Results 1 - 3 of 3
|
|
|||||
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 | 217267 | ||
I am resurrecting a long dead post here, but I do so because I left it promising to return with some scripture support for it, since then I have had deaths of friends, and abundant interruptions from my church. I've been very swamped and I apologize that I simply abandoned the thread when I had been asked some very fair questions. I had been in a discussion with Val, and a Keily if I recall correctly. Now I finally have just a bit of time and wish to go ahead and post some scriptures for consideration. The discussion was about dispensationalism and the idea that the Church is the true Isreal. What I'd like to put forward right now is an arguement from scriptre that the Church, not Israel, rightly claims the promises made to Abraham. These promises were two fold 1) Promises of Land 2)Promises to be the tool through which He blesses the whole world. For sake of time and space I leave you each to look up the verses I reference here. Here is the defense: Who receives the promises to Abraham? The Church or Israel? First, note that there were promises specifically to the nation of Israel concerning land, however these promises were conditional on their obedience, and they were fulfilled, then later lost through disobedience. Deut 30:16-20 Joshua 21:43-45 However, in Genesis there were unconditional eternal promises made to Abraham. These are the promises we are concerned with. Who were the unconditional promises made to? First we see that the promises to Abraham were made to him and to his seed. Gen 15:8 Gen 17:6-8 Gen 26:4 Gen 26:4 Gen 28:14 It is extremely importand to note that in every instance the word "seed" is singular, not plural. How does Paul interpret the promises in Genesis? Galatians 3:16 says that the "seed" that was being spoken of is Christ. In other words, the unconditional promises in Genesis are not promises to the nation of Israel, but the promises were made to Jesus Christ, according to Paul. Paul says that the law, including its conditional temporary land promises to Israel that are made throughout Exodus, Num, and Deut. were all temporary promises made while we were waiting for the one who owned the eternal promises. Galatians 3:19. If you then look at Galatians 3:22-29, especially verses 22,26-29. Paul then goes on to explain that to the extent that we are in Christ through faith, we join Christ as heirs of these promises. In verse 29 he actually says that "if you belong to Christ, the you are Abraham's SEED, heirs according to promise." Who was the promise made to? Abraham and his SEED, which paul has here explained, the seed is Christ and those who belong to Christ. So the great promises to Abraham belong to the church, not the nation of Israel. I hope this is helpful, In Christ, Beja |
||||||
2 | Is tithing a command for chriatians? | 2 Cor 9:7 | Val | 217284 | ||
Dear Beja, in God's dealing with Israel we see there was a pattern. That pattern was God told them what He expected, they failed to live accordingly, they were punished, they repented and they were restored. This is a cycle that is repeated throughout the bible. The covenant that God made with Abraham is based upon His character not Israel's character. If one reads the restoration part in each of the books we see God's mercy. Then of course there is Revelation. You would have to throw out this book to make the claim that God is through with Israel. The church and Israel are two different programs. Always have been, always will be. Promises made to the church are made to individual christians. Promises made to Israel are to a nation, Israel. If disobedience throws you out of God's program none of us would be able to stand. That is what the cross is all about. Galatians is about FAITH. What it is and how it is traced back to Abraham. The promises made to Israel are yet future. That is what the tribulation is all about, bringing Israel to the point of dependance on Christ alone. The topic is not dispensation. The topic is what does the bible actually say. If you want to refute dispensation then why don't you write some of them and discuss it with them. Wouldn't that be the best way to reason the scriptures as it is with them that you have the problem. Many of us do not label ourselves. You do the labeling and it is not right. We are just trying to study the bible and have been brought to a conclusion that you want to label and refute so you are looking at the scriptures through rose colored glasses with a goal in mind. You are more eloquent that me but I do know that that approach is wrong. I do ask that you not make fun of people and insinuate that we are somehow curious people for our conclusions. We are as humble and seek God as you. | ||||||
3 | Is tithing a command for chriatians? | 2 Cor 9:7 | Beja | 217287 | ||
Dear Val, I have no idea what I've said to offend you. Or to make you think I'm just interested in labeling people. If I recall when the conversation ended you had asked me to provide some scripture for the thoughts I had been forwarding? After some time, for which I apologized, I've come back with some scriptures laying out how Paul sees the promises to Abraham, and giving verses to show how scripture does not see them to "national Israel." I am seriously confused how the response I get is "We are just trying to study the bible and have been brought to a conclusion that you want to label and refute." Why did my presenting a scriptual arguement offend you? Why not just point out what was wrong with the scriptures I forwarded if they were off base? Also if what was offending you was my explination to Doc of what view I was arguing contrary to, then I'm not sure how that offended you either. Did I missrepresent the view? I was trying to give a fair explination of it and admitedly I might have failed since it is not my view that I was trying to explain. However, I thought I had explained it fairly. From your being upset I feel I got it wrong, but for what you said about God and Israel in your response I think I got it right. Regardless, I'm happy to let the discussion go if you wish, I only brought it back up because I've felt horrible this past month that I had said I would bring some scriptures and then failed to do so in how busy I got. In Christ, Beja |
||||||