Results 1 - 4 of 4
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Is tithing a command for chriatians? | 2 Cor 9:7 | Beja | 214833 | ||
To all who responded to me, My apologies for taking so long to respond! I'm on vacation currently. It seems the discussion has left me behind to the point that my answers now are moot but I'll say a few things. First let me preface with a few points. 1. I in no way ment for my brief answer to be smug. My only intentions were to bring up that there was an entire theological presupposition behind the answers given and if you wanted to be sure of the answers, you had to agree with the presuppositions. I have my own view through which I read scripture, so I don't mean to insult anybody by saying you have presuppositions. 2. I highly respect the view that says we are now to be cheerful givers and that will typically manifest itself in giving much more than a tithe. I don't agree with it, but I certainly respect the brothers and sisters who hold that view. It shows a good heart even if I am correct in thinking it shows flawed assumptions. 3. Finally, I offer further thoughts concerning the church and Israel only in the spirit of enjoyable discussion. My view is that when Christ came what constituted the people of God changed. Not replaced, changed. The people of God was no longer a national identity, but with the influx of all believers of all peoples it grew into the church. Galatians 3, Romans 4 and 9 and 11 reflect this view point. All the promises of Israel belong to us, the church, not the nation. (with a few exceptions that are extremely short term promises.) So the old testament is not ancient history that has no meaning to us because it was God's working with a different people. That is the story of God dealing with his people, of whom we are a part. The question comes then, am I saying we still are under the law? Not in the same sense the jews were. The law of sacrifices, the laws of ceremonial distinctions for the sake of keeping jews visably seperate from other nations, no, those have nothing to do with us except to teach us that we as Christians are to be distinct, or to teach us as Christians something about what Christ's sacrifice meant. The moral laws however, not to steal, not to covet, not to murder...shall any of you argue that those are not the expectations of our God on us today? They no longer carry the sting of judgement for those who are in Christ but as an expectation they do. In fact living in sin with regards to these things without repentance is a pretty good indication that somebody has never come to Christ by faith and repentance. So the question then becomes where do tithes fall into place in this scheme? My opinion, its a moral issue. So in summary, I believe the Church is the true Israel. Why? Because I think Paul and therefore the new testament teaches that. And IF that is what the New Testament teaches, all our arguements mean nothing. I don't care how much or how little you think it makes sense, I intend to subject my thinking to correction by scripture. I use to hold a dispensational view, after enough reading of scripture, I saw that needed correcting. Sorry if this is unclear, I am on vacation without my books, also clearly I mean to offer this as explination of my views rather than a detailed defense. In Love, Beja |
||||||
2 | Is tithing a command for chriatians? | 2 Cor 9:7 | Morant61 | 214855 | ||
Greetings Beja! Thanks for your explanation my friend! I understand where you are coming from with your view of the Church, but I would prefer to use 'Israel of promise' as opposed to 'True Israel' since this is the distinction that Paul makes in Romans 9:8. Paul makes is clear that the church has not replaced Israel, but has been grafted into Israel (Rom. 11). With that distinction in mind, does it then follow that the church is still bound by parts of the Law? Paul never makes a distinction between moral and ceremonial law. He simply says of the Law - "For through the law I died to the law so that I might live for God." (Gal. 2:19) He also says, "Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law." (Gal. 3:25) He speaks to those who want to be under the Law and calls them slaves and not heirs to the promise (Gal. 4:21-31). And, he ends with these strong words, "You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace." (Gal. 5:4) So, Paul's argument is that the Law has no place at all for those who are in Christ. So, what place does tithing as a command of the Law have in Paul's thinking? None! He advocates planned giving, but never once even mentions tithing, in fact tithing is never commanded once in the entire New Testament. Therefore, I teach the people at our local congregation that tithing is a good practice to aid in planned giving, but is not a command for Christians. Have a great vacation my friend! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
3 | Is tithing a command for chriatians? | 2 Cor 9:7 | Beja | 214857 | ||
Hey Tim, I'll gladly grant the term Israel of promise. And this mainly comes into play as we see that all the promises to Israel were our promises and points to Christ. The effect this has on the law is very much secondary. But let me elaborate on how I see that affecting Christians. First, we have to deal with how Jesus discuses the law in Matthew Chapter 5. Our instructor is no merely Paul, but he entirety of the scripture (a view I know you wholely agree with.) In Matthew 5:17-20 Christ says not to think he came to abolish the law, but rather to fulfill it. Second and perhaps more important for our current discussion He states that whoever teaches to not do one of the commandments will be least in the kingdom of heaven. Now, unless we wish to argue that Christ was giving a command that was specifically only meant to be in place in the span of time between when he said this and when he died on the cross then this command is on us. I do not think that Matthew, chose to include a command that he thought to be obsolete. So I confess to you that my assumption is that in some sense Matthew 5:19 is binding on christian believers. Now, following that, we see from other places in scripture, Paul and Hebrews come to mind, that sacrifice commands of the Law are certainly gone, second, in Ephesians Paul is clear that the dividing wall of the Law seperating gentiles and God's people is Gone. (I think that's chapter 2.) In that laws that had no lasting moral value but were only meant to seperate Jews from gentiles vanished. So we began to see that if we assume that the whole bible agrees with itself, which I do believe, that scripture must be speaking of the law with different key meanings, and that it leaves Christ to be speaking of ideas such as do not covet, do not steal, do not murder which are moral laws. Here is the point, understanding this distinction in the law is necessary to harmonize scripture, and in truth I do not think it to be twisting scripture but really what was in the minds of its authors. Did Paul see us as still having this moral law? See Ephesians 4:17-24. Paul speaks of the sins they must cast aside in their following Christ and even goes so far to say that if you have learned Christ, you learned that you must do this. Think of the impact of what Paul is saying, if you haven't learned this you have not be rightly taught Christ! I urge you to read that passage now, then finish reading my post so it will be clear in your mind what I speak of. So next, as you say, Paul considers us done with all the law, how do I fit that into my view? First, as just stated, he doesn't see us as completely done with the morality presented in the law. But in another sense he does see us as done with it. He sees this firt in the sense that it no longer holds any sting of condemnation over us. The aspect of it that says, "Do this and live" is gone. We now live by faith. But there is a second way that he sees us finished with it that goes a lot further to explain what we are talking about. 1 Timothy 1:8-11 reveals his thinking on this. And keep in mind he doesn't make his distinction here based on Christians and non Christians. He divides it based on the just and lawless, those who do good and those who do bad. He points out that the law is there to restrain the evil of evil doers, not the good of those who do good. Allow me to sum up what I believe him to be thinking here (but do read the passage). The idea is this, if we are truely following the spirit, and following Christ's leading we will be so far from the idea of stealing that the rule is pointless to us. We will be so far from the idea of murdering that the rule will have no bearing on us. It would be like telling somebody headed to Mexico that they can not go into Canada. The law has no application on one that is constantly asking "How may I most glorify Christ and serve others today?" So the law wholely remains upon us that stealing is wrong, that coveting is wrong, that lying is wrong, that murder is wrong, and we shall not do these things, no will it ever be abolished (as Christ said), it will never be permisable to us. Righteousness did not stope being righteousness when you and I were saved. But in Paul's eyes, "what does that have to do with you and me?" We are bound to Righteousness and following Christ, a restriction holding back the evil of an evil doer is not our concern, following Christ is. I hope this wasn't massively confussing. And at the end of this all I can entirely accept that a brother in Christ doesn't see tithing as one of these moral things such as stealing, lying, coveting, etc. If that is all we disagree on from what I've said its a small departure indeed. In Love, Beja |
||||||
4 | Is tithing a command for chriatians? | 2 Cor 9:7 | Beja | 214860 | ||
Since I've said so very much, I might as well go ahead and share what I believe is the "tell" in dispensational thinking. I use this word in the sense that it is used in a poker game. In poker, a "tell" is something that reveals what's going on in somebody's hand. For example they may get giggly during a good hand, or fidget with their ear, or try to act cool in an obvious way. In the same sense I believe that dispensational theology has a glaring "tell" that while it does not prove it is wrong, it should give us all a very serious flag that it is wrong. The "tell" of dispensational thinking is how many times they will say with regards to scripture, "that doesn't apply to us." Their view of massive portions of scripture is that was meant for them, and this is meant for us. Something in our gut ought to feel very uneasy about such statements, especially made so frequently. The NT writers thought differently. See 1 Corinthians 10 where Paul is describing the Exodus and wanderings in the wilderness when in verse 6 he says, "Now these things happened as examples for us." The point was for our teaching! Second in 1 Peter 1:10-12 it says, "As to this salvation, the prophets who prophesied of the grace that would come to you made careful searches and inquiries, seeking to know what person or time the Spirit of CHrist within them was indicating as He predicted the sufferings of CHrist and the glories to follow. It was revealed to them that they were not serving themselves, but YOU" The New testament seems to be written under the assumption that the things in the Old Testament were for us! While I would not say this proves dispensational thought wrong, it is the most glaring thing that we should all feel wrong with it, in my opinion. In Love, Beja |
||||||