Russell Earl Kelly, Ph. D.

Reply to Pastor Vroegop

2011-05-18T04:45:00.001-07:00

Reply to Pastor Mark Vroegop

http://www.yourchurch.com/sermon/is-tithing-old-school/

College Park Church
Indianapolis, IN

Russ: While Mark jumps a lot of hoops trying to deny that he teaches tithing, his next-to-final statement places him solidly in the “yes” camp. “it would make sense that grace-loving, Jesus-centered, forgiveness-receiving people would give well beyond the Old Testament minimum.”

Mark makes the same mistakes and false assumptions of almost all tithe teachers: (1) he defines tithes as money increase, (2) he assumes that every Hebrew was requuired to tithe, and (3) he assumes that every Hebrew began a level of giving at ten per cent.

This is fundamentally wrong for several reasons: (1) The true biblical HOLY tithe was always only food from inside God’s holy land which He had miraculously increased, (2) although God owned everything, He did not accept holy tithes from what man increased, from Gentiles, or from outside Israel, (3) the only persons who could begin at a miimum of ten per cent were farmers and herdsmen inside Israel, (4) not even Jesus, Peter, and Paul qualified as tithe-payers, and (5) though money was common and required for sanctuary worship, money was never a tithed item in the Bible.

Mark: Numbers 18:25-30

Russ: If Mark would actually preach from the text he quoted, he would have to admit (1) that tithes were only food from inside Israel, (2) that the Levites who received the whole Levitical tithe were only servants to the priests, and (3) that priests only received one tenth of the tithe.

Mark: Acts 20:35

Russ: Here Paul instructed church elders to work hard to support the needy in their congregations. It has been reversed today.

Mark: 2 Corinthians 9:8, 11

Russ: He gives a lot of good freewill giving arguments but ends up teaching tithing.

Mark: Numbers 18

Russ: Numbers 18 is actually the exact wording of the tithing statute-ordinance.

Mark: As a part of the Old Testament sacrificial system, the Levites did not own property but lived off the contributions of the people.

Russ: They lived in 48 (later 13) Levitical cities and worked as farmers and herdsmen 23 of 24 weeks. They also worked and learned trades for use in the temple. (See Edersheim, etc.)

Mark: Embedded in this account is the issue of tithing since the Levites were instructed to give a “tithe of the tithe” (v 26).

Russ: Then the priests were not required to tithe. They gave freewill vow offerigns (Mal 1:13-14).

Mark: A tithe was the practice of giving a tenth of one’s income or increase as a financial offering to God. The idea was that a tenth portion of everything was given.

Russ: This is a LIE. The tithe was never the increase of what man produced. It was always only food from inside God’s HOLY land which God had miraculously increased by His own hand. See MacArthur and Croteau plus God’s Word.

Mark: Interestingly the concept of tithing was not unique to the nation of Israel. Many other religions and nations practiced tithing. A few examples are Babylonian culture, the temple of Athena in Athens, the Romans, Greeks, and Chinese.

Russ: Yes, but this does not make tithing an eternal moral principle because these other nations also worshipped idols, etc.

Mark: Genesis 14. This event, according to Hebrews 7, is loaded with symbolism since Abraham is the father of the Jewish nation, he is paying homage to someone who is both King and Priest, and the land from which Melchizedek comes (Salem) will be Jerusalem. However, Abraham didn’t invent the concept of tithing; he was reflecting something he had learned from his Babylonian culture since tithing had become a vital part of the religious-political culture of the day.

Russ: Since you do not go into detail, I won’t.

Mark: When Israel became a nation, tithing was a vital part of their formal identity. In Israel the tithe (10%) was both as an obligation and an act of worship.

Russ: The first and third tithes were obligations. The second tithe was also an act of worship.

Mark: In this way the tithe combines two words that do not seem to go together: taxes and worship. In Israel there was no distinction between spiritual and national life; they were intertwined. Therefore, the giving of tithes was a requirement since it was the means by which the nation was supported. So you could think of tithing as the spiritual taxation. It was money used to support the nation, and it was worship.

Russ: Yes per MacArthur and Croteau but not Alcorn. Kings used Levites as political workers, judges, rulers, etc. 1 Chron 23 to 26.

Mark: Leviticus 27:30-33

Russ: Interpret the text literally: (1) only food, (2) not the firstfruit, (3) not the best and (4) only for Israel (v34).

Mark: The tithe was based upon a few key principles:
• Everything belongs to the Lord

Russ: Only everything which God miraculously increased from inside His holy land. God did not accept holy tithes from anywhere else.

Mark: All that we have and hope to have is a gift from Him
• A tithe honors this relationship of Creator and Creature

Russ: Sounds good, but not exactly biblical.

Mark: … The average “tithe” was actually closer to 23%.

Russ: Am I to condlude that you mean 23% when you say “give well beyond the Old Testament minimum”? Is not this blatant hypocrisy?

Mark: Therefore, we can conclude the following about tithing in the Old Testament:
1. Tithing was a common practice in the Ancient Near East

Russ: Yes. Thanks for being honest. Most pastors will not admit this.

Mark: 2. Tithing was rooted in God’s ownership

Russ: Not necessarily unless limited to Israel.

Mark: 3. Tithing was both an obligation and an act of worship in Israel

Russ: Only for Israel. Not for Gentiles or the Church.

Mark: 4. Tithing went well beyond the traditional 10%

Russ: Yes, so what is the minimum? 23?

Mark: Tithing was the fundamental way that the people of Israel expressed their understanding of God’s role in their life, their gratitude, and the support of the nation.

Russ: NO, NO, NO. Only farmers and herdsmen inside Israel. It applied to nobody else. Others showed their gratitude with freewill offerings.

Mark: …. 1. Voluntary giving, not tithing, is the base or foundation of generosity
2. Voluntary giving was a response to the grace and goodness of God

Russ: Yes, so why not teach the “base or foundation of generosity”?

Mark: 3. Tithing, while valuable and important, was a cultural and national addition that never replaced voluntary, heart-based generosity

Russ: True. Freewill giving is always better.

Mark: So now you are wondering: Are we supposed to tithe or not? Good question. Is Tithing for Today? [Quotes Augustien and Randy Alcorn]

Russ: Why do you pretend to disagree with Alcorn and then make a final statement which is exactly what he concludes???? “Give well beyond the Old Testament minimum.”

Mark: However, I do not see how tithing as defined and practiced in the Old Testament is the model for giving today.

Russ: Yes, you most certainly do: “Give well beyond the Old Testament minimum.

Mark: Therefore, I think that a tithing model is the wrong way to approach New Testament giving.

Russ: No, you don’t. “Give well beyond the Old Testament minimum.”

Mark: Why do I say that?
3. The New Testament never suggests that tithing is the model of Jesus’s disciples.

Russ: Then do not teach that “it would make sense that grace-loving, Jesus-centered, forgiveness-receiving people would give well beyond the Old Testament minimum.” You hypocrite! Many Christaisns can barely make ends meet and are already giving sacrificially even though LESS than ten per cent. Our guide is First Timothy 5:8.

Mark: Some would argue and resist what I’m saying today suggesting that a lack of emphasis on tithing comes from a desire to give less, and it is often suggested that the effect on people will be that less will be given. However, that is a familiar charge and a common fear when grace is added to anything. The fear of what people will do or not do has led to lots of obedience “add-ons” over the centuries.
As well, limiting obedience to a particular standard (in this case, a percentage) makes those who are doing it feel righteous when they may be doing so out of rote habit and self-righteousness (“I’m gave my 10%, I’ve done my part. God is happy with me.”) It is my belief that a specific, required, and obligated percentage takes away the heart of what giving is supposed to be. It might be comparable to the husband who either feels obligated to buy his wife a gift for every special event. The required duty eclipses the joy.
Next week, I’ll dial into this issue even further, but let me give you some initial thoughts as to how we ought to think about giving:
1. Giving acknowledges God’s ownership of everything, so you should regularly give
I am in no way suggesting that you should not give. On the contrary, I firmly believe that a failure to give and a stingy heart reflect very clearly on your view of God. Those who love God’s rule of their lives will have generous hearts.

Russ: This is great rhetoric but it does not match your “minimum” statement.

Mark: 2. Engaging the heart in giving is more important than the size of the gift
God loves a cheerful giver (2 Cor. 9:7), and it is really important to see that central to the beauty of giving is the heart-wrestling that should accompany it.

Russ: Yes, yes, yes.

Mark: 3. There is commendable value in becoming a priority and percentage giver
Here is where tithing as a model is helpful. I would encourage you to consider making giving the first check that you write, and I would encourage you to set a percentage of what you believe God is leading you to give.

Russ: Great Alcorn theology but not found in God’s Word. The titeh was never a model for all Hebrew givers.

Mark: 4. Giving a tithe does not satisfy our giving obligations

Russ: For many the giving of ten per cent would be a huge sacrificle. They would have to do without essentials.

Mark: 5. We must see giving through the lens of the gospel

Russ: After Calvary and blessed by the Holy Spirit.

Mark: And it seems to me that while tithing is not required, it would make sense that ….

Russ: Take the OT Law out fo one hand, slip it around the back, and place it back into the NT hand. Neat trick. Do you also take all of Numbers 18 and do the same thing with that entire statute? Do you own and inherit property? Hmmmmm.

Mark: … grace-loving, Jesus-centered, forgiveness-receiving people would give well beyond the Old Testament minimum.

Russ: Our nation is full of of faithful “tithe-payers” in the ghettos who have been “tithing” for generations and remain poor. They are afraid to stop because their money tree is just around the corner.

Mark: But the motivation should not be obligation and habit; it should be love and gratitude.

Russ: YOU have made it a motdivation of MINIMUM.

Russell Earl Kelly, PHD
www.tithing-russkelly.com
Author of Should the Church Teach Tithing? and good friend or Dr. David Croteau. See his latest edited book, Perspectives on Tithing: Four Views, by Broadmen Press.

P.S. Alcorn backed out of Christianity Today’s debate challenge with me. See Revelation TV (London) Tithing Debate.

NIGERIAN PASTORS BUY AIRPLANES

2011-05-17T11:24:00.000-07:00

Wealthy Nigerians, Pastors Spend $225 million on Private Jets
May. 17 2011 - 12:32 pm | 0 views | 0 recommendations | 0 comments
By MFONOBONG NSEHE, FORBES MAGAZINE

http://blogs.forbes.com/mfonobongnsehe/2011/05/17/wealthy-nigerians-pastors-spend-225-million-on-private-jets/
Nigerian pastor and private jet owner David Oyedepo. (Image via Wikipedia)
A few wealthy Nigerians spent at least $225 million acquiring private jets between March 2010 and March 2011, a Nigerian newspaper reported on Monday.
According to the report published by the Punch Newspaper, a couple of the acquisitions were made by billionaires Aliko Dangote and Mike Adenuga. Last year, Dangote acquired a US$45 million Bombardier jet as a gift to himself on his 53rd birthday, while Mike Adenuga purchased a Bombardier Global Express XRS. Both Dangote and Adenuga own at least two private planes each.
Apart from wealthy business tycoons, Nigerian clergymen and spiritual leaders are also joining the very elite league of jet owners.
In March this year, David Oyedepo, a Nigerian cleric generally believed to be Africa’s wealthiest gospel preacher, acquired a Gulfstream V jet for US$30 million. Oyedepo, who presides over the Winners Chapel, one of Africa’s largest churches, now owns a private collection of four aircraft. In addition to his latest acquisition, he previously owned two Gulfstream planes and a Bombardier Challenger Aircraft. He is also reportedly creating a private hanger to accommodate his flying toys.
Oyedepo is not the only Nigerian clergyman to own a jet. Pastor Enoch Adeboye, the revered overseer of Nigeria’s largest congregation, The Redeemed Christian Church of God, is also a proud jet owner. In March 2009, the great man of God spent $30 million on a Gulfstream jet amidst widespread criticism. Pastor Sam Adeyemi, another cleric and founder of the Daystar Christian center, a flourishing Pentecostal congregation which repeatedly preaches financial prosperity, is also a jet owner.
It’s not cheap to own a private jet. On average, it costs hundreds of thousands of dollars annually to maintain a personal plane. The majority of Nigerians frown at such flagrant displays of opulence, particularly on the path of their clergymen, given that 60% of Nigerians still live below the poverty line.
Paradoxically, the same people who complain about the extravagant lifestyles of their spiritual leaders are the same ones who finance it. Every Sunday, swarms of worshipers rush to the church to give away their hard-earned money to the pastors’ coffers in the form of tithes, offerings and special gifts with the deluded hope of multiplied financial blessings in return. For many, this is but a pipe dream. Deep down, the pastors smile; they’ve got just the perfect suckers.

Reply to Pastor Aaron

2011-05-16T23:50:00.000-07:00

Pastor Aaron

Russ: While I sense that you have a great love for God and a strong gospel heart, your logic to retain tithing is faulty. Please reconsider and join us. Your final point will not let go of this false doctrine: “My point here is that there is no longer Jew or Gentile and while we are free from trying to justify ourselves by the law, the heart of the law still applies to sin, good works, giving and tithing.”

Aaron: While a set amount of 10% was never set in the New Testament, the principal of giving to support the temple and the ministry was still valid under the new covenant.

Russ: Yes, but not tithing!

Aaron: Since this concept is quite clear throughout the New Testament, I am wondering if it's the continual and consistent giving that you have a problem with?

Russ: No. It is your dogged use of the term “tithing” which you have completely taken out of the OT definition and context. HOLY, I repeat, HOLY tithes could only come from inside the HOLY land of Israel and only from what God Himself had miraculously increased. Not even Jesus qualified as a tithe-payer. Why won’t you address those glaring errors in your theology?

Aaron: We also find that it was common in e New Testament to give much, much more than 10%, and often to give all you had.

Russ: There is no percentage given in the New Covenant for the church after Calvary. Period. The Holy Spirit-blessed giving was freewill and sacrificial. And, yes, that meant MORE than 10% for many but it also meant LESS dthan 10% for many others were were still giving sacrificially. Why is that concept so hard to understand for you?

Aaron: Let's look at a few scriptures we find in the NT with regards to continual giving. In the following passage we find that monies were collected for Jerusalem during a period of time outside and on top of their commitments to their church.
1 Corinthians 16:1-3

Russ: You are using a corrupt Not Inspired Version which changes the Greek word “logia” into “money” when the context is “food” for famine relief. Hint: money does not buy food in a famine unless you have wheelbarrows full of it. Second, this text is not discussing pastoral support or church building funds.

Aaron: In the next passage Paul let's the church know that whatever they have to give is fine, and let them judge for themselves what was appropriate to give based on what they had.
2 Corinthians 8:10-15

Russ: This is my argument and it proves your use of the word “tithing” completely unscriptural for the NT church after Calvary.
“Equality giving” means that the much-giving by some will make up for the less-giving of others who are applying First Timothy 5:8.

Aaron: Paul received financial help from various churches regularly, but never pressed people for money.
Philippians 4:10-20

Russ: Again, Paul did not preach or teach tithing because he knew very well that tithes could only come off the land of Israel and could only be used to support the Levites and priests. Paul was mostly self-supporting by his own choice.

Aaron: From the following passage it is clear that pastors, elders and teachers received money and support from their churches.

Russ: Yes, but it does not state that pastors MUST be full time and MUST accept a salary. The Bible is silent on that point. Otherwise Paul would be deliberately disobeying Jesus in 9:14.

Aaron: It is also clear that this was an "accepted right" and tradition carried from the Old Testament where God had made precedent that teachers would be provided for by the church.

Russ: The greatest preachers in the OT were the prophets and they exercised no “right” in this manner. They were supported by voluntary freewill offerings if at all. Gospel preachers more closely follow the pattern of OT prophets than OT priests who only received one per cent per Num 18:25-28 and Neh 10:38.

Aaron: Paul here is forgoing his rights to this, however keep in mind that he is not saying that those who partake of this right are wrong, since he is clearly OK with it. 1 Corinthians 9:1-19

Russ: This has absolutely nothing to do with tithing. In fact, if Paul had wanted to teach tithing, he missed this golden opportunity. OT tithe recipients were not allowed to own or inherit property. What do you do with that part of the tithing law?

Aaron: We read in Timothy that elders should be well paid for their hard work of teaching and preaching. 1 Timothy 5:17-18

Russ: This is a horrendous interpretation of the Greek and the KJV, NAS and RSV do not thus interpret it. Shame on you. First Timothy 5:1-16 and 19-20 deal with DISCIPLINE, not salaries. The word “timos” refers to the “worthiness” of a teaching elder to receive DOUBLE HONOR when being disciplined. “Timos” is never translated as “money” or “salary” in real translations.

Aaron: In Galatians Paul implores those who are taught the word to provide for their teachers who teach the word.
Galatians 6:6 Those who are taught the word of God should provide for their teachers, sharing all good things with them.

Russ: True, but the text is not discussing tithing or full-time salaries.

Aaron: Please remember, that while we are not under the law, we are not excluded from the heart of the law. In Jeremiah God says that the law would no loner be in stone, but in our hearts.
Jeremiah 31: 31, 33-34

Russ: This is also in Hebrews 8:8-13. First, the OT covenant of Law was never commanded to the Gentile or Church and especially its cultic worship statutes-ordinances which included tithing. Second, that part of the Law which is eternal and moral is also written in the heart and conscience—including giving but not tithing (Rom 2:14-16).Third, the post-Calvary NT Law of the Spirit is LOVE which is freewill sacrificial giving and not tithing.

Aaron: The point of grace is to free us from the law, meaning the law is not what justifies us, for justification is only through Christ. Galatians 3:24 So then, the Law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith.

Russ: Gentiles never were under the OT Law of tithing and never needed to be FREED from it. What does “until” mean to you?
Why did you quote Gal 3:24 and leave out 3:25-26? You missed the point of that and 3:19. Gal 3:25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.

Aaron: However this does not give us license to sin or to be free of good works.

Russ: This is a weak and silly argument used to support ttthing. The Christian is a “new creation in Christ” and has a new nature which wants to obey God spontaneously because God’s will is now written in his/her heart.

Aaron: Hebrews 10:24-29

Russ: The letter of Hebrews was written to Jewish Christians who were still attending AND SUPPORTING the Temple system over 30 years after Calvary. See also Acts 21:20-21. They were still paying tithes to the Temple system.

Aaron: Even you may not be a Jew, because of your faith you are given the promise of Abraham. This means that we are all now children of Abraham and heirs to God's promise.
Galatians 3:14
Galatians 3:23-29

Russ: And what does this mean concerning tithing? Do we follow Abram’s example and tithe pagan spoils of war to our local church? Does this mean that we follow his example and give the 90% to the equivalent of the King of Sodom? Does this mean that we can lie to Pharoah and loan him our wife in order to get wealth? Not everything Abram did is an example of faith.

Aaron: My point here is that there is no longer Jew or Gentile and while we are free from trying to justify ourselves by the law, the heart of the law still applies to sin, good works, giving and tithing.

Russ: You are cherry-picking only that part of the Law which YOU want to extend to the NT church. Your hermeneutic is inconsistent. What gives you the authority to add something to the Church which is not added to it in the pages of the NT after Calvary by the Holy Spirit?

Aaron: Recall my first response to the heart of giving. Remember, nobody at Christian World is beating your over the head for 10%, but you are encouraged to give, and to learn to give consistently as the bible teaches in both the New and Old Testaments, so that you can be a blessing.

Russ: If I gave as the Bible teaches in the OT, I would be giving tithes, offerings, vow offerings, temple shekels, poll taxes, etc, etc, etc. What you really mean is “give consistently as I have taught you what I think the Bible teaches.”

Aaron: Open your heart to Christ and ask Him what He wants from you with regards to how much and how often to give to Him.

Russ: This is freewill sacrificial giving at its best –not tithing.

Russell Earl Kelly

TITHING ABUSE STORY BY J. PARKER, 5-5-2011

2011-05-07T03:15:00.000-07:00

Published with Permission, 5-5-2011
Dear Brother Kelly,
I’d like to thank you for your work helping believers escape the bondage of tithing and the Old Testament Law.
My wife and I suffered under that bondage for 15 years until I finally took the initiative to research the claims of tithe-teachers myself. I came to the Lord when I was 21, started attending an Assemblies of God Church, and faithfully gave 10% of my gross income to that church regardless of whether I could afford it or not. Unable to afford it because my wife and I were raising 4 young children on a meager income, we started to accumulate a lot of credit card debt. We approached our Pastor at the time who told us we had to tithe, but that the church couldn’t help us out financially. We continued like this for years eventually ending up with over $30,000 in credit card debt, mostly from buying groceries.
There were many times during those years that I questioned whether Christians needed to tithe, but would always run into opposition from my wife, friends, and pastors. Several of our closest friends were Word of Faith people who operated under the fear that if they didn’t tithe, they’d be cursed.
I used to work a job in a paper mill that required me to work 6 or usually 7 days a week, so I rarely felt I had time to study God’s Word. In the long run, it cost me dearly. Eventually though, I grew disgusted with what I saw as abuse in the church as I listened to pastors preach to poor people that, regardless of their circumstances, still needed to tithe. After all, they’d say, “who knows what kind of trouble you’re saving yourself by tithing. Quit now and your life will really get tough.”
After months of careful study, compiling my notes into a book and practicing what my arguments would be, I felt confident enough to share with my wife, friends, and pastors what I had learned regarding tithing. My wife eagerly listened and eventually saw the light. Most of my friends were so fearful of not tithing that they wouldn’t see the light unless their properly ordained pastor told them they didn’t have to tithe. Most disappointing of all was the response I received from almost every pastor I spoke with---5 of them absolutely refused to discuss the issue or even look at my copious notes. Over the years, only 1 pastor of a very small fellowship read what became my book and changed his mind about tithing.
This has been a very discouraging battle for me. Prior to becoming a Christian, I was a devout Roman Catholic. You can imagine the turmoil I endured as I explained to my parents that I was leaving the Catholic Church to attend a Protestant Church. They were heartbroken and even considered not attending my protestant wedding because their Priest told them it would be a sin for them to set foot in my church. I had to leave Catholicism though. I had always questioned authority and had I not I’d still be Catholic today. This is why I have a hard time with the people I know not wanting to question tithing. Many of these friends came out of Catholicism as I had, but it’s as though, once they became protestant, they quit questioning everything. They’ll believe anything their pastor tells them.

Your Fellow laborer in Christ,
Joel P. Parker
P.S. I love your book.

Rebuttal to Steven Britt on Tithing-2

2011-05-06T21:23:00.001-07:00

Was Tithing Disannulled in Hebrews 7? Part 2 of Article Closed to Open Dialog
http://spiritual-snacks.blogspot.com/2011/05/arguments-against-tithing-debunked-part_06.html

Steven Britt: Of course, they then pick and choose for themselves what they consider to be Old Covenant law!

Russell Kelly: This is a blatant lie and the very opposite is true. Mr. Britt is the one who “picks and chooses” that part of the Old Covenant which he personally thinks should be taught in the New Testament after Calvary without any use of consistent hermeneutics. Our hermeneutical foundation is consistent and literal: The Old Covenant was only given to Israel. (2) That part of the Old Covenant which also applies to the Church has been repeated to the Church in terms of the New Covenant after Calvary.” (3) “What,” we ask, “is your hermeneutic if not ‘pick and choose’?”

Steven: After a careful analysis of this chapter, I'll show in a broader sense that neither tithing nor any other part of the law of God has ever been "disannulled" in the sense that it is no longer in effect, as so many today want you to think.

Russ: You waste a lot of words. Just do it. Just say it. Stop beating around the bush.

Steven: For starters, let's review the anti-tithing argument in question. It goes as follows: Hebrews 7 is the only place in the bible after Christ's death that tithing appears, and it refers to tithe as a commandment and law in verse 5.

Russ: The argument is that Hebrews 7:5 is the first text in Hebrews where the words “commandment,” “tithes,” and “law” appear. Other than that, your statement is literally true in God’s Word.

Steven: Then Hebrews 7:12 says that the law has changed because the priesthood has changed,

Russ: The priesthood was literally changed from the Aaronic to the Melchozedek-Christ. Verses 12-18 point out very strongly that the Melchizedek priesthood was not based on Old Covenant law which established and sustained the Aaronic priesthood by tithes and other offerings.

Steven: and verse 18 says that the commandment is disannulled.

Russ: You are manipulating the text. It says that “There is a disannulling of the commandment going before.” And, in literal context, that “commandment going before” must at the very least include tithing from 7:5.

Steven: Therefore, the commandment and law that are "disannulled" in Hebrews 7 are the laws of tithing,

Russ: While the “commandment going before” in 7:5, 18 specifically included tithing, it must have included all statutes-ordinances which had been legislated for the Aaronic priesthood, including Numbers 18.

Steven: and Christians are no longer required to tithe like people did in the Old Covenant.

Russ: This is manipulation. (1) Christians never were required to tithe. (2) Only food producers who lived inside Israel were ever required to tithe. Even Jews who lived outside Israel and/or were not food producers could not tithe. (3) While the OT laws of tithing were very limited, NT post-Calvary giving principles are very widespread and make much more sense. Tithing limited giving to HOLY food from God’s HOLY land.

Steven: Hebrews 7:1 For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the Most High God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him,
7:2 to whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all...
7:3 … remains a priest continually.
7:4 Now consider how great this man was, to whom even the patriarch Abraham gave a tenth of the spoils.
7:5 And indeed those who are of the sons of Levi, who receive the priesthood, have a commandment to receive tithes from the people according to the law, that is, from their brethren, though they have come from the loins of Abraham; 7:6 but he whose genealogy is not derived from them received tithes from Abraham and blessed him who had the promises.

The Old Covenant established the Levites as a tribe of priests and appointed them to receive the tithes from the rest of those under the covenant - the other 11 tribes of Israel.

Russ: Correct.

Steven: Is tithing the central issue here? No. Tithing is being used as a device to show that Melchizedek is greater than Abraham. Therefore, since Abraham is greater than Levi, Melchizedek is greater than Levi:

Russ: Correct.

Steven: Hebrews 7:7 Now beyond all contradiction the lesser is blessed by the better.
7:9 Here mortal men receive tithes, but there he receives them, of whom it is witnessed that he lives. Even Levi, who receives tithes, paid tithes through Abraham, so to speak,
7:10 for he was still in the loins of his father when Melchizedek met him.

The sole purpose of mentioning tithes is to demonstrate that Melchizedek is greater than Levi since tithes are given from the lesser to the greater.

Russ: Correct.

Steven: 7:11 Therefore, if perfection were through the Levitical priesthood (for under it people received the law), what further need was there that another priest should rise according to the order of Melchizedek, and not be called according to the order of Aaron?

Now it should become clear: the author of Hebrews is showing the insufficiency of the Levitical priesthood and the need for a greater priesthood.

Russ: Correct.

Steven: Now that we are in the proper mindset, we have come to the infamous verse 12, the verse that anti-tithers say "changes" the law of tithing:
7:12 For the priesthood being changed, of necessity there is also a change of the law.
7:13 For He of whom these things are spoken belongs to another tribe, from which no man has officiated at the altar.
7:14 For it is evident that our Lord arose from Judah, of which tribe Moses spoke nothing concerning priesthood.

We have now come to the heart of the matter: Christ is a priest, but He did not come from the tribe of Levi - He was from the tribe of Judah. The law only allowed Levites to be priests. Therefore, what change of the law is being discussed? The law which states that only Levites can be priests! There is absolutely NO indication from the context that a change in tithing is being discussed!

Russ: Wrong. You are jumping the gun. You still have verses 13-19 to go. [At the end of the article you argue that no part of the law has ever changed.]

7:15 And it is yet far more evident if, in the likeness of Melchizedek, there arises another priest

It we stopped here, we could only conclude that the Old Covenant law of Israel did not allow for priests to come from the tribe of Judah. You are trying to “change” the OT law from “giving tithes to priests from Levi” to “giving tithes to a priests from Judah.

Steven: But we still have one more verse to go: the infamous "disanullment" in verse 18. Let's see what we make of that statement now that we understand the point that is being made:’’

Russ: No. You still have verses 16-17 before reaching verse 18.

7:16 who has come, not according to the law of a fleshly commandment, but according to the power of an endless life.

Verse 16 takes the discussion out of the possibility of law-tithes supporting a priesthood from Judah. In fact, it takes the discussion out of the Old Covenant law altogether. The new principle is not a new law of tithing, rather it is a law-principle of Christ’s priesthood being supported by eternal moral principles.

7:17 For He testifies: "You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek."

Christ’s priesthood is not based on the historical qualifications of the historical Melchizedek to be a priest in Israel (which are none). Rather it is based on his “office” or “rank” or “title” of a KING-PRIEST; that is what “order” means.

Steven: 7:18 For on the one hand there is an annulling of the former commandment because of its weakness and unprofitableness,

'Notice that the "former commandment" was annulled "because of its weakness and unprofitableness," … The fleshly commandment is, again, the one that states that only the sons of Aaron could be priests.

Russ: No. Read 7:5 again. The “former commandment” was “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.”

Steven: … because Christ came as a priest "according to the power of an endless life" rather than "according to the power of a fleshly commandment."

Russ: Rather than replacing one with another, your faulty logic interprets “according to the power of an endless life" IN THE CONTEXT OF "according to the power of a fleshly commandment." This is illogical. Your “power of an endless life” principle is now working within the context of a changed law of tithing; the “change” was from a “fleshly commandment” to being incorporated into an eternal life.

Steven: Now that we understand what Hebrews 7 is saying, let's answer the argument that I posed in the beginning.

Russ: You have manipulated the literal meaning of the text to agree with your point.

Steven: The only law or commandment that is specifically addressed for the purpose of being changed or annulled is the commandment that states that priests had to be from the tribe of Levi.

Russ: This is nowhere in Hebrews 7, yet it is your only argument.

Steven: It cannot in any way be construed as indictment of tithing in particular!

Russ: Again, the only commandment specifically mentioned “in particular” is that of tithing in 7:5.

7:19 for the law made nothing perfect; on the other hand, there is the bringing in of a better hope, through which we draw near to God.

This refers to all of the Law, not just tithing. All of the Old Covenant ended at Calvary per Heb 8:13; Rom 10:4 and Gal 3:23-26.

Steven: Matthew 5:17 Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill.
5:18 For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.

Heaven and earth have not passed away - and neither has one word of God's law.

Russ: You have a whole lot of explaining to do here. (1) I ask you again to define the way you use the word “law.” In Mt 5:18-48 Jesus used it to mean the “whole law” –all the commandments, all the ceremonial worship statutes-ordinances and all the judicial civil laws. (2) If you are attempting to limit Jesus’ words to the moral law, you are greatly mistaken. (3) If you are attempting to say that none of the statutes-ordinances and judgments have ended, you are even more mistaken. (4) From a literal understanding of 5:18-19 it was either all of the law or none of the law. (5) From verse 5:20 it is clear that Jesus meant the “righteous requirements of the law” which He personally met.

Steven: Any "changes" are, as I stated, changes that uphold the spiritual intent of the law. Christ gave examples of these types of "changes" in the Sermon on the Mount: it's not sufficient to abstain from murder; rather, you can't even hate your brother in your heart. It's not sufficient to abstain from adultery; rather, you can't even look at a woman with lust.

Russ: You are manipulating God’s Word to make it say only what you want it to say. Jesus gave 6 examples and you neglect to discuss the 2 examples from the statutes and the 2 examples from the judgments. Shame on you for distorting God’s Word for your own benefit.

Steven: As a matter of fact, prophecy indicates that EXALTING the law was one of the purposes of the Messiah!

Isaiah 41:21 The LORD is well pleased for His righteousness’ sake; He will exalt the law and make it honorable.

In the King James, the word "exalt" is translated as "magnify." The Hebrew word, according to Strong's, means "to make great, to cause to grow, to magnify."

Russ: Of course Jesus exalted the law; He exalted all three parts of equally. While living under the full jurisdiction of the law, it would have been SIN for Jesus to suggest changing any of it.

Steven: Not only has God's law not been abolished, annulled, abrogated, or whatever fancy language you want to use to say that it is "done away" - the fact is, Christ came to reveal the true spirit of the law, which is even greater and more honorable than the letter of the law.

Russ: The “fancy language” which proves that the law has been changed comes from God Himself. (1) The covenant changed from Old to New. (2) The high priesthood changed from Aaron to Christ. (3) The priests changed from Aaron’s family to that of every believer. (4) The Temple changed from a building to the body of the believer. (5) The sacrifices changed from many to one. (6) God’s people changed (at least temporarily) from Israel to the church. (7) And you personally keep on arguing (in error) that the ONLY change (though still a change) was from Aaron to Christ. Do you listen to yourself?

Steven: 5:19 Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Russ: The entire Old Covenant law ended at Calvary per Heb 8:8-13. The “least of these commandments” includes all of the statutes which spiritually ended at Calvary and all of the civil judicial laws which clearly physically when Israel ceased to be a nation.

Steven: In conclusion, as I stated from the beginning: God's commandment to tithe is NOT specifically targeted in Hebrews 7.

Russ: And, for the fourth or fifth time, you arrive at this conclusion by ignoring the literal connection between 7:5 and 7:18.

Steven: Furthermore, NONE of God's requirements have been weakened; rather, they have been magnified and made better, so that we might receive a better reward than in the Old Covenant.

Russ: Have you ever read the Law beginning in Exodus 21? How do you magnify the law which commanded Israel to KILL children who cursed or hit their parents? How do you make the law better which commanded Israel to send their wives out of the house for that special one week a month? Do you pierce the ears of your slaves? Do you worship at sunset on Friday?

Steven: In view of this fact, regarding tithing in particular, it is easily seen that there is no way to get off the hook as far as tithing goes. God's law is magnified in the New Covenant, and that includes the laws of tithing!

Russ: Since you have concluded that all of the law is still in effect and affects you the Christian, then you must literally obey the tithing statute of Numbers 18 and (1) tithe only HOLY food from inside God’s HOLY land of Israel; (2) tithe only to Levites who are servants to the priests; (3) have Levites tithe only a tenth of the tenth they receive to the priests; (4) ignore the NT teaching that all believers are priests; and (5) KILL anybody who attempts to enter the sanctuary other than priests. Hey, you made the rule that the whole law is still in effect.

Steven: If you're still reading this, then you already know that I've said too much for one post.

Russ: Yes, you are becoming obnoxious.

Steven: My next post on debunking anti-tithing arguments will bring us to the next logical point, as I laid out in the Introduction: now that I've shown that tithing is still required by Christians, I will refute the notion that ministers in God's church are not qualified to receive tithes since they are not Levites.

Russ: I cannot wait. This is easier than taking candy from a baby. When are you going to do the right thing and open this up to a real discussion. What are you afraid of?

Rebuttal to Steven Britt on Tithing-1

2011-05-04T12:32:00.000-07:00

Steven Britt: Typically, if someone were trying to persuade you not to tithe, you would undergo a barrage of the following points all mixed together with no distinction between what argument the person is actually trying to make.

Russell Earl Kelly: Both my comments and those of Dr. David Croteau are very neatly laid out in our PHD dissertations. And many top theologians including Martin Luther agree.

Steven: It can seem overwhelming if you’ve not heard the arguments before – which is why they present it in that way: to confuse you so that you can’t stop and really scrutinize any one argument.

Russ: So you begin the discussion by being dishonest. Nice. I seriously doubt that you will continue this dialog very long.

Steven: 1. The practice of tithing for Christians is no longer valid because it is part of the Old Covenant law, which is no longer valid.

Russ: In fact the Old Covenant law was never commanded to Gentiles or to the Church. As a Gentile I never was under the Old Covenant law.

Steven: Some people make an even more specific assertion than this – they claim that Hebrews 7 is not invalidating the law, but specifically invalidating tithe.

Russ: There are many texts where the entire Old Covenant law has been replaced by better New Covenant principles such as Heb 8:8-13 and Romans 7:4 and 10:4.
I teach that Hebrews 7 very specifically invalidates all of the law which specifically deals with the establishment and sustenance of the Aaronic priesthood as in 7:5, 12 and 7:18.

Steven: As many of my readers know, I believe that NONE of the law of God has ever been “done away.”

Russ: You must be sitting on the moon. No major denomination teaches this, including the most ardent pro-tithers. Do you kill your children when they strike or curse you? Do you send your wife out of the house for one week a month? I doubt that you will give us your working consistent definition of what you mean by the word “law.” I will ask for this in every post.

Steven: 2. Ministers in any modern church are not qualified to receive any kind of tithe because only the Levites could receive the tithe in the Old Covenant.

Russ: The true biblical HOLY tithe was only HOLY if it came off God’s HOLY land and from that food which God had miraculously increased. And those who received the Levitical tithe were not allowed to own or inherit property. If you are going to teach that the whole law is valid for Christians, then you must obey all of it and not pick and choose. You must also teach 23%.

Steven: 3. Some actually take this argument a step further and claimed that tithe would only apply to a farmer in Israel –

Russ: Yes, and we have 16 texts to verify this while you have zero texts to define your holy tithe. It is done by literally interpreting the Bible by somebody on earth, and not on the moon.

Steven: therefore, no one in America (or anywhere other than Israel) would have any need to pay tithe at all, even if they were a farmer.

Russ: True. Again, it was only a HOLY tithe when God miraculously gave the increased from inside His holy land. Explain that.

Steven: As you can see, the anti-tithers have constructed attacks at every level of the practice.

Note: Steven Britt is "boldly" attacking those who disagree with him about tithing, but is blocking contrary comments.
He is afraid of something.

Russ: Anti-tithers literally interpret the Word of God.

Steven: 1. There is no scriptural evidence that Jesus, Peter, or Paul ever tithed, and there is no instruction to tithe given after Christ’s death. Some will even be so bold as to even say that “Jesus never tithed.”

Russ: I cannot wait to hear your silly answers. Please hurry.

Steven: 2. Feel free to comment with other categories of anti-tithing arguments that you may have heard, and stay tuned for the upcoming rebuttals of these issues!

Russ: My web site receives over 250 hits per day. It contains a 21 point essay on page one and my 288 page book on the left hand column, plus over 200 other articles. Feel free to attempt to rebut it. Better heads than you have failed.

Rebuttal of Pastor Kent, City Church

2011-05-01T22:39:00.000-07:00

Pastor Kent, City Church

Kent: “Prov 3:9-10 is about firstfruits and not tithing. Firstfruits were extremely small token offerings per Deu 26:1-4; Neh 1-:35-37 and many other passages. Do not confuse the two. Tithes are tenth-fruits.”

Tithing is the practice of giving "10% of your increase" as an offering to the Lord.

Kelly: True biblical holy tithes were always only food from inside God’s holy land of Israel which God had miraculously increased. Tithes could not come from what man increased, from Gentiles or from outside Israel. Although money was common in Israel, money was never a tithed item. Jesus, Peter and Paul could not tithe. Nobody actually tithes today. Period.

Kent: “Tithing is a pledge of trust.”

Kelly: The first biblical Levitical tithe was cold hard law to support the Levites and priests.

Kent: “Malachi 3:10 "Bring the whole tithe into the storehouse, that there may be food in my house. Test me in this."

Kelly: (1) Malachi was addressed to Old Covenant Israel and not the church. (2)The tithe was still food 1000 years later. (3) The church was not the storehouse and did not legally have its own buildings for almost 300 years after Calvary. (4) The whole Law was a test per Gal 3:10. Obey all to be blessed; break one to be cursed. God does not bless murderers and adulterers because they tithe.

Kent: “What is the History of the Tithe? Although tithing (a.k.a., first-fruits) can be traced back to the Garden of Eden.”

Kelly: There is no mention of tithing in Eden. One tree out of many thousands does not constitute tithing.

Kent: “Levites and priests: Because of this task, the law forbade them from doing normal agricultural activity. In the Promised Land, they were designated to go to certain cities. … Originally, the tithe was a mechanism to keep a group of people in “full-time ministry” (Num. 18:21-32).”

Kelly: They only served one week out of 24 in the Temple. The remainder of the time was spent in the Levitical cities farming to raise tithed animals and learning essential trades for temple maintenance. They received the tithe because they were not allowed to inherit and own land. Today unscrupulous tithe-teachers receive tithes and own property.

Kent: “Deuteronomy 14:22 … Deuteronomy 14:28-29
Why would people resist the tithe now?

Kelly: Why do you not teach three tithes of 20-23% now?

Kent: “First of all, it’s important to note that tithing pre-existed the Mosaic Law.”

Kelly: These do not qualify as HOLY biblical tithes as taught in Malachi and by Jesus. They were unclean unholy pagan products given in response to the law of the land.

Kent: “Even if certain tithing practices ceased, the concept of "first-fruits" is still found all throughout the Old and New Testaments.”

Kelly: Again, tithes were never the same as firstfruits. See First Timothy 5:8 for Christian priorities.

Kent: “Secondly, Jesus did advocate tithing in Matthew 23:23. In this context, Jesus is rebuking the Pharisees for their hypocritical teachings on tithing. So he says: “You should practice the former [tithing] without neglecting the latter [justice].” Many scholars take this to be a clear affirmation of tithing, so long as it is stewarded in a holy and just manner.”

Kelly: You are a dishonest Bible manipulator! The text is a discussion of pre-Calvary Old Covenant “matters of the law.” It is addressed to “you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites” and not the church. It would have been illegal and SIN for Jesus to teach his disciples to tithe to himself.

Kent: “Even more, the context of Christ's sermon in Matthew 6 was clearly a "first-fruits" teaching.”

Kelly: Matthew 6:38 was about freewill sacrificial giving.

Kent: “But, for me, the most convincing evidence comes from the historical writings of the early church fathers.”

Kelly: You insult the intelligence of true Bible scholars. Dr. David Croteau (Liberty University) recently published his PHD thesis, You Mean I Don’t Have to Tithe? On pages 271-275 he lists Clement of Rome, The Didache, Justin Martyr, Origen, Epiphanius and Tertullian as negative or opposing tithing while Irenaeus, Cyprian and Constantine were ambiguous. Of all the early church fathers before the 4th century, only Clement of Alexandria supported tithing.

Kent: “The Apostles obviously discipled many people before they died.”

Kelly: There is absolutely no historical evidence of this. In fact Acts 15 militates very much in the opposite direction.

Kent: And thankfully, many of these disciples wrote about what they learned. Thus, some of the best commentaries on scripture can be found in the writings of the people who were virtual contemporaries of the Apostles themselves. Of course, their writings are not scripture; but, these people give us some profound context to what the Apostles actually taught.

Kelly: Give some references here or retract your statement.

Kent: For example, Irenaeus was a disciple of the Apostle John & Polycarp. He wrote that “systems of giving like tithing never ceased to be taught” ...but that the focus was not on "what's the minimum amount the Bible commands us to give."

Kelly: This is dishonest. It is NOT what Irenaeus wrote at all. It is a pro-tithing commentary on Irenaeus.

Kent: Rather, he writes: “Instead of being taught the tithe, we were taught to give all our possessions...” (See Acts 2:44-45; 4:32-36).

Kelly: See Croteau’s much more detailed quote on pages 12-13 or look it up yourself in Irenaeus’ Against Heresies, 4.13 and 4.13.3 (ANF 1.477) and 4.18.2 (ANF 1.485. He also wrote “but those who have received liberty set aside all their possessions for the Lord’s purposes.” Irenaeus’ focus was on Christians giving abundantly. Irenaeus also believed that Acts 2:44-45 was morally binding. It must not be forgotten that the chief thrust of the early church fathers was extreme asceticism as a way to be holy before God. Generally tithing was seen as a Jewish tradition to be replaced with sacrificial giving.

Kent: Other historical writings show that the Apostles taught tithing as a "starting point" for those whose faith was too weak to give more than 10%.

Kelly: Where? Which ones say this? Produce the documentation. Are you willing to follow these same authors into asceticism and later monasticism?

Kent: Finally, imagine if someone walked up to you and said, "Man, I wish my neighbor was dead!" And you said: "Well, can I help you kill him?" A bit surprised, they respond: "Aren't you a passionate Christian?" And you say, "Yea, but I'm a New Testament Christian! I'm not 'under the law' anymore.

Kelly: Your paper tiger reveals your ignorance of how “law” works in God’s Word. Believe it or not, Gentiles and Christians NEVER WERE UNDER THE LAW. The Old Covenant Law was only commanded to Old Covenant Israel who was commanded NOT to share it (Ex 19:5-6).

Kent: (Pretending to quote his paper tiger opponents) I can steal, kill and commit adultery now!"

Kelly: You fail miserably to understand that the “eternal moral law” as revealed by nature and conscience is written in the hearts and conscience of every man and underlies the Mosaic Law per Romans 1:18-20; 2:14-16. That law contains 9 of the 10 commandments and NOT tithing.

Kent: You see, just because something was taught in the Old Testament doesn't mean it's not applicable in the New.

Kelly: What is you consistent hermeneutic when deciding exactly what does apply in the New? Please state it clearly. Here is mine: That which God wants the Church to obey has been REPEATED in the New Covenant after Calvary in terms of grace and faith. The “thou shalt nots” of the Law are now commands that he new creation in Christ will naturally obey per Romans 8:2.

Kent: Not all of the Mosaic Covenant was "nullified," only the ceremonial parts of it.

Kelly: No. All of it was nullified for Israel as the Old Covenant. Just as ALL British Law ended in 1776 for the colonies, the GOOD parts of it were re-incorporated into the New Constitution. The New Covenant completely replaced all of the Old Covenant as a covenant of works. See Heb 7:5, 12, 18 concerning tithing. Heb 8:8-13.

Kent: Basically 3 aspects of the Mosaic Law exist: The Moral Law (good things to do all the time), Ceremonial Law (symbolic things, like animal sacrifice which applied until Christ came), and Civil Political parts of the Law (which existed as long as Israel was both a church and nation state.) Only the latter two were technically "nullified."

Kelly: No Jew would agree with this. If you read Deuteronomy you will find all three so closely intermingled that they cannot and must not be separated. It was ALL the Law or none of it per Mt 5:18-19 as illustrated by Mt 5:20-48.

The moral law is found very much in the Levitical worship commands and in the judicial commands. Unless you are a slave owner who worships on Saturday, you are not keeping the Sabbath command. And, unless you want your children to live long in the land of Israel, you are not following another. Jesus quoted Leviticus 19:10 and Deut 6:4 as moral laws.

Kent: And, in light of the above evidence, I think it takes quite a bit of ignorance to simply denounce the doctrine of first fruits with a simplistic "New Covenant" argument.

Kelly: It takes even more ignorance to keep referring to tithing as firstfruits. That is your way of manipulating and threatening the disabled in your church to give you the first ten per cent of their disability check and skip the medicine and food they need even more. This is what I call robbing God and extortion.

Kent: But, it still begs the question: What do I think about all of this? In light of the evidence, it's pretty hard to argue that tithing "has no place" in the New Testament.

Kelly: You have not produced any arguments from the New Testament after Calvary.

Kent: After all, there's a lot of historical evidence that shows first century New Testament churches continuing to teach tithing as a starting point for giving.

Kelly: Still waiting for some references.

Kent: The Bible couldn't be more clear that we are to "9) Honor the LORD with your wealth, with the firstfruits of all your crops; 10) then your barns will be filled to overflowing, and your vats will brim over with new wine" (Proverbs 3:9-10).

Kelly: Still not a tithing text.

Kent: In other words, God wants to be first in every area.

Kelly: Read First Timothy 5:8.

Kent: And Jesus repeated this theme during His famous financial message in Matthew chapter 6: Jesus taught we cannot serve both God and money. Thus, He finally says: "Seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be added unto you" (Mt. 6:33). God wants to be first in every area of our lives. Our time, our money, and our resources are technically His.

Kelly: “Seek ye first the kingdom of God” simply means “Seek Christ who is God’s righteousness. Get saved.” You make it all about money.

Kent: "First fruits" is merely an expression that means: "God reserves for Himself a portion of everything we have."

Kelly: You are wearing out that misapplied text. Consider this. In the Old Testament God also still owned everything. Right? However, He only accepted legitimate tithes from FOOD which He had miraculously increased from inside His own land. Now how do you explain that?

Kent: For example, the birthday boy gets the first piece of cake (first-fruits). He's the first to eat it. AND, he usually gets the "best piece" (usually the one with all the frosting on it :). In the same way, God demands that we give Him a "first-fruits" of everything we possess.

Kelly: If that were true, then why did not God tell the Gentiles in the Old Testament to bring tithes?

Kent: In fact, this theme of "first fruits" runs through the whole Bible. In the Garden of Eden, God gave Adam and Eve the ability to eat from any tree. Yet, He kept a particular tree for His own.

Kelly: You are proving my point. Firstfruits is a very small token offering and not tithes. One tree out of thousands is not tithing.

Kent: God wanted to produce fruit through our cultivation that He claims as His own (first-fruits).

Kelly: It was not holy because man cultivated it. It was only holy because God gave the increase only from inside His holy land. How do you explain that?

Kent: Again this theme shows up in Cain and Able. In some ways, even the Sabbath day is a first-fruits idea (as the Sabbath was the first day of the week). God wanted the first part of every week to be devoted toward Himself.

Kelly: This is really warped. The Sabbath was the SEVENTH day of creation and the SEVENTH day of the week for Israel to rest after working all week.

Kent: The big idea is this: Tithing is nothing more than an application of the "first fruits" principle. And this principle really asks: "Is God first in our finances?" And when we ask this question, it forces us to go far beyond the grotesquely simple question: "Is God calling me to give 10% or not?"

Kelly: Tithes and firstfruits are still not the same. Neh 10:35-38.

New Covenant post-Calvary Holy Spirit blessed giving is: freewill, generous, sacrificial, joyful, not by commandment or percentage and motivated by love for God and lost souls. Our God is a New Covenant God operating on New Covenant principles of giving.

Rebuttal of Rick Joyner on Tithing

2011-04-27T16:41:00.001-07:00

REBUTTAL OF RICK JOYNER ON TITHING, by Russell Earl Kelly, PHD, April 27, 2011

The Wealth of the Righteous, Week 42, 2004

Joyner: One of the most foolish things we can do as a Christian is to not pay our tithes.

Kelly: It is more foolish for a New Covenant Christian to try and live under the Old Covenant conditional principles of tithing when the New Covenant freewill principles are far superior.

Joyner: Tithing means to give ten percent of our income to the Lord.

Kelly: No, it does not. True HOLY biblical tithes were always only food from inside God’s holy land of Israel which He had miraculously increased. Though money was common and essential for sanctuary worship, money was never a tithed item. Tithes could not come from what man increased, from Gentiles or from outside Israel. Period.

Joyner: I have heard Christians make many excuses for not doing this, to their own determent. Without question, when we read the incredible promises of God for those who are faithful in this, we have to be the greatest of fools not to obey it.

Kelly: There is not a single Bible text to prove that Christians are to live under Old Covenant principles including tithing. You like to call others “fools” and that is arrogant. Exodus 19:5-6 limits the Old Covenant to Israel. Malachi 1:1 limits the book to Israel. The first rule of hermeneutics is “To whom was it written? Was it written to me?” and you ignore that rule.

Joyner: One of the most popular excuses for this disobedience is that tithing was a part of the Law and that we are no longer under the Law.

Kelly: You greatly err in this statement. Gentiles and Christians NEVER WERE UNDER THE LAW.

Joyner: Okay, I will concede that it was a part of the Law but so was not committing murder. Is it okay to murder now that we are no longer under the Law?

Kelly: You show your ignorance about the nature of the Old Covenant law here. The eternal moral law which is the foundational law beneath the Old Covenant is written in the hearts and conscience of all men through nature (Rom 1:18-20; 2:14-16). That eternal moral law includes the principle of “giving” but not “tithing” and “resting for worship” but not “Saturday rest.”

Joyner: Those who say that tithing is not in the New Testament are mistaken anyway. It is! Though this argument, because so many people have been deceived by it, is worthy of far more attention than I can give it here, let me briefly address these assumptions.

Kelly: I urge you to give it far more attention and enter into an extended dialog with me on the subject. What are you afraid of? If you are correct, then you should prevail.

Joyner: First, tithing was actually practiced by the patriarchs before the Law was given through Moses (see Genesis 14:20, 28:22).

Kelly: Tithes? Yes. Holy tithes blessed by God? No. All pagans around Canaan tithed spoils of war and tithed to pagan gods along with idol worship, child sacrifice and temple prostitution. That proves nothing. Just because something is very old and very common does not make it an eternal moral principle. The Bible does not tell us WHY the yet-uncircumcised Babylonian Abram tithed. He was probably obeying the well-known law of the land which required tithes of spoils of war to one’s local king priest.

Joyner: Tithing was included in the Law with other standards of righteousness (basic integrity and morality) which the Lord had already established before the Law.

Kelly: Tithing which was included in the law was not the same as tithing before the law. Tithing before the law was unholy pagan spoils from Sodom in Gen 14:18-20. Tithing in the Law was HOLY from God’s holy land which God Himself had miraculously increased. That is a huge difference.

Joyner: We also continue to observe things such as not lying, paying our vows, not committing adultery, murder, etc. under the New Covenant.

Kelly: Every man, Jew or Gentile, knows innately that it is wrong to kill, lie and steal because of the innate eternal moral law revealed by nature and conscience. Tithing does not fit that category. Tithing was a statute-ordinance of the Law in Numbers 18 which was legislated to support Levites and priests who ministered animal sacrifices in the Temple system. All of that ended at Calvary. Those in the OT who accepted Levitical tithes were not allowed to own or inherit property; today this is totally ignored. Read Numbers 18:20-28.

Joyner: As stated, how can we say that tithing was a part of the Law and therefore no longer will need to be observed without including these other things? It seems that such reasoning or lack of it would have to be included in the definition of foolishness.

Kelly: We could use the same logic to keep on stoning to death disobedient children and making monstrous women leave the house one week per month. Joyner fails to define how he uses law. Tithing was never part of eternal moral law for all mankind.

Joyner: Tithing is included in the New Testament and was a practice of the early church.

Kelly: Tithing is never commanded to the church after Calvary in the New Testament. While still under the full jurisdiction of the law, Jesus mentioned tithing three times as “matters of the law:” and, in each case, condemned the tithe teachers for abusing the law.

Joyner: Tithing … was a practice of the early church.

Kelly: No. (1) Jewish Christians in Acts stayed “zealous of the law” and never stopped supporting the Temple system per Acts 21:20-21. (2) Early Jewish Christians knew very well that tithes could not come from defiled pagan lands and must only be used to support Levites and priests. (3) Second and third century early Church Fathers who were mostly Gentiles strongly opposed Jewish traditions. (4) History records that the early church stressed extreme asceticism and later monasticism and boasted that poverty was godliness.

Joyner: As the writer of the book of Hebrews asserted, we are a part of the Melchizedek priesthood, and Melchizedek received tithes (see Hebrews chapters 5, 6, 7). In fact, one of the main points made in the Scriptures is when Melchizedek met Abraham (see Genesis 14).

Kelly: The law of tithing which was legislated to support the Aaronic priesthood (Heb 7:5) was “of necessity changed” when Christ replaced Aaron (7:12) and that “change” was the “disannulling of the commandment going before” of tithing (7:18). Christ’s priesthood is based on better eternal spiritual principles (Heb 7:13-19).

Joyner: As stated, if we really believe the Lord and His Word, then when we read the promises of God that are made to those who are faithful to tithe, we would be the greatest of fools to not do it.

Kelly: The blessings and curses of the law were only for Old Covenant Israel. You discard great portions of the law contrary to Mt 5:18-19 which are equally holy in the book of Leviticus but insists on retaining tithing with no explanation.

Joyner: Consider the following exhortation and promise from Malachi 3:7-12: "From the days of your fathers you have turned aside from My statutes, and have not kept them.

Kelly: This is directed to Old Covenant Israel which was given the cultic ceremonial worship statutes-ordinances of the Law. It was never given to Gentiles or the Church. God was not threatening OT Gentiles for not tithing!

Joyner: Return to Me, and I will return to you," says the Lord of hosts. "But you say, 'How shall we return?'

Kelly: God was not speaking to OT Gentiles because they had never turned to God in the first place.

Joyner: "Will a man rob God? Yet you are robbing Me! But you say, 'How have we robbed You?' In tithes and offerings.

Kelly: This could not apply to Gentiles because they had not covenanted with God to obey His Law and tithe. One cannot “rob” that which he was never told to give.

Joyner: "You are cursed with a curse …

Kelly: The Gentles and Church were never cursed for not tithing. This is the curse of the Law as seen in Deuteronomy 28-30.

Joyner: … for you are robbing Me, the whole nation of you!

Kelly: This narrows the field to whom God is speaking. At the very most it is the nation of Israel who had just reaffirmed its covenant curses in Neh 10:29 and Mal 4:4. At the very least it is every priest in the nation who had been stealing in Mal 1:13-14 and Neh 13:5-10.

Joyner: "Bring the whole tithe into the storehouse, so that there may be food in My house …

Kelly: Notice that, over 1000 years after Moses, the tithe is still only FOOD from inside God’s holy land of Israel. It never becomes money increase of Gentiles. Plus, the early church had no legal buildings to call storehouses for almost 300 years.

Joyner: … and test Me now in this," says the Lord of hosts …

Kelly: The whole law was a test, not merely tithing. Obey all to be blessed; break one to be cursed. Jesus ended the curse of the law per Gal 3:10-13. Why don’t you preach this fact?

Joyner: "if I will not open for you the windows of heaven, and pour out for you a blessing until it overflows.

Kelly: It can be proven that modern tithing does not work because most tithers do not have “overflowing blessings.” God is New Covenant operating on New Covenant principles.

Joyner: "Then I will rebuke the devourer for you, so that it may not destroy the fruits of the ground; nor will your vine in the field cast its grapes," says the Lord of hosts.

Kelly: Still only food. Be honest with God’s Word.

Joyner: "And all the nations will call you blessed, for you shall be a delightful land," says the Lord of hosts.

Kelly: If God was telling all nations to tithe, this would not make any sense.

Joyner: I have not yet met a single Christian who is faithful to tithe and has chronic financial problems.

Kelly: You must live in a rich cloister.

Joyner: There may be some [tithers with financial problems] because there are other things we can do that can open the door to a spirit of poverty in our lives, but I have not met any.

Kelly: You are admitting that God will not automatically pour out overflowing blessings on tithers.

Joyner: In contrast, the testimonies of those who resolved to be obedient in this one thing are abundant.

Kelly: Of course they are. You seek them out and parade them across the stage. Yet you will not discuss the masses of faithful-tithers who are never blessed. Similar testimonies can be found among graduates to salesmanship courses whether they be Christians or atheists. These kinds of testimonies prove nothing.

Joyner: The text quoted above from Malachi is the only place in the Scriptures where the Lord actually invites us to test Him. He promises that if we will “return to Him” He will bless us until it overflows.

Kelly: How dare you say this after just saying “There may be some [tithers with financial problems] because there are other things we can do that can open the door to a spirit of poverty in our lives, but I have not met any”!!! The ghettos are full of generations of faithful tither who still have no education and motivation other than tithing to get rich.

Joyner: Again, considering the wise and foolish, it seems to me that this is a better way to live than most Christians now do.

Kelly: You live in your mansion while most of your contributors fail to be blessed with overflowing blessings.

Joyner: This promise is also corroborated in the New Testament in II Corinthians 9:6-8:
Now this I say, he who sows sparingly shall also reap sparingly; and he who sows bountifully shall also reap bountifully.

Let each one do just as he has purposed in his heart; not grudgingly or under compulsion; for God loves a cheerful giver.

And God is able to make all grace abound to you, that always having all sufficiency in everything, you may have abundance for every good deed;

Kelly: This is dishonest. The eternal moral principle of sowing and reaping is active whether one tithes or not. These texts are not even discussing tithing; they are discussing freewill, generous, sacrificial, joyful offerings. Pastoral support is not the context either.

Joyner: Normal Christianity is a life that overflows and has “an abundance for every good deed.”

Kelly: This is not a reference to tithing.

Joyner: Every Christian should be financially independent.

Kelly: You are dishonest. What about single moms whose husbands have desecrated? What about those who are disabled because of inherited disease? What about those who are disabled because of accidents? Do you think that you are immune to being disabled and becoming poor?

Joyner: This does not necessarily mean that we should have great personal wealth. What it does mean is that we should never have to make a decision based on whether we can afford it, but simply on whether it is the will of God.

Kelly: Pie in the sky. As long as you are at the top of the giving pyramid, who cares?

Joyner: We should never come upon a good deed that we cannot afford to do. If this is not the present state of our lives, tithing the first fruits from our labors can begin to correct it.

Kelly: Not all Christians are financially and physically capable of performing all necessary good deeds.

Russell Earl Kelly, PHD
www.tithing-russkelly.com

Reply to Pastor Anthony Locke on Tithing

2011-04-24T21:07:00.001-07:00

Rev Anthony R Locke
First Presbyterian Church, Tucker, Ga

You preached a sermon on Feb 6, 2011 on Malachi and tithing.

I disagree in the following areas and would appreciate a dialog with you on this subject.

1. The definiton of a holy biblical tithe from Malachi and Matthew 23 is “only food from inside God’s holy land of Israel which God has mirculously increased.” Tithes could not come from what man increased, from Gentiles or from outside Israel. I challenge you to disprove those facts.
2. Malachi is addressed only to Old Covenant Israel. 1:1; 4:4; Neh 10:29. It is not addressed to the church.
3. The Old Covenant which was delivered by Moses was only addressed to Israel. Ex 19:5-6. It was not addressed to Gentiles or to the Church. God told Israel NOT to share its covenant.
4. Both John Calvin and Martin Luther opposed the hermeneutic which allows the church to teach tithing. Only that part of the Law which is also in nature and conscience and is repeated in the New Covenant after Calvary applies to the church. Tithing was not. See my web sites for quotes from Luther and Calvin.
5. Calvin’s prayer which you quoted does not authorize New Covenant tithing. Read it carefully.
6. Your boldly say “I am preaching this morning against the sin of not worshipping with a monetary gift in hand.” Do you not realize that there are many who are so financially disabled that they cannot give anything without doing without medicine, food and/or shelter? Are you that callous? Do you not know that the poor ate from a second festival tithe and a third third-year tithe?
7. You proclaimed of Malachi 3 that “I picked this passage in Malachi because it is a classic. It‟s the only place in the Bible that God taunts us, better said, He challenges us to obey against our gut feelings and logic. Paul wrote in First Timothy 5:8 that doing what you suggest is “worse than the infidel.” Your first responsibility is to your family. Don’t let them go without medicine, food and essential shelter if at all possible.
8. You wrote “God wishes that we test His faithfulness in this matter.” The whole Law was a test: obey all to be blessed; break one to be cursed. Deu 27:26 quoted in Gal 3:10. God does not bless murderers and raptsts because they ttihe.
9. You said “Tithing isn‟t an Old Testament idea lost on New Testament saints.” The tithing statute-ordinance of the Law is Numbers 18. Read it. Those Levites and priests who received the tithe were not allowed to own or inherit property in Israel. Are you a Levite? Do you receive ttihe and own property? Do you obey the whole tithing law?
10. “Jesus very seldom handed out compliments and one of the few compliments Jesus evergave to the Pharisees was for their tithing. (Matthew 23).” Mt 23:23 is a dicussion of “matters of the law” and is not addressed to the church. Jesus could not and was not telling his disciples to tithe to Him and his apostles. Be honest with the context.
11. You said “The Apostle‟s referenced Abraham‟s tithing as a model of Christian commitment in Hebrews chapter seven.” No, they did not. Neither Genesis 14 nor Hebrews 7 tell us WHY Abram the uncircumcized Gentile tithed unholy spoils of war. The purpose of Hebrews 7 is not to teach tithing and there is no evidence that Abram’s motive for tithing was faith.
12. You said “Throughout the dispensations of the people of God, from Genesis to Revelation, tithing is a common denominator of all generations of the people of God.” I assume you do not want your church members to check this out for themselves because you know it is not true. The Jewish Christians in Judea never stopped being “zealous for the law” in Acts 21:20-21 and probably never stopped tithing to the Jewish system. That is the history of the Ebionites and Ekiasites. Acts 15 does not impose tithing on Gentile Christians. There is not a single post-Calvary text which even hits that the church collected tithes (which were impossible from defiled pagan land anyway).
13. You said “Tithing is one of our strongest testimonies of public faith that Jesus means more to us than thethings of this world.” This is made up and you know it.
14. You said “Tithing strongly testifies that this world is not our home, that our treasure is in heaven and not this earth, that we trust God to provide and that we are living for something bigger than ourselves.” This is also made up. Why not teach freewill sacrificial giving and unburden yourself from making things up as you go alaong?
15. You said “There is possibly no Christian discipline more authenticating to our faith than consistent financial giving to God during worship.” True, but this does not mean tithing.
16. You said “Tithing comforts our own soul that we are indeed apart of God‟s family.” No. Freewil sacrificial giving does.
17. You said “Tithing is a strong work of God‟s grace in our life that proves our faith is more than words.” There is no grace in tithing; it was cold hard law for food producers who lived inside Israel.
18. “Tithing is one of our top works of faith.” No validating texts. How about some Bible verses attached to your statements?
19. “Which is why God has this family chat with us in Malachi.” We are under the New Covenant and tithing does not appear there. God has not had this family chat with the Church.
20. “One cause of the barrenness of the Church is the tightfistedness of its members.” This would not hapapen if you preched evangelistic Bible-centered sermons.
21. “For it is more blessed to give than to receive.” This is from Acts 20:35 where Jesus was telling church elders to work and take care fo the needy in their congregations. Somehow it has been reversed today.

Please stop preaching tithing and enter the world of the New Covenant in stewardship.

In Christ’s love
Russell Earl Kelly, PHD

Hemphill and Eklund Exposed on Tithing

2011-04-22T19:03:00.000-07:00

Review of The Foundations of Giving, Perspectives on Tithing,
Ken Hemphill and Bobby Eklund
by Russell Earl Kelly
April 22, 2011

“Position Statement: We assert that tithing is the foundational base from which believers can and must be challenged to become grace-givers.” (20)

Reply: This come from the SBC Position Paper which is the required position for all who receive paychecks from the Convention. All SBC members are expected to begin their level of giving at ten per cent.

Although this attempted imposition has been in the SBC since 1895 and, although the SBC Faith and Message did not even insert tithing texts into its stewardship statement until 1963, and although the Faith still does not teach tithing per se, it is the background expectation for all employees.

“We further agree that … the tithe was established prior to the giving of the Mosaic Law.” (20)

Reply: It is without dispute that all nations surrounding Abram practiced tithing to pagan gods. Common sense teaches that this was probably the source of Abram’s and Jacob’s knowledge about tithing. However, when the law arrived, God gave Moses special divine revelation that the “holy” tithe could only come from food within God’s holy land of Israel. Hemphill and Eklund totally ignore this biblical truth and it destroys their entire argument.

“We believe that Jesus assumed the tithe would be practiced by his followers.” (20)

Reply: The statement makes no sense before Calvary. Until Matthew 28:19-20 Jesus’ mission was to preach to fellow Hebrews who had already possessed and practiced tithing since Moses. No new teaching was needed as long as the law was still in full force. While living under the jurisdiction of the Law, Jesus MUST teach the whole law, including tithing, or be a sinner. He could not and did not teach His Jewish disciples to tithe to himself. And he could not and did not teach His Gentile disciples to tithe at all because it would not have been accepted.

“We believe that Paul taught and practiced biblical giving. … These challenges to give beyond the tithe are based on the assumption that a believer under grace would never do less than those who had lived under the Mosaic Law.” (20)

Reply: Again, sixteen texts validate the fact that true biblical holy tithes were always only food from inside God’s holy land. Tithes belonged to the Levites and priests –not to gospel workers. As a Pharisee Paul would certainly know that his trade of tentmaker did not qualify him as a tither, especially from defiled pagan land. Paul would never assume that one could pay a holy tithe from outside God’s holy land –especiall to himself. Even if he did, three tithes would require 20-23% be paid.

“His requirements for His children.” (p21)

Reply: The most fundamental hermeneutic (“To whom was it written? Was it written to me?”) is ignored. Hemphill and Eklund do not “rightly divide the word of truth.” While God clearly said in Exodus 19:5-6 that the Old Covenant law was given specifically to national Israel, they sporadically apply whatever parts of it they like to the Church without any post-Calvary textual evidence.

“The very fact that we have a tithe to bring indicates that God has given material blessings.” (21)

Reply: God said the tithe only belonged to Levites and priests. “We” the (mostly) Gentile church do NOT have a “tithe.” The tithe was always only FOOD from inside God’s holy land specifically legislated to support the Levites and priests who ministered in the sanctuary and had no land ownership rights. The Old Covenant is gone; the Levites are gone; ministers own much property; and the priests and temple now reside within every believer. Hemphill and Eklund do not address any of these tithing laws from Numbers 18.

“The practice of giving encourages the steward to … acknowledge that his stewardship encompasses not only the tithe …” (21)

Reply: This article is full of statements with no scriptural validation. It is “make it up as you go” hermeneutics.

“Craig Blomberg stated …” (20, 22, 35)

Reply: Craig Blomberg does NOT agree with them. In fact he was intimately involved in Dr. David Croteau’s PHD dissertation on tithing when he graduated from Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in Wake Forest, NC.

“By the time Abram appears in Genesis, the concept of giving a portion back to God as an offering of gratitude is understood and defined as ten per cent.” Gen 14:20. (23)

Reply: Hemphill and Eklund conveniently never refer to Abram and Jacob’s tithe as “holy.” “Giving” is an eternal moral law written nature and in the heart and conscience of every human. “Tithing” –giving ten per cent is not. If God had instructed Abram to give ten per cent of spoils of war, then why did He change it to only ONE per cent as a “statute” in Numbers 31? We must conclude that Abram was following a different definition and that God had not yet revealed the quantity and definition of a “holy” tithe.

“Language describing giving as ‘legalistic’ or an ‘obligation’ is not the principle theme of any biblical discussion of giving.” (23)

Reply: This is coming from those who describe tithing as a“foundational base,” “minimum standard” and “expectation.” Sounds like a “legalistic obligation” to me.

“Nowhere else in Scripture does God encourage His children to put Him to a test.” Mal 3:10 (23)

Reply: The whole law was a test (Deu 28-30). Obey all to be blessed; break one to be cursed. God does not bless murderers, thieves and adulterers who tithe. See Galatians 3:10.

“We cannot overlook the importance of the ‘whole tithe’ which settles the issue of what constitutes the tithe.” Mal 3:10 (24)

Reply: Malachi is 1000 years after Leviticus and the holy tithe is still only food from Israel. In Nehemiah 10:37-38 the people were commanded to bring the tithe to the Levitical cities where the Levites and priests met them. This is because 98% of those who needed the tithe for food lived there and not Jerusalem. (Figure 24 tribes rotating to the Temple one week at a time minus women and younger children.) Even in 2 Chronicles 31:15-19 the tithe was redistributed back to the Levitical cities. Only a small portion was kept in the Temple storehouse. It would make no sense for Levites and priests to travel to the Temple every time they needed to eat.

“Moses had instructed Israel that ‘Every tenth of the land’s produce … and every tenth animal is .. holy to the Lord.’” Lev 27:30, 32 (24)

Reply: This is the ONLY definition of a “holy” tithe which is repeated 16 times. While money was common and essential for sanctuary worship, money was never included in the tithe. Hemphill and Eklund never address this basic consistent definition and greatly err because of it.

“After Israel settled in the land they were to bring the tithe annually to the to the sanctuary and consume a portion of it “before the Lord,” leaving the remainder with the Levites who were, in turn, to share a tithe with the priests.” (24)

Reply: Herein Hemphill and Eklund hide a multitude of errors. They will not admit to the existence of three tithes because they do not want to teach a minimum beginning place of giving at 20-23%. (1) The first whole Levitical tithe was brought to the Levitical cities and a small portion of it was brought to the Temple by the Levites (Neh 10:37-38; Num 18:21-28). (2) A second festival tithe was brought and eaten in the streets of Jerusalem during three annual feasts (Deu 12:6,7; 14:23). (3) A third third-year poor tithe was kept in the cities and homes for the poor (Deu 14:28, 29: 26:12, 13).

“The storehouse clearly refers to God’s house, the place of worship for his children, and the meeting place of the local congregation.” (24)

Reply: (1) This is impossible because the church had no buildings for over 200 years after Calvary and Christianity was not legal for over 300 years. (2) Solomon, who built the temple and would have had the greatest volume of food, built no storerooms for the tithe. This is why Hezekiah was forced to do so after incorrectly telling the people to bring all the tithes to Jerusalem. The Temple was not used for congregational worship until after the exile when a synagogue was built inside it.

“Even in the matter of the tithe being dedicated to aliens, the fatherless and widows every third year, the giving was done through the priests serving in the temple.” (24)

Reply: Wrong. The third-year tithe for the poor was kept in the villages and homes and was not brought to the temple (Deu 14:28, 29: 26:12, 13). Hemphill and Eklund’s hermeneutic is to make things up as they go.

“Are we to seriously believe that God, who by this time had personally instructed His followers in all matters related to giving and to the tithe, suddenly decides the tithe is no longer important, no longer considered holy? There is no such statement in Scripture and no basis for teaching that such a declaration was uttered or intended.” (24-25)

Reply: (1) Jesus’ followers were Old Covenant Hebrews; He never instructed the Church to tithe. (2) The tithe was “holy” because: a) it was food miraculously increased by God and b) it came off His holy land. c) Some reasons for ending the holy tithe are: 1) The covenant in which it was an ordinance ended, 2) the priesthood it was legislated to support ended, 3) the Temple it was legislated to support ended, 4) the holy land and Levitical cities ended and 5) modern preaches own and inherit much land contrary to the tithing ordinance of Number 18.

“Genesis 14 recounts how Abram gave a tithe freely, willingly and worshipfully to Melchizedek.” (25)

Reply: God’s Word says none of this. We are not told WHY and HOW Abram tithed. We are only told THAT he gave a tenth of spoils of war to his local king-priest. It is even more likely (though one cannot be dogmatic about this) that Abram was obeying the well-documented law of the land and had no choice in the matter.

“The Macedonians begged to participate in the offering Paul was gathering for the impoverished saints in Jerusalem.” (2 Cor 8) (25)

Reply: There is no reason to mention this in a discussion of tithing because it demonstrates the spirit of freewill giving. The SBC says that freewill offerings are in addition to the tithe. Therefore its use by Hemphill and Eklund here is suspicious.

“When Jesus observed the love of the poor widow as she sacrificed …” (25)

Reply: Again this demonstrates the spirit of sacrificial freewill giving and should not be associated with tithing which was cold hard law and was expected whether one was joyful or not.

“We learn much later in Scripture how God has a special regard for the firstfruits of the harvest, the firstborn in families, the firstborn of flocks.” (26)

Reply: Again, this has nothing to do with tithing. Firstfruits were very small token offerings taken directly to the Temple and consumed inside it (Deu 26:1-4; Neh 10:35-37a). Firstfruits are never the same as tithes. Tithes teachers want believers to equate them and bring tithes to the church before any bills such as medicine and essentials are paid.

“In our studies we have found it fascinating that the tithe of agriculture was used in a family feast celebrating God’s provision and presence.” (Deu 14:26) (26)

Reply: The second holy feast tithe, an additional 10%, was commanded to be eaten in the streets of Jerusalem. Why is this command of the tithing law ignored today? Hemphill and Eklund’s “pick and choose” hermeneutic is very inconsistent.

“(Malachi) The result was that they were suffering under a curse. In other words they had forfeited God’s presence, provision and protection.” (26)

Reply: What is the motive of Hemphill and Eklund for writing this? Are they implying that Christians today who do not tithe are also “suffering under a curse” and have “forfeited God’s presence, provision and protection”? Are they forgetting that the law and the curse ended at Calvary? Are they replacing a New Covenant hermeneutic with an Old Covenant one?

“God assures His blessings on the tither.” (27)

Reply: The Old Covenant ended at Calvary (Heb 8:13). God is not now dealing with the Body of Christ using Old Covenant curses and blessings. God is now operating in the sphere of the New Covenant and does not bless New Covenant believers because of their obedience to or disobedience to conditional Old Covenant promises. Those blessings which Christians receive today are wholly because of compliance with ew Covenant teachings.

“What price tag can we put on the things of God? Some might say that we cannot buy the blessings of God for any price. God says we can have them for a tenth.” (27)

Reply: Christ appropriated all the blessings of God for us on Calvary. This statement by Eklund is childish. The context of Malachi ended at Calvary and has been replaced by New Covenant giving principles found in 2nd Corinthians 8 and 9 which are primarily freewill and sacrificial.

“Partners with God” by Bobby Eklund is 142 pages and only devotes 17 pages to tithing (63-79). “Making Change” by Ken Hemphill is 192 pages and only devotes 17 pages to tithing (97-113). In this book they have used 39 pages (20-44, 84-88, 126-130, 166-169) which is double the output of the other two books combined. (34 plus)

Reply: As Preissler will say in his excursis, Bible schools do not teach tithing. If they did they would be inundated with conclusions such as mine and Dr. David Croteau’s that tithing cannot be supported for the new Covenant church.

“If Abram tithed as a spontaneous response to the goodness of God, then the later codification of the tithe in the Mosaic law would reflect Abram’s response to the gracious activity of God …” (27)

Reply: No, the text must prove that Abram’s spontaneous and immediate response was either freewill or in obedience to a command from God. Neither can be demonstrated from Scripture. The Bible does say WHY Abram tithed. And his “unholy” tithe was not codified in the law as sustenance for Levites and priests. The statute of spoils of war in Numbers 31 lowered the spoils’ tithe from ten per cent to one per cent of the total.

“Abram’s response was both spontaneous and immediate.” (28)

Reply: This proves nothing. Hemphill and Eklund set up false parameters to ensure that Abram met their own parameters. Such is ignoring literal hermeneutics.

“The story seems straightforward. Abram tithed to God as an act of gratitude and worship, acknowledging God alone as the possessor of heaven and earth.” (28)

Reply: A literal hermeneutic does not yield the conclusion that “Abram tithed to God as an act of gratitude and worship.” He could have just as easily tithed to Melchizedek as an act of obedience to the law of the land. While El Elyon was a very common title for God/god “most high,” it was Melchizedek, not Abram, who made the first declaration. Abram later told the King of Sodom that Yahweh was El Elyon whom he served.

“If it can be established that Abram offered a tithe to the one true God prior to the Mosaic law, it would certainly blunt the argument that tithing is a legalism that has no significance under grace.” … “Tithing was commonly practiced long before Moses was born.” (29).

Reply: The fact that “Tithing was commonly practiced long before Moses was born” does not prove that “Abram offered a tithe to the one true God.” It only proves that pagans tithed along with their idolatry, child sacrifices and temple prostitution. The fact that something is very old and very widespread does not make such fact an eternal moral principle.

“Abram was affirming that the God who established a covenant with him is the one true God, the possessor of heaven and earth.” (30)

Reply: In Gen 14:22 Abram told the king of Sodom that the God Melchizedek only knew as El Elyon was Yahweh El Elyon.

“It would be exceedingly strange to think that Moses … would include a story which suggests that Abram offered a sacrifice to a pagan deity.”

Reply: Yes, it would, but the story says absolutely nothing about worship or a sacrifice. The inspiring Holy Spirit omitted those non-existent details conveniently added by Hemphill and Eklund.

“If one can demonstrate that Abram’s tithe to Melchizedek was a voluntary act prior to the Mosaic Law, it does establish that tithing was not simply an issue of legalistic obedience. (30)

Reply: They follow by saying “Rather it was a spontaneous act of celebration and gratitude.” They meet their own conditions by an unvalidated declaration. What kind of hermeneutic is that?

“If Abram tithed to Melchizedek, would it not follow that the Christian would offer tithes to the great high priest who is greater than Melchizedek?” (32)

Reply: As they previously said, it was not “the intention of the author of Hebrews” to teach tithing. Since Melchizedek (one outside the law) replaced Aaron (one inside the law) 7:12 says “it was necessary to change the law” which governed the Aaronic priesthood and allowed it to receive tithes. Were the tithes changed from Aaron to Melchizedek? No. 7:18 says that “the commandment going before” (to take tithes of the people according to the law; 7:5) was “disannulled, abolished) –not shifted to gospel workers.

“The entire context (of Jacob) describes a subdued man who was overwhelmed with the promises of God… In response … Jacob responded with a promise to give God a tenth …” (33)

Reply: While Hemphill and Eklund did not bother researching, Croteau did and proved that Jacob’s demeanor was that of fear in 28:17 and not gratitude. Compare 28:17 with the same Hebrew word in 31:31 and 32:7, 11. Jacob the supplanter and schemer responded out of fear with his famous conditional “if” telling God what to do.

“We have not dealt extensively with the tithe in the Old Testament since there is little disagreement that the principle of tithing is taught there.” (33)

Reply: The truth is precisely the opposite. All tithe discussions eventually end up back with Abram and Genesis 14. the “principle” of “giving ten per cent” was manifested in pagan worship and giving tithes to pagan idols; it was not a holy tithe at all. The “principle” was later greatly enhanced through special revelation when God limited the “holy” tithe to food from inside Israel which He had miraculously increased. This is always the final battleground and Hemphill and Eklund very well know it.

“(Tithing) is a loving and worshipful response to the Creator who owns and provides everything we need and have.” (34)

Reply: Sounds good but it is not biblical. Wile God owned everything in the OT (Ps 24:1), He only accepted “holy” tithes from inside His holy land.

“We found it perplexing that someone who had experienced grace made available through the cross would desire to do less than someone under the Mosaic law. Such, to us, was a disgrace to grace.” (34) (20)

Reply: This is their strongest argument and is inserted and repeated often. Again, it is based on the false assumption that every Hebrew was required to tithe and that every Hebrew began giving at ten per cent. In reality only Hebrews who lived inside Israel and were food producers could qualify as tithers.

“[Quotes Mt 5:17-19] “The law and the prophets is a shorthand way of referring to the entire Old Testament.” (34-35)

Reply: At last something correct to agree upon. The “law” was an unbreakable whole. Either one must keep all of it or reject and replace all of it.

“The teachings of the prophets were fulfilled when what they predicted actually happened. Thus the entire Old Testament (Law and Prophets) pointed forward to what Jesus has now brought into being through his life and teaching.” (quoted Blomberg) (35)

Reply: This logic confuses me because many of the Prophets’ predictions are yet future. I tend to interpret this as the “righteousness of the law” as indicated in Mt 5:20 although much is still open to speculation and this seems to be the direction of Hemphill and Eklund on page 36.

“In each instance cites (Mt 5:20-48) Jesus’ ethical teaching was more demanding than the Old Testament law.” (36)(20)(34)

Reply: Behind this discussion is another effort to prove their main point that NT giving standards are higher than OT giving standards. While this is true, once again tithing was not a beginning standard for Hebrews who were not food producers and who lived outside Israel. Their many efforts fail because they will not address the basic definition of the holy tithe.

“Let your mind’s eye picture one of the haughty Pharisees on his knees counting out his herbs.” Mt 23:23 (39)

Reply: When Jesus said “Ye ought not to have left the other undone,” He was commanding His followers to do the same thing because the scribes and Pharisees “sit in Moses seat” as the legitimate interpreters of the law (23:2-3). Yet I know of no church today which obeys Jesus’ direct command. This is “pick and choose” hermeneutics at its best.

“They had been guilty of picking and choosing and thus ignoring these greater issues of inner truth.” (39)

Reply: Hemphill and Eklund do the same thing when they use Matthew 23:23 as a hammer to teach Christian tithing. They do not obey Jesus’ direct command.

“We must however be careful to note that Jesus did not condemn them for the ‘legalism’ of tithing. On the contrary He indicated that ‘These things should have been done without neglecting the others.’ Jesus did not suggest that the Old Testament principle of the tithe should be neglected but rater that it should issue from the heart from whence also should flow justice, mercy and faith.” (39)

Reply: As a Jew Himself living under the full jurisdiction of the Law, Jesus must teach tithing or else be a sinner for opposing the law. While Hemphill and Eklund completely ignore this fact they also disobey Jesus’ direct command by not teaching tithes of garden herbs.

“We can’t ignore the obvious implication Jesus believed that they should have understood and practiced tithing.” (39)

Reply: I can’t understand how Hemphill and Eklund cannot understand that Jesus’ Jewish disciples did not need instruction in tithes because they had heard this since Moses’ time. He was not speaking to the Church. He was yielding to the scribes and Pharisees as the present occupants of Moses’ seat and telling His disciples to tithe garden herbs (23:2-3).

“While tithing is a good place for us to begin the teaching of stewardship, it is inadequate in light of the gift of God’s grace in His son … Why would anyone think that living under grace should grant us permission to do less than man was required to do under the law.” (40)(20)(34)(36)

Reply: Another repetition and the same reply again. (1) Tithing was only the minimum good place to start under the law for food producers who lived inside Israel and (2) if you are going to teach this, then teach 20-23% tithing as the law required for food producers.

“Having been nurtured in Judaism, Paul would have practiced tithing according to Old Testament prescription.” (41)

Reply: Yes. He would have taught that true holy biblical tithes were always only food from inside God’s holy land of Israel. He would have taught Gentiles that tithes could not come from Gentiles or from outside Israel. And he would have reminded the Gentiles of the letter from the Jerusalem church in Acts 15 which did not impose the law on Gentiles.

“[Note that Hemphill and Eklund did not mention 1st Corinthians 9.]”

“Let’s embrace the idea that the tithe is a good biblical place for beginning …” (44)(20, 34, 36, 40)

Reply: One final repetition of their main point with no supporting texts.

“David Croteau’s chapter … reveals a great reluctance to accept tithing as a biblical mandate despite Jesus’ affirmation of the practice in Mt 23:23.” (84)

Reply: Croteau used consistent literal interpretation while you reflect no consistent hermeneutic other than your own opinion and church Position Paper. Jesus’ discussion in Mt 23:23 was that of “matters of the law.” He could not have opposed tithing while under the law without sinning.

“These [NT] convicting principles are left to the reader’s imagination.” (84)

Reply: The “reader’s imagination” is found on pages 81-83 which even include 2 plain charts to imagine are in the book.

“As a whole this view fails to take into account God’s approach in teaching mankind, not just the Israelites …” (84)

Reply: “Holy” biblical tithes were never for all mankind. They could only come from inside God’s holy land of Israel and only from His holy covenant people.

“The Garden of Eden is the beginning place.” (84)

Reply: Of giving? Yes. Of tithing? No. Reserving one tree out of possibly thousands does not constitute tithing –plus they did not offer it to God.

“Failure to see this connection [Eden] results, in our opinion, to the excessive attention to mechanics (some might say legalism) of giving rather than the reasons behind giving in general and the tithe in particular.” (84-85)

Reply: I credit Croteau’s conclusions to his tendency to literally interpret God’s Word. I call your attempts to impose Old Covenant giving principles on the Church “legalism.”

“There is no basis at all to the suppositions and conclusions that Abram tithed only from spoils and not his possessions or that his giving originated in surrounding cultures.” (86)

Reply: Hebrews 7:4 is very strong reason for the first statement and common sense is good reason for the second. Being born and raised in a culture should mean that you often reflect that culture.

“The fact that other cultures practiced some form of tithing, and we certainly do not dispute this, does not dictate the reasons behind Abraham’s voluntary spontaneous tithe.” (86)

Reply: (1) The culture one is born and raised in most definitely should be strongly considered. And (2) God’s Word does not say that Abram’s tithe was “voluntary.”

“As to the unsupported position that “storehouse” in Mal 3:10 refers specifically (and only to) a special room in the temple designated to hold tithes and offerings, the principle is the same.” (87)

Reply: Compare Neh 13:5 with 1 Kings 6:6 for that room. What principle? What texts prove your argument? How can you condemn a literal interpretation when the church had no physical buildings for over 200 years after Calvary?

“In our opinion the intent (of Lev 27) was to describe Judaism as significantly different from other cultures.” (87)

Reply: O.K. but the text gives a “significantly different” dominion of “holy” tithes which you never discuss and which destroys most of your arguments.

“(Concerning Matthew 23:23, Croteau said that) Jesus does not prohibit tithing but he condemns the wrong attitude and motive of those who were tithing under the old covenant. Precisely. … but when Croteau states … the command to tithe was for the scribes and Pharisees who were still under the old covenant,” this statement begs the question ‘When is the requirement under grace ever less than the requirement under the Mosaiclaw?’” (87)(20, 34, 36, 40, 44)

Reply: Croteau was pointing out that Jesus had to teach tithing while still under the law and that he was not teaching His disciples to tithe to Himself. Again we can reply to the oft-repeated favorite line: (1) it is based on the false assumption that everybody in the law began at ten per cent when it only applied to food producers living inside Israel and (2) the minimum should be taught as 20-23 per cent.

“Croteau does his best work in providing a proper motivation for giving.” (88)

Reply: You said on page 84 “These [NT] convicting principles are left to the reader’s imagination.”

“While we must agree to disagree on the ongoing requirement of a tithe (ten per cent) as the beginning point for obedient giving … The natural consequence of loving God is not “to be free from a ten per cent model” but to be free to give generously under the leadership of His Spirit.” (88)
(20, 34, 36, 40, 44, 87)

Reply: This final jab was expected. Now we have heard it so often that it has been ingrained in our minds as truth. Not!

The paradigm of tithing has been around for over 100 years and has failed miserably. It is time for post-Calvary Spirit-blessed New Covenant giving principles: freewill, generous, sacrificial, joyful, not by commandment (or percentage) and motivated by love for God and others. That means more sermons on evangelism and soul-winning and less on tithing. Watch the churches grow – again.

Grace Giving is Now the Majority Viewpoint

2011-04-09T09:02:00.000-07:00

Survey: Majority of evangelical leaders say tithing not required
By Electa Draper

http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_17784132

The Denver Post
Posted: 04/06/2011 11:40:06 AM MDTUpdated: 04/06/2011 11:48:30 AM MDT

Most evangelical leaders encourage their church members to tithe, yet most don't believe the Bible requires it of Christians, according to survey results released today.

Tithing, giving at least 10 percent of one's income to church, was the subject of the monthly poll of directors of the National Association of Evangelicals, which includes leaders of churches, denominations, missions, universities and publishing houses.

The Evangelical Leaders Survey found 58 percent believe the Bible doesn't require tithing, which means giving at least 10 percent of one's income to their church. And 42 percent do think tithing is required.

However, 95 percent of those included in the February poll indicated they give at least 10 percent.

"The Old Testament called for multiple tithes, sort of combining government taxes with religious stewardship. Many churches later adopted 10 percent as the standard," said NAE President Leith Anderson.

"Since there is such a strong evangelical tradition of tithing, I was a little surprised that a majority of our evangelical leaders say the tithe system of the Old Testament does not carry over to the New Testament or to us."

It could be that the people in the pews agree. Empty Tomb Inc. recently reported that evangelicals give churches about 4 percent of their income and Christians overall donate only 2.43 percent.

The NAE leaders stressed that their views on the Bible don't release Christians from giving.

"Anything less than 10 percent seems like an ungenerous response to God," said David Neff, editor-in-chief of the magazine "Christianity Today."

While tithing isn't required, said Alan Robinson of the Brethren in Christ Church, the Old Testament model should lead New Testament Christians to "live lives of sacrificial generosity."

Electa Draper: 303-954-1276 or edraper@denverpost.com

Second Reply to Pastor J D Greear

2011-04-08T15:53:00.001-07:00

Greear: Where I see you primarily in error is your complete divorcing of the law from the Christian life.

Kelly: You have no right to say this because you will not disclose what hermeneutic you use to bring the Old Covenant Law over into the New Covenant. Again, the consistent dispensational hermeneutic allows us to use that part of the law which is repeated after Calvary to the church in terms of the New Covenant. That, my friend, has the blessings of the Holy Spirit. You, on the other hand, struggle with the “no glory” concept of 2 Cor 3:10 without a consistent hermeneutic.

Greear: The law is no longer binding over us

Kelly: It never was binding on us Gentiles. This shows a fundamental misunderstand of the Law.

Greear: … but it is still a helpful tutor to understand who God is and how we work in the world.

Kelly: I don’t deny that, but neither do I send my wife away for a week every month as the law requires.

Greear: I think yours reflects an overly dispensational approach to the Bible which too neatly brackets Old and New Testament.

Kelly: Without a consistent hermeneutic, you the pastor becomes the ultimate god who decides what part of the law can be compelled upon his congregation and that causes mass confusion among Baptists.

Greear: I also think that how we see what our attitude toward generosity is to be when we’re in the midst of hardship is different.

Kelly: Amen. First Timothy 5:8 must not be in your Bible and neither is Acts 20:35.

Greear: I see that, in some ways, almost everybody that I talk with is in some kind of financial hardship, and I would never encourage somebody to stop being generous when they feel like things are tight.

Kelly: Now you are over-reacting.

Greear: That is what I think the principle of first fruits teaches us is that we honor God first.

Kelly: That does not give you permission to make the truly needy feel inadequate if they cannot give.

Greear: My main problem, Russ, is not what you write, it’s the spirit in which you write. It is hateful, it is arrogant, and it is not helpful for the discussion. It is beneath how Christian brothers should speak to one another. I hope that you and I can discuss this at some point in the future, but with a spirit that believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things, and is reflective of the patience and generosity of Christ.

Kelly: I have a special calling from God to rid the church of this shackle of the law. If you knew me, you would see a generous loving caring person who gives far more than most. I am compassionate and have a sense of humor and I never meet somebody that I cannot make my friend. Just watch my videos and see my demeanor. There is a 90 minute live TV debate presently being posted on You Tube from Revelation TV in London. See my site for details. On the other hand, your first post reflects many arrogant, hateful and seemingly callous remarks about the poor.

Greear: I wish you well and hope the wisdom and insight that God has given you can be a blessing to churches throughout the United States, starting with ours.

Kelly: They are and continue to increase.
……………………
……………………
Instead of addressing any of my biblical points, you attack me. What kind of scholarship it that? Is that the way you defend your doctrine? I really don’t care what you think of me; I do care how you use God’s Word; that is your real calling.

The following are added comments to your first post. I really would appreciate an in-depth analysis and rebuttal of my comments from your first post.

1. Define tithing.
2. We as Gentiles never were under the Old Covenant law.
3. You make no effort to explain how hundreds of parts of the law have been discarded but tithing remains.

Greear: as it relates to the tithe, the law reveals the unchanging character of God and how He expects us to view the money HE has provided for us.

Kelly: You accuse of writing with a hateful arrogant spirit. What, sir, is this arrogance which forces your interpretation upon others?

4. Again, you provide no texts to validate your opinion. “I see” is your “arrogant” text.

Greear: A minimum of 10 percent that He has given to us, whether we are rich or poor, is to go back into His work.

Kelly: This is arrogant. While the sick welfare mother tithes first, you are the greatest benefactor of her misinformed giving. Where are your texts?

Greear: This is how He set up the world order. This is why the "tithe" principle (the first 10 percent of income going into God's work) is taught pre-law (Abraham)

Kelly: This is arrogant and misguided. Where are your textual arguments?

Greear: and even affirmed under Jesus (Matthew 23:23).

Kelly: Where did Jesus teach that widows and the needy should give the first ten per cent of their income to you as a tithe? This is both arrogant and hateful.

Greear: but how God has set up His economy for His people has not changed.

Kelly: If the church is His people Israel, you should teach 23%.

Greear: The law was given to help people live in the shalom of God.

Kelly: The law never commanded the poor destitute widow to tithe her SS check.

Greear: Thus, the idea that 10 percent of all that God gives to you is given for you to give back to Him remains, I believe, as a good guide to our giving.

Kelly: This is a hateful arrogant lie.

Greear: Now, let me be clear -- Jesus left us under NO PART of the law, not the tithe or anything else.

Kelly: But JD does arrogantly.

Greear: But the law, in that it reflects God's character and His ordering of creation, is still good, and still functions as a guide to how we are to live under God in this world.

Kelly: While attacking my strong dispensational stance, you have no consistent hermeneutic other than your own opinion. It is not your fault entirely. The SBC had not produced a good hermeneutic textbook which consistently explains how to bring material from the Old Covenant into the New.

Greear: For Gospel-touched people, tithing should never be the ceiling of their giving, but it should be the floor.

Kelly: “It should be the floor”!!! This is an outright deliberate high-handed presumptuous willful LIE without a single Bible text for validation. It is motivated by greed and it is damming the Southern Baptist Convention to teach it.

Greear: That said, "giving our firstfruits to God" most definitely is a biblical principle, true of God's people in all places and at all times.

Kelly: Yes, but you erroneously equate firstfruits with tithes.

Church Members Steal Tithes from a Local Business

2011-04-07T17:44:00.000-07:00

Church Members Steal Tithes from a LOcal Busness

SUN STAR DAVAO, Philippines
http://www.sunstar.com.ph/davao/local-news/2011/04/07/retail-firm-sues-pastor-5-others-149261
Apr 7, 2011
DAVAO CITY -- A local health products retailer sued a pastor and five others for allegedly defrauding the company in unauthorized disbursement to the church as "tithes" amounting to more than P22 million.
Davao-based ERG Health Shop Inc. filed criminal and civil suits against Francisco "Frank" Buenaventura, president and head pastor of Victory Chapel Christian Center Inc., and five other church officials.

London Debate info

2011-04-01T12:16:00.001-07:00

LONDON LIVE TV DEBATE ON TITHING, MARCH 30, 2011

As many of you know, I just returned from what I consider an extremely successful debate on tithing in London, England, sponsored by Revelation TV and paid for by my good friend, Michael M.

I want to thank everybody for your generous financial support and prayers – especially Michael M. in London who paid for the airline ticket plus much more. The trip was far beyond my wildest expectations. Now I feel that I must return and bring my wife. Perhaps a local debate will be held at a town hall to sell tickets.

I met with three very influential men at Revelation TV and they all support our position. We have really made a dent into this false doctrine in Europe.

First, I am told that the debate will be placed on You Tube. I will advise details when I get them.

Second, the gallery at the station only consisted of about 40 people. You can see them on the video. Those on the right of the screen were his church members. Only a few were our supporters. I have reasons to suspect that many of the questions and phone calls were from other church members.

Third, although no winner was declared, I feel that I easily won. He basically conceded defeat when he admitted that the woman on welfare should buy insulin rather than tithe first. Even the moderator tried to coax a text out of him.

THE WEEK:

I stayed with Michael and his wonderful family. I arrived on Saturday and caught up on my sleep. Sunday evening we went to All Souls Church, a large evangelical church which teaches freewill giving. It was full with at least 600 people.

First, on Monday we went on the 8-9AM radio program with about 8 short segments. The radio announcer (John Pantry) and his female co-host were totally supportive of our freewill giving emphasis. The woman was so pleased to hear our message that she was almost giddy. After that program I taped a 20 minute segment with the early morning wake-up announcer who said “I thought all churches taught tithing” before the program began. I have not heard this program or its response.

Monday afternoon we rode the sub-way trains (the tube), double-decker buses (they run every few minutes) and the London Eye (huge Ferris wheel on the river). I was frisked before getting on the eye and promised not to try and hi-jack it to Georgia.

On Tuesday morning they took me to Windsor Castle and sight-seeing. It was an incredible experience and now I must go back with my wife. The city is safe, clean and the buildings have soul (class). The streets are very narrow but I saw no accidents.

Tuesday evening found us back at Premiere Christian Radio where the phones and emails had not stopped buzzing from the previous morning. The director of the station greeted me and thanked me. The 4:30PM show was a straight 20 minute format with a pro-tithe preacher calling in to challenge me. After telling the station how vehemently he disagreed, within 5 minutes he was agreeing with me and the two radio announcers (a different man and woman) were rolling their eyes in disbelief. After the show I heard “That’s not what he said when he called in.” It was great.

After the Tuesday program, they took me to see a huge three story mall and later Tesco (owned by Walmart). Then we ate supper and got in very late.

Wednesday morning I slept late to be fresh for the debate. Since I had been preparing for this debate for years, I had done my prep before arriving in London.

My opponent had notes scattered all over the table and I had one stack and a few books I never referred to. He quoted from his IPAD and I quoted from memory. I felt very confident during the entire debate. Your prayers were behind me.

Friday, April 1, 2011 -- 2 days after the debate. Wow! Things are moving fast. No thanks to the horrible Atlanta Airport and a serious accident on I-75N which delayed us over an hour, I arrived back home needing sleep.

Revelation TV is already selling the DVD for $12.00 including shipping:
Revelation TV
Genesis House
Cocks Crescent
New Malden
KT3 4TA
United Kingdom

Rob Fox, our Tithing-Study Group owner, will announce his results soon.

I would like to use the audience statistics to try to get on TV here. Perhaps this will open the door.

P.S. They only pay 10% tax for national health care. The only complaint is long waiting lines for many surgeries which might cause one to die first.

Reply to Robert Briggs 2

2011-03-22T23:32:00.000-07:00

Robert Briggs: If they [my views] are so similar to all others why is the heading of your yahoo thread "a very weird tithing view" even Tony knows my stance is different then most.

Russ: I did not place that title there. It came with the email.

Robert: I could care less if you are convinced or not. My goal is not to convince you. I leave you to your Master as you should be willing to do me. Time will tell. If you are right and I am wrong God will not condemn me for doing in faith what His word has instructed and what generations of people did before the law, after the law, during the time of Christ and AFTER the time of Christ.

Russ: Your statement is a mixture of truth and error and that makes it wrong. The “generations” who tithed “before the law” were pagans all around the world. Those who “tithed after the time of Christ” did not do so until many centuries had passed and they had perverted God’s Word. Church history is not on your side here.

Robert: However, if I am right and you are wrong your going to have a lot of explaining to do.

Russ: I have no fear. God’s Word is here.

Robert: One thing you folks never seem to address is why the church has turned into a money making corporation? Coffee shops, bingo, rummage sales, bake sales, sports nights, dances, etc. etc. all to pay the bills that the Tithes and Offerings could do easily if everyone did their part.

Russ: Your answer does not answer the WHY. Churches cannot pay their bills because they have stopped preaching the gospel and have stopped teaching personal evangelism.

Robert: Scripture does defend itself you fail to show me a place where scripture does away with tithe...

Russ: I gave you 14 Bible reasons which lead to the conclusion that tithing has been done away. Do you know how to read? Comment on each of them, especially the definition of the tithe.

Robert: For the circumsizion which existed before the law we are told “quotes Romans 2:25 and 1 Cor 7:19.”

Russ: When are you going to tell me what you mean by “keeping the commandments of God”? Are you referring to the whole law of 600 commandments or your own version where you decide which ones to keep and which ones to reject? I understand the phrase after Calvary to refer to the New Covenant’s ROYAL LAW commands of love, the golden rule and not being a respecter of persons. You have no consistent hermeneutic for how you use the words “law” and “commandments.” Don’t throw a verse at me that you cannot explain.

Robert: Hebrews 10:8.

Russ: Why are you quoting this text? Is this 52 card pickup?

Robert: But for the Tithe which existed before the law we have only Jesus saying.. Matt 23:23.

Russ: You totally ignore my point by point explanation of Mt 23:23. You make no effort whatsoever to show me where my understanding is wrong. Then you make the remark that Jesus was discussing a pre-law definition of the tithe when He clearly is not.

Robert: The scripture in MULTIPLE subjects, shows that when something from the Old Covenant is done away with it is done away with SPECIFICALLY with another scripture.

Russ: The scripture in multiple places says that the entire Old Covenant Law which was only given to Israel ended. Heb 8:13; 7:18; Gal 3:19, 24-26; Rom 10:4. I reject your hermeneutic as being exactly OPPOSITE mine and the truth. The OT Law was never commanded to me or to the Church.

Robert: Robert: Tithe(s) were practices before Moses ever wrote them down.

Russ: Tithes, yes. Holy biblical tithes, no.

Robert: Wow... so to you Abram's pre covenant tithe was unholy and un biblical?

Russ: Is English a second or third language for you? I did not say “unholy and un-biblical.” I did say “not holy biblical.” Show me where Abram’s tithe meets the high standards of a holy tithe under the Law. You cannot because you are wrong.

Robert: Why then was it recorded? Why was he selected?

Russ: If you think that “being recorded” makes something moral, then you would never understand Job and Ecclesiastes.

Robert: And why was he [Abraham] again commended in the NT scriptures for THIS act and not some other more worthy example of faith and obedience to God?

Russ: The purpose of Hebrews was not to commend Abram for tithing. Tithes were used as a writing vehicle to prove that Melchizedek was greater than Aaron. Why do you ignore Abram’s act of giving the 90% to the king of Sodom?

Russ: Tithes were well known in pagan lands.

Robert: You surely didn't read my first article then Russ ole boy because I made this point long before i ever began dialogue with you. The fact was tithe was known.

Russ: That still does not make it an eternal moral principle.

Robert: In my belief it was known, albeit perverted, by pagans simply because it was taught to them via verbal transfer from the time of Adam just like Animal sacrifice.

Russ: That is your belief, or opinion, with no biblical confirmation.

Robert: GOD solidified and removed the errors and eronious understanding by compiling a WRITTEN WORD which could not be perverted.

Russ: And the tithe of the Old Covenant Law was only FOOD from inside God’s holy land. Try and disprove that.

Robert: You fail to understand that the belief in the existence of a Divinity came from the same source through verbal means before it was ever recorded.

Russ: That is not what God’s Word teaches in Rom 1:18-20 and 2:14-16.

Robert: Moses is responsible for what we know about the creation account and he did not live during that time. The stories were passed down. Many times being corrupted as in the account of the Babylonians concerning Gilgamesh but still they show a congruent understanding and similarity of some points of faith which HAD TO come from a singular source.

Russ: The Law still limited holy tithes to FOOD from inside Israel. Deal with that.

Russ: The Bible does not tell WHY Abram tithed.

Robert: It most certainly DOES tell us why Arbam tithed.
Heb 7:6 But he whose descent is not counted from them received tithes of Abraham, and blessed him that had the promises.
Heb 7:7 And without all contradiction the less is blessed of the better.
To recieve God's blessing.

Russ: The text merely says THAT Abram tithed spoils of war and was blessed. It does not tell us WHY. Any local king-priest within a thousand miles would have done the same thing after receiving spoils of war from a victor passing through his domain.

Robert: If more church members would regularly tithe, and give offerings of a reasonable amount there would never be a need on the part of the minister to talk about it on a regular basis.

Russ: There are successful churches all over the world which do not teach tithing. Good preachers who know how to preach inspiring soul-saving sermons do not need to add the law to grace. Gal 1:8-9; 3:1-5.

Russ: Now tell us why Abram gave the 90% to the king of Sodom.

Robert: Scripture tell us why Abrham gave back the 90% to this pagan king... so that that man would not be able to say that Abram's wealth came from him instead of GOD. Gen 14:23.

Russ: Why would Abram care what a sodomite king thought? To the victor go the spoils. Abram had the right to keep everything.
According to you we are still to follow his example and that means to keep nothing and give the 90% to our local Satanic cult.

Robert: In the new covenant we are introduced to another concept. that of Stewardship. In reality then we are to understand that ALL we posess is God's and it is simply intrusted to us.

Russ: Please tell me what this has to do with tithing. The post-Calvary New Covenant Holy Spirit-blessed giving principle of SACRIFICIAL giving teaches this.

Robert: By the payment of the tithe we are acknowledging this fact.

Russ: No text. Worthless.

Robert: The NT teaches repeatedly through many different methods and means that we are to yeild all not part.

Russ: One can be willing to yield all without teaching tithing.

Robert: However, if a person will not willingly part with a 10th there is no way in the world they would EVER give it all if God asked it of them.

Russ: Not true. The story of the widow’s mite proves that. She was not tithing. She was giving a sacrificial freewill offering.

Robert: Laws like Covet not, Kill Not, Worship Not, Steal Not, were MORAL/Ethical

Russ: Yes, but only because they are also written in the heart, nature and conscience by God to every man.

Robert: Laws like Sabbath day, Animal Sacrifice, Washing of hands, wearing of special apparel,
Circumcision of the flesh, Abstaining from meat WERE Cerimonial in nature and had nothing to do with ethics or morality....

Russ: They were still moral and punishable to a Hebrew only and violators could not worship. Sabbath breakers were killed. You want to subdivide the Old Covenant Law, discard what you do not like and keep tithing. Neat trick. The entire Old Covenant Law ended at Calvary for Israel per Hebrews 8:13 and Galatians 3:19. Gentiles never were “under the law.”

Robert: So we can now murder? Steal? Have idols? Worship other Gods? Men can dress in the clothing of women and women can dress in the clothes of a man?

Russ: This stupid argument shows a complete misunderstanding of the concept of law. How many times do I have to tell you that the moral law is written in the heart by nature and conscience per Romans 1:18-20 and 2:14-16. And tithing is not. That is why the Gentiles are guilty before God in Romans 3:10-20.

Robert: The laws of GOD were not done away... the LAWS of Moses which were the writings of Moses and the Elders on the application of the 10 laws of God WERE!

Russ: I can provide you scores of texts which prove that that “Law of God” and the “Law of Moses” are the same thing before Calvary.

Russ: That part of the Old Covenant Law for Israel which applies to all people and the church today is found written in nature and conscience per Romans 1:18-20 and 2:14-16. It has been written in the hearts as the New Covenant based on LOVE per Romans 8:2.

Robert: So then what happened to the Corinthian church? How did they get perverted?

Russ: They sinned.

Robert: Or the Galatians?

Russ: They were perverted by the legalists from Acts 15 who wanted to force everybody to keep ALL the Law – especially tithing, circumcision, Sabbath and unclean foods – Pharisee favorites.

Robert: Sure we know what is right but we do not always do what is right. The scriptures All of them, which by the way, are given by God and PROFITABLE, teach us about requirement, obedience, disobedience, faithfulness, faithlessness, judgment and reward.... and without them we are doomed.

Russ: No all scripture is addressed to all people. That is called “rightly dividing the word of God.” The Old Covenant Law was never commanded to me, a Gentile. I was never under the law.

Russ: Now you are writing your own Bible. Please provide some texts for this revelation. The civil judgments were enforced by the judges who handled presumptuous sins.

Robert: If you can't read the 10 commandments and see which ones pertain to my points I'm not going to waste my time writing them because you still won't see what I am saying.

Russ: Save yourself the trouble. My Bible says that the Law was only commanded to Israel whom God called out of Egypt per Exodus 19:5-6 and 20:1-2.

Robert: Don't tell me, let me guess.... you don't believe in "organized" religion. You feel the need for churches is non existent and you worship God according to the dictates of your own heart. Right?

Russ: Wrong again.

Robert: Mt 23:23. Jesus taught the Pharisees' that his disciples had broken no law when they washed their hands even though the law taught it.

Russ: Wrong. If Jesus broke the law then He was a sinner and we are still dead in our sins. The washing of hands which Jesus opposed was ritual added by the Pharisees which some say did not even require water (but dirt).

Robert: And he taught that the healing on the Sabbath day was not work, just as the saving of a trapped animal on the sabbath was not either. HE my friend got into the Spirit of the Law which you seem oblivious to.

Russ: You are oblivious to the fact that Jesus lived under the full jurisdiction of the law and it controlled everything a Jew must do from waking to sleeping. Again it was the whole Law which Jesus observed – including judgments and statutes.

Russ: And, “yes,” you must “throw out” the whole “baby” of the whole law and start over again with the New Covenant which re-instates the moral parts of the law in terms of grace and faith.

Robert: YOUR FOOLISH throw away the Bible then because we have no requirments any more.

Russ: Again, you either cannot understand plain English or do not read a thing I have written. May I introduce you to 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.” When the Declaration of Independence was signed in 1776, the colonies instantly were NOT under English law (good or bad); it all ended instantly. Then (notice carefully) the good parts of that same law were reworded in terms of the US Constitution. Catch on?

Russ: I have just provided scores of scriptural authorization that tithes ended. You have proven nothing.

Robert: Russ you prove something only to yourself and like minded people who feel they have no responsibility to support a church, and that feel it is improper to have a full time minister.

Russ: You now attack me personally. That is the way it usually happens when you are losing the argument. In fact I vigorously support my church and provide free assistance to other church organizations. I am all for full-time ministry. I just do not think it should be supported from the lie of tithing.

Robert: So, how many converts does your unorganized approach bring to the master each year?

Russ: Does not apply to me. I attend an organized church.

Robert: How much does this minor topic of tithe do to get people to the weightier matters of importance?

Russ: I hear from preachers very often who have switched and agree with me. And again you are twisting God’s Word; the text says “weightier matters of the law.” Jesus was not addressing the Church or Gentiles.

Robert: NONE... you're always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth..

Russ: If you are so smart, then continue this dialog and actually discuss some texts someday.

Robert: When you people open your blogs up to comments I might consider a public dialogue.. but each and every one of you're blogs (in the cases of those who came to my sight and commented) are closed to comment.. why is that?

Russ: I strongly discourage such and will speak up against it on the Tithing-Study Group. My blog is open and the Tithing-Study Group is open unless you start name calling.

Robert: Get off your hobby horse and be as critical with your own bread as you are with mine.

Russ: It is not my hobby-horse. It is my calling from God to complete the Reformation. The Tithing-Study Group does not exist to air out “feel good” personal reasons.

Robert: So why all the cyber back slapping (good point Tony), (good argument....) (you showed him)... bla bla bal.

Russ: I do not participate in that nor do I approve of it. Perhaps Robert Fox can speak to that point with the Group.

Robert: So tell me why do you throw away scripture which requires that you avoid foolish and unlearend questions? Why do you seek them out? Why argue when the scripture says not to? Hypocrite.

Russ: Since when is adding the law back into grace a foolish and unlearned question? I consider it a matter of the church surviving and overcoming legalism. The Scripture tells me to “prove all things” and “teach sound doctrine.” I suppose you disagree with Jesus for arguing with the religious leaders of his day also.

Robert: So agian.. why keep your blogs from having comment? At least I have the guts to open comment and I don't need a back door support group to urge me on...

Russ: See Robert Fox about this.

Russ: Cyber bullies? Have you ever noticed that we are outnumbered by about 10,000 to 1 when churches blog FOR tithing? Most churches, most Christian magazines and most Christian TV and radio stations “bully” people with endless messages promoting tithing. Many of their blogs allow no discussion at all – they simply teach tithing and curse those who disagree. Who are you kidding here?
Robert: So why come seeking a fight? Why try to feed off of someone else’s labors do your own soul winning. Teach people from the ground up and stop being a soul cyphon trying to take the easy way out.

Russ: Does your Bible contain the book of Acts? Why don’t you throw this accusation at Paul? We are trying to clean up the church so it can be revived and win souls again. That is our mission – to clean the annulled law out of the church per Heb 7:18.

Russ: I am glad that Martin Luther and John Calvin did not take your advice. We would all still be bowing to the Pope. Since you emailed me personally along with the Group, consider this an invitation to dialog with me on my personal blog and I will post both sides without cutting anything. It is: http://russkellyphd.blogspot.com/. By the way, Tithing-Study Group can be read by anybody. If your arguments are better than ours, you can make all of us look stupid. It is an open forum.

Robert: Martin Luther and John Calvin taught TITHE...

Russ: I have quotes from them on my web site to the contrary.

Robert: No, the pastor of the local assembly is charged with teaching sound doctrine as says the Pastoral Epistles of Paul. Not the laity.

Russ: If they taught sound doctrine, we would ask them to join us as many pastors have done. According to 1st Timothy 5:19-20 the laity can and should insure that church leaders are not teaching false doctrine.

Non Tithe Teachers: D. L. Moody, L. S. Chafer, Merrill Unger, Charles Ryrie, J. V. McGee and John MacArthur. Believe it or not you can have a successful growing church without teaching tithing. You simply need to preach good lively Bible sermons and personal evangelism.

Robert: Wow.. .what is your point? I like all the names, most of them I know of indepth and they all taught titheing. Why don't you listen to one of my sermons and then tell me if they are not "Good and Lively" or not.

Russ: None of those men teach tithing and you should be ashamed of yourself for smearing their good non-tithing names. If your sermons are “good and lively” then God will bless your church without requiring the addition of law to grace principles. Gal 1:8-9; 3:1.

Sincerely
Russell Earl Kelly

Reply to Robert Brigs

2011-03-22T00:13:00.000-07:00

Robert Briggs

Russ: Your views on tithing are the common run-of-the-mill same old lame unbiblical arguments which are totally unconvincing. There is nothing new in this letter we have not heard a thousand times.

We do not negate any Scripture. We call you to let Scripture defend itself. God gave his Word for a reason – to tech truth.

Robert: Tithe(s) were practices before Moses ever wrote them down.

Russ: Tithes, yes. Holy biblical tithes, no.

Robert: Even pagan religions of old had a tithing concept which indicates to me the very validity of the truth of the tithing concept

Russ: I am the first to point out the fact that all pagans around Abram practiced tithing, especially Babylon from whence Abram came and probably learned it.

Robert: (You don't counterfeit realities).

Russ: You totally miss our point. Along with tithes the pagan societies also worshipped idols, the heavens, practiced child sacrifice and temple prostitution. Just because something like idolatry, child sacrifice and tithing are very old and common does not make them eternal moral principles. Your argument fails on this point miserably.

Robert: The scriptures show gentile Abram paying tithe before a law was enacted.

Russ: Yes, but the Scripture does not tell us WHY Abram tithed. You and almost everybody else who teaches tithing claim that Abram did so either because he was obeying God or did so as a thank offering. I reject both ideas as unsubstantiated by God’s Word. I suggest that he was simply obeying the well-known law of the land which you just admitted was very common. He tithed because the law of the land required it to his local king-priest.

Robert: And while it is true that there is only one account of this action being taken by this Patriarch of faith it is totally assumptive of anyone to try to make the case that he never did it before or after. WE JUST DON'T KNOW.

Russ: If God had thought that Abram’s tithing was so important that many preachers must mention it on a regular basis, then God would have certainly included more on the subject. Abram moved around Canaan often and served as his own priest.

Robert: Your faith might say he didn't, my faith says he did. Only time and God will tell who is right. I for one am content to leave this issue then until such time.

Russ: Fine. Now tell us why Abram gave the 90% to the king of Sodom. Is that an example of his faith? Are we to keep nothing? Are we to give 90% to the modern equivalent of the king of Sodom – perhaps the local priests of a Satanic witch coven. After all, you are telling us to follow Abram’s example.

Robert: The law which was enacted after Abraham was comprised of various elements that made up two Categories of legal requirement: Moral and Ceremonial.

Russ: Wrong. There were three elements. The Law with Ten Commandments were a preamble only for national Israel. The moral law was found throughout the whole law. Minor offenses were handled by the ceremonial statutes of the worship ritual. Major willful offenses were handled by the judges as civil rulers.

Robert: In truth the ceremonial laws which comprised such things as Animal Sacrifice, Circumcision, ritual washings, feast days, Sabbath days, new moons, all were taken away with SPECIFICITY in the New Testament Covenant as they had been prophesied in the Old.

Russ: Wrong again. The entire Old Covenant Law ended at Calvary for Israel per Hebrews 8:13 and Galatians 3:19. Gentiles never were “under the law.”

Robert: Moral laws however were not.

Russ: That part of the Old Covenant Law for Israel which applies to all people and the church today is found written in nature and conscience per Romans 1:18-20 and 2:14-16. It has been written in the hearts as the New Covenant based on LOVE per Romans 8:2.

Robert: These included laws regarding murder, covetousness, sexual immorality, theft of property, slander of character, male and female roles within the home and society at large, requirements to work and provide for your own, AND the support and maintenance of God's House and Ministers.

Russ: Now you are writing your own Bible. Please provide some texts for this revelation. The civil judgments were enforced by the judges who handled presumptuous sins.

Robert: As we both acknowledge, the NT is relatively silent on the custom of tithing but this in NO WAY means that it is because tithe has been done away.

Russ: Wrong again. The post-Calvary NT is “totally silent” about any command to tithe to support the gospel ministry. It must be because OT Levitical tithe recipients could not own or inherit land and most gospel preachers do. The tithe supported the Temple system and its priesthood while the New Covenant moved both of those within every believer. Plus the OT tithe, as food from inside God’s holy land, could not come from outside Israel. Therefore, nobody can biblically tithe today.

Robert: Far from that! By stamping his approval on the custom Jesus set the tone for the whole of the New Testament experience.

Russ: This is goofy logic and extremely poor hermeneutics. Jesus taught complete obedience to the OT law for Jews and you do not teach that. In Mt 23:23 Jesus was only discussing “matters of the law” and somehow you dismiss that! It would have been SIN for Jesus to accept tithes and he could not have told Gentiles to tithe because it was illegal. Matthew 23:23 is super-simple to explain.

Robert: Unlike you, I believe the Tithe to be only a PART, with weightier matters like proper judgment, humanitarian mercy, and the presentation and preservation of TURHT to be of greater importance. But you don't throw out the baby with the bath water.

Russ: Quote it correctly – “weightier matters – OF THE LAW.” That changes everything . Jesus was teaching law-teachers that THEY were ignoring the law’s teaching of morals. That “beam” in their eye and in your eye in Matthew 23:24 is the tithe! Take it out and live in the whole New Covenant. And, “yes,” you must “throw out” the whole “baby” of the whole law and start over again with the New Covenant which re-instates the moral parts of the law in terms of grace and faith.

Robert: In your argument silence indicates removal. In my argument the silence indicates tithes continuation.

Russ: I do not use the “silence” argument. The post-Calvary New Covenant destroys everything about Old Covenant tithing:

1. WHO #1: The Levitical servants to the priests who received the first whole tithe have been abolished. See Numbers 18:21-24. Modern equivalents to the Levites are unpaid ushers, deacons, choir, musicians, etc.

2. WHO #2: OT priests who received a tenth of the tithe (only 1 per cent) have been abolished. See Num 18:25-28 and Neh 10:38.

3. WHAT: The definition of tithes as only food miraculously increased by God from inside His holy land of Israel has been abolished and replaced with the false unbiblical definition of income. See Leviticus 27:30-34 and 14 other texts which describe the contents of the tithe. Yet money was common in Genesis.

4. WHERE: The destination of the OT tithes first to the Levitical cities some to the Temple has been abolished. See Neh 10:37b and Mal 3:10.

5. WHEN: The time to tithe has been abolished. The Levitical tithe was paid yearly in the Levitical cities. The second festival tithe was eaten at the three festivals. The third poor tithe was kept in the home every third year. Tithes totaled 23 1/3 per cent.

6. WHY #1: The covenant which prescribed them was abolished per Heb 8:8-13; Gal 4:21-26' 2 Cor 3:6-10.

7. WHY #2: The "commandment" for Levites and priests to collect tithes was "annulled" per Hebrews 7:5, 12, 18.

8. WHY #3: The law which condemned believers has been rendered of no effect when the believer died in Christ per Romans 7:4. No law can tell a dead person what to do.

9. HOW #1: Jesus abolished the law of commandments contained in ordinances per Eph 2:13. Tithing was an ordinance per Num 18.

10. HOW $2: Jesus blotted out the handwriting of ordinances, per Col 2:14. Tithing was an ordinance per Num 18.

11. HOW #3: The Temple which tithes supported was abolished in AD 70. God's temple is now within each believer per 1 Cor 3:16; 6:19-20.

12. HOW #4: The priesthood which was supported by tithes was abolished in AD 70. God's priesthood is now within every believer per 1st Peter 2:9-10.

13. HOW #5: The blessings and curses of tithing as part of the whole law have been abolished per Galatians 3:10-13.

Would you continue to send money to a church after
1. The building is destroyed?
2. The preacher has been defrocked?
3. The workers have found other jobs?
4. The members have all left?
5. The land has been inhabited by non religious people?
6. The purpose for the church no longer exists?
7. You have died?

Robert: It seems obvious both in an intellectual sense, and a theological sense, the establishment of the tithe was without a doubt original with God and required of His people.

Russ: Big fancy words with no Bible texts mean absolutely nothing. In Leviticus 27:30-34 the tithes were “original” with God: (1) only food from inside Israel, (2) tenth, not first, (3) tenth, not best, (4) only holy under the Old Covenant and (5) part of the Old Covenant Law from Sinai.
“Required”? Yes, but only from food producers who lived inside Israel. Not required from those whose increase came from their own hands, from Gentiles or from outside Israel.

Robert: It seems equally obvious in both of this sense that a prudent people will not just throw something that God started away without proper scriptural authorization. Of which there is none.

Russ: I have just provided scores of scriptural authorization. You have proven nothing.

Robert: The point of my articles (all but the last one) were simply this, the scriptural arguments are well founded on both sides of the issue.

Russ: Then continue the dialog with Bible facts.

Robert: I can't add anything to them. BUT I CAN ADD MY PERSONAL REASONINGS FOR WHY I TITHE which is the whole premise of the articles as set forth in their titles. You folks seem to think I was setting out a list of scriptural reasons when in fact I never said I was.

Russ: The Tithing-Study Group does not exist to air out “feel good” personal reasons.

Robert: The scriptures speak for themselves. We on the other hand are required to rightly "Divide" the Words of "truth".

Russ: Amen, and so we do. Praise God.

Robert: Now, I must say I find it appalling that men such as yourselves would feel the need to go to a local church blog and try to engage in a debate and/or argument.

Russ: Since we can actually read those local church blogs, that means they have been posted on the worldwide Internet in order to influence others. Do you agree? Therefore we have every right to counter it with the truth. If they were not trying to influence others, it would be kept private.

Robert: To my own master I stand or fall and not to you. I stand before God and answer to him for myself, my teaching, and my congregational defense and I WILL NOT let some rag tag group of cyber bullies come on in and try to wrest innocent souls.

Russ: Cyber bullies? Have you ever noticed that we are outnumbered by about 10,000 to 1 when churches blog FOR tithing? Most churches, most Christian magazines and most Christian TV and radio stations “bully” people with endless messages promoting tithing. Many of their blogs allow no discussion at all – they simply teach tithing and curse those who disagree. Who are you kidding here?

Robert: If you want to debate with me invite me into a neutral arena. Write me a personal email. But don't try to subvert the minds of this congregation.

Russ: I am glad that Martin Luther and John Calvin did not take your advice. We would all still be bowing to the Pope. Since you emailed me personally along with the Group, consider this an invitation to dialog with me on my personal blog and I will post both sides without cutting anything. It is: http://russkellyphd.blogspot.com/. By the way, Tithing-Study Group can be read by anybody. If your arguments are better than ours, you can make all of us look stupid. It is an open forum.

Robert: Do what the Master said if you think we are wrong... and "Leave" us "alone" for we be "blind leaders of the blind". You’re not commanded to labor among the brethren but to labor FOR the LOST.. so get busy.

Russ: Wrong. We are also commanded to teach sound doctrine among believers – just like Jesus, Peter and Paul did among their brethren.

Robert: If you want a pulpit to preach your beliefs make one. Do the work necessary to gain a congregational following. Show us how a church should be run if you know so much. But until you've run one, or as in my case, five, you can't teach me anything about how it "should be done" because your like single people trying to tell a parent of twelve how children should be raised. You just don't know whereof you speak.

Russ: Tell that to D. L. Moody, L. S. Chafer, Merrill Unger, Charles Ryrie, J. V. McGee and John MacArthur. Believe it or not you can have a successful growing church without teaching tithing. You simply need to preach good lively Bible sermons and personal evangelism.

Sincerely
Russell Earl Kelly

How to Spot a Liar

2011-03-14T12:53:00.000-07:00

How to Spot a Liar, by Russell E Kelly
Most common Identifying Traits
More Traits Equal Higher Probability

1. Partial quotations in long articles.
2. Short quotations in long articles.
3. Ignores context in long articles.
4. Refuse to defend their position.
5. Refuse to answer questions.
6. Refuse to answer all questions.
7. Resorts to personal attacks.
8. Charges for most material.
9. Accumulates wealth by soliticing from the poor.
10. Refuse to share contrary material with their followers.
11. Are far wealthier than those who support them.
12. Refuse to identify themselves.

Correcting Sabbath-teachers

2011-03-11T15:24:00.000-08:00

My book on SDAs has many long chapters about every aspect of the Sabbath.
www.exposingseventhdayadventism.com

Chapter 17: The Creation Sabbath

In Genesis 1 the first 6 days of creation had a beginning (evening) and an ending (morning) but the Sabbath did not. That is because God ceased creating and will not create again until Revelation 21:1-2. In other words, God is still resting and not creating on His original Creation Sabbath. This throws Sabbath-teachers into a fit.

Adam and Eve did not begin working the day after they were created either. They did not toil and suffer until after they sinned and we do not know how long that was. It could have been 10,000 years. And Sabbath-teachers do not know how to deal with this fact either.

Whenever they sinned their Sabbath rest ended.
…………………………………..
Ch 18: Weekly Sabbath

For at least 2500 years the Sabbath is not mentioned until Exodus 16 where God restored it only to Israel. Why don’t Sabbatarians obey Exodus 16 and stay in their homes on the Sabbath?

NOTICE that He did not restore it to the Egyptians or anybody else! I say 2500 years because it could have been 10,000 plus 2500 years because you not start counting until sin entered. “The wages of sin is death” and they did not begin to die until they sinned.

The weekly Sabbath was only a memorial for Israel. In Exodus 20:2 and Deuteronomy 5 the Law first reminded Israel that God had redeemed them as a nation from Egypt. If God had wanted all men to keep the Sabbath, why did he not tell the Egyptians and Canaanites to observe it? This does not apply to us.

(1) The weekly Sabbath of Exodus 20 approves of slavery. (2) It also could not be observed in parts of the world where it is necessary to build fires for survival. (3) It could not be observed at the north and south poles where there is not sunrise and sunset for many months. And it could not be observed by astronauts circling the earth every few hours. (4) Sabbath-teachers violate their own law and should stone each other for violating the Sabbath as God commanded Moses. They do not obey the Sabbath when they cause others to work by a) driving, b) using electricity, c) using water, d) using gas to heat, e) flushing toilets and f) using the phone on the Sabbath. They condemn themselves as total hypocrites.
……………………………………………..
Ch 19: Shadows

Heb 4:3 For we which have believed do enter into rest …

Although Sabbath-keepers would greatly object, all Sabbath days (weekly, monthly, seasonal and yearly) were “shadows of things to come.” Before sin entered, while Adam was still sinless, he walked sinless with God 7 days a week 24 hours a day. Since Calvary and Pentecost the believer once again walks sinless with Christ 7 days a week 24 hours per day per Hebrews 4:3; this is imputed righteousness.

Acts 15:5 But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.
Acts 15:9 And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.
Acts 15:10 Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?
11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.
Acts 15:19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:

The Gentiles who had been saved under Peter’s preaching had not kept the Law, the Sabbath, circumcision, unclean foods or tithing. Nor were any of these placed upon them.

You noticed that your friend kept referring to Col 2:16 and Gal 4:10 without actually quoting them. He is afraid if you actually read the texts you would discover how clearly they refer to the 7th day Sabbath. Look at the sequence.

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:
Holy day: seasonal festival Sabbath
New Moon: monthy Sabbath
Sabbath: weekly Sabbath

Gal 4:9 But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage?
10 Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years.
Days: weekly
Months: monthly
Times: seasonal
Years: yearly Sabbaths
…………………………………………………
Ch 20: Greater Sabbaths

Sabbath-teachers teach that the 7th Day Sabbath was far greater than the monthly, seasonal and yearly Sabbaths. They greatly err. The 7th day Sabbath was actually the LEAST important according to Numbers 28 and 29 where it required the LEAST sacrifices. In fact the first Sabbath introduced as a day of worship was the Passover Sabbath in Exodus 13. Read it for yourself.
………………………………….
Ch 21: Jesus and the Sabbath

As a Jew living under the Law, Jesus came to perfectly keep that Law in order that He might perfectly fulfill that Law. Not only did he faithfully observe the 7th-day Sabbath, but he also perfectly obeyed the monthly, seasonal and yearly Sabbaths. They were all Sabbaths. Before Calvary it was sin NOT to keep the Sabbath but it was NOT SIN for Gentiles NOT to keep the Sabbath. Nowhere does the Old Covenant condemn Gentiles for not keeping the Sabbath. This is a very important chapter to read in my book.
……………………………..
Ch 22: Acts

As a Jewish rabbi with an open pulpit Paul took advantage of an open pulpit and always went first to the Jewish synagogue. He would have been stupid not to do so. In his shoes we would do the same thing. He did not go because of the commandment of the Old Covenant; he went because of the opportunity to preach. And, after being rejected by the synagogue leaders, he always very soon afterwards went to the Gentiles and preached to them EVERY DAY.
………………………………………….
Ch 23: Liberty

Those Christians who teach that Sunday replaces the Sabbath in the Ten Commandments do not understand the doctrine of Law. SDAs and most Sabbath-teachers greatly err by teaching that “law” means “Ten Commandments.” Your article does this with Matthew 5:17. It totally ignores Mt 5:19-48 where the whole law is mentioned; it was also SIN to disobey the monthly, seasonal and yearly Sabbaths also.
………………………….
Ch 24: USA

In all this goofy argument about Constantine, Sabbath-teachers ignore the Word which says that GOD ENDED THE SABBATH – not Constantine and not the Catholic Church.

Heb 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.

2 Cor 3:9 For if the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory.
10 For even that which was made glorious had no glory in this respect, by reason of the glory that excelleth.

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.

Gal 3:24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.

Rom 10:4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.

SDAs teach that the Pope is the Antichrist and the mark of its authority is its change of the Sabbath. And they rejoice that the RC Church agrees with them, but that does not make it so.

Exodus 31:13-17 is a key text which Sabbath-teachers will not explain. The Sabbath was given to Old Covenant Israel as THE unique sign and seal of God’s special covenant with them only. Therefore it cannot at the same time be required of all people.

SDAs teach that the whole world will seek to kill them when the tribulation plagues fall and teach that the US government is the worst nation then. Thisis goofy theology.

When Jesus said that “the Sabbath was made for man,” He could have been referring to:
(1) Made for THE Jewish man per context.
(2) Made for THE man – Himself the Son of man.
Since the Greek has a definite article, I understand it to be saying “The Sabbath came into existence for THE MAN JESUS CHRIST, and THE MAN JESUS CHRIST did not come into existence for the Sabbath. In context Jesus (who created the Sabbath) had the authority to interpret how it should be observed.

Rebuttal of Pastor Dean Shriver

2011-03-10T15:41:00.000-08:00

Pastor Dean Shriver, D. Min.
Can We Preach the Tithe?
Intermountain Baptist Church
March 10, 2011

http://www.churchleaders.com/pastors/preaching-teaching/138394-can-we-preach-the-tithe.html?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Daily-Update

Church Leaders.com

Shriver: Tithing—I believe every Christian should do it. But can I preach that? Like you, I’m committed to preaching only what the Bible clearly teaches.

Kelly: You should stick to this approach.

Shriver: Unfortunately, I’ve always found the Bible’s teaching about a believer’s responsibility to tithe to be fuzzy around the edges. Off the top before taxes? Off the bottom after taxes? All to the church (ours in particular!)? Off of income or off of possessions? Of course the problem isn’t with Scripture. The problem is me.

Kelly: The problem is with your misunderstanding of Scripture.

Shriver: When it comes to giving, my own preferences, opinions, and training make it hard for me to approach relevant texts with a clear and teachable mind.

Kelly: And proper hermeneutics.

Shriver: On the one hand, I know that the tithe is “law” and that, in Christ, we’re no longer under the Law.

Kelly: You make the same mistake I made for decades. In fact, we Gentiles and the Church never were “under the law.” We were always excluded from the law. God commanded Old Covenant Israel NOT to share its covenant (law) with us.

Shriver: Still, it’s hard for me to fathom how anyone can honestly taste the sweetness of God’s grace only to turn around and “Scrooge” God by giving Him less than 10%.

Kelly: You are coming from a false definition of tithe and are falsely assuming that everybody in the OT was required to begin a level of giving at 10%.

Though money was common, the true holy biblical tithe of the Old Covenant Law was always only food from inside God’s holy land which He had miraculously increased. Tithes never could come from what man increased, from Gentiles or from outside of Israel. Not even Jesus, Peter or Paul qualified as tithe-payers. Tithing was only a minimum for food producers living inside Israel. Sixteen texts validate this biblical fact.

Shriver: The very idea makes me want to raise my voice, pound my pulpit and thump my Bible! Which is exactly why I’m not yet ready to preach that sermon on tithing. But I’m getting closer.

Kelly: Perhaps you will allow me to help you clarify the issues.

Shriver: On a recent jog, I began to think again about the issue of tithing. It occurred to me that there’s more than one way to tithe. In fact, three distinct forms of tithing are practiced in the Bible. Only one is legitimate for the believer.

Kelly: There were three distinctly different tithes for 3 different purposes for 3 different locations. See http://www.tithing-russkelly.com/id29.html

Shriver: The form of tithing most often addressed in Scripture is “tithing as covenant.” This practice of tithing was specific to Israel as the covenant people of God. It was part of the Mosaic Law (Leviticus 27:30-33; Numbers 18:21-32; Deuteronomy 14:22-29). Under the Covenant, God promised to materially bless Israel for obedience [to the whole law] and, conversely, to judge them (strip them of their prosperity) for disobedience [to any of the law; Gal 3:10] (Deuteronomy 28 and Malachi 3:8-12). This model for tithing has no direct relevance to us as New Testament believers.

Kelly: Very true. Tithing was to support the Levites who were only servants to the priests. And the Levites tithed a tithe (1%) to the priests who gave freewill sacrificial offerings (Mal 1:13-14). Those Levites and priests who received the first tithe were not allowed to own holy land inside Israel. This is not obeyed.

Shriver: In Christ, we live under a new covenant. Our lives are not governed by the written code but by the indwelling Holy Spirit who writes His “law” on our hearts (Galatians 5:18; Hebrews 8:7-13).

Kelly: The New Covenant replaced both the old Temple and priesthood with the priesthood of all believers. Tithes are never commanded to the Church or Gentiles after Calvary. They are replaced with freewill, generous, sacrificial, joyful offerings motivated by love for God and lost souls. For many this means MORE than 10% but others are already giving sacrificially even though less than 10% per 2 Cor 8:12-14.

Shriver: The Bible also describes a second kind of tithing that is both condemnable and, I fear, far too common—“tithing as legalism.” In Jesus’ day, it was the religious leaders who practiced this perversion of Israel’s covenant tithe. Christ’s condemnation of legalistic tithing was absolute,
“Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness. These you ought to have done without neglecting the others. You blind guides, straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel” (Matthew 23:23-24)!

Kelly: True. The context was “matters of the law” and was addressed to “you, scribes, Pharisees, hypocrites.”

Shriver: In His relationship with Israel, God intended the tithe to be an avenue to blessing. The religious manipulators of Jesus’ day turned the blessing into burden. Instead of expressing faithfulness to God—and oneness of heart with God for ministry and the poor—the tithe became little more than a means to satisfy “religious obligations.” Such satisfaction leads to pride (Luke 18:9-12) and, in the end, restricts giving. After all, once our “obligation” is satisfied, what more could God want? It’s no wonder Jesus so strongly denounces legalistic tithing.
Yet, how easily the sin of the Pharisees can become our sin too!

Kelly: Very good.

Shriver: Effective ministry requires money—money that comes from God’s people. Believers need to give—both for their own sake and the sake of the Kingdom. Since they need to give, we need to preach about giving. When we do, however, we must be careful not to turn blessing into burden.

Kelly: Very good.

Shriver: We must refuse to preach “tithing as legalism.” So what’s the alternative?

Kelly: The alternative is the truth as taught by the Holy Spirit to the Church after Calvary. And that does not include tithing.

Shriver: Tithing as worship!

Kelly: Text please.

Shriver: In Scripture, “tithing as worship” was practiced prior to both the establishment of “tithing as covenant” and the perversion of “tithing as legalism.” The principle of “tithing as worship” is “pre-Law.” It’s established in Genesis 14:17-24 where Abram gives a tenth of his plunder to Melchizedek, King of Salem.

Kelly: Texts please. Genesis 14:17-24 does NOT tell us that (uncircumcised) Abram tithed “as worship.” In fact it does not tell us WHY Abram tithed. Since he was born and raised in Babylon where tithing existed, it is possible that he tithed for a different reason. Many commentaries suggest that an Arab tradition or law of the land controlled the 90% of 14:21. You simply cannot add to God’s Word and conclude that Abram either gave freely or in obedience to God.

Shriver: Melchizedek, in turn, blesses Abram.

Kelly: Any king-priest of Abram’s day would have done the same thing after receiving tithes from spoils of war.

Shriver: Hebrews 7:1-10 defines the significance of these acts declaring that it is the superior who blesses the inferior and the inferior who pays tithes to the superior.

Kelly: The purpose of Hebrews is not to teach the Church to tithe. It uses tithing as a vehicle to prove that Jesus has replaced the Aaronic priesthood. The tithing “commandment in the law” from 7:5 was “of necessity changed” in 7:12 and that “change” was its “annulment of the commandment going before” in 7:18. While 7:18 refers to all statutes relating to the Aaronic priesthood, it must also include the statute of tithing found in Numbers 18.

Shriver: “Tithing as worship,” then, is first an act by which we acknowledge that God is both our superior (the Sovereign Lord) and the source of all blessing.

Kelly: You are twisting God’s Word to make it say what you want it to say. The “we” of Genesis 14 was not the church.

Shriver: But “tithing as worship” does more than acknowledge God. It expresses our personal allegiance to Him. We see this in Genesis 28:10-22. Here, God reveals himself to Jacob in a dream. In response, the patriarch vows, “the Lord shall be my God…and of all that you give me I will give a full tenth to you.” For Jacob, the “tithe as worship” became a natural expression of his decision to follow the God of His Fathers.

Kelly: Shame on you. You again twist and pervert God’s Word by conveniently omitting the key “if” of verse 20. The schemer Jacob was telling God what to do! This tactic is unchristian. Far from “worship,” Jacob was black-mailing God and you are joining in his deception by twisting this Scripture!

Shriver: In the same way, the “tithe as worship” becomes an almost instinctive way for us to express our allegiance to the God of our Salvation.

Kelly: Texts please.

Shriver: A third, and critical, element of “tithing as worship” is thanksgiving. “Tithing as worship” expresses overflowing gratitude towards God.

Kelly: Texts please. The first Levitical tithe was cold hard Law and was commanded whether one was grateful or not. A second festival tithe was for rejoicing but you do you teach that tithe and you do not eat it in the streets of Jerusalem.

Shriver: It breaks free from guilt as the motivation for giving.

Kelly: Texts please.

Shriver: Its ultimate focus is the condition of one’s heart—not the percentage of one’s income.

Kelly: Texts please.

Shriver: On the topic of percentages, I find the words of John H. Walton and Andrew E. Hill to be practical. They write, “How are we to show our gratitude to God other than by giving back a portion?

Kelly: O.K. so far.

Shriver: If 10 percent was considered an acceptable portion by God as an expression of gratitude then, why should we view it any differently today?

Kelly: Texts please. The first Levitical tithe was cold hard law – not gratitude – like taxes today. The government does not care for gratitude.

Shriver: We might consider 10 percent as a benchmark just as we consider 15 percent a benchmark for tipping. The extent of the customer’s gratitude and appreciation is demonstrated in the size of the tip.

Kelly: You cannot compare a cold hard law with a freewill choice.

Shriver: It would be considered the ultimate rudeness or the consummate insult to leave no tip at all.

Kelly: The merchants and tradesmen such as carpenters, fishermen and tentmakers gave no tithe at all; they gave freewill offerings. Why not follow this example?

Shriver: So it is to God if we return no portion to him. In addition, there are occasions when the situation calls for a contribution exceeding the benchmark” (Old Testament Today; Zondervan: 2004, 270-271).

Kelly: You are mixing Law and Grace and reintroducing the thought of Malachi after rejecting it earlier.

Shriver: Again it must be said—ultimately, “tithing as worship” isn’t about percentage of income.

Kelly: It has no biblical support.

Shriver: It’s about the overflow of one’s heart. 2 Corinthians 8:5 is clear. When we first give ourselves to the Lord, any act of giving pleases him—whether above or below the “benchmark.” “For if the readiness is there, it is acceptable according to what a person has, not according to what he does not have” (2 Corinthians 8:12).

Kelly: You are playing games with God’s Word again. Second Corinthians is NOT discussing tithing. It is discussing freewill generous sacrificial giving – the kind of giving which propelled the early church. Paul and Jewish Christians knew very well that tithes could not come from Gentiles or from pagan lands and did not teach tithing.

Shriver: How then, can we preach the tithe? First, we recognize that “tithing as covenant” has no direct relevance to New Testament believers. Second, we acknowledge that “tithing as legalism” is just plain sin—both for those who practice it and those who preach it.

Kelly: Correct. Stick to the simple truth. Merely saying “tithes PLUS offerings” reaches into the realm you just rejected.

Shriver: Only the principle of “tithing as worship” remains. That’s the tithing we can preach!

Kelly: No, it does not remain; it never existed except in the Old Covenant festival tithe which was EATEN. You have no texts to preach this.

Shriver: “Tithing as worship” is our opportunity to acknowledge that God is God. He is ruler over our lives. He is the source of every blessing we enjoy.

Kelly: You can do that without teaching error.

Shriver: More than that, “tithing as worship” expresses our allegiance to God in a very personal and concrete way. And finally, “tithing as worship” manifests a heart overflowing with thanksgiving towards God.

Kelly: Sounds good, but it is still unbiblical. The SDAs make the same kind of argument to prove Saturday Sabbath observance to worship and honor God.

Shriver: With this in mind, perhaps we should be less concerned with whether people tithe and more concerned with why they tithe.

Kelly: This totally ignores the true biblical definition and purpose of the tithe.

Shriver: Ultimately, tithing isn’t about percentage of income or money in the plate. It’s about worship!
Tithing as worship—I think that will preach!

Kelly: Preach it as your theory. Be sure to tell your congregation there are no texts to validate it. I would appreciate an extended in-depth dialog.

There are now at least 7 SBC theologians who are writing against tithing and for grace giving. In May 2011 the SBC will publish Perspectives on Tithing, Four Views. The false doctrine is being exposed.

Russell Earl Kelly, PHD
www.tithing-russkelly.com

Rebuttal of Christopher Visagie

2011-03-09T12:25:00.000-08:00

CV: You constantly go back to me stating that Abraham was convicted ...stating that it's unbiblical.

RK: It is unbiblical as long as the Bible does not say that Abram gave by conviction. And you constantly go back to me stating “preferred guess” about one item.

CV: Are you saying that Abraham was led by another spirit outside the Spirit of God?

RK: Again, like a used car salesman, you force the answer you desire by only giving one possible answer.

CV: If you are saying that it wasn’t by conviction that God led Abraham ...then how do you suggest that God led men He chose to use? Maybe you can explain how you are led by God if not by conviction. The last time I read ...it was the Holy Ghost who leads us into all truth.

RK: What if the “truth” is that Abram tithed spoiled of war to his local king-priest because of the law of the land? You do not allow for any other answer than your own guess.

CV: Explain how the Holy Ghost leads you ...if not by conviction. I don't believe that there is any truth outside the truth of God ...unless you believe so.

RK: Wow! So if it is not in the Bible, it is not truth! That means there are not laws of science and nature. Neat logic.

CV: Refusing to believe that Abraham was led by the conviction of God sets Abraham outside the plan of God. If that is what you choose to believe ...I rest my case.

RK: If King Melchizedek had set up a roadblock and told Abram to give him tithes of spoils per the law of the land, you disregard that possibility.

CV: It becomes questionable when you prefer your preferred guess above the conviction of God. The devil is lying to you.

RK: You prefer your own preferred guess by demanding that Abram gave “not by ordinance but by conviction.” Perhaps the devil is lying to you.

CV: 3. You have called me a hypocrite ...trying to tag me with the same tag you wear. You refuse to accept defeat by pulling me into the same hole you have fallen into.

RK: YOU tagged me a hypocrite and YOU put that tag on me first. Now you whimper and cry when I remove it and place it on you. You began the name-calling.

CV: 4. I don't shoot down any scholars. The truth is, most scholars who have written the articles you've studied are not Born Again.

RK: Personal attack. Read what you just wrote. Your second statement contradicts scholars. It “shoote them down” by accusing them of being lost.

“The truth is”?? And who made you God to judge others?

CV: That makes me wonder if you are Born Again based on you rejecting the truth in relation to conviction.

RK: Personal attacks. If you cannot win the argument, attack the person’s character.

CV: 5. In Hebrews ch.7 Paul was describing an order (ordained practical order of worship) that Jesus demonstrated before he died.

RK: And where in the Bible do you find this definition of “order”?

CV: I believe that it related to a time during His ministry among the Jews. Unless you have another preferred guess …having a preferred belief that it related to a time after His death.

RK: Your “belief” does not constitute absolute truth or fact. It is a preferred guess.

CV: Heb 7:1-3. Verse one specifically states that he was a priest of the Most High God. This priesthood was instituted be God ...not some religious law or Canaanite law.

RK: Please explain the fact that every known religion of Abram’s time worshipped the Most High God through priests.

CV: Please explain to me how Melchizedek could be a Canaanite if he had no mother, no father, no genealogy, neither beginning of days or end of life.

RK: You totally confuse the difference between the HISTORICAL Melchizedek and the TYPICAL Melchizedek. One could draw the same conclusions about Abimelech, the Philistine king of Gerar (Gen 20) and many others in the Bible.

Cv: Heb 7:2 Calling Jesus King of Salem by interpretation doesn’t make Him king of the City called Salem, but describes who he is (King of Righteousness).

RK: The text calls the HISTORICAL Melchizedek the king of righteousness and peace “by interpretation of his name.” You ignore that and make the historical Melchizedek into the literal Jesus. Jesus is NOT such “by interpretation of his name.”

CV: How many Kings of Righteousness and Kings of peace are there outside of Jesus?

RK: Only “by interpretation of his name.” Since they probably named themselves, there were probably scores of rulers who used those terms like Abi-melech (my king is Moloch) and Adonizedek.

CV: And yes …you are aligning him to a Canaanite king.

RK: Not me but God said in His Word that he was a king in Canaan. The literal historical Melchizedek was not literally “king of righteousness” or “king of peace” – he was only such “by interpretation of his name.”

CV: 6. I never attempted to enforce an incorrect answer.

RK: You certainly do. You keep on attempting to enforce only your answer with is not what God’s Word literally says.

CV: …unless you don’t believe that conviction leads you into fulfilling the will of God

RK: “Conviction” can be wrong; Muslim terrors have conviction that they will be saved and given 72 virgins. That is real conviction. You use your answer (Conviction) as if it were the “truth” are argue from that position.

CV: …unless you choose to believe that Abraham was walking outside the will of God …following an order outside of God …following an order after the laws of ancient Canaan. You did say that that’s what you chose to believe …unless I got the wrong impression.

RK: This kind of circular reasoning would never be accepted in a court. You keep coming from the viewpoint that your point have been established as truth and fact when they are merely speculation and opinion.

CV: I believe you are right about a car salesman …but do you believe that you are right about me …or are you deceived into thinking that your judgment of who I am is accurate.

RK: I question your tactics and circular reasoning.

CV: 7. You have accused me of having my own opinion and not using biblical text. Please explain where the idea of conviction came from …if not from scripture.

RK: How on earth can I accuse you for having your own opinion? Everybody has their own opinion. I accuse you of stating your own opinion as if it were undisputed absolute truth and fact. I asked you to prove from God’s Word that Abram acted on conviction as opposed to the possible well-known law of the land. Why should I defend your opinion?

CV: You are falsely accusing me to reflect attention based on the fact that you are in error. Who is the hypocrite?

RK: What? Nonsense.

CV: 8. Correction ...the order of Melchizedek in Heb. ch.7 compares an order that was introduced through Christ in the teachings he taught the disciples.

RK: 2nd Lt, 1st Lt, Captain, Major, Lt Col, Col, Brig Gen. CAPTAIN is the THIRD in order of this list. “Order” means “rank.” That is what “order” means in Genesis 14. Nothing more. Nothing less.

CV: I’ll rather be tangled up with words than being deceived to the point of defending a lie.

RK: Personal attack. It is a good thing that you are not name-calling.

CV: I have been blessed with enough wisdom from God to discern and expose lies and deceit.

RK: Good. Then expose the lie of tithing. Discernment does not trump what God’s literal Word says!

CV: 9. I don’t see any evidence in scripture that says that He was King of a Canaanite city

RK: Inspiration (Genesis 14) places it between Sodom and Damascus. That would be the middle of Canaan.

CV: I apologize if I’m using a different bible that might be causing the confusion …Maybe you should read the same bible I’m reading to get the right interpretation.

RK: My KJV says “Holy Bible.” Is that close enough? I will also give some credibility to the NKJ and NAS but never the NIV.

CV: 10. You say that order describes a rank because your idea of Salem being a city and not a description of who Melchizedek the King was and is (based on the fact that he remains a king continually or eternally -Heb 7:3) King of Salem.

RK: Now you sound like the guy who teaches that M floated down from heaven, received Abram’s tithes from Sodom and ascended back into heaven. Again you turn types into reality. Since the Bible gives no genealogy for the HISTORICAL M, he is a type of Christ who is eternal. I am not going to enter a dialog about M being Christ. That is a cultic theology for a cultic branch of Christianity. I have already rebutted it in great detail in my rebuttal of Kevin Conner at http://www.tithing-russkelly.com/id62.html. You simply do not understand biblical typology.

CV: 11. You say that Melchizedek was nothing more than other king priest that lived in His era. You said that my claim is unbiblical and false. You show me one king priest who was described as He is in Hebrew 7:3

RK: Have you ever thought of the typology of the UNKNOWN SOLIDER?
No record of his birth, death, parents, relatives, race, religion, height or weight. One could say that Messiah was “after the order of the unknown soldier” – eternal; a savior who died for all races and all sizes of people.

CV: 12. You say that order means rank …but order meaning both rank and instruction according to ordinance works against what you’ve chosen to believe.

RK: So what? What makes what I’ve “chosen to believe:” wrong and what you’ve “chosen to believe” correct? God’s Word is truth; not what we have chosen to believe.

You have fast-forwarded to a definition of “order” that is more fit for the Knights Templar and the Benedictine, Franciscan and Dominican monks with all their ritual.

CV: Jesus was crucified by people who reasoned the way you do. I don’t care how many archeologists, Historians or documentaries disagree with the truth …the truth will still remain.

RK: Personal attack. Now you are accusing me of crucifying Christ. Have you ever sinned? Do you need to be saved? Did your sins crucify Chrsit?

Watch that finger. There are three pointing back to yourself. While attacking me you betray yourself as a self-righteous Pharisee who alone decides what “truth” is per Matthew 23:2-3.

CV: People who write these articles are mere men. They are full of error and deceit.

RK: Personal attack. And “you” are not a mere man? How dare anybody disagree with you! Just listen to yourself once in a while.

CV: 14. Is it biblical to say that Abraham was the father of faith? Abraham being called the father of faith must count for something. Maybe it was because he was led by conviction …not by law or sight.

RK: Not in everything he did. God’s Word does not say that he tithed spoils of war “by faith.”

CV: Accusing me of saying something unscriptural, yet it’s found in scripture is a false accusation.

RK: Until you prove what you say from the clear context of Scripture, I have every right to accuse you of teaching something that is unscriptural. You are doing the same thing towards me. Where is your statement “not ordinance, but conviction” found in scripture? It is your “preferred wild guess” until you produce a text.

CV: A lot of things that you have shared is unscriptural …unless your bible differs from mine.

RK: Generalization. When my source is extra-biblical I admit it up front. I do not invent statements like “not ordinance but conviction” and say they are scripture.

CV: 15. I have written a book on tithing …maybe I should sell you a copy of my book …but it would be unfair on you if I gave every minister I met a free copy. You heard correct …I give books for free. You should have asked instead of judging, having no insight of who I am. I call you a hypocrite because you trip over your own words.

RK: Personal attack. And where did I say that “you” personally do not give away material?

CV: 16. The law’s definition of tithing was doing the one part and leaving the other part undone.

RK: Horrendous explanation.

CV: Read Matt. 23:23.

RK: You read it literally and interpret it literally. It is Old Covenant Law.

CV: I don’t believe that Jesus was using the laws definition of tithing

RK: Horrendous explanation. Your “wild preferred guess” and opinion.

CV: …he was correcting the laws definition of tithing.

RK: So God made a mistake in His definition of tithing in the Law??? Jesus was correcting the Pharisees hypocritical misuse of the Law.

CV: Judgment, mercy and faith are fruit of your response to conviction (or should I say …evidence of being led by the Spirit of God) …but if you have a preferred guess, I’m listening.

RK: I agree.

CV: Judgment (discernment is the precise meaning …and this is not my preferred guess), mercy and faith are not what the law teaches.

RK: Once again you are dead WRONG. The Law does teach “judgment, mercy and faith” – Jesus called them the “weightier matters of the law.”

CV: The law teaches ritual that ends in condemnation without mercy.

RK: Fundamental error. The Law also teaches love. One who truly loves God will also love his fellow man and exhibit judgment, mercy and faith towards him. That is what Jesus was teaching in Matthew 23:23.

CV: Malachi teaches law …but I teach tithing according to the order of Melchizedek …being Born Again into that order through Christ …unless you have a preferred guess.

RK: You have just stated your “preferred guess” when you stated that Christians are “born again into the order of Melchizedek” in order to justify you receiving tithes. Why? Because you have grossly twisted the word “order” to fit your preferred guess. You make it sound like we have been initiated into an extremely complex society like the Order of the Knights Templar.

CV: If you had the wisdom you claim to have …you would identify an ordinance that you claim to walk in …based on the notion that you’ve accepted Christ as your personal savior.

RK: God’s Word calls it the New Covenant.

CV: The state of the tithe was raw material. Some of it could have past for food …but others needed the absence of blood and the presence of fire to be converted to food. My point is (it’s a point not a guess), the tithe was not presented as food, but as a state of wealth.

RK: Aabraa cadabra. You are now going to magically change “food” into money. Although money was essential for OT sanctuary worship, money is never a tithed item.

CV: They tithed out of the increase of their wealth. Not out of the idea that it was food.

RK: This is your preferred guess. I notice a conspicuous lack of Bible texts here.

CV: God’s description of natural wealth was increase in natural substance. If you want scripture …I will copy and paste as much as there exists in scripture. That’s the least that I can do for you if you don’t know scripture and you need the evidence.

RK: That was another personal attack. There are 16 verses which describe the CONTENTS of the tithe as FOOD from inside Israel which God had miraculously increased. Yes, I do want scripture showing me that the tithe was other than food.

CV: Again I caution you …not placing biblical text doesn’t mean it’s not there …being a student of the biblical text you should be knowledgeable enough to know that it is.

RK: Another personal attack. Are you having fun trying to be cute? If the texts are there, produce them.

CV: We constantly demand chapter and verse …I wonder what they used in the old days when there were no bibles. I don’t recall any of them …including Jesus quoting chapter and verse. What he quoted was the law and the prophets. The scribes and the Pharisees knew scripture well enough to know whether or not Jesus was speaking truth.

RK: You are playing word games here.

CV: It’s a joke for someone as learned as you to request that I back it up with scripture.

RK: It is a joke for you to pretend something exists when it only exists as your preferred wild guess.

CV: I prefer it when you state my error …that way I can learn something or teach something. Until now …you have taught me nothing …accept that you are deceived though knowledge …not having understanding.

RK: And you have taught me how arrogant you are full of yourself.

CV: 17. You relate to Israel being God Holy Land according to Zec. 2:12 and a few other verses that could relate to the land of Israel being Holy.

RK: My reference is to Leviticus 27:29-34. God declared the land of Canaan to be holy where His holy people would grow food and raise animals to tithe to His workers. Stop playing games.

CV: Taking into consideration that Adam defiled the Earth in that the earth or land became cursed through him and many other places in scripture where the Israelites defiled the temple of God …let alone the land …do you believe that Israel is still considered holy in the state that she is found?

RK: Of course not. And this is biblical grounds for stating that NOBODY can bring a holy tithe today. It was the holy land which miraculously produced a holy tithe.

CV: Remember that every time she was defiled there were rituals in the law under the instruction of God through the priest that restored her sanctity or state of holiness. Now that the Father has instituted grace by no other than Christ …do you believe that her sacrificial offerings are accepted based on the fact that she had the first opportunity of sanctity through the salvation of Jesus Christ? If you believe so please explain how. I’m not looking for your preferred guess.

RK: No. The nation Israel current does not offer any sacrificial offerings.

CV: 18. I have never charged for most of my produce …so I would guess that your definition of pride and greed is not related to me.

RK: Correct. But you have already assumed I was speaking about you and you have already called me a hypocrite over this issue.

CV: 19. If your idea of accepting people’s views are based on 10-12 years of their study in the field …I wonder why Jesus rejected the views of the scribes and Pharisees.

RK: You miss the point entirely. You have made a blanket condemnation of scholars who disagree with you and say they have not been born again. That is despicable and nasty.

CV: I also wonder why Paul counted the knowledge he accomplished through studying dung …regarding it as a waste. Is it because their realization was that you needed much more that 10-12 years of study? Maybe they realized that you need to be led by the Holy Ghost through conviction that separates a lie from the truth. I wonder how educated the disciples were.

RK: You are rambling.

CV: Maybe if is studied for 10-12 years (according to your idea of qualification in God) my qualification would supercede theirs. Maybe that’s the only time you would be willing to hear me. Don’t you think that it will also make it easier for me to deceive you? Much knowledge puffs up.

RK: Rambling sarcasm. You are building paper tigers to destroy by placing words into my mouth which did not say.

CV: 20. Can you be specific as to what the Jews told Jesus? I don’t believe that I’m disagreeing with you based on you being wrong and me being right. I disagree with you based on your inconsistencies of scripture. You use scripture having knowledge …but lacking in understanding. Just for the record …I’m not looking to impress anyone. I do suspect that you are …based on the fact that you want the public view on things.

RK: Personal attack. Your statement is arrogant and condescending.

CV: I don’t believe in that there is your side and my side or your idea and my idea …I do believe in siding with the truth. I don’t present my own view …I present truth according to scripture. If you siding against the truth …you are siding against God …not me. If it’s truth …I agree. If it’s a lie …I oppose. If you claim to have truth …show it to me that I may believe.

RK: Pure self-conceited arrogance. The new pope has spoken. May what he says is “truth” not be questioned.

CV: 21. What does gobble-dee-gook mean?

RK: It means that you get all wrapped up in yourself and just dribble out nonsense.

CV: The only reason why I won’t put it on my site is …I will never bring embarrassment to the kingdom of my Father. We already have so much division because of people like you who want to prove a point in a public setting …finding technical justification instead of seeking truth. You are welcome to do as you please …but it’s truth that will lay judgment on the last day.

RK: Another personal attack. John 17:17

CV: 22. There is more than one siren being sounded in the way you respond that you are full of pride. Pride blinds you from receiving truth.

RK: Listen to yourself. You remind me of King Herod just before God consumed him with worms.

CV: 23. The Majority of believers should share the same truth. We become the minority in relation to the world view of religious beliefs. On the issue of tithing after the order of Melchizedek, we are the minority. I guess you are siding with the majority on this one.

A man who seeks public opinion to strengthen his belief is weak. If we started this dialog in a public setting …the public has a right to participate. This is between you, your representative and me. Please don’t misinterpret what I’m saying as you did previously. I give you allowance to use this to score points for yourself …but I disagree with it.

RK: What is wrong with you? If a public availability of this dialog convinces others that I am wrong and you are correct, then you are the one “scoring points.” Did Jesus not remind his detractors that he stood daily in the Temple publicly debating with them? Will you dare throw this same dribble at Jesus?

CV: 24. You set on finding technical errors to discredit truth.

RK: I literally interpret the Word of God. When I conclude that God’s Word does not tell us why Abram tithed, you call that a “technical error” and I call your “not ordinance but conviction” your preferred wild guess.

CV: When I said that I never accepted truth based on public opinion I meant that even if the public is truthful in what they state …I still make truth my personal choice. I take on the responsibility for the decisions I make.

RK: I agree.

CV: Your desperate enough to draw the public’s attention towards my errors to gain the advantage for your influence.

RK: Be a Berean Christian. Let both views be heard publicly as Jesus did. After all, the great majority of churches do teach tithing and I should lose the public debate if God is not with me.
Matt 5:15 Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house.
16 Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.KJV

CV: You are so desperate that you have invented something that was never there. I never said that truth changes …I wonder what gave you that idea.

RK: Sorry. You said that facts change which is equally wrong. Only the interpretation of facts changes. “Facts never constitute truth because they change when the evidence changes. You can never conclude truth based on facts.”

CV: 25. RK: I listen very carefully as God speaks to me through His inspired Word. Like a Berean, I also listen very carefully to what other Christians say and verify with God’s Word. Do you want me to discard the written Word and only rely on extra-biblical revelation? It that your final authority? Does the Bible not have the entire gospel?”

Again I call you a Hypocrite without any reservation. You’ve done the opposite to what you claim to believe. You have relied on extra-biblical revelation to justify your claim.

RK: Where do you find this in what I said? You are the one relying on your wild guess to justify your claim.

CV: If you claim that you’ve heard God …I don’t know how God can lead you to believe a lie.

RK: What lie? What have I said that you have proven to be a lie?

CV: You’ve heard the voice of the people, combined with your own reasoning …made a conclusion and now you claim that God told you. You are kicking against pricks.

RK: You are nuts. I clearly said that I verify what other people might tell me with God’s Word. Is that not what you do also or do you think that nobody is as smart as yourself?

CV: 26. RK: First, devils cannot inhabit the body of a Spirit-indwelt child of God. Second, no devil has dared to manifest itself in churches I attend. If they did, God would quickly dispose of them. Third, why would devils want to be surrounded by Spirit-indwelt believers? Fourth, devils only dare to enter where they feel welcome.

Have you read Mar 16:17: And these signs shall follow them that believe: in my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
Mar 16:18 they shall take up serpents, and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall in no wise hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

RK: Is not the Holy Spirit which indwells every believer more powerful than any demon or devil? Why would a demon want to enter a building full of Spirit-indwelt believers? It would be outmanned and outgunned and lose every time! You have stopped defending tithing and are spending all you energy attacking me. So I guess you are spent.

CV: I suppose that nobody repents and are delivered in the churches you attend. I suppose that nobody gets sick either. Or maybe nobody believes. Do you believe Sir? If you did you should be experiencing the same. Truth manifests the presence of God. I know truth through manifestation, not just knowledge.

RK: You have utterly failed to prove that tithing is a truth for New Covenant believers.

CV: All your dung (as Paul call accumulative knowledge based on studying without experience) will never cast one devil out of a man.

RK: You are the usurped Pope-priest whom Malachi says God will spread dung on your face for stealing that which does not belong to you (the tithe).

CV: Invite me over to your church … them we will decide whether or not everyone in your congregation are possessed or not.

RK: You would not allow me in your church to speak but you have the audacity to think that God would allow Satan to indwell his holy temples of believers!

Again, you are a biblical MORON if you think that the Holy Spirit would allow a demon to inhabit His redeemed property – the body of the believer. 1 Cor 6:19 “What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own ?”

CV: The devil never fears knowledge …he fears the power of God demonstrate though truth.

RK: You just hanged yourself again with this last statement. Since the devil “fears the power of God,” he would not dare enter into the building where my assembly of the Body of Christ gathers. On the other hand he feels welcome in your church building since you have to keep casting him out again and again.

CV tithing rebutal 3-6-2011

2011-03-06T11:56:00.000-08:00

CV: 1.Are you saying that Melchizedek’s was an unholy tithe?

RK: The truth and facts are these: Source: Sodom. Offered by: Uncircumcised Babylonian. Receiver: Canaanite king-priest. There is nothing inherently holy about any of those three.

CV: 2. You cautioned me about adding to scripture ...but you are willing to accept your guess as the truth.

RK: O.K. So BOTH of us do the same thing. Point those fingers back at yourself also.

CV: 3. You go as far as calling a tithe a tax.

RK: Have you ever read First Chronicles, chapter 23 to 26? They demonstrate that Levites were also political officers and rulers for the king –and—they were paid with tax money.

CV: 4. Melchizedek is compared to Jesus in Heb. ch.7 ...and your suspicion aligns Him with some Canaanite king.

RK: Melchizedek is not compared to Jesus. His “order” and the “interpretation of his name” are compared to Jesus –not his persons. Read your Bible. And, no, I do not “align” to a Canaanite king; I align him to the OFFICE of a Canaanite king.

CV: 5. Correction ...the order of Mechizedek in Heb. ch.7 compares an order that was introduced in the through Christ in the teachings he taught the disciples. Calvary never introduced grace ...neither did it introduce an order ...Calvary transferred grace through the Blood of Jesus.

RK: What are you talking about? You are tangled up with your own slick words.

CV: 6. You are using evidence outside the context of scripture to justify your belief. It's difficult to change scripture because there are too many copies of the original text ...but it's easy to manufacture evidence outside the bounds of scripture to create a deception. When you don't have an answer you refer to notes outside scripture.

RK: You present no evidence whatsoever and will not stick to what God’s holy Word literally says.

CV: 7. Was Melchizedek king and priest according to scripture?

RK: He was a king and a priest of Salem, a Canaanite city. He was like scores of equal king-priests living all around him in Canaan and Babylon. Your false unbiblical interpretation makes him into something else.

CV: 8. Are you too afraid to accept that an order is an instruction or instructions that make up an ordinance?

RK: Are you too afraid to accept that you one-of-many definitions of “order” does not apply? You are getting your information from a non-biblical source. Why is that wrong for me and correct for you? You definition goes far beyond the very basic definition of RANK.

CV: 9. Don't act ignorant ...we not talking about law outside the context of scripture ...you shouldn't refer to Arab law.

RK: Don’t you act ignorant. You know very well that Canaanite priest-kings absolutely must have had their own laws. You are ignoring an entire Christian planet full of archaeology, history and commentary books which disagree with you.

CV: Don't add “Abraham's observation of Arab law was a preferred guess of biblical scholars” ...but not the truth

RK: Again you are “adding” when you say that Abraham gave “not by ordinance but by conviction.”

CV: 10. If God accepted everyones' preferred guess ...imagine the chaos.

RK: It’s my “preferred guess” as to why Abram tithed spoils of war VERSES your “wild guess” of “no ordinance but by conviction.”

CV: It's your preferred guess that creates error.

RK: And your “wild guess” is O.K. What a hypocrite!

CV: 11. I'm not a used car salesman and would prefer if never compared me to one.

RK: I was comparing you debate tactics to one. You did not give an option for an alternative answer. You were trying to force an incorrect answer. That is a salesman trick as old as the hills.

CV: 12. I don't act like there were no laws ...but I do believe that Abraham was led by God and not the Arab laws ...as your preferred guess.

RK: So you opinion is pure faith with no Biblical texts.

CV: 13. If you had a television broadcast based on the topic at hand ...it won't change the fact that you are grasping at straws to keep what you believe is true alive.

RK: Jesus and Malachi used the Law’s definition to teach tithing and you do not. There are 16 texts to prove that it was always only FOOD from inside God’s holy land of Israel. You do not want to go there.

CV: I suppose it's because of the pride you've invested in you 288 page book you wrote. I also wrote books ...I am familiar with the intense research and the views of biblical scholar, historians and archeologist on a vast range of subject matters.

RK: Do you give away Internet copies of all your written, taped and video material as I do? The ones with pride and greed are the ones who charge for most of their produce.

CV: Taking into consideration that most of these don't have a relationship with God ...I never allow what they say to stand as truth ...especially if they don't have the courage to say what they believe God is saying in scripture. They create patterns and introduce different schools of thought based on their expertise gained in the secular world ...not gained in God.

RK: Their expertise is almost always gained from 8-12 years of intense Bible study and knowledge of biblical languages. You cannot win the argument so you attack the persons. Real neat debate tactic; we disagree with you so we must be wrong and lost. That is what the Roman Catholic Church told Martin Luther and that is what the Jews told Jesus! I am not impressed.

CV: 14. Why do you want to put this dialog on your site? Is it to gain the favor of man ...robbing God of His own glory?

RK: I want to put it on my site to show what arguments each side has. Honesty gives God glory. You probably will not dare put it on your site because you do not want your followers to know why some disagree with you. Opposite reasons.

CV: One of the sad realities is ...if we know we have flaws in what we believe ...and choose to allow pride to hold us back from repenting ...not only do we deceive ourselves ...we become deceivers of those who follow us.

RK: All that goggle-dee-gook to say “No, I will not put it on my site.”

CV: Sir ...when you sell a book that has inconsistencies ...because of the amount of work you put into it and the pride you invested in it ...it's natural to attempt to defend it.

RK: Is it natural to defend a book what does not have “inconsistencies” in it? Your argument is self-defeating.

CV: 14. A man who seeks public opinion is weak. You need to consider that the ones responsible for building the tower of Babel, murdering those who spoke truth, murdering Jesus Christ and many other evil accounts in history were the majority.

RK: Is a man who seeks “to go public” also weak? Guess what – YOU are in the majority here teaching tithing! Are you admitting that YOU are wrong?

CV: I never accept truth based on public opinion.

RK: Again you mis-use the word “truth” wrong. Truth never changes.

CV: 15. Not once have heard you say God said or your were inspired by the Holy Ghost who leads into all truth.

RK: I listen very carefully as God speaks to me through His inspired Word. Like a Berean, I also listen very carefully to what other Christians say and verify with God’s Word. Do you want me to discard the written Word and only rely on extra-biblical revelation? It that your final authority? Does the Bible not have the entire gospel?

CV: 16. If you are not led by the Holy Ghost you receive a lot of facts without truth. 17. How many devils have you cast out or was there ever a manifestation of the Glory of God in your meetings? Or is the relationship you have with God based on the knowledge you've attained?

RK: First, devils cannot inhabit the body of a Spirit-indwelt child of God. Second, no devil has dared to manifest itself in churches I attend. It they did, God would quickly dispose of them. Third, why would devils want to surrounded by Spirit-indwelt believers? Fourth, devils only dare to enter where they feel welcome.

CV 3-5-2011

2011-03-05T08:13:00.000-08:00

CV: Is your claim that Abraham paid tithes out of what he learned in Babylon a true statement or is it calculative? (Scheming)

Russell Kelly: What is your claim based on? You stated that Abraham’s tithe was not an ordinance but conviction. Yet you give no biblical or historical argument to validate you own claim. Therefore you argue with no substance behind it; I call that scheming to prove a point without evidence.

If you were born and raised in Babylon, I would be within common sense to think that you learned tithing there. Why is it scheming to use the same logic concerning Abraham?

You miss the fact that I have quoted 6 commentaries in my book which all agree that a Canaanite law of the land was likely at work in Genesis 14:21. At least I have done my homework. How many commentaries have you researched to try to honestly understand Genesis 14:20-21?

CV: Before I accuse you of being a hypocrite ...please answer the question. You told me to use facts ...please use facts. Don't draw up your own conclusion.

RK: I used facts from Babylonian history, from many commentaries and from common sense. You made a conclusion (not an ordinance – from conviction) with no facts at all.

CV: “Facts never constitute truth because they change when the evidence changes. You can never conclude truth based on facts.

RK: You are waaaaaay off base here. Truth and facts do not change. Only the interpretation of the facts changes. Something that is not a fact is called a “working theory” o an “hypothesis.”

CV: Judgment is accurate when facts and motivation are present …not facts alone. Motivation is a result of conviction …not the presentation of facts. It’s motive that gives clarity to facts …converting it to truth. Facts are calculated through the use of logic.

RK: In the middle of a sentence you have just changed the subject from “facts” to “judgment.” Again I say “Facts do not change – only the interpretation of facts changes.” When somebody is dead, it is a fact that they are dead!! – motive and judgment cannot change the fact that they are dead!

When are you going to actually discuss a real Bible verse in this dialog? When? When? When?

CV: Being spiritually minded is not using logic …but being led by the conviction of God. Would you say that the walk that Abraham had with God was based on knowledge or motivation through conviction?”

RK: You are avoiding the reason for this dialog. Only that part of Abram’s walk which was by faith is our example; that part of his walk where he failed is usually forgotten. The question at hand is “Why did Abram tithe?” You say because he had conviction. I say the Bible does not answer the question but the laws of Babylon and Canaan suggests that he was obeying the law of the land.

CV: “You are using logic to conclude a fact …that can be misleading (or should I say deceptive). Facts are concluded having evidence present to confirm them.

RK: Logical and revelational evidence.

CV: It is a fact that he was born and raised in Babylon …but is can never be conclusive that the tithe paid was a result of that fact.

RK: Your argument that “it was not an ordinance but conviction” is so weak that you have ignored it to attack my argument. While it is true that “it can never be conclusive that the tithe paid was a result of that fact,” I did not say that it was conclusive. At least you admit I presented a “fact.” You presented none.

CV: If offering tithes to the god’s of Babylon was a religious practice …do you think that God will accept the same order of religious worship given to idols that was done Babylon?

RK: At one time our forefathers worshipped nature, stars and animals while searching for true God. When they found the true God they switched their gifts accordingly. Your are arguing from your unproven conclusion as if your unproven conclusion were a concluded fact. While in Babylon Abram obeyed its laws and customs; while in Canaan Abram obeyed its laws and customs. After all, Abram was passing through Melchizedek’s land with spoils of war. If you were a Canaanite king-priest and had a law, would you allow Abram to break that law?

CV: Sir …extra biblical documentation can have various sources and motives (fact). It’s safer to work with what we have within the context of scripture. Unless you believe that it’s not enough to come to the knowledge of the truth in Jesus Christ.”

RK: Then it is safer for you NOT to say that Abram tithed “not by an ordinance but by conviction” because Scripture does not agree with you.

CV: “Who has added to scripture? You accuse me of adding to scripture but you look for evidence outside of scripture to prove what you believe is true.

RK: Every reputable seminary on Earth teaches Biblical Archaeology for that very reason. Over and over archaeology backs up Scripture by agreeing with it. I do not teach extra-biblical evidence as if it were fact.

CV: If there is no documented proof within the context of scripture that Abraham learned what you concluded he did …is it wrong to say he was convicted based on the type of walk he had with God.

RK: Yes it is wrong to word it as you do because you state it as if it were fact.

CV: Even if what you claim is true …he would have to still undergo conviction before he offered a tithe to God.

RK: If he was obeying the Law of the land, then he had no choice in the matter. Tithes are mentioned nowhere else in Genesis or Exodus because they were not yet in the holy land and the substance of Abram’s tithe was unholy. You cannot quote Malachi 3 or Matthew 23 because their definition comes from the law.

CV: I don’t believe for once that the decision he made was made to give a tithe was made outside the bounds of the will of God …unless you bid to differ. If He was in the will of God …he was led by the conviction of God. How did Melchizedek know that Abraham was coming if it wasn’t planned.“

RK: Opinion. Opinion. Opinion. No Bible evidence whatsoever. I suppose that Melchizedek either had sentries or could look out his palace window and see a large cloud of dust approaching.

CV: Truth remains a fact until motivation comes through conviction. It’s the Father who reveals who Jesus is through the leading of the Holy Ghost by conviction …not collective facts.”

RK: Wow! You are saying that “truth is not truth without conviction.” You are saying that truth is all subjective and not objective. I hate to tell you this but “God is God whether or not one is convicted that God is God.”

CV: We do agree however …that the order of Melchizedek’s priesthood was instituted by God in the time of Abraham …

RK: No, we do not agree that God put in place the order of Melchizedek in Abram’s time. If you expand your mind and do some basic research you would discover that almost every large city in those days had its own king-priest: Sodom, Ashedod, Tyre, Babylon, etc, etc, etc. the rulers most likely designated themselves such.

CV: … and was instituted by Christ as a New Testament priesthood order.

RK: Hebrews merely says 8 times that Christ was a priest “after the order of Melchizedek.” He was quoting Psalm 110:4. Inspired by God, David was forced to go outside the realm of Israel to find an example because Israel had no king-priests.

CV: Firstly …was there tithes received according to the priesthood of Melchizedek?

RK: Not holy tithes as defined by God under His holy law. They were pagan spoils of war which could not have been used to support for Levites and priests living inside God’s holy land. My equally-un-provable guess is that, as a Canaanite king-priest, Melchizedek required tithes from spoils of war as a tax.

CV: Secondly …what was the purpose of the tithe according to Hebrews ch.7?

RK: Like Genesis 14, Hebrews 7:1-4 does tell us WHY Abram tithed spoils of war to Melchizedek. Any reason you might give is purely opinion not based on biblical truth.

CV: Thirdly …what is an order?

RK: It is a rank – like a sergeant of captain. Nothing more and nothing less.

CV: The point in question is not whether Melchizedek was Jesus …but the order of priesthood.

RK: The point is that God inspired David with the truth that the Messiah would be both a king and a priest. David then compared him to the only king-priest specifically mentioned in Scripture. That is called logic, not deception.

CV: I could ask why Jesus didn’t come before Abraham instead of after Moses. Why did God not continue in the order of Melchizedek instead of reintroducing it in Christ? That I can answer …but it’s not relevant to the topic in question.”

RK: God did not begin in the order of Melchizedek until after Calvary. But I digress also.

CV: [RK: If (as you say) Abram tithed 10% of unholy pagan spoils of war from Sodom, then why are not tithes of spoils of war in Numbers 31 10% instead of 1%?] -- “You’re right …but it was introduced after the order of Melchizedek’s priesthood in the acceptance of the tithe given by Abraham.

RK: It was only introduced here in the Bible. It was already well-known in all surrounding pagan culture before Abram was born. “Tithe spoils of war to your local king-priest.”

CV: The question is …was it out of the knowledge of worship of some Babylonian idol (which God would never have accepted), out of a decision founded on human effort that we relate to as the flesh (no flesh would have been glorified in presence) or out of conviction of God?

RK: Like a used car salesman, you give me a choice between “A” and “B” when the correct answer is “None of the above.” (1) First God’s Word does not tell us WHY Abram tithed. (2) Second, God will gladly accept money which formerly went to pagan gods. (3) Third, my preferred guess of the correct answer is: “the law of the land required it.”

CV: Please reason within the context of scripture and not the law. The law never existed in the days of Abraham."

RK: Again, sit down and read what other scholars say about the 90% in Genesis 14. MOST say that an Arab custom was in play. Second, THE Law of Moses did not yet exist but ARAB Law did exist. You act like they lived in a vacuum and had no laws governing how they were to act.

Christopher, this is good back and forth. Please keep it up. Can I share our entire dialog on my web site for all to see? I have noting to hide. You have my permission to share the entire dialog on your web site.

Dialog with Pastor CV

2011-03-03T17:43:00.001-08:00

CV: Your doctor puts up a good argument using logic ...but logic doesn't count for conviction. Logic is made up of calculative knowledge ...not conviction.

Russ Kelly: This is a very novel way of avoiding the facts. I am accused of having a good argument because I am logical! Never mind that every point I make is backed up by Bible texts. Perhaps the men on the Emmaeus Road should have said the same thing to Jesus after he had spent hours going from Genesis to Malachi proving who he was. “You have a good argument, sir, using the Bible to back up your points, but do you really believe what you are saying? Is thee any conviction behind your words?” Conviction comes when one asks God through the Holy Spirit to use the collective (not calculative) thoughts to understand the truth. That is called “revelation” and “inspiration.” And sometimes even the facts are given by “revelation.”

CV: Abraham never paid a tithe according to an ordinance …

Russ: Speculation without Bible validity. The Bible does not tell us “why” Abram (not Abraham) tithed. Since he was born and raised in Babylon, it is logical (oops) to conclude that he learned tithing in Babylon and was obeying the common traditional law of the land which required that tithes of spoils of war be paid to one’s local king-priest. There is much extra-biblical documentation to validate this and none to validate your argument.

CV: ...he paid a tithe according to a conviction.

RK: This is your opinion. The Bible does not tell us “why” Abram tithed. If you insist on teaching this, you are adding to God’s Word.

CV: Because it was a conviction ...it was done outside of law.

RK: Jesus quoted from all the Law and Prophets in order to CONVICT the Emmaeus Road disciples of the truth of who he was. Then he brought the truth home with divine revelation built on the collective facts.

CV: Tithing is biblical

RK: Pre-Law tithing is found in the Bible. Abram’s tithe of spoils of war was 10%; God “ordinance” for tithes from spoils of war in Numbers 31 was only 1% (one per cent: 1/2 of 1/50).

Law tithing is also biblical. Sixteen texts prove that it was severely limited to FOOD from inside God’s holy land of Israel which He had miraculously increased. Tithes could not come from what man increased, from Gentiles or from outside Israel. What gives you the authority to change the definition of holy tithes in God’s Word to “10% of all increase even from defiled pagan lands”?

CV: ...and the act demonstrated by Abraham was so important that Jesus showed up in the flesh to receive what Abraham offered through obedience to conviction.

RK: Only a very small group of theologians have ever reached this conclusion. Eight times Hebrews says that Christ was “after the order of Melchizedek.” He was not after his person. Melchizedek’s “order” was that of a “king-priest.” If God already had Jesus ruling and reigning as a king-priest in Jerusalem, then He would not have had to raise up Abram.

CV: Abraham is the greatest example of being a man of faith because he built a relationship with base on obedience to conviction. That works outside law. Is it possible for God to convict one to tithe without instruction given in law?

RK: Abram’s conviction was based on a personal divine interposing of God into his life. God chose Abram by His own Sovereignty. God told Abram what to do unconditionally. God made a covenant with Abram unconditionally. And TITHING was not included in that covenant as it appears in Genesis 12, 13, 15, 17, 22 or anywhere else. If (as you say) Abram tithed 10% of unholy pagan spoils of war from Sodom, then why are not tithes of spoils of war in Numbers 31 10% instead of 1%?

CV: We will reason going through one point at a time.

RK: I look forward to it.

PRETERISM and the NEW TESTAMENT

2011-03-02T08:48:00.000-08:00

PRETERISM

and the

NEW TESTAMENT

Russell Earl Kelly, PHD
March 2, 2011

Section 1: Defining Preterism
Section 2: Messianic Kingdom Texts and References to Israel in the New Testament
Section 3: Matthew 24, Mark 13 and Luke 21: Comparing Hyper-Preterism to Futurism
Section 4: Key Differences between Preterism and Futurism
Section 5: Preteism and the Kingdom

Section 1: Defining Preterism

PRETERISM is an interpretation of Christian eschatology which holds that most or all of the biblical prophecies concerning the End Times refer to events which have already happened in the first century after Christ's birth. The system also claims that Ancient Israel finds its continuation or fulfillment in the Christian church at the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. (wikipedia)

PARTIAL PRETERISM holds that prophecies such as the destruction of Jerusalem, the Antichrist, the Great Tribulation, and the advent of the Day of the Lord as a "judgment-coming" of Christ were fulfilled in A.D. 70 when the Roman general (and future Emperor) Titus sacked Jerusalem and destroyed the Jewish Temple, putting a permanent stop to the daily animal sacrifices. It identifies "Babylon the Great" (Revelation 17-18) with the ancient pagan City of Rome, or even the city of Jerusalem. Some adherents of Partial Preterism see the Emperor Diocletian as the fulfillment of the "little horn" prophecy of Daniel 7. But this is a minority view. The great majority of Partial Preterists believe that Jerusalem was a "great harlot" destroyed by God in A.D. 70.

Most Partial Preterists also believe that the term Last Days refers not to the last days of planet Earth, or the last days of humankind, but rather to the last days of the Mosaic Covenant, which God held exclusively with the nation of Israel (including biblical proselytes) until the year A.D. 70.

The "Last Days", however, are to be distinguished from the "Last Day", which is considered to still be in the future and entailing the last coming of Jesus, the Resurrection of the righteous and unrighteous dead physically from the grave in like manner to Jesus' physical resurrection, the Final Judgment, and the creation of a literal, non-covenantal New Heaven and New Earth free from the curse of sin and death which was occasioned by the fall of Adam and Eve.

Partial preterists hold that the New Testament predicts and depicts many "comings" of Christ. They contend that the phrase Second Coming means the second of a like kind in a series, for the Scriptures record other "comings" of God even before Jesus' judgment in A.D. 70.

This would eliminate the A.D. 70 event as the "second" of any series, let alone the second of a series in which the earthly, physical ministry of Christ is the first. Partial Preterists believe that the new creation comes in redemptive progression as Christ reigns from His heavenly throne, subjugating His enemies, and will eventually culminate in the destruction of the "last enemy", i.e., physical death (1 Cor 15:20-24). In the Partial Preterist paradigm, since enemies of Christ still exist, the resurrection event cannot have already occurred. Nearly all Partial Preterists hold to amillennialism or postmillennialism. (Wikipedia)

FULL PRETERISM (HYPERPRETERISM) differs from Partial Preterism in that Full Preterists believe that all eschatology or "end times" events were fulfilled with the destruction of Jerusalem, including the resurrection of the dead and Jesus' Second Coming or Parousia. Full Preterism is also known by several other names: Preterism (because the term itself means "past"), Consistent Preterism, True Preterism, Hyper-Preterism (a pejorative term used by opponents of Preterists), and Pantelism. (The term "Pantelism" comes from two Greek roots: παν (pan), "everything", and τελ- (tel-), referring to completion—another attempted pejorative label that never caught on).

Full Preterism holds that Jesus' Second Coming is to be viewed not as a future bodily return, but rather a "return" in glory manifested by the physical destruction of Jerusalem and her Temple in A.D. 70 by foreign armies in a manner similar to various Old Testament descriptions of God coming to destroy other nations in righteous judgment.

Full Preterism also holds that the Resurrection of the Dead did not entail the raising of the physical body, but rather the resurrection of the soul from the "place of the dead", known as Sheol (Hebrew) or Hades (Greek) and that both the living and the dead were raised, changed, caught away and glorified together into one/corporate matured New Covenant Body of Christ. Some versions of Full Preterism teach that the righteous dead obtained an individual spiritual and substantial body for use in the heavenly realm, and the unrighteous dead were cast into the Lake of Fire. Some Full Preterists believe that this judgment is ongoing and that it takes effect upon the death of each individual (Heb. 9:27).

Other Full Preterists believe that because the Book of Revelation was signified (or "symbolized", according to its first verse, Revelation 1:1), the Lake of Fire was only A.D. 70's Gehenna (Jerusalem’s garbage dump, not Hell) as it burned. Moreover, this burning was just aionios (pertaining to an age), not eternal. The hermeneutic of audience relevance confines this judgment and punishment to the 1st century AD.

The New Heaven and the New Earth are also equated with the New Covenant and the Fulfillment of the Law in A.D. 70 and are to be viewed in the same manner by which a Christian is considered a "new creation" upon his or her conversion.

Full Preterists typically reject the authority of the Creeds to condemn their view, stating that the Creeds were written by uninspired and fallible men, and that appeals should be made instead to the Scriptures themselves (sola scriptura).

………………………………………………………………….

Section 2

MESSIANIC “KINGDOM TEXTS” AND REFERENCES TO ISRAEL IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

When Preterists and others teach that the kingdom of God only refers to the spiritual kingdom of the Church, they completely ignore the scores of unconditional Old Testament prophecies AND the New Testament references to Israel in the following texts.

Matt 19:28 And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones , judging the twelve tribes of Israel.(Also Luke 22:30)

This is probably the strongest text against the Preterist teaching that there will be no literal messianic reign of Christ on earth. It is also compelling evidence against the idea that the church is Israel and national Israel is no longer of God’s future plans.

Matt 23:38 Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.
Matt 23:39 “For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.”

Preterists quote Matthew 23:38 to prove that God had forever rejected Israel as His chosen nation. The context of verse 39 indicates otherwise. While all of the prophets pronounced desolation on Israel and Judea, they also all followed the curse with God’s unconditional promises to restore both.

Luke 1:54 He hath helped his servant Israel, in remembrance of his mercy;
Luke 1:55 As he spake to our fathers, to Abraham, and to his seed for ever.

Mary saw God’s actions concerning John and Jesus as God helping the nation Israel by keeping His promises made to Abraham and to his seed for ever (Lk 1:54-55).

Luke 1:68 Blessed be the Lord God of Israel ; for he hath visited and redeemed his people,
Luke 1:69 And hath raised up an horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David;
Luke 1:70 As he spake by the mouth of his holy prophets, which have been since the world began:
Luke 1:71 That we should be saved from our enemies, and from the hand of all that hate us;
Luke 1:72 To perform the mercy promised to our fathers, and to remember his holy covenant;
Luke 1:73 The oath which he sware to our father Abraham,
Luke 1:74 That he would grant unto us, that we being delivered out of the hand of our enemies might serve him without fear,
Luke 1:75 In holiness and righteousness before him, all the days of our life.

While filled with the Holy Spirit, Zacharias, father of John the Baptist, declared that God had sent Jesus to redeem Israel (1:68) and that Jesus was the fulfillment of God’s promises made to David (1:69). The Messiah would be used by God to save Israel from its enemies (1:70, 71, 74, 75). Such was God’s method of keeping his unconditional promises made to Abraham and repeated by the prophets (7:72, 73).

Luke 2:34 And Simeon blessed them, and said unto Mary his mother, Behold, this child is set for the fall and rising again of many in Israel ; and for a sign which shall be spoken against.

Simeon interpreted the Christ event as a fulfillment of God’s unconditional promises to national Israel. It would fall and rise again.

Luke 22:29 And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me;
Luke 22:30 That ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel .

This is not a description of heaven. It is a description of the literal Messianic kingdom reign on earth.

Luke 24:21 But we trusted that it had been he which should have redeemed Israel : and beside all this, to day is the third day since these things were done.

The two disciples on the Emmaus road interpreted the Christ events as hopeful fulfillments of God’s literal kingdom promises to national Israel.

John 1:49 Nathanael answered and saith unto him, Rabbi, thou art the Son of God; thou art the King of Israel.

Nathaniel was blessed by God to know that Jesus was to be the King of Israel. This can only be correctly understood in terms of a literal Messianic kingdom on earth.

John 12:13 [Much people] Took branches of palm trees, and went forth to meet him, and cried, Hosanna: Blessed is the King of Israel that cometh in the name of the Lord.

The crowds were interpreting Jesus’ first coming as if it were His second coming to literally rule Israel on earth.

Acts 1:6 When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?
Acts 1:7 And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power.

The disciples had one final question to ask Jesus before He ascended into heaven and it concerned God’s unconditional promises to literal national Israel. Notice that Jesus did not correct them and He did not say that Israel was no longer part of God’s plan. He merely reminded them that the Father knew the answer to their question.

Acts 1:11 Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.

Contrary to the Preterist teachings, Jesus will return both literally and visibly accompanied by both clouds and angels.

Acts 2:30 Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne.

Peter understood the prophets to teach that Messiah would reign in the “flesh.” That mean on earth and not in heaven.

Acts 2:36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.

There is no indication that Peter thought God had rejected all the house of Israel.

Rom 9:8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.

Both groups are literal Hebrews. Only true believers within literal Israel are considered to be the children of the promise.

Rom 11:1 I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.

The direct question is: “Has God cast away His people (Israel)?” And the direct answer is “No. God forbid.” Yet most of the Christian world today says “Yes, and He has replaced it with the Church, which is spiritual Israel.”

Rom 11:2 God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. …

It is very strange that Calvinists, Reformed and Presbyterians who interpret God’s foreknowledge to that saints cannot fall from grace do not apply the same logic to God’s foreknowledge of Israel. (See 11:29.)

Rom 11:4 But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal.
Rom 11:5 Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.

God reminded Elijah that there will always be a remnant of believing Hebrews who are the true Israel of God.

Rom 11:6 And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.

God’s foreknowledge of Israel as His chosen nation was never determined by any good works they may have performed. The argument is: “Since good works did not make Israel God’s elect, then failure to do good works cannot cause them to cease being God’s chosen nation.” It is the argument used for eternal security.

Rom 11:7 What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded

Like Isaac being chosen over Ishmael and Jacob over Esau, the children of the promise constitute true Israel. Most literal fleshly Israelites do not qualify as true Israel (11:8-10).

Rom 11:11 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.

The direct question is: “Have they stumbled that they should fall?” Most of the Christian world answers “Yes, and they have been replaced by spiritual Israel, the Church. Yet God’s answer is “No. God forbid.” Paul does not say that Israel’s “fall” was “permanent.” Rather, he said that it was “to provoke them to jealousy” – that they might be restored!

Rom 11:25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel , until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.

If, as most teach, Israel had permanently fallen as a nation before God, there would be no “mystery.” The “mystery” is that Israel was only “blinded” (not permanently fallen).

Rom 11:26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:

All true Israel will be saved. Many will be saved by becoming Christians and partaking of the “fullness of the Gentiles.” Others will be saved during the Great Tribulation as in Revelation 7 and 14.

Rom 11:29 For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.

God foreknew true believers within national Israel to be saved and constitute true Israel. He cannot and will not go against His eternal decree to establish Israel before Him forever.

Gal 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

This text does not teach that all Roman slaves were freed or that all free-men become slaves when they are saved. Neither does it teach that believers lose their sexual orientation when they are saved. Yet many quote it to argue that Jews and Gentiles lose their national identify when they are saved.

Gal 3:29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

As part of the Body of Christ, we are all equal before God.

Gal 6:15 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.

Since God’s unconditional covenant promises were made to Abram before he was circumcised, the status of Israel is not changed by this text.

Gal 6:16 And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God.

There were two groups within the church of Galatia and most other churches. The final close is addressed first to everybody and secondly to Hebrew Christians who were especially affected by his letter.

Eph 2:12 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:

Before Calvary, Israel was God’s only chosen people and Gentiles were excluded.

Eph 2:13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.

Near to Christ; not near to the commonwealth of Israel.

Eph 2:14 For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;
Eph 2:15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;
Eph 2:16 And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:

This was written before Israel’s destruction in AD 70. God joined believing Hebrews and Gentiles into the one body of Christ. Paul was not prophesying the end of Israel in AD 70. Rather he was bringing true Israelites beyond the law to the Abrahamic covenant.

Eph 2:19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;
Eph 2:20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
Eph 2:21 In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:
Eph 2:22 In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.

Both Hebrews and Gentiles have been brought into the Body of Christ. The nation Israel still existed when this was written. The letter of Hebrews was written to believing Jews inside Israel.

Heb 8:8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: [Mt 10:6; 15:24]
…..
Heb 8:10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:

The New Covenant was directed first to the “house of Israel” and the “house of Judah.” These were the literal ruling houses of a literal nation. Jesus commanded His disciples to go first to the cities of Israel. After His resurrection Jesus commanded that the gospel should be brought first to Jerusalem (Acts 1:8). And Paul wrote that the gospel must first go to Israel (Rom 1:16). These texts clearly demonstrate that God still gave priority to Israel and Jerusalem even after Calvary.

Rev 7:4 And I heard the number of them which were sealed: and there were sealed an hundred and forty and four thousand of all the tribes of the children of Israel .
Rev 7:5 Of the tribe of Juda were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Reuben were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Gad were sealed twelve thousand.
Rev 7:6 Of the tribe of Aser were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Nepthali were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Manasses were sealed twelve thousand.
Rev 7:7 Of the tribe of Simeon were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Levi were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Issachar were sealed twelve thousand.
Rev 7:8 Of the tribe of Zabulon were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Joseph were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Benjamin were sealed twelve thousand.
Rev 7:9 After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands.

Most scholars believe that Revelation was written near AD 100. Preterists argue for a date just prior to AD 70. If, as some contend, Israel ceased to be God’s chosen nation when Jesus died, God would not have included Israel in the descriptions of Revelation.

Rev 20:1 And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand.
Rev 20:2 And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,
Rev 20:3 And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season.

Although the term “thousand years” appears 6 times in Revelation 20, Preterists and many more interpret it figuratively. Their hermeneutic seems to be “if it does not fit your theory, interpret it figuratively.” The a-millennial (no millennium) problem created by their hermeneutic is explaining why sin is so rampant while Satan is bound.

Rev 20:4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

While futurists interpret this as the unconditional Messianic kingdom promised by all the prophets, Preterists and many others say it is meaningless. One wonders why it is in the Bible.

Rev 21:12 And had a wall great and high, and had twelve gates, and at the gates twelve angels, and names written thereon, which are the names of the twelve tribes of the children of Israel.

……………………………………………………

Section 3: MATTHEW 24, MARK 13 and LUKE 21: Comparing Hyper-Preterism to Futurism

HERMENEUTICS

Futurists believe that Preterists, in departing from a "grammatical, contextual, historical" method of interpretation, have erred greatly in matters of doctrine.

One of the foundational assertions of Preterists is that the first century Church believed a major eschatological event would take place in their lifetime (2 Thes 2:1-4). The Thessalonians were being reassured that they had not missed the coming of "the day of the Lord". They weren't corrected regarding their anticipation of Christ's coming.

TIME TEXTS:

Peterists quote many alleged "time texts" in the New Testament to support this claim, e.g., Matthew 10:23, Matthew 16:27-28, Matthew 24:34, Matthew 26:64, and Rev. 1:1-3. However, Futurists point out that a careful analysis of some of the expressions employed (e.g., "near," "soon," and "at hand"), based on a study of Old Testament usage, gives no indication that imminency requires immediacy. See Deuteronomy 32:35, Isaiah 13:6, Jeremiah 51:33, Joel 2:1, Zephaniah 1:14.

“THIS GENERATION”

It is also contested whether the term "generation" (a translation of the Greek genea) means "race" or "nation," as the context of many verses would imply. Even if the term were used to denote Christ's contemporaries, the grammatical structure of verses such as Matthew 16:28 and Matthew 24:34 does not necessitate a first-century fulfillment.[41] Futurists claim, moreover, that the uniform belief of the early church regarding the futuricity of Christ's second coming militates against the Preterist view.

Preterists maintain that Futurists misunderstand the various metaphors, idioms and prophetic language that the New Testament employs. Preterists claim that many of these are proven to be idiom and metaphors by their use in the Old Testament, and are not meant to be taken literally, e.g., being seen "coming in clouds," 2 Samuel 22:11-12, and the reference to a "thousand" years in Rev. 20:2, (Psalm 50:10, Psalm 90:4, Deuteronomy 7:9).

……………………………………………………………

COMPARING MATTHEW 24 AND MARK 13 WITH LUKE 21

References are to End Times Fiction, Gary DeMar, 2001 (ETF)

While Preterists and many others teach that Matthew 24, Mark 13 and Luke 21 always descrdibe the same everts, futurists (dispensationalists) do not. Futurists point out the very significant differences. While Luke 21:20-24 focus on AD 70, Matthew 24 and Mark 13 focus on the future Antichrist. Signs and sequences will repeat themselves as hisotry almost repeats itself.

Matthew 23:13-36

Matt 23:35 That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth …
Matt 23:36 Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation.

From 23:13-36 “you” refers to the scribes and Pharisees in the multitude of 23:1. Jesus called them a ‘generation of vipers’ in 23:33. All the woes of Matthew 23 will come upon the current generation of scribes and Pharisees.

Matthew 23:37-39

Matt 23:37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!
Matt 23:38 Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.
Matt 23:39 For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.

From 23:37-39 “you” refers to Jerusalem personified –both its leaders and people. A very major point of difference between Preterists and Futurists is here.

Preterists and many others teach that after Calvary God permanently rejected Israel as His chosen nation and replaced it with the Church which is the new “spiritual Israel.”

Futurists point out that, while every Old Testament prophet declared desolation upon Israel, they also all prophesied that God could not and would not forsake Israel because of His scores of unconditional promises. The “desolation” of Matthew 23:38 is followed by the “until” of Matthew 23:39.There will come a time in the future in which Israel once again shouts “Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.” This is validated by every prophet who wrote on the subject.

Matthew 24:1-3; These Things, Sign, End

Matt 24:1 And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to shew him the buildings of the temple.
Matt 24:2 And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.
Matt 24:3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?
…..
Matt 24:37 But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

Preterists insist that “you” in Matthew 24, Mark 13 and Luke 21 always only refers to the private group of disciples from 24:3. Therefore the events cannot extend beyond another 40-year generation and must end in AD 70. Consequently they then interpret many of the events very figuratively and not literally. (ETF73-75)

Futurists teach that a closer look compels the reader to conclude that Jesus is referring to the generation of those who literally see and experience the events. We know that James, Peter and Paul died before seeing the events of AD 70. Compare Mark 13:3. And tradition tells us that all of the disciples except John died as martyrs –many before AD70. Futurists interpret the “you” as the generation which literally sees the events of take place.

Matthew 24:1-3 parallels Mark 13:1-5 and Luke 21:5-7. Since history often repeats itself in greater prophetic fulfillments, all of Matthew and Mark probably have a secondary fulfillment during the Great Tribulation.

In Matthew 24:3, Mark 13:4-5 and Luke 21:7 disciples asked Jesus one question in three parts. While they probably thought that all three events would occur at the same time, such is not the case. They asked (1) When shall these things be? – the destruction of the Temple. (2) and what shall be the sign of thy coming? and (3) and of the end of the world? While only Luke records Jesus’ answer to the first part, only Matthew and Mark record the answer to the second and third parts. Perhaps Matthew and Mark wanted to spare their readers of a Gentile-controlled Jerusalem and perhaps Luke the Gentile wanted to focus on that part.

Concerning Matthew 24:37, Preterists interpret these events as local and not worldwide. In reality Jesus describes them in the same scope as Noah’s flood.

Matthew 24:4-13, Mark 13:6-13 and Luke 21:6-13

Preterists: Everything in these three chapters occurred in AD 70. (ETF76-81)

Futurists say that Preterists are wrong. They describe universal signs which are present in all ages and also are all present in our own time: false messiahs, wars, natural disasters, plagues, betrayal and persecution of believers. However, history records that the worst persecutions of Jews were after AD 70 (v9). While the intensity of Rome’s persecutions increased from AD 100 to AD 250 to AD 300, Hitler killed over 13 million Jews in World War Two. The peak of persecution will occur in the future during the Great Tribulation as seen in Revelation 13.

Matthew 24:14

Matt 24:14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.

Preterists teach that Matthew 24:14 was completed before AD 70. (ETF82-83)

Futurists argue that a literal interpretation of Matthew 24:14 makes no sense in the context of AD 70 because the greatest evangelism of the world and even the Roman Empire was after AD 70.

Preterists interpret “then shall the end come” as the end of God’s relationship with national Israel and the end of the Old Covenant.

Futurists maintain that God has only temporarily set aside Israel and must restore it in keeping with His unconditional promises made to all the prophets. Moreover, the Old Covenant ended, not in AD 70, but at Calvary.

Luke 21:20-24

Perhaps the greatest point of disagreement between Preterists and Futurists concerns Luke 21:20-24 compared with Matthew 24:15-28.

Preterists teach that all of Matthew 24, Mark 13 and Luke 21 describe the same events which were fulfilled in AD 70. (ETF86-91)

Futurists only accept AD 70 for Luke 21:8-24 and interpret Matthew 24:14 onward as future. Preterists can only interpret all the events of Matthew 24 in the context of AD 70 by severely changing the clear literal meanign of Christ’s words into highly figurative language.

Luke 21:20 contrasted with Matthew 24:15

Luke 21:20 And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh.

contrast with

Matt 24:15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand.

In AD 70 the literal sign of the Temple destruction and to leave Jerusalem was when the city was surrounded by armies. This literally happened and is well-documented. Christians escaped; unbelieving Jews were punished; and the Roman armies were victorious.

In the futurre the lliteral sign of the coming of the Son of man and to leave Jerusalem will be when the Most Holy Place of the Temple is defiled by pagans. This follows the same sequence of Antiochus Epiphanes in 168 BC when he already controlled the city and did not need o surround it for a seige. Preterists teach that these are the same events of AD 70.

Luke 21:21 and Matthew 24:16-20

History will repeat itself. First those in Judea will flee to the mountains. Second, flight will be from the roof-tops because there wil be no time to gather anything. Third, those in the countryside will not enter Jerusalem. The Sabbath was kept in AD 70 and will be kept again during the 70th week of Daniel in the future because the unbelieving Jews will enforce the Sabbath in Jerusalem.

Luke 21:22-24 contrasted with Matthew 24:21-22

Luke 21:22 For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled.
Luke 21:23 … in those days! for there shall be great distress in the land, and wrath upon this people.
Luke 21:24 And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.

Contrast with

Mt 24:21 For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.
Mt 24:22 And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened.

1. In AD 70 God’s “wrath” punished the wicked Jewish people with “great distress.” These are called the “days of vengeance.” Those Jews who survived the great slaughter were sold as slaves throughout the Roman Empire. Non Jews would control Jerusalem until the last days.

The contrast is that Luke describes the events of AD 70 as “great distress” while Matthew descries the future events as the “greatest tribulation” of all history.

2. In AD 70 God’s wrath fell on the wicked Jews and not the invading army. However in the future the opposite is true: God’s wrth will fal lon the invading army of Antichrist and rescue Jewish Christians. This is a significant obvious great difference. Compare Daniel 9:27 and Revelation 11:1-2.

3. Matthew and Mark are silent about Jews being scattered as slaves because the events of the Great Tribulation do not allow time for this.

Again, Preterists interpret these as the same events of AD 70 and disown any possible application to the future. (ETF85-88)

Luke 21:23 and Matthew 24:19

Pregnant women will be disadvantaged. This is always true everywhere.

Luke 24b and Matthew 24:15-28

Luke 21:24b … and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.

compare with

Matt 24:15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:)

Luke 24b includes the remainder of Matthew 24. While Jerusalem had been literally “trodeen” down by Gentiles after 586 BC, it has been especially trodden down by Gentiles since AD 70. This “under foot” description will reach until the second coming of Christ in glory at the end of Revelation 19. Even now half of the city is in Muslim hands.

The events of Matthew and Mark are included in the second half of Luke 21:24. While only Luke gives the answer to the first question asked Jesus “When shall these things be?” only Matthew and Mark include the details of the abomination of desolation which is the sign of Jesus’ second coming in glory. It appears that Luke the Gentile omitted the reference to Daniel while Matthew and Mark omitted the part about Gentile domination of Jerusalem.

The second half of verse 24 will reach to the second coming as the events of Matthew 24:29-36, Mark 13:24-32 and Luke 21:25-33 again merge with the signs of the sun, moon and starrs and Christ’s second coming in glory.

Matthew 24:21; Great Tribulation

Matt 24:21 For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.

Matthew 24:21 simply did not occur literally in AD 70 and Jesus’ disciples did not witness the slaughter of 13 million Jews by Nazi Germany in World War Two. Try as they may, Preterists simply cannot explain this in terms of AD 70 and ignore the long history of Jewish persecution since then and the future persecution under Antichrist. Te future Great Tribulation will be even worse.

Matthew 24:22; No Flesh Saved

Matt 24:22 And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened.

The only way that Preterists can force this into their explanation of AD 70 is to claim that “no flesh” only refers to unbelieving Jews inside Jerusalem and Judea. Yet the “elect,” the Christians, had already escaped when the Romans temporarily lifted their siege. And the Roman army was not in danger of being annihilated as part of the “no flesh.” God’s Word must be extremely twisted to reach the Preterist interpretation.

On the other hand, except for God’s hand delivering believers in Revelation 19, “no flesh” will be saved. Unlike the Roman armies which were untouched, the armies of Anti-christ will be annihilated in the future.

Matthew 24:27; As the Lightning

Matt 24:27 For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

Acts 1:11 “Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.”

Preterists use very inconsistent principles of interpretation to make God’s Word agree with their own viewpoints. They will insist upon interpreting some texts literally such as “this generation” and many others figuratively such as “lightning,” “coming” and “glory.”

For Preterists Matthew 24 describes Jesus’ coming in glory in AD 70 as God’s quick lightning-like wrath to punish wicked Israel. (ETF94-97)

Futurists rreply that, since Jesus did not return in AD 70, Luke is silent about the lightning. No Church Father or other Chrisian writer records scuh an event in AD 70.

Futurists insist on interpreting God’s Word in its obvious literal sense unless context compels non-literal interpretation. There is no reason interpret the context of Matthew 24 as anything other than literal. Jesus’ coming will be as visible and as far reaching as lightning but will, as always, center around the events in Jerusalem. In the context of Revelation 19 and 20, Christ’s return in glory if followed by the establishment of the Messianic kingdom on earth for 1000 years.

Matthew 24:28 Eagles

Matt 24:28 For wheresoever the carcase is, there will the eagles be gathered together.

Preterists interpret this as a reference to the eagles on the Roman flags. IETF97-98) Futurists point to the vultures and flesh-eating birds present throughout the Bible and especially Revelation 19. This is the expected result from the “carcasses.”

Matthew 24:29 Sun, Moon and Stars

Matt 24:29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken.

Preterists interpret this as common signs of God’s judgment throughout the Bible. (ETF98-99) However, while that is true, it still must be interpreted in its immediate context. While there are no signs warning of the impending coming of Christ for His church, these are signs warning of the immediate coming of Christ to destroy Antichrist and deliver the tribulation saints in the last days.

Matthew 24:30 Sign, Second Coming, Clouds

Matt 24:30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

Preterists literally interpret the pronoun “you” in Matthew 24 as a reference to the disciples even though many of them died before AD 70. Next they interpret the lightning, clouds and “seeing” as a figurative coming of Christ in AD 70. (ETF102-107)

Futurists interpret the lightning, clouds and coming of Christ in glory literally in the future.

Matthew 24:31; Angels Gather the Elect

Matt 24:31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.
…..
Mt 24:37 But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
Mt 24:38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,
Mt 24:39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
Mt 24:40 Then shall two be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
Mt 24:41 Two women shall be grinding at the mill; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
Mt 24:42 Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come.

Preterists interpret the angels as Christians who went forth as soul winners to evangelize the Roman Empire after AD 70. (ETF108).

Futurists interpret this verse as a literal description of the second coming of Christ in glory in the future. First, since it is clear that “angels in heaven” in verse 36 does not refer to men, this should also apply to “angels” in verse 31. Second, in the flood story those who were not rescued were all killed. The Preterist interpretation does not consider Jesus’ reason for discussing Noah.

Matthew 24:32-34; This Generation

Matt 24:32 Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh:
Mt 24:33 So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors.
Mt 24:34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.
Mt 24:35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.

Preterists interpret “this generation” as the generation living when He spoke the words to His disciples in AD 30. They then add 40 years as a typical generation and teach that everything mentioned in Matthew 24 must occur by AD 70 when the Temple was destroyed. Whatever cannot be explained literally is then explained very figuratively. (ETF111-114)

INCONSISTENT INTERPRETATION:

Jerusalem is left desolate (23:38): literal
“Until” (23:39): ignored
Surrounding of armies: literal
Destruction of Jerusalem: literal
Abomination of desolation: literal
Lightning: figurative
Sign of sun, moon and stars: figurative
Coming of Christ in clouds: figurative
Unconditional promises to Israel: ignored

Futurists interpret “this generation” in view of verse 33 as the generation which literally sees all the events in Matthew occur literally. It is difficult to understand the impact of Jesus’ strong words in verse 35 if He did not want to be understood literally.

Matthew 24:36

Mt 24:36 But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.

………………………………………………………………
Section 4

KEY DIFFERENCES BETWEEN PRETERISM AND FUTURISM (DISPENSATIONALISM).

1.
P: All of Matthew 24 was fulfilled in AD70.
D: Most of Matthew 24 is still future.

2.
P: Old Testament prophecies about national Israel were all conditional and ended in AD70.
D: Hundreds of Old Testament prophecies about national Israel were un-conditional and must be literally fulfilled in the future.

3.
P: The Church is spiritual Israel and replaced national Israel.
D: The church is the mysterious body of Christ and it does not replace literal promises made to Israel. Although it has some of the wording given to Old Covenant Israel in a spiritual context, it is not called spiritual Israel. God promised a literal Messianic Kingdom rule on earth to literal Israel. God cannot lie.

4.
P: The “generation” of Matthew 24 can only be the generation between AD30 and AD70.
D. The “generation” of Matthew 24 refers to the generation which will literally experience its fulfillment in the future.

5.
P: Much of Matthew 24 must be interpreted spiritually in order to fit the events of AD70.
D: All of Matthew 24 should be interpreted literally. Jesus was not speaking apocalyptically. Most of Matthew 24 did not literally occur in AD70.

6.
P: The sign to leave Jerusalem in AD70 was the appearance of the Roman eagle standard inside the Temple (24:15).
D: The sign to leave Jerusalem in AD70 was its being surrounded by armies (Lk 21:20-22). Matthew 24 and Mark 13 focus on the last days; Luke 21 includes AD 70 events.

7.
P: Daniel 9:27 ends with the destruction of the Temple and the end of God’s view of national Israel as His special people.
D: Daniel 9:27 ends with the attacking armies of antichrist being destroyed and this did not happen in AD70. Daniel 9:24 extends beyond 9:27 and ends with the Temple being anointed.

8.
P: The time/timing texts (at hand, quickly) must be interpreted as an AD70 fulfillment.
D: When God acts in the last days, He will act quickly. When the signs are seen, the time is near for that generation.

9.
P: The “clouds”, “lightning” and “trumpet” of Matthew 24 were fulfilled figuratively. The “angels gather” refers to the gospel going out after AD70. The “greatest tribulation” of human history occurred in AD70.
D: The second coming of Christ in glory in the future will literally involve the angels gathering the elect from all the earth. Christ’s coming in glory will be literal and the event, like Noah’s flood, will involve all nations.

10.
P: Preterism is a very minority movement within the a-millennial Reformed and Calvinistic tradition. It does not reflect most of that theology.
D: The futurist viewpoint of dispensationalism allows one to interpret the scores of OT prophecies literally and maintains the integrity of God’s Word.

11.
P: Preterists prefer to severely disregard the unconditional literal nature of Old Testament prophecy regarding national Israel.
D: Futurists argue that the unconditional nature of Old Testament prophecy is their strongest argument for continuity and cannot be ignored.

…………………
Section 5

PRETERISM AND THE KINGDOM (NT)

KINGDOM OF GOD,
KINGDOM OF HEAVEN.

From Systematic Theology, Lewis Sperry Chafer.

The "kingdom of God" is evidently a more comprehensive term than the "kingdom of heaven" and embraces all created intelligences, both in heaven and on earth, who are willingly subject to God and thus in fellowship with Him.

The "kingdom of heaven"-more precisely the "kingdom of the heavens"-is a term descriptive of any type of rulership God may assert on the earth at a given period.

As a predicted kingdom it has reference to the establishment of the kingdom of Israel on the earth (Acts 1:6) and is the subject of extended glowing prophecies in the OT (cf. Ps 2:6; 72:1; Isa 11:1; 32:1; 65:17; Jer 33:15; Dan 7:13-14; Mic 4:1; Zech 9:10; 12:1; 14:9).

As a covenanted kingdom the kingdom of heaven becomes the national hope of Israel (2 Sam 7:4-17). John the Baptist, Christ, and the apostles announced that the kingdom of national Israel was "at hand." That offer was rejected. As a result the "kingdom of heaven" in its earthly manifested form was postponed until Christ's second advent.

Widespread attempts to "bring in the kingdom" on the basis of Christ's first advent are misplaced. According to the clear teaching of the Bible it will be realized only in connection with the second advent. The testimony of Scripture agrees completely with this fact.

According to Matt 13 the present gospel age represents the mystery form of the kingdom. "Since the kingdom of heaven is no other than the rule of God on the earth, He must now be ruling to the extent of full realization of those things which are termed 'the mysteries' in the NT and which really constitute the new message of the NT" (Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology, 7:224).
……………………………………..
From The New Unger’s Bible Dictionary:

The "kingdom of the heavens," that is, the manifested rule of God on the earth in the mediatory Davidic kingdom, will not be realized until the future millennial period. The kingdom of God and the kingdom of heaven, as Chafer points out, are not identical despite the fact that "Matthew employs the terminology of the kingdom of heaven" and Mark and Luke, when presenting practically the same teaching, employ the phrase "kingdom of God."

According to Scripture the "sons of the kingdom shall be cast out" (Matt 8:12; 24:50-51; 25:28-30). This fate cannot be applied to the kingdom of God and its members (John 3:18). The parable of the wheat and the tares (Matt 13:24-30,36-43) and the parable of the good and bad fish (13:47-50) are only spoken of in connection with the kingdom of heaven. The parable of the leaven, however (13:33; 13:20-21), is applied to both kingdoms. "Leaven represents evil doctrine rather than evil persons, and evil doctrine may and does corrupt both kingdoms" (op. cit., pp. 224-25).
The New Unger's Bible Dictionary
……………………………………………

PROSPERITY GOSPELREFUTATION

2011-03-02T08:46:00.000-08:00

PROSPERITY GOSPEL REFUTATION

Russell Earl Kelly, PHD
February 28, 2011

With References to Health, Wealth and Happiness, Has the Prosperity Gospel Overshadowed the Gospel of Christ
David W Jones, Russell S Woodbridge

1. Abrahamic Covenant
2. Bible Reasons to Give
3. Giving: 1 Cor 16:2
4. Giving: 2 Cor 8 and 9
5. Gospel Principles compared to the Prosperity Gospel
6. Healing
7. History
8. Hundredfold Blessing
9. Nature of Man
10. Pay for Gospel Workers
11. Poverty
12. Suffering
13. Tithing
14. Wealth
15. Why Did God Create Us
16. Work Ethic

ABRAHAMIC COVENANT (92-94)
Gen 12:1-3; 13 all; 15 all.

Gal 3:14 That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ --- that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

Prosperity gospel preachers quote Galatians 3:14 to prove that believers access the same material blessings as Abraham did by faith. They teach that this is a performance-based covenant which obligates God to bestow material blessings on believers now by faith.

In reality the second half of Galatians 3:14 only bestows the Spirit itself by faith which brings justification. The Abrahamic Covenant is an unconditional covenant and its blessings fall upon believers because they are already believers. Abraham received great financial blessings in Genesis 12 when he was NOT exercising faith.

BIBLICAL REASONS TO GIVE (p142-149)
1. To assist believers, strangers and the poor.
2. Love for God and love for others.
3. To bring glory to God – to show that God and his kingdom are more important than things of the world.
4. The gospel itself. One’s view of ownership changes.
5. Reward. Heavenly rewards will consist of differing levels of responsibility in eternity. The question remains as to whether these rewards are material or spiritual in nature.
………………………………………………………………..
GIVING: 1 Corinthians 16:2
(1) periodic – weekly
(2) personal -- everybody
(3) planned – put aside; store up
(4) proportionate – according to means
(5) plentiful – no collection when I come (p154-155).
………………………………………………….
GIVING: 2 Cor 8 and 9. From Should the Church Teach Tithing? By Russell Earl Kelly
Christians are commanded to give freely, sacrificially, generously, regularly, joyfully and with the motivation of love for God and man. (1) Giving is a "grace.”
(2) Give yourself to God first (8:5).
(3) Give yourself to knowing God’s will (8:5). (4) Give in response to Christ’s gift (8:9; 9:15).
(5) Give out of a sincere desire (8:8, 10, 12; 9:7).
(6) Do not give because of any commandment (8:8, 10; 9:7).
(7) Give beyond your ability (8:3, 11-12).
(8) Give to produce equality. This means that those who have more should give more in order to make up for the inability of those who cannot afford to give as much (8:12-14). (9) Give joyfully (8:2).
(10) Give because you are growing spiritually (8:3-4, 7).
(11) Give because you want to continue growing spiritually (9:8, 10-11).
(12) Give because you are hearing the gospel preached (9:13).
……………………………………………………………….
Give to please God –not to gain God’s favor.
Give out of love –not out of greed or selfishness.

GOSPEL PRINCIPLES:

Matt 10:9-11 "Do not acquire gold, or silver, or copper for your money belts, or a bag for your journey, or even two coats, or sandals, or a staff; for the worker is worthy of his support. And whatever city or village you enter, inquire who is worthy in it, and stay at his house until you leave that city."

At least while on evangelistic campaigns, gospel workers were to be totally supported by those whom they served. However the support was very minimal.

Matt 20:16 So the last shall be first, and the first last: for many be called, but few chosen (110).

Those who strive to serve others are most exalted by God.

Luke 6:35 But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest: for he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil.

We are not to lend while hoping for more in return.

Gal 6:7 Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.
Gal 6:8 For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting (114).

Phil 4:8 Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.
Phil 4:9 Those things, which ye have both learned, and received, and heard, and seen in me, do: and the God of peace shall be with you.

Whatever is worthy of worship or upholds the righteous standard of a holy God demands the attention of God’s people. A mind filled with God’s Word will desire the things of God.

Rewards are primarily future and spiritual. Christians ought to give to God out of a loving heart knowing that He will reward as He sees fit.

The gospel requires people to work in order to meet their needs.

The gospel focuses on the material needs of others.

The gospel warns others of the spiritual pitfalls of accumulated wealth.

The gospel encourages Christians to give from that which they have been entrusted.

The gospel teaches believers to have faith in Go.

……………………………………………………..

HEALING:

Isa 53:5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.
Isa 53:6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.

Joyce Meyer of the Prosperity Gospel says “By his stripes I was healed. Healing belongs to me.” Acceding to prosperity teachers, the cure for healing is to have a positive outlook – thinking and saying the right words (90).

Actually the healing comes as a miracle from God and not from our own positive outlook. And the verses clearly focus on spiritual healing of “our transgressions,” “our iniquity” and the “chastisement of our peace.”

If physical healing is promised in the atonement, then all believers should be healed when they exercise faith.
HEALING: Isaiah 53:4-5 is spiritual in nature – the remission of sins.

Matt 8:8 The centurion answered and said, Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldest come under my roof: but speak the word only, and my servant shall be healed.
Mark 8:9 For I am a man under authority, having soldiers under me: and I say to this man, Go, and he goeth; and to another, Come, and he cometh; and to my servant, Do this, and he doeth it.
Mark 8:10 When Jesus heard it, he marvelled, and said to them that followed, Verily I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel.

Faith that saves and heals is faith in the ability of Jesus Christ. It is not faith in self.

Matt 9:22 But Jesus turned him about, and when he saw her, he said, Daughter, be of good comfort; thy faith hath made thee whole. And the woman was made whole from that hour.

Most of those who were healed in the New Testament had positive faith in His power to heal them. None had faith in themselves to heal themselves.

……………………………………………………………….
HISTORY

Luke 18:22 Now when Jesus heard these things, he said unto him, Yet lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me.

Throughout history the most influential Church Fathers quoted Jesus, gave up great wealthy and preferred to live in poverty in order to serve the needs of humanity. This is true of Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Cyprian, Tertullian, Augustine, Chrysostum, Jerome, Aquinas and almost all early Church Fathers. They literally interpreted Jesus’ words to the rich young ruler. Of course, prosperity teachers will ignore this historical fact.
……………………………………………….
HUNDREDFOLD BLESSING:

FIRST USE OF “HUNDREDFOLD”:

Matt 13:23 But he that received seed into the good ground is he that heareth the word, and understandeth it; which also beareth fruit, and bringeth forth, some an hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty.
…..
Luke 8:15 But that on the good ground are they, which in an honest and good heart, having heard the word, keep it, and bring forth fruit with patience.

Matthew 13:23 and Luke 8:15 is Jesus’ parable of the sower. It is about God who sows His truth (the gospel) (not money) in order to harvest souls (not money) for His kingdom. The context is NOT about money! In 13:10 the disciples asked Jesus why he taught in parables. Referring to knowledge of the “mysteries of heaven” in 13:11, Jesus said in 13:12 that those who are given knowledge from God will be given even “more abundance” --of knowledge, not money! Again this is referring to knowledge and not money.

SECOND USE OF “HUNDREDFOLD”:

Matt 19:23 … a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven.
Matt 19:24 And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. (125)
Matt 19:25 When his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved?
Matt 19:26 But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.
Mt 26:27 Then answered Peter and said unto him, Behold, we have forsaken all, and followed thee; what shall we have therefore?
Matt 19:28 Jesus replied to the direct and pertinent question, “In the regeneration when the Son of Man will sit on His glorious throne, you also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.” Notice that the rewards are not earthly rewards for this age at all.
Matt 19:29 And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.

Matthew 19:29 is in the aftermath of the rich young ruler leaving because he was not willing to give up his fortune and follow Jesus from 19:22. Jesus summed up the encounter by saying in 19:23 “It is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.” Jesus’ statement would not make sense if he wanted his disciples to become rich with earthly possessions.

In Matthew 19:27, After reminding Jesus that the disciples had left everything and followed him, he asked “What then will there be for us?” In other words, “What kind of reward will we receive for following you?”

In 19:28 Jesus replied to the direct and pertinent question, “In the regeneration when the Son of Man will sit on His glorious throne, you also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.” Notice that the rewards are not earthly rewards for this age at all.

Jesus continues in 19:29, “And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or fields for my sake will receive a hundred times as much and will inherit eternal life.” In the context of 19:28 this must only refer to “in the regeneration” and not to this current age.

THIRD USE OF “HUNDREDFOLD”:

Mark 10:29 There is no man that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my sake, and the gospel's,
Mark 10:30 But he shall receive an hundredfold now in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions; and in the world to come eternal life.
…..
Luke 18:29 And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or parents, or brethren, or wife, or children, for the kingdom of God's sake,
Luke 18:30 Who shall not receive manifold more in this present time, and in the world to come life everlasting.

Prosperity teachers like John Avanzini, only quote Mark 10:30 from all the “hundredfold” texts because only it contains “in this time” (in this present age; NAS).

Contrary to the prosperity gospel advocates, it is almost certain that Jesus does not want believers to own 100 houses with property and literally have 100 sets of parents, brothers, sisters; common sense agrees. The “hundredfold” increase makes perfect sense when explained in terms of the body of Christ. All believers have at there availability the homes, parents, siblings and property of more than 100 other believers. Also, the prosperity teachers do not stress the “hundredfold” increase of persecution.

In conclusion, therefore, the New Testament does not teach that the “hundred-fold” blessing is a reference to personal physical financial blessings on earth for all Christians.
……………………………………………..

NATURE OF MAN

Prosperity gospel advocates teach that man has been created from the substance, or DNA, or God and is, therefore, a “god” himself with creative powers apart from God (63-64).

The truth is that the Bible does not teach that man is part of the substance of God. Man was created from the dust of the earth and the life principle was breathed into him but that is not the DNA of God (Gen 2:7). When the Bible says that man as made “in the image of God,” it refers to man’s ability to discern between right and wrong and his capacity to live eternally as the result of being born a second time (spiritually) and receiving the permanent indwelling Holy Spirit (Gen 1:26-27; 2:17).

Ps 82:1 God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods.
Ps 82:2 How long will ye judge unjustly, and accept the persons of the wicked?
Ps 82:3 Defend the poor and fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and needy.
Ps 82:4 Deliver the poor and needy: rid them out of the hand of the wicked.
Ps 82:5 They know not, neither will they understand; they walk on in darkness: all the foundations of the earth are out of course.
Ps 82:6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.
Ps 82:7 But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes.
Ps 82:8 Arise, O God, judge the earth: for thou shalt inherit all nations.

Psalm 82:1-7. (1) God is standing in the congregation among the “gods” (v1). (2) The “gods” are evidently dishonest judges and rulers of Israel (v2). (3) The “gods” are told to “do justice,” “defend the poor” and “deliver the poor” (v3-4). (4) The “gods” of verse 6 are the disobedient “gods” of 1-5. (5) The “gods” of verse 6 shall be brought down and “die like men” in verse 7. In John 10:34-35 Jesus quoted Psalm 82 and said that “gods” were those to whom the Word of God came.” Again, these are clearly judges and rulers who are normal men.

Isa 64:6 But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.

Men are not inherently good. Given the choice to obey or disobey, all men disobey. When men reach the age of knowing the difference between right and wrong, they choose the wrong and sin. Even our “rightesousnesses” are as “filthy rags” and not sufficient to save us.

Rom 3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
Rom 3:11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.
Rom 3:12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

Contrary to the prosperity gospel (77), the Scriptures do not declare the “goodness” of man. Apart from the imputed righteousness given at Justification, “none is righteous” (Rom 3:10. Apart from God grace, no man seeks after God by himself (Rom 3:11-12; Jn 1:13).

Rom 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.

Not only has all mankind sinned but all mankind continues to fall short of the glory of God (Rom 3:23).
…………………………………………………….

PAY FOR GOSPEL WORKERS:

Contrary to the prosperity gospel with its many houses and jet planes, the Bible does not justify huge salaries of gospel workers.

An elder or pastor can reasonably expect support from the church where he serves. An elder does not have to draw support, however, as he may minister in a bivocational manner and receive little or no support from the church (Acts 18:1-3; 20:33-35; 1 Cor 9:6, 12, 15-19; Phil 4:14-16 (156).

Matt 10:10 Nor scrip for your journey, neither two coats, neither shoes, nor yet staves: for the workman is worthy of his meat.

Luke 10:7 And in the same house remain, eating and drinking such things as they give: for the labourer is worthy of his hire. Go not from house to house.

Matthew 10 and Luke 10 describe Jesus sending out the 12 and 70 respectively as evangelists preparing the way and announcing his soon arrival to preach. While doing so they were to live as the poorest of the land and depend entirely on others to house, clothe and feed them. These were temporary workers in a temporary place. The text is not discussing salaries of full time gospel workers.

For much more discussion on First Corinthians 9, see my book, Should the Church Teach Tithing?

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?

Each vocation has its peculiar principles of support. The soldier is paid a very minimal salary but shares in spoils (9:7). The vineyard worker eats the grapes (9:7). The herdsman drinks the milk of the head (9:7).

1 Cor 9:8 Say I these things as a man? or saith not the law the same also?
1 Cor 9:9 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?

The ox which grinds the grain is worthy of double honor; he eats normally and he eats from what he grinds (9:9).

1 Cor 9:10 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.
1 Cor 9:11 If we have sown unto you spiritual things, is it a great thing if we shall reap your carnal things?

The point is that a universal principle exists which reveals that workers deserve to be paid (9:8, 10-11).

1 Cor 9:12 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.

Though not sent to you from the Jerusalem church as were Peter and others (9:1-6), we still have the same right to be paid as they (9:12). However, in order to remove any cause for diminishing our gospel presentation, we choose not to receive any assistance from you, the church of Corinth (9:12).

1 Cor 9:13 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?

Temple workers (Levites and priests) received both financial and food assistance from the many different laws such as tithing, sacrifices and vow offerings – things of the Temple as in the book of Leviticus.

1 Cor 9:14 Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel.

Even so, in the same manner, as soldiers, vineyard workers, herdsmen, the grinding ox and Temple workers received payment for their work -- gospel workers should live according to gospel giving principles of grace and faith. This primarily means sacrificial giving which is endorsed by the Holy Spirit.

1 Cor 9:15 But I have used none of these things: neither have I written these things, that it should be so done unto me: for it were better for me to die, than that any man should make my glorying void.

While due some kind of recompense for my labor among you, I would rather die first than receive recompense from you. This is Paul’s stated personal opinion and not a command for others in gospel work.

1 Cor 9:16 For though I preach the gospel, I have nothing to glory of: for necessity is laid upon me; yea, woe is unto me, if I preach not the gospel!
1 Cor 9:17 For if I do this thing willingly, I have a reward: but if against my will, a dispensation of the gospel is committed unto me.
1 Cor 9:18 What is my reward then? Verily that, when I preach the gospel, I may make the gospel of Christ without charge, that I abuse not my power in the gospel.
1 Cor 9:19 For though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more.

Acts 20:35 I have shewed you all things, how that so labouring ye ought to support the weak, and to remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, It is more blessed to give than to receive. (See all of 20:29-35.)

Paul spent 3 years at Ephesus working to support both himself and those with him. He instructed the elders gathered in Miletus from Ephesus to work to help the needy in their assemblies and to follow Jesus’ example of giving rather than receiving.

Gal 6:6 Let him that is taught in the word communicate unto him that teacheth in all good things.

Hearers of the Word of God should share everything they have with those who teach the Word to them.

1 Tim 5:17 Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine.

The context of 5:1-20 is discipline, not wages. Notice the word “rebuke” in both verse 1 and verse 20. “Double honor” means “double caution” while rebuking. Paul is not telling the church to pay its pastor-elder a double wage while he personally refused any wage.

1 Tim 5:18 For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward.

As in Luke 10:7 a grinding ox had a double honor. It was un-muzzled to eat both the grass in the field and also the grain is was grinding. Yet this common sense explanation is ignored by many greedy preachers.

1 Tim 5:19 Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses.
1 Tim 5:20 Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear.

Discipline, not wages, is the context.

………………………………………………………

POVERTY (98, 117, 119, 122, 129, 134, 135, 139)

In great error, prosperity preachers teach that it is a sin to be poor. It teaches that God is not intend for believers to be poor and that poverty is the result of a lack of faith.

Prov 30:8 Remove far from me vanity and lies: give me neither poverty nor riches; feed me with food convenient for me:
Prov 30:9 Lest I be full, and deny thee, and say, Who is the LORD? or lest I be poor, and steal, and take the name of my God in vain.

Contrary to prosperity preachers, the Bible neither promotes nor condemns either wealthy or poverty in and of themselves. Both have strong points and weak points.

Isa 53:2 For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him.
Isa 53:3 He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.

Jesus left the riches of heaven to live among his creation as a man, a kinsman-redeemer (Phil 2:1-8). He lived in Nazareth of Galilee as a poor carpenter’s son.

Mt 6:20 But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal:
Mt 6:21 For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.

While prosperity preachers teach believers to accumulate wealth on earth, Jesus did not.

Matthew 8:20 “The foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have nests; but the Son of man has nowhere to lay his head.”

Jesus was poor.

Matthew 11:5 “The poor have the gospel preached to them.”

Matthew 12:1 the disciples and Jesus were allowed to glean food from property of others because they were poor.
Matthew 12:2 the Pharisees did not rebuke him for being wealthy and unqualified to glean.

Contrary to several prosperity preachers who teach that Jesus was wealthy, this is biblical proof that they were considered among the poor. As poor, they were allowed to glean in others’ fields for food.

Matthew 26:11 “You will always have the poor with you [even among believers].

This does not mean that the poor are cursed. They are a normal part of society.

Mark 8:34-35 Whosoever will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.

The prosperity gospel teaches believers NOT to deny themselves but to seek to enrich themselves.

Mark 12:42 And there came a certain poor widow, and she threw in two mites, which make a farthing.
Mark 12:43 And he called unto him his disciples, and saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, That this poor widow hath cast more in, than all they which have cast into the treasury:
Mark 12:44 For all they did cast in of their abundance; but she of her want did cast in all that she had, even all her living.

There is not the slightest indication that the poor widow received any kind of financial blessing after giving her all – especially not 100 times more. She was not under a curse for being poor.

Luke 2:24 And to offer a sacrifice according to that which is said in the law of the Lord, A pair of turtledoves , or two young pigeons.

This is proof that Jesus and his parents were among the poor. Turtledoves were only allowed as sacrifices for the poorest in society. Yet Jesus was God’s only begorten Son. See Lev 14:15.

Luke 6:20 And he lifted up his eyes on his disciples, and said, Blessed be ye poor: for yours is the kingdom of God.

This is not a statement heard from prosperity preachers.

Luke 14:13 But when thou makest a feast, call the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind:
…..
Luke 14:21 So that servant came, and shewed his lord these things. Then the master of the house being angry said to his servant, Go out quickly into the streets and lanes of the city, and bring in hither the poor, and the maimed, and the halt, and the blind.

Jesus’ parable of the wedding feast teaches that the poor replaced the wealthy because they are more likely to accept the gospel.

Luke 14:33 So likewise, whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple.

This is yet another argument against the prosperity gospel. Believers should acknowledge that all belongs to God and they should be willing to place all at God’s disposal.

Luke 18:22 Yet lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me.

Completely ignored by prosperity preachers, this single text was quoted by the Church Fathers of many centuries. They taught asceticism, not prosperity. Although equally as wrong as the prosperity gospel for the opposite reasons, they taught that one must be literally poor in order to be spiritually wealthy. This is true of Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Cyprian, Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine, Chrysostum and Aquinas. Most early church leaders lived as paupers in monasteries.

Acts 3:6 Then Peter said, Silver and gold have I none; but such as I have give I thee: In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth rise up and walk.

Contrary to what prosperity preachers teach, there is absolutely no indication from Scripture that Jesus or His disciples were wealthy.

2 Cor 8:9 For ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that, though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, that ye through his poverty might be rich.

The context is that God blessed many in the church at Corinth in order that they might use their wealth to help others. Compare James 2:5.

Phil 3:7 But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ.
Phil 3:8 Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung , that I may win Christ,

Contrary to the prosperity gospel, Paul forfeited the opportunity to gain wealth for the cause of the gospel. He considered financial wealth to be dung.

Phil 4:11 Not that I speak in respect of want: for I have learned, in whatsoever state I am, therewith to be content.

Paul set the example for what he taught Timothy and others in First Timothy 6:8.

1 Tim 6:7 For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out.
1 Tim 6:8 And having food and raiment let us be therewith content. (98)

Believers cannot carry any money to heaven. Verse 8 is certainly not a favorite among prosperity gospel preachers.

Heb 13:5 Let your conversation [conduct, character, life] be without covetousness; and be content with such things as ye have: for he hath said, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee.

While prosperity preachers teach that believers should strive to be wealthy, God’s Word teaches us to be content with whatever we have (139).

James 2:5 Hath not God chosen the poor of this world rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which he hath promised to them that love him?

Contrary to what prosperity preachers teach, it is the poor who are the strongest Christians and the richest in faith.

James 4:2 Ye lust, and have not: ye kill, and desire to have, and cannot obtain: ye fight and war, yet ye have not, because ye ask not.
James 4:3 Ye ask, and receive not, because ye ask amiss, that ye may consume it upon your lusts.

While prosperity preachers like to quote “you have not because you ask not,” they ignore the context of verses 2 and 3. God will not give something which is lusted after and desired for the wrong reason. And God willnot answer the prayers of those who only want to fight and kill (spiritually?) (96-97).

3 John 2 Beloved, I wish above all things that thou mayest prosper and be in health, even as thy soul prospereth.

This text is a favorite quote of several prosperity preachers. First, John was not teaching doctrine; rather he was merely opening his letter with a greeting.

Second, and much more important, the Greek word for “prosper,” eu-o-dos-thai, is from two words, eu meaning “good” and odos meaning “way, road, journey” as in John 14:6. Several versions read “that all may go well.” In First Corinthians 16:2 it means “to the extent life has been good to you” and in Romans 1:10 it simply means a “good safe journey” (100).

Third, “as thy soul prospers” indicates that the text means “may matters be good for your physical life just as they have been good for your spiritual life” (100).

Part of Israel’s Old Covenant law was protection of the people from abuse by the more wealthy. None could be forced to work on the Sabbaths, many debts were to be forgiven on the seventh-year Sabbath and property was to be returned on the Year of Jubilee. Gleaning rights took from those who had and fed those who had not. The possession or lack of material goods is neither commended not condemned anywhere in Scripture in and of themselves – abuse is condemned plus the consequences of being so rich that one forgets his need for God (129).

The prosperity preachers teach that God saves so you can be famous and wealthy. God saves so you can fulfill all your dreams. People are encouraged to think too highly of themselves (161). They emphasize the conjuring of mystical forces of faith in order to meet material needs. They often emphasizes rewards as if they are the only motivation for giving. Most view rewards primarily as material in nature. This false gospel turns God’s grace into a law which He must obey (161).

Those in the prosperity gospel movement expect God to pay them back. They often give to see if God will come through. And thy often give out of guilt and obligation. Their gospel focuses on acquiring wealth for oneself. They teach that God is dependent on people to act. Since you are in control of your own destiny, thus suffering is an indication of your failure to utilize divinely designed means of blessing.

The prosperity gospel is consumed with the accumulation of wealth (140-141). However, when you start thinking that God exists to serve you and grant your desires, you usurp his place (160).
…………………………………………………

SUFFERING

Prosperity preachers fail miserable when they want to link most suffering to personal sin and a lack of faith.

Abraham suffered marital strife between his wives. He suffered political strife with Pharaoh. He suffered the fate of his firstborn son, Ishmael, having to leave his presence and being called by God “a donkey of a man.” Except for his wife’s grave site, Abraham never owned any of the land he had been promised (108).

Jacob suffered from bad relations with Laban, squabbling wives, fear of his brother, bad eyesight and a dislocated hip. And Jacob died as a nomad in a foreign land.

Joseph was betrayed by his own brothers and separated from his father. He spent years in prison for a crime he did not commit (108).

Job lost everything he had after God allowed Satan to torture him. He suffered terrible misery from both his best friends and bodily affliction (109).

David suffered betrayal by his son and banishment as king by his own people. He was not allowed to build his dream project – the Temple.

Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel and most other Old Testament saints suffered great affliction as leaders for God’s cause.

Jesus Christ, God’s most beloved God-Man, suffered more than can be imagined or described.

James and Stephen suffered martyrdom, plus countless others.

Paul, God’s most successful evangelist, suffered from beatings, prison, ship-wreck, snake-bite, sleeplessness, hunger, thirst, poor eyesight and poor speech. See 2 Cor 11:12. Yet God refused to end his physical suffering with divine healing.

Gen 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
Gen 3:16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
Gen 3:17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;
Gen 3:18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;
Gen 3:19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

All suffering is the result of sin – whether direct or indirect, personal or somebody else’s sin. According to Genesis 3, after Adam and Eve sinned, suffering resulted. Like a cancer sin began to affect human genetics to lessen the ability of our bodies to resist disease. It also affected the genetics of all creation such as the animal and vegetable world. Consequently all mankind suffers through Adam’s sin (126-127) (Rom 3:23; 5:14-20).

Luke 9:23 And he said to them all, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me.

The prosperity gospel does not teach believers to “deny” their material wants. Their doctrine is opposite to that taught by Jesus.

Luke 13:1 There were present at that season some that told him of the Galilaeans, whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices.
Luke 13:2 And Jesus answering said unto them, Suppose ye that these Galilaeans were sinners above all the Galilaeans, because they suffered such things?
Luke 13:3 I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.
Luke 13:4 Or those eighteen, upon whom the tower in Siloam fell, and slew them, think ye that they were sinners above all men that dwelt in Jerusalem?
Luke13:5 I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish. (113)

Natural disasters and disasters caused by error of men (such as faulty construction) affect for good and bad persons.

John 9:1 And as Jesus passed by, he saw a man which was blind from his birth.
John 9:2 And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?
John 9:3 Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him.

Contrary to what prosperity preachers teach, poor health is not necessarily the result of personal sin.

John 15:18 If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you.
John 15:19 If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.
John 15:20 Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have kept my saying, they will keep yours also.

Believers can expect to be hated and persecuted. All is not roses.

Rom 5:15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many (116).

As the head of our race, Adam’s sin brought suffering to all. His perfect DNA was changed by sin and that defective DNA was passed on to all mankind. We are also born into a world judicially guilty before God because Adam sinned as our representative.

Rom 8:20 For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope,

This is a reference to Adam’s sin.

Rom 8:28 And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.

God can take the worst of situations in our life and change it into a good thing.

2 Cor 12:9 And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me.

Paul had asked God 3 times to remove his “thorn in the flesh” but God refused because God knew that Paul would be stronger spiritually.

Phil 1:29 For unto you it is given in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for his sake.

Phil 2:7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
Phil 2:8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
Phil 2:6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:

2 Tim 3:12 Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution.

1 Peter 2:21 For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps.
…..
1 Peter 2:24 Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.

Prosperity preachers selectively choose texts and parts of texts which imply that believers should be healthy and not suffer.

1 Peter 4:19 Wherefore let them that suffer according to the will of God commit the keeping of their souls to him in well doing, as unto a faithful Creator. (p109)

First, suffering can be a warning sign of approaching danger; minor pain can warn of more serious conditions (118).

Second, suffering can warn that it is time to repent (Heb 12:11).

Third, pain can encourage some to find better relationships. Misery loves company. Trials can result in the comfort and ministry to others (2 Cor 1:6-7).

Fourth, nonbelievers can react positively when they see believers act in an appropriate way (118).

Fifth, the greatest benefit of suffering is the sanctification it fosters by forcing people to rely upon God (119).

…………………………………………………….
TITHING:

The O.T. system under the Law was tithing. There were three different tithes from the increase of food from the holy land of Israel (143).

Gen 14:17-20. Abram tithed off other people’s goods, not his own income. The act of giving appears to be a single occurrence. No evidence in the biblical narrative suggests that God commanded this tithe or that Abraham regularly tithed off his own income.

Gen 28:20-22. Jacob apparently doubted God’s promise and told God that if He would grant him safety, provide food and clothing and bring him back to his father’s house in peace, then he promised God a tenth of his increase (150). When he returned safely two decades later, there is no mention of him tithing (151). As with Abraham, it is difficult to develop a clear on tithing from Jacob.

Num 18:20 And the LORD spake unto Aaron, Thou shalt have no inheritance in their land, neither shalt thou have any part among them: I am thy part and thine inheritance among the children of Israel.
Num 18:21 And, behold, I have given the children of Levi all the tenth in Israel for an inheritance, for their service which they serve, even the service of the tabernacle of the congregation.
Num 18:22 Neither must the children of Israel henceforth come nigh the tabernacle of the congregation, lest they bear sin, and die.
Num 18:23 But the Levites shall do the service of the tabernacle of the congregation, and they shall bear their iniquity: it shall be a statute for ever throughout your generations, that among the children of Israel they have no inheritance.
Num 18:24 But the tithes of the children of Israel, which they offer as an heave offering unto the LORD, I have given to the Levites to inherit: therefore I have said unto them, Among the children of Israel they shall have no inheritance.

All prosperity preachers teach their own redefined tithing. They ignore the following about biblical tithes: (1) Only food from inside Israel which God had miraculously increased. (2) Only to support OT Levites and priests. (3) OT tithe recipients could not own land inside Israel. (4) OT tithe recipients were to kill anybody else entering the sanctuary. (5) The Levite OT tithe recipients were not the ministering priests. And (6) God now relates to man under the New Covenant.

Num 18:25 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
Num 18:26 Thus speak unto the Levites, and say unto them, When ye take of the children of Israel the tithes which I have given you from them for your inheritance, then ye shall offer up an heave offering of it for the LORD, even a tenth part of the tithe.
Num 18:27 And this your heave offering shall be reckoned unto you, as though it were the corn of the threshingfloor, and as the fulness of the winepress.
Num 18:28 Thus ye also shall offer an heave offering unto the LORD of all your tithes, which ye receive of the children of Israel; and ye shall give thereof the LORD's heave offering to Aaron the priest.

The OT priests only received a tenth of the whole Levitical tithe (Neh 10:37-38).

Deut 14:28 At the end of three years thou shalt bring forth all the tithe of thine increase the same year, and shalt lay it up within thy gates:
Deut 14:29 And the Levite, (because he hath no part nor inheritance with thee,) and the stranger, and the fatherless, and the widow, which are within thy gates, shall come, and shall eat and be satisfied; that the LORD thy God may bless thee in all the work of thine hand which thou doest.

If one were to honestly teach OT tithing, one would be required to teach three tithes of 23% minimum.

Matt 23:23; Luke 11:42. This provides little help for a discussion of tithing because the Pharisees were not Christians, but Jews under the Mosaic Law (152).

Luke 18:9-14. The reference to tithing in this passage is largely incidental and is also applied to a Jewish Pharisee living under the Mosaic Law (153).

Hebrews 7:1-18. The main point of this passage is not to teach about tithing.

……………………………………………………………..

WEALTH (95)

Matt 6:19 Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal:
…..
Matt 6:24 No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon [wealth].

One would not expect to hear prosperity preachers expounding on Matthew 6:19 and 6i:24.

Matt 19:23 … a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven.
Matt 19:24 And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. (125)
Matt 19:25 When his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved?
Matt 19:26 But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.

Riches tend to make one depend on self rather than God. According to Jesus, the only way a wealthy person can be saved would be through a miracle of God. The odds are against the rich being saved. It is strange, then, that most prosperity preachers are very wealthy.

Luke 1:53 He has sent the rich away empty (no salvation).

Luke 6:24 Woe to you that are rich! For you have already received your comfort in full.

Luke 12:19 And I will say to my soul, Soul, thou hast much goods laid up for many years; take thine ease, eat, drink, and be merry.
Luke 12:20 But God said unto him, Thou fool, this night thy soul shall be required of thee: then whose shall those things be, which thou hast provided?
Luke 12:21 So is he that layeth up treasure for himself, and is not rich toward God.

Col 3:2 Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth (95).

1 Tim 6:9 But they that will be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and hurtful lusts, which drown men in destruction and perdition.
1 Tim 6:10 For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows. (137)

It is difficult to seek wealth and seek God at the same time.

1 Tim 6:17 Charge them that are rich in this world, that they be not high-minded, nor trust in uncertain riches, but in the living God, who giveth us richly all things to enjoy;
1 Tim 6:18 That they do good, that they be rich in good works, ready to distribute, willing to communicate;
1 Tim 6:19 Laying up in store for themselves a good foundation against the time to come, that they may lay hold on eternal life.
1 Tim 6:19 Laying up in store for themselves a good foundation against the time to come, that they may lay hold on eternal life.

Along with wealth comes even more responsibilities to use that wealth to help others.

1 John 2:15 Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him.
1 John 2:16 For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world. (96)

This advice is contrary to many prosperity preachers who teach that believers should love the wealth of the world.

1 John 3:17 But whoso hath this world's good, and seeth his brother have need, and shutteth up his bowels of compassion from him, how dwelleth the love of God in him?

………………………………………………….

WHY DID GOD CREATE AND SAVE US?

2 Cor 5:21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

Eph 1:4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:
Eph 1:5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,
Eph 1:6 To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.

1 Peter 2:24 Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.

1. God created us in order that we might be holy (set apart for a sacred purpose) and stand before Him without blame (in the imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ) in love (Eph 1:4; 2 Cor 5:21).

2. God saved us in order that He might adopt us as his children (Eph 1:5).

3. God saved us in order that we might praise Him. Everything is god-ward and not man-ward.

God saved you on account of his great love for you (160). God saved you so that you might glorify him forever and so that he might display his grace for all eternity (Eph 14-10) (170-161). We were rescued to glorify God and do good works. e exist in order to serve and worship and glorify God (159).
…………………………………………….

WORK ETHIC

Prov 6:1 My son, if thou be surety for thy friend, if thou hast stricken thy hand with a stranger,
Prov 6:2 Thou art snared with the words of thy mouth, thou art taken with the words of thy mouth.

Saying the wrong words at the wrong time can be disatrous.

Prov 6:4 Give not sleep to thine eyes, nor slumber to thine eyelids.
Prov 6:5 Deliver thyself as a roe from the hand of the hunter, and as a bird from the hand of the fowler.
Prov 6:6 Go to the ant, thou sluggard; consider her ways, and be wise:
Prov 6:7 Which having no guide, overseer, or ruler,
Prov 6:8 Provideth her meat in the summer, and gathereth her food in the harvest.
Prov 6:9 How long wilt thou sleep, O sluggard? when wilt thou arise out of thy sleep?

Do not sleep when you should be working. Lazy people who say the words of the prosperity preachers will not be enriched. Stay as alert as a hunted bird and work as hard as an ant.

Prov 6:10 Yet a little sleep, a little slumber, a little folding of the hands to sleep:
Prov 6:11 So shall thy poverty come as one that travelleth, and thy want as an armed man.

You can sleep away your opportunity to gain wealth.

Prov 6:12 A naughty person, a wicked man, walketh with a froward mouth.
Prov 6:13 He winketh with his eyes, he speaketh with his feet, he teacheth with his fingers;
Prov 6:14 Frowardness is in his heart, he deviseth mischief continually; he soweth discord.
Prov 6:15 Therefore shall his calamity come suddenly; suddenly shall he be broken without remedy.
Prov 6:16 These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him.

This could be a description of many prosperity preachers. They speak with a perverse mouth (:12). Their body language is practiced to impress (6:13). They are actually scheming to get more of your money (6:14). Their sins will be exposed (6:15). God hates these kinds of people (6:16).

Prov 10:4 He becometh poor that dealeth with a slack hand: but the hand of the diligent maketh rich.

Diligent workers succeed whether one follows a prosperity preacher or not.

Prov 19:15 Slothfulness casteth into a deep sleep; and an idle soul shall suffer hunger.

Prov 20:13 Love not sleep, lest thou come to poverty; open thine eyes, and thou shalt be satisfied with bread. (131)

Prov 28:19 He that tilleth his land shall have plenty of bread: but he that followeth after vain persons shall have poverty enough.

Like the vast majority of faithful tithers, the vast majority of those who give to prosperity preachers remain sick and poor. A certain percentage will always prosper because of their applied good work ethics.

Mark 10:45 “For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.”

Jesus always encouraged servanthood.

Eph 4:28 Let him that stole steal no more: but rather let him labour, working with his hands the thing which is good, that he may have to give to him that needeth.

Good hard work will produce wealth much faster than merely saying good words.

2 Thess 3:10 For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat. (136)

The normal and biblical was of attaining wealth is through hard work, long hours, self-deprivation and striving to educate oneself. Contrary to the prosperity gospel, wealth is not he result of merely saying the right words over and over.

………………………………………………….
WRONG WAYS OF UNDERSTANDING WEALTH:

CHART: PAGE 139
1. PROSPERITY GOSPEL
Spiritual Wealth produces Material Wealth.
This error says that the correct fervent application of faith in yourself and faith in word will produce material wealth. This cannot be demonstrated by the vast majority of prosperity followers who keep having hope in hope that they will become wealthy.

2 ASCETICISM
Spiritual Poverty produces Material Wealth.
This error says that those who remain materially poor will be spiritually rich. Yet many of the poorest do not seek God.

3 JOB’S FRIENDS
Spiritual Poverty produces Material Poverty.
This was the prevailing error of Job’s friends, Jesus’ disciples in John 9 and many others. Yet many atheists and agnostics are very wealthy apart from any religious convictions.

4 MATERIALISM
Material Wealth produces Spiritual Poverty .
Although close to the truth, God does bless many believers with wealthy in order to help others. Wealth tends to make men rely on self rather than God.

Assembled by Russell Earl Kelly, PHD

Prosperity Gospel Part Three

2011-02-23T10:45:00.000-08:00

PROSPERITY GOSPEL (PART THREE)

Russell Kelly’s Review and Outline with Additional Thoughts of the Excellent book:

Health, Wealth and Happiness
David W Jones and Russell S Woodbridge, 2011

BIBLICAL WEALTH AND POVERTY P123-141

Luke 6:20 And he lifted up his eyes on his disciples, and said, Blessed be ye poor: for yours is the kingdom of God.

Matt 19:23 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Mt 19:24 And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. (125)

Suffering is part of being human. Since the entrance of sin all men are to toil and sweat and all women are to bear children in pain. Even the subservience of the woman to her husband is part of the curse of sin (126-127).

Part of Israel’s Old Covenant law was protection of the people from abuse by the more wealthy. None could be forced to work on the Sabbaths, many debts were to be forgiven on the seventh-year Sabbath and property was to be returned on the Year of Jubilee. Gleaning rights took from those who had and fed those who had not. The possession or lack of material goods is neither commended not condemned anywhere in Scripture in and of themselves – abuse is condemned plus the consequences of being so rich that one forgets his need for God (129).

Biblical justice does not require or expect equal distribution of resources (130). The Bible continually endorses hard labor in order to meet material needs (not sitting and putting faith in faith and faith in words apart from obedience to God’s Word) (130-131).

Prov 10:4 He becometh poor that dealeth with a slack hand: but the hand of the diligent maketh rich.

Prov 28:19 He that tilleth his land shall have plenty of bread: but he that followeth after vain persons shall have poverty enough.

Prov 6:10 Yet a little sleep, a little slumber, a little folding of the hands to sleep:
Prov 6:1 So shall thy poverty come as one that travelleth, and thy want as an armed man.

Prov 19:15 Slothfulness casteth into a deep sleep; and an idle soul shall suffer hunger.

Prov 20:13 Love not sleep, lest thou come to poverty; open thine eyes, and thou shalt be satisfied with bread. (131)

JESUS WAS POOR:
(1) He was born in a stable.
(2) As a carpenter’s son he was part of a lower or middle class family
(3) His parents were poor enough to qualify to offer two pigeons – the sacrifice designated for the poor (Lk 2:24).
(4) Jesus associated with and ministered among the lowest classes of society.
(5) Matt 8:20 And Jesus saith unto him, The foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head.
(6) He apparently had no home, no land and no regular income.
(7) Jesus borrowed often: a boat, food, a colt, a room and a tomb. (132)

JESUS AND THE RICH
(1) When he associated with the rich and influential, they were often his antagonists (133).
(2) He ministered to a rich young ruler, tax collectors, and a centurion but did not ask them for financial support.
(3) Jesus neither advocated wealth nor poverty (133).

Poverty itself is not presented in the Bible as being inherently sinful (134). It is the causes and effects of poverty which are sometimes sinful but that is also true of wealth.

Jesus did teach His disciples to be on guard against the temptation of material wealth.

Matt 19:23 a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Luke 14:33 So likewise, whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple. (135)

Wealth was often a spiritual stumbling block in the Gospels.
1. The Pharisees were lovers of money.
2. Money changers in the Temple.
3. Judas Iscariot’s betrayal

Matt 6:19 Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal:
Mt 6:20 But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal:
Mt 6:21 For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.

Paul understood laboring to meet material needs a normal part of the Christian life (135-136).

Eph 4:28 Let him that stole steal no more: but rather let him labour, working with his hands the thing which is good, that he may have to give to him that needeth.

Acts 20:35 I have shewed you all things, how that so labouring ye ought to support the weak, and to remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, It is more blessed to give than to receive.

2 Thess 3:10 For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat. (136)

Money can do more harm than good.

1 Tim 6:10 For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows. (137)

1 Tim 6:17 Charge them that are rich in this world, that they be not highminded, nor trust in uncertain riches, but in the living God, who giveth us richly all things to enjoy;
1 Tim 6:18 That they do good, that they be rich in good works, ready to distribute, willing to communicate;
1 Tim 6:19 Laying up in store for themselves a good foundation against the time to come, that they may lay hold on eternal life.

Covetousness and greed afflict both the rich and poor. Many examples of the rich coveting are provided in the book.

Heb 13:5 Let your conversation be without covetousness; and be content with such things as ye have: for he hath said, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee(139).

UNORTHODOX VIEWS OF MATERIAL WEALH AND SPIRITUAL WEALTH:

1. PROSPERITY GOSPEL -- wrong
Spiritual wealth leads to material wealth.

2. JOB’S FRIENDS -- wrong
Spiritual poverty (sin) material poverty.

3. ASCETICISM -- wrong
Material poverty leads to spiritual wealth.

4. MATERIALISM -- wrong
Material wealth leads to spiritual poverty. (139)

The error of all four views is that they insist upon a REQUIRED connection between material wealth and spiritual wealth (140). Unlike the prosperity preachers, material wealth is not a required result of spiritual wealth.

1. GOSPEL: requires people to work in order to meet their needs.
PROSPERITY GOSPEL: emphasized the conjuring of mystical forces of faith in order to meet material needs.

2. GOSPEL: focuses on the material needs of others.
PROSPERITY GOSPEL: focuses on acquiring wealth for oneself.

3. GOSPEL: warns others of the spiritual pitfalls of accumulated wealth.
PROSPERITY GOSPEL: is consumed with the accumulation of wealth (140-141).

Throughout history the most influential Church Fathers gave up great wealthy and preferred to live in poverty in order to serve the needs of humanity. This is true of Cyprian, Tertullian, Augustine, Chrysostum, Jerome and Aquinas. They literally interpreted Jesus’ words to the rich young ruler.

Luke 18:22 Yet lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me.

BIBLICAL GIVING P142-158

Why Should Christians Give?
To be faithful stewards (142)

Giving is an Act of Obedience.
Christians are obligated to give from that which they have been entrusted (143). The O.T. system under the Law was tithing. There were three different tithes from the increase of food from the holy land of Israel (143). In the New Testament God commanded Christians to give in order to assist believers, strangers and the poor (144).

Giving Demonstrates Love (144)
A second motivation for giving is love for God and love for others (144).

1 John 3:17 But whoso hath this world's good, and seeth his brother have need, and shutteth up his bowels of compassion from him, how dwelleth the love of God in him?

GOSPEL: should be motivated by love.
PROSPERITY GOSPEL: teaches, a desire for personal flourishing.

Giving Brings Glory to God (145)
A third motivation for giving is to bring glory to God – to show that God and his kingdom are more important than things of the world (145).

Giving is a Result of the Gospel (146)
A fourth motivation for giving is the gospel itself. One’s view of ownership changes.

God knows that we can become enamored with the things of this world (146). A person’s finances, abilities and time all compete with God for worship (147). People cannot love both God and money because God cannot share His glory.

Matt 6:21 For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.

Jesus makes an explicit connection between our love for God, our hearts and our possessions. When the gospel of grace takes root, one’s view of eternity changes (147).

Giving Results in Reward (148)
A fifth motivation for giving is reward. Heavenly rewards will consist of differing levels of responsibility in eternity. The question remains as to whether these rewards are material or spiritual in nature (148).

2 Cor 9:6 But this I say, He which soweth sparingly shall reap also sparingly; and he which soweth bountifully shall reap also bountifully.

1 Tim 6:18 That they do good, that they be rich in good works, ready to distribute, willing to communicate;
1 Tim 6:19 Laying up in store for themselves a good foundation against the time to come, that they may lay hold on eternal life.

GOSPEL: Rewards are primarily future and spiritual. Christians ought to give to God out of a loving heart knowing that He will reward as He sees fit.

PROSPERITY GOSPEL: emphasizes rewards as if they are the only motivation for giving. It views rewards primarily as material in nature. This false gospel turns God’s grace into a law which He must obey.

How Much Should Christians Give (149)
Nov 23, 2007, Wall Street Journal, The Backlash Against Tithing.
Mar 2, 2008, CBS News Sunday Morning, To Tithe or Not to Tithe (149-150). Without a doubt the discussion about tithing among evangelicals is becoming more prominent. All agree that generous giving is a biblical mandate.

Page 184, footnote 5. For example see David A Croteau, A Biblical and Theological Analysis of Tithing, 2005 … and Russell Earl Kelly, Should the Church Teach Tithing, A Theologian’s Conclusions about a Taboo Doctrine (2001) 2007. Kelly’s book is a revised version of his dissertation.

Givng Before the Mosaic Law

Gen 14:17-20. Abram tithed off other people’s goods, not his own income. The act of giving appears to be a single occurrence. No evidence in the biblical narrative suggests that God commanded this tithe or that Abraham regularly tithed off his own income.

Gen 28:20-22. Jacob apparently doubted God’s promise and told God that if He would grant him safety, provide food and clothing and bring him back to his father’s house in peace, then he promised God a tenth of his increase (150). When he returned safely two decades later, there is no mention of him tithing (151). As with Abraham, it is difficult to develop a clear on tithing from Jacob.

Giving Under the Mosaic Law

Most O.T. passages that mention giving focus on calling God’s people back to the standard of giving (i.e. tithing) prescribed in the Law.

Malachi 3:8-10. While it may be tempting to use this passage to insist that contemporary believers give 10 per cent, one must keep in mind the context. Malachi is an O.T. prophet confronting the nation of Israel for its violation of the Mosaic Law. A valid principle from the text is that one’s giving can be used to measure one’s love and devotion to God (151-152).

Giving in the New Testament.

Somewhat surprisingly, the New Testament does not appear to prescribe a formal method or amount of giving for Christians.

Matthew 23:23; Luke 11:42. This provides little help for a discussion of tithing because the Pharisees were not Christians, but Jews under the Mosaic Law (152).

Luke 18:9-14. The reference to tithing in this passage is largely incidental and is also applied to a Jewish Pharisee living under the Mosaic Law (153).

Hebrews 7:1-10. The main point of this passage is not to teach about tithing.

The New Testament, then, is fairly silent regarding tithing. The New Testament does provide several principles of giving that most evangelicals embrace despite differing views of tithing – principles that ought to encourage many to give more than ten per cent (153).

Principles for Giving: (154)
1 Cor 16:2.

(1) periodic – weekly
(2) personal -- everybody
(3) planned – put aside; store up
(4) proportionate – according to means
(5) plentiful – no collection when I come (154-155).

To Whom Should Christians Give.

Scripture does not specifically direct believers where they should give (155).

(1) Local church (Gal 6:6)
An elder or pastor can reasonably expect support from the church where he serves. An elder does not have to draw support, however, as he may minister in a bivocational manner and receive little or no support from the church (Acts 18:1-3; 20:33-35; 1 Cor 9:6, 12, 15-19; Phil 4:14-16.

(2) Other Christian organizations (156).

(3) Give to charity; those in need (157).

Give to ministries that exalt Christ and exhibit transparency in their financial dealings. Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability; also Wall Watchers – Ministry Watch.

A Christian organization that refuses to disclose its financial statements and fails to follow normal accounting practices gives a clear warning sign (157).

CONCLUSION: 159-165
How to witness about the prosperity gospel.

1. Why does God exist and what does He control in the world?

GOSPEL: We exist in order to serve and worship and glorify God (159).

PROSPERITY GOSPEL: When you start thinking that God exists to serve you and grant your desires, you usurp his place (160).

2. What is the purpose of suffering and how do I react when I suffer?

GOSPEL: Does your opinion of God change when you suffer? The Bible depicts God as Sovereign and All-Knowing. Suffering is an instrument to make you more like Christ and that God is working all things in your life according to His purposes.

PROSPERITY GOSPEL: God is dependent on people to act. You are in control of your own destiny; thus suffering is an indication of your failure to utilize divinely designed means of blessing.

3. What do I deserve in life?

GOSPEL: If we have food and clothing we should be content (1 Tim 6:8) – anything beyond this is pure grace. Eternal condemnation would be a just reward for sinners.

PROSPERITY GOSPEL: You are entitled to a good life with good health, beneficial relationships, an abundance of resources and overall success.

4. Why did God save me?

GOSPEL: God saved you on account of his great love for you (160). God saved you so that you might glorify him forever and so that he might display his grace for all eternity (Eph 2:4-10) (170-161). We were rescued to glorify God and do good works.

PROSPERITY GOSPEL: Did God save you so you could be famous and wealthy? Did God save you so you can fulfill all your dreams? People are encouraged to think too highly of themselves (161).

5. Why do I give to God?

GOSPEL: Give out of a cheerful heart. Give to please God. Give out of love.

PROSPERITY GOSPEL: Expect God to pay you back. Give to see if God will come through for you. give out of guilt and obligation.

Incorrect reasons for giving sets one up for failure and short-circuits the true motivation for giving – grace (161).

Rebutttal of Jack Heyford on Tithing

2011-02-22T01:26:00.001-08:00

Rebuttal of Jack Heyford on Tithing by Russell Earl Kelly
February 22, 2011

[Reply and dialog will be welcome.]

http://www.livingway.org/articles/tithing.htm

Heyford: The Tithe..."We should be preaching and teaching on tithing, but we must first understand what Jesus said about it."

Kelly: We should only teach what the New Covenant after Calvary teaches about tithing. Christians have always only been under the New Covenant.

Heyford: LIAR: fear of assertively preaching the promise and blessing of tithing; LIAR: doubt regarding its applicability to the New Testament believer.

Kelly: Fear and doubt are only LIARS if the doctrine is a sound post-Calvary New Covenant doctrine for the Church.

Heyford: Yes, it's a covenant!

Kelly: Typical of Heyford and other Word-of-Faith teachers, he never explains what he means by saying that tithing is a covenant. In fact, the tithing statute of Numbers 18 is clearly part of a covenant – the Old Covenant which God only commanded national Israel under Moses (Ex 19:5-6).

Heyford: God's Word clearly reveals tithing as a God-ordered financial discipline, with wonderful promises attached and underwritten with a covenant of promise by Father God Himself.

Kelly: Tithing was always only a financial commandment for O.T. Hebrews who lived inside God’s holy land of Israel. True holy biblical tithes were always only food from God’s holy land which he had miraculously increased. Tithes could not come from what man increased, from Gentiles or from outside Israel. Period. Jesus, Peter and Paul did not qualify as tithe-payers and nobody qualifies today.

Heyford: In Malachi 3: 8-12, the prophet makes bold in the name of the Lord, saying in no uncertain terms that to not tithe is to play the role of a thief stealing from God!

Kelly: In Malachi 1:6 and 2:1 the prophet said in no uncertain terms that he was speaking to the dishonest priests of Old Covenant Israel. The prophet correctly limited the tithe to food per Leviticus 27:30-34. The people knew that the whole law was a test: obey all to be blessed; disobey one to be cursed. A Hebrew could not be blessed for tithing while, at the same time, breaking other parts of the law.

Heyford: Looking at the elements of the covenant, God's target in the tithe unfolds.

Kelly: In Nehemiah 10:29 Malachi’s audience entered into a COVENANT-curse and made vows to obey the entire Old Covenant, the Law of Moses, or else bring a curse upon themselves. That is the context.

Heyford: God intends the tithe to be an overflowing with grace, tenderness and a benevolence that calls every Bible believer to embrace the habit of tithing—and to add offerings as well.

Kelly: Heyford gives no Bible texts to validate this statement. The Old Covenant Law, including tithing, was a barrier to exclude Gentiles who were not permitted to bring tithes to the Levites.

Heyford: Some say: "Tithing's only in the Old Testament!"

Kelly: There is not a single post-Calvary text where God commands the Church to tithe – and Heyford gives no text.

Heyford: This idea mistakenly verbalizes the biblically unexegetable notion that tithing is "only required by the law" and is therefore not incumbent upon New Testament believers.

Kelly: Tithe-teachers will not debate and present their sound and consistent hermeneutics (principles of interpretation). They boldly make statements but will not defend them in an honest extended dialog.

Heyford: Of course a half-truth (the problem with most errors) is that tithing isn't incumbent upon us—not for our salvation or for our hope of heaven's fullness and eternal riches!

Kelly: What is the “half-truth” here? Heyford does not explain his statement. Is it “half-true” that tithing is not essential for salvation? Is it “half-true” that tithing is not required for our hope of heaven’s fullness and eternal riches”? What half of these statements are true?

Heyford: However, the practical promises within God's proffered covenant of the tithe cannot be expected apart from the faith and the will to participate in the terms of the covenant.

Kelly: Again, I ask “What covenant?” According to Deut 27:26 and Gal 3:10 the “terms” of the Old Covenant were “obey all to be blessed; break one to be cursed.” According to Numbers 18, the “terms” for tithe-recipients is that (1) they must be from the tribe of Levi, (2) cannot own or inherit property in Israel and (3) must kill anybody attempting to enter the sanctuary. Why are these covenant terms of the tithing statute not still applied to tithe-recipients?

Heyford: My pastoral call to "tithes and offerings" is not a revocation of the believer's liberty—"into law and out of grace."

Kelly: it certainly is. It places New Covenant believers under the “annulled” Old Covenant for financial blessings (Heb 7:5, 12, 18). It creates the condition Paul called “witchcraft” by adding law back to grace and adds Paul’s personal curse to believers for failing to believe the gospel he preached (Gal 3:1; 1:7-8).

Heyford: Nor is it any more a regression to legalism than it is a veiled effort at helping fund the church's programs.

Kelly: You have no precedent. (1) O.T. tithes could only support O.T. Levites and priests; today all believers are N.T. priests. (2) O.T. tithes could not be used for Temple expenses and (3) O.T. tithes were never used for mission projects; there is no biblical precedent to use tithes for missionaries.

Heyford: I issue this biblical call because I want a congregation that is burst from the bonds of fear, and into the abundance of God's grace-filled promises of economic adequacy and spiritual liberty.

Kelly: The blessings and curses of tithing are not “grace filled”; they are cold hard law and the word “grace” does not occur in tithing texts. Threatening poor believers who cannot pay for medicine, food and shelter with an Old Covenant CURSE places bonds of fear on them. For Paul in his prison cell, “economic adequacy” was the bare minimum to survive.

Heyford: Yes, it's in the New Covenant!

Kelly: Read on. Heyford does not know the difference between what man calls the New Testament and the New Covanant.

Heyford: Not only is the truth of the tithe in both testaments, but the New Testament approaches tithing as being timeless and as always being offered by grace, not law!

Kelly: Texts please.

Heyford: Never make the mistake of failing to remember that all God's blessings and covenants are always a gift of His grace, always initiated in His love and always sustained by His mercy.

Kelly: Never make the mistake of failing to remember that not all God’s covenants were for the Gentiles and the Church. The entire Old Covenant with tithing was only for national Israel (Ex 19:5-6) and had a beginning and an end (Gal 3:19).

Heyford: Jesus Himself addressed the issue of tithing.

Kelly: It is grossly dishonest to say that Jesus taught tithing for the Gentiles or Church from Matthew 23:23. Jesus was born, lived and died while the Law was still in full force (Gal 4:4). He did not receive tithes because it was illegal and sin. He could not teach His Jewish or Gentile disciples to tithe to him because it would have been sin to do so. He could not even teach His Gentile disciples to tithe to the Temple system because they would not have been accepted.

Heyford: Both Matthew and Luke record an occasion when, confronting that tough breed of religionists—the Pharisees—He strikes out at their habit of ritually attending to the letter of Old Testament law, yet entirely avoiding its deep, honor-with-your-heart spiritual demands.

Kelly: Correct. The context was the Old Covenant Law and not a command for the New Covenant Church. Since the Pharisees “sat in Moses seat” Jesus even approved of their minor additions to the law of garden spices.

Heyford: "'Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith. These you ought to have done, without leaving the others undone'" (Matt. 23:23, NKJV; see also Luke 11:42).

Kelly: Jesus would never have said to the Church “You have neglected the weightier matters of the law.”

Heyford: Now look closely with me so we make no mistake about what is and what isn't said.

Kelly: Yes. Please do so very carefully.

Heyford: People deserve to be shown that the "woe" Jesus announces on the religious fakery of these hypocrites was not for their tithing, but for their neglect of faith's "weightier matters."

Kelly: Wow! Did you catch that dancing trick pitch? Immediately after saying “Now look closely with me so we make no mistake about what is and what isn't said” – Heyford CHANGES “law” in Matthew 23:23 to “faith”!!! He places “law” into his magician’s hat and pulls out “faith.”

Heyford: In pressing His point, He doesn't condemn their fidelity in tithing (indeed, they were even weighing out the tithe of the tiniest of spices—mint and cummin!)

Kelly: First, as mentioned previously, Jesus was not in a position to condemn their fidelity to tithing because the law was still in full force (Gal 4:4) and such would have been SIN. Second, do you, Mr. Heyford, obey Jesus command here and collect tithes of garden spices? Is there not hypocrisy in your obedience to Jesus’ command here?

Heyford: Here's God's chance to clear the decks. If tithing was unimportant to the Savior—now to become meaningless under the new order—He could have said, "Take care of justice and mercy, and quit bothering with tithing—mint, cummin or anything else!"

Kelly: No. No. No. Here was NOT “God’s chance to clear the decks” because this event occurred before Calvary. Jesus never told anybody to stop obeying any part of the Law with its over 600 commands.

Heyford: But rather, our Savior, whose habit is to say, "You have heard it said, but I say unto you," does nothing to dismiss the concept of tithing. Instead He reinforces it, saying, "These you ought to have done" (a clear reference to their tithing) "and not to leave the others undone" (referencing their shallow attitudes and manifest heartlessness regarding justice and mercy).

Kelly: First, if Jesus had taught the people to stop tithing before Calvary, the Levites, priests and high priests would have accused and arrested him for that charge – and they did not! Second, under the tithing law, only food producers living inside Israel qualified; under grace all believers everywhere can give sacrificially in following Jesus’ example. The Holy Spirit has replaced tithing with better principles.

Heyford: Also note how, as Jesus touches on tithing, He employs the word ought—a powerfully significant word usage of "the moral imperative," thereby acknowledging tithing as "something that ought to be." With His "ought," Jesus is essentially declaring the practice of tithing as a precept that "should not to be violated," making tithing a practice transcending the Old or New covenants, and as instead being a part of God's intended natural order for humankind.

Kelly: Texts please. Jack Heyford does not have the authority to simply declare something moral. Something is not automatically moral just because is it very old and very common. All pagan societies surrounding Canaan in Abram’s day practiced tithing alongside idolatry, worship of the heavens, child sacrifice and temple prostitution. The natural order of nature and conscience tells us to “give” but not “how much.”

Heyford: Actually, the Savior's authorization of the practice "ought" to be enough for anyone, and for that reason I want to abbreviate from here (though I've elaborated more fully in my book The Key to Everything).

Kelly: All my material is free and online. Please do the same and enter into extended dialog with me on this subject for the good of the Body of Christ.

Heyford: But let me leave you with these brief notes regarding Abraham, whose model is given in the New Testament as a key to living in vital faith.

Kelly: Only that which the Holy Spirit uses as Abraham’s faith for the Church should be listed and we are nowhere told WHY Abram tithed. The evidence from Genesis 14:21 suggests the influence of the pagan law of the land at work with the 90% (and so also the 10%). Abraham did many things of which he is NOT a model for Christians. If Abraham’s tithing were a “model,” then why is not also his giving the 90% to the king of Sodom a “model”?

Heyford: A trail of verses develop irrefutable evidence that "tithing is for New Testament believers too." Beginning with Romans 4:12, which calls us to walk "in the steps of the faith which our father Abraham" walked,

Kelly: Again, this means “only his steps of faith.” Not all Abraham’s steps were influenced by faith.

Heyford: we trace to Hebrews 11:1, when that path is described as one living in a faith that: sees the invisible; lives in covenant promises (Heb. 11:13); practices a pattern of worship that includes tithing (Gen. 14:20).

Kelly: Abram tithed pagan spoils of war in Genesis 14 while he was yet an uncircumcised Gentile. We are not told that Abram tithed as an act of worship or in obedience to God. His model was to keep nothing and return the 90% to the king of Sodom. And his tithes would have been rejected as un-holy under the law and un-fit to support Levites.

Heyford: There's more, but for now, allow me to rest the case. Tithing may have begun in the Old Testament, but its spirit, truth and practice proceed unto today. God's Word underscores it as ours to believe, to rejoice in, to worship with and to be rewarded by!

Kelly: When you become a Hebrew under the Old Covenant and have a Levitical priesthood to support because it cannot own land inside Israel, then you can tithe food miraculously increased by God from His holy land of Israel.

Heyford: So, let me urge any fellow shepherd who might be intimidated by any traditionalist who denies the biblical basis of this blessed privilege of choosing faith's practices in our finances:

Kelly: Traditionalist? The Encyclopedia Brittanica and most History of the Christian Church seminary textbooks chronicle that tithing did not become a law in the Catholic Church for over 700 years after Calvary. The only churches in the USA which taught tithing prior to the 1870s were state churches. Tithing did not become widespread in the USA until after the 1890s.

One final magic hat trick of changing “law” into “faith.” I am waiting for you to sell your property and live as a tithe-recipient at the feasts along with the widows, fatherless and poor.

Heyford: The harvest season surrounds us right now, and I'm reminded again of God's laws of sowing and reaping. And I can't imagine bowing to any system that argues against sowing on His terms.

Kelly: Read about the harvest seasons and festivals in God’s Word. The tithe fed the poor which always included the poor Levites.

Heyford: "Brethren, having boldness to enter the Holiest by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way, which He consecrated for us..." Hebrews 10:19-20

Kelly: Hebrews 10:19-20 describes all believers as high priests entering the Presence of God. Old Covenant priests did not tithe to themselves or to anybody else; instead they brought freewill vow offerings per Malachi 1:6-14 and Numbers 18:25-28.

Russell Earl Kelly, PHD
www.tithing-russkelly.com

Prosperity Gospel (Part 2)

2011-02-21T10:20:00.000-08:00

PROSPERITY GOSPEL (PART TWO)

Russell Kelly’s Review and Outline with Additional Thoughts of the Excellent book:

Health, Wealth and Happiness
David W Jones and Russell S Woodbridge, 2011

THEOLOGY OF THE PROSPERITY GOSPEL (81-103)

THE BIBLICAL GOSPEL
1 Cor 15:1-4; Rom 3:21-26; 2 Cor 5:11-21.
First, God is holy and perfectly righteous (Rom 3:21-26). In His mercy and grace God chose to save rebellious sinful people (Rom 3:25) (p82).
Second, every person has sinned against a holy God and deserves hell (Rom 3:23). No one can meet God’s standard of perfection. No one is good enough to merit God’s grace and everyone is under God’s wrath against sin as well as His judgment.
Third, the triune God sent Jesus to earth to accomplish redemption (Rom 3:24-25). Jesus, being both full God and fully man, lived a sinless perfect life in obedience to His Father. He lived a life that we could not.
Fourth, Jesus died willingly on the cross in the place of sinners. In this loving act He became sin for us (2 Cor 5:21). Jesus satisfied the wrath of God against sin --- the wrath and judgment that people deserved (Rom 3:25). Jesus is our Substitute and, with his death on the cross, He took the punishment for our sins.
Fifth, God was reconciling humanity to Himself (2 Cor 5:18). The debt of sin was cancelled and trespasses are not counted against those who believe. “We have redemption, the forgiveness of sins” (Col 1:14).
Sixth, God raised Jesus from the dead for our justification (Rom 4:25). Through the resurrection, then, God approved of Jesus’ sacrifice and thereby ensured salvation for all who believe (82-83).

Mark 8:34-35 Whosoever will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.

If rightly understood salvation costs people everything (84).

Christians need to hear the gospel all of their lives because it is the gospel that continues to remind us that our day-to-day acceptance with the Father is not based on what we do for God but on what Christ did for us in His sinless life and sin-bearing death (85). If Jesus is left out of the gospel, if the cross is left out, if God’s judgment against sin is left out, if humanity’s sin is left out – there is not gospel (86).

ERROR: When Bryon Pitts reminded Joel Osteen that his statement about the gospel did not mention God or Jesus, Osteen replied “That’s just my message.” The prosperity gospel says “I try my best for the purpose of getting things from God.” The prosperity gospel teaches believers to depend on their own works, thoughts and efforts in order to succeed in life (86).

FAITH:
Orthodox Christianity understands “faith” to be “trust in the person of Jesus Christ, the truth of His teaching and the redemptive work he accomplished at Calvary.

Kenneth Copeland writes that “faith is a spiritual force, a spiritual energy, a spiritual power. It is this force of faith which makes the laws of the spirit world function.” According to prosperity theology, faith is not a God-centered act of the will stemming from God; rather it is man-centered spiritual force directed at God (87).

In Matthew 8:8-10 faith is in the Messiah to heal (88). In Matthew 9:22 faith is in God to accomplish the impossible. In Mark 9:23 it is faith in Christ’s ability to heal. Contrary to the prosperity gospel, the Bible does not teach believers to have faith in words of their own powers. Having faith in self or faith in faith is opposed to having faith in God (88).

Faith is not a magic formula that works by itself apart from faith in God (89). While Job suffered greatly and lost everything he had, including his health, he did not lose his faith in God; prosperity preachers would frown on Job today as one who had no faith (89).

THE ATONEMENT
The prosperity gospel claims that both physical healing and financial prosperity have been provided by the atonement (89).

2 Cor 8:9 For ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that, though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, that ye through his poverty might be rich.

2 Cor 8: 14 But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality:

Prosperity preachers misuse 2 Cor 8:9. In context of verses 10-14 Paul is teaching that Christians should share whatever they are rich in: Corinthians were rich in money and Judeans were rich in faith (90).

Misapplying Isaiah 53:5, Joyce Meyer says “By his stripes I was healed. Healing belongs to me.” Yet, if physical healing is promised in the atonement, then all believers should be healed when they exercise faith. Acceding to prosperity teachers, the cure for healing is to have a positive outlook – thinking and saying the right words (90).

If healing does not occur (they teach), the problem is your lack of faith (91). In reality, the context of Isaiah 53:4-5 is spiritual in nature – the remission of sins. This is repeated in 1 Pet 2:24. We are also reminded in 2 Corinthians 12 that God refused to answer Paul’s repeated requests for physical healing (91).

Sickness itself is not necessarily the result of one’s personal sin (91). This is clear in Job’s suffering and also in John 9:1-7 where Jesus’ disciples thought that the blind man was blind because of his own sin or that of his parents (92). For prosperity preachers the cross becomes little more than a means to an end: Jesus died for your sins so that you can be prosperous and healthy. This contrasts with Jesus’ message that believers must take up their cross daily and die to sin (92).

THE ABRAHAMIC COVENANT
While the proper interpretation of the Abrahamic covenant makes Christians heirs to the blessings of faith, prosperity preachers say it was for God to bless Abraham materially and to make him successful (93).

Paula White says “God’s Word is full of covenants for our lives.” She errs in assuming that all Bible covenants are for all nations.

Kenneth Copeland says that, because of the Abrahamic Covenant, prosperity belongs to you now. He errs by ignoring Hebrews 11 where most of what God promised Abraham was not fulfilled in his lifetime and Abraham died a nomad outside the promised land of Canaan (93).

Creflo Dollar says that God must prosper Christians materially because of the Abrahamic covenant. He ignore the fact that the Old Covenant prophets and
Jesus and His disciples were not prospered materially. Paul and his band of preachers were not prospered materially and the saints in Judea who needed multiple missions of famine relief were not prospered financially (94).

Gal 3:14 That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ --- that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

Prosperity preachers quote the first half of Galatians 3:14 to prove that material blessings are promised to believers. Yet they ignore the second half of the text which discusses spiritual promises (94).

The Abrahamic Covenant was unconditional on God’s part. In Genesis 15 only God walked through the cut pieces of the covenant ceremony. Abraham’s disobedience could not annul it. We are saved by grace through faith and, having been saved, we become heirs of the Abrahamic Covenant. Yet prosperity preachers teach that believers receive the Abrahamic Covenant via the conduit of continuing faith. However, if unconditional, then all Christians should (according to their view) already be wealthy regardless of whether or not they practice prosperity theology (94). A divine covenant is not performance-based (95).

THE MIND (95)
The prosperity preachers encourage believers to make positive verbal and mental confessions concerning what they desire. Yet if personal flourishing consumes one’s thoughts, such desires have become idolatrous.

In contrast, Paul counseled believers to dwell on things which are “true, honorable, just, pure, lovely and commendable” (Phil 4:8). Whatever is worthy of worship, or upholds the righteous standard of a holy God, demands the attention of God’s people. A mind filled with God’s Word will desire the things of God.

Col 3:2 Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth (95).

1 John 2:15 Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him.
1 John 2:16 For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world. (96)

The prosperity gospel encourages believers to focus on themselves (96).

Prov 18:20 A man's belly shall be satisfied with the fruit of his mouth; and with the increase of his lips shall he be filled.
Prov 18:21 Death and life are in the power of the tongue: and they that love it shall eat the fruit thereof.

Prosperity preachers quote Proverb 18:21 to prove the power of words. Yet some see the context as a warning against being too much in love with your own words – somebody who, like Herod in Acts 12:22, likes to hear himself speak and glorifies himself to his own destruction (96).

PRAYER
James 4:2 Ye lust, and have not: ye kill, and desire to have, and cannot obtain: ye fight and war, yet ye have not, because ye ask not.
James 4:3 Ye ask, and receive not, because ye ask amiss, that ye may consume it upon your lusts. (96-97)

Prosperity preachers like to quote the second half of James 4:2, “you have not because you ask not” and ignore the context of verses 2 and 3 (97).

Creflo Dollar says ”when we pray believing, God has no choice but to make our prayers come to pass.” His view of prayer seems self-centered. Teaching such claims we can demand things of God is spiritual justification for self-indulgence. It ignore the chief ingredient of every prayer that God’s will may be done. In reality, prayer is a means of fellowship with God and an act of worship (97).

Prayer focuses on God and His glory (98). Jesus taught: (1) Holy be your name, (2) Your kingdom come, (3) your will be done and (4) give us our DAILY bread – not great riches.

1 Tim 6:7 For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out.
1 Tim 6:8 And having food and raiment let us be therewith content. (98)

THE BIBLE
Prosperity preachers often use highly subjective and arbitrary methods of interpreting the Bible (99). They often ignore context.

3 John 2 Beloved, I wish above all things that thou mayest prosper and be in health, even as thy soul prospereth.

This, we are told, means that God wants all believers to prosper “in all things.” Oral Roberts claimed that this text was given to him as a miraculous revelation. And Kenneth Copeland also misinterprets this as a universal promise (99).

First, John was not teaching doctrine; rather he was merely opening his letter with a greeting (100).

Second, and much more important, the Greek word for “prosper,” eu-o-dos-thai, is from two words, eu meaning “good” and odos meaning “way, road, journey” as in John 14:6. Several versions read “that all may go well.” In First Corinthians 16:2 it means “to the extent life has been good to you” and in Romans 1:10 is simply means a “good safe journey” (100).

Third, “as thy soul prospers” indicates that the text means “may matters be good for your physical life just as they have been good for your spiritual life.”

GIVING
Prosperity preachers have an abnormal fixation on giving (100). Its encouragement to give is not built primarily on a desire to help others (101).

Mark 10:29 There is no man that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my sake, and the gospel's,
Mark 10:30 But he shall receive an hundredfold now in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions; and in the world to come eternal life.

Gloria Copeland and John Avanzini say that Mark 10:30 is a “very good deal.” Yet the context is speaking of the replacement of one’s own “house, relatives and lands” with those of the wide body of believers while being persecuted. It is completely absurd to teach that God literally wants us to have 100 houses, parents, children and pieces of property. Yet, because of the Body of Christ, the homes and possessions of fellow believers are shared with us. See also Mark 3:34-35 (101).

Luke 6:35 But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest …” (102).

The “give-to-get” “seed of faith” theology does much to enrich the prosperity preachers. “Whereas Jesus taught His disciples to “lend, expecting nothing in return,” prosperity teachers teach their disciples to give because they will get a great return (102).

CHAPTER 4: P107-122
SUFFERING

Pain and suffering are common among biblical characters (108).

Abraham suffered marital strife between his wives. He suffered political strife with Pharaoh. He suffered the fate of his firstborn son, Ishmael, having to leave his presence and being called by God “a donkey of a man.” Except for his wife’s grave site, Abraham never owned any of the land he had been promised (108).

Jacob suffered from bad relations with Laban, squabbling wives, fear of his brother, bad eyesight and a dislocated hip. And Jacob died as a nomad in a foreign land.

Joseph was betrayed by his own brothers and separated from his father. And he spent years in prison for a crime he did not commit (108).

Job lost everything he had after God allowed Satan to torture him. He suffered terrible misery from both his best friends and bodily affliction (109).

David suffered betrayal by his son and banishment as king by his own people. He was not allowed to build his dream project – the Temple.

Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel and most other Old Testament saints suffered great affliction as leaders for God’s cause.

Jesus Christ, God’s most beloved God-Man, suffered more than can be imagined or described.

James and Stephen suffered martyrdom, plus countless others.

Paul, God’s most successful evangelist, suffered from beatings, prison, ship-wreck, snake-bite, sleeplessness, hunger, thirst, poor eyesight and poor speech. See 2 Cor 11:12. Yet God refused to end his physical suffering with divine healing.

Phil 1:29 For unto you it is given in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for his sake.

2 Tim 3:12 Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution.

1 Peter 2:21 For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps.

1 Peter 4:19 Wherefore let them that suffer according to the will of God commit the keeping of their souls to him in well doing, as unto a faithful Creator. (p109)

Christ is not a means to escape a life of suffering; instead faith is often a reason for personal suffering (110). Considering the subject theologically, one can conclude that pain and suffering are a normal part of the Christian life. Since “Christ-likeness” is the goal of a Christian life, Christians can expect suffering.

John 15:18 If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you.
John 15:19 If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.
John 15:20 Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have kept my saying, they will keep yours also.

Luke 9:23 And he said to them all, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me.

Matt 20:16 So the last shall be first, and the first last: for many be called, but few chosen (110).

CAUSES OF SUFFERING (110)

NATURAL EVIL (111)
Both the greatest saint and worst sinner are born to die physically and such usually involves degeneration and suffering. For the vast majority of mankind, natural disasters such as earthquakes, famines, plagues, tornadoes, floods and droughts affect both righteous and wicked in the suffering they cause.

It is the error of Job’s friends and Jesus’ disciples in John 9:1-7 which concludes that suffering is the direct of result of one’s personal sins (111).

As soon as sin entered in Genesis 3 all mankind (good and bad) suffered. All men were destined to toil and sweat and all mothers were destined to suffer in childbirth (112).

Jesus Himself pointed out that, just because a particular tower fell and killed people, does not mean that those victims were any worse than anybody else (Lk 13:4-5) (113).

The purpose of personal suffering is ultimately to foster one’s personal relationship with the Lord. Referring to Genesis 3, Paul wrote that hope would result (Rom 8:20). Natural evil is a curse brought upon the whole world because of moral evil. It can both punish the wicked and discipline the righteous. It also reminds us that sin and redemption are cosmic in scope (113).

MORAL EVIL
Suffering from moral evil is always personal and begins in the heart of man. The worst kind of moral evil is willfully disobeying God’s revealed will (113). There is an inherent connection between moral evil and human suffering (114).

Gal 6:7 Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.
Gal 6:8 For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting (114).

AN OVERVIEW OF SUFFERING

EVERYBODY IS A SINNER.
When sin entered the world it affected all mankind. As the ruler of planet Earth, Adam’s sin brought a judicial curse on all mankind; all men suffer from natural law and from the sins of others. More to the point of this book, as soon as man reaches the point of knowing right from wrong he sins and also suffers from his own personal sins (Rom 5:16) (116).

People are not essentially good and suffering is not essentially unjust.

Isa 64:6 But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.

Rom 3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
Rom 3:11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.
Rom 3:12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

EVERYBODY POSSESSES FREE WILL.
We are not robots whom God has preprogrammed to obey Him. He gave all of us free will that we might choose to love him. However, along with that free will comes the inevitable time when we will freely choose to disobey and deserve the punishment of our Creator (116).

2 Cor 5:19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.
…..
2 Cor 5:21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

The voluntary substitute death of Jesus Christ with its unimaginable suffering was for our sins (117).

THERE IS VALUE IN SUFFERING

Rom 8:28 And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.

Paul should know. He suffered often and severely over 30 years and saw thousands converted and many assemblies of believers established. While leading prison guards to the Lord, he could say from bondage …

Phil 4:11 Not that I speak in respect of want: for I have learned, in whatsoever state I am, therewith to be content (117).

Paul did not believe that all Christians should be wealthy and healthy.

THERE IS VALUE IN SUFFERING

Rom 8:28 And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.

Even suffering can be used to bring glory to God. God has the ability to use suffering for good (117).

First, suffering can be a warning sign of approaching danger; minor pain can warn of more serious conditions (118).

Second, suffering can warn that it is time to repent (Heb 12:11).

Third, pain can encourage some to find better relationships. Misery loves company. Trials can result in the comfort and ministry to others (2 Cor 1:6-7).

Fourth, nonbelievers can react positively when they see believers act in an appropriate way (118).

Fifth, the greatest benefit of suffering is the sanctification it fosters by forcing people to rely upon God (119).

2 Cor 12:9 And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me.

Prov 30:8 Remove far from me vanity and lies: give me neither poverty nor riches; feed me with food convenient for me:
Prov 30:9 Lest I be full, and deny thee, and say, Who is the LORD? or lest I be poor, and steal, and take the name of my God in vain (119-122).

Tithing Dialog: Feb 20, 2011

2011-02-20T18:56:00.001-08:00

Pastor: The “you” in Malachi 3:10 is referring to the people of Israel (note Malachi 3:6, “O children/descendants of Jacob”

Kelly: “O children of Kelly” can refer to 2 of my children, 2 Kelly children or all of my Kelly relatives. The biblical phrase can also be used to address part of the whole: Judah was but one of 12 tribes of the nation Israel. The priests of Judah were also “children of Jacob.” Your logic does not prove that God was addressing either all 12 tribes of Israel or even all of Judah.

Pastor: – this is a term that is used in Scripture to refer to the nation/people of Israel; 1 Chronicles 16:13, Psalm 77:15, 105:6, Jeremiah 2:4;

Kelly: Your texts prove my point and disprove your argument. The phrase “sons of Jacob” could refer to any 2 Hebrews, any 2 Judeans or any 2 priests – or more.

Pastor: … also note “the whole NATION of you” in Malachi 3:9),

Kelly: The phrase “of you” is not found in the KJV but is in the NAS, RSV and most other translations because it completes the thought. The controlling word is “you” and, beginning at 1:6, the word “you” always refers to the priests. Please show me where this is not true.

Pastor: whereas the “you” in Malachi 2:1, 2 is clearly referring to the priests. Keep in mind that the book of Malachi is addressed to the people/nation/children of Israel (Jacob) whom the priests are a part of.

Kelly: Keep in mind that the specific addressee narrowed in 1:6 to the priests and was repeated in 2:1 to the priests. You cannot prove that the word “you” is ever changed away from the priests in Malachi.

Pastor: Actually, in the text that you reference [Neh 10:37-38], the Levites were responsible for bringing the tithes to the storehouse, not the priests.

Kelly: In other words you are saying that the priests were careful to count the tithe when the Levites received it but did not care to make sure that their whole share was brought to the Temple. Both Levites and priests rotated to the Temple for one-week periods of service every 24th week according to their courses. Common sense says that they traveled together and the Levites did the carrying.

Pastor: To this point I will just say that if you take the “you” in Malachi 3:10 as referring to the people of Israel (which I do), then the phrase “bring all the tithes into the storehouse” has the idea of “give all the tithes to the Levites so that they can bring them in the storehouse,” which to the Israelites was not something that need be said because it was obviously common knowledge to them who was responsible for that task.

Kelly: Nehemiah 10:38 only mentions the tenth of the tithe which was the priests’ share. Your argument fails because of three false assumptions.

First, you assume that the whole tithe went to the Temple storehouse. Actually, according to Neh 13:5 and 1 Kings 6:6, this was only two rooms combined into one approximately 10’ by 20’ storeroom and that size room could not possibly hold the tithes of the nation. From 2 Chron 31, Hezekiah’s Temple was still the one Solomon built and it had no storerooms for the whole tithe. Hezekiah correctly returned 98% of the tithe to the Levitical cites where 98% of those who needed it for food lived (2 Chron 31:15-19).

Second, your interpretation of “you” from Malachi 3:10 being the people is wrong. You have just admitted from Neh 10:37-38 that only the Levites were normally required to bring tithes to the Temple – and the people were commanded to bring their tithes to the Levitical cities.

Three, you assume that the whole tithe belonged in the Temple. This makes no sense whatsoever because only one family of Levities and priests served at the Temple most of the time. When 23 of 24 courses lived far away in cities like Hebron and Jericho, they did not travel to the Temple when they needed food. When you consider that 96% (23 of 24) plus wives and younger children (2%), then 98% who ate the tithe were not in Jerusalem. The typical interpretation of the whole tithe being stored in the Temple is absurd.

If “you bring the whole tithe into the Temple storehouse” only refers to priests who had removed it in Neh 13:5-10, then it makes sense.

Pastor: The question that must be asked is what does Paul mean by the “curse of the Law”?

Kelly: You need to define the way you use the word “law.” The formal Law from Exodus to Deuteronomy was only commanded to Old Covenant national Israel (Ex 19:4-6). You cannot produce a single text where God commanded the Gentiles (most of us) or the Church to live under the jurisdiction of the law. We never were “under” that Law. “The Law” includes the entire law of commandments, statutes and judgments.

Pastor: In its context, Paul’s point is that those who rely on the works of law for justification before God are cursed (see Galatians 3:10).

Kelly: Read all of Galatians. Paul is speaking of the whole law which was
“added” and that includes the statutes and judgments. Paul was countering Jewish Pharisee Christians (as in Acts 15) who were trying to force Gentile Christians to be circumcised, keep the Sabbath, stop eating unclean foods and tithe to the Temple system (compare Acts 21:20,21). I say “You see Galatians 3:10.” It is quoting Deut 27:26 which introduces the blessings and curses associated with the whole law!!!

Pastor: This does not nullify the fact that we are to keep God’s commandments and principles expressed in those commandments as a loving response to God for justifying us through the person and work of Jesus.

Kelly: “We” are NOT Hebrews and never were under that Law.

Which commandments? The Ten? Do you worship on Saturday at sunset? Do you allow your slaves to rest on the Sabbath? Do your children live long in the land of Israel?

Again, which commandments? Is the moral law found throughout the statutes and judgments? Is not tithing a statute in Numbers 18 and not a moral commandment? You need much clarity here.

Pastor: Is there a principle of honoring the Lord with our money in the Scriptures? Yes.

Kelly: We are New Covenant Christians responsible for obeying New Covenant principles found after Calvary for the Church. Tithing was a cold hard law to support a priesthood which sacrificed animals in a Temple. Today both the priesthood and Temple now dwell in every believer. The new giving principle is sacrificial giving following the example of Christ.

Pastor: Is there a principle of taking care of those who labor in the gospel? Yes (1 Timothy 5:17-18.

Kelly: Read 1 Timothy 1-16 before reading 17-18. The context is DISCIPLINE. When disciplining a pastor-elder believers are to use double-honor or double-caution because of his authority. The text is not speaking of a double salary. Paul boasted in 1 Cor 9:12-19 and Acts 20:29-35 that he was self-sufficient. Why would he now tell Timothy to receive a double salary?

Pastor: I also believe that this principle is given in the Old Testament when we see God telling the people to give in honor of Him and so that those who are responsible for maintaining the tabernacle/temple and are involved in the service of the tabernacle/temple can be taken care of;

Kelly: This kind of logic can be used to argue that the USA should still obey English Law which was declared null and void in 1776.

God did not tell all people to honor him with tithes. God only commanded food producers who lived inside Israel to support the Levites and priests because they could not own land. You have changed God’s definition of the biblical tithe. As the double-inheritance-to-firstborn went into effect, many left farm ownership and either worked for relatives or moved to the cities to learn trades. These did not tithe. Jesus, Peter and Paul did not qualify as tithe payers.

Pastor: Paul – although he didn’t make use of this right with the Corinthian church - indirectly states a principle, which he says the Lord commanded (vs. 14) - of taking care of those who are called to a full-time vocation in ministry in 1 Corinthians 9:3-14).

Kelly: Your statement is based on several false assumptions:

First, you depict Paul directly disobeying what you call a command from Jesus – that is called sin. If it were a command, Paul would have insisted on being supported by tithing.

Second, you assume that gospel workers are called to a full time ministry. That cannot be demonstrated from Scripture. Even Old Covenant priests spent most of their time (23 of 24 weeks) farming and herding tithed animals and working trades to be proficient in the Temple. Beginning at David, the kings used Levites as politicians: rulers, governors, treasurers per 1 Chron 23 to 26. The Bible is silent about full time workers and Paul personally opposed it.

Third, you refer to 1 Cor 9:3-14. You miss the principle: each vocation has its own rules. Soldiers receive spoils. Herders drink milk from the herd. Grape gatherers drink the wine from the grapes. Temple workers under the law receive from dozens of sources of support. And gospel workers live from gospel principles of grace and faith. 9:13 allows for all types of Temple sustenance and not merely tithes.

Pastor: Here is where I ultimately stand on this issue of tithing. First, it is a secondary issue and should not be seen as one that is foundational to Christianity …

Kelly: Many churches mention this “secondary issue” almost every week. It is foundational because it shows whether or not a church leader understands the gospel correctly and whether he wants to impose Old Covenant giving on the New Covenant church and ignore better New Covenant giving principles based on Christ’s example.

Pastor: … thus one that is not sufficient to determine fellowship status among believers.

Kelly: Churches use tithing to divide their congregation into qualified and unqualified castes and only select leaders from tithers. This is contrary to the qualifications for elders and deacons and it does not use all the gifts of the spirit when gifted-but-poor members cannot tithe.

Pastor: Second, whether one believes in tithing or grace-giving, the principle of honoring the Lord with our first is still something that we should adhere to.

Kelly: You are still at least subconsciously controlled by your incorrect definition of tithing. According to Leviticus 27:30-34, the tithe was neither the first nor the best. According to 1 Timothy 5:8 a Christian’s first income should buy essential medicine, food and shelter. It is sin for a church to expect the first of one’s income.

Pastor: Third, we as believers in America who have been privileged to have buildings, staff, etc., should be willing to give so that those things can continue and those who are responsible for stewarding it should do so in a way that is honoring to Jesus and is above reproach with people.

Kelly: Agreed.

Pastor: There is much more that I can say regarding this topic, but I hope this has been helpful for you.

Kelly: Don’t stop now. We need to exhaust this subject for the glory of God.

Church Buildings

2011-02-18T22:28:00.001-08:00

1. The Greek word translated “church” is ek-klee-si-a. It literally means (ek-out) plus a form of (kaleo – called) or “called out ones.”
2. As it appears in our Bible, the word “church” NEVER means “building.” It is always a group of believers – an assembly of believers.
3. Believers do not “go to church to worship.” Rather believers “assemble” to worship.
4. Christianity was an “illegal” or “outlaw” religion until after AD 300.
5. Early Christians met in secret in homes or caves or cemeteries where their martyrs were buried.
6. The first mention of a “church building” just before AD 250 while there was a slack in persecution and some were bold enough to have a building for worship. These were soon destroyed by mobs whenever there was a disaster in the Roman Empire such as a military defeat, plague, earthquake, etc. The pagans interpreted those as bad omens from the gods.
7. After AD 300 Christianity became one of many accepted legal religions. The Emperor Constantine used tax money to pay for many buildings called churches.
8. It is really unfortunate that the Greek word “ek-kleesia” is translated “church” instead of “assembly.”

Errors of the Prosperity Gospel, Part 1

2011-02-18T01:20:00.000-08:00

PROSPERITY GOSPEL (PART ONE)

Russell Kelly’s Review of

Health, Wealth and Happiness
David W Jones and Russell S Woodbridge, 2011

Note: This book is excellent in every way. I highly recommend it.

Why is the prosperity gospel so popular?
1. It contains a grain of truth.
2. Appeals to the natural human desire to be successful
3. It promises much and requires little.
4. Many of its advocates have polished presentations.
5. Many followers have little knowledge of the Bible doctrine.
6. Many have experienced success and healing and have attributed it to the prosperity gospel.
7. Many Christians lack discernment in this area (p18-19)
……….

NEW THOUGHT MOVEMENT (p27-49)

In 1895 a Boston group defined its doctrine as “to show that through right thinking one’s loftiest ideals may be brought into realization and to advance intelligent and systematic treatment of disease by spiritual and mental methods.” (p27).

Emanuel Swedenborg (1688-1772) was a clairvoyant who claimed to have spoken to Paul for over a year and with Martin Luther over 100 times. Yet, contrary to Luther, he rejected the Trinity, the deity of Christ and salvation by grace through faith alone. The human mind has the capacity to control the physical world. (P28-29).

Phineas Quimby (1802-66), the Father of New Thought, pioneered the idea of mental healing. The mind can create and influence others by thinking what one wanted to happen (p29). He believed that sickness follows disturbance of the mind (30). Mary Eddy Baker was one of his patients (31).

Ralph Waldo Trine (1866-1958) taught that Buddha was equally inspired with the Bible. Influenced Napoleon Hill (31-32).

Norman Vincent Peal (1898-1993) wrote The Power of Positive Thinking (1952). Chapters were Prayer the Most Powerful Form of Energy; How to Think Your Way to Success and Change Your Thoughts and You Change Everything. Peale merged secular ideas with biblical themes (3-34).
……….

TEACHINGS OF THE PROSPERITY GOSPEL: (50-80)

As an organized movement the prosperity gospel has only existed for about a hundred years (50).

E W Kenyon (1867-1948), Father of the Prosperity Gospel, was influenced by Unitarian-Universalists and Christian Science. He taught that speaking the right words would bring about a new reality and probably began the phrase “What I confess, I possess.” (51) Positive confession is the key to prosperous living and health. “The cross has no salvation in it. It is a place of failure and defeat.” “When Jesus died his spirit was taken by the Adversary and carried to the place where the sinner’s spirit goes when he dies.” ”The value of Christianity is what we get out of it.” In Kenyon’s system a relationship with God is a means for a person to get what he or she wants. God never planned that we should live in poverty – physical, mental or spiritual.” (52-53)

KENNETH E HAGIN: (1917-2003) (54): In the late 1940s Oral Roberts spread the word about faith healing and faith prosperity. Kenneth Hagin is the Father of the Word of Faith movement. At age 16 he reported dying, seeing Hell and being brought back to life 3 times while being converted. At age 17 he reported seeing Jesus 8 times in a few months. Typical of prosperity preachers, he relied on extrabiblical revelations (54). As an Assembly of God preacher, he claimed to be an anointed prophet. His message from Jesus was “Say it. Do it. Receive it. Tell it.” Critics have found many verbatim quotations plagiarized from Kenyon (55).

THE TEACHINGS OF THE PROSPERITY GOSPEL (55)

1. A Distorted View of God:
Many deny the Trinity: God is one in essence and three in person – coequal and coeternal. They teach the ancient heresy of MODALISM: God is One in Person and appears in different Modes; God is not simultaneously the Father, Son and Spirit. TD Jakes, a Oneness Pentecostal, teaches Modalism. In 1990 Benny Hinn proclaimed that each person of the Godhead was Triune (57). Creflo Dollar says that God is one person with 3 different roles.

Kenneth Copeland wrote “I was shocked when I found out who the biggest failure in the Bible actually is … The biggest One in the whole Bible is God … Now the reason you don’t think of God as a failure is He never said He’s a failure.” (58)

2. Elevation of Mind Over Matter (59)

Like New Thought, words –both thought and spoken—are a force and have creative power. Charles Capps wrote “Man speaks spirit words that work in the world of the spirit. … Man breathes spirit life into God’s Word and it becomes a living substance, working for him as it worked for God in the beginning. These spirit words dominate the natural world” (59).

Creflo Dollar said “As believers we have authority over the physical world.” Speaking the right words combined with faith in those words can produce amazing results (59). The believer’s task is to use the words in order to exercise spiritual laws for their own benefit. (60) If believers repeat the right words and believe, then God must bless.

Dollar says “God uses words to create what he wants to exist. Christians have the same ability. … When you want healing, say what the Bible says ‘By his stripes I am healed’” (60). These arguments are false because they fail to distinguish between in Infinite Omnipotent God and finite humans; if people had the same creative power of God they should be able to create new objects out of nothing (61).

Kenneth Copeland says that once you have prayed in faith … You can now rest assured that what you prayed will now come to pass. They seem to forget the conditional aspect of prayer – “Thy will be done.” Copeland thinks that it was God’s faith in His own words that created the world. In Copeland’s twisted theology even the God of the universe needs faith (61).

Joyce Meyer even provides lists of positive confessions. The positive confessions are simply positive thinking like that of the secular New Thought’s law of attraction: you attract what you think about (62).

Joel Osteen says you have to see your success in your mind because what you see in your mind is what you produce. Mind over matter (62).

3. AN EXALTED VIEW OF HUMANKIND (63)

Prosperity theology INVERTS the relationship between the Creator and the creature. Humans are at the center of the universe; God exists to meet their needs. The gospel is human-centered and egotistical. This ignores the biblical teaching that humans exist for the purpose of glorifying God. Eph 1:4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: 5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, 6 To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.

Joel Osteen says “I can expect preferential treatment. I can expect people to want to go out of their way to help me.” In other words, God exists to serve people and everybody exists to serve me. This contradicts Mark 10:45 “For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many” (63).

Paul Crouch and many others consider humans to be divine. He says “I am a little god. Critics be gone.” Kenneth Copeland says “You don’t have a God in you; you are one.” Yet the Bible never teaches that humans are divine (63). Humans are neither Omnipotent, Omniscient nor Omnipresent.

Ps 82:6 is quoted by prosperity gospel teachers to prove the men are gods. However 82:7 puts it into the context of evil judges claiming to be gods and above reproach. Creflo Dollar uses Ps 82:6 to distort truth (63-64).

T D Jakes says that humans were made from God’s DNA. However the Bible does not teach that humans were made out of God; it teaches that humans were made BY God. (Much more on page 64.)

4. FOCUS ON HEALTH AND WEALTDH (64)

Many teach that neither Jesus nor His disciples were poor. Robert Tilton even teaches that it is a sin to be poor. The driving force is not to help others, but to receive compensation in return. When Christians give generously, God gives more in return and there is an ever-increasing cycle of prosperity. Whereas Jesus teaches His disciples to “Lend, expecting nothing in return” (Luke 6:35), prosperity theologians teach their disciples to lend because they will get a great return. The prosperity message is in captivity to the American dream and many in impoverished nations easily fall prey to that vision. The prosperity preachers become wealthy while promising American-type wealth to their poor congregations who remain poor.

Many prosperity teachers make promises that are simply not true (65). They say “Give to the ministry; plant a financial seed and God will give you a return on that act of faith (66). For the most successful prosperity preachers, this formula works (67).

Kenneth Hagin says “I believe that it is the plan of God our Father that no believer ever be sick.” This fails to admit the temporal effects of the fall of humankind (67). It also fails to consider God’s approval of Job’s calamity and poor health.

Robert Bolden says it is your right to be healed and you only need to exercise faith (68). Joyce Meyer says “’I will’ is the strongest assertion that can be made in the English language” (68).

5. ERROR OF UNORTHODOX VIEW OF SALVATION (69)

While making seemingly orthodox statements about the plan of salvation, many seriously leave the truth (69).

Kenneth Copeland teaches that Jesus completely emptied Himself of His divinity while on earth and ceased to be God during his incarnation (70).

Creflo Dollar says “Jesus did not show up perfect; he grew up into his perfection” (70). In reality, though, only the God-Man can save from sin.

Kenneth Hagin limits Christ’s atonement to his spiritual death and not to his physical death.

Frederick K C Price also rejects Jesus’ physical death as payment for sin; “the punishment for sin was to go into Hell itself” (71). This contradicts 2 Cor 5:21.

From what did Jesus save people? The orthodox answer is “from sin.” Yet many prosperity preachers prefer that Jesus saves people from a non-prosperous life. They undermine the gospel with their teaching. They focus on humans and not on God. The prosperity gospel is little more than a secular-style self-help program for material success (70).

JOEL OSTEEN (PAGES 72-80)

Osteen is pastor of Lakewood Church in Houston, Texas with a weekly attendance of over 40,000 – the largest church in the USA (72).

Osteen often makes up his own hermeneutics when interpreting Scripture (73-74). He presents the death, burial, resurrection and ascension of Christ as a paradigm for overcoming challenges and obstacles in life instead of exalting Christ as the substitutionary sacrifice for sin (74).

Osteen also uses words as if the words themselves have magic powers. “There is a miracle in your mouth. If you want to change your world, start by changing your words. … with our words we can prophesy our own future’ (75). His belief in the power of words places people in control of their own destinies (75).

In explaining the steps to salvation, Osteen says “Lord Jesus, I repent of my sins. I ask you to come into my heart. I make You my Lord and Savior.” Osteen teaches that one is saved from the possibility of a difficult life rather than from one’s sinful condition (76). “When we believe in God’s Son, Jesus Christ, and believe in ourselves, that’s when faith comes alive. When we believe we have what it takes, we focus on our possibilities” (76). “When you’re in difficult times, it’s good to remind God what you’ve done” (76). Yet, contrary to Osteen’s teaching here, biblical faith involves rejecting a self-righteous standard and recognizing that only Christ has the power to save (76).

Contrary to Romans 3:23 and Isaiah 64:6, Osteen holds an optimistic view of the goodness of people and their abilities (77). Like Jakes, he thinks that humans are made from the substance of God and have God’s DNA. “It’s in your blood.” Pure positive thinking can defeat hereditary disease (77).

Although science has proven that acquired abilities are not passed on via hereditary, Osteen teaches that positive actions change DNA which is then passed on to future generations (78). This is a works-based righteousness that eliminates the need for God’s grace. In fact God never promised unconditional blessing to one’s descendants because the basis of our blessings is the life of Christ.

When interviewed on national TV’s 60 Minutes, Brian Pitts noted Osteen’s perverted theology: “To become a better you, you must be positive towards yourself, develop better relationships and embrace the place where you are. Not one mention of God in that.” Osteen responded “That’s just my message.” Osteen’s answer is not centered on Christ. He is preaching his own message (78).

Osteen appears to open the door of salvation to everybody regardless of one’s acceptance of Jesus Christ (79). He does not place Scripture in the center of his message (80).
……….