ATHEIST: It most certainly can be both. It's all in how you perceive it. Is the flower red, or is the flower reflecting all wavelengths except the red ones? Now you have the eyes of a butterfly and can see colors in the ultraviolet range. What color is the flower now? What color is the flower in a room with no sunlight, no wavelengths to reflect? If you are color-blind and cannot distinguish red from green, is the apple still red? You, sir, are DNA-blind. You cannot see in the "ultraviolet range" of possibilities. .
Russell Earl Kelly May 30 at 8:55pm Atheist: It most certainly can be both (moral and genetic). It's all in how you perceive it. Is the flower red, or is the flower reflecting all wavelengths except the red ones? Now you have the eyes of a butterfly and can see colors in the ultraviolet range. What color is the flower now? What color is the flower in a room with no sunlight, no wavelengths to reflect? If you are color-blind and cannot distinguish red from green, is the apple still red? You, sir, are DNA-blind. You cannot see in the "ultraviolet range" of possibilities.
Russ: Isn’t it wonderful how God gave us the ability to see His magnificent creation in color? You ought to give Him a great big “Thank you.”
Why does a mother hen sit on her chicks and die in a fire to protect THEIR future and not her own? Why does a soldier fall on a grenade to protect the future of others and not his own?
Your arguments are all about the HOW and not about the WHY because you see absolutely no REASON behind what happens other than blind mutant chance. In your philosophy you are only the result of a million mutant chances with nothing moral behind them. You could just as easily be a mass murderer but there is sill nothing “immoral” about that because a mass murderer is merely doing what his/her genetic code commanded.
I see good “morality” as the image of God within his creation, whether man or animal. I see bad “morality:” as the result of SIN. You excuse all bad morality and I do not. You see the “possibility” (no – reality!) that the most immoral criminal is not guilty because he/she is merely scratching an urge from DNA. I see the “possibility” (yes –possibility) that anybody can change through the power of God changing a person’s inner being through conversion. My possibility is your impossibility unless a chance mutant gene changes you from the inside out.
Sunday, May 30, 2010
Morality vs DNA Preprogramming
Atheist: There are enough christian monsters running around to make up for an occasional atheist monster. Being a christian doesn't make you any less likely to commit a sin. All humans are potential monsters, my friend. Meanwhile, your argument that morals are given exclusively to man by a god is pretty much disproved by the video. .
Kelly May 30 at 2:02pm Make up your mind. Either it is DNA preprogrammed or else it is morals. If you preprogram a robot to do certain, thing, you cannot call that action moralfrom your own atheistic viewpoint.
Kelly May 30 at 2:02pm Make up your mind. Either it is DNA preprogrammed or else it is morals. If you preprogram a robot to do certain, thing, you cannot call that action moralfrom your own atheistic viewpoint.
Saturday, May 29, 2010
Reply to Atheist on Dog-Dog Rescue Video
Reply to Atheist 5-29-2010. Video of a dog rescuing another in heavy traffic.
ATHEIST: And I don't think the dog was given the ability to feel the feelings that compelled it to act from it's dog god.
Russ: You call what the dog did “moral behavior” but atheists teach that it was prompted by its pre-programmed DNA. Therefore a mutant gene RE-programmed the dog’s DNA to overcome its original DNA program for self preservation.
The final result of your argument is that nothing is really “moral” because everything an animal or person does which might reflect altruism is really accidentally mutation-driven DNA. In my opinion that makes you into a potential monster. Nobody knows when your mutant DNA will lead you to innocently commit some horrible crime (which is neither innocent, horrible nor a crime in your no-sin no-moral universe).
I don’t buy that garbage. You simply have an excuse to do anything you wish and not be personally accountable.
ATHEIST: And I don't think the dog was given the ability to feel the feelings that compelled it to act from it's dog god.
Russ: You call what the dog did “moral behavior” but atheists teach that it was prompted by its pre-programmed DNA. Therefore a mutant gene RE-programmed the dog’s DNA to overcome its original DNA program for self preservation.
The final result of your argument is that nothing is really “moral” because everything an animal or person does which might reflect altruism is really accidentally mutation-driven DNA. In my opinion that makes you into a potential monster. Nobody knows when your mutant DNA will lead you to innocently commit some horrible crime (which is neither innocent, horrible nor a crime in your no-sin no-moral universe).
I don’t buy that garbage. You simply have an excuse to do anything you wish and not be personally accountable.
Friday, May 28, 2010
Reply to Chris, 5-28-2010
Chris: My Friend, I am not a Reform Baptist! I know that I am listed as reform because there was no listing for Historic Baptist. The adjective Historic is only to be separated ourselves from these Baptist that are not Baptist. I am a Baptist and Hold to the doctrine of Grace. And as for Reform Baptist, from what did Baptist reform? Those that call themselves Baptist need to repent.
Russ: You are a neat guy. You have stayed longer with me than anybody else since my book was published in January 2001. Thanks.
About the Reformed Baptists, forgive me for including you. It came from the Internet listing as you guessed. I do not object to the term “reformed” as long as somebody is following their conscience. While most current Baptists are not Calvinist, I think almost all early Baptists were.
Since most Dispensationalists today teach tithing, I am in their minority also.
201: Chris: I have no problem with the New Covenant expunging the Old. The Old Covenant was a shadow of better things to come. The Law, in this case of which I refer to is specifically the 10 commandments was the very foundation of the Old Covenant that God made with Israel, Read Exodus 19-20. The law in this case is understood to be the Decalogue.
Russ: Why do you stop at Exodus 20 in reading the Law? It continues for many chapters with the judgments of the law in chapter 21. Are you offended that chapter 21 commands the killing of disobedient children and how to treat your slaves?
Chris: In the new Covenant the Commandments were taken from stone and written upon our hearts. Read Hebrews 8:7-10. The 10 Commandments are written upon the believers’ hearts thus fulfilling of the Old Covenant with the New which is a far, far better Covenant. Thus the law is not done away with but stands.
Russ: You and I do not interpret Hebrews 8:8-13 alike. The moral law is nowhere limited to the Ten Commandments and the Ten Commandments are not totally moral as in the Sabbath commandment.
Chris: Romans 3:31, “do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea we establish the law”.
Russ: The context is Romans 3:21-22. Righteousness by faith in Jesus Christ was revealed “apart/without the law.” Righteousness by faith” ESTABLISHES the fact that the Law achieved its objective by condemning sin UNTIL faith came (Gal 3:19). Now that Christ is here (Gal 3:19-26), Christ has replaced the Law as God’s standard of judgment per John 16:8-9.
202: Chris: [Mt 23:23] I am not ignoring the context. If I am to understand this passage as addressing the Jews only, why is it recorded for us? Why is it recorded at all?
Russ: Why are all the other things which even YOU say have been discarded recorded? Why is anything recorded before Calvary if the New Covenant began at Calvary? They are there for object lessons, examples and grammar school lessons. Did you destroy your grammar school, high school and college after you graduated?
Chris: Of course Our Lord is addressing the Pharisees but what He had to say to them is applicable to us as well.
Russ: I disagree. He told his disciples to obey the scribes and Pharisees because “they sit in Moses seat.” They do not sit on any seat for us Gentiles under the New Covenant. Jesus also commanded Jews whom he healed to show themselves to the priests and offer the offering which Moses commanded. He did NOT tell Gentile disciples whom he healed to do that.
Chris: You do not deny what I have stated with exception of the tithe.
Russ: What? You deny everything else which Leviticus calls holy and most holy –except the tithe.
Chris: The difference with you and me on the tithe: you ignore the law of first mention.
Russ: I demonstrated how YOU ignored ALL the first mentioned items in Genesis –except for YOUR definition of the tithe. The first mention of : a) pagan tithes of spoils of war, b) Abram’s obedience to the Canaanite law of the land, c) Abram kept nothing and d) Abram gave the 90% to the king of Sodm.
Chris: The tithe preceded the nation Israel and the law. It preceded it by centuries.
Russ: That only proves that it pre-existed as the law of the land in almost all lands which surrounded Abram in 2000 BC. It was very common pagan law as also was idolatry, child sacrifice and temple prostitution.
Chris: The first mention of tithing is Genesis 14:20 and it is said that Abraham gave tithes. “He gave him tithes”, plural!
Russ: You invent the WHY and add to God’s Word that Abram either a) was obeying God’s command or b) freely chose to give. And you ignore the definition of tithes in Genesis 14 as pagan spoils of war which were not holy.
Chris: Mt 23:23; I do not ignore who our Lord is addressing. Where we differ is in regard to the application of the text. You are willing to apply part of the text to the saints wherein I make application of the entire text.
From the context of Genesis 14 it is apparent that tithing was understood.
Russ: No. I do not apply any part of Mt 23:23 as applying to Christians under the New Covenant.
203: Mt 23:23: This is where we differ and you contradict yourself. You applied judgment, mercy and faith universally and now you abolish it all under the Old Covenant. You seem to pick and chose as you go along. There is no consistency in what you are saying.
Russ: Jesus was not addressing non-Jews in Mt 23:23. Although it is true that “judgment, mercy and faith” are universal moral principles, I am merely pointing out that Jesus was NOT addressing non-Jews who were not under the jurisdiction of the law in Mt 23:23. You are putting words into my mouth in order to justify your own argument.
Chris: These words are not restricted to the Old Covenant.
Russ: In context they are restricted to Jews under the Old Covenant. You cannot take a speech addressed to the U. S. Senate and say that the non-U. S. words in such speech also apply to the German Senate. That is irrelevant.
Chris: You keep mentioning the Old Covenant and never make yourself clear if you are referring to the Sinai Covenant that God made with Israel or the entire Old Testament.
Russ: That is exactly why I use “Old Covenant” instead of Old Testament. There are many parts of the Old Testament which go beyond the Old Covenant which is the Law. I equate Old Covenant with Old Covenant Law.
Chris: And then you accept some part of the Old Covenant and reject other parts.
Russ: I stress only that part of the Old Covenant Law which has been repeated to the Church after Calvary I the New Covenant. That is my hermeneutic. What is yours?
Chris: On the other hand I have stated that part of the Old Covenant fulfilled in Christ passed away. For an example the entire Levitical order passed away.
Russ: And I have stressed that ALL of the Old Covenant passed away in Christ per Heb 8:13 except that which was repeated to the Church after Calvary.
Chris: But tithing is not of the Levitical order in that it preceded the Nation of Israel by many centuries.
Russ: Only your un-HOLY definition of tithing is not Levitical. My HOLY definition of tithing is wholly Levitical and part of the statutes-ordinances of the Law.
Chris: And as for the 10 commandments, they are universal and still stand.
Russ: They are not wholly universal and moral unless you think that everybody knows in their conscience that they should worship on Saturday and own slaves and raise their children inside Israel.
204: Chris: Again you are not clear as to the Old Covenant. The “these” I am referring to is the 10 commandments in particular. They are foundational under the Old Covenant. These are not abolished. Furthermore, as to killing anyone seeking to enter into the temple, that has passed. If one desires to enter they must pass through the Blood.
Russ: When Moses asked God to show him His glory, God did not quote the Ten Commandments – Ex 34:6-7.
205: Chris: When I said that Paul simply spoke of the Law I did not mean to imply that there was no ceremonial laws or statue and judgments. I was simply saying Paul always spoke of the law. Context determines how the word law is to be understood. In Romans 7 the word law is understood as a principle.
Russ: We agree finally.
Chris: In Romans 13:8 ff it is understood as the commandments. Context determines how we are to understand how the word law. And as for Matthew 5:19, our Lord did not abolish the law as the context in which this was stated is the Sermon on the Mount. The Sermon on The mount is moral and an exposition of the Decalogue that is still binding. Heaven and earth will sooner pass away before on jot or tittle shall in any wise pass from the Law and the prophets.
Russ: So you understand Mt 5:19 as only referring to the Ten Commandments. That is absurd. Verses 20-48 contain all three parts of the Law.
206: If you recall your statement was that the commandments were not referred to in the New Testament. I am delighted you have changed your mind on this.
Russ: How many times must I repeat myself? That part of the Old Covenant Law for Israel which was eternal and moral was REPEATED to the Church after Calvary in the New Covenant.
207: Chris: You keep mentioning the gentile not being under the old covenant. The gentiles were castaways. Israel was to evangelize them even as we are to evangelize the heathens. So it is not right to speak of those cast off not being under the covenant. They were not under the covenant because they were not the people of God.
Russ: You are conceding too much, my friend. I am right. Gentiles never were “under the law.” They were more “outsiders” and “never included” than “castaways.” “Castaways” implies that they had once been within the circle. My argument is that tithing was never commanded to the Gentiles. And, show me where a single tithe or offering was ever used to go out and evangelize Gentiles!!! I see absolutely no effort by Moses, Joshua, David, Ezra or Nehemiah to proselytize them.
Chris: But if they repented and entered into the blessings of Israel they too came under the Old Covenant.
Russ: This is wrong. They were not commanded to “repent” for being a castaway disobedient child. A very few did ask to be circumcised and identify with Hebrews. However even then they were considered as mostly outsiders and could not tithe.
Chris: As we speak of the Old Covenant, it was perfected by the New. However we must never lose sight that all men of all times were saved by grace through faith. No one was ever saved by the Law. No one!
Russ: The Old Covenant VANISHED per Hebrews 8:13. It was not PERFECTED. It ended for Hebrews and never did apply to Jews.
208: Chris: Matthew 5:19 is in context of the Sermon on the Mount which is an exposition on the Law among other things. The law in this context refers to the 10 commandments.
Russ: Wrong. Read 5:20-48 and see all three parts of the Law.
Chris: Again in 1 John 5:3, “For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.” What commandments are these if the Decalogue is ignored? And keep in mind, the commandments are summed up in loving God and one another. This is the fulfillment of the law and the prophets.
Russ: That is not the way John uses the word “commandments.” Jesus said in John 14:6 that HE is THE way, THE truth and THE life. His interpretation is now the new “commandments.”
210: Tithing is not part of the ceremonial law. Tithing is a moral obligation.
Russ: I guess Numbers 18 is not in your Bible. Tithing was the very heart of the ceremonial law which allowed the Levites and priests to minister it.
Chris: But I see that I cannot change your mind on this and shall not try. What troubles me is the flipping and flopping back and forth on the Old Covenant removed and yet not removed.
Russ: Where have I flipped? I have consistently said that it was all removed per Hebrews 8:13.
Chris: As you see it, I gather the 10 commandments are not binding on the New Testament believer? Am I right on this assessment?
Russ: English law is not binding on citizens of the U. S. However that part of English law which is eternal and moral has been REPEATED in the U. S. Constitution in its terms. As part of the Old Covenant, the Ten Commandments are not binding on Christian Jews who were once under the Old Covenant. They never were binding on Gentiles who never were under the Old Covenant. “Thou shalt not” disobey God is NOW (notice I said NOW) “You will” obey God as part of your new nature per Romans 8:2.
211: Chris: My Friend, there is no difference between Jew and gentile, God is rich upon all that call upon His name, Romans 10:12-13. Also the middle wall of the [partition has been torn down and the two have become one new man in Christ, Ephesians 2:11-17.
Russ: That is my argument. How did God reconcile Jew and Gentile? – by removing the WALL which separated them. That wall was the Law –the word translated “ordinances” is DOGMA. Paul did not teach Sabbath-keeping, circumcision, unclean foods or tithing in Acts 15 and 21.
Chris: As for the true children of Abraham, read Galatians 3:7:ff
Russ: You skipped 3:1-5 and 3:10-26. Adding Law back into Grace is witchcraft per 3:1. If one wants to keep the Law, one must keep all 613 commands of it per 3:10.
Chris: Here is another point where we do not agree, the Kingdom has come and Jesus presently reigns omnipotent and Jew and gentile enter the Kingdom through repentance and faith.
Russ: The spiritual part of the kingdom has come since the Holy Spirit rules in the hearts of believers. However, there are scores of yet-unfulfilled unconditional promises made to national Israel which have yet to be fulfilled. Every OT prophet spoke of a literal kingdom on earth and you ignore those promises.
212: Chris: You have not been honest with what I have said. The temple, priesthood etc has been fulfilled. These have nothing to do with the tithe that was practiced centuries before the law. The tithe was established and understood before the Israel was a nation as well as the Sabbath which we are also to observe. Please do not add to what I have said.
Russ: If you want to use Genesis 14 as your marching order to validate tithing, then: a) you must also observe the pre-Law pagan customs which accompanied their tithing, b) only tithe pagan spoils of war, c) only tithe once, d) keep nothing and e) give the 90% to the equivalent of the king of Sodom (perhaps some Satanist).
213: Chris: Ezekiel prophesied of the temple of God the New Testament church. The language is metaphorical.
Russ: I seriously doubt that Ezekiel’s audience understood it that way.
Chris: The temple in Revelation 11 is also metaphorical. The temple trampled under the feet of the gentiles with exception of the inner sanctuary is speaking of the New Testament church, the inner sanctuary being the true saints and the temple trampled upon is the false professors in the church visible. None of what you said has to do with the Jews rebuilding the temple.
Russ: Your opinion verses my opinion. The word “church” is extremely common in chapters 1-3 but not seen at all in chapters 6-18..Why would John (who wrote about 96AD) use the Temple which ceased to exist in 70AD as a type of the Church?
Chris: Allow me to introduce another hermeneutical principle, The New Testament interprets the Old Testament and the clear passage of Scripture has presidency over a vague passage.
Russ: 39 OT books repeated ad nausea that God was going to set up a literal Kingdom on earth in order to fulfill his literal promises made to literal national Israel. I cannot accept that the OT God was a LIAR and deliberately deceived His own people and the Bible prophets were all FALSE.
Up until this point you have been arguing that the Old Covenant was simply rehashed in the New Covenant. Now, for the first time, you are arguing that the Old Covenant promises to Israel have been completely REPLACED –except, of course, the TITHE.
Chris: 1 Corinthians 3:16-17 “Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.” God is not going to return to the shadows when the substance has come. Your theology is more Jewish than Christian.
Russ: Since the OT Temple and priesthood have replaced by the NT doctrine of the priesthood of all believers, HOW can you justify the continuance of TITHING which was legislated in Numbers 18 to support the OT Temple’s priesthood?
214: Chris: I have mentioned several hermeneutical principles already which are biblical. I have a book on hermeneutics that I have to finish and am finishing up for publication. Then you are welcome to scrutinize them. However you must admit I have been consistent.
Russ: Consistent in what?
215: Chris: In the first part of your question you assume that the tithe was not required of the gentile but the Jews only. Keep in mind that Abraham tithes when He was not circumcised. And what we should learn from Acts 15:21 is that we should be careful not to cause our weaker brother to stumble. This is the law of love in operation.
Russ: The law of tithing which Abram was obeying was the pagan law of the land concerning spoils of war. And you forget that the church in Acts 15 decreed that the Gentile Christens were not to keep the Law.
217: Chris: I am bound by civil laws such as paying taxes etc. As to the laws under the Old Covenant, I believer as a nation in many respects they would insure domestic tranquility if we would consider them as a nation.
Russ: Wow!
218: Chris: I have no problem with that. The Old Kingdom of Israel has been fulfilled in the Kingdom of our Lord.
Russ: As a dispensationalist I disagree with that. The kingdom has arrived in spiritual form but its final manifestation in literal form awaits unconditional literal fulfillment.
Chris: Jesus Christ is seated upon the throne of David at the right hand of the Father.
Russ: Why do you say things you cannot prove? Jesus is sitting on his own throne.
219: Chris: What you do not understand is that the gentiles were in the world without God and thus without hope, Ephesians 2:12. The gentiles were under the curse. They still are under the curse as the Jews presently are that are outside of Christ.
Russ: Texts please. Only Old Covenant Israelites were under the curse of their covenant law. They swore an oath to be under that curse or its blessings. The Gentiles did not. They Gentiles were under a different set of rules of conscience and nature per Romans 2:14-16 and 1:18-20.
220: Chris: This is a revival of Gnosticism that takes away the Scriptures from the people. Again all Scripture is profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction and instruction in righteousness: all Scripture, not some.
Russ: “All Scripture” is not in New Covenant context for the Church. Why don’t you obey all Scripture? Why do you discard all holy and most holy items in Leviticus except tithing?
221: Chris: All men are servants. I am a bond slave to our Lord. I have no rights so I have no problem with slavery. The principle as you said is love by which we are to be governed. As to the 10 commandments they define love.
Russ: The Ten Commands are cold hard “Thou shalt nots” which must be obeyed whether one loves or not.
Chris: They define the royal law. Terms such as royal law and love have no real definition with out the Decalogue.
Russ: The “royal law” is love and is evident in the (non TC) commands to “love your neighbor,” follow the “golden rule” and “do not discriminate by prejudice.” These “royal laws” force one to obey other lesser moral laws as those seen within the Ten Commandments. I can restrain myself from murdering you without loving you but I cannot kill you if I love you.
222: Chris: (Revelation) that is what I mean by taking it away, it is all future. This is the Jesuit teaching of Ribera of the 16th century.
Russ: If Jesus comes during this instant in time, everything else in prophecy is future. Ribera may have been a futurist but so also was Paul who expected the imminent return of Jesus in his own time. Even Tertullian in the mid 3rd century expected Jesus to come in his own time. There have been theologians in every century who were on both sides of the argument.
223: Chris: You are afraid of concerts. Hebrews 8 the Law written on stone was written upon our hearts. Thus the law is fulfilled in us, Romans 8. This does not mean that we walk perfect but there is a standard of right and wrong.
Russ: Afraid of concerts??? I sing concerts every chance I get. If “the law written in our hearts” were the Ten Commandments, then everybody would instinctively (by the indwelling Holy Spirit) sense a compulsion to worship on Saturday, own slaves and raise their children in the holy land (eretz) of Israel.
Chris: You say Christ is the standard which I agree. But what is sin? It is transgression of the law.
Russ: John 16:8-9 says “of sin because they believe not on me.” New Covenant SIN which will condemn an unbeliever is lack of belief in Jesus Christ. Jesus is not merely “a” way; Jesus is THE way. Sin is transgression of the “revealed will of God” as Paul often used the definition of law.
Chris: Our Lord asked, who can convince Him of sin? They had the law by which to judge Him and they never saw Him disobey it. And to you and me He says follow me. What is sin if it is not transgression of the law, 1 John 3:4.
Russ: Read Romans 3:1-20. Paul quoted Psalms and Isaiah and concluded that “all are under sin.” Yet he did not quote the Law! He quoted the revealed will of God for Israel.
226: Chris: When I said that Paul quoted the Old Covenant and applied it under the New Covenant to the Christian I was referring to the Decalogue. Paul frequently referred to the Decalogue which you have a hard time admitting.
Russ: I have done extensive research on Paul’s use of the word “law” and disagree. Don’t take my word for it; do your own deep study.
Chris: I am not saying Paul sought to put us under the Law but Paul never did put away the Law.
Russ: Once again you are forgetting my oft-quoted dispensational hermeneutic.
Chris: In fact under the Old Covenant all were saved by grace even as we are saved by grace. All that are saved are saved by grace. They looked to the cross as we look back to it.
Russ: Agreed.
228: Chris: Abraham paid a tithe that preceded the law. And the Hermeneutical principle of first mentioned is totally ignore by you.
Russ: These are the hermeneutics you totally ignore here: a) The Bible does not call Abraham “Abram” here because he was still an uncircumcised Gentile from Babylon, b) the Bible does not say that Abram was either “commanded” to give by God or else “freely chose to give,” c) while Abram’s tithe preceded “the Law” it most certainly did not precede “the law of the land, Arab law” which required him to tithe spoils of war to his local king-priest. If you are going to literally follow “first use hermeneutics” here, then you must a) only tithe pagan spoils of war, b) only tithe once, c) only tithe to a Canaanite king-priest, d) only tithe to somebody who does not know God as Yahweh, e) keep nothing and f) give the 90% to the equivalent of the king of Sodom.
Chris: That is my point. The covenant God made with Abraham was while he was in un- circumcision. Thus in Rom 4:11-12, … The same is true of the tithe. It is not just Jewish.
Russ: The fact that Abram’s tithe was motivated by the PAGAN law of the land does not translate into saying that Abram’s tithe is moral for Christians.
Chris: The covenant made with Israel 400 years later could not disannulled the covenant of grace. And by the way, the covenant was as much open to Gentiles as to the Jews that come by faith.
Russ: Tithing pagan spoils of war was not part of the Abrahamic covenant no more than was lying about his wife to Pharaoh.
231: Chris: I care not about English law as it is constantly in flux.
Russ: You very well know that I am speaking of English Law as it existed on July 4th, 1776. It ended suddenly, both good and bad, and that which was good in it was incorporated into the U. S. Constitution. That is the same comparison between the Old and New Covenants. The Old ended suddenly, both good and bad, at Calvary and the eternal moral parts of it were incorporated into the New Covenant as principles of grace and faith after Calvary.
Chris: This is redundant, as for the Law the Substance dispelled the shadows. The law never changed, we did being born from above.
232: Chris: You have said that the Old Covenant has been done away. This is to be understood as the Decalogue as well as it is part of the Old Covenant. But this is contrary to the Hebrew passages, Hebrews 8:10ff. Furthermore as to the observance of the Sabbath the 4th commandment does not say day 7 is the day to observe as the Sabbath but rather the 7th day. Israel worshipped on Saturday because it was in commemoration of their deliverance out of Egypt, Deut 5:14-15.
Russ: Tell that to a Seventh-day Adventist or a Jew.
236: Chris: Hebrews 8:10 ff, and Deut. 6:5, and Leviticus 19:18 refer to the Decalogue. They amplify the meaning of the 10 commandments, that is all. Love fulfilleth the Law. What problem do you have with that?
Russ: Deu 6:5 and Lev 19:18 are both OUTSIDE the Decalogue which proves that the word “law” can refer to texts outside the Decalogue.
237: Chris: I was seeking to understand you when you referred to the Old Covenant. Now I know you refer to the 10 commandments and the laws instituted under Moses. You lump them all together. The ten commandments are still to be observed. The rest of the Mosaic Covenant that was fulfilled is done away as it pointed to Christ.
Russ: For the umpteenth time: That part of the Old Covenant Law which was eternal and moral have been REPEATED to the Church after Calvary in terms of grace and faith.
238: Chris: I do not deny what you said. However righteousness has a definition and apart from the law it has no definition. You are like a ship in a fog without a ruder as well as without chart and compass. You throw around terms such as righteousness and truth with no definitions.
Russ: If somebody asked you to show them God’s righteousness, you would show them the Ten Commandments. I would show them Jesus Christ.
Chris: The Decalogue is a scale by which to measure our actions as expounded in the Sermon on the Mount.
Russ: The Sermon on the Mount says that about the entire Law, not merely the Ten Commandments. 5:19-48.
240: Chris: Yes sin is lawless. Lawless is disobedience to the law is it not? And the Decalogue is the royal law, the law of love by the way. Love worked no ill!
Russ: Lawlessness is disobedience to any law. Even the Gentiles were guilty of violating the law of nature and conscience per Rom 1:18-20; 2:14-16. The Decalogue is NOT the same as the ROYAL LAW of love because LOVE is greater than any law.
Chris: Luke 6:46, “Why call ye me Lord, Lord and do not the things that I say”! And again, how do you separate the Written Word from the Incarnate Word and the Eternal Word? They are one.
Russ: The written Law was but a shadow of the righteousness of Jesus Christ. When we “rightly divide the Word of truth, we replace the written Law with Jesus Christ.
Chris: There is no receiving Jesus without receiving His Word, John 3:36, and 12:48, and Matthew 4:4. John 12:48, “He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day”. Your theology is very superficial.
Russ: When Jesus said “my words” he was referring to the Gospel he preached which surpassed the Law in holiness. You make the Old Covenant and the New Covenant into the same identical thing. You do not “rightly divide the Word of truth.” You teach that we should still obey all the Old Covenant and then you discard major portions of it, but keep the tithe. I say that your theology is TRANSPARENT. You do not want to lose that precious tithe but you certainly want to keep your house and property contrary to the tithe law of Numbers 18.
Chris: No I do not make both covenants the same. The new fulfills the old. However the law is still the law as it is immutable. The law of which I speak is the Decalogue.
Russ: God’s character is immutable. His Law for Old Covenant Israel has been re-written in terms of His New Covenant with the Church.
242: Chris: Rom 2:14-16: Conscience is as a fallen barometer since the fall, it works but now well.
Russ: Conscience and nature worked well enough to condemn Gentiles who did not have the revealed will of God through the Law.
Chris: If conscience were sufficient then we would not have had to have the Decalogue given.
Russ: The Decalogue was only given to God’s special nation of Israel in order to especially bless them. “Where sin abounds, grace much more abounds.” Only Israel had the great opportunity of being a blessed nation before Christ.
Chris: And then that was not enough as it had to be expounded: the Sermon on the Mount.
Russ: The entire Law was expanded by the Sermon on the Mount. That fact seems to bother you.
Chris: Rom 8:2: As for the spirit of life in Christ, this is the indwelling Presence that convicts and enables us to walk as He walked.
Russ: It is also the law written in the hearts of all believers and not the Old Covenant law.
243: Chris: I do not know why you have a hard time with what I said. The fact remains if there is no law then there is no sin because Sin is lawlessness! Whether the law is written in the conscience or on stone or even legislated it is the law. To be lawless is sin. If there is no law there is no sin regardless where it is written. Where it is written is immaterial at this point. The fact is no law no sin.
Russ: You are fighting your own false impression of what dispensationalism teaches. WE DO NOT TEACH NO LAW. We teach that WHEN the Old Covenant law ended for Hebrews, the New Covenant law began. This also means that, when the Law of conscience and nature ends for Gentiles the New Covenant Law begins.
Chris: That is foolish. The conscience still convicts unless we have seared it. But this is not sufficient alone.
Russ: You miss the point that the conscience of a believer is fully aware of the indwelling Holy Spirit and is advised and convicted by it.
Chris: We have a clear understanding of sin by the Law, Decalogue, And even more clear when meditating upon the Sermon on the Mount. And even clearer still when we behold our crucified Christ.
Russ: No. We NOW have a clear understanding of sin by looking at Jesus Christ. What would Jesus do? Not, what does the Law say? By beholding HIM we become changed; not by beholding the Law! 2 Cor 3:18
“But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord.”
244: Chris: My Friend, I have to beg off because my wife is very ill and I have not only to pastor but care for her as well. I also have all the domestic duties. Presently I have very little sleep. I do appreciate the time we have spent together.
Russ: It has been a real honest pleasure to sharpen swords with you, my friend. I am retired and do much of the domestic chores myself although I burn water so my wife prefers to cook. Please go easy on our mutual friend. He is merely seeking truth the best way he can.
Chris: By the way I do understand dispensationalism as I was taught dispensational hermeneutics in seminary. We probably had the same text book, Protestant Biblical Interpretation by Bernard Ram. I still have the book in my library.
May our Lord bless and guide you as we all need His guidance.
His unprofitable servant, Bro. Chris.
Russ: And to you the same.
Russell Earl Kelly
www.tithing-russkelly.com
Russ: You are a neat guy. You have stayed longer with me than anybody else since my book was published in January 2001. Thanks.
About the Reformed Baptists, forgive me for including you. It came from the Internet listing as you guessed. I do not object to the term “reformed” as long as somebody is following their conscience. While most current Baptists are not Calvinist, I think almost all early Baptists were.
Since most Dispensationalists today teach tithing, I am in their minority also.
201: Chris: I have no problem with the New Covenant expunging the Old. The Old Covenant was a shadow of better things to come. The Law, in this case of which I refer to is specifically the 10 commandments was the very foundation of the Old Covenant that God made with Israel, Read Exodus 19-20. The law in this case is understood to be the Decalogue.
Russ: Why do you stop at Exodus 20 in reading the Law? It continues for many chapters with the judgments of the law in chapter 21. Are you offended that chapter 21 commands the killing of disobedient children and how to treat your slaves?
Chris: In the new Covenant the Commandments were taken from stone and written upon our hearts. Read Hebrews 8:7-10. The 10 Commandments are written upon the believers’ hearts thus fulfilling of the Old Covenant with the New which is a far, far better Covenant. Thus the law is not done away with but stands.
Russ: You and I do not interpret Hebrews 8:8-13 alike. The moral law is nowhere limited to the Ten Commandments and the Ten Commandments are not totally moral as in the Sabbath commandment.
Chris: Romans 3:31, “do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea we establish the law”.
Russ: The context is Romans 3:21-22. Righteousness by faith in Jesus Christ was revealed “apart/without the law.” Righteousness by faith” ESTABLISHES the fact that the Law achieved its objective by condemning sin UNTIL faith came (Gal 3:19). Now that Christ is here (Gal 3:19-26), Christ has replaced the Law as God’s standard of judgment per John 16:8-9.
202: Chris: [Mt 23:23] I am not ignoring the context. If I am to understand this passage as addressing the Jews only, why is it recorded for us? Why is it recorded at all?
Russ: Why are all the other things which even YOU say have been discarded recorded? Why is anything recorded before Calvary if the New Covenant began at Calvary? They are there for object lessons, examples and grammar school lessons. Did you destroy your grammar school, high school and college after you graduated?
Chris: Of course Our Lord is addressing the Pharisees but what He had to say to them is applicable to us as well.
Russ: I disagree. He told his disciples to obey the scribes and Pharisees because “they sit in Moses seat.” They do not sit on any seat for us Gentiles under the New Covenant. Jesus also commanded Jews whom he healed to show themselves to the priests and offer the offering which Moses commanded. He did NOT tell Gentile disciples whom he healed to do that.
Chris: You do not deny what I have stated with exception of the tithe.
Russ: What? You deny everything else which Leviticus calls holy and most holy –except the tithe.
Chris: The difference with you and me on the tithe: you ignore the law of first mention.
Russ: I demonstrated how YOU ignored ALL the first mentioned items in Genesis –except for YOUR definition of the tithe. The first mention of : a) pagan tithes of spoils of war, b) Abram’s obedience to the Canaanite law of the land, c) Abram kept nothing and d) Abram gave the 90% to the king of Sodm.
Chris: The tithe preceded the nation Israel and the law. It preceded it by centuries.
Russ: That only proves that it pre-existed as the law of the land in almost all lands which surrounded Abram in 2000 BC. It was very common pagan law as also was idolatry, child sacrifice and temple prostitution.
Chris: The first mention of tithing is Genesis 14:20 and it is said that Abraham gave tithes. “He gave him tithes”, plural!
Russ: You invent the WHY and add to God’s Word that Abram either a) was obeying God’s command or b) freely chose to give. And you ignore the definition of tithes in Genesis 14 as pagan spoils of war which were not holy.
Chris: Mt 23:23; I do not ignore who our Lord is addressing. Where we differ is in regard to the application of the text. You are willing to apply part of the text to the saints wherein I make application of the entire text.
From the context of Genesis 14 it is apparent that tithing was understood.
Russ: No. I do not apply any part of Mt 23:23 as applying to Christians under the New Covenant.
203: Mt 23:23: This is where we differ and you contradict yourself. You applied judgment, mercy and faith universally and now you abolish it all under the Old Covenant. You seem to pick and chose as you go along. There is no consistency in what you are saying.
Russ: Jesus was not addressing non-Jews in Mt 23:23. Although it is true that “judgment, mercy and faith” are universal moral principles, I am merely pointing out that Jesus was NOT addressing non-Jews who were not under the jurisdiction of the law in Mt 23:23. You are putting words into my mouth in order to justify your own argument.
Chris: These words are not restricted to the Old Covenant.
Russ: In context they are restricted to Jews under the Old Covenant. You cannot take a speech addressed to the U. S. Senate and say that the non-U. S. words in such speech also apply to the German Senate. That is irrelevant.
Chris: You keep mentioning the Old Covenant and never make yourself clear if you are referring to the Sinai Covenant that God made with Israel or the entire Old Testament.
Russ: That is exactly why I use “Old Covenant” instead of Old Testament. There are many parts of the Old Testament which go beyond the Old Covenant which is the Law. I equate Old Covenant with Old Covenant Law.
Chris: And then you accept some part of the Old Covenant and reject other parts.
Russ: I stress only that part of the Old Covenant Law which has been repeated to the Church after Calvary I the New Covenant. That is my hermeneutic. What is yours?
Chris: On the other hand I have stated that part of the Old Covenant fulfilled in Christ passed away. For an example the entire Levitical order passed away.
Russ: And I have stressed that ALL of the Old Covenant passed away in Christ per Heb 8:13 except that which was repeated to the Church after Calvary.
Chris: But tithing is not of the Levitical order in that it preceded the Nation of Israel by many centuries.
Russ: Only your un-HOLY definition of tithing is not Levitical. My HOLY definition of tithing is wholly Levitical and part of the statutes-ordinances of the Law.
Chris: And as for the 10 commandments, they are universal and still stand.
Russ: They are not wholly universal and moral unless you think that everybody knows in their conscience that they should worship on Saturday and own slaves and raise their children inside Israel.
204: Chris: Again you are not clear as to the Old Covenant. The “these” I am referring to is the 10 commandments in particular. They are foundational under the Old Covenant. These are not abolished. Furthermore, as to killing anyone seeking to enter into the temple, that has passed. If one desires to enter they must pass through the Blood.
Russ: When Moses asked God to show him His glory, God did not quote the Ten Commandments – Ex 34:6-7.
205: Chris: When I said that Paul simply spoke of the Law I did not mean to imply that there was no ceremonial laws or statue and judgments. I was simply saying Paul always spoke of the law. Context determines how the word law is to be understood. In Romans 7 the word law is understood as a principle.
Russ: We agree finally.
Chris: In Romans 13:8 ff it is understood as the commandments. Context determines how we are to understand how the word law. And as for Matthew 5:19, our Lord did not abolish the law as the context in which this was stated is the Sermon on the Mount. The Sermon on The mount is moral and an exposition of the Decalogue that is still binding. Heaven and earth will sooner pass away before on jot or tittle shall in any wise pass from the Law and the prophets.
Russ: So you understand Mt 5:19 as only referring to the Ten Commandments. That is absurd. Verses 20-48 contain all three parts of the Law.
206: If you recall your statement was that the commandments were not referred to in the New Testament. I am delighted you have changed your mind on this.
Russ: How many times must I repeat myself? That part of the Old Covenant Law for Israel which was eternal and moral was REPEATED to the Church after Calvary in the New Covenant.
207: Chris: You keep mentioning the gentile not being under the old covenant. The gentiles were castaways. Israel was to evangelize them even as we are to evangelize the heathens. So it is not right to speak of those cast off not being under the covenant. They were not under the covenant because they were not the people of God.
Russ: You are conceding too much, my friend. I am right. Gentiles never were “under the law.” They were more “outsiders” and “never included” than “castaways.” “Castaways” implies that they had once been within the circle. My argument is that tithing was never commanded to the Gentiles. And, show me where a single tithe or offering was ever used to go out and evangelize Gentiles!!! I see absolutely no effort by Moses, Joshua, David, Ezra or Nehemiah to proselytize them.
Chris: But if they repented and entered into the blessings of Israel they too came under the Old Covenant.
Russ: This is wrong. They were not commanded to “repent” for being a castaway disobedient child. A very few did ask to be circumcised and identify with Hebrews. However even then they were considered as mostly outsiders and could not tithe.
Chris: As we speak of the Old Covenant, it was perfected by the New. However we must never lose sight that all men of all times were saved by grace through faith. No one was ever saved by the Law. No one!
Russ: The Old Covenant VANISHED per Hebrews 8:13. It was not PERFECTED. It ended for Hebrews and never did apply to Jews.
208: Chris: Matthew 5:19 is in context of the Sermon on the Mount which is an exposition on the Law among other things. The law in this context refers to the 10 commandments.
Russ: Wrong. Read 5:20-48 and see all three parts of the Law.
Chris: Again in 1 John 5:3, “For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.” What commandments are these if the Decalogue is ignored? And keep in mind, the commandments are summed up in loving God and one another. This is the fulfillment of the law and the prophets.
Russ: That is not the way John uses the word “commandments.” Jesus said in John 14:6 that HE is THE way, THE truth and THE life. His interpretation is now the new “commandments.”
210: Tithing is not part of the ceremonial law. Tithing is a moral obligation.
Russ: I guess Numbers 18 is not in your Bible. Tithing was the very heart of the ceremonial law which allowed the Levites and priests to minister it.
Chris: But I see that I cannot change your mind on this and shall not try. What troubles me is the flipping and flopping back and forth on the Old Covenant removed and yet not removed.
Russ: Where have I flipped? I have consistently said that it was all removed per Hebrews 8:13.
Chris: As you see it, I gather the 10 commandments are not binding on the New Testament believer? Am I right on this assessment?
Russ: English law is not binding on citizens of the U. S. However that part of English law which is eternal and moral has been REPEATED in the U. S. Constitution in its terms. As part of the Old Covenant, the Ten Commandments are not binding on Christian Jews who were once under the Old Covenant. They never were binding on Gentiles who never were under the Old Covenant. “Thou shalt not” disobey God is NOW (notice I said NOW) “You will” obey God as part of your new nature per Romans 8:2.
211: Chris: My Friend, there is no difference between Jew and gentile, God is rich upon all that call upon His name, Romans 10:12-13. Also the middle wall of the [partition has been torn down and the two have become one new man in Christ, Ephesians 2:11-17.
Russ: That is my argument. How did God reconcile Jew and Gentile? – by removing the WALL which separated them. That wall was the Law –the word translated “ordinances” is DOGMA. Paul did not teach Sabbath-keeping, circumcision, unclean foods or tithing in Acts 15 and 21.
Chris: As for the true children of Abraham, read Galatians 3:7:ff
Russ: You skipped 3:1-5 and 3:10-26. Adding Law back into Grace is witchcraft per 3:1. If one wants to keep the Law, one must keep all 613 commands of it per 3:10.
Chris: Here is another point where we do not agree, the Kingdom has come and Jesus presently reigns omnipotent and Jew and gentile enter the Kingdom through repentance and faith.
Russ: The spiritual part of the kingdom has come since the Holy Spirit rules in the hearts of believers. However, there are scores of yet-unfulfilled unconditional promises made to national Israel which have yet to be fulfilled. Every OT prophet spoke of a literal kingdom on earth and you ignore those promises.
212: Chris: You have not been honest with what I have said. The temple, priesthood etc has been fulfilled. These have nothing to do with the tithe that was practiced centuries before the law. The tithe was established and understood before the Israel was a nation as well as the Sabbath which we are also to observe. Please do not add to what I have said.
Russ: If you want to use Genesis 14 as your marching order to validate tithing, then: a) you must also observe the pre-Law pagan customs which accompanied their tithing, b) only tithe pagan spoils of war, c) only tithe once, d) keep nothing and e) give the 90% to the equivalent of the king of Sodom (perhaps some Satanist).
213: Chris: Ezekiel prophesied of the temple of God the New Testament church. The language is metaphorical.
Russ: I seriously doubt that Ezekiel’s audience understood it that way.
Chris: The temple in Revelation 11 is also metaphorical. The temple trampled under the feet of the gentiles with exception of the inner sanctuary is speaking of the New Testament church, the inner sanctuary being the true saints and the temple trampled upon is the false professors in the church visible. None of what you said has to do with the Jews rebuilding the temple.
Russ: Your opinion verses my opinion. The word “church” is extremely common in chapters 1-3 but not seen at all in chapters 6-18..Why would John (who wrote about 96AD) use the Temple which ceased to exist in 70AD as a type of the Church?
Chris: Allow me to introduce another hermeneutical principle, The New Testament interprets the Old Testament and the clear passage of Scripture has presidency over a vague passage.
Russ: 39 OT books repeated ad nausea that God was going to set up a literal Kingdom on earth in order to fulfill his literal promises made to literal national Israel. I cannot accept that the OT God was a LIAR and deliberately deceived His own people and the Bible prophets were all FALSE.
Up until this point you have been arguing that the Old Covenant was simply rehashed in the New Covenant. Now, for the first time, you are arguing that the Old Covenant promises to Israel have been completely REPLACED –except, of course, the TITHE.
Chris: 1 Corinthians 3:16-17 “Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.” God is not going to return to the shadows when the substance has come. Your theology is more Jewish than Christian.
Russ: Since the OT Temple and priesthood have replaced by the NT doctrine of the priesthood of all believers, HOW can you justify the continuance of TITHING which was legislated in Numbers 18 to support the OT Temple’s priesthood?
214: Chris: I have mentioned several hermeneutical principles already which are biblical. I have a book on hermeneutics that I have to finish and am finishing up for publication. Then you are welcome to scrutinize them. However you must admit I have been consistent.
Russ: Consistent in what?
215: Chris: In the first part of your question you assume that the tithe was not required of the gentile but the Jews only. Keep in mind that Abraham tithes when He was not circumcised. And what we should learn from Acts 15:21 is that we should be careful not to cause our weaker brother to stumble. This is the law of love in operation.
Russ: The law of tithing which Abram was obeying was the pagan law of the land concerning spoils of war. And you forget that the church in Acts 15 decreed that the Gentile Christens were not to keep the Law.
217: Chris: I am bound by civil laws such as paying taxes etc. As to the laws under the Old Covenant, I believer as a nation in many respects they would insure domestic tranquility if we would consider them as a nation.
Russ: Wow!
218: Chris: I have no problem with that. The Old Kingdom of Israel has been fulfilled in the Kingdom of our Lord.
Russ: As a dispensationalist I disagree with that. The kingdom has arrived in spiritual form but its final manifestation in literal form awaits unconditional literal fulfillment.
Chris: Jesus Christ is seated upon the throne of David at the right hand of the Father.
Russ: Why do you say things you cannot prove? Jesus is sitting on his own throne.
219: Chris: What you do not understand is that the gentiles were in the world without God and thus without hope, Ephesians 2:12. The gentiles were under the curse. They still are under the curse as the Jews presently are that are outside of Christ.
Russ: Texts please. Only Old Covenant Israelites were under the curse of their covenant law. They swore an oath to be under that curse or its blessings. The Gentiles did not. They Gentiles were under a different set of rules of conscience and nature per Romans 2:14-16 and 1:18-20.
220: Chris: This is a revival of Gnosticism that takes away the Scriptures from the people. Again all Scripture is profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction and instruction in righteousness: all Scripture, not some.
Russ: “All Scripture” is not in New Covenant context for the Church. Why don’t you obey all Scripture? Why do you discard all holy and most holy items in Leviticus except tithing?
221: Chris: All men are servants. I am a bond slave to our Lord. I have no rights so I have no problem with slavery. The principle as you said is love by which we are to be governed. As to the 10 commandments they define love.
Russ: The Ten Commands are cold hard “Thou shalt nots” which must be obeyed whether one loves or not.
Chris: They define the royal law. Terms such as royal law and love have no real definition with out the Decalogue.
Russ: The “royal law” is love and is evident in the (non TC) commands to “love your neighbor,” follow the “golden rule” and “do not discriminate by prejudice.” These “royal laws” force one to obey other lesser moral laws as those seen within the Ten Commandments. I can restrain myself from murdering you without loving you but I cannot kill you if I love you.
222: Chris: (Revelation) that is what I mean by taking it away, it is all future. This is the Jesuit teaching of Ribera of the 16th century.
Russ: If Jesus comes during this instant in time, everything else in prophecy is future. Ribera may have been a futurist but so also was Paul who expected the imminent return of Jesus in his own time. Even Tertullian in the mid 3rd century expected Jesus to come in his own time. There have been theologians in every century who were on both sides of the argument.
223: Chris: You are afraid of concerts. Hebrews 8 the Law written on stone was written upon our hearts. Thus the law is fulfilled in us, Romans 8. This does not mean that we walk perfect but there is a standard of right and wrong.
Russ: Afraid of concerts??? I sing concerts every chance I get. If “the law written in our hearts” were the Ten Commandments, then everybody would instinctively (by the indwelling Holy Spirit) sense a compulsion to worship on Saturday, own slaves and raise their children in the holy land (eretz) of Israel.
Chris: You say Christ is the standard which I agree. But what is sin? It is transgression of the law.
Russ: John 16:8-9 says “of sin because they believe not on me.” New Covenant SIN which will condemn an unbeliever is lack of belief in Jesus Christ. Jesus is not merely “a” way; Jesus is THE way. Sin is transgression of the “revealed will of God” as Paul often used the definition of law.
Chris: Our Lord asked, who can convince Him of sin? They had the law by which to judge Him and they never saw Him disobey it. And to you and me He says follow me. What is sin if it is not transgression of the law, 1 John 3:4.
Russ: Read Romans 3:1-20. Paul quoted Psalms and Isaiah and concluded that “all are under sin.” Yet he did not quote the Law! He quoted the revealed will of God for Israel.
226: Chris: When I said that Paul quoted the Old Covenant and applied it under the New Covenant to the Christian I was referring to the Decalogue. Paul frequently referred to the Decalogue which you have a hard time admitting.
Russ: I have done extensive research on Paul’s use of the word “law” and disagree. Don’t take my word for it; do your own deep study.
Chris: I am not saying Paul sought to put us under the Law but Paul never did put away the Law.
Russ: Once again you are forgetting my oft-quoted dispensational hermeneutic.
Chris: In fact under the Old Covenant all were saved by grace even as we are saved by grace. All that are saved are saved by grace. They looked to the cross as we look back to it.
Russ: Agreed.
228: Chris: Abraham paid a tithe that preceded the law. And the Hermeneutical principle of first mentioned is totally ignore by you.
Russ: These are the hermeneutics you totally ignore here: a) The Bible does not call Abraham “Abram” here because he was still an uncircumcised Gentile from Babylon, b) the Bible does not say that Abram was either “commanded” to give by God or else “freely chose to give,” c) while Abram’s tithe preceded “the Law” it most certainly did not precede “the law of the land, Arab law” which required him to tithe spoils of war to his local king-priest. If you are going to literally follow “first use hermeneutics” here, then you must a) only tithe pagan spoils of war, b) only tithe once, c) only tithe to a Canaanite king-priest, d) only tithe to somebody who does not know God as Yahweh, e) keep nothing and f) give the 90% to the equivalent of the king of Sodom.
Chris: That is my point. The covenant God made with Abraham was while he was in un- circumcision. Thus in Rom 4:11-12, … The same is true of the tithe. It is not just Jewish.
Russ: The fact that Abram’s tithe was motivated by the PAGAN law of the land does not translate into saying that Abram’s tithe is moral for Christians.
Chris: The covenant made with Israel 400 years later could not disannulled the covenant of grace. And by the way, the covenant was as much open to Gentiles as to the Jews that come by faith.
Russ: Tithing pagan spoils of war was not part of the Abrahamic covenant no more than was lying about his wife to Pharaoh.
231: Chris: I care not about English law as it is constantly in flux.
Russ: You very well know that I am speaking of English Law as it existed on July 4th, 1776. It ended suddenly, both good and bad, and that which was good in it was incorporated into the U. S. Constitution. That is the same comparison between the Old and New Covenants. The Old ended suddenly, both good and bad, at Calvary and the eternal moral parts of it were incorporated into the New Covenant as principles of grace and faith after Calvary.
Chris: This is redundant, as for the Law the Substance dispelled the shadows. The law never changed, we did being born from above.
232: Chris: You have said that the Old Covenant has been done away. This is to be understood as the Decalogue as well as it is part of the Old Covenant. But this is contrary to the Hebrew passages, Hebrews 8:10ff. Furthermore as to the observance of the Sabbath the 4th commandment does not say day 7 is the day to observe as the Sabbath but rather the 7th day. Israel worshipped on Saturday because it was in commemoration of their deliverance out of Egypt, Deut 5:14-15.
Russ: Tell that to a Seventh-day Adventist or a Jew.
236: Chris: Hebrews 8:10 ff, and Deut. 6:5, and Leviticus 19:18 refer to the Decalogue. They amplify the meaning of the 10 commandments, that is all. Love fulfilleth the Law. What problem do you have with that?
Russ: Deu 6:5 and Lev 19:18 are both OUTSIDE the Decalogue which proves that the word “law” can refer to texts outside the Decalogue.
237: Chris: I was seeking to understand you when you referred to the Old Covenant. Now I know you refer to the 10 commandments and the laws instituted under Moses. You lump them all together. The ten commandments are still to be observed. The rest of the Mosaic Covenant that was fulfilled is done away as it pointed to Christ.
Russ: For the umpteenth time: That part of the Old Covenant Law which was eternal and moral have been REPEATED to the Church after Calvary in terms of grace and faith.
238: Chris: I do not deny what you said. However righteousness has a definition and apart from the law it has no definition. You are like a ship in a fog without a ruder as well as without chart and compass. You throw around terms such as righteousness and truth with no definitions.
Russ: If somebody asked you to show them God’s righteousness, you would show them the Ten Commandments. I would show them Jesus Christ.
Chris: The Decalogue is a scale by which to measure our actions as expounded in the Sermon on the Mount.
Russ: The Sermon on the Mount says that about the entire Law, not merely the Ten Commandments. 5:19-48.
240: Chris: Yes sin is lawless. Lawless is disobedience to the law is it not? And the Decalogue is the royal law, the law of love by the way. Love worked no ill!
Russ: Lawlessness is disobedience to any law. Even the Gentiles were guilty of violating the law of nature and conscience per Rom 1:18-20; 2:14-16. The Decalogue is NOT the same as the ROYAL LAW of love because LOVE is greater than any law.
Chris: Luke 6:46, “Why call ye me Lord, Lord and do not the things that I say”! And again, how do you separate the Written Word from the Incarnate Word and the Eternal Word? They are one.
Russ: The written Law was but a shadow of the righteousness of Jesus Christ. When we “rightly divide the Word of truth, we replace the written Law with Jesus Christ.
Chris: There is no receiving Jesus without receiving His Word, John 3:36, and 12:48, and Matthew 4:4. John 12:48, “He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day”. Your theology is very superficial.
Russ: When Jesus said “my words” he was referring to the Gospel he preached which surpassed the Law in holiness. You make the Old Covenant and the New Covenant into the same identical thing. You do not “rightly divide the Word of truth.” You teach that we should still obey all the Old Covenant and then you discard major portions of it, but keep the tithe. I say that your theology is TRANSPARENT. You do not want to lose that precious tithe but you certainly want to keep your house and property contrary to the tithe law of Numbers 18.
Chris: No I do not make both covenants the same. The new fulfills the old. However the law is still the law as it is immutable. The law of which I speak is the Decalogue.
Russ: God’s character is immutable. His Law for Old Covenant Israel has been re-written in terms of His New Covenant with the Church.
242: Chris: Rom 2:14-16: Conscience is as a fallen barometer since the fall, it works but now well.
Russ: Conscience and nature worked well enough to condemn Gentiles who did not have the revealed will of God through the Law.
Chris: If conscience were sufficient then we would not have had to have the Decalogue given.
Russ: The Decalogue was only given to God’s special nation of Israel in order to especially bless them. “Where sin abounds, grace much more abounds.” Only Israel had the great opportunity of being a blessed nation before Christ.
Chris: And then that was not enough as it had to be expounded: the Sermon on the Mount.
Russ: The entire Law was expanded by the Sermon on the Mount. That fact seems to bother you.
Chris: Rom 8:2: As for the spirit of life in Christ, this is the indwelling Presence that convicts and enables us to walk as He walked.
Russ: It is also the law written in the hearts of all believers and not the Old Covenant law.
243: Chris: I do not know why you have a hard time with what I said. The fact remains if there is no law then there is no sin because Sin is lawlessness! Whether the law is written in the conscience or on stone or even legislated it is the law. To be lawless is sin. If there is no law there is no sin regardless where it is written. Where it is written is immaterial at this point. The fact is no law no sin.
Russ: You are fighting your own false impression of what dispensationalism teaches. WE DO NOT TEACH NO LAW. We teach that WHEN the Old Covenant law ended for Hebrews, the New Covenant law began. This also means that, when the Law of conscience and nature ends for Gentiles the New Covenant Law begins.
Chris: That is foolish. The conscience still convicts unless we have seared it. But this is not sufficient alone.
Russ: You miss the point that the conscience of a believer is fully aware of the indwelling Holy Spirit and is advised and convicted by it.
Chris: We have a clear understanding of sin by the Law, Decalogue, And even more clear when meditating upon the Sermon on the Mount. And even clearer still when we behold our crucified Christ.
Russ: No. We NOW have a clear understanding of sin by looking at Jesus Christ. What would Jesus do? Not, what does the Law say? By beholding HIM we become changed; not by beholding the Law! 2 Cor 3:18
“But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord.”
244: Chris: My Friend, I have to beg off because my wife is very ill and I have not only to pastor but care for her as well. I also have all the domestic duties. Presently I have very little sleep. I do appreciate the time we have spent together.
Russ: It has been a real honest pleasure to sharpen swords with you, my friend. I am retired and do much of the domestic chores myself although I burn water so my wife prefers to cook. Please go easy on our mutual friend. He is merely seeking truth the best way he can.
Chris: By the way I do understand dispensationalism as I was taught dispensational hermeneutics in seminary. We probably had the same text book, Protestant Biblical Interpretation by Bernard Ram. I still have the book in my library.
May our Lord bless and guide you as we all need His guidance.
His unprofitable servant, Bro. Chris.
Russ: And to you the same.
Russell Earl Kelly
www.tithing-russkelly.com
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Reply to Chris, Reformed Baptist
Russell Kelly Replies to Pastor Chris Papas, Reformed Baptist, 2
101: Chris Papas to Russ Kelly: Reply, the error is in point 2, are you saying that the law is discussed and what is said has no application to us under the New Covenant? Are you saying that the Old Testament, the Old Covenant is completely done away?
Russ Kelly: Again, only that part of the Old Covenant law which was eternal and moral FOR ALL PEOPLE was repeated as part of the New Covenant to the Church in terms of grace and faith. And, “yes,” the entire Old Covenant Law ended at Calvary per Hebrews 8:13 and almost all of Galatians 3. The Old Covenant Law, as a covenant, was only commanded to Israel. If you disagree, then show me where God commanded uncircumcised Gentiles to obey the Old Covenant Law.
102: Chris: And is it only Jews that are required under the law to exercise “judgment, mercy and faith”? Are these not required of all men under both covenants?
Russ: You ignore the context. God was not addressing Gentiles and He did not command them to observe any of the Law. Of course He would have wanted them to exercise “judgment, mercy and faith” but Jesus was not addressing Gentiles when he said that in Matthew 23:23 –Jesus was discussing “matters of the Law” to those who “sit in Moses seat” per 23:2-3.
103: Chris: Furthermore, the entire text stands or falls together. The tithe and judgment, mercy and faith are discussed together with the emphasis is upon the latter, judgment, mercy and faith. A proper understanding of the passage is that both are required.
Russ: Of course they stand or fall together –as part of the Old Covenant Law for the Jews. They are just as much part of the Law as was killing disobedient children, not marrying Gentiles, not marrying mixed fabrics and not eating unclean food.
104: Chris: What you are saying is these do not apply to us under the New Covenant. This is poor exposition of the Scriptures!
Russ: O really! I suppose you obey the whole law and, as a tithe recipient, KILL anybody else who attempts to enter the sanctuary and worship God directly. I suppose you do not own or inherit property. You, sir, have no consistent principle of interpretation when deciding how to interpret the OT Law in the New Covenant after Calvary. Do not dare say that I have poor exposition if you will not clearly state your own hermeneutic.
105: Chris: What I said was Paul never distinguished the ceremonial law, civil law and moral law when he referred to the law. He simply spoke of the law.
Russ: So what do you do with this information about Paul’s use of the Law? Say something. You are straddling the fence here. As a Jew, Paul DID not distinguish between the commandments, statutes and ceremonial law because he believed that they all either stood or fell together. Discarding even the “least” part of the law violated Jesus’ explicit teaching of Matthew 5:19.
106: Chris: Also He did refer to the 10 commandments as the law, Romans 13:8-12.
Russ: Yes, and Jesus referred to Deuteronomy 6:5 and Leviticus 19:18 as the Law. The commandments, statutes and judgments were all equally the law. And Paul added Isaiah and Psalms to the law in Romans 3.
107: Chris: What I have said is what the New Testament says is fulfilled in Christ is what is fulfilled. We do not simply say the entire Old Covenant, the Old Testament is done away with.
Russ: The entire Old Covenant vanished per Hebrews 8:13 “In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.”
The entire Law had an ending time (until) in Gal 3:19 “Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.” Again, show me where that Law was ever commanded to Gentiles. Gentiles never were “under the law” as the Old Covenant.
108: Chris: in response to the above: Please be careful not to assume what I may have said.
Russ: I try not to do that. I am enjoying the dialog, my brother. You are not always clear.
109: Chris: I said the shadows or the types that were fulfilled in our Lord are done away with as the substance of those things promised is come in Him. For an example the sacrificial system is done away with once and for all. Jesus Christ has fulfilled the shadows as they all pointed to Him and His death on Calvary.
Russ: a) Gentiles never were under the Old Covenant law, b) the entire Old Covenant ‘vanished” per Hebrews 8:13 for Hebrews, c) you have eliminated the sacrificial system in violation of Matthew 5:19 “Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven,” d) I believe that Christ perfectly fulfilled all the “righteousness of the law” per Mt 5:20; Romans 3:21-22 and Gal 3:19-26. The whole law was a shadow of God’s righteousness in Jesus Christ who is the NEW STANDARD OF RIGHTEOUSNESS per John 14:6; 16:8-9; Heb 1:1-2.
110: Chris: This is also true as the believers are now a holy priesthood and are the temple of God. Therefore there is an end to these blood sacrifices.
Russ: There was an end to the entire Old Covenant law: Temple, priesthood, Levites, sacrifices, land, Levitical cities, festivals, holy days –and tithing. Why do you want to keep tithing and dump most of the rest? Tithing was a statute-ordinance of the CERMONIAL RELIGIOUS law which you say ended. Is not Numbers 18 the statute-ordinance of Law-tithing? Have you forgotten what this discussion is all about?
111: Chris: Dispensationalism teaches that the Jews will rebuild the temple and return to offering sacrifices. I affirm this is contrary to the Scriptures. Hebrews 10:4-10 “For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins. Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me: In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure. Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God. Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law; Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.”
Russ: When dispensationalists read the Old Testament prophets, we see hundreds of un-fulfilled un-conditional promises made to national Israel which have not been fulfilled by the Church. The Temple in the last chapters of Ezekiel is not described in conditional terms. Therefore we believe that it is a future temple in which sacrifice will be made AS MEMORIALS instead of made in order to atone for sins. There is no tithing in Ezekiel’s temple either because the Levites and priests will own their own land. I prefer to attempt to explain the hundreds of unconditional promises rather than pretend they are not found in my Bible.
112: Chris: This is what I mean when I said the types and shadows were fulfilled in Christ are abolished. “It is finished”, Christ made an end of those things “once and for all.”
Russ: Yet you want to keep teaching tithing although the Temple, priesthood, Levitical cites, holy land and covenant in which tithing was legislated to serve have all vanished and been replaced by the priesthood of every believer. I simply do not understand how you dare to do that.
113: Chris: However dispensationalists teach the temple shall be rebuilt and sacrifices again reinstituted by the Jews at the end of this dispensation of grace. One minute the Old Covenant is abolished and then it is restored?
Russ: You abolish the OT Temple and priesthood and keep the tithing part to support Gospel workers. On the other hand I resurrect the Temple and abolish tithing since it is not supported by Ezekiel 43 or after Calvary. I can show you a new temple in Ezekiel and Revelation 11 but you cannot show me tithing after Calvary.
114: Chris: I do not hold to Covenant Theology of the Presbyterians.
Russ: What hermeneutic do you hold to? It seems that you are in the middle and teach no consistent principle to bring laws over from the Old into the New Covenant.
115: Chris: You say we observe the moral law. All laws are either moral or immoral.
Russ: It was sin and immoral for a Hebrew food producer living inside Israel under the Old Covenant NOT to tithe. However it was NOT sin for OT Gentiles who were not living under the Old Covenant NOT to tithe. Am I right or not? Is this what we learn from Acts 15 and 21 or not? A Hebrew food producer living inside Israel ROBBED God by not tithing and was cursed under the conditions of that covenant. A Gentile could not be cursed for robbing God because the Gentile was NOT under that covenant.
117: Chris: As for civil laws do you have any problem with them?
Russ: I am not and never was under the civil laws (judgments) of Old Covenant national Israel. Are you? Are you? Are you? Answer my question.
118: Chris: The civil laws given were to protect men from men. I find no fault in them and we as a nation would do well to consider them. Our Lord is not harsh but full of grace. He hates sin and we should also.
Russ: The civil laws given in the Bible (called judgments) were primarily to protect Hebrews against Hebrews. As an inseparable part of the Old Covenant Law, they vanished at Calvary along with the rest of that Covenant per Hebrews 8:13 and Gal 3:19. I am a New Covenant Christian.
119: Chris: I do understand dispensationalism. Dispensationalists cut up the Scriptures and take most of it away from the people.
Russ: You do NOT understand dispensationalism. Dispensationalists take ALL of the Old Covenant away from Christian Hebrews and teach that the Gentiles never were under any of it as a Covenant.
120: Chris: Little of the gospels are left and leaving them with the epistles.
Russ: Until Calvary the Gospels are in the context of the Old Covenant upon which New Covenant light is shining. The Holy Spirit took Paul away for as many as 13 years to re-orient him in the new covenant law. Acts and the epistles are post-Calvary for the Church.
121: Chris: They have a hard time with James …
Russ: James is called by you the “Catholic epistle” because you do not understand James. The “perfect law of liberty” in James is not the Ten Commandments. Rather it is the “royal law” of “love,” the “golden rule” and “not respecting others.” You can keep the Ten Commandments without keeping the royal law but you cannot keep the royal law without keeping the whole moral law. You have trouble teaching the Ten Commands while ignoring the Sabbath commandment which teaches Saturday worship and slave ownership.
122: Chris: ... and they take away the Revelation with exception of the first 3 chapters.
Russ: You attempt to cram all of Revelation into the first century AD or spiritualize it. We teach that most of it is future as “things to come.”
123: Chris: They have a taint of the old Gnostic heresy. They are under grace and it matters not how they live. Holiness is not imperative to the new life. And as for repentance, that too goes out with the Old Covenant. Christ Jesus is presented as Savior but not as Lord.
Russ: You claim to know what I am. What are you? Identify yourself. Your understanding of Dispensational holiness is pathetic. We teach that a truly “born-again” person is in-dwelt by the Holy Spirit as a completely “new creation in Christ” and that person’s character has been changed to the point that he/she will obey God naturally as part of the new nature. Rom 8:3 “For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh.” True believers are severely punished by God until they return by repentance to a right fellowship with God per 1st John 1:1-9.
124: Chris: However what I said was the Bible speaks of the Law and does not break it up as many seek to do. Context distinguishes what aspect of the law is under discussion. I thought we agreed on this earlier. Look back to point 2.
Russ: But you DO BREAK IT UP when you teach that the commandments and judgments survive while the statutes have ended. This is also what most Covenant Theology teaches.
125: Chris: You have done away with the Old Covenant completely. When you fellows are confronted you waffle. Furthermore, all law is moral or immoral. There is no such thing as amoral!
Russ: “All law is moral or immoral” –to those to whom it applies. The U.S. law requires its citizens to pay taxes to it. U. S. law does not apply to other countries. In like manner tithing from the Law did not apply to Gentiles.
126: Chris: You have put away the Old Covenant. Apparently Paul did not know to do this. He quoted the Old Covenant and applied it to the Christians under the New Covenant, interesting!
Russ: Paul did not teach that all the Old Covenant WAS A COVENANT to Gentile Christians and you know very well that I am right! After 13 years of being re-oriented, Paul recognized what part of the Old Covenant was eternal and moral and applied to all people. Interesting –Paul did not teach tithing, circumcision, multiple wives, unclean food laws and killing disobedient children to the Church.
128: Chris: Abraham paid a tithe that preceded the law. And the Hermeneutical principle of first mentioned is totally ignore by you.
Russ: These are the hermeneutics you totally ignore here: a) The Bible does not call Abraham “Abram” here because he was still an uncircumcised Gentile from Babylon, b) the Bible does not say that Abram was either “commanded” to give by God or else “freely chose to give,” c) while Abram’s tithe preceded “the Law” it most certainly did not precede “the law of the land, Arab law” which required him to tithe spoils of war to his local king-priest. If you are going to literally follow “first use hermeneutics” here, then you must a) only tithe pagan spoils of war, b) only tithe once, c) only tithe to a Canaanite king-priest, d) only tithe to somebody who does not know God as Yahweh, e) keep nothing and f) give the 90% to the equivalent of the king of Sodom.
129: Chris: And Abraham was before the Law that came by Moses. And as for the tithe coming from within the Holy land and only in produce, that is absurd.
Russ: Don’t merely say it; prove it from God’s Word. Abram and Jacob’s tithes did not qualify as HOLY tithes under the Law. Absurd?? I have 16 texts to prove my point that HOLY tithes were always only food from inside Israel. Absurd? Put your texts where your mouth is! Prove from God’s Word that my argument is absurd if you can.
130: Chris: When you speak of the Old Covenant do you mean the entire Old Testament which is the Old Covenant or do you mean the Book of the Law the Covenant our Lord made with Israel through Moses on Sinai. Exodus 19-20? Or do you mean the first 5 Books of the Bible? That was the question I was asking.
Russ: The “Old Covenant began at Mt Sinai in Exodus 19 and ended at Calvary when Jesus inaugurated the New Covenant with his shed blood.
O. K. I have answered your question. Now you answer mine. What do you mean when you use the Word “law”?
131: Chris: I care not about English law as it is constantly in flux.
Russ: You very well know that I am speaking of English Law as it existed on July 4th, 1776. It ended suddenly, both good and bad, and that which was good in it was incorporated into the U. S. Constitution. That is the same comparison between the Old and New Covenants. The Old ended suddenly, both good and bad, at Calvary and the eternal moral parts of it were incorporated into the New Covenant as principles of grace and faith after Calvary.
132: Chris: I do care what the Scriptures say. The law written on stone was the 10 commandments. Do you know of any other law that was written on stone? These laws were written upon our hearts.
Russ: Here is where you are totally inconsistent. Is the “law” only the Ten Commandments? Does the “law written upon our hearts” only refer to the Ten Commandments or to the eternal moral parts of the whole law?
a) If you answer “Ten Commandments” then I will ask why you do not worship on Saturday and own slaves? b) If you answer “Ten Commandments, then I will ask which one of them teaches tithing?
133: Chris: The problem was not with the law as it is holy and it is good, Romans 7, the problem was with man. He was unable to keep the law.
Russ: Be careful. You might catch yourself agreeing with me. The Law WAS holy and it WAS good –for Old Covenant Israel. It was never given to me or other Gentiles. Romans 7 ends with Paul asking “WHO (not what) shall deliver me? –and then he quoted Romans 8:2 “For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.”
134: Chris: His problem was the need of a new birth. Then he does not have any problem with the law as it is written in his heart by the Spirit.
Russ: The “law written in the heart by the Spirit” is NOT the Old Covenant law to include tithing. Rather it is “the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus.” It is a “new” covenant per Heb 8:8; it is not the “Old” covenant rehashed. It is “NOT according to” the Old Covenant per Heb 8:9. The “Old” covenant has “vanished” per Heb 8:13.
135: Chris: All I said concerning the law to which you agreed, Point 2 is that when the Scriptures refer to the Law it simply say Law.
Russ: Yes, but you made no conclusion from that statement. You left it hanging meaningless.
136: Chris: As for Hebrews 8 it is apparent to the reader that the law referred to are the 10 commandments expounder in the Sermon on the Mount which Dispensationalists reject. They are summed up in the 2 Great commandments to love our Lord with our entire being and love our neighbor as our self.
Russ: How can the Law in Hebrews 8 only refer to the Ten Commandments if you say it is referring to Deuteronomy 6:5 and Leviticus 19:18 which are NOT in the Ten Commandments??? And, are you now rejecting the civil judgments as part of the law? Your use of “law” is all over the place.
137: Chris: By the way to do so fulfills all the law and the prophets! This is the entire Old Covalent!
Russ: Make up your mind. Are you trying to define “law” as only the Ten Commandments or as the entire Law of commandments, statutes and judgments? What does this have to say about our discussion of tithing? Do we keep tithing and all the rest of the law, or just keep the tithing part?
138: Chris: The hermeneutical principle you ignore. It is fundamental to understanding the Scriptures. That principle is the New Testament is the Divine commentary of the Old Testament.
Russ: We study American and World history in order to learn from their mistakes and sins. We do not have to re-live it literally in order to learn from it. The New Testament takes the righteous requirements of the Law and shows how Jesus Christ became the Righteousness of God for us. Every righteous aspect of the Law is now seen in Jesus. The Law was the light of OT Israel; Jesus is now the light of the world. The Law was God’s truth; Jesus is THE TRUTH of God.
139: Chris: However you have done away with the Old Covenant altogether and thus you do not need a commentary on that which is put away! It is totally done away with through your system of hermeneutics. Please reconsider this dispensational heresy.
Russ: You have not the slightest idea what you are talking about. Dispensationalists teach and preach out of the Old Testament as often as you do.
140: Chris: Sin is the transgression of the law, 1 John 3:4.
Russ: John does not use the word “law” to refer to the Old Covenant Law. Rather he uses the word “law” to refer to the “revealed will of God” or even the “royal law of love.” The Greek says “Sin is lawlessness.”
In John 16:8-9 the standard of righteousness and judgment has changed from the whole Law to Jesus Himself. In John 14:6 Jesus is not merely “a way, a truth, a life” but He is “the way, the truth and the life.” When Psalm 119 said “Thy Word have I hid in mine heart that I may not sin against thee, “ John says “The Word became flesh and dwelt among us.”
God does not ask the sinner, “What have you done with my law?” Rather God asks the sinner “What have you done with my son?” John 3:16-18.
141: Chris: That is an interesting answer. Luke 6:46, “Why call ye me Lord, Lord and do not the things that I say”! And again, how do you separate the Written Word from the Incarnate Word and the Eternal Word? They are one. There is no receiving Jesus without receiving His Word, John 3:36, and 12:48, and Matthew 4:4. John 12:48, “He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day”. Your theology is very superficial.
Russ: You make the Old Covenant and the New Covenant into the same identical thing. You do not “rightly divide the Word of truth.” You teach that we should still obey all the Old Covenant and then you discard major portions of it, but keep the tithe. I say that your theology is TRANSPARENT. You do not want to lose that precious tithe but you certainly want to keep your house and property contrary to the tithe law of Numbers 18.
142: Chris: No law then no sin!
Russ: There is always law. There is always God’s revelation of Himself to mankind.
Rom 2:14-16 “For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;) In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.”
The law of conscience and nature was sufficient to condemn Gentiles who were not under the Old Covenant Law. The New Covenant Law is God’s character becoming a part of our “new creation” in Christ. We obey because we have a new nature. Rom 8:2 “For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.”
143: Chris: I do not know why you have a hard time with what I said. The fact remains if there is no law then there is no sin because Sin is lawlessness! Whether the law is written in the conscience or on stone or even legislated it is the law. To be lawless is sin. If there is no law there is no sin regardless where it is written. Where it is written is immaterial at this point. The fact is no law not sin.
Russ: You are fighting your own false impression of what dispensationalism teaches. WE DO NOT TEACH NO LAW. We teach that WHEN the Old Covenant law ended for Hebrews, the New Covenant law began. This also means that, when the Law of conscience and nature ends for Gentiles the New Covenant Law begins.
144: Chris: When correcting dispensationalists they cry legalism.
Russ: We cry out that you do not understand that the Old Covenant Law was only given to national Israel and that is was in three inseparable parts. The Law was always an indivisible whole and all Jews understand that.
145: Chris: Please define the Old Covenant? When Moses established the Covenant the 10 commandments were part of that Covenant. This covenant that God made with Israel when they came out of Egypt is recorded for us in Exodus 19-20. This Covenant was ratified by the Blood. Is this done away? They are the 10 commandments? I reject such a thought.
Russ: Your definition is partly correct where you say that the Ten Commandments are PART of that Covenant and where you say that God made it WITH ISRAEL. Then you confuse both yourself and me. If it were not done away, then we still have both the Old and New Covenants contrary to Hebrews 8:8-13.
146: Chris: They (Dispensationalists) are lawless and the devil is called the lawless one.
Russ: The born-again Christian is a new creation in Christ (2 Cor 5:17. He has been redeemed and the Holy Spirit has indwelled the believer. The “law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.” Does that sound lawless to you? The new royal law of love is part of our new divine character.
147: Chris:
As for the tithe not being a moral law, is it not immoral to steal? How much more in robbing God! If it was immoral at one time then why is it not immoral now? Did you not say that the moral law stands?
Russ: It was sin for national Israel under the Old Covenant to steal from God by not tithing. It was also sin for national Israel to (1) not give those tithes as holy food from inside Israel, (2) not give those tithes to the Levite servants to the priests, (3) not give the priests a tenth of the tenth, (4) not KILL anybody who dared enter the sanctuary to worship God directly and (5) not forfeit land and property inheritance rights in exchange for the tithe. The tithing statute of Numbers 18 is part of the ceremonial law and even Covenant Theology teaches that the ceremonial law has ended (see Heb 7:5, 12, 18).
148: Chris: I believe the argument that is set forth in that passage is the Priesthood of our Lord exceeding that of Aaron and the Levitical priesthood as Abraham paid the tithe to Melchizedek. Thus Levi in the loins of Abraham paid the tithe to a priest greater than they. The priesthood of our Lord Jesus Christ is the greater than that of the Aaronic priesthood He is after the order of Melchizedek. The tithe is not said to be done away with but the Aaronic priesthood. The tithe is the Lord’s.
Russ: And you, like every other tithe teacher, stop your study with verse 10 and totally ignores verse 12-19, especially 12 and 18. The “law” which was “of necessity changed” in 7:12 must include the “law, commandment” “to take tithes” from 7:5 because it is the only law mentioned to that point in Hebrews 7. And the “necessary change” (7:12) of the “commandment going before” (7:18) to “take tithes of the people” (7:5) is its “annulment” in 7:18. That, my friend, is the context.
149: Chris: Gen 14. Also you ignore that Melchizedek came to Abraham with bread and wine. He came and refreshed Abraham. This was not the activity of pagan Kings.
Russ: This is the activity of EVERY king who goes out to welcome a victor bringing him wealth! Bread and wine are the most common basic staples of food in that region. Hebrews 7 makes no mention of this as it is no big deal.
150: Chris: The fact remains Abraham paid tithes. Paying tithes was before the law. And paying tithes was understood.
Russ: So what! So also was idol worship, child sacrifice and temple prostitution but that does not make any of them eternal moral principles.
151: Chris: What your interpretation of Melchizedek is, I believe as it is said he had no beginning or end is a theophany of Christ in the Old Testament.
Russ: Read my chapter on Hebrews 7. Nothing, absolutely nothing, written about the historical Melchizedek of Genesis 14 qualifies him to be a priest in Israel. But everything about the historical Melchizedek of Genesis 14 makes Jesus qualified to be a high priest after his order of a king-priest serving God Most High –the high god of most nations of that day.
152: Chris: You make the tithe to be limited to produce. What you fail to realize is produce has intrinsic value. Preachers and doctors were at one time paid with chickens, potatoes etc. In Haiti many still tithe in this way. The tithe was still a 10th.
Russ: One argument to support non-food tithing is that money was not universally available and barter from food was used for most transactions. This argument is neither biblical nor historical. Genesis alone contains money in 32 texts and the word occurs 44 times before the holy tithe is described in Leviticus 27. Gold is in Genesis 2:12. The words jewelry, gold, silver and shekel also appear often from Genesis to Deuteronomy.
Abram was very rich in silver and gold (Gen 13:2); money in the form of silver shekels paid for slaves (Gen 17:12+); Abimelech gave Abraham 1000 pieces of silver (Gen 20:16); Abraham paid 400 pieces of silver for land (Gen 23:9-16); Joseph was sold for silver pieces (Gen 37:28); slaves bought freedom (Lev 25:47-53). Court fines (Ex 21 all; 22 all), sanctuary dues (Ex 30:12+), vows (Lev 27:3-7), poll taxes (Num 3:47+), alcoholic drinks (Deu 14:26) and marriage dowries (Deu 22:29) included money.
Joseph gave Benjamin 300 pieces of silver (Gen 45:22). According to Genesis 47:15-17 food was used for barter only after money had been spent. Banking and usury laws exist in Leviticus even before tithing. Therefore the argument is false. Yet the holy contents from Leviticus to Luke never include money from non-food products and trades.
153: Chris: … Tim Lahay and D. w. Pentecost are absurd. Their theology is absurd. Their premillennial view of Scripture is Roman Catholic. Dispensationalists follow the teachings of a Jesuit Francis Rebera. Historically their system of theology is relatively new 16th century and very shallow. They are no more than a revival of the old Gnostic heresy.
Russ: If I knew where you are coming from, I am sure that I could say similar things about your theology. Please stick to God’s Word and do not attack me personally.
101: Chris Papas to Russ Kelly: Reply, the error is in point 2, are you saying that the law is discussed and what is said has no application to us under the New Covenant? Are you saying that the Old Testament, the Old Covenant is completely done away?
Russ Kelly: Again, only that part of the Old Covenant law which was eternal and moral FOR ALL PEOPLE was repeated as part of the New Covenant to the Church in terms of grace and faith. And, “yes,” the entire Old Covenant Law ended at Calvary per Hebrews 8:13 and almost all of Galatians 3. The Old Covenant Law, as a covenant, was only commanded to Israel. If you disagree, then show me where God commanded uncircumcised Gentiles to obey the Old Covenant Law.
102: Chris: And is it only Jews that are required under the law to exercise “judgment, mercy and faith”? Are these not required of all men under both covenants?
Russ: You ignore the context. God was not addressing Gentiles and He did not command them to observe any of the Law. Of course He would have wanted them to exercise “judgment, mercy and faith” but Jesus was not addressing Gentiles when he said that in Matthew 23:23 –Jesus was discussing “matters of the Law” to those who “sit in Moses seat” per 23:2-3.
103: Chris: Furthermore, the entire text stands or falls together. The tithe and judgment, mercy and faith are discussed together with the emphasis is upon the latter, judgment, mercy and faith. A proper understanding of the passage is that both are required.
Russ: Of course they stand or fall together –as part of the Old Covenant Law for the Jews. They are just as much part of the Law as was killing disobedient children, not marrying Gentiles, not marrying mixed fabrics and not eating unclean food.
104: Chris: What you are saying is these do not apply to us under the New Covenant. This is poor exposition of the Scriptures!
Russ: O really! I suppose you obey the whole law and, as a tithe recipient, KILL anybody else who attempts to enter the sanctuary and worship God directly. I suppose you do not own or inherit property. You, sir, have no consistent principle of interpretation when deciding how to interpret the OT Law in the New Covenant after Calvary. Do not dare say that I have poor exposition if you will not clearly state your own hermeneutic.
105: Chris: What I said was Paul never distinguished the ceremonial law, civil law and moral law when he referred to the law. He simply spoke of the law.
Russ: So what do you do with this information about Paul’s use of the Law? Say something. You are straddling the fence here. As a Jew, Paul DID not distinguish between the commandments, statutes and ceremonial law because he believed that they all either stood or fell together. Discarding even the “least” part of the law violated Jesus’ explicit teaching of Matthew 5:19.
106: Chris: Also He did refer to the 10 commandments as the law, Romans 13:8-12.
Russ: Yes, and Jesus referred to Deuteronomy 6:5 and Leviticus 19:18 as the Law. The commandments, statutes and judgments were all equally the law. And Paul added Isaiah and Psalms to the law in Romans 3.
107: Chris: What I have said is what the New Testament says is fulfilled in Christ is what is fulfilled. We do not simply say the entire Old Covenant, the Old Testament is done away with.
Russ: The entire Old Covenant vanished per Hebrews 8:13 “In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.”
The entire Law had an ending time (until) in Gal 3:19 “Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.” Again, show me where that Law was ever commanded to Gentiles. Gentiles never were “under the law” as the Old Covenant.
108: Chris: in response to the above: Please be careful not to assume what I may have said.
Russ: I try not to do that. I am enjoying the dialog, my brother. You are not always clear.
109: Chris: I said the shadows or the types that were fulfilled in our Lord are done away with as the substance of those things promised is come in Him. For an example the sacrificial system is done away with once and for all. Jesus Christ has fulfilled the shadows as they all pointed to Him and His death on Calvary.
Russ: a) Gentiles never were under the Old Covenant law, b) the entire Old Covenant ‘vanished” per Hebrews 8:13 for Hebrews, c) you have eliminated the sacrificial system in violation of Matthew 5:19 “Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven,” d) I believe that Christ perfectly fulfilled all the “righteousness of the law” per Mt 5:20; Romans 3:21-22 and Gal 3:19-26. The whole law was a shadow of God’s righteousness in Jesus Christ who is the NEW STANDARD OF RIGHTEOUSNESS per John 14:6; 16:8-9; Heb 1:1-2.
110: Chris: This is also true as the believers are now a holy priesthood and are the temple of God. Therefore there is an end to these blood sacrifices.
Russ: There was an end to the entire Old Covenant law: Temple, priesthood, Levites, sacrifices, land, Levitical cities, festivals, holy days –and tithing. Why do you want to keep tithing and dump most of the rest? Tithing was a statute-ordinance of the CERMONIAL RELIGIOUS law which you say ended. Is not Numbers 18 the statute-ordinance of Law-tithing? Have you forgotten what this discussion is all about?
111: Chris: Dispensationalism teaches that the Jews will rebuild the temple and return to offering sacrifices. I affirm this is contrary to the Scriptures. Hebrews 10:4-10 “For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins. Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me: In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure. Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God. Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law; Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.”
Russ: When dispensationalists read the Old Testament prophets, we see hundreds of un-fulfilled un-conditional promises made to national Israel which have not been fulfilled by the Church. The Temple in the last chapters of Ezekiel is not described in conditional terms. Therefore we believe that it is a future temple in which sacrifice will be made AS MEMORIALS instead of made in order to atone for sins. There is no tithing in Ezekiel’s temple either because the Levites and priests will own their own land. I prefer to attempt to explain the hundreds of unconditional promises rather than pretend they are not found in my Bible.
112: Chris: This is what I mean when I said the types and shadows were fulfilled in Christ are abolished. “It is finished”, Christ made an end of those things “once and for all.”
Russ: Yet you want to keep teaching tithing although the Temple, priesthood, Levitical cites, holy land and covenant in which tithing was legislated to serve have all vanished and been replaced by the priesthood of every believer. I simply do not understand how you dare to do that.
113: Chris: However dispensationalists teach the temple shall be rebuilt and sacrifices again reinstituted by the Jews at the end of this dispensation of grace. One minute the Old Covenant is abolished and then it is restored?
Russ: You abolish the OT Temple and priesthood and keep the tithing part to support Gospel workers. On the other hand I resurrect the Temple and abolish tithing since it is not supported by Ezekiel 43 or after Calvary. I can show you a new temple in Ezekiel and Revelation 11 but you cannot show me tithing after Calvary.
114: Chris: I do not hold to Covenant Theology of the Presbyterians.
Russ: What hermeneutic do you hold to? It seems that you are in the middle and teach no consistent principle to bring laws over from the Old into the New Covenant.
115: Chris: You say we observe the moral law. All laws are either moral or immoral.
Russ: It was sin and immoral for a Hebrew food producer living inside Israel under the Old Covenant NOT to tithe. However it was NOT sin for OT Gentiles who were not living under the Old Covenant NOT to tithe. Am I right or not? Is this what we learn from Acts 15 and 21 or not? A Hebrew food producer living inside Israel ROBBED God by not tithing and was cursed under the conditions of that covenant. A Gentile could not be cursed for robbing God because the Gentile was NOT under that covenant.
117: Chris: As for civil laws do you have any problem with them?
Russ: I am not and never was under the civil laws (judgments) of Old Covenant national Israel. Are you? Are you? Are you? Answer my question.
118: Chris: The civil laws given were to protect men from men. I find no fault in them and we as a nation would do well to consider them. Our Lord is not harsh but full of grace. He hates sin and we should also.
Russ: The civil laws given in the Bible (called judgments) were primarily to protect Hebrews against Hebrews. As an inseparable part of the Old Covenant Law, they vanished at Calvary along with the rest of that Covenant per Hebrews 8:13 and Gal 3:19. I am a New Covenant Christian.
119: Chris: I do understand dispensationalism. Dispensationalists cut up the Scriptures and take most of it away from the people.
Russ: You do NOT understand dispensationalism. Dispensationalists take ALL of the Old Covenant away from Christian Hebrews and teach that the Gentiles never were under any of it as a Covenant.
120: Chris: Little of the gospels are left and leaving them with the epistles.
Russ: Until Calvary the Gospels are in the context of the Old Covenant upon which New Covenant light is shining. The Holy Spirit took Paul away for as many as 13 years to re-orient him in the new covenant law. Acts and the epistles are post-Calvary for the Church.
121: Chris: They have a hard time with James …
Russ: James is called by you the “Catholic epistle” because you do not understand James. The “perfect law of liberty” in James is not the Ten Commandments. Rather it is the “royal law” of “love,” the “golden rule” and “not respecting others.” You can keep the Ten Commandments without keeping the royal law but you cannot keep the royal law without keeping the whole moral law. You have trouble teaching the Ten Commands while ignoring the Sabbath commandment which teaches Saturday worship and slave ownership.
122: Chris: ... and they take away the Revelation with exception of the first 3 chapters.
Russ: You attempt to cram all of Revelation into the first century AD or spiritualize it. We teach that most of it is future as “things to come.”
123: Chris: They have a taint of the old Gnostic heresy. They are under grace and it matters not how they live. Holiness is not imperative to the new life. And as for repentance, that too goes out with the Old Covenant. Christ Jesus is presented as Savior but not as Lord.
Russ: You claim to know what I am. What are you? Identify yourself. Your understanding of Dispensational holiness is pathetic. We teach that a truly “born-again” person is in-dwelt by the Holy Spirit as a completely “new creation in Christ” and that person’s character has been changed to the point that he/she will obey God naturally as part of the new nature. Rom 8:3 “For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh.” True believers are severely punished by God until they return by repentance to a right fellowship with God per 1st John 1:1-9.
124: Chris: However what I said was the Bible speaks of the Law and does not break it up as many seek to do. Context distinguishes what aspect of the law is under discussion. I thought we agreed on this earlier. Look back to point 2.
Russ: But you DO BREAK IT UP when you teach that the commandments and judgments survive while the statutes have ended. This is also what most Covenant Theology teaches.
125: Chris: You have done away with the Old Covenant completely. When you fellows are confronted you waffle. Furthermore, all law is moral or immoral. There is no such thing as amoral!
Russ: “All law is moral or immoral” –to those to whom it applies. The U.S. law requires its citizens to pay taxes to it. U. S. law does not apply to other countries. In like manner tithing from the Law did not apply to Gentiles.
126: Chris: You have put away the Old Covenant. Apparently Paul did not know to do this. He quoted the Old Covenant and applied it to the Christians under the New Covenant, interesting!
Russ: Paul did not teach that all the Old Covenant WAS A COVENANT to Gentile Christians and you know very well that I am right! After 13 years of being re-oriented, Paul recognized what part of the Old Covenant was eternal and moral and applied to all people. Interesting –Paul did not teach tithing, circumcision, multiple wives, unclean food laws and killing disobedient children to the Church.
128: Chris: Abraham paid a tithe that preceded the law. And the Hermeneutical principle of first mentioned is totally ignore by you.
Russ: These are the hermeneutics you totally ignore here: a) The Bible does not call Abraham “Abram” here because he was still an uncircumcised Gentile from Babylon, b) the Bible does not say that Abram was either “commanded” to give by God or else “freely chose to give,” c) while Abram’s tithe preceded “the Law” it most certainly did not precede “the law of the land, Arab law” which required him to tithe spoils of war to his local king-priest. If you are going to literally follow “first use hermeneutics” here, then you must a) only tithe pagan spoils of war, b) only tithe once, c) only tithe to a Canaanite king-priest, d) only tithe to somebody who does not know God as Yahweh, e) keep nothing and f) give the 90% to the equivalent of the king of Sodom.
129: Chris: And Abraham was before the Law that came by Moses. And as for the tithe coming from within the Holy land and only in produce, that is absurd.
Russ: Don’t merely say it; prove it from God’s Word. Abram and Jacob’s tithes did not qualify as HOLY tithes under the Law. Absurd?? I have 16 texts to prove my point that HOLY tithes were always only food from inside Israel. Absurd? Put your texts where your mouth is! Prove from God’s Word that my argument is absurd if you can.
130: Chris: When you speak of the Old Covenant do you mean the entire Old Testament which is the Old Covenant or do you mean the Book of the Law the Covenant our Lord made with Israel through Moses on Sinai. Exodus 19-20? Or do you mean the first 5 Books of the Bible? That was the question I was asking.
Russ: The “Old Covenant began at Mt Sinai in Exodus 19 and ended at Calvary when Jesus inaugurated the New Covenant with his shed blood.
O. K. I have answered your question. Now you answer mine. What do you mean when you use the Word “law”?
131: Chris: I care not about English law as it is constantly in flux.
Russ: You very well know that I am speaking of English Law as it existed on July 4th, 1776. It ended suddenly, both good and bad, and that which was good in it was incorporated into the U. S. Constitution. That is the same comparison between the Old and New Covenants. The Old ended suddenly, both good and bad, at Calvary and the eternal moral parts of it were incorporated into the New Covenant as principles of grace and faith after Calvary.
132: Chris: I do care what the Scriptures say. The law written on stone was the 10 commandments. Do you know of any other law that was written on stone? These laws were written upon our hearts.
Russ: Here is where you are totally inconsistent. Is the “law” only the Ten Commandments? Does the “law written upon our hearts” only refer to the Ten Commandments or to the eternal moral parts of the whole law?
a) If you answer “Ten Commandments” then I will ask why you do not worship on Saturday and own slaves? b) If you answer “Ten Commandments, then I will ask which one of them teaches tithing?
133: Chris: The problem was not with the law as it is holy and it is good, Romans 7, the problem was with man. He was unable to keep the law.
Russ: Be careful. You might catch yourself agreeing with me. The Law WAS holy and it WAS good –for Old Covenant Israel. It was never given to me or other Gentiles. Romans 7 ends with Paul asking “WHO (not what) shall deliver me? –and then he quoted Romans 8:2 “For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.”
134: Chris: His problem was the need of a new birth. Then he does not have any problem with the law as it is written in his heart by the Spirit.
Russ: The “law written in the heart by the Spirit” is NOT the Old Covenant law to include tithing. Rather it is “the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus.” It is a “new” covenant per Heb 8:8; it is not the “Old” covenant rehashed. It is “NOT according to” the Old Covenant per Heb 8:9. The “Old” covenant has “vanished” per Heb 8:13.
135: Chris: All I said concerning the law to which you agreed, Point 2 is that when the Scriptures refer to the Law it simply say Law.
Russ: Yes, but you made no conclusion from that statement. You left it hanging meaningless.
136: Chris: As for Hebrews 8 it is apparent to the reader that the law referred to are the 10 commandments expounder in the Sermon on the Mount which Dispensationalists reject. They are summed up in the 2 Great commandments to love our Lord with our entire being and love our neighbor as our self.
Russ: How can the Law in Hebrews 8 only refer to the Ten Commandments if you say it is referring to Deuteronomy 6:5 and Leviticus 19:18 which are NOT in the Ten Commandments??? And, are you now rejecting the civil judgments as part of the law? Your use of “law” is all over the place.
137: Chris: By the way to do so fulfills all the law and the prophets! This is the entire Old Covalent!
Russ: Make up your mind. Are you trying to define “law” as only the Ten Commandments or as the entire Law of commandments, statutes and judgments? What does this have to say about our discussion of tithing? Do we keep tithing and all the rest of the law, or just keep the tithing part?
138: Chris: The hermeneutical principle you ignore. It is fundamental to understanding the Scriptures. That principle is the New Testament is the Divine commentary of the Old Testament.
Russ: We study American and World history in order to learn from their mistakes and sins. We do not have to re-live it literally in order to learn from it. The New Testament takes the righteous requirements of the Law and shows how Jesus Christ became the Righteousness of God for us. Every righteous aspect of the Law is now seen in Jesus. The Law was the light of OT Israel; Jesus is now the light of the world. The Law was God’s truth; Jesus is THE TRUTH of God.
139: Chris: However you have done away with the Old Covenant altogether and thus you do not need a commentary on that which is put away! It is totally done away with through your system of hermeneutics. Please reconsider this dispensational heresy.
Russ: You have not the slightest idea what you are talking about. Dispensationalists teach and preach out of the Old Testament as often as you do.
140: Chris: Sin is the transgression of the law, 1 John 3:4.
Russ: John does not use the word “law” to refer to the Old Covenant Law. Rather he uses the word “law” to refer to the “revealed will of God” or even the “royal law of love.” The Greek says “Sin is lawlessness.”
In John 16:8-9 the standard of righteousness and judgment has changed from the whole Law to Jesus Himself. In John 14:6 Jesus is not merely “a way, a truth, a life” but He is “the way, the truth and the life.” When Psalm 119 said “Thy Word have I hid in mine heart that I may not sin against thee, “ John says “The Word became flesh and dwelt among us.”
God does not ask the sinner, “What have you done with my law?” Rather God asks the sinner “What have you done with my son?” John 3:16-18.
141: Chris: That is an interesting answer. Luke 6:46, “Why call ye me Lord, Lord and do not the things that I say”! And again, how do you separate the Written Word from the Incarnate Word and the Eternal Word? They are one. There is no receiving Jesus without receiving His Word, John 3:36, and 12:48, and Matthew 4:4. John 12:48, “He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day”. Your theology is very superficial.
Russ: You make the Old Covenant and the New Covenant into the same identical thing. You do not “rightly divide the Word of truth.” You teach that we should still obey all the Old Covenant and then you discard major portions of it, but keep the tithe. I say that your theology is TRANSPARENT. You do not want to lose that precious tithe but you certainly want to keep your house and property contrary to the tithe law of Numbers 18.
142: Chris: No law then no sin!
Russ: There is always law. There is always God’s revelation of Himself to mankind.
Rom 2:14-16 “For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;) In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.”
The law of conscience and nature was sufficient to condemn Gentiles who were not under the Old Covenant Law. The New Covenant Law is God’s character becoming a part of our “new creation” in Christ. We obey because we have a new nature. Rom 8:2 “For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.”
143: Chris: I do not know why you have a hard time with what I said. The fact remains if there is no law then there is no sin because Sin is lawlessness! Whether the law is written in the conscience or on stone or even legislated it is the law. To be lawless is sin. If there is no law there is no sin regardless where it is written. Where it is written is immaterial at this point. The fact is no law not sin.
Russ: You are fighting your own false impression of what dispensationalism teaches. WE DO NOT TEACH NO LAW. We teach that WHEN the Old Covenant law ended for Hebrews, the New Covenant law began. This also means that, when the Law of conscience and nature ends for Gentiles the New Covenant Law begins.
144: Chris: When correcting dispensationalists they cry legalism.
Russ: We cry out that you do not understand that the Old Covenant Law was only given to national Israel and that is was in three inseparable parts. The Law was always an indivisible whole and all Jews understand that.
145: Chris: Please define the Old Covenant? When Moses established the Covenant the 10 commandments were part of that Covenant. This covenant that God made with Israel when they came out of Egypt is recorded for us in Exodus 19-20. This Covenant was ratified by the Blood. Is this done away? They are the 10 commandments? I reject such a thought.
Russ: Your definition is partly correct where you say that the Ten Commandments are PART of that Covenant and where you say that God made it WITH ISRAEL. Then you confuse both yourself and me. If it were not done away, then we still have both the Old and New Covenants contrary to Hebrews 8:8-13.
146: Chris: They (Dispensationalists) are lawless and the devil is called the lawless one.
Russ: The born-again Christian is a new creation in Christ (2 Cor 5:17. He has been redeemed and the Holy Spirit has indwelled the believer. The “law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.” Does that sound lawless to you? The new royal law of love is part of our new divine character.
147: Chris:
As for the tithe not being a moral law, is it not immoral to steal? How much more in robbing God! If it was immoral at one time then why is it not immoral now? Did you not say that the moral law stands?
Russ: It was sin for national Israel under the Old Covenant to steal from God by not tithing. It was also sin for national Israel to (1) not give those tithes as holy food from inside Israel, (2) not give those tithes to the Levite servants to the priests, (3) not give the priests a tenth of the tenth, (4) not KILL anybody who dared enter the sanctuary to worship God directly and (5) not forfeit land and property inheritance rights in exchange for the tithe. The tithing statute of Numbers 18 is part of the ceremonial law and even Covenant Theology teaches that the ceremonial law has ended (see Heb 7:5, 12, 18).
148: Chris: I believe the argument that is set forth in that passage is the Priesthood of our Lord exceeding that of Aaron and the Levitical priesthood as Abraham paid the tithe to Melchizedek. Thus Levi in the loins of Abraham paid the tithe to a priest greater than they. The priesthood of our Lord Jesus Christ is the greater than that of the Aaronic priesthood He is after the order of Melchizedek. The tithe is not said to be done away with but the Aaronic priesthood. The tithe is the Lord’s.
Russ: And you, like every other tithe teacher, stop your study with verse 10 and totally ignores verse 12-19, especially 12 and 18. The “law” which was “of necessity changed” in 7:12 must include the “law, commandment” “to take tithes” from 7:5 because it is the only law mentioned to that point in Hebrews 7. And the “necessary change” (7:12) of the “commandment going before” (7:18) to “take tithes of the people” (7:5) is its “annulment” in 7:18. That, my friend, is the context.
149: Chris: Gen 14. Also you ignore that Melchizedek came to Abraham with bread and wine. He came and refreshed Abraham. This was not the activity of pagan Kings.
Russ: This is the activity of EVERY king who goes out to welcome a victor bringing him wealth! Bread and wine are the most common basic staples of food in that region. Hebrews 7 makes no mention of this as it is no big deal.
150: Chris: The fact remains Abraham paid tithes. Paying tithes was before the law. And paying tithes was understood.
Russ: So what! So also was idol worship, child sacrifice and temple prostitution but that does not make any of them eternal moral principles.
151: Chris: What your interpretation of Melchizedek is, I believe as it is said he had no beginning or end is a theophany of Christ in the Old Testament.
Russ: Read my chapter on Hebrews 7. Nothing, absolutely nothing, written about the historical Melchizedek of Genesis 14 qualifies him to be a priest in Israel. But everything about the historical Melchizedek of Genesis 14 makes Jesus qualified to be a high priest after his order of a king-priest serving God Most High –the high god of most nations of that day.
152: Chris: You make the tithe to be limited to produce. What you fail to realize is produce has intrinsic value. Preachers and doctors were at one time paid with chickens, potatoes etc. In Haiti many still tithe in this way. The tithe was still a 10th.
Russ: One argument to support non-food tithing is that money was not universally available and barter from food was used for most transactions. This argument is neither biblical nor historical. Genesis alone contains money in 32 texts and the word occurs 44 times before the holy tithe is described in Leviticus 27. Gold is in Genesis 2:12. The words jewelry, gold, silver and shekel also appear often from Genesis to Deuteronomy.
Abram was very rich in silver and gold (Gen 13:2); money in the form of silver shekels paid for slaves (Gen 17:12+); Abimelech gave Abraham 1000 pieces of silver (Gen 20:16); Abraham paid 400 pieces of silver for land (Gen 23:9-16); Joseph was sold for silver pieces (Gen 37:28); slaves bought freedom (Lev 25:47-53). Court fines (Ex 21 all; 22 all), sanctuary dues (Ex 30:12+), vows (Lev 27:3-7), poll taxes (Num 3:47+), alcoholic drinks (Deu 14:26) and marriage dowries (Deu 22:29) included money.
Joseph gave Benjamin 300 pieces of silver (Gen 45:22). According to Genesis 47:15-17 food was used for barter only after money had been spent. Banking and usury laws exist in Leviticus even before tithing. Therefore the argument is false. Yet the holy contents from Leviticus to Luke never include money from non-food products and trades.
153: Chris: … Tim Lahay and D. w. Pentecost are absurd. Their theology is absurd. Their premillennial view of Scripture is Roman Catholic. Dispensationalists follow the teachings of a Jesuit Francis Rebera. Historically their system of theology is relatively new 16th century and very shallow. They are no more than a revival of the old Gnostic heresy.
Russ: If I knew where you are coming from, I am sure that I could say similar things about your theology. Please stick to God’s Word and do not attack me personally.
Friday, May 21, 2010
JOHN OWEN DID NOT TEACH TITHING
JOHN OWEN DID NOT TEACH TITHING
Bible Explore.com
http://www.godrules.net/library/owen/131-295owen_u3.htm
JOHN OWEN (1616-1683), HEBREWS 7, Observation XXIV
JOHN OWEN’S VIEWPOINT OF TITHING:
Restated and clarified by Russell Earl Kelly, Ph. D., www.tithing-russkelly.com
Introduction:
Owen: And without solicitousness concerning offense, I shall take leave to say, that it is no safe plea for many to insist on, that tithes are due and divine, as they speak, — that is, by a binding law of God, — now under the gospel.
Kelly: Knowing that he is going against the prevailing sympathy of the Church, Owen hesitatingly admits that many teach that gospel workers are now due tithes because they are the law of God.
Owen: For be the law and institution what it will, nothing is more certain than that there is nothing due under the gospel, by virtue of God’s command or institution with respect unto his worship, unto any who do not wholly give up themselves unto the ministry, and “labor in the word and doctrine;” unless they be such as are disenabled by age and infirmities, who are not to be forsaken all the days of their lives.
Kelly: Without approving of tithing, Owen strongly opposes paying any gospel worker anything from any source who is not wholly dedicated to ministry.
Owen: For men to live in pleasure and idleness, according to the pomp, vanities, and grandeur of the world, neither rising early, nor going to bed late, nor spending their time and strength in the service of the church, according to the duties required of all the ministers thereof in the gospel, to sing unto themselves that tithes are due to them by the appointment and law of God, is a fond imagination, a dream that will fill them with perplexity when they shall awake.
Kelly: Owen says that gospel workers who are not wholly dedicated hard workers only “imagine” or “dream” that they are due tithes.
Owen: But as unto the question in hand, I shall briefly give my thoughts about it in the ensuing observations and propositions:
Kelly: Owen does not claim to be the last inspired word on this subject. He is much more forceful when supporting Calvinism.
Definitions:
Owen: — By “tithes” is understood either (1) the express law of tithing, or (2) paying the tenth of all our substance and of the whole increase of the earth; or (3) only the dedicating of a certain portion of what we have unto the uses of the worship and service of God.
Kelly: Owen states several different possible definitions of “tithes.”
(1) The express law of tithing.
(2) Paying the tenth of all one’s substance and increase.
(3) Dedicating an indefinite portion, or percentage, of what one has similar to freewill offerings.
Owen is merely quoting what others believe. The true biblical HOLY tithe (from the express law of tithing) was always only food from inside God’s holy land of Israel which God has miraculously increased.
Owen: 1. If this latter be intended, it is with me past all doubt and question that a bountiful part of our enjoyments is to be separated unto the use and service of the worship of God, particularly unto the comfortable and honorable supportment of them that labor in the ministry.
Kelly: Owen has no quarrel with the (3rd above) definition of tithes as merely another word for freewill offerings. This will be his final observation XXIV that only freewill giving is for the Church today.
Owen: And it is no small part of that confusion which we suffer under, that Christians, being in all places compelled to pay the tenth by civil laws unto some or other, whether they will or no, are either discouraged, or disenabled, or think themselves discharged from doing that which God certainly requireth at their hands in a way of duty.
Kelly: Owen criticizes the civil state church for teaching that the “freewill portion” should be 10%, Some who are required to tithe to the state civil church (Anglican) become discouraged. Others erroneously think that such forced giving relieves them of other Christian duties.
Owen: However, this will be no excuse for any, for generally they have yet left unto them that whereby they may discharge their duty in an acceptable manner; and I cannot but wonder how some men can satisfy their consciences in this matter, in such circumstances as I shall not now name.
Kelly: Just because the state forces tithing to its official Church, such is no excuse to fulfill other Christian duties.
Hebrews 7
***Owen: 2. If the strict legal course of tithing be intended, it cannot be proved from this text [Hebrews 7] nor from any other instance before the law;
***Kelly: Owen now switches his attention to the strict OT law of tithing which (he thinks) teaches that everybody must give 10% of all their increase to the church.
Owen very clearly states that the law of tithing (from OT to the Church) cannot be proven either from Hebrews 7 or from any other Bible text. Owen does NOT believe that New Covenant tithing for the Church is biblical!
Genesis 14:18-20
***Owen: [Genesis 14:18-20] … for Abraham gave only the tenth of the spoils, which were not tithe-able by law. For if the places taken or destroyed in war were anathematized, as Jericho was, and also Amalek, no portion was to be reserved, under a pretense of sacrifice or any other sacred use; as Saul found to his cost.
***Kelly: Unlike almost every tithe-teacher, Owen places no value on Abraham’s tithe because it was from accursed spoils of war which would have been rejected as tithes under the Law.
Spoils of War Tithes After Abraham
Owen: And if they were not anathematized, all the spoils were left entirely unto the people that went to war, without any sacred decimation. So the Reubenites and the Gadites, at their return over Jordan into their own land, carried all their rich spoils and cattle with them, no tithe being mentioned, Joshua 22:8; — although there is no question but many of them offered their freewill offerings at the tabernacle.
Kelly: This is new to me. Owen says that un-cursed spoils of war went to the conquerors and NOT to the priests for sacred use.
Owen: And when God would have a sacred portion out of the spoils, as he would have in the wilderness, out of those that were taken from the Midianites, to manifest that they fell not under the law of tithes, he took not the tenth part, but one portion of five hundred from the soldiers, and one of fifty from the people, Numbers 31:28-30. Wherefore the giving of the tenth of the spoils was not from the obligation of any law, but was an act of free-will and choice in the offerer.
Kelly: I disagree somewhat with this conclusion. Numbers 31 calls the commands a “statute-ordinance” and makes it an official statute-ordinance of the law –though far from being equal to the Levitical or HOLY tithes.
Owen: But yet there was so great an equity herein also, — namely, that God should have an acknowledgment in the fruits of those successes which he gave in war, — that out of the spoils of his and his people’s enemies David made his provision for the building of the temple. And the captains of the host that went against Midian, after a tribute was raised for the Lord out of the spoils according unto the proportions mentioned, when they found the goodness of God in the preservation of their soldiers, whereof there was not one lost, they made a new voluntary oblation unto God out of their spoils, Numbers 31:48-50.
Kelly: Owen agrees with me that spoils-of-war tithes could be used, not for HOLY Levitical purposes, but for Temple maintenance. Not discussed is the fact that this only applied to metals which could be cleansed by passing through fire per Numbers 31:23.
Genesis 22 and Jacob Tithes
***Owen: [Genesis 22] And as for the instance of Jacob, who vowed unto God the tenth of all, it is so far from proving that the tenth was due by virtue of any law, that it proves the contrary. For had it been so, it could not have been the matter of an extraordinary vow, whereby he could express his obedience unto God.
***Kelly: Owen really shows disdain for Jacob’s “tithe.” If it had been a commanded holy tithe, then it could not have also be a freewill vow.
Matthew 23:23 and Jesus’ Tithe Teaching
Owen: [Matthew 23:23] 3. The precise law of tithing is not confirmed in the gospel. For that saying of our Savior’s approving the tithing of mint and cummin, evidently respects that legal institution which was then in force, and could not be violated without sin. And by his approbation of that law, and of the duty in observance of it, he did no more confirm it, or ascribe an obligatory power unto it under the gospel, than he did so unto all those other ceremonial institutions which both he himself observed as a man made under the law, and enjoined others so to do. They all continued in full force “until the time of reformation,” which gave them their bounds and limits, Hebrews 9:10, and ended with his resurrection.
***Kelly: This is a remarkable conclusion from one of the greatest Calvinistic theologians of all time! He fully agrees with the position of Martin Luther and myself that Jesus’ remarks in Matthew 23:23 had absolutely nothing to do with the gospel.
Owen: His other saying, of “giving unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s,” respects our whole moral obedience unto God, and not this or that particular institution. The meaning of it is, that we are to pay or perform unto God all whatever he requireth of us in a way of obedience; but what that is in particular, is not here determined. And other mention of tithes in the gospel there is none.
Kelly: Owen is going through the list of common arguments to support tithing in his time.
Best Arguments for Tithing (to be rejected)
Owen: 4. [1] Whereas by the light of nature, all rules of reason and positive institutions, a portion of what God is pleased to give unto every may, is to be returned unto him, in the way of his worship and service, wherein it may be used according unto his appointment; and [2] whereas before the giving of the law sundry holy men fixed on the tenth part, as that which was meetest to be so dedicated unto God, and that, as is probable, not without some especial conduct of the Holy Spirit, if not upon express revelation; [3] and whereas this was afterwards expressly confirmed under the law by positive institution, [4] the equity whereof is urged in the gospel; (5) it is the best direction that can be given unto any what proportion of their estate should be set apart unto this purpose.
Kelly: Here Owen presents his best argument FOR tithing only to reject his own logic in the very next paragraph. (1) Whether by nature, reason or positive institution (law), “a portion of what God is pleased to give unto every may, is to be returned unto him.”(2) Certain men before the law were “probably” inspired by the Holy Spirit or express revelation o give a tenth. (3) Under the Law God made a positive institution that the amount should be 10%. (4) The gospel urges at least equal giving standards as the Law. Therefore (5) 10% is “the best direction that can be given unto any what proportion” is best to give. Conclusion: Owen is hesitant when he uses the word “probable” and “best direction that can be given.” I think that he is saying “If there WERE a certain percentage, then it should be 10%.”
However Owen has never dealt with the biblical facts that (1) the tithe was always only food from inside Israel, (2) tithes could not come from outside Israel, from what man increased or from Gentiles, and (3) not everybody in the Old Covenant began their level of giving at 10%. The percentage only applied to food producers who lived inside Israel.
Impossible to be Certain
***Owen: Herein, I confess, so many circumstances axe in particular cases to be considered, as that it is impossible any one certain rule should be prescribed unto all p0ersons.
***Kelly: Owen confesses that there are simply too many extenuating circumstances involved to make a definite declaration about tithing. “it is impossible any one certain rule (10% for all) should be prescribed unto all persons.” He calls it “impossible” to substantiate tithing from God’s Word for New Covenant believers.
Do Not Give Unconsecrated Preachers Good Arguments for Their Position
Owen: But whereas withal there is no need in the least to furnish men with pleas and excuses for the non-performance of their duty, at least as unto the necessary degrees of it, I shall not suggest any thing unto them which may be used to that purpose. I shall therefore leave this rule in its full latitude, as the best direction of practice in this matter.
Kelly: Owen does not want to validate anybody’s argument that tithes must be given to gospel workers –especially those who are not fully committed. He can only suggest a “best direction of practice” as the result (not of the tithing law or of what Jesus said in Matthew 23:23) but solely because of his “probable” guess that Abraham might have been told to give 10% by divine special revelation. In my opinion, this is very weak logic and I think that Owen knows that his own argument is weak. The next point is crucial to see Owen’s logic.
First Corinthians 9:7-14
***Owen: [1 Cor 9] . On these suppositions it is that the apostle, treating of this matter, makes no use of the right or law of tithing, though directly unto his purpose if it had not been abrogated. For intending to prove that the ministers of the gospel ought to be liberally supported in their work with the earthly things of them unto whom they do administer the things of God …
***Kelly: Owen is now arguing AGAINST his own just-mentioned conclusion that, if there were a definite percentage, then 10% should be the best direction. He points out (as I have) that, if 10% were for all Christians, then Paul missed his opportunity to teach such in First Corinthians 9 where the subject was that of gospel support. “If it (tithing) had not been abrogated,” then Paul would have taught tithing –but he did not.
***Owen: … [Paul] argueth from the light of nature, the general equity of other cases, the analogy of legal institutions, the rules of justice, with the especial institution of Christ in the gospel, but makes no mention of the natural or legal right of tithing, 1 Corinthians 9:7-14.
Kelly: Owen does not use the argument used by many that 9:14 only refers to 9:13. He agrees with my argument that 9:14 refers to 9:7 through 9:13 as a general principle.
Observation XXIV
Owen: And farther I shall not at present divert on this subject. And we may observe, that, — Obs. XXIV. Whatsoever we receive signally from God in a way of mercy, we ought to return a portion of it unto him in a way of duty.
Kelly: Owen’s final comment on the subject of tithing, his observation, is that all should return a “portion” but that “portion” is NOT 10%.
Owen: — That this was the practice of the saints of old might easily be proved by an induction of instances, from this act of Abraham (yea, from the sacrifice of Abel) down to the vow of Jacob, the dedications of David, Solomon, and others, in their respective places and generations. The light of nature also counted it as a duty among all the civilized heathens. The offerings and sacred dedications of nations and private families are famous on this account. And it was laid as a lasting blemish on good Hezekiah, that he rendered not unto the Lord according to the mercy which he had received.
Kelly: To demonstrate what Owen meant by the “portion, “ in addition to Abraham, he listed Abel, Jacob, David, Solomon and “the light of nature among all civilized heathens.”
Russell Earl Kelly, PHD
www.tithing-russkelly.com
Bible Explore.com
http://www.godrules.net/library/owen/131-295owen_u3.htm
JOHN OWEN (1616-1683), HEBREWS 7, Observation XXIV
JOHN OWEN’S VIEWPOINT OF TITHING:
Restated and clarified by Russell Earl Kelly, Ph. D., www.tithing-russkelly.com
Introduction:
Owen: And without solicitousness concerning offense, I shall take leave to say, that it is no safe plea for many to insist on, that tithes are due and divine, as they speak, — that is, by a binding law of God, — now under the gospel.
Kelly: Knowing that he is going against the prevailing sympathy of the Church, Owen hesitatingly admits that many teach that gospel workers are now due tithes because they are the law of God.
Owen: For be the law and institution what it will, nothing is more certain than that there is nothing due under the gospel, by virtue of God’s command or institution with respect unto his worship, unto any who do not wholly give up themselves unto the ministry, and “labor in the word and doctrine;” unless they be such as are disenabled by age and infirmities, who are not to be forsaken all the days of their lives.
Kelly: Without approving of tithing, Owen strongly opposes paying any gospel worker anything from any source who is not wholly dedicated to ministry.
Owen: For men to live in pleasure and idleness, according to the pomp, vanities, and grandeur of the world, neither rising early, nor going to bed late, nor spending their time and strength in the service of the church, according to the duties required of all the ministers thereof in the gospel, to sing unto themselves that tithes are due to them by the appointment and law of God, is a fond imagination, a dream that will fill them with perplexity when they shall awake.
Kelly: Owen says that gospel workers who are not wholly dedicated hard workers only “imagine” or “dream” that they are due tithes.
Owen: But as unto the question in hand, I shall briefly give my thoughts about it in the ensuing observations and propositions:
Kelly: Owen does not claim to be the last inspired word on this subject. He is much more forceful when supporting Calvinism.
Definitions:
Owen: — By “tithes” is understood either (1) the express law of tithing, or (2) paying the tenth of all our substance and of the whole increase of the earth; or (3) only the dedicating of a certain portion of what we have unto the uses of the worship and service of God.
Kelly: Owen states several different possible definitions of “tithes.”
(1) The express law of tithing.
(2) Paying the tenth of all one’s substance and increase.
(3) Dedicating an indefinite portion, or percentage, of what one has similar to freewill offerings.
Owen is merely quoting what others believe. The true biblical HOLY tithe (from the express law of tithing) was always only food from inside God’s holy land of Israel which God has miraculously increased.
Owen: 1. If this latter be intended, it is with me past all doubt and question that a bountiful part of our enjoyments is to be separated unto the use and service of the worship of God, particularly unto the comfortable and honorable supportment of them that labor in the ministry.
Kelly: Owen has no quarrel with the (3rd above) definition of tithes as merely another word for freewill offerings. This will be his final observation XXIV that only freewill giving is for the Church today.
Owen: And it is no small part of that confusion which we suffer under, that Christians, being in all places compelled to pay the tenth by civil laws unto some or other, whether they will or no, are either discouraged, or disenabled, or think themselves discharged from doing that which God certainly requireth at their hands in a way of duty.
Kelly: Owen criticizes the civil state church for teaching that the “freewill portion” should be 10%, Some who are required to tithe to the state civil church (Anglican) become discouraged. Others erroneously think that such forced giving relieves them of other Christian duties.
Owen: However, this will be no excuse for any, for generally they have yet left unto them that whereby they may discharge their duty in an acceptable manner; and I cannot but wonder how some men can satisfy their consciences in this matter, in such circumstances as I shall not now name.
Kelly: Just because the state forces tithing to its official Church, such is no excuse to fulfill other Christian duties.
Hebrews 7
***Owen: 2. If the strict legal course of tithing be intended, it cannot be proved from this text [Hebrews 7] nor from any other instance before the law;
***Kelly: Owen now switches his attention to the strict OT law of tithing which (he thinks) teaches that everybody must give 10% of all their increase to the church.
Owen very clearly states that the law of tithing (from OT to the Church) cannot be proven either from Hebrews 7 or from any other Bible text. Owen does NOT believe that New Covenant tithing for the Church is biblical!
Genesis 14:18-20
***Owen: [Genesis 14:18-20] … for Abraham gave only the tenth of the spoils, which were not tithe-able by law. For if the places taken or destroyed in war were anathematized, as Jericho was, and also Amalek, no portion was to be reserved, under a pretense of sacrifice or any other sacred use; as Saul found to his cost.
***Kelly: Unlike almost every tithe-teacher, Owen places no value on Abraham’s tithe because it was from accursed spoils of war which would have been rejected as tithes under the Law.
Spoils of War Tithes After Abraham
Owen: And if they were not anathematized, all the spoils were left entirely unto the people that went to war, without any sacred decimation. So the Reubenites and the Gadites, at their return over Jordan into their own land, carried all their rich spoils and cattle with them, no tithe being mentioned, Joshua 22:8; — although there is no question but many of them offered their freewill offerings at the tabernacle.
Kelly: This is new to me. Owen says that un-cursed spoils of war went to the conquerors and NOT to the priests for sacred use.
Owen: And when God would have a sacred portion out of the spoils, as he would have in the wilderness, out of those that were taken from the Midianites, to manifest that they fell not under the law of tithes, he took not the tenth part, but one portion of five hundred from the soldiers, and one of fifty from the people, Numbers 31:28-30. Wherefore the giving of the tenth of the spoils was not from the obligation of any law, but was an act of free-will and choice in the offerer.
Kelly: I disagree somewhat with this conclusion. Numbers 31 calls the commands a “statute-ordinance” and makes it an official statute-ordinance of the law –though far from being equal to the Levitical or HOLY tithes.
Owen: But yet there was so great an equity herein also, — namely, that God should have an acknowledgment in the fruits of those successes which he gave in war, — that out of the spoils of his and his people’s enemies David made his provision for the building of the temple. And the captains of the host that went against Midian, after a tribute was raised for the Lord out of the spoils according unto the proportions mentioned, when they found the goodness of God in the preservation of their soldiers, whereof there was not one lost, they made a new voluntary oblation unto God out of their spoils, Numbers 31:48-50.
Kelly: Owen agrees with me that spoils-of-war tithes could be used, not for HOLY Levitical purposes, but for Temple maintenance. Not discussed is the fact that this only applied to metals which could be cleansed by passing through fire per Numbers 31:23.
Genesis 22 and Jacob Tithes
***Owen: [Genesis 22] And as for the instance of Jacob, who vowed unto God the tenth of all, it is so far from proving that the tenth was due by virtue of any law, that it proves the contrary. For had it been so, it could not have been the matter of an extraordinary vow, whereby he could express his obedience unto God.
***Kelly: Owen really shows disdain for Jacob’s “tithe.” If it had been a commanded holy tithe, then it could not have also be a freewill vow.
Matthew 23:23 and Jesus’ Tithe Teaching
Owen: [Matthew 23:23] 3. The precise law of tithing is not confirmed in the gospel. For that saying of our Savior’s approving the tithing of mint and cummin, evidently respects that legal institution which was then in force, and could not be violated without sin. And by his approbation of that law, and of the duty in observance of it, he did no more confirm it, or ascribe an obligatory power unto it under the gospel, than he did so unto all those other ceremonial institutions which both he himself observed as a man made under the law, and enjoined others so to do. They all continued in full force “until the time of reformation,” which gave them their bounds and limits, Hebrews 9:10, and ended with his resurrection.
***Kelly: This is a remarkable conclusion from one of the greatest Calvinistic theologians of all time! He fully agrees with the position of Martin Luther and myself that Jesus’ remarks in Matthew 23:23 had absolutely nothing to do with the gospel.
Owen: His other saying, of “giving unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s,” respects our whole moral obedience unto God, and not this or that particular institution. The meaning of it is, that we are to pay or perform unto God all whatever he requireth of us in a way of obedience; but what that is in particular, is not here determined. And other mention of tithes in the gospel there is none.
Kelly: Owen is going through the list of common arguments to support tithing in his time.
Best Arguments for Tithing (to be rejected)
Owen: 4. [1] Whereas by the light of nature, all rules of reason and positive institutions, a portion of what God is pleased to give unto every may, is to be returned unto him, in the way of his worship and service, wherein it may be used according unto his appointment; and [2] whereas before the giving of the law sundry holy men fixed on the tenth part, as that which was meetest to be so dedicated unto God, and that, as is probable, not without some especial conduct of the Holy Spirit, if not upon express revelation; [3] and whereas this was afterwards expressly confirmed under the law by positive institution, [4] the equity whereof is urged in the gospel; (5) it is the best direction that can be given unto any what proportion of their estate should be set apart unto this purpose.
Kelly: Here Owen presents his best argument FOR tithing only to reject his own logic in the very next paragraph. (1) Whether by nature, reason or positive institution (law), “a portion of what God is pleased to give unto every may, is to be returned unto him.”(2) Certain men before the law were “probably” inspired by the Holy Spirit or express revelation o give a tenth. (3) Under the Law God made a positive institution that the amount should be 10%. (4) The gospel urges at least equal giving standards as the Law. Therefore (5) 10% is “the best direction that can be given unto any what proportion” is best to give. Conclusion: Owen is hesitant when he uses the word “probable” and “best direction that can be given.” I think that he is saying “If there WERE a certain percentage, then it should be 10%.”
However Owen has never dealt with the biblical facts that (1) the tithe was always only food from inside Israel, (2) tithes could not come from outside Israel, from what man increased or from Gentiles, and (3) not everybody in the Old Covenant began their level of giving at 10%. The percentage only applied to food producers who lived inside Israel.
Impossible to be Certain
***Owen: Herein, I confess, so many circumstances axe in particular cases to be considered, as that it is impossible any one certain rule should be prescribed unto all p0ersons.
***Kelly: Owen confesses that there are simply too many extenuating circumstances involved to make a definite declaration about tithing. “it is impossible any one certain rule (10% for all) should be prescribed unto all persons.” He calls it “impossible” to substantiate tithing from God’s Word for New Covenant believers.
Do Not Give Unconsecrated Preachers Good Arguments for Their Position
Owen: But whereas withal there is no need in the least to furnish men with pleas and excuses for the non-performance of their duty, at least as unto the necessary degrees of it, I shall not suggest any thing unto them which may be used to that purpose. I shall therefore leave this rule in its full latitude, as the best direction of practice in this matter.
Kelly: Owen does not want to validate anybody’s argument that tithes must be given to gospel workers –especially those who are not fully committed. He can only suggest a “best direction of practice” as the result (not of the tithing law or of what Jesus said in Matthew 23:23) but solely because of his “probable” guess that Abraham might have been told to give 10% by divine special revelation. In my opinion, this is very weak logic and I think that Owen knows that his own argument is weak. The next point is crucial to see Owen’s logic.
First Corinthians 9:7-14
***Owen: [1 Cor 9] . On these suppositions it is that the apostle, treating of this matter, makes no use of the right or law of tithing, though directly unto his purpose if it had not been abrogated. For intending to prove that the ministers of the gospel ought to be liberally supported in their work with the earthly things of them unto whom they do administer the things of God …
***Kelly: Owen is now arguing AGAINST his own just-mentioned conclusion that, if there were a definite percentage, then 10% should be the best direction. He points out (as I have) that, if 10% were for all Christians, then Paul missed his opportunity to teach such in First Corinthians 9 where the subject was that of gospel support. “If it (tithing) had not been abrogated,” then Paul would have taught tithing –but he did not.
***Owen: … [Paul] argueth from the light of nature, the general equity of other cases, the analogy of legal institutions, the rules of justice, with the especial institution of Christ in the gospel, but makes no mention of the natural or legal right of tithing, 1 Corinthians 9:7-14.
Kelly: Owen does not use the argument used by many that 9:14 only refers to 9:13. He agrees with my argument that 9:14 refers to 9:7 through 9:13 as a general principle.
Observation XXIV
Owen: And farther I shall not at present divert on this subject. And we may observe, that, — Obs. XXIV. Whatsoever we receive signally from God in a way of mercy, we ought to return a portion of it unto him in a way of duty.
Kelly: Owen’s final comment on the subject of tithing, his observation, is that all should return a “portion” but that “portion” is NOT 10%.
Owen: — That this was the practice of the saints of old might easily be proved by an induction of instances, from this act of Abraham (yea, from the sacrifice of Abel) down to the vow of Jacob, the dedications of David, Solomon, and others, in their respective places and generations. The light of nature also counted it as a duty among all the civilized heathens. The offerings and sacred dedications of nations and private families are famous on this account. And it was laid as a lasting blemish on good Hezekiah, that he rendered not unto the Lord according to the mercy which he had received.
Kelly: To demonstrate what Owen meant by the “portion, “ in addition to Abraham, he listed Abel, Jacob, David, Solomon and “the light of nature among all civilized heathens.”
Russell Earl Kelly, PHD
www.tithing-russkelly.com
An Open Letter to Glenn Beck
An Open Letter to Glenn Beck
Are you really a Mormon or do you play that game in order to keep stability in your marriage?
You sound very much like a conservative born-again Christian on radio and TV but I am afraid of you because I know what Mormons really teach. You seem to read and study the Bible more than the Book of Mormon.
You almost daily say that we need to know our American history in order to be saved as a nation. When are you going to either teach or refute the Mormon view of American history with its numerous FICTIONAL cities? You simply cannot have it both ways. You are the one who needs to admit that the Mormon REVISION of American history is wrong!
I love you and pray for you as a fellow Christian. Please do not let us down and begin teaching Mormonism. It will destroy the conservative hopes in this country and help the liberal cause.
Russell Earl Kelly, PHD
6610 Skyview Dr SE
Acworth, Ga 30101
Russell-kelly@att.net
770-974-4756
Are you really a Mormon or do you play that game in order to keep stability in your marriage?
You sound very much like a conservative born-again Christian on radio and TV but I am afraid of you because I know what Mormons really teach. You seem to read and study the Bible more than the Book of Mormon.
You almost daily say that we need to know our American history in order to be saved as a nation. When are you going to either teach or refute the Mormon view of American history with its numerous FICTIONAL cities? You simply cannot have it both ways. You are the one who needs to admit that the Mormon REVISION of American history is wrong!
I love you and pray for you as a fellow Christian. Please do not let us down and begin teaching Mormonism. It will destroy the conservative hopes in this country and help the liberal cause.
Russell Earl Kelly, PHD
6610 Skyview Dr SE
Acworth, Ga 30101
Russell-kelly@att.net
770-974-4756
Thursday, May 20, 2010
Reply to Pastor Chris
Mike
Thanks for the information and thanks for all the good things you said about my writings. I try be as honest with God’s Word as possible because I have an active conscience and have to sleep with myself.
You gave Chris my chapter on Matthew. I noticed that he did not comment on a single thing I wrote in that chapter about looking at the text itself and then the chapter to see the context.
You said, “Rather than looking at the whole position he resorted to an ad-hominem argument that you are just a "Dispensationalist" and "Dispensationalism" is just a plague and a scourge on the land and basically that "Dispensationalists" serve Satan and are lawless.”
It would have been pleasing to both of us if he had instead refuted what I wrote about Matthew 23:23 word for word. I sense that he is unable to do that.
You asked “Do you have any pointers on how to respond to his fallacious arguments or do you think as I do that it is probably just a waste of precious time?”
I will respond as always. I never run away from this kind of discussion. It is the tithe-teachers who run from me and my understanding of God’s Word. Even most dispensationalists do not agree with me. A lot do and that is worth it all to me.
………………………………………………
Chris: This is the typical Dispensation argument. They read into what is not said.
Russ: Be more specific. What did I read into that is not said? I took the verse and applied fundamental principles of interpretation used in every school of hermeneutics. The verse itself said that (1) it is addressed to “scribes, Pharisees, hypocrites” and not to the Church and (2) it is discussing “matters of the law: instead of the New Covenant. (3) Mt 23:2-3 tells us that Jesus commanded his Jewish disciples to obey the scribes and Pharisees because “they sit in Moses seat.” (4) It was illegal for Jesus to tell his Jewish disciples to tithe to himself. (5) It was also illegal for Jesus to tell his Gentile disciples to tithe. What error did I make in my application of simple contextual hermeneutics?
Chris: In the New Testament when the apostle Paul refers to the Law he does not make a distinction between the moral, civil and ceremonial law. He simply speaks of the law.
Russ: If Chris is stating what he thinks I believe, I agree. I have taken Paul’s writings and have looked up every time he uses the word “law.” In almost every instance Paul does not use the word “law” to refer to the Ten Commandments. For example in Romans 3 Paul quotes Isaiah and Psalms and calls it “law.”
Chris: The part of the Law that is fulfilled is the types or the shadows that were fulfilled in the Substance in Christ Jesus.
Russ: Again, is Chris stating what he thinks I believe? Dispensationalists teach that the entire Old Covenant Law was only commanded to national Israel and Israel was commanded not to share it with the Gentiles. We teach that Gentiles never were under any part of the literal OT Law as a covenant. Jesus perfectly fulfilled the righteousness of the whole law. It is covenant theology which wrongly separates the Law into three segments and rejects the ceremonial law. We say that no Jew would do that. It was either all or none as a covenant. Mt 5:17 and 19.
Chris: As for civil laws, we are commanded to obey magistrates and the rules that are over us, Romans 13.
Russ: Dispensationalists teach that the whole law ended at Calvary as a covenant. Most people have not read the whole law. It is the civil law, the judgments, which commands parents to kill disobedient children, adulterers, witches and homosexuals. The civil judicial law dealt with major sins which were presumptive, high handed, willful and premeditated. Yet Covenant Theology which teaches that the OT civil judicial law is still in full effect but the ceremonial law has been abolished.
Chris: However there are those that teach we are not to obey them because the civil law was put away and the governments are to be subjected to the church.
Russ: Dispensationalists teach that we are not to obey any of the civil judicial laws which were given only to OT Israel. Gentiles never were under any of that Law. We do NOT teach disobedience to normal civil judicial law of the city, county, state and federal government. That is absurd.
Chris: I do not buy either of those dispensational positions. The law is the Law. I do not wish to use any language that is not Biblical.
Russ: What does he mean by “the law is the law”? This is super-simplistic. There is a huge difference between the Old Covenant law in its commandments, ceremonial statutes and civil judgment AND normal civil law. He does not understand dispensationalism.
Chris: Secondly if the Mosaic Law as he calls it is fulfilled, then what are we to do with the arguments the apostle Paul draws from Deuteronomy 25:4? He quotes the so called Mosaic Law in 1 Corinthians 9:9 and again in 1 Timothy 5:18.
Russ: What does he do with the part of the Law which commanded killing disobedient children in Ex 21:15, 17? What did the USA do with English Law after the Declaration of Independence was signed in 1776? Answer: God took the eternal moral part of the Old Covenant law and repeated it to the church in the New Covenant after Calvary in terms of grace and faith. The USA took the best part of English law and repeated it in terms of the US Constitution after 1776.
Chris: He wrote in the Timothy passage, "For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward." What Scriptures is he speaking of? The Law. Deuteronomy is the Book of the 2nd law. They are the Scriptures and we are not to take away from them or add unto them.
Russ: They are the Scriptures which were given only to national Israel which excluded us Gentiles. The eternal moral principles of the OT Law were repeated after Calvary.
The context of “the laborer is worthy of his reward is found in Matthew 10:1-10 and Luke 10:1-10. Like Billy Graham and other modern evangelists, Jesus told those canvassing for him to live off the people among whom they were serving. These are not tithing texts. Read them. If anything they taught gospel workers to live in poverty!
Chris: Secondly when He says our Lord never paid a tithe, this is an argument from silence. But if He didn't so what, as the tithe is the Lord's. Tithes are to be given to Him.
Russ: This is pure ignorance and is not from silence. There are 16 biblical texts which define the contents of the tithe as only food from inside God’s holy land of Israel. While God owned everything in the OT also, he only accepted legitimate tithes from inside His specific holy land. Tithes could not come from outside God’s holy land. That cannot be disputed.
Chris: Then He said that "the blood of the New Covenant, or testament, sealed and ratified the
New Covenant and ended the Old Covenant or Mosaic Law once for all time.". What does he mean by that?
Russ: I mean exactly what I said. What is wrong with my statement?
Chris: In Hebrews 8 we find that the problem was not with the Old Covenant but rather with the People, verse Heb. 8:7-8. The fault was with "them", the people because they could not keep the law.
Russ: Agreed, but there was still a problem with the Old Covenant which was corrected by the completely NEW New Covenant. There was a problem with English law before 1776. The problem was solved by rejecting all of it and starting over with a new constitution. Chris wants to downplay the differences between the Old and New Covenants.
Chris: The New Covenant took the law from the tables of stone and wrote them upon our heart.
Russ: Super-simplistic. A few paragraphs back he wrote “The law is law.” Now he wants to say “The Law was the Ten Commandments on tablets of stone.” The Law was commandments, ceremonial worship statutes and civil judicial judgments –the law is the WHOLE law.
Read Hebrews 8:8-13. The eternal moral will of God which was found within the Law has been written in the hearts of Christians. That means the moral parts of all three portions of the law. While quoting Hebrews 8, verse 13 plainly says “In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.” The “First Covenant” was the whole law of commandments, statutes and judgments.
Chris: The Law still stands.
Russ: All of the law or just part of the law? The commandments and judgments but not the ceremonial statutes? All of the Ten Commandments or just part of them? Will our children live long “in the land of Israel”? Do we worship on Friday at sunset according to the fourth commandment? Do we own slaves as implied by the fourth commandment?
Chris: Sin is the transgression of the law, 1 John 3:4.
Russ: John does not use the word “law” to refer to the Old Covenant Law. Rather he uses the word “law” to refer to the “revealed will of God” or even the “royal law of love.” The Greek says “Sin is lawlessness.”
In John 16:8-9 the standard of righteousness and judgment has changed from the whole Law to Jesus Himself. In John 14:6 Jesus is not merely “a way, a truth, a life” but He is “the way, the truth and the life.” When Psalm 119 said “Thy Word have I hid in mine heart that I may not sin against thee, “ John says “The Word became flesh and dwelt among us.”
God does not ask the sinner, “What have you done with my law?” Rather God asks the sinner “What have you done with my son?” John 3:16-18.
Chris: No law then no sin!
Russ: There is always law. There is always God’s revelation of Himself to mankind.
Rom 2:14-16 “For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;) In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.”
The law of conscience and nature was sufficient to condemn Gentiles who were not under the Old Covenant Law. The New Covenant Law is God’s character becoming a part of our “new creation” in Christ. We obey because we have a new nature. Rom 8:2 “For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.”
Chris: When correcting dispensationalists they cry legalism.
Russ: We cry out that you do not understand that the Old Covenant Law was only given to national Israel and that is was in three inseparable parts. The Law was always an indivisible whole and all Jews understand that.
Chris: They are lawless and the devil is called the lawless one.
Russ: The born-again Christian is a new creation in Christ (2 Cor 5:17. He has been redeemed and the Holy Spirit has indwelled the believer. The “law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.” Does that sound lawless to you? The new royal law of love is part of our new divine character.
Chris: As for the tithe not being a moral law, is it not immoral to steal? How much more in robbing God! If it was immoral at one time then why is it not immoral now? Did you not say that the moral law stands?
Russ: It was sin for national Israel under the Old Covenant to steal from God by not tithing. It was also sin for national Israel to (1) not give those tithes as holy food from inside Israel, (2) not give those tithes to the Levite servants to the priests, (3) not give the priests a tenth of the tenth, (4) not KILL anybody who dared enter the sanctuary to worship God directly and (5) not forfeit land and property inheritance rights in exchange for the tithe. The tithing statute of Numbers 18 is part of the ceremonial law and even Covenant Theology teaches that the ceremonial law has ended (see Heb 7:5, 12, 18).
Chris: The tithe was practiced before Moses, Genesis 14:20 and 28:22.
Russ: The tithe of Genesis 14 and 28 was from defiled pagan land and was not a true biblical HOLY tithe under the law. The uncircumcised Gentile Abram (not Abraham yet) was obeying the common well-known law of the land which required tithes from spoils of war be given to the local king-priest. If we followed Abram’s example, we would have to give the 90% to the equivalent of the modern king of Sodom.
Chris: And if as they say that the New Testament teaches sacrificial giving, then it supersedes the tithe. What is their problem?
Russ: You only see what you want to see in my statements. You twist God’s Word by (1) redefining the contents of the tithe to include money, (2) changing the recipients and purpose of the tithe, (3) calling the tithe firstfruits and (4) teaching falsely that everybody in the OT was expected to begin their level of giving at 10%. Sacrificial giving means that MANY (not all) should give more than 10% but MANY others are giving sacrificially even though much less than 10%. It is the last part that you will not deal with.
Chris: Dispensationalism is a plague. It is a scourge on the land.
Russ: We are able to support our knowledge of the Bible so well that most theologians from other denominations run from us like scared rabbits.
Thanks for the information and thanks for all the good things you said about my writings. I try be as honest with God’s Word as possible because I have an active conscience and have to sleep with myself.
You gave Chris my chapter on Matthew. I noticed that he did not comment on a single thing I wrote in that chapter about looking at the text itself and then the chapter to see the context.
You said, “Rather than looking at the whole position he resorted to an ad-hominem argument that you are just a "Dispensationalist" and "Dispensationalism" is just a plague and a scourge on the land and basically that "Dispensationalists" serve Satan and are lawless.”
It would have been pleasing to both of us if he had instead refuted what I wrote about Matthew 23:23 word for word. I sense that he is unable to do that.
You asked “Do you have any pointers on how to respond to his fallacious arguments or do you think as I do that it is probably just a waste of precious time?”
I will respond as always. I never run away from this kind of discussion. It is the tithe-teachers who run from me and my understanding of God’s Word. Even most dispensationalists do not agree with me. A lot do and that is worth it all to me.
………………………………………………
Chris: This is the typical Dispensation argument. They read into what is not said.
Russ: Be more specific. What did I read into that is not said? I took the verse and applied fundamental principles of interpretation used in every school of hermeneutics. The verse itself said that (1) it is addressed to “scribes, Pharisees, hypocrites” and not to the Church and (2) it is discussing “matters of the law: instead of the New Covenant. (3) Mt 23:2-3 tells us that Jesus commanded his Jewish disciples to obey the scribes and Pharisees because “they sit in Moses seat.” (4) It was illegal for Jesus to tell his Jewish disciples to tithe to himself. (5) It was also illegal for Jesus to tell his Gentile disciples to tithe. What error did I make in my application of simple contextual hermeneutics?
Chris: In the New Testament when the apostle Paul refers to the Law he does not make a distinction between the moral, civil and ceremonial law. He simply speaks of the law.
Russ: If Chris is stating what he thinks I believe, I agree. I have taken Paul’s writings and have looked up every time he uses the word “law.” In almost every instance Paul does not use the word “law” to refer to the Ten Commandments. For example in Romans 3 Paul quotes Isaiah and Psalms and calls it “law.”
Chris: The part of the Law that is fulfilled is the types or the shadows that were fulfilled in the Substance in Christ Jesus.
Russ: Again, is Chris stating what he thinks I believe? Dispensationalists teach that the entire Old Covenant Law was only commanded to national Israel and Israel was commanded not to share it with the Gentiles. We teach that Gentiles never were under any part of the literal OT Law as a covenant. Jesus perfectly fulfilled the righteousness of the whole law. It is covenant theology which wrongly separates the Law into three segments and rejects the ceremonial law. We say that no Jew would do that. It was either all or none as a covenant. Mt 5:17 and 19.
Chris: As for civil laws, we are commanded to obey magistrates and the rules that are over us, Romans 13.
Russ: Dispensationalists teach that the whole law ended at Calvary as a covenant. Most people have not read the whole law. It is the civil law, the judgments, which commands parents to kill disobedient children, adulterers, witches and homosexuals. The civil judicial law dealt with major sins which were presumptive, high handed, willful and premeditated. Yet Covenant Theology which teaches that the OT civil judicial law is still in full effect but the ceremonial law has been abolished.
Chris: However there are those that teach we are not to obey them because the civil law was put away and the governments are to be subjected to the church.
Russ: Dispensationalists teach that we are not to obey any of the civil judicial laws which were given only to OT Israel. Gentiles never were under any of that Law. We do NOT teach disobedience to normal civil judicial law of the city, county, state and federal government. That is absurd.
Chris: I do not buy either of those dispensational positions. The law is the Law. I do not wish to use any language that is not Biblical.
Russ: What does he mean by “the law is the law”? This is super-simplistic. There is a huge difference between the Old Covenant law in its commandments, ceremonial statutes and civil judgment AND normal civil law. He does not understand dispensationalism.
Chris: Secondly if the Mosaic Law as he calls it is fulfilled, then what are we to do with the arguments the apostle Paul draws from Deuteronomy 25:4? He quotes the so called Mosaic Law in 1 Corinthians 9:9 and again in 1 Timothy 5:18.
Russ: What does he do with the part of the Law which commanded killing disobedient children in Ex 21:15, 17? What did the USA do with English Law after the Declaration of Independence was signed in 1776? Answer: God took the eternal moral part of the Old Covenant law and repeated it to the church in the New Covenant after Calvary in terms of grace and faith. The USA took the best part of English law and repeated it in terms of the US Constitution after 1776.
Chris: He wrote in the Timothy passage, "For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward." What Scriptures is he speaking of? The Law. Deuteronomy is the Book of the 2nd law. They are the Scriptures and we are not to take away from them or add unto them.
Russ: They are the Scriptures which were given only to national Israel which excluded us Gentiles. The eternal moral principles of the OT Law were repeated after Calvary.
The context of “the laborer is worthy of his reward is found in Matthew 10:1-10 and Luke 10:1-10. Like Billy Graham and other modern evangelists, Jesus told those canvassing for him to live off the people among whom they were serving. These are not tithing texts. Read them. If anything they taught gospel workers to live in poverty!
Chris: Secondly when He says our Lord never paid a tithe, this is an argument from silence. But if He didn't so what, as the tithe is the Lord's. Tithes are to be given to Him.
Russ: This is pure ignorance and is not from silence. There are 16 biblical texts which define the contents of the tithe as only food from inside God’s holy land of Israel. While God owned everything in the OT also, he only accepted legitimate tithes from inside His specific holy land. Tithes could not come from outside God’s holy land. That cannot be disputed.
Chris: Then He said that "the blood of the New Covenant, or testament, sealed and ratified the
New Covenant and ended the Old Covenant or Mosaic Law once for all time.". What does he mean by that?
Russ: I mean exactly what I said. What is wrong with my statement?
Chris: In Hebrews 8 we find that the problem was not with the Old Covenant but rather with the People, verse Heb. 8:7-8. The fault was with "them", the people because they could not keep the law.
Russ: Agreed, but there was still a problem with the Old Covenant which was corrected by the completely NEW New Covenant. There was a problem with English law before 1776. The problem was solved by rejecting all of it and starting over with a new constitution. Chris wants to downplay the differences between the Old and New Covenants.
Chris: The New Covenant took the law from the tables of stone and wrote them upon our heart.
Russ: Super-simplistic. A few paragraphs back he wrote “The law is law.” Now he wants to say “The Law was the Ten Commandments on tablets of stone.” The Law was commandments, ceremonial worship statutes and civil judicial judgments –the law is the WHOLE law.
Read Hebrews 8:8-13. The eternal moral will of God which was found within the Law has been written in the hearts of Christians. That means the moral parts of all three portions of the law. While quoting Hebrews 8, verse 13 plainly says “In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.” The “First Covenant” was the whole law of commandments, statutes and judgments.
Chris: The Law still stands.
Russ: All of the law or just part of the law? The commandments and judgments but not the ceremonial statutes? All of the Ten Commandments or just part of them? Will our children live long “in the land of Israel”? Do we worship on Friday at sunset according to the fourth commandment? Do we own slaves as implied by the fourth commandment?
Chris: Sin is the transgression of the law, 1 John 3:4.
Russ: John does not use the word “law” to refer to the Old Covenant Law. Rather he uses the word “law” to refer to the “revealed will of God” or even the “royal law of love.” The Greek says “Sin is lawlessness.”
In John 16:8-9 the standard of righteousness and judgment has changed from the whole Law to Jesus Himself. In John 14:6 Jesus is not merely “a way, a truth, a life” but He is “the way, the truth and the life.” When Psalm 119 said “Thy Word have I hid in mine heart that I may not sin against thee, “ John says “The Word became flesh and dwelt among us.”
God does not ask the sinner, “What have you done with my law?” Rather God asks the sinner “What have you done with my son?” John 3:16-18.
Chris: No law then no sin!
Russ: There is always law. There is always God’s revelation of Himself to mankind.
Rom 2:14-16 “For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;) In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.”
The law of conscience and nature was sufficient to condemn Gentiles who were not under the Old Covenant Law. The New Covenant Law is God’s character becoming a part of our “new creation” in Christ. We obey because we have a new nature. Rom 8:2 “For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.”
Chris: When correcting dispensationalists they cry legalism.
Russ: We cry out that you do not understand that the Old Covenant Law was only given to national Israel and that is was in three inseparable parts. The Law was always an indivisible whole and all Jews understand that.
Chris: They are lawless and the devil is called the lawless one.
Russ: The born-again Christian is a new creation in Christ (2 Cor 5:17. He has been redeemed and the Holy Spirit has indwelled the believer. The “law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.” Does that sound lawless to you? The new royal law of love is part of our new divine character.
Chris: As for the tithe not being a moral law, is it not immoral to steal? How much more in robbing God! If it was immoral at one time then why is it not immoral now? Did you not say that the moral law stands?
Russ: It was sin for national Israel under the Old Covenant to steal from God by not tithing. It was also sin for national Israel to (1) not give those tithes as holy food from inside Israel, (2) not give those tithes to the Levite servants to the priests, (3) not give the priests a tenth of the tenth, (4) not KILL anybody who dared enter the sanctuary to worship God directly and (5) not forfeit land and property inheritance rights in exchange for the tithe. The tithing statute of Numbers 18 is part of the ceremonial law and even Covenant Theology teaches that the ceremonial law has ended (see Heb 7:5, 12, 18).
Chris: The tithe was practiced before Moses, Genesis 14:20 and 28:22.
Russ: The tithe of Genesis 14 and 28 was from defiled pagan land and was not a true biblical HOLY tithe under the law. The uncircumcised Gentile Abram (not Abraham yet) was obeying the common well-known law of the land which required tithes from spoils of war be given to the local king-priest. If we followed Abram’s example, we would have to give the 90% to the equivalent of the modern king of Sodom.
Chris: And if as they say that the New Testament teaches sacrificial giving, then it supersedes the tithe. What is their problem?
Russ: You only see what you want to see in my statements. You twist God’s Word by (1) redefining the contents of the tithe to include money, (2) changing the recipients and purpose of the tithe, (3) calling the tithe firstfruits and (4) teaching falsely that everybody in the OT was expected to begin their level of giving at 10%. Sacrificial giving means that MANY (not all) should give more than 10% but MANY others are giving sacrificially even though much less than 10%. It is the last part that you will not deal with.
Chris: Dispensationalism is a plague. It is a scourge on the land.
Russ: We are able to support our knowledge of the Bible so well that most theologians from other denominations run from us like scared rabbits.
Reply to City Fellowship, NYC
Reply to City Fellowship, Union Square, NYC
http://www.cityfellowship.com/2010/05/your-heart-and-money/
CF: Read on if you dare!
Kelly: O. K. I will read on and I dare you to give biblical rebuttal to my replies if you can prove them in error.
CF: The gospel life says everything I have belongs to God to do what He will.
Kelly: That was also true in the Old Covenant but God (even then) still only accepted HOLY tithes from inside His HOLY land of Israel.
CF: The main way the people in the Bible showed this was by “Tithing.”
Kelly: Wrong. The only people in the Old Covenant who qualified as tithers were food producers who lived inside Israel. Tithes could not come from what man increased or from outside Israel. Because of the law of double-inheritance most were pushed off the land within 4 generations and either worked for relatives as day-laborers or moved to the cities and learned non-tithe-able trades.
CF: Tithing means devoting the first 10% of everything you make to God.
Kelly: This is a great lie. True biblical HOLY tithes were always only food from inside God’s HOLY land of Israel which He had miraculously increased. What Gentiles make or earn outside of Israel cannot possibly be tithed. There are 16 texts to validate what the contents of the tithe are.
CF: Early Christians actually gave way more than 10% – whenever there was a need, a famine, something that required people who had to help those who had less – they gave.
Kelly: Early Jewish Christians in Judea still tithed to the Temple system per Acts 21:20-21. Early Christians outside Judea gave sacrificial freewill offerings per 2 Cor 8 and 9. This was not tithing. There is not a single reputable church historian who will attest that the early church even attempted to teach tithing for over two centuries after Calvary.
CF: How much did they give? Mother Theresa was right when she suggested people should “give until it hurts.” People gave enough so that it cut into their lifestyle. So that they could symbolically share the burden with those in need. But this is different from the Tithe.
Kelly: Correct.
CF: The tithe was the amount that went to serve the Temple.
Kelly: Correct. It was carried first to the Levitical cities per Neh 10:37b and Levites and priests brought to the Temple what they needed per Neh 10:38 and Mal 3:10.
CF: … and in the early church (tithing was to) support the teaching ministry and send people like Paul to places where he could preach Jesus’ message.
Kelly: Wrong. The first century Christians admitted that the tithe belonged exclusively to the Levites and priests from the Old Covenant.
Paul boasted about being mostly self-supporting and encouraged other elders to follow his example in 1 Cor 9:12-19 and Acts 20:29-35. There is not a single text in context to validate your statement. As a rabbi Paul had been taught that it was wrong to be paid to preach the Gospel. OT tithes were never used to send out missionaries.
CF: … We don’t want a dime of your money if it’s for the wrong reason.
Kelly: Then you want sacrificial freewill offerings and not tithes because they were only ordained to support Levites, priests, Jewish festivals and the poor (20-23%) under the Old Covenant. And Levitical tithe recipients were not allowed to own or inherit property.
Christians are commanded to give freely, sacrificially, generously, regularly, joyfully and with the motivation of love for God and man. The following New Covenant free-will principles are found in Second Corinthians 8 and 9: (1) Giving is a "grace.” These chapters use the Greek word for "grace" eight times in reference to helping needy saints. (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).
http://www.cityfellowship.com/2010/05/your-heart-and-money/
CF: Read on if you dare!
Kelly: O. K. I will read on and I dare you to give biblical rebuttal to my replies if you can prove them in error.
CF: The gospel life says everything I have belongs to God to do what He will.
Kelly: That was also true in the Old Covenant but God (even then) still only accepted HOLY tithes from inside His HOLY land of Israel.
CF: The main way the people in the Bible showed this was by “Tithing.”
Kelly: Wrong. The only people in the Old Covenant who qualified as tithers were food producers who lived inside Israel. Tithes could not come from what man increased or from outside Israel. Because of the law of double-inheritance most were pushed off the land within 4 generations and either worked for relatives as day-laborers or moved to the cities and learned non-tithe-able trades.
CF: Tithing means devoting the first 10% of everything you make to God.
Kelly: This is a great lie. True biblical HOLY tithes were always only food from inside God’s HOLY land of Israel which He had miraculously increased. What Gentiles make or earn outside of Israel cannot possibly be tithed. There are 16 texts to validate what the contents of the tithe are.
CF: Early Christians actually gave way more than 10% – whenever there was a need, a famine, something that required people who had to help those who had less – they gave.
Kelly: Early Jewish Christians in Judea still tithed to the Temple system per Acts 21:20-21. Early Christians outside Judea gave sacrificial freewill offerings per 2 Cor 8 and 9. This was not tithing. There is not a single reputable church historian who will attest that the early church even attempted to teach tithing for over two centuries after Calvary.
CF: How much did they give? Mother Theresa was right when she suggested people should “give until it hurts.” People gave enough so that it cut into their lifestyle. So that they could symbolically share the burden with those in need. But this is different from the Tithe.
Kelly: Correct.
CF: The tithe was the amount that went to serve the Temple.
Kelly: Correct. It was carried first to the Levitical cities per Neh 10:37b and Levites and priests brought to the Temple what they needed per Neh 10:38 and Mal 3:10.
CF: … and in the early church (tithing was to) support the teaching ministry and send people like Paul to places where he could preach Jesus’ message.
Kelly: Wrong. The first century Christians admitted that the tithe belonged exclusively to the Levites and priests from the Old Covenant.
Paul boasted about being mostly self-supporting and encouraged other elders to follow his example in 1 Cor 9:12-19 and Acts 20:29-35. There is not a single text in context to validate your statement. As a rabbi Paul had been taught that it was wrong to be paid to preach the Gospel. OT tithes were never used to send out missionaries.
CF: … We don’t want a dime of your money if it’s for the wrong reason.
Kelly: Then you want sacrificial freewill offerings and not tithes because they were only ordained to support Levites, priests, Jewish festivals and the poor (20-23%) under the Old Covenant. And Levitical tithe recipients were not allowed to own or inherit property.
Christians are commanded to give freely, sacrificially, generously, regularly, joyfully and with the motivation of love for God and man. The following New Covenant free-will principles are found in Second Corinthians 8 and 9: (1) Giving is a "grace.” These chapters use the Greek word for "grace" eight times in reference to helping needy saints. (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).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
