| Author | Message | ||
| jtree |
Today if you have a chance, and have time, please visit http://www.icrn.com/Grace_to_You_Weekend/ and if you have realaudio, listen to this message. "The last passover, the first communion". | ||
| Jude the Obscure |
Colleen: Excellent work. I had to take a second look at what Bill was saying and "discipline" it with your remarks. And I see that Bill has accepted your "correction." Bill: I agree with just about everything you've been saying. But I've always had trouble with John Calvin. I've always thought he placed -- and rightly so, for he and Luther were compensating for the Roman Catholic under-emphasis on sovereignty predestination. I never thought Luther went too far, but I've always thought Calvin did. I attended the Presbyterian (Reformed or Calvinist) church for a decade or more. And I noticed that there was hardly a whisper of Calvin's over-emphasis. In all my years in that church, even attending "lay theology" meetings did I ever once hear the term "once saved always saved." It's a dead issue today. And mainline Presbyterianism seems almost indistinguishable from Methodism. And that, my friends, ought to be a surprise. Strangely, it isn't. And I agree with you that Calvin is sorely needed in Adventism right now, due to it's "wondering after the beast" in that it now almost xeroxes RCC "grace" theology. And that's why I think "the theology of mystery" can help. For it sees when to put the breaks on any theology that goes too far in one direction or another. 1. Calvinism can go too far. 2. Armenianism can go too far. There has to be a balance. Mystery can provide that balance: It's called paradox. The Eastern branch of the Christian church has never had a problem with paradox. Only the Western branch has. But now, for some reason -- Derrida and his postmodern deconstructionism? -- paradox has suddenly become very popular in "philosophy of religion." Just some thoughts to chew on, Jude | ||
| Bill Twisse |
Well, we are back to the paradox issue again. All I can say is that I have no problem with 'apparent' paradoxes. I just have a problem with leaving things to mystery that might be revealed in scripture. Many issues that seemed paradoxical to me years ago have eventually been cleared up with study & prayer (for me, that does not mean that I expect everyone else to agree). Leaving paradox and mystery aside for a moment, we have to decide between the inductive and deductive method of interpreting scripture. The inductive method (reasoning from the parts to the whole) is the popular one of the last century. Both in conservatism and liberalism. In conservative evangelicalism you have 'creation science', 'evidence that demands a verdict', and other inductive types of ministry. But I can easily conclude from those things that we were created by aliens and that Jesus was resurrected as one of 'many' sons of God. Only with the deductive method: starting with axioms or propositions revealed in scripture and reasoning to the details; can we arrive at a sure and certain basis for our faith. Of course, we have to rely on the testimony of the Holy Spirit confirming these things in our hearts--because they cannot be scientifically proven. On Luther, Calvin, predestination, etc. there are many details and the issues are very complex. I would not want to identify with any one of these past men entirely; I have concluded that every one of them was messed up on something. If you have a specific issue to discuss I'm more than willing. Unfortunately, you probably won't get an "I'm somewhere in the middle" from me. Usually I have come to reasoned convictions or simply have to admit that "I don't know on that one." If you knew me you would understand that my mind is just made that way. I am not upset by the convictions of any other person. Since I believe so highly in God's sovereignty, I'm convinced that God wants everyone thinking exactly what he/she is at the current time. When I was an Adventist, for his own reasons, God wanted me believing those things at that stage of my life (even though they were error). It was all to prepare me for better things later on. In the gospel, --Twisse | ||
| Jude the Obsucre |
Thanks, Bill. What do you think of the postmodern deconstructionist criticism of all things philosophical and theological? | ||
| Colleentinker |
I am convinced that both the inductive and deductive methods of studying scripture are subject to heresy and even blasphemy unless directed by the Holy Spirit. If we begin with a supposedly scriptural axiom and work down to supporting details (deductive), we run the risk of making the Bible support all manner of false doctrines: i.e., an investigative judgment, soul sleep, an eternal Sabbath of time, etc. On the other hand, beginning with details and working upward to form the axiom can result in the same sorts of problems. I do not think we can say that inductive study is inherently more likely to result in innacuracies than is deductive. This spring I took an informal class in inductive Bible study for the first time. I have to say that I felt as if the Bible opened up to me. I had always believed that it was somehow "cheating" to look up related references to shed light on a text. A text, I somehow grew up believing, spoke for itself in its own context. As our pastor Gary Inrig says, there's almost nothing more important than context. But other references to the same subject can certainly expand one's understanding of the Bible's whole teaching on that subject. I believe that the Holy Spirit is the ONLY way we understand what scripture really says. When we ask for his guidance and when we ask to know truth, I believe that He guides us in our study and in our methods of study. I suspect Spirit-led Bible study will involve more than one method of studying scripture. | ||
| Bill Twisse |
I think that we probably need a new topic for this line of discussion but I haven't figured out what to call it yet. Well, I'll make one more attempt to justify my crumbling support of 'deduction' as opposed to 'induction'. The historic propositions or axioms of Christian truth are those that have withstood the 'fire' of heretical onslaught for the last 2,000 years. On these matters I would propose that we are not free to pick and choose. Movements like Adventism came about precisely because a group of individuals decided that they were on their own in studying the Bible. These persons thought they had a direct line to God--that the great victories in Christology, soteriology, etc. of the past could be ignored as the opinions of mere mortals. Once this approach is taken, the door is open to anything. I believe in creative theology. However, there is a huge difference between a creative theology that breaks entirely new ground and one which is deducing from the historical faith. The apostles had a 'doctrine' (Acts 2:42) that was once-for- all. When I speak of Christian axioms I am referring to that doctrine. The gospel in its pristine form as opposed to 'another gospel'. When we study the Bible, context is of course the main issue. It is important to note that whenever we are studying--it is with many victories in interpretation already won, due to the work of the Holy Spirit in past centuries. On postmodern decontstructionism, well, I'll have to be honest and say that anything like this makes me nervous! Naturally, I tend to rejoice when non-Christian philosophies and religions are the target of fire. In actual fact I never cared for either 'philosopy' or 'religion' and neither did Paul! Both terms were used by him only in the negative. I'll let the cat out of the bag and tell you that one of the books that has changed my life forever is "Religion, Reason, and Revelation" by Dr. Gordon Clark. But he has been demonized by every seminary in the country for his rigid adherence to historicism. I don't agree with everything that any man writes but this book was almost a 100% for me. In spite of that, I wish to emphasize again that I will never claim the label of 'Calvinist' or 'Presbyterian.' --Twisse | ||
| Bill Twisse |
Covenant, part III 3. The New Covenant has no earthly tabernacle. "Our fathers had the tabernacle of witness in the wilderness, as he had appointed, speaking unto Moses, that he should make it according to the fashion that he had seen. Which also our fathers that came after brought in with Jesus into the possession of the Gentiles, whom God drave out before the face of our fathers, unto the days of David; who found favour before God, and desired to find a tabernacle for the God of Jacob. But Solomon built him an house. Howbeit the most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands; as saith the prophet, heaven is my throne, and earth is my footstool: what house will ye build me? saith the Lord: or what is the place of my rest? Hath not my hand made all these things? Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye. Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? and they have slain them which shewed before of the coming of the Just One; of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers: who have received the law by the disposition of angels, and have not kept it. When they heard these things, they were cut to the heart, and they gnashed on him with their teeth . . . then they cried out with a loud voice, and stopped their ears, and ran upon him with one accord, and cast him out of the city, and stoned him." Acts 7:44-58 KJV "Now the first covenant had regulations for worship and also an earthly sanctuary. . . . When Christ came as high priest of the good things that are already here, he went through the greater and more perfect tabernacle that is not man-made, that is to say, not a part of this creation. . . . For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance--now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant." Heb. 9:1,11,15 NIV "I did not see a temple in the city, because the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are its temple." Rev. 21:22 NIV "Don't you know that you yourselves are God's temple and that God's Spirit lives in you? If anyone destroys God's temple, God will destroy him; for God's temple is sacred, and you are that temple." 1 Cor. 3:16,17 NIV "Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God's people and members of God's household, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord." Eph. 2:20,21 NIV So far we have looked at two entities of the former covenant that men have continually tried to inject into the new: 1. Sabbatarianism (either 1st or 7th day) 2. Water baptism for the remission of sins (a 'new' covenant of circumcision) The next issue is this: how important is a building in the new covenant? Do we need to be concerned for building and reverencing 'God's house' like David and Solomon? The above scriptures give a clear answer to this question: absolutely not. In spite of this, all of Christian history is saturated with admonition on the requirement to build a house for God. We have great competition in the world as to which sect can build the most awesome temples. Is it Buddhists, Mormons, Jews, Muslims, or Christians? The sad fact is that Christians have often been the primary cause of such vanity. The requirement to build a tabernacle was a part of the 'first covenant' (Sinai). But it is abolished in the new covenant. The following entities are all called God's 'house' in the dispensation of grace: 1. Heaven itself (the 'other' creation). 2. The Earth (God's footstool). 3. The Lord God Almighty. 4. The Lamb. 5. The new people of God joined to Christ. That is it. No buildings in this creation are uniquely called the house of God. So here is item #3 from the former covenant that men have slaved to bring into the new: the tabernacle or temple in the form of 'church.' The word 'church' is not derived from the Greek ekklesia, even though it is the only word used to translate it in English. For this reason a good case can be made that serious mistranslation has occurred. It is derived from kuriokos using the same tense as in Rev. 1:10 (the Lord's ?). The question mark is there because a whole number of entities can be inserted. However, there is no question as to which entity is meant with the use of the word 'church' (& related words in other languages). It is referring to the Lord's house. This would not be a problem if the common use of 'church' was in reference to the spiritual house of God: his people. But in spite of the attempts of theologians and pastors to make this meaning prominent, the common use has never changed and will never change. When people use the word 'church' in society, the prominent meaning will always be a house or institution of religion. Even among professed Christians. 'Go to church,' 'build a church,' 'meet me at the church,' 'join a church,' 'start a church,' or 'growing church' will always refer to an institutional organization and physical building--not a spiritual people. For us it usually means a particular non-profit religious corporation (or organization) & its associated dwelling(s). Again, I am not talking about the ideal or theological use of the word. I am talking about its common use by ordinary people, 90% of the time. Let me make it clear that I am not proposing an elimination of the word 'church' from our vocabulary. I think that we need to be honest, though, and admit that its common meaning is an institution of religion. We should (in my view) use a different term when referring to the ekklesia: the new people of God. It would clear up a lot of confusion. But that is a topic for a different discussion. A building for gathering together is certainly no sin. Neither is an outdoor place of worship. The whole Earth is the Lord's and he is equally present wherever God's people are. Our home dwelling is just as much the Lord's house as the place where we gather for corporate worship. So is our garden outside of the building. In denial of pacifist theology (that the whole world is the realm of the devil), I believe we do need to confess that the dwelling of a Christian is sacred to the Lord. But not in the sense of the old covenant. The present world is shared by both kingdoms: the kingdom of God and the kingdom of evil. All things in the created order that function for the benefit of God's people are set apart unto him. For this reason the Christian can say of his dwelling place, 'the Lord is there' (Ezek. 48:35). The unbeliever cannot say the same thing. His possessions and dwelling are set apart for the kingdom of darkness, even though God is still present in judgment. Ahab learned of this fact when he killed Naboth and took his vineyard for a vegetable garden. He failed to take into account the fact that the person and property of God's people is sacred. For that act Ahab's final judgment and doom was made certain. God has the same jealousy for his people today: the way that he operates has not changed one iota. The next time your congregation is being swindled into a carnal and unwise building program, quote the words of Stephen in our opening scripture: "the most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands." Then ask if all present will agree that if the thing is built, God will not dwell in it. Most likely a number of individuals present will want to stone you exactly like they did Stephen. I have heard some pray for the right 'church' (building) to be built 'in order to save souls.' Not in a cult, in evangelical churchianity. Still to come: 4. The New Covenant has no earthly priesthood. 5. The New Covenant has no tithe. 6. The New Covenant has no continuing sacrifice. 7. The New Covenant has no sacraments. and 3 more after that, plus a concluding essay on the 'new wine' of the gospel. --Twisse | ||
| Colleentinker |
Excellent, Bill. You are so right; in the New Covenant, God does not dwell in buildings; he dwels inside the hearts of his church. God came to live with the Israelites in a pillar of cloud/fire, and it rested right over the Most Holy Place and filled the temple. On the day of Pentecost, the Holy Spirit came to live in his new temple, and the fledgling church became powerful for God. We deny God's intimate relationship with us when we insist that building are sacred. They absolutely are not! We also ignore God's intimcacy with us when we do not acknowledge that His Spirit is in us. We, the church, are the temple of God. | ||
| Billtwisse |
Covenant, part IV 4. The New Covenant has no earthly priesthood. "If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need [was there] that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron? For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law. For he of whom these tings are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar. For [it is] evident that our Lord sprang out of Judah of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood. And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similtude of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest, who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life. For he testifieth, Thou [art] a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec. For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof. For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope [did]; by the which we draw night unto God. . . . By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament. And they truly were many priests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death: but this [man], because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood. Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them. . . . For the law maketh men high priests which have infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was since the law, [maketh] the Son, who is consecrated for evermore." Heb. 7:11-19, 22-25, 28 KJV "As you come to him, the living Stone--rejected by men but chosen by God and precious to him--you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. . . . But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light. Once you were not a people, but now you are the people of God; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy." I Pet. 2:4-5, 9-10 NIV "To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood, and has made us to be a kingdom and priests . . . " Rev. 1:5b, 6a "You have made them to be a kingdom and priests to serve our God, and they will reign on the earth." Rev. 5:10 "Blessed and holy are those who have part in the first resurrection. The second death has no power over them, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with him for a thousand years." Rev. 20:6 The priesthood of the grace-covenant is not difficult to understand. There are only two aspects to it: 1. Jesus Christ is our eternal priest in the power of an endless perfect life, having obtained redemption by his once-for-all sacrifice. He abrogates and replaces the imperfect priesthood of the law-covenant. 2. All believers are made priests by union with Jesus Christ. We already reign with him. Although the priesthood of the former covenant is abolished, one might technically argue that the new covenant does have an earthly priesthood. What about the believers who are presently on earth and have not yet entered heaven? They are reigning with Christ and have dominion over this present age. Not in themselves--but through their connection with him. With these facts considered, why would anyone want to attempt bringing the old priesthood into the New and everlasting Covenant of Grace? That is exactly what has been done for the last 1900 years. Big time. We have already examined 3 major aspects of the law-covenant that men have continually attempted to bring into the grace-covenant. 1. Sabbatarianism, in the form of a 7th-day or 1st-day requirement to sabbatize. 2. A continued covenant of circumcision, in the form of binding the conscience with a particular administration of water 'unto the remission of sins.' 3. A mandate to build and respect a sacred 'house' for God. This dates back to the Constantinian era and is rooted not only in the Old Testament sanctuary & temple, but also the heathen temples of worship. The priesthood is a fourth aspect. Although many centuries expired before the clergy got bold enough to arrogate the title of 'priest' to themselves, the principles leading to that final 'apostasy' had been developing for a long time. In the history of congregations, there had been a gradual metamorphosis from a patriarchal to a Levitical model of leadership. The final outcome was the historic clergy/laity distinction. The early NT community of believers gathered frequently and ordained elders in each local assembly to be stewards of the gospel. However, we must not think that this was done in Levitical fashion. Often we project our current experience back into the past. The worship of the apostolic era was based on the end of the law in Christ. Therefore, it reverted back largely to the nature of worship before the law. This consisted primarily of families coming together for worship with certain patriarchs (heads of households) appointed as elders (pastors). Of course, nothing in all of this excluded the unmarried. The point is this: the early model of leadership was not like that of 1st century culture, any more than it is like 21st century culture. The NT assembly was something radically different from everything else in the culture of those times (ours too). The Jewish and heathen cultures were both immersed in the Levitical model of authority with its priests, temples, rulers, and the like. But the community of believers was founded on a different principle--that of the greatest being a servant (Mark 10:42-44). Some will argue that we can't change today: we're stuck with 'church' (in its predominant form) as much as we're stuck with Jesus. Well, I just can't buy that. Whatever changes we need to make are no different than those engaged by the first believers. Of course, God may bypass this generation and bring reformation only in another. What were the changes in the community of believers that eventually led to an overt churchly priesthood? Two developments occurred: 1. The clergy/laity distinction came into being. All of this happened after the death of the apostles, with elders beginning to arrogate power unto themselves. Men wanted a 'church' patterned more like the Jewish and heathen religions. Eventually, the concept of one-bishop rule emerged. None of this existed in apostolic times. The first elders (pastors) were not a distinct class in any sense: all believers were considered priests. 2. With the emergence of the clergy/laity distinction, it was inevitable that the concept of a 'sacred house' would emerge. The place for gathering in the early assemblies was one owned by someone in the congregation. But when the new class distinction emerged, the corresponding 'need' for a church/home distinction was inevitable Hence the rise of the sacred parsonage, sacred church building, and sacred church organization: each of which was separate from the common community of faith. Today, we can scarcely comprehend how a community of believers would exist without the non-profit corporation, clergy/laity distinction, building owned by the corporation, and tax deduction of gifts. That is because the Levitical model is so impressed upon our culture. Of course, change does not come overnight and radicalism needs to be avoided. Many separatists have gone down other roads that are even more carnal. But change is possible, one aspect at a time, once we acknowledge that it has to take place. Well, I imagine that some are beginning to dislike the possible implications of the New Covenant! We like the end of the Sabbath, but not necessarily other cherished traditions. Still to come: 5. The New Covenant has no tithe. 6. The New Covenant has no continuing sacrifice. 7. The New Covenant has no sacraments. 8. The New Covenant has no sacred times. 9. The New Covenant has no works to gain blessing. 10. The New Covenant has no deserters. Conclusion: the new wine of the gospel. --Twisse | ||
| Bethany |
I'm a firm believer in the New Covenant; it has given me a whole new view of life, so different from that of Adventist days. I am eager to read more of what you have to say, Bill. I have ponder the question of tithe, sacraments, sacred times, etc...but only pondered. Reckless Grace is a term that Adventist family has thrown my way, consequently, I go slow with some changes. I do know and believe though, that God has big plans for us, and that plan has been carefully laid out for us in the New Covenant. He is just waiting for us to catch on! | ||
| Jude the Obscure |
Bill, I don't know how to thank you enough for coming to this website and posting such a well-worked-through theology of new covenant. Hope you do not consider your work here "over" after you have concluded with this series. In new covenant, Jude | ||
| Billtwisse |
Covenant, part V 5. The New Covenant has no tithing law. OLD COVENANT giving: "Thou shalt truly tithe all the increase of thy seed, that the field bringeth forth year by year. And thou shalt eat before the LORD thy God, in the place which he shall choose to place his name there, the tithe of thy corn, of thy wine, and of thine oil, and the firstlings of thy herds and of thy flocks; that thou mayest learn to fear the LORD thy God always. And if the way be too long for thee, so that thou art not able to carry it; [or] if the place be too far from thee, which the LORD thy God shall choose to set his name there, when the LORD thy God hath blessed thee: then shalt thou turn [it] into money, and bind up the money in thine hand, and shalt go unto the place which the LORD thy God shall choose: and thou shalt bestow that money for whatsoever thy soul lusteth after, for oxen, or for sheep, or for wine, or for strong drink, or for whatsoever thy soul desireth: and thou shalt eat there before the LORD thy God, and thou shalt rejoice, thou, and thine household, and the Levite that [is] within thy gates; thou shalt not forsake him; for he hath no part nor inheritance with thee. At the end of three years thou shalt bring forth all the tithe of thine increase the same year, and shalt lay [it] up within thy gates: and the Levite, (because he hath no part nor inheritance with thee,) and the stranger, and the fatherless, and the widow, which [are] within thy gates, shall come, and shall eat and be satisfied; that the LORD thy God may bless thee in all the work of thine hand which thou doest. Deut 14:22-29 KJV "A tithe of everything from the land, whether grain from the soil or fruit from the trees, belongs to the Lord; it is holy to the Lord. . . . The entire tithe of the herd and flock--every tenth animal that passes under the shepherd's rod--will be holy to the Lord." Lev. 27:30,32 NIV. "Will a man rob God? Yet you rob me." But you ask, 'How do we rob you?' "In tithes and offerings. You are under a curse--the whole nation of you--because you are robbing me. Bring the whole tithe into the storehouse, that there may be food in my house. Test me in this," says the Lord Almighty, "and see if I will not throw open the floodgates of heaven and pour out so much blessing that you will not have room enough for it. I will prevent pests from devouring your crops, and the vines in your fields will not cast their friut," says the Lord Almighty. Mal. 3:8-12 NIV "Woe to you Pharisees, because you give God a tenth of your mint, rue and all other kinds of garden herbs, but you neglect justice and the love of God. You should have practiced the latter without leaving the former undone." Luke 11:42 NEW COVENANT giving: "Remember this: Whoever sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and whoever sows generously will also reap generously. Each man should give what he has decided in his heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver. And God is able to make all grace abound to you, so that in all things at all times, having all that you need, you will abound in every good work. . . . Now he who supplies seed to the sower and bread for food will also supply and increase your store of seed and will enlarge the harvest of your righteousness. You will be made rich in every way so that you can be generous on every occasion, and through us your generosity will result in thanksgiving to God." 2 Cor. 9:6-8, 10-11 NIV "And here is my advice about what is best for you in this matter: Last year you were the first not only to give but also to have the desire to do so. Now finish the work, so that your eager willingness to do it may be matched by your completion of it, according to your means. For if the willingness is there, the gift is acceptable according to what one has, not according to what he does not have. Our desire is not that others might be relieved while you are hard pressed, but that there might be equality." 2 Cor. 8:10-13 NIV One of the most severe curses in the history of Chrisitian teaching is the attempt to bind the conscience with guilt-giving. This manipulative dogma has been preached continuously in every sect and professed non-sect. What answer shall we give to those who demand a large portion of our money as a legal requirement of the gospel? The most common (though not exclusive) dogma of guilt-giving is that of the tithe. We have those who preach single-tithe, double-tithe (Joseph demanded one-fifth, right?) and even triple-tithe (the Worldwide Church of God, until the last few years when it changed). Virtually all of the tithing 'requirements' are directed to a particular church, organization, or preacher that supposedly has the God-ordained 'appointment' to collect and utilize it. The denomination that I currenly retain membership in is as dogmatic about tithing as the SDA's. It is often preached that "if you are going to come here and be a part of this work of God, the changeless law of the Lord demands a tenth of your gross income." That means it is to be given nowhere else except to that local non-profit corporation. Otherwise, you are accused of robbing God--which implies a serious doubt of your salvation. Believe me, this is not occurring in one isolated congregation--but in virtually all of those in the denomination. Including those who claim to be 'liberated' from vain tradition. The seminaries train the ministers to preach it as a 'must.' An obnoxious Southern California TV preacher has actually taught publicly that only those who tithe will be in heaven. No exceptions. And if you listen further, it is clear that the required tithe is 20% of gross income to be given only to him--the one teacher who supposedly has everything straight. We could go on and on with an infinite number of examples. An arrogant, institutional churchianity of many centuries has thrived and prospered in proportion to how much it has preached guilt-giving. What shall we say about the old Mosaic tithing law? Well, it doesn't even resemble the tithing preached in churches today. Not in the slightest. What we have is another reinterpretation in an attempt to impose law-covenant requirements in the age of the gospel. Let us review the other items that persons have 'recast' to attempt bringing them into the grace-covenant: 1. Sunday rest as the Sabbath of the fourth commandment (or, in some cases, a continuation of Saturday). 2. Water baptism 'for the remission of sins' as a new covenant of circumcision. 3. The church building and institution to replace the temple and synagogue. 4. The clergy/laity distinction and one-bishop rule to replace the priesthood. Item #5 is the gross reinterpretation (at best) of the Mosaic tithing requirement under discussion. It is a direct slap in the face to what Paul taught about giving. Finally, it is a return to the former elements of the law that condemn and drive men into sin. Reject it totally: it demands nothing but contempt for our liberty in Christ. The tithe required in Deut. 14 can be summarized as follows: 1. It was agricultural only and did not apply to money at all. 2. It was on the 'increase' only. 3. Only the tithe of every third year was given to the Levite. This gift also had to be shared with the strangers in the land, orphans, and widows. 4. The tithe of the other two years was stored up for thanksgiving celebrations. It could be exchanged for money if an appointed place of worship was too-distant. Upon arrival at the appointed place, the money could be spent on any party supplies that were desired. We must keep in mind, though, that this was a party 'unto the Lord' and not one for sheer pleasure and drunkenness. 5. It is likely that more produce and meat was burned than was given to the Levites and the poor. If the usual practice of sacrifice in the former covenant was followed, any excess of the increase tithe in the two years would have been burned to the Lord as an offering. I can picture some persons with wide-open mouths replying with Judas, 'why this waste?' God's ways are not our ways. 6. A great blessing was pronounced on those who were faithful to this law. The 'blessing' of Deut. 14 and that of Mal. 3 are exactly same thing: Malachi is repeating Moses. It is a very great distortion to isolate Malachi 3 as a grace-covenant requirement for God's people today. Well, by now it probably seems that God did not require a lot in the former covenant in terms of giving. Very true. Additional offerings beyond the tithe were encouraged but not required. In the covenant of grace, we have an infinitely better motive for giving than under the law. Our basis is the joy of the gospel. God doesn't state an amount that he requires: we are to give in proportion to the blessings of the gospel in our lives. Additionally, there is no one proper recipient of our gifts. It can be the Christian education of our children, a worthy Christian ministry, a local congregation or pastor faithful to the gospel, Christians in true need, or a ministry of one's own. Even a party to reach the unsaved. Christ said to make friends for eternity by using unrighteous mammon. Still to come: 6. The New Covenant has no continuing sacrifice. 7. The New Covenant has no sacraments. 8. The New Covenant has no sacred times. 9. The New Covenant has no works to gain blessing. 10. The New Covenant has no deserters. Conclusion: the new wine of the gospel. --Twisse | ||
| Colleentinker |
Billóyour tithing study is absolutely excellent. Thank you for pointing out those often-unknown facts about the Israelites' tithing system. Living for Jesus is so much better than living for the law! Colleen | ||
| Maryann |
Hi Bill, I really enjoyed your above study on tithing. Malachi 3 is such big guns for extracting tithe. It is used by some to say, try God and he will do right by you. In other words, give to God SO He will give back to YOU! That to me is TRYING to control God by how much you pay Him? I was so disillusioned with a Baptist Church I tried to go to some years ago. Before I was booted out of this Church, part of the stuff one had to listen to was a lot of severe critism of EVERY other Church and a bah-zillion rules. One of the rules that was enforced was that ALL the members of the staff, paid and un-paid, had to pay the full 10% tithe. This pastor personally checked each individuals finances to make sure the 10% mandatory tithe went into the plate! And they submitted to this! The members TRULY obeyed this guy. He didn't lead his sheep, he DROVE them. I just figured that he was just a man and I should answer to God not him. Needless to say, that was NOT a popular position to take! One thing that he did that I'm just curious about you all's opinion is: If a new convert came into this Church and was in the gambling industry, he HAD to give it up to hold any position in the Church? Say a guy was 55 years old and was a pit boss, he was to old to re-train to get a 50K+ a year else where. He was to young to retire. Before he could "pass the plate" he had to quit and work at Taco Bell or what ever else he could find? (here in Las Vegas, the gambling industry is so large that in a room with 20 people in it, 6 or 8 probably represent it) Gambling is a not so good thing. Living here for 20 years, I know this to be true. This is a tuff call for me! What do you guys think my "example guy" should do? Is it up to us to decide how a guy should deal with God? Is up to the pastor to decide that a maid, making beds in a hotel/casino is okay but a pit boss isn't? Keep up the good studies. Maryann | ||
| Timo.K |
Bill, I have printed your posts on the Covenant and used the Bibletexts in a Finnish former JW forum where I have been writing. Especially, I enjoued your study about tithing. I have a question about 144000 mentioned in Rev.14. The language to me speaks that the "first fruits" mentioned represent the New Covenant preasthood. Do you people agree? Rev.14: 3 And they [139]sang *a new song before the throne and before the *four living creatures and the *elders; and *no one could learn the song except the *one hundred and forty-four thousand who had been *purchased from the earth. 4 *These are the ones who have not been defiled with women, for they [140]have kept themselves chaste. These are the ones who *follow the Lamb wherever He goes. These have been *purchased from among men *as first fruits to God and to the Lamb. The New song could mean the New covenant. For me this illustrates the priesthood of heaven. Since the earthly priesthood has gone we are priests and kings in heaven. So this talks about our position in heavenly places, as is mentioned in the Ephesians 1:3. We are still physically here on earth, but our position is in heaven. | ||
| Billtwisse |
Colleen, thanks for you positive encouragement. Maryann, I commend your standing up for conviction and opposing the rules of puny men. It takes courage to do this, when a general perception exists in the congregation that ALL teaching from the leaders is ordained of God. Timo, your observation on the New Covenant priesthood of all and the reference to it in the 144,000 is excellent. I will have to remember this one for all future discussion of the subject. On the issue of employment in gambling, Maryann, you have posed some tough questions. Jesus, Peter, & Paul never told employees of the Roman government to immediately leave their position. Each person must ask, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, what course of action would most honor God. For me this meant leaving the SDA ministry and finding another means of employment. God has infinitely blessed me in that decision, both spiritually and financially. I am going to post the first part of the next study on the covenants. It is 'heavy' but I would ask all of you to seriously consider the biblical evidence. Thanks. --Twisse | ||
| Billtwisse |
"He summons the heavens above, and the earth, that he may judge his people: Gather to me my consecrated ones, who made a covenant with me by sacrifice. And the heavens proclaim his righteousness, for God himself is judge. Hear, O my people, and I will speak, O Israel, . . . I do not rebuke you for your sacrifices or your burnt offerings, which are ever before me. I have no need of a bull from your stall or of goats from your pens, for every animal of the forest is mine, and the cattle on a thousand hills. . . . Sacrifice thank offerings to God, fulfill your vows to the Most High, and call upon me in the day of trouble; I will deliver you and you will honor me." Psalm 50:5-7a, 8-10, 14-15 NIV "What can I do with you, Ephraim? What can I do with you, Judah? Your love is like the morning mist, like the early dew that disappears. Therefore I cut you in pieces with my prophets, I killed you with the words of my mouth; my judgments flashed like lightning upon you. For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings. Like Adam, they have broken the covenant--they were unfaithful to me there." Hosea 6:4-7 NIV "The man and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame. . . . The LORD God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them." Gen. 2:25, 3:21 "In the course of time Cain brought some of the fruits of the soil as an offering to the LORD. But Abel brought fat portions from some of the firstborn of his flock. The LORD looked with favor on Abel and his offering, but on Cain and his offering he did not look with favor." Gen. 4:3-5a "First he said, 'Sacrifices and offerings, burnt offerings and sin offerings you did not desire, nor were you pleased with them' (although the law required them to be made). Then he said, 'Here I am, I have come to do your will.' He sets aside the first to establish the second. And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God. Since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool, because by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy. . . And where these have been forgiven, THERE IS NO LONGER ANY SACRIFICE FOR SIN." Heb. 10:8-14, 18 NIV "For Christ also hath once suffered for sin, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit." 1 Peter 3:18 KJV 6. The New Covenant has no continuing sacrifice (part I) Throughout the entire dispensation of mankind prior to the cross, the phenomenon of sacrifice was carried on. My personal belief is that God instituted sacrifice immediately after the 'opening of eyes' in Genesis 3. It is a sign of the promise made in verse 15. The nakedness of man and woman in Genesis was not a matter of delight, as some would propose. There is no inherent beauty and innocence in the original state of being unclothed. In fact, the Bible never speaks of nudity in the positive. From the beginning of revelatory scripture until the end, redemption is always portrayed as the putting on of a garment or robe. For an example, study the allegory of Ezekiel 16. When Jesus hung naked on the cross, it was representative of his becoming sin for us. His humiliation was the purchase price of our shining white robes in eternity. I would strongly propose that the chapter division between Genesis 2 and 3 is in the wrong place. Gen. 2:25 does not belong with the preceeding verses but is the introduction to the following ones. It is in definite contrast to the 'very good' of Gen. 1:31. Immediately after the statement of man's nakedness, the serpent appears on the scene. The very reason for Eve's deception is that she had no shame in her nudity. She did not know the nature of evil as desire and impulse, but only as a potential act of disobedience. After the great sin, God provided the first clothing by the death of an animal. This was not to provide warmth but to signify his redemptive protection from our naked condition. From then on the sacrifices continued all the way up to Jesus. The covenant of Sinai had a special administration of sacrifice in the form of many laws. None of that had existed in earlier times. The sacrifices offered before Moses were simply acts of worship in which God's promise was signified and reinforced upon the mind. According to Hebrews 10:18, the new covenant promise that God will 'remember our sins no more' is fulfilled in the perfect & final atonement of Christ's sacrifice. To get the context, study the preceeding few verses (not quoted). From the point of forgiveness at the death of Jesus to eternity beyond, there is no additional sacrifice for sin to be performed. Some points need to be emphasized about the Hebrews passage: 1. The perfect atonement for his people (those 'being made holy') was historically accomplished when Christ suffered for sin. Although saints are declared righteous in God's presence at the point of believing, they were factually constituted just before God at that earlier point in history. 2. The forgiveness achieved is final and eternal: God will never again remember those sins. Considering this point, I have to disagree with the free-will theory that a saint can 'opt out' of salvation at any time after receiving it. If that were possible, the sins would again be remembered by God. But the fulfillment of all new covenant promises (including endurance in faith) is dependent solely on God's Word and Spirit (Luke 1:77, 1 Pet. 1:3-5, Eph. 2:8-10). The supreme New-covenant law of God to be written on the heart is faith (John 6:29-40, Rom. 3:27). I could go on quoting many passages; these are just a few that immediately come to mind. But the details of this subject will be discussed later. 3. The salvation achieved was not for Christ's enemies. Quite the contrary: the atonement & resurrection sealed the doom of unbelievers. As the exalted Lord, Jesus is hastening toward the day in which all devils, both spirit and human, will become his footstool. With the present veil over history, we don't fully comprehend the extreme nature of the distinction between saints and devils in the human race. But in the unveiling of the last judgment, Jesus and his saints will rule over the wicked with a rod of iron (Rev. 19:15, 2:27). Many wonder about Christ preaching to the spirits in prison (1 Pet. 3:19, following verse 18 quoted above). I have no trouble with this event: it happened after his resurrection in the power of the Spirit--and was a preaching of the certainty of final doom for all satans. None of this is a problem, if we grasp the biblical concept of Christ's victory & lordship over his enemies. It is a benefit of his atonement. Well, some may think the last point to be a strong one but I could go on reciting what would seem like volumes (the impreccatory Psalms, the judgment songs of Revelation, & many other scriptures). What are the different teachings that have attempted to bring a continuing sacrifice into the new covenant? They fall into two categories: a) The teaching that Jesus himself is still being offered up, suffering, and making atonement for our sins. b) The teaching that believers are still required to offer a regulatory equivalent of sacrifice. This is not the spiritual service of Rom. 12:1,2--but rather foolish regulation. It manifests itself in many proposed exercises that supposedly please God. Some examples that will be dealt with include methodology, disciplines, poverty, food & drink regulations, & conjugal restriction. Let's first evaluate the heresy that Jesus is still being offered up and making atonement. Most of us are keenly aware of two distinct forms of this heresy. One is the Roman Catholic doctrine of the mass. The other is the Seventh-day Adventist doctrine of investigative judgment. Both are in essence the same false teaching. The offering of the mass is a far more imprecise and mysterious teaching than the dogma of IJ. It's popularity has to do with this proposed reality: we can't really know what is happening-- it is too awesome and the substance transcends human reason. However, certain facts relevant to our subject are insisted upon: a) Jesus is really offered in the present time. b) His suffering for our sins in this offering is present. c) The offering is necessary because of continuing sin and it is a continuing atonement. The same basic principles exist in the traditional doctrine of IJ. Although the SDA leadership has continually denied in the last 50 years that it has ever taught the present suffering of Christ, those who know the 'early writings' are fully aware that this denial is false. I distinctly remember one of my professors at Andrews making this statement on a regular basis: "Jesus completed one work of horrible suffering and torture at the cross, but only a few days later when returning to heaven, started another one." The teaching of this professor was a great embarrasment to all of the others at the seminary. But in spite of their continuous pleading and reasoning, he never relented one iota. The elements of the 'continuing atonement' doctrine of the early SDA's were these: 1. The suffering of Jesus did not end with his manifestation in humanity. He suffers still and is presently making atonement for our sins in heaven. The lamb is yet bruised and bleeding. 2. Every sin of his people causes Jesus to suffer afresh. 3. We are responsible to get Jesus out of the torture chamber of the Most Holy Place. At least 144,000 people must live sinlessly for long enough to prove they are safe to be saved. Then Jesus can finish the atonement and be released from his suffering. In spite of all attempts, SDAism will never be able to cover-up and abandon the early teaching from which it was conceived. Are we really willing to face the abominable nature of the heresy that this was? This is so outrageous, unbiblical, and Christ-denying that an undiscerning mind would find the doctrine of mass to be a joyous relief from it! Many believe that Jesus could have sinned and lost everything at his first coming. I personally believe that notion is damnable heresy also. But here is my question: are we more dependable than Jesus? Obviously not. So according to this horrible dogma, 144,000 of us may never choose to get perfect--therefore Jesus will suffer eternally. What a reversal of the doctrine of eternal punishment: Jesus gets it instead of the wicked! <continued> | ||
| Billtwisse |
Continued from previous post: >> In contrast to all of the 'dungheap' of perpetual sacrifice, there is such good news to proclaim. How wonderful is the certainty of God's word in comparison to the foolishness of men! What a difference there is between the NT teaching of final atonement in Christ's once-for-all sacrifice--and the cancerous & soul-destructive notion of continuing atonement! (NOTE: The final portion of this study on the false notion of believer's sacrifice will be posted later. The writer has to 'take to the skies' once again). Still to come: Part II of this study. 7. The New Covenant has no sacraments. 8. The New Covenant has no sacred times. 9. The New Covenant has no works to gain blessing. 10. The New Covenant has no deserters. Conclusion: the new wine of the gospel. --Twisse | ||
| Colleentinker |
Bill, How interesting! I never heard the "continuing sacrifice" taught as a cohesive whole, but I do remember hearing that our sins hurt him all over again. And I certainly remember a consistent teaching in Sabbath School that when we sinned, Jesus would cry and suffer over it. We were not to sin because it would hurt Jesus. Wow. Good study! | ||
| Billtwisse |
Many thanks, Colleen, for contemplating these issues and responding. For those who might be waiting for the rest of these studies, I can assure you that they are coming in the near future. My time for writing has been very limited as of recent. In Christ's grace, --Twisse |
