Results 701 - 720 of 784
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Beja Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
701 | 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 |
||||||
702 | Is tithing a command for chriatians? | 2 Cor 9:7 | Beja | 217270 | ||
Doc, I almost did restart it, but I feared some would want to know what came before and would need the connection. There are many who believe that the Jews are destined to receive rewards outside of those which are to all believers through Christ by virtue of their being Jews. The argue that they have specially land promises coming especially, because they believe that the promises to Abraham are specifically to national Israel, not to all elect in Christ. It is this view that I am attempting to refute. So given that context I think the question is a fair one. But truely, in "church" I do mean all elect of all time, including those of Jewish decent. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
703 | 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 |
||||||
704 | Why is the Christian Church so divided? | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 217266 | ||
Good thoughts Doc, sadly I find that the churches in my particular area of my particular denomination are every bit as hostile towards other denominations as could possibly be feared. It would seem that the pastors whom I am following in the foot steps of saw fit to do everything they could to demonize anybody and everybody who didn't agree to our particular fine points of doctrine. Many of the churches I am working among would see all other denominations as nothing more than cults! And ofcourse that leaves me defending "cults" in their mind. You can even catch flak for reading books written by those outside our denomination (which I do abundantly.) Pray for me! Anyways, sadly my point is that in some areas the churches are just as hostile towards each other as a person might dare to suggest, despite the overwhelming common ground we share. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
705 | world vs age | Gen 1:5 | Beja | 216068 | ||
Doc, I'm afraid it was nothing so meaningful. A pastor friend of mine had a very young daughter who would often say words backwards. When she tried to say my name it came out "Beja." Ever since then it has just been my name for any such thing when you select something other than your real name. And no, that isn't at all the reverse of my name so I'm not sure how she came to that. In Love, Beja |
||||||
706 | world vs age | Gen 1:5 | Beja | 216047 | ||
FTK, 2 Corinthians 7:9-11 "I now rejoice, not that you were made sorrowful, but that you were made sorrowful to the point of repentance; for you were made sorrowful according to the will of God, sot hat you might not suffer loss in anything through us. For the sorrow that is according to the will of God produces a repentance without regret, leading to salvation, but the sorrow of the world produces death. For behold what earnestness this very thing, this godly sorrow has produced in you; what vindication of yourselves, what indignation, what fear, what lo9nging, what zeal, what avenging of wrong! In everything you demonstrated yourselves to be innocent in the matter." Consider this passage. The difference between the anguish the world feels and the anguish that we as Christians feel is not warm and happy versus sad, but rather the difference lies in one sorrow over sin leading to death and one sorrow over sin leading to repentance and life. If you would suggest to me, "Ah! but look at the end result!" Then ofcourse, nobody here would argue with you that the end result of God's dealings with His children are to their ultimate good and joy! But what do we find here is the road to that ultimate good and joy? We find that God's word pierces deep into our hearts and creates painful sorrow and anguish over our sins in order to produces repentance in us. God's word cuts deep, it wounds our pride and selfishness in order that it may ultimately heal us. You tell us that we must be cautious and weigh the scripture according to how they make us feel, yet John urges us to rather test what we are told by scriptural standards, by the confessions of what we believe about Christ! (John 4:1ff) Surely this bedrock we must test it against is scripture's revelation of Christ. You challenge our confidence in God's word by pointing out that a word can have multiple meanings. Ofcourse they can. They do also in English and greek is no different. Context shapes the meaning's of words. If we were climbing a cliff face and I told you to "give me your hand" you would not stop and point out to me that the word "hand" could mean 5 cards in a game of poker, a piece of a clock which points to either minutes or hours, that it could be a verb and therefore I'm using it wrongly etc. The fact that it can mean various things would no way disturb your trust in what I meant in that particular moment. You are discovering what a novice of language discovers: words have different meanings in different contexts. Do you think Peter was ignorant of this fact when he uttered, "But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God." (2 Peter 1:20,21) Do you think Peter would revoke his statment of confidence in scripture due to finding out that words have different meanings in various contexts! Unfortunately the scriptures assume the capacity to read. Part of this capacity is grasping context and how that shapes words. Your own example gives evidence of this! You quote our Lord in saying that my words shall not pass away! Then you tell us it could mean either to come or to go! Could really both actually equally be what He meant? If you say yes then you show your "hand" in that you don't have the skill to determine the obvious. If you say no then you rob yourself of your own example. Am I being harsh here? Will you respond of how I have unduely taken offence? Will you challenge the bedrocks of assurance in which newly converted Christians place their faith telling them to trust their own hearts instead then wonder that those who keep watch over them rebuke you sternly? In Christ, Beja |
||||||
707 | speaking in tounges | 1 Cor 12:30 | Beja | 215115 | ||
Dear Strts5, The reason that there is confusion over this is that in Greek a noun can be "definite" without the article. There are many reasons that it can be so. The one probably in light here is the idea of a proper noun. There is enough parallel in english that we could understand this. For example when you say, "I'm reading a post from, Beja." You do not understand it as "a Beja" but rather "the Beja." The one and only is still in mind even without the article. This happens in greek also along with many other reasons a noun can be "definite" without the article. In Love, Beja |
||||||
708 | speaking in tounges | 1 Cor 12:30 | Beja | 215111 | ||
Dear Azure, While you are getting at something very important in your post, namely that the focus should be on the edification of others, your post concerns me on one account. I very well may be misreading your post but I get the impression that you are saying something along the lines of: -Paul was catagorically dismissing speaking in tongues as an intrussion of pagan religion into Christianity. The main evidence that it is not truely a spiritual gift was that it does not edify other men.- Now, if I've misread you, forgive me. However, if I am correct allow me to give you a few verses to consider. 1 Cor 14:5 "Now I wish that you all spoke in tongues but even more that you would prophesy." While Paul clearly says that tongues is a less desirable gift in comparison to the ones that edify the Church as a whole, he still claims it is a desirable gift. Next, he even claims this as a gift he participates in. 1 Cor 14:18 "I thank God, I speak in tongues more than you all" And if there is any doubt whether he was referring to a speaking in tongues that others could not understand he continues in the next verse to say... 1 Cor 14:19 "however, in the church I desire to speak five words with my mind so that I may instruct others also, rather than ten thousand words in a tongue." So while you are touching on a very much needed point in charismatic circles, namely that they have over desired and over emphasized speaking in tongues rather than gifts that edify the church, do not go so far as to read Paul as condeming this as a non Christian gift. For Paul's summary is this: Pursue love, desire prophecy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues. (1 Cor 14:1,39) But as I said, if I've misread your statements, forgive me. In Love, Beja |
||||||
709 | speaking in tounges | 1 Cor 12:30 | Beja | 214993 | ||
Paul is clear that not all Christians receive the gift of speaking in tongues (1 Cor 12:30). 1 Cor 12 would be a great chapter for you to read. The people who told you this are flat mistaken, speaking in tongues is not an issue that shows you do or do not have the Holy Spirit. In Love, Beja |
||||||
710 | Is tithing a command for chriatians? | 2 Cor 9:7 | Beja | 214954 | ||
Dear Val, Alright, I've got a few in mind, but give me a bit to collect my thoughts on it. I think we are both in agreement that the author of the book of Hebrews in chapter 8 is stating that this "new covenant" is entirely a Christian covenant. It is the very New covenant that Christ's blood inaugerated in the gospels. Now, if we agree on this, next go back to Jeremiah chapter 31 and read about the promise that the new covenant was coming. And notice that this new covenant is explicitly promised to Israel and Judah. There is no mention of the gentiles in relation to this covenant. Now, how is it that the author of Hebrews sees this covenant as fulfilled in Christ, which is clearly a covenant made to all those in Christ, the church? This is just one example of what I'm talking about. The New Testament routinely takes the promises made to Israel in the Old Testament and claims them for the followers of Christ. My arguement in our discussion will be that these promises were always pointing to what was going to happen in Christ and in the Church. But at the time people could no have fully grasped what was going to take place. They couldn't have understood that God's national kingdom was always something that was meant to prefigure his Spiritual kingdom. This is the kingdom he referred to speaking to Pilate when he said that, My kingdom is not of this world." That was the intense confusion over his coming, they all thought He was going to begin a physical worldly kingdom, but the surprise was all along the prophets had meant the kingdom of Christianity, in which Christ even now sits as king enthroned at the right hand of the Father in heaven. That is the view I will be arguing, for now consider the Hebrews 8 new covenant in relation to Jeremiah 31. In Love, Beja In Love, Beja |
||||||
711 | Is tithing a command for chriatians? | 2 Cor 9:7 | Beja | 214952 | ||
Dear Keily, You've provided me just the very thing to finally drag out exactly the difference in our view points. You said, "Interpreting Historically means simply that passages must be interpreted in the way the people would take them at the time the human author wrote them." I have spent most of my life in complete agreement with this statement. This statement leads to the views you hold, the assumptions I hold, lead to my particular views. You are exactly correct that the people at their time would have heard these promises to regard a national Israel. However, it is my belief, that the apostles, Jesus, and the new testament as a whole disagree with this. I believe those took all these promises and saw the fulfillment of these promises in Christ and in the Church. I hold to your statement in almost all areas of interpretation except the promises granted to Israel which I see as our promises in Christ. That is the heart of where we have been disagreeing the past several days. In my discussion with Val it has now become my task to give some specific support for why I say that is so. That will be coming if not today (two days of vacation left!) but I'll probably get around to it sooner than when I go home. As I said, its hard for me to look down on your view since all good sense and just an honest approach to scripture would certainly begin with such a view. I've just been convinced (rightly or wrongly) that scripture doesn't hold that view. And thank you for your explination, it sounds like we do hold the same view on salvation in the various times. In Love, Beja |
||||||
712 | Is tithing a command for chriatians? | 2 Cor 9:7 | Beja | 214869 | ||
Val, You have said so much in that post. I wish to honor what you've asked with regards to dropping labels, but to fill in what dispensationals think with regards to Israel and the Church...they believe that the Old Testament promises are specifically for national Israel. The two should never be confused. My stance that I"m arguing is that the promises for Israel made in the Old testament, are really promises that are fulfilled in Christ and in the Church. That is the heart of what is being discussed and disagreed upon. Now, those who think as I do, do not look to national Israel to fulfill a hosts of promises. However, God is not done with ethnic Israel in this view point either. Paul is clear that they will be restored (Romans 11) but the implications of that restoration is not a new successful national identity, but rather a large spread conversion to Christ. The people of God, and the promises of God, are found in Christ and in the Church. That's the heart of the disagreement without the passage work explaining why. I understand that somebody who hears this would wonder why anybody would ever come to such a conclusion, shouldn't we just understand Israel to be Israel? And the answer to that is really that it seems the new testament writers do not see fit to make such a distinction. In my understanding, the New Testament offers see all the promises to Israel fulfilled in Christ and the Church. All I can say is as you continue your study, watch how they quote and make use of the Old Testament. Now, the danger in this view is still absent. Why would we take land from Israel? That doesn't fit in anybody's theology. But you are correct that this effectively takes the spot light off of the nation of Israel and puts it onto the church. There is not a plan for the Church, and a plan for Israel. There is one plan for the people of God and that has always been salvation by grace through faith in the promises of Christ. I'm not sure about our capability of carrying this discussion further, I think you and I are pretty clear about the differences of the views now between the two of us. But we'd have to work through a great many scriptures to talk it out. Your last post was very clear and excellently presented your view point, but you also illustrated just what a massive discussion we've begun. Whether we like it or not, we've embarked upon systematic theology at this point rather than single passage exegisis. In Love, Beja |
||||||
713 | Is tithing a command for chriatians? | 2 Cor 9:7 | Beja | 214868 | ||
Keily, Perhaps I am in fact misunderstanding your stance. To help me clarify, could you tell me what you see as the means of acquiring salvation in the various dispensations. Perhaps this question will not help me to understand, but it might drag out the distinctives in your stance for me. In Love, Beja |
||||||
714 | Is tithing a command for chriatians? | 2 Cor 9:7 | Beja | 214862 | ||
Dear Wild Olive Shoot, That really has become the next question hasn't it? And a very fair one I might add. First, it is important to consider that the first time we see tithing is not in the law, but rather in Abraham tithing to Melchizedek in Genesis Chapter 14. Now, why would Abraham do this? My suggested answer is that God had taught his people more about relating to Him than is revealed to you and I in the first 14 chapters of Genesis. I think the notion of honoring God with the first fruits of your increase is a moral teaching that God has always taught His people before even the law. It is a moral issue because it is not a matter of symbolism, but rather a matter of Christlikeness (being a giver) and a matter of honoring God. This is the very essensce of being a moral issue rather than ceremony. Now, I will grant this is hardly an answer that proves my view point as it relies very heavily on my assumptions I bring to that passage to interpret it. A second reason that it makes sense to me is that this is exactly how you would teach a child to become a giver. I have a daughter, I will require my daughter to give in order to help shape her into a giver. Now, the goal is for her to become somebody who gives without compulsion. But in order to create that you don't just say to a child, do whatever you please and I shall hope you choose what is good. No, first you require some giving in order to teach them that this is important, and in my family we will do so. Second, you encourage, bless, and praise further giving so that the child is moving from knowing this is important, to developing a taste and love for it. This is exactly what I perceive God to be doing in tithes and offerings. Now, I whole heartedly agree that what I have said does not prove my stance. But as I said in a previous post, I very much appreciate the view point of a Christian that says we are to give willingly and sacrificially and if we follow the Spirit's lead in this its probably going to be more than a tenth. I would not spend my time arguing with such a generous heart. My entrance in this discussion was instead based on the answers assuming a dispensational view point for instruction. Hope this helps. In Love, Beja |
||||||
715 | 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 |
||||||
716 | 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 |
||||||
717 | Is tithing a command for chriatians? | 2 Cor 9:7 | Beja | 214856 | ||
Dear Val, First, I much welcome the term "inhouse debate" as I know well you and I are like minded on the great majority of our faith, as shown by many posts. Second, perhaps what I said was a mildly bold statement, but lets not make it more so than it really was. What I meant was simply this: in the course of reading scripture I have found dispensational thought to not measure up. Dispensational thought aside, is this not what we want from a Christian? To constantly let their view points be corrected by reading scripture? It was not a claim to being a master of all scripture or a master of all theology, rather a statement that as I have read I have found scripture to have a view point that was contrary to dispensational thought. (I say dispensational thought, but I am specifically thinking of their view point of Israel and the Church.) Third, you said that my view was a dangerous one, and I am uncertain as to which of my view points you refer to. I've talked about Israel/church, Law as it relates to a Christian, and tithing. I am thinking you meant the Israel/church view point and will answer this post assuming that to be the case, but please clarify which view point and also share with me what danger you believe is in it. Finally, a brief offering of passages for you to consider. I've mentioned these in my previous post. Romans 4, 6 and 11 specifically are worth reading. As you read through these ask yourself whether it sounds like Paul is seeing Israel and the Church as two distinct things from beggining to end or rather if he sees Christians as fulfilling what was going on in Israel, or the true children spoken of with regards to abrahams children, or something grafted in, etc. Also there are verses like Galatians 3:7, and Philippians 3:3 to consider. Finally we must account for the fact that very often the apostles themselves do exactly what a dispensational thinkers says they must not do! Namely they take a prophecy which was clearly in reference to Israel and they say it was to be applied to the church. How are we to understand this? A dispensationalist will typically say, "well, the apostles can do what they want since they are inspired." Which may well be true, but what if they did this not because they were inspired to read scripture in a way none of the rest of us could predict, but rather they understood the church to be the rightful and proper heirs to all the promises of God to Israel? The view that the old testament was a series of failed dispensations between God and man in my opinion leaves us with a horribly malnourished view of scripture and sense of God. Granted under that view point all these dispensations were known to be going to fail ahead of time by God. Rather the view point which I would commend to you sees the entire of scripture as one plan, with one end (the cross), exalting one figure (christ.) The promises were always pointing towards the Cross and Christ. Hope this helps clarify and I very much look forward to hearing your concerns with this view as your voice is certainly one I hold with respect on this forum. In Love, Beja |
||||||
718 | 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 |
||||||
719 | Is tithing a command for chriatians? | 2 Cor 9:7 | Beja | 214801 | ||
The answers being given which argue that malachi chapter 3 doesn't apply to the church are arguing from a dispensational view point with regards to the church and Israel. As dispensational thought falls, so do their answers. I leave you all to your own thoughts on this. As for me I think it does apply to us. In Love, Beja |
||||||
720 | Buddha statue in a house of a christian. | 1 Cor 8:1 | Beja | 214353 | ||
Let me answer with another question. Do you think that it could cause a younger Christian, who fails to grasp that Buddha is nothing and that the decoration is nothing more than an item, could it cause such a one who sees it in your house to stumble? 1 Corinthians chapters 8-10 might be good reading for you. Romans 14 also. As for me, I don't judge you for it but... Rom 14:6 "Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind." In Love, Beja |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 ] Next > Last [40] >> |