Or do you mean the first 5 Books of the Bible? That was the question I was asking.

Russ: The “Old Covenant began at Mt Sinai in Exodus 19 and ended at Calvary when Jesus inaugurated the New Covenant with his shed blood.
O. K. I have answered your question. Now you answer mine. What do you mean when you use the Word “law”?

131: Chris: I care not about English law as it is constantly in flux.

Russ: You very well know that I am speaking of English Law as it existed on July 4th, 1776. It ended suddenly, both good and bad, and that which was good in it was incorporated into the U. S. Constitution. That is the same comparison between the Old and New Covenants. The Old ended suddenly, both good and bad, at Calvary and the eternal moral parts of it were incorporated into the New Covenant as principles of grace and faith after Calvary.

132: Chris: I do care what the Scriptures say. The law written on stone was the 10 commandments. Do you know of any other law that was written on stone? These laws were written upon our hearts.

Russ: Here is where you are totally inconsistent. Is the “law” only the Ten Commandments? Does the “law written upon our hearts” only refer to the Ten Commandments or to the eternal moral parts of the whole law?
a) If you answer “Ten Commandments” then I will ask why you do not worship on Saturday and own slaves? b) If you answer “Ten Commandments, then I will ask which one of them teaches tithing?

133: Chris: The problem was not with the law as it is holy and it is good, Romans 7, the problem was with man. He was unable to keep the law.

Russ: Be careful. You might catch yourself agreeing with me. The Law WAS holy and it WAS good –for Old Covenant Israel. It was never given to me or other Gentiles. Romans 7 ends with Paul asking “WHO (not what) shall deliver me? –and then he quoted Romans 8:2 “For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.”

134: Chris: His problem was the need of a new birth. Then he does not have any problem with the law as it is written in his heart by the Spirit.

Russ: The “law written in the heart by the Spirit” is NOT the Old Covenant law to include tithing. Rather it is “the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus.” It is a “new” covenant per Heb 8:8; it is not the “Old” covenant rehashed. It is “NOT according to” the Old Covenant per Heb 8:9. The “Old” covenant has “vanished” per Heb 8:13.

135: Chris: All I said concerning the law to which you agreed, Point 2 is that when the Scriptures refer to the Law it simply say Law.

Russ: Yes, but you made no conclusion from that statement. You left it hanging meaningless.

136: Chris: As for Hebrews 8 it is apparent to the reader that the law referred to are the 10 commandments expounder in the Sermon on the Mount which Dispensationalists reject. They are summed up in the 2 Great commandments to love our Lord with our entire being and love our neighbor as our self.

Russ: How can the Law in Hebrews 8 only refer to the Ten Commandments if you say it is referring to Deuteronomy 6:5 and Leviticus 19:18 which are NOT in the Ten Commandments??? And, are you now rejecting the civil judgments as part of the law? Your use of “law” is all over the place.

137: Chris: By the way to do so fulfills all the law and the prophets! This is the entire Old Covalent!

Russ: Make up your mind. Are you trying to define “law” as only the Ten Commandments or as the entire Law of commandments, statutes and judgments? What does this have to say about our discussion of tithing? Do we keep tithing and all the rest of the law, or just keep the tithing part?

138: Chris: The hermeneutical principle you ignore. It is fundamental to understanding the Scriptures. That principle is the New Testament is the Divine commentary of the Old Testament.

Russ: We study American and World history in order to learn from their mistakes and sins. We do not have to re-live it literally in order to learn from it. The New Testament takes the righteous requirements of the Law and shows how Jesus Christ became the Righteousness of God for us. Every righteous aspect of the Law is now seen in Jesus. The Law was the light of OT Israel; Jesus is now the light of the world. The Law was God’s truth; Jesus is THE TRUTH of God.

139: Chris: However you have done away with the Old Covenant altogether and thus you do not need a commentary on that which is put away! It is totally done away with through your system of hermeneutics. Please reconsider this dispensational heresy.

Russ: You have not the slightest idea what you are talking about. Dispensationalists teach and preach out of the Old Testament as often as you do.

140: Chris: Sin is the transgression of the law, 1 John 3:4.

Russ: John does not use the word “law” to refer to the Old Covenant Law. Rather he uses the word “law” to refer to the “revealed will of God” or even the “royal law of love.” The Greek says “Sin is lawlessness.”

In John 16:8-9 the standard of righteousness and judgment has changed from the whole Law to Jesus Himself. In John 14:6 Jesus is not merely “a way, a truth, a life” but He is “the way, the truth and the life.” When Psalm 119 said “Thy Word have I hid in mine heart that I may not sin against thee, “ John says “The Word became flesh and dwelt among us.”
God does not ask the sinner, “What have you done with my law?” Rather God asks the sinner “What have you done with my son?” John 3:16-18.

141: Chris: That is an interesting answer. Luke 6:46, “Why call ye me Lord, Lord and do not the things that I say”! And again, how do you separate the Written Word from the Incarnate Word and the Eternal Word? They are one. There is no receiving Jesus without receiving His Word, John 3:36, and 12:48, and Matthew 4:4. John 12:48, “He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day”. Your theology is very superficial.

Russ: You make the Old Covenant and the New Covenant into the same identical thing. You do not “rightly divide the Word of truth.” You teach that we should still obey all the Old Covenant and then you discard major portions of it, but keep the tithe. I say that your theology is TRANSPARENT. You do not want to lose that precious tithe but you certainly want to keep your house and property contrary to the tithe law of Numbers 18.

142: Chris: No law then no sin!

Russ: There is always law. There is always God’s revelation of Himself to mankind.

Rom 2:14-16 “For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;) In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.”

The law of conscience and nature was sufficient to condemn Gentiles who were not under the Old Covenant Law. The New Covenant Law is God’s character becoming a part of our “new creation” in Christ. We obey because we have a new nature. Rom 8:2 “For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.”

143: Chris: I do not know why you have a hard time with what I said. The fact remains if there is no law then there is no sin because Sin is lawlessness! Whether the law is written in the conscience or on stone or even legislated it is the law. To be lawless is sin. If there is no law there is no sin regardless where it is written. Where it is written is immaterial at this point. The fact is no law not sin.

Russ: You are fighting your own false impression of what dispensationalism teaches. WE DO NOT TEACH NO LAW. We teach that WHEN the Old Covenant law ended for Hebrews, the New Covenant law began. This also means that, when the Law of conscience and nature ends for Gentiles the New Covenant Law begins.

144: Chris: When correcting dispensationalists they cry legalism.

Russ: We cry out that you do not understand that the Old Covenant Law was only given to national Israel and that is was in three inseparable parts. The Law was always an indivisible whole and all Jews understand that.

145: Chris: Please define the Old Covenant? When Moses established the Covenant the 10 commandments were part of that Covenant. This covenant that God made with Israel when they came out of Egypt is recorded for us in Exodus 19-20. This Covenant was ratified by the Blood. Is this done away? They are the 10 commandments? I reject such a thought.

Russ: Your definition is partly correct where you say that the Ten Commandments are PART of that Covenant and where you say that God made it WITH ISRAEL. Then you confuse both yourself and me. If it were not done away, then we still have both the Old and New Covenants contrary to Hebrews 8:8-13.

146: Chris: They (Dispensationalists) are lawless and the devil is called the lawless one.

Russ: The born-again Christian is a new creation in Christ (2 Cor 5:17. He has been redeemed and the Holy Spirit has indwelled the believer. The “law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.” Does that sound lawless to you? The new royal law of love is part of our new divine character.

147: Chris:
As for the tithe not being a moral law, is it not immoral to steal? How much more in robbing God! If it was immoral at one time then why is it not immoral now? Did you not say that the moral law stands?

Russ: It was sin for national Israel under the Old Covenant to steal from God by not tithing. It was also sin for national Israel to (1) not give those tithes as holy food from inside Israel, (2) not give those tithes to the Levite servants to the priests, (3) not give the priests a tenth of the tenth, (4) not KILL anybody who dared enter the sanctuary to worship God directly and (5) not forfeit land and property inheritance rights in exchange for the tithe. The tithing statute of Numbers 18 is part of the ceremonial law and even Covenant Theology teaches that the ceremonial law has ended (see Heb 7:5, 12, 18).

148: Chris: I believe the argument that is set forth in that passage is the Priesthood of our Lord exceeding that of Aaron and the Levitical priesthood as Abraham paid the tithe to Melchizedek. Thus Levi in the loins of Abraham paid the tithe to a priest greater than they. The priesthood of our Lord Jesus Christ is the greater than that of the Aaronic priesthood He is after the order of Melchizedek. The tithe is not said to be done away with but the Aaronic priesthood. The tithe is the Lord’s.

Russ: And you, like every other tithe teacher, stop your study with verse 10 and totally ignores verse 12-19, especially 12 and 18. The “law” which was “of necessity changed” in 7:12 must include the “law, commandment” “to take tithes” from 7:5 because it is the only law mentioned to that point in Hebrews 7. And the “necessary change” (7:12) of the “commandment going before” (7:18) to “take tithes of the people” (7:5) is its “annulment” in 7:18. That, my friend, is the context.

149: Chris: Gen 14. Also you ignore that Melchizedek came to Abraham with bread and wine. He came and refreshed Abraham. This was not the activity of pagan Kings.

Russ: This is the activity of EVERY king who goes out to welcome a victor bringing him wealth! Bread and wine are the most common basic staples of food in that region. Hebrews 7 makes no mention of this as it is no big deal.

150: Chris: The fact remains Abraham paid tithes. Paying tithes was before the law. And paying tithes was understood.

Russ: So what! So also was idol worship, child sacrifice and temple prostitution but that does not make any of them eternal moral principles.

151: Chris: What your interpretation of Melchizedek is, I believe as it is said he had no beginning or end is a theophany of Christ in the Old Testament.

Russ: Read my chapter on Hebrews 7. Nothing, absolutely nothing, written about the historical Melchizedek of Genesis 14 qualifies him to be a priest in Israel. But everything about the historical Melchizedek of Genesis 14 makes Jesus qualified to be a high priest after his order of a king-priest serving God Most High –the high god of most nations of that day.

152: Chris: You make the tithe to be limited to produce. What you fail to realize is produce has intrinsic value. Preachers and doctors were at one time paid with chickens, potatoes etc. In Haiti many still tithe in this way. The tithe was still a 10th.

Russ: One argument to support non-food tithing is that money was not universally available and barter from food was used for most transactions. This argument is neither biblical nor historical. Genesis alone contains money in 32 texts and the word occurs 44 times before the holy tithe is described in Leviticus 27. Gold is in Genesis 2:12. The words jewelry, gold, silver and shekel also appear often from Genesis to Deuteronomy.
Abram was very rich in silver and gold (Gen 13:2); money in the form of silver shekels paid for slaves (Gen 17:12+); Abimelech gave Abraham 1000 pieces of silver (Gen 20:16); Abraham paid 400 pieces of silver for land (Gen 23:9-16); Joseph was sold for silver pieces (Gen 37:28); slaves bought freedom (Lev 25:47-53). Court fines (Ex 21 all; 22 all), sanctuary dues (Ex 30:12+), vows (Lev 27:3-7), poll taxes (Num 3:47+), alcoholic drinks (Deu 14:26) and marriage dowries (Deu 22:29) included money.
Joseph gave Benjamin 300 pieces of silver (Gen 45:22). According to Genesis 47:15-17 food was used for barter only after money had been spent. Banking and usury laws exist in Leviticus even before tithing. Therefore the argument is false. Yet the holy contents from Leviticus to Luke never include money from non-food products and trades.

153: Chris: … Tim Lahay and D. w. Pentecost are absurd. Their theology is absurd. Their premillennial view of Scripture is Roman Catholic. Dispensationalists follow the teachings of a Jesuit Francis Rebera. Historically their system of theology is relatively new 16th century and very shallow. They are no more than a revival of the old Gnostic heresy.

Russ: If I knew where you are coming from, I am sure that I could say similar things about your theology. Please stick to God’s Word and do not attack me personally.

1 comment:

韋于倫成 said...

生存乃是不斷地在內心與靈魂交戰;寫作是坐著審判自己。..................................................