Robert Briggs: If they [my views] are so similar to all others why is the heading of your yahoo thread "a very weird tithing view" even Tony knows my stance is different then most.
Russ: I did not place that title there. It came with the email.
Robert: I could care less if you are convinced or not. My goal is not to convince you. I leave you to your Master as you should be willing to do me. Time will tell. If you are right and I am wrong God will not condemn me for doing in faith what His word has instructed and what generations of people did before the law, after the law, during the time of Christ and AFTER the time of Christ.
Russ: Your statement is a mixture of truth and error and that makes it wrong. The “generations” who tithed “before the law” were pagans all around the world. Those who “tithed after the time of Christ” did not do so until many centuries had passed and they had perverted God’s Word. Church history is not on your side here.
Robert: However, if I am right and you are wrong your going to have a lot of explaining to do.
Russ: I have no fear. God’s Word is here.
Robert: One thing you folks never seem to address is why the church has turned into a money making corporation? Coffee shops, bingo, rummage sales, bake sales, sports nights, dances, etc. etc. all to pay the bills that the Tithes and Offerings could do easily if everyone did their part.
Russ: Your answer does not answer the WHY. Churches cannot pay their bills because they have stopped preaching the gospel and have stopped teaching personal evangelism.
Robert: Scripture does defend itself you fail to show me a place where scripture does away with tithe...
Russ: I gave you 14 Bible reasons which lead to the conclusion that tithing has been done away. Do you know how to read? Comment on each of them, especially the definition of the tithe.
Robert: For the circumsizion which existed before the law we are told “quotes Romans 2:25 and 1 Cor 7:19.”
Russ: When are you going to tell me what you mean by “keeping the commandments of God”? Are you referring to the whole law of 600 commandments or your own version where you decide which ones to keep and which ones to reject? I understand the phrase after Calvary to refer to the New Covenant’s ROYAL LAW commands of love, the golden rule and not being a respecter of persons. You have no consistent hermeneutic for how you use the words “law” and “commandments.” Don’t throw a verse at me that you cannot explain.
Robert: Hebrews 10:8.
Russ: Why are you quoting this text? Is this 52 card pickup?
Robert: But for the Tithe which existed before the law we have only Jesus saying.. Matt 23:23.
Russ: You totally ignore my point by point explanation of Mt 23:23. You make no effort whatsoever to show me where my understanding is wrong. Then you make the remark that Jesus was discussing a pre-law definition of the tithe when He clearly is not.
Robert: The scripture in MULTIPLE subjects, shows that when something from the Old Covenant is done away with it is done away with SPECIFICALLY with another scripture.
Russ: The scripture in multiple places says that the entire Old Covenant Law which was only given to Israel ended. Heb 8:13; 7:18; Gal 3:19, 24-26; Rom 10:4. I reject your hermeneutic as being exactly OPPOSITE mine and the truth. The OT Law was never commanded to me or to the Church.
Robert: Robert: Tithe(s) were practices before Moses ever wrote them down.
Russ: Tithes, yes. Holy biblical tithes, no.
Robert: Wow... so to you Abram's pre covenant tithe was unholy and un biblical?
Russ: Is English a second or third language for you? I did not say “unholy and un-biblical.” I did say “not holy biblical.” Show me where Abram’s tithe meets the high standards of a holy tithe under the Law. You cannot because you are wrong.
Robert: Why then was it recorded? Why was he selected?
Russ: If you think that “being recorded” makes something moral, then you would never understand Job and Ecclesiastes.
Robert: And why was he [Abraham] again commended in the NT scriptures for THIS act and not some other more worthy example of faith and obedience to God?
Russ: The purpose of Hebrews was not to commend Abram for tithing. Tithes were used as a writing vehicle to prove that Melchizedek was greater than Aaron. Why do you ignore Abram’s act of giving the 90% to the king of Sodom?
Russ: Tithes were well known in pagan lands.
Robert: You surely didn't read my first article then Russ ole boy because I made this point long before i ever began dialogue with you. The fact was tithe was known.
Russ: That still does not make it an eternal moral principle.
Robert: In my belief it was known, albeit perverted, by pagans simply because it was taught to them via verbal transfer from the time of Adam just like Animal sacrifice.
Russ: That is your belief, or opinion, with no biblical confirmation.
Robert: GOD solidified and removed the errors and eronious understanding by compiling a WRITTEN WORD which could not be perverted.
Russ: And the tithe of the Old Covenant Law was only FOOD from inside God’s holy land. Try and disprove that.
Robert: You fail to understand that the belief in the existence of a Divinity came from the same source through verbal means before it was ever recorded.
Russ: That is not what God’s Word teaches in Rom 1:18-20 and 2:14-16.
Robert: Moses is responsible for what we know about the creation account and he did not live during that time. The stories were passed down. Many times being corrupted as in the account of the Babylonians concerning Gilgamesh but still they show a congruent understanding and similarity of some points of faith which HAD TO come from a singular source.
Russ: The Law still limited holy tithes to FOOD from inside Israel. Deal with that.
Russ: The Bible does not tell WHY Abram tithed.
Robert: It most certainly DOES tell us why Arbam tithed.
Heb 7:6 But he whose descent is not counted from them received tithes of Abraham, and blessed him that had the promises.
Heb 7:7 And without all contradiction the less is blessed of the better.
To recieve God's blessing.
Russ: The text merely says THAT Abram tithed spoils of war and was blessed. It does not tell us WHY. Any local king-priest within a thousand miles would have done the same thing after receiving spoils of war from a victor passing through his domain.
Robert: If more church members would regularly tithe, and give offerings of a reasonable amount there would never be a need on the part of the minister to talk about it on a regular basis.
Russ: There are successful churches all over the world which do not teach tithing. Good preachers who know how to preach inspiring soul-saving sermons do not need to add the law to grace. Gal 1:8-9; 3:1-5.
Russ: Now tell us why Abram gave the 90% to the king of Sodom.
Robert: Scripture tell us why Abrham gave back the 90% to this pagan king... so that that man would not be able to say that Abram's wealth came from him instead of GOD. Gen 14:23.
Russ: Why would Abram care what a sodomite king thought? To the victor go the spoils. Abram had the right to keep everything.
According to you we are still to follow his example and that means to keep nothing and give the 90% to our local Satanic cult.
Robert: In the new covenant we are introduced to another concept. that of Stewardship. In reality then we are to understand that ALL we posess is God's and it is simply intrusted to us.
Russ: Please tell me what this has to do with tithing. The post-Calvary New Covenant Holy Spirit-blessed giving principle of SACRIFICIAL giving teaches this.
Robert: By the payment of the tithe we are acknowledging this fact.
Russ: No text. Worthless.
Robert: The NT teaches repeatedly through many different methods and means that we are to yeild all not part.
Russ: One can be willing to yield all without teaching tithing.
Robert: However, if a person will not willingly part with a 10th there is no way in the world they would EVER give it all if God asked it of them.
Russ: Not true. The story of the widow’s mite proves that. She was not tithing. She was giving a sacrificial freewill offering.
Robert: Laws like Covet not, Kill Not, Worship Not, Steal Not, were MORAL/Ethical
Russ: Yes, but only because they are also written in the heart, nature and conscience by God to every man.
Robert: Laws like Sabbath day, Animal Sacrifice, Washing of hands, wearing of special apparel,
Circumcision of the flesh, Abstaining from meat WERE Cerimonial in nature and had nothing to do with ethics or morality....
Russ: They were still moral and punishable to a Hebrew only and violators could not worship. Sabbath breakers were killed. You want to subdivide the Old Covenant Law, discard what you do not like and keep tithing. Neat trick. The entire Old Covenant Law ended at Calvary for Israel per Hebrews 8:13 and Galatians 3:19. Gentiles never were “under the law.”
Robert: So we can now murder? Steal? Have idols? Worship other Gods? Men can dress in the clothing of women and women can dress in the clothes of a man?
Russ: This stupid argument shows a complete misunderstanding of the concept of law. How many times do I have to tell you that the moral law is written in the heart by nature and conscience per Romans 1:18-20 and 2:14-16. And tithing is not. That is why the Gentiles are guilty before God in Romans 3:10-20.
Robert: The laws of GOD were not done away... the LAWS of Moses which were the writings of Moses and the Elders on the application of the 10 laws of God WERE!
Russ: I can provide you scores of texts which prove that that “Law of God” and the “Law of Moses” are the same thing before Calvary.
Russ: That part of the Old Covenant Law for Israel which applies to all people and the church today is found written in nature and conscience per Romans 1:18-20 and 2:14-16. It has been written in the hearts as the New Covenant based on LOVE per Romans 8:2.
Robert: So then what happened to the Corinthian church? How did they get perverted?
Russ: They sinned.
Robert: Or the Galatians?
Russ: They were perverted by the legalists from Acts 15 who wanted to force everybody to keep ALL the Law – especially tithing, circumcision, Sabbath and unclean foods – Pharisee favorites.
Robert: Sure we know what is right but we do not always do what is right. The scriptures All of them, which by the way, are given by God and PROFITABLE, teach us about requirement, obedience, disobedience, faithfulness, faithlessness, judgment and reward.... and without them we are doomed.
Russ: No all scripture is addressed to all people. That is called “rightly dividing the word of God.” The Old Covenant Law was never commanded to me, a Gentile. I was never under the law.
Russ: Now you are writing your own Bible. Please provide some texts for this revelation. The civil judgments were enforced by the judges who handled presumptuous sins.
Robert: If you can't read the 10 commandments and see which ones pertain to my points I'm not going to waste my time writing them because you still won't see what I am saying.
Russ: Save yourself the trouble. My Bible says that the Law was only commanded to Israel whom God called out of Egypt per Exodus 19:5-6 and 20:1-2.
Robert: Don't tell me, let me guess.... you don't believe in "organized" religion. You feel the need for churches is non existent and you worship God according to the dictates of your own heart. Right?
Russ: Wrong again.
Robert: Mt 23:23. Jesus taught the Pharisees' that his disciples had broken no law when they washed their hands even though the law taught it.
Russ: Wrong. If Jesus broke the law then He was a sinner and we are still dead in our sins. The washing of hands which Jesus opposed was ritual added by the Pharisees which some say did not even require water (but dirt).
Robert: And he taught that the healing on the Sabbath day was not work, just as the saving of a trapped animal on the sabbath was not either. HE my friend got into the Spirit of the Law which you seem oblivious to.
Russ: You are oblivious to the fact that Jesus lived under the full jurisdiction of the law and it controlled everything a Jew must do from waking to sleeping. Again it was the whole Law which Jesus observed – including judgments and statutes.
Russ: And, “yes,” you must “throw out” the whole “baby” of the whole law and start over again with the New Covenant which re-instates the moral parts of the law in terms of grace and faith.
Robert: YOUR FOOLISH throw away the Bible then because we have no requirments any more.
Russ: Again, you either cannot understand plain English or do not read a thing I have written. May I introduce you to Romans 8:2 “For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.” When the Declaration of Independence was signed in 1776, the colonies instantly were NOT under English law (good or bad); it all ended instantly. Then (notice carefully) the good parts of that same law were reworded in terms of the US Constitution. Catch on?
Russ: I have just provided scores of scriptural authorization that tithes ended. You have proven nothing.
Robert: Russ you prove something only to yourself and like minded people who feel they have no responsibility to support a church, and that feel it is improper to have a full time minister.
Russ: You now attack me personally. That is the way it usually happens when you are losing the argument. In fact I vigorously support my church and provide free assistance to other church organizations. I am all for full-time ministry. I just do not think it should be supported from the lie of tithing.
Robert: So, how many converts does your unorganized approach bring to the master each year?
Russ: Does not apply to me. I attend an organized church.
Robert: How much does this minor topic of tithe do to get people to the weightier matters of importance?
Russ: I hear from preachers very often who have switched and agree with me. And again you are twisting God’s Word; the text says “weightier matters of the law.” Jesus was not addressing the Church or Gentiles.
Robert: NONE... you're always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth..
Russ: If you are so smart, then continue this dialog and actually discuss some texts someday.
Robert: When you people open your blogs up to comments I might consider a public dialogue.. but each and every one of you're blogs (in the cases of those who came to my sight and commented) are closed to comment.. why is that?
Russ: I strongly discourage such and will speak up against it on the Tithing-Study Group. My blog is open and the Tithing-Study Group is open unless you start name calling.
Robert: Get off your hobby horse and be as critical with your own bread as you are with mine.
Russ: It is not my hobby-horse. It is my calling from God to complete the Reformation. The Tithing-Study Group does not exist to air out “feel good” personal reasons.
Robert: So why all the cyber back slapping (good point Tony), (good argument....) (you showed him)... bla bla bal.
Russ: I do not participate in that nor do I approve of it. Perhaps Robert Fox can speak to that point with the Group.
Robert: So tell me why do you throw away scripture which requires that you avoid foolish and unlearend questions? Why do you seek them out? Why argue when the scripture says not to? Hypocrite.
Russ: Since when is adding the law back into grace a foolish and unlearned question? I consider it a matter of the church surviving and overcoming legalism. The Scripture tells me to “prove all things” and “teach sound doctrine.” I suppose you disagree with Jesus for arguing with the religious leaders of his day also.
Robert: So agian.. why keep your blogs from having comment? At least I have the guts to open comment and I don't need a back door support group to urge me on...
Russ: See Robert Fox about this.
Russ: Cyber bullies? Have you ever noticed that we are outnumbered by about 10,000 to 1 when churches blog FOR tithing? Most churches, most Christian magazines and most Christian TV and radio stations “bully” people with endless messages promoting tithing. Many of their blogs allow no discussion at all – they simply teach tithing and curse those who disagree. Who are you kidding here?
Robert: So why come seeking a fight? Why try to feed off of someone else’s labors do your own soul winning. Teach people from the ground up and stop being a soul cyphon trying to take the easy way out.
Russ: Does your Bible contain the book of Acts? Why don’t you throw this accusation at Paul? We are trying to clean up the church so it can be revived and win souls again. That is our mission – to clean the annulled law out of the church per Heb 7:18.
Russ: I am glad that Martin Luther and John Calvin did not take your advice. We would all still be bowing to the Pope. Since you emailed me personally along with the Group, consider this an invitation to dialog with me on my personal blog and I will post both sides without cutting anything. It is: http://russkellyphd.blogspot.com/. By the way, Tithing-Study Group can be read by anybody. If your arguments are better than ours, you can make all of us look stupid. It is an open forum.
Robert: Martin Luther and John Calvin taught TITHE...
Russ: I have quotes from them on my web site to the contrary.
Robert: No, the pastor of the local assembly is charged with teaching sound doctrine as says the Pastoral Epistles of Paul. Not the laity.
Russ: If they taught sound doctrine, we would ask them to join us as many pastors have done. According to 1st Timothy 5:19-20 the laity can and should insure that church leaders are not teaching false doctrine.
Non Tithe Teachers: D. L. Moody, L. S. Chafer, Merrill Unger, Charles Ryrie, J. V. McGee and John MacArthur. Believe it or not you can have a successful growing church without teaching tithing. You simply need to preach good lively Bible sermons and personal evangelism.
Robert: Wow.. .what is your point? I like all the names, most of them I know of indepth and they all taught titheing. Why don't you listen to one of my sermons and then tell me if they are not "Good and Lively" or not.
Russ: None of those men teach tithing and you should be ashamed of yourself for smearing their good non-tithing names. If your sermons are “good and lively” then God will bless your church without requiring the addition of law to grace principles. Gal 1:8-9; 3:1.
Sincerely
Russell Earl Kelly
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
Reply to Robert Brigs
Robert Briggs
Russ: Your views on tithing are the common run-of-the-mill same old lame unbiblical arguments which are totally unconvincing. There is nothing new in this letter we have not heard a thousand times.
We do not negate any Scripture. We call you to let Scripture defend itself. God gave his Word for a reason – to tech truth.
Robert: Tithe(s) were practices before Moses ever wrote them down.
Russ: Tithes, yes. Holy biblical tithes, no.
Robert: Even pagan religions of old had a tithing concept which indicates to me the very validity of the truth of the tithing concept
Russ: I am the first to point out the fact that all pagans around Abram practiced tithing, especially Babylon from whence Abram came and probably learned it.
Robert: (You don't counterfeit realities).
Russ: You totally miss our point. Along with tithes the pagan societies also worshipped idols, the heavens, practiced child sacrifice and temple prostitution. Just because something like idolatry, child sacrifice and tithing are very old and common does not make them eternal moral principles. Your argument fails on this point miserably.
Robert: The scriptures show gentile Abram paying tithe before a law was enacted.
Russ: Yes, but the Scripture does not tell us WHY Abram tithed. You and almost everybody else who teaches tithing claim that Abram did so either because he was obeying God or did so as a thank offering. I reject both ideas as unsubstantiated by God’s Word. I suggest that he was simply obeying the well-known law of the land which you just admitted was very common. He tithed because the law of the land required it to his local king-priest.
Robert: And while it is true that there is only one account of this action being taken by this Patriarch of faith it is totally assumptive of anyone to try to make the case that he never did it before or after. WE JUST DON'T KNOW.
Russ: If God had thought that Abram’s tithing was so important that many preachers must mention it on a regular basis, then God would have certainly included more on the subject. Abram moved around Canaan often and served as his own priest.
Robert: Your faith might say he didn't, my faith says he did. Only time and God will tell who is right. I for one am content to leave this issue then until such time.
Russ: Fine. Now tell us why Abram gave the 90% to the king of Sodom. Is that an example of his faith? Are we to keep nothing? Are we to give 90% to the modern equivalent of the king of Sodom – perhaps the local priests of a Satanic witch coven. After all, you are telling us to follow Abram’s example.
Robert: The law which was enacted after Abraham was comprised of various elements that made up two Categories of legal requirement: Moral and Ceremonial.
Russ: Wrong. There were three elements. The Law with Ten Commandments were a preamble only for national Israel. The moral law was found throughout the whole law. Minor offenses were handled by the ceremonial statutes of the worship ritual. Major willful offenses were handled by the judges as civil rulers.
Robert: In truth the ceremonial laws which comprised such things as Animal Sacrifice, Circumcision, ritual washings, feast days, Sabbath days, new moons, all were taken away with SPECIFICITY in the New Testament Covenant as they had been prophesied in the Old.
Russ: Wrong again. The entire Old Covenant Law ended at Calvary for Israel per Hebrews 8:13 and Galatians 3:19. Gentiles never were “under the law.”
Robert: Moral laws however were not.
Russ: That part of the Old Covenant Law for Israel which applies to all people and the church today is found written in nature and conscience per Romans 1:18-20 and 2:14-16. It has been written in the hearts as the New Covenant based on LOVE per Romans 8:2.
Robert: These included laws regarding murder, covetousness, sexual immorality, theft of property, slander of character, male and female roles within the home and society at large, requirements to work and provide for your own, AND the support and maintenance of God's House and Ministers.
Russ: Now you are writing your own Bible. Please provide some texts for this revelation. The civil judgments were enforced by the judges who handled presumptuous sins.
Robert: As we both acknowledge, the NT is relatively silent on the custom of tithing but this in NO WAY means that it is because tithe has been done away.
Russ: Wrong again. The post-Calvary NT is “totally silent” about any command to tithe to support the gospel ministry. It must be because OT Levitical tithe recipients could not own or inherit land and most gospel preachers do. The tithe supported the Temple system and its priesthood while the New Covenant moved both of those within every believer. Plus the OT tithe, as food from inside God’s holy land, could not come from outside Israel. Therefore, nobody can biblically tithe today.
Robert: Far from that! By stamping his approval on the custom Jesus set the tone for the whole of the New Testament experience.
Russ: This is goofy logic and extremely poor hermeneutics. Jesus taught complete obedience to the OT law for Jews and you do not teach that. In Mt 23:23 Jesus was only discussing “matters of the law” and somehow you dismiss that! It would have been SIN for Jesus to accept tithes and he could not have told Gentiles to tithe because it was illegal. Matthew 23:23 is super-simple to explain.
Robert: Unlike you, I believe the Tithe to be only a PART, with weightier matters like proper judgment, humanitarian mercy, and the presentation and preservation of TURHT to be of greater importance. But you don't throw out the baby with the bath water.
Russ: Quote it correctly – “weightier matters – OF THE LAW.” That changes everything . Jesus was teaching law-teachers that THEY were ignoring the law’s teaching of morals. That “beam” in their eye and in your eye in Matthew 23:24 is the tithe! Take it out and live in the whole New Covenant. And, “yes,” you must “throw out” the whole “baby” of the whole law and start over again with the New Covenant which re-instates the moral parts of the law in terms of grace and faith.
Robert: In your argument silence indicates removal. In my argument the silence indicates tithes continuation.
Russ: I do not use the “silence” argument. The post-Calvary New Covenant destroys everything about Old Covenant tithing:
1. WHO #1: The Levitical servants to the priests who received the first whole tithe have been abolished. See Numbers 18:21-24. Modern equivalents to the Levites are unpaid ushers, deacons, choir, musicians, etc.
2. WHO #2: OT priests who received a tenth of the tithe (only 1 per cent) have been abolished. See Num 18:25-28 and Neh 10:38.
3. WHAT: The definition of tithes as only food miraculously increased by God from inside His holy land of Israel has been abolished and replaced with the false unbiblical definition of income. See Leviticus 27:30-34 and 14 other texts which describe the contents of the tithe. Yet money was common in Genesis.
4. WHERE: The destination of the OT tithes first to the Levitical cities some to the Temple has been abolished. See Neh 10:37b and Mal 3:10.
5. WHEN: The time to tithe has been abolished. The Levitical tithe was paid yearly in the Levitical cities. The second festival tithe was eaten at the three festivals. The third poor tithe was kept in the home every third year. Tithes totaled 23 1/3 per cent.
6. WHY #1: The covenant which prescribed them was abolished per Heb 8:8-13; Gal 4:21-26' 2 Cor 3:6-10.
7. WHY #2: The "commandment" for Levites and priests to collect tithes was "annulled" per Hebrews 7:5, 12, 18.
8. WHY #3: The law which condemned believers has been rendered of no effect when the believer died in Christ per Romans 7:4. No law can tell a dead person what to do.
9. HOW #1: Jesus abolished the law of commandments contained in ordinances per Eph 2:13. Tithing was an ordinance per Num 18.
10. HOW $2: Jesus blotted out the handwriting of ordinances, per Col 2:14. Tithing was an ordinance per Num 18.
11. HOW #3: The Temple which tithes supported was abolished in AD 70. God's temple is now within each believer per 1 Cor 3:16; 6:19-20.
12. HOW #4: The priesthood which was supported by tithes was abolished in AD 70. God's priesthood is now within every believer per 1st Peter 2:9-10.
13. HOW #5: The blessings and curses of tithing as part of the whole law have been abolished per Galatians 3:10-13.
Would you continue to send money to a church after
1. The building is destroyed?
2. The preacher has been defrocked?
3. The workers have found other jobs?
4. The members have all left?
5. The land has been inhabited by non religious people?
6. The purpose for the church no longer exists?
7. You have died?
Robert: It seems obvious both in an intellectual sense, and a theological sense, the establishment of the tithe was without a doubt original with God and required of His people.
Russ: Big fancy words with no Bible texts mean absolutely nothing. In Leviticus 27:30-34 the tithes were “original” with God: (1) only food from inside Israel, (2) tenth, not first, (3) tenth, not best, (4) only holy under the Old Covenant and (5) part of the Old Covenant Law from Sinai.
“Required”? Yes, but only from food producers who lived inside Israel. Not required from those whose increase came from their own hands, from Gentiles or from outside Israel.
Robert: It seems equally obvious in both of this sense that a prudent people will not just throw something that God started away without proper scriptural authorization. Of which there is none.
Russ: I have just provided scores of scriptural authorization. You have proven nothing.
Robert: The point of my articles (all but the last one) were simply this, the scriptural arguments are well founded on both sides of the issue.
Russ: Then continue the dialog with Bible facts.
Robert: I can't add anything to them. BUT I CAN ADD MY PERSONAL REASONINGS FOR WHY I TITHE which is the whole premise of the articles as set forth in their titles. You folks seem to think I was setting out a list of scriptural reasons when in fact I never said I was.
Russ: The Tithing-Study Group does not exist to air out “feel good” personal reasons.
Robert: The scriptures speak for themselves. We on the other hand are required to rightly "Divide" the Words of "truth".
Russ: Amen, and so we do. Praise God.
Robert: Now, I must say I find it appalling that men such as yourselves would feel the need to go to a local church blog and try to engage in a debate and/or argument.
Russ: Since we can actually read those local church blogs, that means they have been posted on the worldwide Internet in order to influence others. Do you agree? Therefore we have every right to counter it with the truth. If they were not trying to influence others, it would be kept private.
Robert: To my own master I stand or fall and not to you. I stand before God and answer to him for myself, my teaching, and my congregational defense and I WILL NOT let some rag tag group of cyber bullies come on in and try to wrest innocent souls.
Russ: Cyber bullies? Have you ever noticed that we are outnumbered by about 10,000 to 1 when churches blog FOR tithing? Most churches, most Christian magazines and most Christian TV and radio stations “bully” people with endless messages promoting tithing. Many of their blogs allow no discussion at all – they simply teach tithing and curse those who disagree. Who are you kidding here?
Robert: If you want to debate with me invite me into a neutral arena. Write me a personal email. But don't try to subvert the minds of this congregation.
Russ: I am glad that Martin Luther and John Calvin did not take your advice. We would all still be bowing to the Pope. Since you emailed me personally along with the Group, consider this an invitation to dialog with me on my personal blog and I will post both sides without cutting anything. It is: http://russkellyphd.blogspot.com/. By the way, Tithing-Study Group can be read by anybody. If your arguments are better than ours, you can make all of us look stupid. It is an open forum.
Robert: Do what the Master said if you think we are wrong... and "Leave" us "alone" for we be "blind leaders of the blind". You’re not commanded to labor among the brethren but to labor FOR the LOST.. so get busy.
Russ: Wrong. We are also commanded to teach sound doctrine among believers – just like Jesus, Peter and Paul did among their brethren.
Robert: If you want a pulpit to preach your beliefs make one. Do the work necessary to gain a congregational following. Show us how a church should be run if you know so much. But until you've run one, or as in my case, five, you can't teach me anything about how it "should be done" because your like single people trying to tell a parent of twelve how children should be raised. You just don't know whereof you speak.
Russ: Tell that to D. L. Moody, L. S. Chafer, Merrill Unger, Charles Ryrie, J. V. McGee and John MacArthur. Believe it or not you can have a successful growing church without teaching tithing. You simply need to preach good lively Bible sermons and personal evangelism.
Sincerely
Russell Earl Kelly
Russ: Your views on tithing are the common run-of-the-mill same old lame unbiblical arguments which are totally unconvincing. There is nothing new in this letter we have not heard a thousand times.
We do not negate any Scripture. We call you to let Scripture defend itself. God gave his Word for a reason – to tech truth.
Robert: Tithe(s) were practices before Moses ever wrote them down.
Russ: Tithes, yes. Holy biblical tithes, no.
Robert: Even pagan religions of old had a tithing concept which indicates to me the very validity of the truth of the tithing concept
Russ: I am the first to point out the fact that all pagans around Abram practiced tithing, especially Babylon from whence Abram came and probably learned it.
Robert: (You don't counterfeit realities).
Russ: You totally miss our point. Along with tithes the pagan societies also worshipped idols, the heavens, practiced child sacrifice and temple prostitution. Just because something like idolatry, child sacrifice and tithing are very old and common does not make them eternal moral principles. Your argument fails on this point miserably.
Robert: The scriptures show gentile Abram paying tithe before a law was enacted.
Russ: Yes, but the Scripture does not tell us WHY Abram tithed. You and almost everybody else who teaches tithing claim that Abram did so either because he was obeying God or did so as a thank offering. I reject both ideas as unsubstantiated by God’s Word. I suggest that he was simply obeying the well-known law of the land which you just admitted was very common. He tithed because the law of the land required it to his local king-priest.
Robert: And while it is true that there is only one account of this action being taken by this Patriarch of faith it is totally assumptive of anyone to try to make the case that he never did it before or after. WE JUST DON'T KNOW.
Russ: If God had thought that Abram’s tithing was so important that many preachers must mention it on a regular basis, then God would have certainly included more on the subject. Abram moved around Canaan often and served as his own priest.
Robert: Your faith might say he didn't, my faith says he did. Only time and God will tell who is right. I for one am content to leave this issue then until such time.
Russ: Fine. Now tell us why Abram gave the 90% to the king of Sodom. Is that an example of his faith? Are we to keep nothing? Are we to give 90% to the modern equivalent of the king of Sodom – perhaps the local priests of a Satanic witch coven. After all, you are telling us to follow Abram’s example.
Robert: The law which was enacted after Abraham was comprised of various elements that made up two Categories of legal requirement: Moral and Ceremonial.
Russ: Wrong. There were three elements. The Law with Ten Commandments were a preamble only for national Israel. The moral law was found throughout the whole law. Minor offenses were handled by the ceremonial statutes of the worship ritual. Major willful offenses were handled by the judges as civil rulers.
Robert: In truth the ceremonial laws which comprised such things as Animal Sacrifice, Circumcision, ritual washings, feast days, Sabbath days, new moons, all were taken away with SPECIFICITY in the New Testament Covenant as they had been prophesied in the Old.
Russ: Wrong again. The entire Old Covenant Law ended at Calvary for Israel per Hebrews 8:13 and Galatians 3:19. Gentiles never were “under the law.”
Robert: Moral laws however were not.
Russ: That part of the Old Covenant Law for Israel which applies to all people and the church today is found written in nature and conscience per Romans 1:18-20 and 2:14-16. It has been written in the hearts as the New Covenant based on LOVE per Romans 8:2.
Robert: These included laws regarding murder, covetousness, sexual immorality, theft of property, slander of character, male and female roles within the home and society at large, requirements to work and provide for your own, AND the support and maintenance of God's House and Ministers.
Russ: Now you are writing your own Bible. Please provide some texts for this revelation. The civil judgments were enforced by the judges who handled presumptuous sins.
Robert: As we both acknowledge, the NT is relatively silent on the custom of tithing but this in NO WAY means that it is because tithe has been done away.
Russ: Wrong again. The post-Calvary NT is “totally silent” about any command to tithe to support the gospel ministry. It must be because OT Levitical tithe recipients could not own or inherit land and most gospel preachers do. The tithe supported the Temple system and its priesthood while the New Covenant moved both of those within every believer. Plus the OT tithe, as food from inside God’s holy land, could not come from outside Israel. Therefore, nobody can biblically tithe today.
Robert: Far from that! By stamping his approval on the custom Jesus set the tone for the whole of the New Testament experience.
Russ: This is goofy logic and extremely poor hermeneutics. Jesus taught complete obedience to the OT law for Jews and you do not teach that. In Mt 23:23 Jesus was only discussing “matters of the law” and somehow you dismiss that! It would have been SIN for Jesus to accept tithes and he could not have told Gentiles to tithe because it was illegal. Matthew 23:23 is super-simple to explain.
Robert: Unlike you, I believe the Tithe to be only a PART, with weightier matters like proper judgment, humanitarian mercy, and the presentation and preservation of TURHT to be of greater importance. But you don't throw out the baby with the bath water.
Russ: Quote it correctly – “weightier matters – OF THE LAW.” That changes everything . Jesus was teaching law-teachers that THEY were ignoring the law’s teaching of morals. That “beam” in their eye and in your eye in Matthew 23:24 is the tithe! Take it out and live in the whole New Covenant. And, “yes,” you must “throw out” the whole “baby” of the whole law and start over again with the New Covenant which re-instates the moral parts of the law in terms of grace and faith.
Robert: In your argument silence indicates removal. In my argument the silence indicates tithes continuation.
Russ: I do not use the “silence” argument. The post-Calvary New Covenant destroys everything about Old Covenant tithing:
1. WHO #1: The Levitical servants to the priests who received the first whole tithe have been abolished. See Numbers 18:21-24. Modern equivalents to the Levites are unpaid ushers, deacons, choir, musicians, etc.
2. WHO #2: OT priests who received a tenth of the tithe (only 1 per cent) have been abolished. See Num 18:25-28 and Neh 10:38.
3. WHAT: The definition of tithes as only food miraculously increased by God from inside His holy land of Israel has been abolished and replaced with the false unbiblical definition of income. See Leviticus 27:30-34 and 14 other texts which describe the contents of the tithe. Yet money was common in Genesis.
4. WHERE: The destination of the OT tithes first to the Levitical cities some to the Temple has been abolished. See Neh 10:37b and Mal 3:10.
5. WHEN: The time to tithe has been abolished. The Levitical tithe was paid yearly in the Levitical cities. The second festival tithe was eaten at the three festivals. The third poor tithe was kept in the home every third year. Tithes totaled 23 1/3 per cent.
6. WHY #1: The covenant which prescribed them was abolished per Heb 8:8-13; Gal 4:21-26' 2 Cor 3:6-10.
7. WHY #2: The "commandment" for Levites and priests to collect tithes was "annulled" per Hebrews 7:5, 12, 18.
8. WHY #3: The law which condemned believers has been rendered of no effect when the believer died in Christ per Romans 7:4. No law can tell a dead person what to do.
9. HOW #1: Jesus abolished the law of commandments contained in ordinances per Eph 2:13. Tithing was an ordinance per Num 18.
10. HOW $2: Jesus blotted out the handwriting of ordinances, per Col 2:14. Tithing was an ordinance per Num 18.
11. HOW #3: The Temple which tithes supported was abolished in AD 70. God's temple is now within each believer per 1 Cor 3:16; 6:19-20.
12. HOW #4: The priesthood which was supported by tithes was abolished in AD 70. God's priesthood is now within every believer per 1st Peter 2:9-10.
13. HOW #5: The blessings and curses of tithing as part of the whole law have been abolished per Galatians 3:10-13.
Would you continue to send money to a church after
1. The building is destroyed?
2. The preacher has been defrocked?
3. The workers have found other jobs?
4. The members have all left?
5. The land has been inhabited by non religious people?
6. The purpose for the church no longer exists?
7. You have died?
Robert: It seems obvious both in an intellectual sense, and a theological sense, the establishment of the tithe was without a doubt original with God and required of His people.
Russ: Big fancy words with no Bible texts mean absolutely nothing. In Leviticus 27:30-34 the tithes were “original” with God: (1) only food from inside Israel, (2) tenth, not first, (3) tenth, not best, (4) only holy under the Old Covenant and (5) part of the Old Covenant Law from Sinai.
“Required”? Yes, but only from food producers who lived inside Israel. Not required from those whose increase came from their own hands, from Gentiles or from outside Israel.
Robert: It seems equally obvious in both of this sense that a prudent people will not just throw something that God started away without proper scriptural authorization. Of which there is none.
Russ: I have just provided scores of scriptural authorization. You have proven nothing.
Robert: The point of my articles (all but the last one) were simply this, the scriptural arguments are well founded on both sides of the issue.
Russ: Then continue the dialog with Bible facts.
Robert: I can't add anything to them. BUT I CAN ADD MY PERSONAL REASONINGS FOR WHY I TITHE which is the whole premise of the articles as set forth in their titles. You folks seem to think I was setting out a list of scriptural reasons when in fact I never said I was.
Russ: The Tithing-Study Group does not exist to air out “feel good” personal reasons.
Robert: The scriptures speak for themselves. We on the other hand are required to rightly "Divide" the Words of "truth".
Russ: Amen, and so we do. Praise God.
Robert: Now, I must say I find it appalling that men such as yourselves would feel the need to go to a local church blog and try to engage in a debate and/or argument.
Russ: Since we can actually read those local church blogs, that means they have been posted on the worldwide Internet in order to influence others. Do you agree? Therefore we have every right to counter it with the truth. If they were not trying to influence others, it would be kept private.
Robert: To my own master I stand or fall and not to you. I stand before God and answer to him for myself, my teaching, and my congregational defense and I WILL NOT let some rag tag group of cyber bullies come on in and try to wrest innocent souls.
Russ: Cyber bullies? Have you ever noticed that we are outnumbered by about 10,000 to 1 when churches blog FOR tithing? Most churches, most Christian magazines and most Christian TV and radio stations “bully” people with endless messages promoting tithing. Many of their blogs allow no discussion at all – they simply teach tithing and curse those who disagree. Who are you kidding here?
Robert: If you want to debate with me invite me into a neutral arena. Write me a personal email. But don't try to subvert the minds of this congregation.
Russ: I am glad that Martin Luther and John Calvin did not take your advice. We would all still be bowing to the Pope. Since you emailed me personally along with the Group, consider this an invitation to dialog with me on my personal blog and I will post both sides without cutting anything. It is: http://russkellyphd.blogspot.com/. By the way, Tithing-Study Group can be read by anybody. If your arguments are better than ours, you can make all of us look stupid. It is an open forum.
Robert: Do what the Master said if you think we are wrong... and "Leave" us "alone" for we be "blind leaders of the blind". You’re not commanded to labor among the brethren but to labor FOR the LOST.. so get busy.
Russ: Wrong. We are also commanded to teach sound doctrine among believers – just like Jesus, Peter and Paul did among their brethren.
Robert: If you want a pulpit to preach your beliefs make one. Do the work necessary to gain a congregational following. Show us how a church should be run if you know so much. But until you've run one, or as in my case, five, you can't teach me anything about how it "should be done" because your like single people trying to tell a parent of twelve how children should be raised. You just don't know whereof you speak.
Russ: Tell that to D. L. Moody, L. S. Chafer, Merrill Unger, Charles Ryrie, J. V. McGee and John MacArthur. Believe it or not you can have a successful growing church without teaching tithing. You simply need to preach good lively Bible sermons and personal evangelism.
Sincerely
Russell Earl Kelly
Monday, March 14, 2011
How to Spot a Liar
How to Spot a Liar, by Russell E Kelly
Most common Identifying Traits
More Traits Equal Higher Probability
1. Partial quotations in long articles.
2. Short quotations in long articles.
3. Ignores context in long articles.
4. Refuse to defend their position.
5. Refuse to answer questions.
6. Refuse to answer all questions.
7. Resorts to personal attacks.
8. Charges for most material.
9. Accumulates wealth by soliticing from the poor.
10. Refuse to share contrary material with their followers.
11. Are far wealthier than those who support them.
12. Refuse to identify themselves.
Most common Identifying Traits
More Traits Equal Higher Probability
1. Partial quotations in long articles.
2. Short quotations in long articles.
3. Ignores context in long articles.
4. Refuse to defend their position.
5. Refuse to answer questions.
6. Refuse to answer all questions.
7. Resorts to personal attacks.
8. Charges for most material.
9. Accumulates wealth by soliticing from the poor.
10. Refuse to share contrary material with their followers.
11. Are far wealthier than those who support them.
12. Refuse to identify themselves.
Friday, March 11, 2011
Correcting Sabbath-teachers
My book on SDAs has many long chapters about every aspect of the Sabbath.
www.exposingseventhdayadventism.com
Chapter 17: The Creation Sabbath
In Genesis 1 the first 6 days of creation had a beginning (evening) and an ending (morning) but the Sabbath did not. That is because God ceased creating and will not create again until Revelation 21:1-2. In other words, God is still resting and not creating on His original Creation Sabbath. This throws Sabbath-teachers into a fit.
Adam and Eve did not begin working the day after they were created either. They did not toil and suffer until after they sinned and we do not know how long that was. It could have been 10,000 years. And Sabbath-teachers do not know how to deal with this fact either.
Whenever they sinned their Sabbath rest ended.
…………………………………..
Ch 18: Weekly Sabbath
For at least 2500 years the Sabbath is not mentioned until Exodus 16 where God restored it only to Israel. Why don’t Sabbatarians obey Exodus 16 and stay in their homes on the Sabbath?
NOTICE that He did not restore it to the Egyptians or anybody else! I say 2500 years because it could have been 10,000 plus 2500 years because you not start counting until sin entered. “The wages of sin is death” and they did not begin to die until they sinned.
The weekly Sabbath was only a memorial for Israel. In Exodus 20:2 and Deuteronomy 5 the Law first reminded Israel that God had redeemed them as a nation from Egypt. If God had wanted all men to keep the Sabbath, why did he not tell the Egyptians and Canaanites to observe it? This does not apply to us.
(1) The weekly Sabbath of Exodus 20 approves of slavery. (2) It also could not be observed in parts of the world where it is necessary to build fires for survival. (3) It could not be observed at the north and south poles where there is not sunrise and sunset for many months. And it could not be observed by astronauts circling the earth every few hours. (4) Sabbath-teachers violate their own law and should stone each other for violating the Sabbath as God commanded Moses. They do not obey the Sabbath when they cause others to work by a) driving, b) using electricity, c) using water, d) using gas to heat, e) flushing toilets and f) using the phone on the Sabbath. They condemn themselves as total hypocrites.
……………………………………………..
Ch 19: Shadows
Heb 4:3 For we which have believed do enter into rest …
Although Sabbath-keepers would greatly object, all Sabbath days (weekly, monthly, seasonal and yearly) were “shadows of things to come.” Before sin entered, while Adam was still sinless, he walked sinless with God 7 days a week 24 hours a day. Since Calvary and Pentecost the believer once again walks sinless with Christ 7 days a week 24 hours per day per Hebrews 4:3; this is imputed righteousness.
Acts 15:5 But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.
Acts 15:9 And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.
Acts 15:10 Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?
11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.
Acts 15:19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:
The Gentiles who had been saved under Peter’s preaching had not kept the Law, the Sabbath, circumcision, unclean foods or tithing. Nor were any of these placed upon them.
You noticed that your friend kept referring to Col 2:16 and Gal 4:10 without actually quoting them. He is afraid if you actually read the texts you would discover how clearly they refer to the 7th day Sabbath. Look at the sequence.
Col 2:16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
Holy day: seasonal festival Sabbath
New Moon: monthy Sabbath
Sabbath: weekly Sabbath
Gal 4:9 But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage?
10 Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years.
Days: weekly
Months: monthly
Times: seasonal
Years: yearly Sabbaths
…………………………………………………
Ch 20: Greater Sabbaths
Sabbath-teachers teach that the 7th Day Sabbath was far greater than the monthly, seasonal and yearly Sabbaths. They greatly err. The 7th day Sabbath was actually the LEAST important according to Numbers 28 and 29 where it required the LEAST sacrifices. In fact the first Sabbath introduced as a day of worship was the Passover Sabbath in Exodus 13. Read it for yourself.
………………………………….
Ch 21: Jesus and the Sabbath
As a Jew living under the Law, Jesus came to perfectly keep that Law in order that He might perfectly fulfill that Law. Not only did he faithfully observe the 7th-day Sabbath, but he also perfectly obeyed the monthly, seasonal and yearly Sabbaths. They were all Sabbaths. Before Calvary it was sin NOT to keep the Sabbath but it was NOT SIN for Gentiles NOT to keep the Sabbath. Nowhere does the Old Covenant condemn Gentiles for not keeping the Sabbath. This is a very important chapter to read in my book.
……………………………..
Ch 22: Acts
As a Jewish rabbi with an open pulpit Paul took advantage of an open pulpit and always went first to the Jewish synagogue. He would have been stupid not to do so. In his shoes we would do the same thing. He did not go because of the commandment of the Old Covenant; he went because of the opportunity to preach. And, after being rejected by the synagogue leaders, he always very soon afterwards went to the Gentiles and preached to them EVERY DAY.
………………………………………….
Ch 23: Liberty
Those Christians who teach that Sunday replaces the Sabbath in the Ten Commandments do not understand the doctrine of Law. SDAs and most Sabbath-teachers greatly err by teaching that “law” means “Ten Commandments.” Your article does this with Matthew 5:17. It totally ignores Mt 5:19-48 where the whole law is mentioned; it was also SIN to disobey the monthly, seasonal and yearly Sabbaths also.
………………………….
Ch 24: USA
In all this goofy argument about Constantine, Sabbath-teachers ignore the Word which says that GOD ENDED THE SABBATH – not Constantine and not the Catholic Church.
Heb 8:13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.
2 Cor 3:9 For if the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory.
10 For even that which was made glorious had no glory in this respect, by reason of the glory that excelleth.
Gal 3:19 Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.
Gal 3:24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.
Rom 10:4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.
SDAs teach that the Pope is the Antichrist and the mark of its authority is its change of the Sabbath. And they rejoice that the RC Church agrees with them, but that does not make it so.
Exodus 31:13-17 is a key text which Sabbath-teachers will not explain. The Sabbath was given to Old Covenant Israel as THE unique sign and seal of God’s special covenant with them only. Therefore it cannot at the same time be required of all people.
SDAs teach that the whole world will seek to kill them when the tribulation plagues fall and teach that the US government is the worst nation then. Thisis goofy theology.
When Jesus said that “the Sabbath was made for man,” He could have been referring to:
(1) Made for THE Jewish man per context.
(2) Made for THE man – Himself the Son of man.
Since the Greek has a definite article, I understand it to be saying “The Sabbath came into existence for THE MAN JESUS CHRIST, and THE MAN JESUS CHRIST did not come into existence for the Sabbath. In context Jesus (who created the Sabbath) had the authority to interpret how it should be observed.
www.exposingseventhdayadventism.com
Chapter 17: The Creation Sabbath
In Genesis 1 the first 6 days of creation had a beginning (evening) and an ending (morning) but the Sabbath did not. That is because God ceased creating and will not create again until Revelation 21:1-2. In other words, God is still resting and not creating on His original Creation Sabbath. This throws Sabbath-teachers into a fit.
Adam and Eve did not begin working the day after they were created either. They did not toil and suffer until after they sinned and we do not know how long that was. It could have been 10,000 years. And Sabbath-teachers do not know how to deal with this fact either.
Whenever they sinned their Sabbath rest ended.
…………………………………..
Ch 18: Weekly Sabbath
For at least 2500 years the Sabbath is not mentioned until Exodus 16 where God restored it only to Israel. Why don’t Sabbatarians obey Exodus 16 and stay in their homes on the Sabbath?
NOTICE that He did not restore it to the Egyptians or anybody else! I say 2500 years because it could have been 10,000 plus 2500 years because you not start counting until sin entered. “The wages of sin is death” and they did not begin to die until they sinned.
The weekly Sabbath was only a memorial for Israel. In Exodus 20:2 and Deuteronomy 5 the Law first reminded Israel that God had redeemed them as a nation from Egypt. If God had wanted all men to keep the Sabbath, why did he not tell the Egyptians and Canaanites to observe it? This does not apply to us.
(1) The weekly Sabbath of Exodus 20 approves of slavery. (2) It also could not be observed in parts of the world where it is necessary to build fires for survival. (3) It could not be observed at the north and south poles where there is not sunrise and sunset for many months. And it could not be observed by astronauts circling the earth every few hours. (4) Sabbath-teachers violate their own law and should stone each other for violating the Sabbath as God commanded Moses. They do not obey the Sabbath when they cause others to work by a) driving, b) using electricity, c) using water, d) using gas to heat, e) flushing toilets and f) using the phone on the Sabbath. They condemn themselves as total hypocrites.
……………………………………………..
Ch 19: Shadows
Heb 4:3 For we which have believed do enter into rest …
Although Sabbath-keepers would greatly object, all Sabbath days (weekly, monthly, seasonal and yearly) were “shadows of things to come.” Before sin entered, while Adam was still sinless, he walked sinless with God 7 days a week 24 hours a day. Since Calvary and Pentecost the believer once again walks sinless with Christ 7 days a week 24 hours per day per Hebrews 4:3; this is imputed righteousness.
Acts 15:5 But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.
Acts 15:9 And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.
Acts 15:10 Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?
11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.
Acts 15:19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:
The Gentiles who had been saved under Peter’s preaching had not kept the Law, the Sabbath, circumcision, unclean foods or tithing. Nor were any of these placed upon them.
You noticed that your friend kept referring to Col 2:16 and Gal 4:10 without actually quoting them. He is afraid if you actually read the texts you would discover how clearly they refer to the 7th day Sabbath. Look at the sequence.
Col 2:16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
Holy day: seasonal festival Sabbath
New Moon: monthy Sabbath
Sabbath: weekly Sabbath
Gal 4:9 But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage?
10 Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years.
Days: weekly
Months: monthly
Times: seasonal
Years: yearly Sabbaths
…………………………………………………
Ch 20: Greater Sabbaths
Sabbath-teachers teach that the 7th Day Sabbath was far greater than the monthly, seasonal and yearly Sabbaths. They greatly err. The 7th day Sabbath was actually the LEAST important according to Numbers 28 and 29 where it required the LEAST sacrifices. In fact the first Sabbath introduced as a day of worship was the Passover Sabbath in Exodus 13. Read it for yourself.
………………………………….
Ch 21: Jesus and the Sabbath
As a Jew living under the Law, Jesus came to perfectly keep that Law in order that He might perfectly fulfill that Law. Not only did he faithfully observe the 7th-day Sabbath, but he also perfectly obeyed the monthly, seasonal and yearly Sabbaths. They were all Sabbaths. Before Calvary it was sin NOT to keep the Sabbath but it was NOT SIN for Gentiles NOT to keep the Sabbath. Nowhere does the Old Covenant condemn Gentiles for not keeping the Sabbath. This is a very important chapter to read in my book.
……………………………..
Ch 22: Acts
As a Jewish rabbi with an open pulpit Paul took advantage of an open pulpit and always went first to the Jewish synagogue. He would have been stupid not to do so. In his shoes we would do the same thing. He did not go because of the commandment of the Old Covenant; he went because of the opportunity to preach. And, after being rejected by the synagogue leaders, he always very soon afterwards went to the Gentiles and preached to them EVERY DAY.
………………………………………….
Ch 23: Liberty
Those Christians who teach that Sunday replaces the Sabbath in the Ten Commandments do not understand the doctrine of Law. SDAs and most Sabbath-teachers greatly err by teaching that “law” means “Ten Commandments.” Your article does this with Matthew 5:17. It totally ignores Mt 5:19-48 where the whole law is mentioned; it was also SIN to disobey the monthly, seasonal and yearly Sabbaths also.
………………………….
Ch 24: USA
In all this goofy argument about Constantine, Sabbath-teachers ignore the Word which says that GOD ENDED THE SABBATH – not Constantine and not the Catholic Church.
Heb 8:13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.
2 Cor 3:9 For if the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory.
10 For even that which was made glorious had no glory in this respect, by reason of the glory that excelleth.
Gal 3:19 Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.
Gal 3:24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.
Rom 10:4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.
SDAs teach that the Pope is the Antichrist and the mark of its authority is its change of the Sabbath. And they rejoice that the RC Church agrees with them, but that does not make it so.
Exodus 31:13-17 is a key text which Sabbath-teachers will not explain. The Sabbath was given to Old Covenant Israel as THE unique sign and seal of God’s special covenant with them only. Therefore it cannot at the same time be required of all people.
SDAs teach that the whole world will seek to kill them when the tribulation plagues fall and teach that the US government is the worst nation then. Thisis goofy theology.
When Jesus said that “the Sabbath was made for man,” He could have been referring to:
(1) Made for THE Jewish man per context.
(2) Made for THE man – Himself the Son of man.
Since the Greek has a definite article, I understand it to be saying “The Sabbath came into existence for THE MAN JESUS CHRIST, and THE MAN JESUS CHRIST did not come into existence for the Sabbath. In context Jesus (who created the Sabbath) had the authority to interpret how it should be observed.
Thursday, March 10, 2011
Rebuttal of Pastor Dean Shriver
Pastor Dean Shriver, D. Min.
Can We Preach the Tithe?
Intermountain Baptist Church
March 10, 2011
http://www.churchleaders.com/pastors/preaching-teaching/138394-can-we-preach-the-tithe.html?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Daily-Update
Church Leaders.com
Shriver: Tithing—I believe every Christian should do it. But can I preach that? Like you, I’m committed to preaching only what the Bible clearly teaches.
Kelly: You should stick to this approach.
Shriver: Unfortunately, I’ve always found the Bible’s teaching about a believer’s responsibility to tithe to be fuzzy around the edges. Off the top before taxes? Off the bottom after taxes? All to the church (ours in particular!)? Off of income or off of possessions? Of course the problem isn’t with Scripture. The problem is me.
Kelly: The problem is with your misunderstanding of Scripture.
Shriver: When it comes to giving, my own preferences, opinions, and training make it hard for me to approach relevant texts with a clear and teachable mind.
Kelly: And proper hermeneutics.
Shriver: On the one hand, I know that the tithe is “law” and that, in Christ, we’re no longer under the Law.
Kelly: You make the same mistake I made for decades. In fact, we Gentiles and the Church never were “under the law.” We were always excluded from the law. God commanded Old Covenant Israel NOT to share its covenant (law) with us.
Shriver: Still, it’s hard for me to fathom how anyone can honestly taste the sweetness of God’s grace only to turn around and “Scrooge” God by giving Him less than 10%.
Kelly: You are coming from a false definition of tithe and are falsely assuming that everybody in the OT was required to begin a level of giving at 10%.
Though money was common, the true holy biblical tithe of the Old Covenant Law was always only food from inside God’s holy land which He had miraculously increased. Tithes never could come from what man increased, from Gentiles or from outside of Israel. Not even Jesus, Peter or Paul qualified as tithe-payers. Tithing was only a minimum for food producers living inside Israel. Sixteen texts validate this biblical fact.
Shriver: The very idea makes me want to raise my voice, pound my pulpit and thump my Bible! Which is exactly why I’m not yet ready to preach that sermon on tithing. But I’m getting closer.
Kelly: Perhaps you will allow me to help you clarify the issues.
Shriver: On a recent jog, I began to think again about the issue of tithing. It occurred to me that there’s more than one way to tithe. In fact, three distinct forms of tithing are practiced in the Bible. Only one is legitimate for the believer.
Kelly: There were three distinctly different tithes for 3 different purposes for 3 different locations. See http://www.tithing-russkelly.com/id29.html
Shriver: The form of tithing most often addressed in Scripture is “tithing as covenant.” This practice of tithing was specific to Israel as the covenant people of God. It was part of the Mosaic Law (Leviticus 27:30-33; Numbers 18:21-32; Deuteronomy 14:22-29). Under the Covenant, God promised to materially bless Israel for obedience [to the whole law] and, conversely, to judge them (strip them of their prosperity) for disobedience [to any of the law; Gal 3:10] (Deuteronomy 28 and Malachi 3:8-12). This model for tithing has no direct relevance to us as New Testament believers.
Kelly: Very true. Tithing was to support the Levites who were only servants to the priests. And the Levites tithed a tithe (1%) to the priests who gave freewill sacrificial offerings (Mal 1:13-14). Those Levites and priests who received the first tithe were not allowed to own holy land inside Israel. This is not obeyed.
Shriver: In Christ, we live under a new covenant. Our lives are not governed by the written code but by the indwelling Holy Spirit who writes His “law” on our hearts (Galatians 5:18; Hebrews 8:7-13).
Kelly: The New Covenant replaced both the old Temple and priesthood with the priesthood of all believers. Tithes are never commanded to the Church or Gentiles after Calvary. They are replaced with freewill, generous, sacrificial, joyful offerings motivated by love for God and lost souls. For many this means MORE than 10% but others are already giving sacrificially even though less than 10% per 2 Cor 8:12-14.
Shriver: The Bible also describes a second kind of tithing that is both condemnable and, I fear, far too common—“tithing as legalism.” In Jesus’ day, it was the religious leaders who practiced this perversion of Israel’s covenant tithe. Christ’s condemnation of legalistic tithing was absolute,
“Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness. These you ought to have done without neglecting the others. You blind guides, straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel” (Matthew 23:23-24)!
Kelly: True. The context was “matters of the law” and was addressed to “you, scribes, Pharisees, hypocrites.”
Shriver: In His relationship with Israel, God intended the tithe to be an avenue to blessing. The religious manipulators of Jesus’ day turned the blessing into burden. Instead of expressing faithfulness to God—and oneness of heart with God for ministry and the poor—the tithe became little more than a means to satisfy “religious obligations.” Such satisfaction leads to pride (Luke 18:9-12) and, in the end, restricts giving. After all, once our “obligation” is satisfied, what more could God want? It’s no wonder Jesus so strongly denounces legalistic tithing.
Yet, how easily the sin of the Pharisees can become our sin too!
Kelly: Very good.
Shriver: Effective ministry requires money—money that comes from God’s people. Believers need to give—both for their own sake and the sake of the Kingdom. Since they need to give, we need to preach about giving. When we do, however, we must be careful not to turn blessing into burden.
Kelly: Very good.
Shriver: We must refuse to preach “tithing as legalism.” So what’s the alternative?
Kelly: The alternative is the truth as taught by the Holy Spirit to the Church after Calvary. And that does not include tithing.
Shriver: Tithing as worship!
Kelly: Text please.
Shriver: In Scripture, “tithing as worship” was practiced prior to both the establishment of “tithing as covenant” and the perversion of “tithing as legalism.” The principle of “tithing as worship” is “pre-Law.” It’s established in Genesis 14:17-24 where Abram gives a tenth of his plunder to Melchizedek, King of Salem.
Kelly: Texts please. Genesis 14:17-24 does NOT tell us that (uncircumcised) Abram tithed “as worship.” In fact it does not tell us WHY Abram tithed. Since he was born and raised in Babylon where tithing existed, it is possible that he tithed for a different reason. Many commentaries suggest that an Arab tradition or law of the land controlled the 90% of 14:21. You simply cannot add to God’s Word and conclude that Abram either gave freely or in obedience to God.
Shriver: Melchizedek, in turn, blesses Abram.
Kelly: Any king-priest of Abram’s day would have done the same thing after receiving tithes from spoils of war.
Shriver: Hebrews 7:1-10 defines the significance of these acts declaring that it is the superior who blesses the inferior and the inferior who pays tithes to the superior.
Kelly: The purpose of Hebrews is not to teach the Church to tithe. It uses tithing as a vehicle to prove that Jesus has replaced the Aaronic priesthood. The tithing “commandment in the law” from 7:5 was “of necessity changed” in 7:12 and that “change” was its “annulment of the commandment going before” in 7:18. While 7:18 refers to all statutes relating to the Aaronic priesthood, it must also include the statute of tithing found in Numbers 18.
Shriver: “Tithing as worship,” then, is first an act by which we acknowledge that God is both our superior (the Sovereign Lord) and the source of all blessing.
Kelly: You are twisting God’s Word to make it say what you want it to say. The “we” of Genesis 14 was not the church.
Shriver: But “tithing as worship” does more than acknowledge God. It expresses our personal allegiance to Him. We see this in Genesis 28:10-22. Here, God reveals himself to Jacob in a dream. In response, the patriarch vows, “the Lord shall be my God…and of all that you give me I will give a full tenth to you.” For Jacob, the “tithe as worship” became a natural expression of his decision to follow the God of His Fathers.
Kelly: Shame on you. You again twist and pervert God’s Word by conveniently omitting the key “if” of verse 20. The schemer Jacob was telling God what to do! This tactic is unchristian. Far from “worship,” Jacob was black-mailing God and you are joining in his deception by twisting this Scripture!
Shriver: In the same way, the “tithe as worship” becomes an almost instinctive way for us to express our allegiance to the God of our Salvation.
Kelly: Texts please.
Shriver: A third, and critical, element of “tithing as worship” is thanksgiving. “Tithing as worship” expresses overflowing gratitude towards God.
Kelly: Texts please. The first Levitical tithe was cold hard Law and was commanded whether one was grateful or not. A second festival tithe was for rejoicing but you do you teach that tithe and you do not eat it in the streets of Jerusalem.
Shriver: It breaks free from guilt as the motivation for giving.
Kelly: Texts please.
Shriver: Its ultimate focus is the condition of one’s heart—not the percentage of one’s income.
Kelly: Texts please.
Shriver: On the topic of percentages, I find the words of John H. Walton and Andrew E. Hill to be practical. They write, “How are we to show our gratitude to God other than by giving back a portion?
Kelly: O.K. so far.
Shriver: If 10 percent was considered an acceptable portion by God as an expression of gratitude then, why should we view it any differently today?
Kelly: Texts please. The first Levitical tithe was cold hard law – not gratitude – like taxes today. The government does not care for gratitude.
Shriver: We might consider 10 percent as a benchmark just as we consider 15 percent a benchmark for tipping. The extent of the customer’s gratitude and appreciation is demonstrated in the size of the tip.
Kelly: You cannot compare a cold hard law with a freewill choice.
Shriver: It would be considered the ultimate rudeness or the consummate insult to leave no tip at all.
Kelly: The merchants and tradesmen such as carpenters, fishermen and tentmakers gave no tithe at all; they gave freewill offerings. Why not follow this example?
Shriver: So it is to God if we return no portion to him. In addition, there are occasions when the situation calls for a contribution exceeding the benchmark” (Old Testament Today; Zondervan: 2004, 270-271).
Kelly: You are mixing Law and Grace and reintroducing the thought of Malachi after rejecting it earlier.
Shriver: Again it must be said—ultimately, “tithing as worship” isn’t about percentage of income.
Kelly: It has no biblical support.
Shriver: It’s about the overflow of one’s heart. 2 Corinthians 8:5 is clear. When we first give ourselves to the Lord, any act of giving pleases him—whether above or below the “benchmark.” “For if the readiness is there, it is acceptable according to what a person has, not according to what he does not have” (2 Corinthians 8:12).
Kelly: You are playing games with God’s Word again. Second Corinthians is NOT discussing tithing. It is discussing freewill generous sacrificial giving – the kind of giving which propelled the early church. Paul and Jewish Christians knew very well that tithes could not come from Gentiles or from pagan lands and did not teach tithing.
Shriver: How then, can we preach the tithe? First, we recognize that “tithing as covenant” has no direct relevance to New Testament believers. Second, we acknowledge that “tithing as legalism” is just plain sin—both for those who practice it and those who preach it.
Kelly: Correct. Stick to the simple truth. Merely saying “tithes PLUS offerings” reaches into the realm you just rejected.
Shriver: Only the principle of “tithing as worship” remains. That’s the tithing we can preach!
Kelly: No, it does not remain; it never existed except in the Old Covenant festival tithe which was EATEN. You have no texts to preach this.
Shriver: “Tithing as worship” is our opportunity to acknowledge that God is God. He is ruler over our lives. He is the source of every blessing we enjoy.
Kelly: You can do that without teaching error.
Shriver: More than that, “tithing as worship” expresses our allegiance to God in a very personal and concrete way. And finally, “tithing as worship” manifests a heart overflowing with thanksgiving towards God.
Kelly: Sounds good, but it is still unbiblical. The SDAs make the same kind of argument to prove Saturday Sabbath observance to worship and honor God.
Shriver: With this in mind, perhaps we should be less concerned with whether people tithe and more concerned with why they tithe.
Kelly: This totally ignores the true biblical definition and purpose of the tithe.
Shriver: Ultimately, tithing isn’t about percentage of income or money in the plate. It’s about worship!
Tithing as worship—I think that will preach!
Kelly: Preach it as your theory. Be sure to tell your congregation there are no texts to validate it. I would appreciate an extended in-depth dialog.
There are now at least 7 SBC theologians who are writing against tithing and for grace giving. In May 2011 the SBC will publish Perspectives on Tithing, Four Views. The false doctrine is being exposed.
Russell Earl Kelly, PHD
www.tithing-russkelly.com
Can We Preach the Tithe?
Intermountain Baptist Church
March 10, 2011
http://www.churchleaders.com/pastors/preaching-teaching/138394-can-we-preach-the-tithe.html?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Daily-Update
Church Leaders.com
Shriver: Tithing—I believe every Christian should do it. But can I preach that? Like you, I’m committed to preaching only what the Bible clearly teaches.
Kelly: You should stick to this approach.
Shriver: Unfortunately, I’ve always found the Bible’s teaching about a believer’s responsibility to tithe to be fuzzy around the edges. Off the top before taxes? Off the bottom after taxes? All to the church (ours in particular!)? Off of income or off of possessions? Of course the problem isn’t with Scripture. The problem is me.
Kelly: The problem is with your misunderstanding of Scripture.
Shriver: When it comes to giving, my own preferences, opinions, and training make it hard for me to approach relevant texts with a clear and teachable mind.
Kelly: And proper hermeneutics.
Shriver: On the one hand, I know that the tithe is “law” and that, in Christ, we’re no longer under the Law.
Kelly: You make the same mistake I made for decades. In fact, we Gentiles and the Church never were “under the law.” We were always excluded from the law. God commanded Old Covenant Israel NOT to share its covenant (law) with us.
Shriver: Still, it’s hard for me to fathom how anyone can honestly taste the sweetness of God’s grace only to turn around and “Scrooge” God by giving Him less than 10%.
Kelly: You are coming from a false definition of tithe and are falsely assuming that everybody in the OT was required to begin a level of giving at 10%.
Though money was common, the true holy biblical tithe of the Old Covenant Law was always only food from inside God’s holy land which He had miraculously increased. Tithes never could come from what man increased, from Gentiles or from outside of Israel. Not even Jesus, Peter or Paul qualified as tithe-payers. Tithing was only a minimum for food producers living inside Israel. Sixteen texts validate this biblical fact.
Shriver: The very idea makes me want to raise my voice, pound my pulpit and thump my Bible! Which is exactly why I’m not yet ready to preach that sermon on tithing. But I’m getting closer.
Kelly: Perhaps you will allow me to help you clarify the issues.
Shriver: On a recent jog, I began to think again about the issue of tithing. It occurred to me that there’s more than one way to tithe. In fact, three distinct forms of tithing are practiced in the Bible. Only one is legitimate for the believer.
Kelly: There were three distinctly different tithes for 3 different purposes for 3 different locations. See http://www.tithing-russkelly.com/id29.html
Shriver: The form of tithing most often addressed in Scripture is “tithing as covenant.” This practice of tithing was specific to Israel as the covenant people of God. It was part of the Mosaic Law (Leviticus 27:30-33; Numbers 18:21-32; Deuteronomy 14:22-29). Under the Covenant, God promised to materially bless Israel for obedience [to the whole law] and, conversely, to judge them (strip them of their prosperity) for disobedience [to any of the law; Gal 3:10] (Deuteronomy 28 and Malachi 3:8-12). This model for tithing has no direct relevance to us as New Testament believers.
Kelly: Very true. Tithing was to support the Levites who were only servants to the priests. And the Levites tithed a tithe (1%) to the priests who gave freewill sacrificial offerings (Mal 1:13-14). Those Levites and priests who received the first tithe were not allowed to own holy land inside Israel. This is not obeyed.
Shriver: In Christ, we live under a new covenant. Our lives are not governed by the written code but by the indwelling Holy Spirit who writes His “law” on our hearts (Galatians 5:18; Hebrews 8:7-13).
Kelly: The New Covenant replaced both the old Temple and priesthood with the priesthood of all believers. Tithes are never commanded to the Church or Gentiles after Calvary. They are replaced with freewill, generous, sacrificial, joyful offerings motivated by love for God and lost souls. For many this means MORE than 10% but others are already giving sacrificially even though less than 10% per 2 Cor 8:12-14.
Shriver: The Bible also describes a second kind of tithing that is both condemnable and, I fear, far too common—“tithing as legalism.” In Jesus’ day, it was the religious leaders who practiced this perversion of Israel’s covenant tithe. Christ’s condemnation of legalistic tithing was absolute,
“Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness. These you ought to have done without neglecting the others. You blind guides, straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel” (Matthew 23:23-24)!
Kelly: True. The context was “matters of the law” and was addressed to “you, scribes, Pharisees, hypocrites.”
Shriver: In His relationship with Israel, God intended the tithe to be an avenue to blessing. The religious manipulators of Jesus’ day turned the blessing into burden. Instead of expressing faithfulness to God—and oneness of heart with God for ministry and the poor—the tithe became little more than a means to satisfy “religious obligations.” Such satisfaction leads to pride (Luke 18:9-12) and, in the end, restricts giving. After all, once our “obligation” is satisfied, what more could God want? It’s no wonder Jesus so strongly denounces legalistic tithing.
Yet, how easily the sin of the Pharisees can become our sin too!
Kelly: Very good.
Shriver: Effective ministry requires money—money that comes from God’s people. Believers need to give—both for their own sake and the sake of the Kingdom. Since they need to give, we need to preach about giving. When we do, however, we must be careful not to turn blessing into burden.
Kelly: Very good.
Shriver: We must refuse to preach “tithing as legalism.” So what’s the alternative?
Kelly: The alternative is the truth as taught by the Holy Spirit to the Church after Calvary. And that does not include tithing.
Shriver: Tithing as worship!
Kelly: Text please.
Shriver: In Scripture, “tithing as worship” was practiced prior to both the establishment of “tithing as covenant” and the perversion of “tithing as legalism.” The principle of “tithing as worship” is “pre-Law.” It’s established in Genesis 14:17-24 where Abram gives a tenth of his plunder to Melchizedek, King of Salem.
Kelly: Texts please. Genesis 14:17-24 does NOT tell us that (uncircumcised) Abram tithed “as worship.” In fact it does not tell us WHY Abram tithed. Since he was born and raised in Babylon where tithing existed, it is possible that he tithed for a different reason. Many commentaries suggest that an Arab tradition or law of the land controlled the 90% of 14:21. You simply cannot add to God’s Word and conclude that Abram either gave freely or in obedience to God.
Shriver: Melchizedek, in turn, blesses Abram.
Kelly: Any king-priest of Abram’s day would have done the same thing after receiving tithes from spoils of war.
Shriver: Hebrews 7:1-10 defines the significance of these acts declaring that it is the superior who blesses the inferior and the inferior who pays tithes to the superior.
Kelly: The purpose of Hebrews is not to teach the Church to tithe. It uses tithing as a vehicle to prove that Jesus has replaced the Aaronic priesthood. The tithing “commandment in the law” from 7:5 was “of necessity changed” in 7:12 and that “change” was its “annulment of the commandment going before” in 7:18. While 7:18 refers to all statutes relating to the Aaronic priesthood, it must also include the statute of tithing found in Numbers 18.
Shriver: “Tithing as worship,” then, is first an act by which we acknowledge that God is both our superior (the Sovereign Lord) and the source of all blessing.
Kelly: You are twisting God’s Word to make it say what you want it to say. The “we” of Genesis 14 was not the church.
Shriver: But “tithing as worship” does more than acknowledge God. It expresses our personal allegiance to Him. We see this in Genesis 28:10-22. Here, God reveals himself to Jacob in a dream. In response, the patriarch vows, “the Lord shall be my God…and of all that you give me I will give a full tenth to you.” For Jacob, the “tithe as worship” became a natural expression of his decision to follow the God of His Fathers.
Kelly: Shame on you. You again twist and pervert God’s Word by conveniently omitting the key “if” of verse 20. The schemer Jacob was telling God what to do! This tactic is unchristian. Far from “worship,” Jacob was black-mailing God and you are joining in his deception by twisting this Scripture!
Shriver: In the same way, the “tithe as worship” becomes an almost instinctive way for us to express our allegiance to the God of our Salvation.
Kelly: Texts please.
Shriver: A third, and critical, element of “tithing as worship” is thanksgiving. “Tithing as worship” expresses overflowing gratitude towards God.
Kelly: Texts please. The first Levitical tithe was cold hard Law and was commanded whether one was grateful or not. A second festival tithe was for rejoicing but you do you teach that tithe and you do not eat it in the streets of Jerusalem.
Shriver: It breaks free from guilt as the motivation for giving.
Kelly: Texts please.
Shriver: Its ultimate focus is the condition of one’s heart—not the percentage of one’s income.
Kelly: Texts please.
Shriver: On the topic of percentages, I find the words of John H. Walton and Andrew E. Hill to be practical. They write, “How are we to show our gratitude to God other than by giving back a portion?
Kelly: O.K. so far.
Shriver: If 10 percent was considered an acceptable portion by God as an expression of gratitude then, why should we view it any differently today?
Kelly: Texts please. The first Levitical tithe was cold hard law – not gratitude – like taxes today. The government does not care for gratitude.
Shriver: We might consider 10 percent as a benchmark just as we consider 15 percent a benchmark for tipping. The extent of the customer’s gratitude and appreciation is demonstrated in the size of the tip.
Kelly: You cannot compare a cold hard law with a freewill choice.
Shriver: It would be considered the ultimate rudeness or the consummate insult to leave no tip at all.
Kelly: The merchants and tradesmen such as carpenters, fishermen and tentmakers gave no tithe at all; they gave freewill offerings. Why not follow this example?
Shriver: So it is to God if we return no portion to him. In addition, there are occasions when the situation calls for a contribution exceeding the benchmark” (Old Testament Today; Zondervan: 2004, 270-271).
Kelly: You are mixing Law and Grace and reintroducing the thought of Malachi after rejecting it earlier.
Shriver: Again it must be said—ultimately, “tithing as worship” isn’t about percentage of income.
Kelly: It has no biblical support.
Shriver: It’s about the overflow of one’s heart. 2 Corinthians 8:5 is clear. When we first give ourselves to the Lord, any act of giving pleases him—whether above or below the “benchmark.” “For if the readiness is there, it is acceptable according to what a person has, not according to what he does not have” (2 Corinthians 8:12).
Kelly: You are playing games with God’s Word again. Second Corinthians is NOT discussing tithing. It is discussing freewill generous sacrificial giving – the kind of giving which propelled the early church. Paul and Jewish Christians knew very well that tithes could not come from Gentiles or from pagan lands and did not teach tithing.
Shriver: How then, can we preach the tithe? First, we recognize that “tithing as covenant” has no direct relevance to New Testament believers. Second, we acknowledge that “tithing as legalism” is just plain sin—both for those who practice it and those who preach it.
Kelly: Correct. Stick to the simple truth. Merely saying “tithes PLUS offerings” reaches into the realm you just rejected.
Shriver: Only the principle of “tithing as worship” remains. That’s the tithing we can preach!
Kelly: No, it does not remain; it never existed except in the Old Covenant festival tithe which was EATEN. You have no texts to preach this.
Shriver: “Tithing as worship” is our opportunity to acknowledge that God is God. He is ruler over our lives. He is the source of every blessing we enjoy.
Kelly: You can do that without teaching error.
Shriver: More than that, “tithing as worship” expresses our allegiance to God in a very personal and concrete way. And finally, “tithing as worship” manifests a heart overflowing with thanksgiving towards God.
Kelly: Sounds good, but it is still unbiblical. The SDAs make the same kind of argument to prove Saturday Sabbath observance to worship and honor God.
Shriver: With this in mind, perhaps we should be less concerned with whether people tithe and more concerned with why they tithe.
Kelly: This totally ignores the true biblical definition and purpose of the tithe.
Shriver: Ultimately, tithing isn’t about percentage of income or money in the plate. It’s about worship!
Tithing as worship—I think that will preach!
Kelly: Preach it as your theory. Be sure to tell your congregation there are no texts to validate it. I would appreciate an extended in-depth dialog.
There are now at least 7 SBC theologians who are writing against tithing and for grace giving. In May 2011 the SBC will publish Perspectives on Tithing, Four Views. The false doctrine is being exposed.
Russell Earl Kelly, PHD
www.tithing-russkelly.com
Wednesday, March 09, 2011
Rebuttal of Christopher Visagie
CV: You constantly go back to me stating that Abraham was convicted ...stating that it's unbiblical.
RK: It is unbiblical as long as the Bible does not say that Abram gave by conviction. And you constantly go back to me stating “preferred guess” about one item.
CV: Are you saying that Abraham was led by another spirit outside the Spirit of God?
RK: Again, like a used car salesman, you force the answer you desire by only giving one possible answer.
CV: If you are saying that it wasn’t by conviction that God led Abraham ...then how do you suggest that God led men He chose to use? Maybe you can explain how you are led by God if not by conviction. The last time I read ...it was the Holy Ghost who leads us into all truth.
RK: What if the “truth” is that Abram tithed spoiled of war to his local king-priest because of the law of the land? You do not allow for any other answer than your own guess.
CV: Explain how the Holy Ghost leads you ...if not by conviction. I don't believe that there is any truth outside the truth of God ...unless you believe so.
RK: Wow! So if it is not in the Bible, it is not truth! That means there are not laws of science and nature. Neat logic.
CV: Refusing to believe that Abraham was led by the conviction of God sets Abraham outside the plan of God. If that is what you choose to believe ...I rest my case.
RK: If King Melchizedek had set up a roadblock and told Abram to give him tithes of spoils per the law of the land, you disregard that possibility.
CV: It becomes questionable when you prefer your preferred guess above the conviction of God. The devil is lying to you.
RK: You prefer your own preferred guess by demanding that Abram gave “not by ordinance but by conviction.” Perhaps the devil is lying to you.
CV: 3. You have called me a hypocrite ...trying to tag me with the same tag you wear. You refuse to accept defeat by pulling me into the same hole you have fallen into.
RK: YOU tagged me a hypocrite and YOU put that tag on me first. Now you whimper and cry when I remove it and place it on you. You began the name-calling.
CV: 4. I don't shoot down any scholars. The truth is, most scholars who have written the articles you've studied are not Born Again.
RK: Personal attack. Read what you just wrote. Your second statement contradicts scholars. It “shoote them down” by accusing them of being lost.
“The truth is”?? And who made you God to judge others?
CV: That makes me wonder if you are Born Again based on you rejecting the truth in relation to conviction.
RK: Personal attacks. If you cannot win the argument, attack the person’s character.
CV: 5. In Hebrews ch.7 Paul was describing an order (ordained practical order of worship) that Jesus demonstrated before he died.
RK: And where in the Bible do you find this definition of “order”?
CV: I believe that it related to a time during His ministry among the Jews. Unless you have another preferred guess …having a preferred belief that it related to a time after His death.
RK: Your “belief” does not constitute absolute truth or fact. It is a preferred guess.
CV: Heb 7:1-3. Verse one specifically states that he was a priest of the Most High God. This priesthood was instituted be God ...not some religious law or Canaanite law.
RK: Please explain the fact that every known religion of Abram’s time worshipped the Most High God through priests.
CV: Please explain to me how Melchizedek could be a Canaanite if he had no mother, no father, no genealogy, neither beginning of days or end of life.
RK: You totally confuse the difference between the HISTORICAL Melchizedek and the TYPICAL Melchizedek. One could draw the same conclusions about Abimelech, the Philistine king of Gerar (Gen 20) and many others in the Bible.
Cv: Heb 7:2 Calling Jesus King of Salem by interpretation doesn’t make Him king of the City called Salem, but describes who he is (King of Righteousness).
RK: The text calls the HISTORICAL Melchizedek the king of righteousness and peace “by interpretation of his name.” You ignore that and make the historical Melchizedek into the literal Jesus. Jesus is NOT such “by interpretation of his name.”
CV: How many Kings of Righteousness and Kings of peace are there outside of Jesus?
RK: Only “by interpretation of his name.” Since they probably named themselves, there were probably scores of rulers who used those terms like Abi-melech (my king is Moloch) and Adonizedek.
CV: And yes …you are aligning him to a Canaanite king.
RK: Not me but God said in His Word that he was a king in Canaan. The literal historical Melchizedek was not literally “king of righteousness” or “king of peace” – he was only such “by interpretation of his name.”
CV: 6. I never attempted to enforce an incorrect answer.
RK: You certainly do. You keep on attempting to enforce only your answer with is not what God’s Word literally says.
CV: …unless you don’t believe that conviction leads you into fulfilling the will of God
RK: “Conviction” can be wrong; Muslim terrors have conviction that they will be saved and given 72 virgins. That is real conviction. You use your answer (Conviction) as if it were the “truth” are argue from that position.
CV: …unless you choose to believe that Abraham was walking outside the will of God …following an order outside of God …following an order after the laws of ancient Canaan. You did say that that’s what you chose to believe …unless I got the wrong impression.
RK: This kind of circular reasoning would never be accepted in a court. You keep coming from the viewpoint that your point have been established as truth and fact when they are merely speculation and opinion.
CV: I believe you are right about a car salesman …but do you believe that you are right about me …or are you deceived into thinking that your judgment of who I am is accurate.
RK: I question your tactics and circular reasoning.
CV: 7. You have accused me of having my own opinion and not using biblical text. Please explain where the idea of conviction came from …if not from scripture.
RK: How on earth can I accuse you for having your own opinion? Everybody has their own opinion. I accuse you of stating your own opinion as if it were undisputed absolute truth and fact. I asked you to prove from God’s Word that Abram acted on conviction as opposed to the possible well-known law of the land. Why should I defend your opinion?
CV: You are falsely accusing me to reflect attention based on the fact that you are in error. Who is the hypocrite?
RK: What? Nonsense.
CV: 8. Correction ...the order of Melchizedek in Heb. ch.7 compares an order that was introduced through Christ in the teachings he taught the disciples.
RK: 2nd Lt, 1st Lt, Captain, Major, Lt Col, Col, Brig Gen. CAPTAIN is the THIRD in order of this list. “Order” means “rank.” That is what “order” means in Genesis 14. Nothing more. Nothing less.
CV: I’ll rather be tangled up with words than being deceived to the point of defending a lie.
RK: Personal attack. It is a good thing that you are not name-calling.
CV: I have been blessed with enough wisdom from God to discern and expose lies and deceit.
RK: Good. Then expose the lie of tithing. Discernment does not trump what God’s literal Word says!
CV: 9. I don’t see any evidence in scripture that says that He was King of a Canaanite city
RK: Inspiration (Genesis 14) places it between Sodom and Damascus. That would be the middle of Canaan.
CV: I apologize if I’m using a different bible that might be causing the confusion …Maybe you should read the same bible I’m reading to get the right interpretation.
RK: My KJV says “Holy Bible.” Is that close enough? I will also give some credibility to the NKJ and NAS but never the NIV.
CV: 10. You say that order describes a rank because your idea of Salem being a city and not a description of who Melchizedek the King was and is (based on the fact that he remains a king continually or eternally -Heb 7:3) King of Salem.
RK: Now you sound like the guy who teaches that M floated down from heaven, received Abram’s tithes from Sodom and ascended back into heaven. Again you turn types into reality. Since the Bible gives no genealogy for the HISTORICAL M, he is a type of Christ who is eternal. I am not going to enter a dialog about M being Christ. That is a cultic theology for a cultic branch of Christianity. I have already rebutted it in great detail in my rebuttal of Kevin Conner at http://www.tithing-russkelly.com/id62.html. You simply do not understand biblical typology.
CV: 11. You say that Melchizedek was nothing more than other king priest that lived in His era. You said that my claim is unbiblical and false. You show me one king priest who was described as He is in Hebrew 7:3
RK: Have you ever thought of the typology of the UNKNOWN SOLIDER?
No record of his birth, death, parents, relatives, race, religion, height or weight. One could say that Messiah was “after the order of the unknown soldier” – eternal; a savior who died for all races and all sizes of people.
CV: 12. You say that order means rank …but order meaning both rank and instruction according to ordinance works against what you’ve chosen to believe.
RK: So what? What makes what I’ve “chosen to believe:” wrong and what you’ve “chosen to believe” correct? God’s Word is truth; not what we have chosen to believe.
You have fast-forwarded to a definition of “order” that is more fit for the Knights Templar and the Benedictine, Franciscan and Dominican monks with all their ritual.
CV: Jesus was crucified by people who reasoned the way you do. I don’t care how many archeologists, Historians or documentaries disagree with the truth …the truth will still remain.
RK: Personal attack. Now you are accusing me of crucifying Christ. Have you ever sinned? Do you need to be saved? Did your sins crucify Chrsit?
Watch that finger. There are three pointing back to yourself. While attacking me you betray yourself as a self-righteous Pharisee who alone decides what “truth” is per Matthew 23:2-3.
CV: People who write these articles are mere men. They are full of error and deceit.
RK: Personal attack. And “you” are not a mere man? How dare anybody disagree with you! Just listen to yourself once in a while.
CV: 14. Is it biblical to say that Abraham was the father of faith? Abraham being called the father of faith must count for something. Maybe it was because he was led by conviction …not by law or sight.
RK: Not in everything he did. God’s Word does not say that he tithed spoils of war “by faith.”
CV: Accusing me of saying something unscriptural, yet it’s found in scripture is a false accusation.
RK: Until you prove what you say from the clear context of Scripture, I have every right to accuse you of teaching something that is unscriptural. You are doing the same thing towards me. Where is your statement “not ordinance, but conviction” found in scripture? It is your “preferred wild guess” until you produce a text.
CV: A lot of things that you have shared is unscriptural …unless your bible differs from mine.
RK: Generalization. When my source is extra-biblical I admit it up front. I do not invent statements like “not ordinance but conviction” and say they are scripture.
CV: 15. I have written a book on tithing …maybe I should sell you a copy of my book …but it would be unfair on you if I gave every minister I met a free copy. You heard correct …I give books for free. You should have asked instead of judging, having no insight of who I am. I call you a hypocrite because you trip over your own words.
RK: Personal attack. And where did I say that “you” personally do not give away material?
CV: 16. The law’s definition of tithing was doing the one part and leaving the other part undone.
RK: Horrendous explanation.
CV: Read Matt. 23:23.
RK: You read it literally and interpret it literally. It is Old Covenant Law.
CV: I don’t believe that Jesus was using the laws definition of tithing
RK: Horrendous explanation. Your “wild preferred guess” and opinion.
CV: …he was correcting the laws definition of tithing.
RK: So God made a mistake in His definition of tithing in the Law??? Jesus was correcting the Pharisees hypocritical misuse of the Law.
CV: Judgment, mercy and faith are fruit of your response to conviction (or should I say …evidence of being led by the Spirit of God) …but if you have a preferred guess, I’m listening.
RK: I agree.
CV: Judgment (discernment is the precise meaning …and this is not my preferred guess), mercy and faith are not what the law teaches.
RK: Once again you are dead WRONG. The Law does teach “judgment, mercy and faith” – Jesus called them the “weightier matters of the law.”
CV: The law teaches ritual that ends in condemnation without mercy.
RK: Fundamental error. The Law also teaches love. One who truly loves God will also love his fellow man and exhibit judgment, mercy and faith towards him. That is what Jesus was teaching in Matthew 23:23.
CV: Malachi teaches law …but I teach tithing according to the order of Melchizedek …being Born Again into that order through Christ …unless you have a preferred guess.
RK: You have just stated your “preferred guess” when you stated that Christians are “born again into the order of Melchizedek” in order to justify you receiving tithes. Why? Because you have grossly twisted the word “order” to fit your preferred guess. You make it sound like we have been initiated into an extremely complex society like the Order of the Knights Templar.
CV: If you had the wisdom you claim to have …you would identify an ordinance that you claim to walk in …based on the notion that you’ve accepted Christ as your personal savior.
RK: God’s Word calls it the New Covenant.
CV: The state of the tithe was raw material. Some of it could have past for food …but others needed the absence of blood and the presence of fire to be converted to food. My point is (it’s a point not a guess), the tithe was not presented as food, but as a state of wealth.
RK: Aabraa cadabra. You are now going to magically change “food” into money. Although money was essential for OT sanctuary worship, money is never a tithed item.
CV: They tithed out of the increase of their wealth. Not out of the idea that it was food.
RK: This is your preferred guess. I notice a conspicuous lack of Bible texts here.
CV: God’s description of natural wealth was increase in natural substance. If you want scripture …I will copy and paste as much as there exists in scripture. That’s the least that I can do for you if you don’t know scripture and you need the evidence.
RK: That was another personal attack. There are 16 verses which describe the CONTENTS of the tithe as FOOD from inside Israel which God had miraculously increased. Yes, I do want scripture showing me that the tithe was other than food.
CV: Again I caution you …not placing biblical text doesn’t mean it’s not there …being a student of the biblical text you should be knowledgeable enough to know that it is.
RK: Another personal attack. Are you having fun trying to be cute? If the texts are there, produce them.
CV: We constantly demand chapter and verse …I wonder what they used in the old days when there were no bibles. I don’t recall any of them …including Jesus quoting chapter and verse. What he quoted was the law and the prophets. The scribes and the Pharisees knew scripture well enough to know whether or not Jesus was speaking truth.
RK: You are playing word games here.
CV: It’s a joke for someone as learned as you to request that I back it up with scripture.
RK: It is a joke for you to pretend something exists when it only exists as your preferred wild guess.
CV: I prefer it when you state my error …that way I can learn something or teach something. Until now …you have taught me nothing …accept that you are deceived though knowledge …not having understanding.
RK: And you have taught me how arrogant you are full of yourself.
CV: 17. You relate to Israel being God Holy Land according to Zec. 2:12 and a few other verses that could relate to the land of Israel being Holy.
RK: My reference is to Leviticus 27:29-34. God declared the land of Canaan to be holy where His holy people would grow food and raise animals to tithe to His workers. Stop playing games.
CV: Taking into consideration that Adam defiled the Earth in that the earth or land became cursed through him and many other places in scripture where the Israelites defiled the temple of God …let alone the land …do you believe that Israel is still considered holy in the state that she is found?
RK: Of course not. And this is biblical grounds for stating that NOBODY can bring a holy tithe today. It was the holy land which miraculously produced a holy tithe.
CV: Remember that every time she was defiled there were rituals in the law under the instruction of God through the priest that restored her sanctity or state of holiness. Now that the Father has instituted grace by no other than Christ …do you believe that her sacrificial offerings are accepted based on the fact that she had the first opportunity of sanctity through the salvation of Jesus Christ? If you believe so please explain how. I’m not looking for your preferred guess.
RK: No. The nation Israel current does not offer any sacrificial offerings.
CV: 18. I have never charged for most of my produce …so I would guess that your definition of pride and greed is not related to me.
RK: Correct. But you have already assumed I was speaking about you and you have already called me a hypocrite over this issue.
CV: 19. If your idea of accepting people’s views are based on 10-12 years of their study in the field …I wonder why Jesus rejected the views of the scribes and Pharisees.
RK: You miss the point entirely. You have made a blanket condemnation of scholars who disagree with you and say they have not been born again. That is despicable and nasty.
CV: I also wonder why Paul counted the knowledge he accomplished through studying dung …regarding it as a waste. Is it because their realization was that you needed much more that 10-12 years of study? Maybe they realized that you need to be led by the Holy Ghost through conviction that separates a lie from the truth. I wonder how educated the disciples were.
RK: You are rambling.
CV: Maybe if is studied for 10-12 years (according to your idea of qualification in God) my qualification would supercede theirs. Maybe that’s the only time you would be willing to hear me. Don’t you think that it will also make it easier for me to deceive you? Much knowledge puffs up.
RK: Rambling sarcasm. You are building paper tigers to destroy by placing words into my mouth which did not say.
CV: 20. Can you be specific as to what the Jews told Jesus? I don’t believe that I’m disagreeing with you based on you being wrong and me being right. I disagree with you based on your inconsistencies of scripture. You use scripture having knowledge …but lacking in understanding. Just for the record …I’m not looking to impress anyone. I do suspect that you are …based on the fact that you want the public view on things.
RK: Personal attack. Your statement is arrogant and condescending.
CV: I don’t believe in that there is your side and my side or your idea and my idea …I do believe in siding with the truth. I don’t present my own view …I present truth according to scripture. If you siding against the truth …you are siding against God …not me. If it’s truth …I agree. If it’s a lie …I oppose. If you claim to have truth …show it to me that I may believe.
RK: Pure self-conceited arrogance. The new pope has spoken. May what he says is “truth” not be questioned.
CV: 21. What does gobble-dee-gook mean?
RK: It means that you get all wrapped up in yourself and just dribble out nonsense.
CV: The only reason why I won’t put it on my site is …I will never bring embarrassment to the kingdom of my Father. We already have so much division because of people like you who want to prove a point in a public setting …finding technical justification instead of seeking truth. You are welcome to do as you please …but it’s truth that will lay judgment on the last day.
RK: Another personal attack. John 17:17
CV: 22. There is more than one siren being sounded in the way you respond that you are full of pride. Pride blinds you from receiving truth.
RK: Listen to yourself. You remind me of King Herod just before God consumed him with worms.
CV: 23. The Majority of believers should share the same truth. We become the minority in relation to the world view of religious beliefs. On the issue of tithing after the order of Melchizedek, we are the minority. I guess you are siding with the majority on this one.
A man who seeks public opinion to strengthen his belief is weak. If we started this dialog in a public setting …the public has a right to participate. This is between you, your representative and me. Please don’t misinterpret what I’m saying as you did previously. I give you allowance to use this to score points for yourself …but I disagree with it.
RK: What is wrong with you? If a public availability of this dialog convinces others that I am wrong and you are correct, then you are the one “scoring points.” Did Jesus not remind his detractors that he stood daily in the Temple publicly debating with them? Will you dare throw this same dribble at Jesus?
CV: 24. You set on finding technical errors to discredit truth.
RK: I literally interpret the Word of God. When I conclude that God’s Word does not tell us why Abram tithed, you call that a “technical error” and I call your “not ordinance but conviction” your preferred wild guess.
CV: When I said that I never accepted truth based on public opinion I meant that even if the public is truthful in what they state …I still make truth my personal choice. I take on the responsibility for the decisions I make.
RK: I agree.
CV: Your desperate enough to draw the public’s attention towards my errors to gain the advantage for your influence.
RK: Be a Berean Christian. Let both views be heard publicly as Jesus did. After all, the great majority of churches do teach tithing and I should lose the public debate if God is not with me.
Matt 5:15 Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house.
16 Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.KJV
CV: You are so desperate that you have invented something that was never there. I never said that truth changes …I wonder what gave you that idea.
RK: Sorry. You said that facts change which is equally wrong. Only the interpretation of facts changes. “Facts never constitute truth because they change when the evidence changes. You can never conclude truth based on facts.”
CV: 25. RK: I listen very carefully as God speaks to me through His inspired Word. Like a Berean, I also listen very carefully to what other Christians say and verify with God’s Word. Do you want me to discard the written Word and only rely on extra-biblical revelation? It that your final authority? Does the Bible not have the entire gospel?”
Again I call you a Hypocrite without any reservation. You’ve done the opposite to what you claim to believe. You have relied on extra-biblical revelation to justify your claim.
RK: Where do you find this in what I said? You are the one relying on your wild guess to justify your claim.
CV: If you claim that you’ve heard God …I don’t know how God can lead you to believe a lie.
RK: What lie? What have I said that you have proven to be a lie?
CV: You’ve heard the voice of the people, combined with your own reasoning …made a conclusion and now you claim that God told you. You are kicking against pricks.
RK: You are nuts. I clearly said that I verify what other people might tell me with God’s Word. Is that not what you do also or do you think that nobody is as smart as yourself?
CV: 26. RK: First, devils cannot inhabit the body of a Spirit-indwelt child of God. Second, no devil has dared to manifest itself in churches I attend. If they did, God would quickly dispose of them. Third, why would devils want to be surrounded by Spirit-indwelt believers? Fourth, devils only dare to enter where they feel welcome.
Have you read Mar 16:17: And these signs shall follow them that believe: in my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
Mar 16:18 they shall take up serpents, and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall in no wise hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.
RK: Is not the Holy Spirit which indwells every believer more powerful than any demon or devil? Why would a demon want to enter a building full of Spirit-indwelt believers? It would be outmanned and outgunned and lose every time! You have stopped defending tithing and are spending all you energy attacking me. So I guess you are spent.
CV: I suppose that nobody repents and are delivered in the churches you attend. I suppose that nobody gets sick either. Or maybe nobody believes. Do you believe Sir? If you did you should be experiencing the same. Truth manifests the presence of God. I know truth through manifestation, not just knowledge.
RK: You have utterly failed to prove that tithing is a truth for New Covenant believers.
CV: All your dung (as Paul call accumulative knowledge based on studying without experience) will never cast one devil out of a man.
RK: You are the usurped Pope-priest whom Malachi says God will spread dung on your face for stealing that which does not belong to you (the tithe).
CV: Invite me over to your church … them we will decide whether or not everyone in your congregation are possessed or not.
RK: You would not allow me in your church to speak but you have the audacity to think that God would allow Satan to indwell his holy temples of believers!
Again, you are a biblical MORON if you think that the Holy Spirit would allow a demon to inhabit His redeemed property – the body of the believer. 1 Cor 6:19 “What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own ?”
CV: The devil never fears knowledge …he fears the power of God demonstrate though truth.
RK: You just hanged yourself again with this last statement. Since the devil “fears the power of God,” he would not dare enter into the building where my assembly of the Body of Christ gathers. On the other hand he feels welcome in your church building since you have to keep casting him out again and again.
RK: It is unbiblical as long as the Bible does not say that Abram gave by conviction. And you constantly go back to me stating “preferred guess” about one item.
CV: Are you saying that Abraham was led by another spirit outside the Spirit of God?
RK: Again, like a used car salesman, you force the answer you desire by only giving one possible answer.
CV: If you are saying that it wasn’t by conviction that God led Abraham ...then how do you suggest that God led men He chose to use? Maybe you can explain how you are led by God if not by conviction. The last time I read ...it was the Holy Ghost who leads us into all truth.
RK: What if the “truth” is that Abram tithed spoiled of war to his local king-priest because of the law of the land? You do not allow for any other answer than your own guess.
CV: Explain how the Holy Ghost leads you ...if not by conviction. I don't believe that there is any truth outside the truth of God ...unless you believe so.
RK: Wow! So if it is not in the Bible, it is not truth! That means there are not laws of science and nature. Neat logic.
CV: Refusing to believe that Abraham was led by the conviction of God sets Abraham outside the plan of God. If that is what you choose to believe ...I rest my case.
RK: If King Melchizedek had set up a roadblock and told Abram to give him tithes of spoils per the law of the land, you disregard that possibility.
CV: It becomes questionable when you prefer your preferred guess above the conviction of God. The devil is lying to you.
RK: You prefer your own preferred guess by demanding that Abram gave “not by ordinance but by conviction.” Perhaps the devil is lying to you.
CV: 3. You have called me a hypocrite ...trying to tag me with the same tag you wear. You refuse to accept defeat by pulling me into the same hole you have fallen into.
RK: YOU tagged me a hypocrite and YOU put that tag on me first. Now you whimper and cry when I remove it and place it on you. You began the name-calling.
CV: 4. I don't shoot down any scholars. The truth is, most scholars who have written the articles you've studied are not Born Again.
RK: Personal attack. Read what you just wrote. Your second statement contradicts scholars. It “shoote them down” by accusing them of being lost.
“The truth is”?? And who made you God to judge others?
CV: That makes me wonder if you are Born Again based on you rejecting the truth in relation to conviction.
RK: Personal attacks. If you cannot win the argument, attack the person’s character.
CV: 5. In Hebrews ch.7 Paul was describing an order (ordained practical order of worship) that Jesus demonstrated before he died.
RK: And where in the Bible do you find this definition of “order”?
CV: I believe that it related to a time during His ministry among the Jews. Unless you have another preferred guess …having a preferred belief that it related to a time after His death.
RK: Your “belief” does not constitute absolute truth or fact. It is a preferred guess.
CV: Heb 7:1-3. Verse one specifically states that he was a priest of the Most High God. This priesthood was instituted be God ...not some religious law or Canaanite law.
RK: Please explain the fact that every known religion of Abram’s time worshipped the Most High God through priests.
CV: Please explain to me how Melchizedek could be a Canaanite if he had no mother, no father, no genealogy, neither beginning of days or end of life.
RK: You totally confuse the difference between the HISTORICAL Melchizedek and the TYPICAL Melchizedek. One could draw the same conclusions about Abimelech, the Philistine king of Gerar (Gen 20) and many others in the Bible.
Cv: Heb 7:2 Calling Jesus King of Salem by interpretation doesn’t make Him king of the City called Salem, but describes who he is (King of Righteousness).
RK: The text calls the HISTORICAL Melchizedek the king of righteousness and peace “by interpretation of his name.” You ignore that and make the historical Melchizedek into the literal Jesus. Jesus is NOT such “by interpretation of his name.”
CV: How many Kings of Righteousness and Kings of peace are there outside of Jesus?
RK: Only “by interpretation of his name.” Since they probably named themselves, there were probably scores of rulers who used those terms like Abi-melech (my king is Moloch) and Adonizedek.
CV: And yes …you are aligning him to a Canaanite king.
RK: Not me but God said in His Word that he was a king in Canaan. The literal historical Melchizedek was not literally “king of righteousness” or “king of peace” – he was only such “by interpretation of his name.”
CV: 6. I never attempted to enforce an incorrect answer.
RK: You certainly do. You keep on attempting to enforce only your answer with is not what God’s Word literally says.
CV: …unless you don’t believe that conviction leads you into fulfilling the will of God
RK: “Conviction” can be wrong; Muslim terrors have conviction that they will be saved and given 72 virgins. That is real conviction. You use your answer (Conviction) as if it were the “truth” are argue from that position.
CV: …unless you choose to believe that Abraham was walking outside the will of God …following an order outside of God …following an order after the laws of ancient Canaan. You did say that that’s what you chose to believe …unless I got the wrong impression.
RK: This kind of circular reasoning would never be accepted in a court. You keep coming from the viewpoint that your point have been established as truth and fact when they are merely speculation and opinion.
CV: I believe you are right about a car salesman …but do you believe that you are right about me …or are you deceived into thinking that your judgment of who I am is accurate.
RK: I question your tactics and circular reasoning.
CV: 7. You have accused me of having my own opinion and not using biblical text. Please explain where the idea of conviction came from …if not from scripture.
RK: How on earth can I accuse you for having your own opinion? Everybody has their own opinion. I accuse you of stating your own opinion as if it were undisputed absolute truth and fact. I asked you to prove from God’s Word that Abram acted on conviction as opposed to the possible well-known law of the land. Why should I defend your opinion?
CV: You are falsely accusing me to reflect attention based on the fact that you are in error. Who is the hypocrite?
RK: What? Nonsense.
CV: 8. Correction ...the order of Melchizedek in Heb. ch.7 compares an order that was introduced through Christ in the teachings he taught the disciples.
RK: 2nd Lt, 1st Lt, Captain, Major, Lt Col, Col, Brig Gen. CAPTAIN is the THIRD in order of this list. “Order” means “rank.” That is what “order” means in Genesis 14. Nothing more. Nothing less.
CV: I’ll rather be tangled up with words than being deceived to the point of defending a lie.
RK: Personal attack. It is a good thing that you are not name-calling.
CV: I have been blessed with enough wisdom from God to discern and expose lies and deceit.
RK: Good. Then expose the lie of tithing. Discernment does not trump what God’s literal Word says!
CV: 9. I don’t see any evidence in scripture that says that He was King of a Canaanite city
RK: Inspiration (Genesis 14) places it between Sodom and Damascus. That would be the middle of Canaan.
CV: I apologize if I’m using a different bible that might be causing the confusion …Maybe you should read the same bible I’m reading to get the right interpretation.
RK: My KJV says “Holy Bible.” Is that close enough? I will also give some credibility to the NKJ and NAS but never the NIV.
CV: 10. You say that order describes a rank because your idea of Salem being a city and not a description of who Melchizedek the King was and is (based on the fact that he remains a king continually or eternally -Heb 7:3) King of Salem.
RK: Now you sound like the guy who teaches that M floated down from heaven, received Abram’s tithes from Sodom and ascended back into heaven. Again you turn types into reality. Since the Bible gives no genealogy for the HISTORICAL M, he is a type of Christ who is eternal. I am not going to enter a dialog about M being Christ. That is a cultic theology for a cultic branch of Christianity. I have already rebutted it in great detail in my rebuttal of Kevin Conner at http://www.tithing-russkelly.com/id62.html. You simply do not understand biblical typology.
CV: 11. You say that Melchizedek was nothing more than other king priest that lived in His era. You said that my claim is unbiblical and false. You show me one king priest who was described as He is in Hebrew 7:3
RK: Have you ever thought of the typology of the UNKNOWN SOLIDER?
No record of his birth, death, parents, relatives, race, religion, height or weight. One could say that Messiah was “after the order of the unknown soldier” – eternal; a savior who died for all races and all sizes of people.
CV: 12. You say that order means rank …but order meaning both rank and instruction according to ordinance works against what you’ve chosen to believe.
RK: So what? What makes what I’ve “chosen to believe:” wrong and what you’ve “chosen to believe” correct? God’s Word is truth; not what we have chosen to believe.
You have fast-forwarded to a definition of “order” that is more fit for the Knights Templar and the Benedictine, Franciscan and Dominican monks with all their ritual.
CV: Jesus was crucified by people who reasoned the way you do. I don’t care how many archeologists, Historians or documentaries disagree with the truth …the truth will still remain.
RK: Personal attack. Now you are accusing me of crucifying Christ. Have you ever sinned? Do you need to be saved? Did your sins crucify Chrsit?
Watch that finger. There are three pointing back to yourself. While attacking me you betray yourself as a self-righteous Pharisee who alone decides what “truth” is per Matthew 23:2-3.
CV: People who write these articles are mere men. They are full of error and deceit.
RK: Personal attack. And “you” are not a mere man? How dare anybody disagree with you! Just listen to yourself once in a while.
CV: 14. Is it biblical to say that Abraham was the father of faith? Abraham being called the father of faith must count for something. Maybe it was because he was led by conviction …not by law or sight.
RK: Not in everything he did. God’s Word does not say that he tithed spoils of war “by faith.”
CV: Accusing me of saying something unscriptural, yet it’s found in scripture is a false accusation.
RK: Until you prove what you say from the clear context of Scripture, I have every right to accuse you of teaching something that is unscriptural. You are doing the same thing towards me. Where is your statement “not ordinance, but conviction” found in scripture? It is your “preferred wild guess” until you produce a text.
CV: A lot of things that you have shared is unscriptural …unless your bible differs from mine.
RK: Generalization. When my source is extra-biblical I admit it up front. I do not invent statements like “not ordinance but conviction” and say they are scripture.
CV: 15. I have written a book on tithing …maybe I should sell you a copy of my book …but it would be unfair on you if I gave every minister I met a free copy. You heard correct …I give books for free. You should have asked instead of judging, having no insight of who I am. I call you a hypocrite because you trip over your own words.
RK: Personal attack. And where did I say that “you” personally do not give away material?
CV: 16. The law’s definition of tithing was doing the one part and leaving the other part undone.
RK: Horrendous explanation.
CV: Read Matt. 23:23.
RK: You read it literally and interpret it literally. It is Old Covenant Law.
CV: I don’t believe that Jesus was using the laws definition of tithing
RK: Horrendous explanation. Your “wild preferred guess” and opinion.
CV: …he was correcting the laws definition of tithing.
RK: So God made a mistake in His definition of tithing in the Law??? Jesus was correcting the Pharisees hypocritical misuse of the Law.
CV: Judgment, mercy and faith are fruit of your response to conviction (or should I say …evidence of being led by the Spirit of God) …but if you have a preferred guess, I’m listening.
RK: I agree.
CV: Judgment (discernment is the precise meaning …and this is not my preferred guess), mercy and faith are not what the law teaches.
RK: Once again you are dead WRONG. The Law does teach “judgment, mercy and faith” – Jesus called them the “weightier matters of the law.”
CV: The law teaches ritual that ends in condemnation without mercy.
RK: Fundamental error. The Law also teaches love. One who truly loves God will also love his fellow man and exhibit judgment, mercy and faith towards him. That is what Jesus was teaching in Matthew 23:23.
CV: Malachi teaches law …but I teach tithing according to the order of Melchizedek …being Born Again into that order through Christ …unless you have a preferred guess.
RK: You have just stated your “preferred guess” when you stated that Christians are “born again into the order of Melchizedek” in order to justify you receiving tithes. Why? Because you have grossly twisted the word “order” to fit your preferred guess. You make it sound like we have been initiated into an extremely complex society like the Order of the Knights Templar.
CV: If you had the wisdom you claim to have …you would identify an ordinance that you claim to walk in …based on the notion that you’ve accepted Christ as your personal savior.
RK: God’s Word calls it the New Covenant.
CV: The state of the tithe was raw material. Some of it could have past for food …but others needed the absence of blood and the presence of fire to be converted to food. My point is (it’s a point not a guess), the tithe was not presented as food, but as a state of wealth.
RK: Aabraa cadabra. You are now going to magically change “food” into money. Although money was essential for OT sanctuary worship, money is never a tithed item.
CV: They tithed out of the increase of their wealth. Not out of the idea that it was food.
RK: This is your preferred guess. I notice a conspicuous lack of Bible texts here.
CV: God’s description of natural wealth was increase in natural substance. If you want scripture …I will copy and paste as much as there exists in scripture. That’s the least that I can do for you if you don’t know scripture and you need the evidence.
RK: That was another personal attack. There are 16 verses which describe the CONTENTS of the tithe as FOOD from inside Israel which God had miraculously increased. Yes, I do want scripture showing me that the tithe was other than food.
CV: Again I caution you …not placing biblical text doesn’t mean it’s not there …being a student of the biblical text you should be knowledgeable enough to know that it is.
RK: Another personal attack. Are you having fun trying to be cute? If the texts are there, produce them.
CV: We constantly demand chapter and verse …I wonder what they used in the old days when there were no bibles. I don’t recall any of them …including Jesus quoting chapter and verse. What he quoted was the law and the prophets. The scribes and the Pharisees knew scripture well enough to know whether or not Jesus was speaking truth.
RK: You are playing word games here.
CV: It’s a joke for someone as learned as you to request that I back it up with scripture.
RK: It is a joke for you to pretend something exists when it only exists as your preferred wild guess.
CV: I prefer it when you state my error …that way I can learn something or teach something. Until now …you have taught me nothing …accept that you are deceived though knowledge …not having understanding.
RK: And you have taught me how arrogant you are full of yourself.
CV: 17. You relate to Israel being God Holy Land according to Zec. 2:12 and a few other verses that could relate to the land of Israel being Holy.
RK: My reference is to Leviticus 27:29-34. God declared the land of Canaan to be holy where His holy people would grow food and raise animals to tithe to His workers. Stop playing games.
CV: Taking into consideration that Adam defiled the Earth in that the earth or land became cursed through him and many other places in scripture where the Israelites defiled the temple of God …let alone the land …do you believe that Israel is still considered holy in the state that she is found?
RK: Of course not. And this is biblical grounds for stating that NOBODY can bring a holy tithe today. It was the holy land which miraculously produced a holy tithe.
CV: Remember that every time she was defiled there were rituals in the law under the instruction of God through the priest that restored her sanctity or state of holiness. Now that the Father has instituted grace by no other than Christ …do you believe that her sacrificial offerings are accepted based on the fact that she had the first opportunity of sanctity through the salvation of Jesus Christ? If you believe so please explain how. I’m not looking for your preferred guess.
RK: No. The nation Israel current does not offer any sacrificial offerings.
CV: 18. I have never charged for most of my produce …so I would guess that your definition of pride and greed is not related to me.
RK: Correct. But you have already assumed I was speaking about you and you have already called me a hypocrite over this issue.
CV: 19. If your idea of accepting people’s views are based on 10-12 years of their study in the field …I wonder why Jesus rejected the views of the scribes and Pharisees.
RK: You miss the point entirely. You have made a blanket condemnation of scholars who disagree with you and say they have not been born again. That is despicable and nasty.
CV: I also wonder why Paul counted the knowledge he accomplished through studying dung …regarding it as a waste. Is it because their realization was that you needed much more that 10-12 years of study? Maybe they realized that you need to be led by the Holy Ghost through conviction that separates a lie from the truth. I wonder how educated the disciples were.
RK: You are rambling.
CV: Maybe if is studied for 10-12 years (according to your idea of qualification in God) my qualification would supercede theirs. Maybe that’s the only time you would be willing to hear me. Don’t you think that it will also make it easier for me to deceive you? Much knowledge puffs up.
RK: Rambling sarcasm. You are building paper tigers to destroy by placing words into my mouth which did not say.
CV: 20. Can you be specific as to what the Jews told Jesus? I don’t believe that I’m disagreeing with you based on you being wrong and me being right. I disagree with you based on your inconsistencies of scripture. You use scripture having knowledge …but lacking in understanding. Just for the record …I’m not looking to impress anyone. I do suspect that you are …based on the fact that you want the public view on things.
RK: Personal attack. Your statement is arrogant and condescending.
CV: I don’t believe in that there is your side and my side or your idea and my idea …I do believe in siding with the truth. I don’t present my own view …I present truth according to scripture. If you siding against the truth …you are siding against God …not me. If it’s truth …I agree. If it’s a lie …I oppose. If you claim to have truth …show it to me that I may believe.
RK: Pure self-conceited arrogance. The new pope has spoken. May what he says is “truth” not be questioned.
CV: 21. What does gobble-dee-gook mean?
RK: It means that you get all wrapped up in yourself and just dribble out nonsense.
CV: The only reason why I won’t put it on my site is …I will never bring embarrassment to the kingdom of my Father. We already have so much division because of people like you who want to prove a point in a public setting …finding technical justification instead of seeking truth. You are welcome to do as you please …but it’s truth that will lay judgment on the last day.
RK: Another personal attack. John 17:17
CV: 22. There is more than one siren being sounded in the way you respond that you are full of pride. Pride blinds you from receiving truth.
RK: Listen to yourself. You remind me of King Herod just before God consumed him with worms.
CV: 23. The Majority of believers should share the same truth. We become the minority in relation to the world view of religious beliefs. On the issue of tithing after the order of Melchizedek, we are the minority. I guess you are siding with the majority on this one.
A man who seeks public opinion to strengthen his belief is weak. If we started this dialog in a public setting …the public has a right to participate. This is between you, your representative and me. Please don’t misinterpret what I’m saying as you did previously. I give you allowance to use this to score points for yourself …but I disagree with it.
RK: What is wrong with you? If a public availability of this dialog convinces others that I am wrong and you are correct, then you are the one “scoring points.” Did Jesus not remind his detractors that he stood daily in the Temple publicly debating with them? Will you dare throw this same dribble at Jesus?
CV: 24. You set on finding technical errors to discredit truth.
RK: I literally interpret the Word of God. When I conclude that God’s Word does not tell us why Abram tithed, you call that a “technical error” and I call your “not ordinance but conviction” your preferred wild guess.
CV: When I said that I never accepted truth based on public opinion I meant that even if the public is truthful in what they state …I still make truth my personal choice. I take on the responsibility for the decisions I make.
RK: I agree.
CV: Your desperate enough to draw the public’s attention towards my errors to gain the advantage for your influence.
RK: Be a Berean Christian. Let both views be heard publicly as Jesus did. After all, the great majority of churches do teach tithing and I should lose the public debate if God is not with me.
Matt 5:15 Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house.
16 Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.KJV
CV: You are so desperate that you have invented something that was never there. I never said that truth changes …I wonder what gave you that idea.
RK: Sorry. You said that facts change which is equally wrong. Only the interpretation of facts changes. “Facts never constitute truth because they change when the evidence changes. You can never conclude truth based on facts.”
CV: 25. RK: I listen very carefully as God speaks to me through His inspired Word. Like a Berean, I also listen very carefully to what other Christians say and verify with God’s Word. Do you want me to discard the written Word and only rely on extra-biblical revelation? It that your final authority? Does the Bible not have the entire gospel?”
Again I call you a Hypocrite without any reservation. You’ve done the opposite to what you claim to believe. You have relied on extra-biblical revelation to justify your claim.
RK: Where do you find this in what I said? You are the one relying on your wild guess to justify your claim.
CV: If you claim that you’ve heard God …I don’t know how God can lead you to believe a lie.
RK: What lie? What have I said that you have proven to be a lie?
CV: You’ve heard the voice of the people, combined with your own reasoning …made a conclusion and now you claim that God told you. You are kicking against pricks.
RK: You are nuts. I clearly said that I verify what other people might tell me with God’s Word. Is that not what you do also or do you think that nobody is as smart as yourself?
CV: 26. RK: First, devils cannot inhabit the body of a Spirit-indwelt child of God. Second, no devil has dared to manifest itself in churches I attend. If they did, God would quickly dispose of them. Third, why would devils want to be surrounded by Spirit-indwelt believers? Fourth, devils only dare to enter where they feel welcome.
Have you read Mar 16:17: And these signs shall follow them that believe: in my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
Mar 16:18 they shall take up serpents, and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall in no wise hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.
RK: Is not the Holy Spirit which indwells every believer more powerful than any demon or devil? Why would a demon want to enter a building full of Spirit-indwelt believers? It would be outmanned and outgunned and lose every time! You have stopped defending tithing and are spending all you energy attacking me. So I guess you are spent.
CV: I suppose that nobody repents and are delivered in the churches you attend. I suppose that nobody gets sick either. Or maybe nobody believes. Do you believe Sir? If you did you should be experiencing the same. Truth manifests the presence of God. I know truth through manifestation, not just knowledge.
RK: You have utterly failed to prove that tithing is a truth for New Covenant believers.
CV: All your dung (as Paul call accumulative knowledge based on studying without experience) will never cast one devil out of a man.
RK: You are the usurped Pope-priest whom Malachi says God will spread dung on your face for stealing that which does not belong to you (the tithe).
CV: Invite me over to your church … them we will decide whether or not everyone in your congregation are possessed or not.
RK: You would not allow me in your church to speak but you have the audacity to think that God would allow Satan to indwell his holy temples of believers!
Again, you are a biblical MORON if you think that the Holy Spirit would allow a demon to inhabit His redeemed property – the body of the believer. 1 Cor 6:19 “What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own ?”
CV: The devil never fears knowledge …he fears the power of God demonstrate though truth.
RK: You just hanged yourself again with this last statement. Since the devil “fears the power of God,” he would not dare enter into the building where my assembly of the Body of Christ gathers. On the other hand he feels welcome in your church building since you have to keep casting him out again and again.
Sunday, March 06, 2011
CV tithing rebutal 3-6-2011
CV: 1.Are you saying that Melchizedek’s was an unholy tithe?
RK: The truth and facts are these: Source: Sodom. Offered by: Uncircumcised Babylonian. Receiver: Canaanite king-priest. There is nothing inherently holy about any of those three.
CV: 2. You cautioned me about adding to scripture ...but you are willing to accept your guess as the truth.
RK: O.K. So BOTH of us do the same thing. Point those fingers back at yourself also.
CV: 3. You go as far as calling a tithe a tax.
RK: Have you ever read First Chronicles, chapter 23 to 26? They demonstrate that Levites were also political officers and rulers for the king –and—they were paid with tax money.
CV: 4. Melchizedek is compared to Jesus in Heb. ch.7 ...and your suspicion aligns Him with some Canaanite king.
RK: Melchizedek is not compared to Jesus. His “order” and the “interpretation of his name” are compared to Jesus –not his persons. Read your Bible. And, no, I do not “align” to a Canaanite king; I align him to the OFFICE of a Canaanite king.
CV: 5. Correction ...the order of Mechizedek in Heb. ch.7 compares an order that was introduced in the through Christ in the teachings he taught the disciples. Calvary never introduced grace ...neither did it introduce an order ...Calvary transferred grace through the Blood of Jesus.
RK: What are you talking about? You are tangled up with your own slick words.
CV: 6. You are using evidence outside the context of scripture to justify your belief. It's difficult to change scripture because there are too many copies of the original text ...but it's easy to manufacture evidence outside the bounds of scripture to create a deception. When you don't have an answer you refer to notes outside scripture.
RK: You present no evidence whatsoever and will not stick to what God’s holy Word literally says.
CV: 7. Was Melchizedek king and priest according to scripture?
RK: He was a king and a priest of Salem, a Canaanite city. He was like scores of equal king-priests living all around him in Canaan and Babylon. Your false unbiblical interpretation makes him into something else.
CV: 8. Are you too afraid to accept that an order is an instruction or instructions that make up an ordinance?
RK: Are you too afraid to accept that you one-of-many definitions of “order” does not apply? You are getting your information from a non-biblical source. Why is that wrong for me and correct for you? You definition goes far beyond the very basic definition of RANK.
CV: 9. Don't act ignorant ...we not talking about law outside the context of scripture ...you shouldn't refer to Arab law.
RK: Don’t you act ignorant. You know very well that Canaanite priest-kings absolutely must have had their own laws. You are ignoring an entire Christian planet full of archaeology, history and commentary books which disagree with you.
CV: Don't add “Abraham's observation of Arab law was a preferred guess of biblical scholars” ...but not the truth
RK: Again you are “adding” when you say that Abraham gave “not by ordinance but by conviction.”
CV: 10. If God accepted everyones' preferred guess ...imagine the chaos.
RK: It’s my “preferred guess” as to why Abram tithed spoils of war VERSES your “wild guess” of “no ordinance but by conviction.”
CV: It's your preferred guess that creates error.
RK: And your “wild guess” is O.K. What a hypocrite!
CV: 11. I'm not a used car salesman and would prefer if never compared me to one.
RK: I was comparing you debate tactics to one. You did not give an option for an alternative answer. You were trying to force an incorrect answer. That is a salesman trick as old as the hills.
CV: 12. I don't act like there were no laws ...but I do believe that Abraham was led by God and not the Arab laws ...as your preferred guess.
RK: So you opinion is pure faith with no Biblical texts.
CV: 13. If you had a television broadcast based on the topic at hand ...it won't change the fact that you are grasping at straws to keep what you believe is true alive.
RK: Jesus and Malachi used the Law’s definition to teach tithing and you do not. There are 16 texts to prove that it was always only FOOD from inside God’s holy land of Israel. You do not want to go there.
CV: I suppose it's because of the pride you've invested in you 288 page book you wrote. I also wrote books ...I am familiar with the intense research and the views of biblical scholar, historians and archeologist on a vast range of subject matters.
RK: Do you give away Internet copies of all your written, taped and video material as I do? The ones with pride and greed are the ones who charge for most of their produce.
CV: Taking into consideration that most of these don't have a relationship with God ...I never allow what they say to stand as truth ...especially if they don't have the courage to say what they believe God is saying in scripture. They create patterns and introduce different schools of thought based on their expertise gained in the secular world ...not gained in God.
RK: Their expertise is almost always gained from 8-12 years of intense Bible study and knowledge of biblical languages. You cannot win the argument so you attack the persons. Real neat debate tactic; we disagree with you so we must be wrong and lost. That is what the Roman Catholic Church told Martin Luther and that is what the Jews told Jesus! I am not impressed.
CV: 14. Why do you want to put this dialog on your site? Is it to gain the favor of man ...robbing God of His own glory?
RK: I want to put it on my site to show what arguments each side has. Honesty gives God glory. You probably will not dare put it on your site because you do not want your followers to know why some disagree with you. Opposite reasons.
CV: One of the sad realities is ...if we know we have flaws in what we believe ...and choose to allow pride to hold us back from repenting ...not only do we deceive ourselves ...we become deceivers of those who follow us.
RK: All that goggle-dee-gook to say “No, I will not put it on my site.”
CV: Sir ...when you sell a book that has inconsistencies ...because of the amount of work you put into it and the pride you invested in it ...it's natural to attempt to defend it.
RK: Is it natural to defend a book what does not have “inconsistencies” in it? Your argument is self-defeating.
CV: 14. A man who seeks public opinion is weak. You need to consider that the ones responsible for building the tower of Babel, murdering those who spoke truth, murdering Jesus Christ and many other evil accounts in history were the majority.
RK: Is a man who seeks “to go public” also weak? Guess what – YOU are in the majority here teaching tithing! Are you admitting that YOU are wrong?
CV: I never accept truth based on public opinion.
RK: Again you mis-use the word “truth” wrong. Truth never changes.
CV: 15. Not once have heard you say God said or your were inspired by the Holy Ghost who leads into all truth.
RK: I listen very carefully as God speaks to me through His inspired Word. Like a Berean, I also listen very carefully to what other Christians say and verify with God’s Word. Do you want me to discard the written Word and only rely on extra-biblical revelation? It that your final authority? Does the Bible not have the entire gospel?
CV: 16. If you are not led by the Holy Ghost you receive a lot of facts without truth. 17. How many devils have you cast out or was there ever a manifestation of the Glory of God in your meetings? Or is the relationship you have with God based on the knowledge you've attained?
RK: First, devils cannot inhabit the body of a Spirit-indwelt child of God. Second, no devil has dared to manifest itself in churches I attend. It they did, God would quickly dispose of them. Third, why would devils want to surrounded by Spirit-indwelt believers? Fourth, devils only dare to enter where they feel welcome.
RK: The truth and facts are these: Source: Sodom. Offered by: Uncircumcised Babylonian. Receiver: Canaanite king-priest. There is nothing inherently holy about any of those three.
CV: 2. You cautioned me about adding to scripture ...but you are willing to accept your guess as the truth.
RK: O.K. So BOTH of us do the same thing. Point those fingers back at yourself also.
CV: 3. You go as far as calling a tithe a tax.
RK: Have you ever read First Chronicles, chapter 23 to 26? They demonstrate that Levites were also political officers and rulers for the king –and—they were paid with tax money.
CV: 4. Melchizedek is compared to Jesus in Heb. ch.7 ...and your suspicion aligns Him with some Canaanite king.
RK: Melchizedek is not compared to Jesus. His “order” and the “interpretation of his name” are compared to Jesus –not his persons. Read your Bible. And, no, I do not “align” to a Canaanite king; I align him to the OFFICE of a Canaanite king.
CV: 5. Correction ...the order of Mechizedek in Heb. ch.7 compares an order that was introduced in the through Christ in the teachings he taught the disciples. Calvary never introduced grace ...neither did it introduce an order ...Calvary transferred grace through the Blood of Jesus.
RK: What are you talking about? You are tangled up with your own slick words.
CV: 6. You are using evidence outside the context of scripture to justify your belief. It's difficult to change scripture because there are too many copies of the original text ...but it's easy to manufacture evidence outside the bounds of scripture to create a deception. When you don't have an answer you refer to notes outside scripture.
RK: You present no evidence whatsoever and will not stick to what God’s holy Word literally says.
CV: 7. Was Melchizedek king and priest according to scripture?
RK: He was a king and a priest of Salem, a Canaanite city. He was like scores of equal king-priests living all around him in Canaan and Babylon. Your false unbiblical interpretation makes him into something else.
CV: 8. Are you too afraid to accept that an order is an instruction or instructions that make up an ordinance?
RK: Are you too afraid to accept that you one-of-many definitions of “order” does not apply? You are getting your information from a non-biblical source. Why is that wrong for me and correct for you? You definition goes far beyond the very basic definition of RANK.
CV: 9. Don't act ignorant ...we not talking about law outside the context of scripture ...you shouldn't refer to Arab law.
RK: Don’t you act ignorant. You know very well that Canaanite priest-kings absolutely must have had their own laws. You are ignoring an entire Christian planet full of archaeology, history and commentary books which disagree with you.
CV: Don't add “Abraham's observation of Arab law was a preferred guess of biblical scholars” ...but not the truth
RK: Again you are “adding” when you say that Abraham gave “not by ordinance but by conviction.”
CV: 10. If God accepted everyones' preferred guess ...imagine the chaos.
RK: It’s my “preferred guess” as to why Abram tithed spoils of war VERSES your “wild guess” of “no ordinance but by conviction.”
CV: It's your preferred guess that creates error.
RK: And your “wild guess” is O.K. What a hypocrite!
CV: 11. I'm not a used car salesman and would prefer if never compared me to one.
RK: I was comparing you debate tactics to one. You did not give an option for an alternative answer. You were trying to force an incorrect answer. That is a salesman trick as old as the hills.
CV: 12. I don't act like there were no laws ...but I do believe that Abraham was led by God and not the Arab laws ...as your preferred guess.
RK: So you opinion is pure faith with no Biblical texts.
CV: 13. If you had a television broadcast based on the topic at hand ...it won't change the fact that you are grasping at straws to keep what you believe is true alive.
RK: Jesus and Malachi used the Law’s definition to teach tithing and you do not. There are 16 texts to prove that it was always only FOOD from inside God’s holy land of Israel. You do not want to go there.
CV: I suppose it's because of the pride you've invested in you 288 page book you wrote. I also wrote books ...I am familiar with the intense research and the views of biblical scholar, historians and archeologist on a vast range of subject matters.
RK: Do you give away Internet copies of all your written, taped and video material as I do? The ones with pride and greed are the ones who charge for most of their produce.
CV: Taking into consideration that most of these don't have a relationship with God ...I never allow what they say to stand as truth ...especially if they don't have the courage to say what they believe God is saying in scripture. They create patterns and introduce different schools of thought based on their expertise gained in the secular world ...not gained in God.
RK: Their expertise is almost always gained from 8-12 years of intense Bible study and knowledge of biblical languages. You cannot win the argument so you attack the persons. Real neat debate tactic; we disagree with you so we must be wrong and lost. That is what the Roman Catholic Church told Martin Luther and that is what the Jews told Jesus! I am not impressed.
CV: 14. Why do you want to put this dialog on your site? Is it to gain the favor of man ...robbing God of His own glory?
RK: I want to put it on my site to show what arguments each side has. Honesty gives God glory. You probably will not dare put it on your site because you do not want your followers to know why some disagree with you. Opposite reasons.
CV: One of the sad realities is ...if we know we have flaws in what we believe ...and choose to allow pride to hold us back from repenting ...not only do we deceive ourselves ...we become deceivers of those who follow us.
RK: All that goggle-dee-gook to say “No, I will not put it on my site.”
CV: Sir ...when you sell a book that has inconsistencies ...because of the amount of work you put into it and the pride you invested in it ...it's natural to attempt to defend it.
RK: Is it natural to defend a book what does not have “inconsistencies” in it? Your argument is self-defeating.
CV: 14. A man who seeks public opinion is weak. You need to consider that the ones responsible for building the tower of Babel, murdering those who spoke truth, murdering Jesus Christ and many other evil accounts in history were the majority.
RK: Is a man who seeks “to go public” also weak? Guess what – YOU are in the majority here teaching tithing! Are you admitting that YOU are wrong?
CV: I never accept truth based on public opinion.
RK: Again you mis-use the word “truth” wrong. Truth never changes.
CV: 15. Not once have heard you say God said or your were inspired by the Holy Ghost who leads into all truth.
RK: I listen very carefully as God speaks to me through His inspired Word. Like a Berean, I also listen very carefully to what other Christians say and verify with God’s Word. Do you want me to discard the written Word and only rely on extra-biblical revelation? It that your final authority? Does the Bible not have the entire gospel?
CV: 16. If you are not led by the Holy Ghost you receive a lot of facts without truth. 17. How many devils have you cast out or was there ever a manifestation of the Glory of God in your meetings? Or is the relationship you have with God based on the knowledge you've attained?
RK: First, devils cannot inhabit the body of a Spirit-indwelt child of God. Second, no devil has dared to manifest itself in churches I attend. It they did, God would quickly dispose of them. Third, why would devils want to surrounded by Spirit-indwelt believers? Fourth, devils only dare to enter where they feel welcome.
Saturday, March 05, 2011
CV 3-5-2011
CV: Is your claim that Abraham paid tithes out of what he learned in Babylon a true statement or is it calculative? (Scheming)
Russell Kelly: What is your claim based on? You stated that Abraham’s tithe was not an ordinance but conviction. Yet you give no biblical or historical argument to validate you own claim. Therefore you argue with no substance behind it; I call that scheming to prove a point without evidence.
If you were born and raised in Babylon, I would be within common sense to think that you learned tithing there. Why is it scheming to use the same logic concerning Abraham?
You miss the fact that I have quoted 6 commentaries in my book which all agree that a Canaanite law of the land was likely at work in Genesis 14:21. At least I have done my homework. How many commentaries have you researched to try to honestly understand Genesis 14:20-21?
CV: Before I accuse you of being a hypocrite ...please answer the question. You told me to use facts ...please use facts. Don't draw up your own conclusion.
RK: I used facts from Babylonian history, from many commentaries and from common sense. You made a conclusion (not an ordinance – from conviction) with no facts at all.
CV: “Facts never constitute truth because they change when the evidence changes. You can never conclude truth based on facts.
RK: You are waaaaaay off base here. Truth and facts do not change. Only the interpretation of the facts changes. Something that is not a fact is called a “working theory” o an “hypothesis.”
CV: Judgment is accurate when facts and motivation are present …not facts alone. Motivation is a result of conviction …not the presentation of facts. It’s motive that gives clarity to facts …converting it to truth. Facts are calculated through the use of logic.
RK: In the middle of a sentence you have just changed the subject from “facts” to “judgment.” Again I say “Facts do not change – only the interpretation of facts changes.” When somebody is dead, it is a fact that they are dead!! – motive and judgment cannot change the fact that they are dead!
When are you going to actually discuss a real Bible verse in this dialog? When? When? When?
CV: Being spiritually minded is not using logic …but being led by the conviction of God. Would you say that the walk that Abraham had with God was based on knowledge or motivation through conviction?”
RK: You are avoiding the reason for this dialog. Only that part of Abram’s walk which was by faith is our example; that part of his walk where he failed is usually forgotten. The question at hand is “Why did Abram tithe?” You say because he had conviction. I say the Bible does not answer the question but the laws of Babylon and Canaan suggests that he was obeying the law of the land.
CV: “You are using logic to conclude a fact …that can be misleading (or should I say deceptive). Facts are concluded having evidence present to confirm them.
RK: Logical and revelational evidence.
CV: It is a fact that he was born and raised in Babylon …but is can never be conclusive that the tithe paid was a result of that fact.
RK: Your argument that “it was not an ordinance but conviction” is so weak that you have ignored it to attack my argument. While it is true that “it can never be conclusive that the tithe paid was a result of that fact,” I did not say that it was conclusive. At least you admit I presented a “fact.” You presented none.
CV: If offering tithes to the god’s of Babylon was a religious practice …do you think that God will accept the same order of religious worship given to idols that was done Babylon?
RK: At one time our forefathers worshipped nature, stars and animals while searching for true God. When they found the true God they switched their gifts accordingly. Your are arguing from your unproven conclusion as if your unproven conclusion were a concluded fact. While in Babylon Abram obeyed its laws and customs; while in Canaan Abram obeyed its laws and customs. After all, Abram was passing through Melchizedek’s land with spoils of war. If you were a Canaanite king-priest and had a law, would you allow Abram to break that law?
CV: Sir …extra biblical documentation can have various sources and motives (fact). It’s safer to work with what we have within the context of scripture. Unless you believe that it’s not enough to come to the knowledge of the truth in Jesus Christ.”
RK: Then it is safer for you NOT to say that Abram tithed “not by an ordinance but by conviction” because Scripture does not agree with you.
CV: “Who has added to scripture? You accuse me of adding to scripture but you look for evidence outside of scripture to prove what you believe is true.
RK: Every reputable seminary on Earth teaches Biblical Archaeology for that very reason. Over and over archaeology backs up Scripture by agreeing with it. I do not teach extra-biblical evidence as if it were fact.
CV: If there is no documented proof within the context of scripture that Abraham learned what you concluded he did …is it wrong to say he was convicted based on the type of walk he had with God.
RK: Yes it is wrong to word it as you do because you state it as if it were fact.
CV: Even if what you claim is true …he would have to still undergo conviction before he offered a tithe to God.
RK: If he was obeying the Law of the land, then he had no choice in the matter. Tithes are mentioned nowhere else in Genesis or Exodus because they were not yet in the holy land and the substance of Abram’s tithe was unholy. You cannot quote Malachi 3 or Matthew 23 because their definition comes from the law.
CV: I don’t believe for once that the decision he made was made to give a tithe was made outside the bounds of the will of God …unless you bid to differ. If He was in the will of God …he was led by the conviction of God. How did Melchizedek know that Abraham was coming if it wasn’t planned.“
RK: Opinion. Opinion. Opinion. No Bible evidence whatsoever. I suppose that Melchizedek either had sentries or could look out his palace window and see a large cloud of dust approaching.
CV: Truth remains a fact until motivation comes through conviction. It’s the Father who reveals who Jesus is through the leading of the Holy Ghost by conviction …not collective facts.”
RK: Wow! You are saying that “truth is not truth without conviction.” You are saying that truth is all subjective and not objective. I hate to tell you this but “God is God whether or not one is convicted that God is God.”
CV: We do agree however …that the order of Melchizedek’s priesthood was instituted by God in the time of Abraham …
RK: No, we do not agree that God put in place the order of Melchizedek in Abram’s time. If you expand your mind and do some basic research you would discover that almost every large city in those days had its own king-priest: Sodom, Ashedod, Tyre, Babylon, etc, etc, etc. the rulers most likely designated themselves such.
CV: … and was instituted by Christ as a New Testament priesthood order.
RK: Hebrews merely says 8 times that Christ was a priest “after the order of Melchizedek.” He was quoting Psalm 110:4. Inspired by God, David was forced to go outside the realm of Israel to find an example because Israel had no king-priests.
CV: Firstly …was there tithes received according to the priesthood of Melchizedek?
RK: Not holy tithes as defined by God under His holy law. They were pagan spoils of war which could not have been used to support for Levites and priests living inside God’s holy land. My equally-un-provable guess is that, as a Canaanite king-priest, Melchizedek required tithes from spoils of war as a tax.
CV: Secondly …what was the purpose of the tithe according to Hebrews ch.7?
RK: Like Genesis 14, Hebrews 7:1-4 does tell us WHY Abram tithed spoils of war to Melchizedek. Any reason you might give is purely opinion not based on biblical truth.
CV: Thirdly …what is an order?
RK: It is a rank – like a sergeant of captain. Nothing more and nothing less.
CV: The point in question is not whether Melchizedek was Jesus …but the order of priesthood.
RK: The point is that God inspired David with the truth that the Messiah would be both a king and a priest. David then compared him to the only king-priest specifically mentioned in Scripture. That is called logic, not deception.
CV: I could ask why Jesus didn’t come before Abraham instead of after Moses. Why did God not continue in the order of Melchizedek instead of reintroducing it in Christ? That I can answer …but it’s not relevant to the topic in question.”
RK: God did not begin in the order of Melchizedek until after Calvary. But I digress also.
CV: [RK: If (as you say) Abram tithed 10% of unholy pagan spoils of war from Sodom, then why are not tithes of spoils of war in Numbers 31 10% instead of 1%?] -- “You’re right …but it was introduced after the order of Melchizedek’s priesthood in the acceptance of the tithe given by Abraham.
RK: It was only introduced here in the Bible. It was already well-known in all surrounding pagan culture before Abram was born. “Tithe spoils of war to your local king-priest.”
CV: The question is …was it out of the knowledge of worship of some Babylonian idol (which God would never have accepted), out of a decision founded on human effort that we relate to as the flesh (no flesh would have been glorified in presence) or out of conviction of God?
RK: Like a used car salesman, you give me a choice between “A” and “B” when the correct answer is “None of the above.” (1) First God’s Word does not tell us WHY Abram tithed. (2) Second, God will gladly accept money which formerly went to pagan gods. (3) Third, my preferred guess of the correct answer is: “the law of the land required it.”
CV: Please reason within the context of scripture and not the law. The law never existed in the days of Abraham."
RK: Again, sit down and read what other scholars say about the 90% in Genesis 14. MOST say that an Arab custom was in play. Second, THE Law of Moses did not yet exist but ARAB Law did exist. You act like they lived in a vacuum and had no laws governing how they were to act.
Christopher, this is good back and forth. Please keep it up. Can I share our entire dialog on my web site for all to see? I have noting to hide. You have my permission to share the entire dialog on your web site.
Russell Kelly: What is your claim based on? You stated that Abraham’s tithe was not an ordinance but conviction. Yet you give no biblical or historical argument to validate you own claim. Therefore you argue with no substance behind it; I call that scheming to prove a point without evidence.
If you were born and raised in Babylon, I would be within common sense to think that you learned tithing there. Why is it scheming to use the same logic concerning Abraham?
You miss the fact that I have quoted 6 commentaries in my book which all agree that a Canaanite law of the land was likely at work in Genesis 14:21. At least I have done my homework. How many commentaries have you researched to try to honestly understand Genesis 14:20-21?
CV: Before I accuse you of being a hypocrite ...please answer the question. You told me to use facts ...please use facts. Don't draw up your own conclusion.
RK: I used facts from Babylonian history, from many commentaries and from common sense. You made a conclusion (not an ordinance – from conviction) with no facts at all.
CV: “Facts never constitute truth because they change when the evidence changes. You can never conclude truth based on facts.
RK: You are waaaaaay off base here. Truth and facts do not change. Only the interpretation of the facts changes. Something that is not a fact is called a “working theory” o an “hypothesis.”
CV: Judgment is accurate when facts and motivation are present …not facts alone. Motivation is a result of conviction …not the presentation of facts. It’s motive that gives clarity to facts …converting it to truth. Facts are calculated through the use of logic.
RK: In the middle of a sentence you have just changed the subject from “facts” to “judgment.” Again I say “Facts do not change – only the interpretation of facts changes.” When somebody is dead, it is a fact that they are dead!! – motive and judgment cannot change the fact that they are dead!
When are you going to actually discuss a real Bible verse in this dialog? When? When? When?
CV: Being spiritually minded is not using logic …but being led by the conviction of God. Would you say that the walk that Abraham had with God was based on knowledge or motivation through conviction?”
RK: You are avoiding the reason for this dialog. Only that part of Abram’s walk which was by faith is our example; that part of his walk where he failed is usually forgotten. The question at hand is “Why did Abram tithe?” You say because he had conviction. I say the Bible does not answer the question but the laws of Babylon and Canaan suggests that he was obeying the law of the land.
CV: “You are using logic to conclude a fact …that can be misleading (or should I say deceptive). Facts are concluded having evidence present to confirm them.
RK: Logical and revelational evidence.
CV: It is a fact that he was born and raised in Babylon …but is can never be conclusive that the tithe paid was a result of that fact.
RK: Your argument that “it was not an ordinance but conviction” is so weak that you have ignored it to attack my argument. While it is true that “it can never be conclusive that the tithe paid was a result of that fact,” I did not say that it was conclusive. At least you admit I presented a “fact.” You presented none.
CV: If offering tithes to the god’s of Babylon was a religious practice …do you think that God will accept the same order of religious worship given to idols that was done Babylon?
RK: At one time our forefathers worshipped nature, stars and animals while searching for true God. When they found the true God they switched their gifts accordingly. Your are arguing from your unproven conclusion as if your unproven conclusion were a concluded fact. While in Babylon Abram obeyed its laws and customs; while in Canaan Abram obeyed its laws and customs. After all, Abram was passing through Melchizedek’s land with spoils of war. If you were a Canaanite king-priest and had a law, would you allow Abram to break that law?
CV: Sir …extra biblical documentation can have various sources and motives (fact). It’s safer to work with what we have within the context of scripture. Unless you believe that it’s not enough to come to the knowledge of the truth in Jesus Christ.”
RK: Then it is safer for you NOT to say that Abram tithed “not by an ordinance but by conviction” because Scripture does not agree with you.
CV: “Who has added to scripture? You accuse me of adding to scripture but you look for evidence outside of scripture to prove what you believe is true.
RK: Every reputable seminary on Earth teaches Biblical Archaeology for that very reason. Over and over archaeology backs up Scripture by agreeing with it. I do not teach extra-biblical evidence as if it were fact.
CV: If there is no documented proof within the context of scripture that Abraham learned what you concluded he did …is it wrong to say he was convicted based on the type of walk he had with God.
RK: Yes it is wrong to word it as you do because you state it as if it were fact.
CV: Even if what you claim is true …he would have to still undergo conviction before he offered a tithe to God.
RK: If he was obeying the Law of the land, then he had no choice in the matter. Tithes are mentioned nowhere else in Genesis or Exodus because they were not yet in the holy land and the substance of Abram’s tithe was unholy. You cannot quote Malachi 3 or Matthew 23 because their definition comes from the law.
CV: I don’t believe for once that the decision he made was made to give a tithe was made outside the bounds of the will of God …unless you bid to differ. If He was in the will of God …he was led by the conviction of God. How did Melchizedek know that Abraham was coming if it wasn’t planned.“
RK: Opinion. Opinion. Opinion. No Bible evidence whatsoever. I suppose that Melchizedek either had sentries or could look out his palace window and see a large cloud of dust approaching.
CV: Truth remains a fact until motivation comes through conviction. It’s the Father who reveals who Jesus is through the leading of the Holy Ghost by conviction …not collective facts.”
RK: Wow! You are saying that “truth is not truth without conviction.” You are saying that truth is all subjective and not objective. I hate to tell you this but “God is God whether or not one is convicted that God is God.”
CV: We do agree however …that the order of Melchizedek’s priesthood was instituted by God in the time of Abraham …
RK: No, we do not agree that God put in place the order of Melchizedek in Abram’s time. If you expand your mind and do some basic research you would discover that almost every large city in those days had its own king-priest: Sodom, Ashedod, Tyre, Babylon, etc, etc, etc. the rulers most likely designated themselves such.
CV: … and was instituted by Christ as a New Testament priesthood order.
RK: Hebrews merely says 8 times that Christ was a priest “after the order of Melchizedek.” He was quoting Psalm 110:4. Inspired by God, David was forced to go outside the realm of Israel to find an example because Israel had no king-priests.
CV: Firstly …was there tithes received according to the priesthood of Melchizedek?
RK: Not holy tithes as defined by God under His holy law. They were pagan spoils of war which could not have been used to support for Levites and priests living inside God’s holy land. My equally-un-provable guess is that, as a Canaanite king-priest, Melchizedek required tithes from spoils of war as a tax.
CV: Secondly …what was the purpose of the tithe according to Hebrews ch.7?
RK: Like Genesis 14, Hebrews 7:1-4 does tell us WHY Abram tithed spoils of war to Melchizedek. Any reason you might give is purely opinion not based on biblical truth.
CV: Thirdly …what is an order?
RK: It is a rank – like a sergeant of captain. Nothing more and nothing less.
CV: The point in question is not whether Melchizedek was Jesus …but the order of priesthood.
RK: The point is that God inspired David with the truth that the Messiah would be both a king and a priest. David then compared him to the only king-priest specifically mentioned in Scripture. That is called logic, not deception.
CV: I could ask why Jesus didn’t come before Abraham instead of after Moses. Why did God not continue in the order of Melchizedek instead of reintroducing it in Christ? That I can answer …but it’s not relevant to the topic in question.”
RK: God did not begin in the order of Melchizedek until after Calvary. But I digress also.
CV: [RK: If (as you say) Abram tithed 10% of unholy pagan spoils of war from Sodom, then why are not tithes of spoils of war in Numbers 31 10% instead of 1%?] -- “You’re right …but it was introduced after the order of Melchizedek’s priesthood in the acceptance of the tithe given by Abraham.
RK: It was only introduced here in the Bible. It was already well-known in all surrounding pagan culture before Abram was born. “Tithe spoils of war to your local king-priest.”
CV: The question is …was it out of the knowledge of worship of some Babylonian idol (which God would never have accepted), out of a decision founded on human effort that we relate to as the flesh (no flesh would have been glorified in presence) or out of conviction of God?
RK: Like a used car salesman, you give me a choice between “A” and “B” when the correct answer is “None of the above.” (1) First God’s Word does not tell us WHY Abram tithed. (2) Second, God will gladly accept money which formerly went to pagan gods. (3) Third, my preferred guess of the correct answer is: “the law of the land required it.”
CV: Please reason within the context of scripture and not the law. The law never existed in the days of Abraham."
RK: Again, sit down and read what other scholars say about the 90% in Genesis 14. MOST say that an Arab custom was in play. Second, THE Law of Moses did not yet exist but ARAB Law did exist. You act like they lived in a vacuum and had no laws governing how they were to act.
Christopher, this is good back and forth. Please keep it up. Can I share our entire dialog on my web site for all to see? I have noting to hide. You have my permission to share the entire dialog on your web site.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
