Pages

Sunday, February 19, 2017

Russell Kelly Rebuts Come Let Us Grow Together on Tithing



Come Let Us Grow Together tithing

Russell Kelly Rebuts cpministries
Feb 18, 2017, Come Let Us Grow Together

Grow: A crucial topic that many Christians do not understand is that paying tithes is a commandment of God and does not cease under the New Testament Covenant. 

Kelly: Not a single statement in this article applies to the church today.

Grow: Something many overlook is that tithing was instituted before the Law of Moses came to be. 

Kelly: The tithing which existed before the law in Genesis 14 and 22 was pagan in origin and practiced by many pagan religions before  2000 BC.

Grow: Therefore tithing is outside of the Law.

Kelly: Abram’s and Jacob’s tithes from pagan sources would not have been classified as holy tithes under the law by Moses, Nehemiah, Malachi or Jesus.

Grow: Tithing was also in the Law.

Kelly: According to Leviticus 27:30-34 and 15 other pre-Calvary texts, holy tithes (as the word is used by Moses, Nehemiah, Malachi and Jesus) were always only food from inside God’s holy land of Israel. The first whole Levitical tithe went to the servants of the priests (Numb 18:21-24) and ministers only received one per cent (Numb 18:25-28). Tithe recipients could not inherit land in Israel or amass wealth (Numb 18:20). None of this is followed today.

Grow: Jesus Christ is after the order of Melchisedec.

Kelly: Yes, the “order” of “priest-king” and not the literal historical person of Melchizedek.

Grow: Heb 7:2 first being by interpretation King of righteousness, and after that also King of Salem, which is, King of peace;

Kelly: Notice that Jesus was literally the King of Righteousness and the King of Peace. The literal historical person of Melchizedek was only such “by interpretation.”

Grow: Abraham paid tithes to Melchizedek. …  Tithing was being instituted here.  

Kelly: Not holy biblical tithes as the word is used by Moses and Jesus. The Bible does not tell us why uncircumcised Gentile Abram tithed.

Grow: 7:3 tenth of the spoils.

Kelly: Yes.  Not holy tithes from inside holy Israel. Spoils were from pagan sources. Not an example.

Grow: 5  And verily they that are of the sons of Levi, who receive the office of the priesthood, have a commandment to take tithes of the people according to the law

Kelly: Heb 5 controls the words “commandment,” “tithes” and “law” in Hebrews 7.

Grow: Heb 7:7 Melchisedec who was God.

Kelly: No, the literal historical Melchizedek was only a type of Christ --- by interpretation of his name – by a similitude. His unrecorded birth, genealogy and death makes him a type.

Grow: Heb 7:8 

Kelly: The temple was still operating and its Levites and priests were still receiving Christ as His representatives.

Grow: There are two orders.  The order of Aaron and the order of Melchisedec. 

Kelly: Since Israel had no king-priests, it was necessary to go outside of its structure to find a typical “order” among the Gentiles who had many king-priests.

Grow: Romans 3:19-20

Kelly: Romans 3:21-23.

Grow: Hebrews 8:6-8
6  But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.
7  For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.

Kelly: Now every believer is a priest before God and priests did not tithe. They gave sacrificially.

Grow: Heb 8:8

Kelly: Heb 8:9 The New Covenant is not the Old Covenant repeated.

Grow: Hebrews 7:12

Kelly: It was necessary to change the Old Covenant priesthood and the law governing it.

Grow: Heb 7:18  For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof.

Kelly: How was the law (of tithing from Heb 7:5) changed? Read your own text; it is clear. It was abolished, annulled, abrogated. It was not transferred to the gospel ministry.

Grow: Heb 7:26-28

Kelly: This is the lesson of Hebrews 7 --- not tithing. Aaron’s priesthood was replaced by Christ’s according to the “order” of Melchizedek. Unlike Aaron, Jesus’ priesthood is that of a king-priest.

Grow: Remember that when you pay tithes, you are not tithing unto men but unto God.

Kelly:
A.          You define holy tithes wrong.
B.          You give them to gospel workers instead of their (Levite) servants.
C.          You allow so-called tithe recipients to own and inherit much property and amass much wealth.
D.          Nothing you teach about tithes can be defended in context from God’s Word.
E.          I invite an open public discussion of this subject but none will do so because they lose at every point.

Grow: Hebrews 13:8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and today, and forever.

Kelly: And how do you interpret this text? What is the difference between the Old and New Covenants?

Grow: Malachi 3:8-11

Kelly: In Mal 3:1o tithes are still only food from inside Israel 1000 years after Leviticus 27:30-34. TEACH THAT. In 1:6-14; 2:1-10; 2:13-17 and throughout God curses the dishonest ministers for stealing the tithe (1:6-14 and Neh 134:5-10).

Grow: 1 Corinthians 9:9-14

Kelly: Each vocation has its own principles of support: soldier, farmer, herdsman, temple worker and gospel worker. The gospel worker is to live by principles of the gospel – grace and faith.

Russell Earl Kelly
russkellyphd@yahoo.com
Russ K

Wednesday, February 08, 2017

The Law and the Saint rebutal by Russell E Kelly



THE LAW AND THE SAINT, A. W. PINK
Rebuttal by Russell Earl Kelly, PhD
February 8, 2017

Pink’s article is an attack on Dispensationalists for teaching what he calls “no law” or “without law.” In fact a great deal of what he says to prove Dispensationalists wrong is agreed by them.

Too often Pink declares conclusions without any attempt to provide contextual proof. For example “ ‘The Law of God’ expresses the mind of the Creator and is binding upon all rational creatures. It is God’s unchanging moral standard for regulating the conduct of all men. In some places the “law of God” may refer to the whole revealed will of God, but in the majority it has reference to the Ten Commandments; and it is in this restricted sense we use the term... This law was impressed upon man’s moral nature from the beginning.”

First, the term “the Law of God” only occurs four times in the O.T. and all four are “the book of the law of God” which includes all of the judgments and statutes (Josh 24:26 and Nehemiah 8:8, 18; 10:28-29). Nehemiah 10:28-29 alone destroys every argument Pink gives that “the law of God” only refers to the Ten Commandments and does not refer to either the law of Moses or the judgments and statutes. Second, no validating texts are offered. Third, “it is God’s unchanging moral standard” is questionable. Pink himself worships on a day not recognized by Israel as the Sabbath given by God. Fourth, the Sabbath endorses slavery by not opposing it. Fifth, “in the majority of cases the law of God refers to the Ten Commandments” must have some validating arguments from God’s Word. Sixth, “This law was impressed upon man’s moral nature from the beginning” is doubtful. If that were true, man would know by nature and conscience to rest one day a week (for worship?). He would also know that slavery was wrong. The fact that he knows sex with animals is wrong (plus scores of other sins found in the judgments and statutes) proves that nature and conscience convict far beyond the Ten Commandments.

In the next paragraph Pink argues that Romans equates “law” with “Ten Commandments” most of the time and even refers to Romans 3:19. This conclusion is absurd. First, only once does Romans quote the Ten Commandments in reference to the law (Rom 13:9) and even then he closes the quotation with Leviticus 19:18 which is not part of the Ten Commandments! Second, it is most likely that “law” in Romans refers to the whole law of commandments, judgments and statutes most of the time. Third, Romans 3:11-18 quotes Isaiah and Psalms and concludes that they are part of “the law” in Romans 3:19. Therefore, Romans 3 proves the opposite of Pink’s statement.

Next, Pink says that “the Law of Moses” is still binding on Israelites and has not been repealed.” God’s Word disagrees:   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.”  Pink’s statement is so different that one wonders how many in his own denomination agree with him here.

Pink’s statements appear in a roller-coaster manner concerning their validity.  

YES: “The Law of Christ is God’s moral law.” While this may be true, it is not true the way Pink explains his statement.

NO: “It is the law which Christ was made under (Gal 4:4).” Yet Galatians 4:4-5 does not make that distinction: “But when the fullness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,
To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.” Israel was under the jurisdiction of the whole law of commandments, judgments and statutes.

YES: “It is the law which is “in his heart (Ps 40:8).” Yet Hebrews 8:10 refers to the entire New Covenant which is far broader than the Ten Commandments.

NO: “It is the law which Christ came to fulfill” (Mt 5:17).” This is because “these least commandments” in 5:19 includes the commandments, judgments and statutes in 5:21-48.

???: The “Law of God” is now termed “the Law of Christ” as it relates to Christians (Rom 7:25). The problem here is that Pink has previously stated that “the Law of God” only refers to the Ten Commandments. However, the phrase “the Law of God” only occurs four times in the Old Testament and all clearly include the judgments and statutes. The four texts are Joshua 24:26, Nehemiah 8:8, 18 and 10:28-29 --- “in the book of the law of God” and “to do all the commandments, judgments and statutes.” Contextually speaking, “the law of God” in Joshua and Nehemiah is NOT the same as “the law of God” in Romans 7:22, 25 and 8:7 – the only references in the New Testament. Pink does not tell us that “the law of Christ” only occurs once in the New Testament at Galatians 6:2.

Explaining First Corinthians 9:21, Pink says “not without law to God.” … “The apostle was still under obligation to obey the moral law of God.” While the statement is true, it is not true that the moral law is the Ten Commandments. The moral law is much broader in scope.

Next Pink says “The Law of Christ” then is just the moral Law of God” – meaning only the Ten Commandments. However, careful study of the New Testament reveals that the indwelling Holy Spirit teaches every word of Christ as He explained the gospel (John 16:13). The Law of Christ includes every teaching and every command given to the post-Calvary church.

Pink uses the fact that the Ten Commandments were uniquely written by God to argue that they are moral and the rest of the law is not. Yet careful reading of the judgments and statutes forces any logical person to conclude that moral laws not covered by the Ten Commandments are throughout. The judgments in Exodus 21-24 are especially important for declaring this. “All scripture is given by inspiration of God” does not allow for variable degrees of inspiration (2 Tim 3:16).

The fact that the Ten Commandments “alone” were “laid up in the ark” does not prove that only the Ten Commandments are moral. Since kings, priests and Levites read from copies of “  the book of the law of God,” of a certainty the “books” also contained the Ten Commandments.

Pink: “Thus it is clear beyond any room for doubt that the Ten Commandments, the moral law of God, were sharply distinguished from ‘the Law of Moses.’”

Again, Pink hides from his readers the fact that the phrase “the Law of God” only occurs four times in the Old Testament and all four clearly include the judgments and statutes. The three texts are Joshua 24:26, Nehemiah 8:8, 18; 10:28-29 --- “in the book of the law of God.” Since Pink certainly took the time to check the phrase out, he is willfully deceiving his readers.

Pink: We are not obligated to keep the other Sabbaths and the Sabbath year because “the moral law alone is binding on Gentiles and Christians.” Again, the fact that “the Law of God” includes all of the judgments and statutes in Joshua 24:26 and Nehemiah 8:8, 18; 10:28-29 proves Pink’s argument wrong.

Pink: “Why, it may be asked, does not the death penalty attached to the desecration of the Sabbath day still apply? Because though that was part of the Mosaic Law, it was not a part of the moral law of God, i.e. it was not inscribed on the two tables of stone; therefore it concerned none but Israelites.”

Pink needs to tell us what the O.T. penalty was for presumptuously sinning against God by breaking any of His moral law. In reality, a law does not exist apart from penalties for violation which are an inseparable part of the law. The judgments included the penalty of DEATH for worshipping other gods, idolatry, abuse of parents, breaking the Sabbath, murder and adultery. Since O.T Israel killed violators of these laws, it proves that the judgments were equal in inspiration and authority. Again, what were the penalties if the judgments did not exist?

“These verses (Romans 2:12-14) really have no direct bearing on our present theme.”  In fact, they are very important. In Romans 1:18-20 and 2:14-16 Paul teaches that Gentiles “who did not have the law” were still deserving of God’s wrath because they sinned against what God had revealed in nature and conscience. Pink teaches that nature and conscience are based on the Ten Commandments when the opposite is true. Nature and conscience go far beyond the teachings of the Ten Commandments. The judgments of Exodus 21-24 make that very clear.

Tuesday, February 07, 2017

The Ten Commandments are not for all Mankind


THE TEN COMMANDMENTS ARE NOT FOR ALL MANKIND
Russell Earl Kelly, PHD, 2-7-2017

Reply to “Chapter 28: The Law of God”

Although the article does not claim such, it is most likely written by Sabbath-advocating Seventh-day Adventists. It is an attack on out-of-context Dispensationalist William Darby’s comments about the law.

Paragraph #2: The first and greatest error of this article is equating “the Law of God” only with the Ten Commandments. This is a very common SDA argument. The second paragraph equates the “wishes” of God, His will and His commandments. While it is proper to define “law” as “the revealed will of God,” that which has been “revealed” is not the same for all peoples and nations. God only holds mankind accountable for rejecting that which is revealed and known. For O.T. Israel the “revealed will of God” included everything God had revealed to them in His Word – from Genesis to Malachi. That is why Paul could call Isaiah and Psalms “law” in Romans 3:11-18. For Gentiles the “revealed will of God” is found in nature and conscience (Rom 1:18-20; 2:14-16). Each revelation is enough to condemn sinners (Rom 3:19-20).

Paragraph #4 seriously miss-interprets the Dispensational explanation of law in order to justify the SDA explanation. Dispensationalists are not “without law”; in fact, we teach a higher law. A true born-again Christian is a “new creation in Christ” (2 Cor 5:17) and the eternal moral parts of the “thou shalt nots” of the Old Covenant Law of Moses are now “you will obey” God because of the indwelling Holy Spirit (Jn 16:13-14). Our law is the law of love and it is “the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus” (Rom 8:2). Our “law principle” is to be totally like Christ (2 Cor 3:18).

Paragraph #10 is wrong when it states “The laws which God gave unto Israel fell into three classes: the moral, the ceremonial and the civil.” First, the word “moral” is not biblical. Second, the law was divided into moral commandments, moral statutes and moral judgments. An Israelite committed a moral offense against God when he/she violated any of God’s commands – whether commandments, statutes or judgments. Third, many of the judgments and statutes are not included in the Ten Commandments but are, nevertheless, equal in force and penalty (such as death for sex with animals and death for mistreating the poor).

It is wrong to state “The law of the Decalogue … as to its substance is one and the same with the law of nature (the work of which is written on man’s heart).” First, nature and conscience teach to rest, but they do not teach a certain day of the week. Second, the laws of nature and conscience do not approve of slavery but the Sabbath commandment does not condemn it. Third, the laws of nature and conscience are not addressed to a nation which has been redeemed from Egyptian bondage.

STATUTES/ORDINANCES: It is also wrong to call God’s statutes and ordinances “ceremonial” as if they only concerned worship laws. First, the word “ceremonial” (like “moral”) is unbiblical and is man’s designation for God’s statutes and ordinances. Second, the statutes and ordinances included far more ceremonial worship instructions which only cover half of Leviticus’ 27 chapters. Like the Ten Commandments, violation of a statute/ordinance was an immoral punishable sin.  No Hebrew would accept the teaching that statutes/ordinances were not moral for Israel. They included the Passover (Lev 23), Day of Atonement (Lev 16) fornication (Lev 18-19), respecting the aged (19:32), treatment of strangers (19:33), honest scales (19:35-36) and inheritance rights (25) --- none covered by the Ten Commandments.

JUDGMENTS: Again, it is wrong to discard the judgments as merely “political laws.” First, the judgments contained the PENALTIES for presumptuous willful transgression of the Ten Commands and usually prescribed the death penalty. Second since laws do not exist without penalties for violation, the Ten Commandments would not exist if there were no penalties for violation. Third, the judgments do not simply modify the Ten Commandments; in fact they add to and supplement the Ten Commandments by including laws not covered by them. Read Exodus 21-24 and take notes. Again, sex with animals is an immoral sin punishable by death but it is not covered by the Ten Commandments.

Paragraph #11 states “The Ten Commandments are binding upon all men.” Yet God did not tell that to Old Covenant Israel! God told them not to make covenants with other nations (Ex 23:32; Deut 7:2).  He forbade intermarriage and not a single tithe ever built a mission station to convert Gentiles.

Paragraph #12 [first] pretends to prove that the Ten Commandments are for everybody and only quotes Ps 103:20.  First, since unfallen angels do not make idols, disobey their parents or commit adultery, “commandments” does not refer to the Ten Commandments. Second, “covenant” in 103:18 includes the judgments and ordinance in addition to the Ten Commandments. Third, the SDA doctrine of the Investigative Judgment denies 103:12.

Paragraph 13 [second] states “not a single New Testament word announces the cancellation of the Ten Commandments.”
First, the Ten Commandments were an integral part of the Old Covenant Law which contained moral laws throughout in its commandments, judgments and statutes. Second, their part, function and wording in the covenant did indeed end but their moral essence were immediately restated as part of God’s New Covenant in terms of grace and faith (Rom 7:4; 8:2; Gal 3:19; Heb 7:12, 18; 8:13)(2 Cor 5:17).

Paragraph 14 [third] states “If the covenant people of old were required to have such statutes, are the Gentiles today any less self-sufficient”? First, no texts are given to prove that Gentles ever were under the same law as O.T. Gentiles. Second, a flaw in the argument is evident because it only mentions Gentiles today” --- the flaw is a silent admission that O.T. Gentiles were not under that literal law.

Paragraph 15 [fourth] is self-defeating when it states that the Ten Commandments are binding on all men because “the Lord Jesus Himself respected them.” First, this argument proves too much because Jesus respected the whole law of commandments, judgments and statutes. Second, the “law” mentioned in Ps 40:8 is the whole law of commandments, judgments and statutes as is very clear in Psalm 119 which mentions all three numerous times. Second, quoting Matthew 22:36 destroys the argument that only the Ten Commandments are the moral law because Jesus’ answer in 22:37-40 quotes Deuteronomy 6:5 and Leviticus 19:18 --- neither are in the Ten Commandments. Jesus actually proved that Deuteronomy and Leviticus also contained moral laws for Israel.

Paragraph 16 [fifth] is self-defeating by quoting Matthew 5:17-19 to prove that the Ten Commandments are binding on all mankind. The text actually proves that the “law” of 5:17 is the whole law of commandments, judgments and statutes. “Once of these least commandments” must refer to the examples Jesus gave in 5:21-48 which are from the commandments, judgments and statutes.

Paragraph 17 [sixth] is self-defeating by referring to Romans 3 to prove that the Ten Commandments are binding on all mankind. In fact 3:11-18 quote Isaiah and Psalms and concludes that they are also part of the law. This proves that the laws to Israel included far more than the Ten Commandments. The argument closes by an obvious total misquote of First Corinthians 9:21.

Paragraph 18 [seventh] is self-defeating by using Psalm 89 to prove that the Ten Commandments are binding on all men.  Psalms 89 is about the Davidic covenant and his throne. It is not about the Ten Commandments. It is doubly out of SDA context because they deny that David (or Jesus) will literally reign on earth again.

In paragraph 19 SDAs conclude that the Ten Commandments are the Divine Will of God for all mankind. Yet SDAs violate this Sabbath when they cause others to work on the Sabbath: they drive, use electricity, city water, city sewage, city gas, telephones, etc. contrary to the literal Sabbath commandment.
Also, since they abolish the judgments, there is no biblical PNALTY for breaking the Sabbath – therefore the law does not exist.

In paragraph 20 SDAs admit they will not answer objections except in their written literature. This is true. Although they have many TV and radio programs, they will not engage in deep discussions. This is sad since they teach that the world depends on them to bring their unique plan of salvation.