| Author | Message | ||
| Andrew_adams |
I would like to talk about the difference between the old and new covenant. One If we are under the new test. or cov. then why are we doing things under the old test. or cov? AA | ||
| Doug222 |
Andrew, Can you be more specific about who "we" is/are? Are you referring to Adventist as doing things under the old covenant or are you talking about Christians in general? In His Grace Doug | ||
| Windmotion |
Andrew, I am curious too. This is a very fundamental question. Are you thinking of something Christians do that is under the old covenant but not under the new covenant? It is not contradictory to have some overlap. The new covenant takes the place of the old, just like the U.S. Constitution took the place of English law after the Revolutionary War. The Founding Fathers didn't have to change every law to make the United States a distinct nation. --Hannah | ||
| Andrew_adams |
Well, let's see, We, could mean SDA, or just all christianity. But I will be more specific, we know things like burnt offerings not needed anymore, things like ordinances nailed to the cross, sanctuary and services in the same and more. This we know but what about the things we do now and are told to do and are not required to do anymore. Hummmmmm? Can you think of any?? AA | ||
| Doug222 |
Andrew, Maybe its all the Christmas turkey, but I am still not understanding what things you are talking about. What specifically are you being told to do that are no longer required? Without specific examples, it is difficult to enter into an intelligent discussion. Are you talking about things such as Sabbath observance, health laws, and tithing? In His Grace Doug | ||
| Sabra |
What Do we do that is under the Old Covenant? I tithe, not always, lately not much since I'm having trouble paying the mortgage, maybe that's my trouble...but I don't feel REQUIRED to tithe for my salvation. I feel like I WANT to tithe and as a rule I do but when I can't see a way to I don't feel guilty about it. I don't observe any food laws, I really got away from that as soon as I was old enough to buy my own groceries, even when I was SDA I ate whatever and thought it was fine. I know there are healthy and unhealthy ways to eat and I don't think a pork chop is any worse than a big piece of chocolate cake, what was the question? ;) ha! | ||
| Andrew_adams |
Doug, lets take one topic at a time, is that ok? TITHE I returned tithe for about 40 years (ten percent) now I pay more that ten percent because of what I read in the Bible. Mal. 3:6 For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed. 7 Even from the days of your fathers ye are gone away from mine ordinances, and have not kept them. Return unto me, and I will return unto you, saith the LORD of hosts. But ye said, Wherein shall we return? 8 Will a man rob God? Yet ye have robbed me. But ye say, Wherein have we robbed thee? In tithes and offerings. The tithe was for the operation of the sanctuary and the poor. We don't have sanctuaries today (church = people) we do have the poor so that is my church that gets my tithe. AA | ||
| Windmotion |
Andrew, if you don't mind me jumping back in. I think the tithe is actually a good example of the difference between the old covenant and the new covenant. The word "tithe" isn't even mentioned in the New Testament, but growing up in a nonSDA church, I remember guilt-tripping sermons from pastors trying to squeeze more money from the congregation. They used Old Testament verses like "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," (Lev. 27:30) or "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. 27:32) and the verses you mentioned. The Old Testament Law had a prescribed minimum amount to give. The focus is on the method. In the New Testament, the focus is on the motive. Jesus said the Pharisees were really good with methods but ignored motive. "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices--mint, dill and cummin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law--justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former."(Mat 23:23) So what's a New Testament Christian to do? "For the Scripture says, "Do not muzzle the ox while it is treading out the grain," and "The worker deserves his wages."(1 Tim 5:18) Christians need to give back to God, not because they have to but because they want to as a recognization that everything comes from Him."Each man should give what he has decided in his heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver." (II Cor. 9:7) --Hannah | ||
| Fdauns |
Andrew, The question you ask is a good one. Why do we as Christians in general, or specific denominations, profess to be under the New Covenant but then go around behind and dredge up requirements of the Old Covenant to insist that our members follow. Tithe is an excellent example of that. Although we do have the story of Abraham paying 1/10 it is not called a tithe. But then in the instruction God gave Israel on Sinaia, what we call the Old Covenant it is commanded. The non-denominational church I attend has managed to have very few foundational beliefs. But they have managed to dust off the tithe one and trot it out as something all should do. Why ? Probably because we as Christians, or humans, are all just a little bit confused and tend to use whatever works. The challenge as I see it comes from the fact that the Old Covenant taught some very good things. It taught charity, it taught reverence for God, it taught respect for others. But it did so through what seems to us, as it did to Paul, to be superstitous observances and rituals. Through forms and rites, washings, sacred days etc. So when we look back and try to make sense of what we are to do we sometimes refer to both the teachings of the New Covenant and those teachings of the Old that support the same ideas. And sometimes we wind up bluring the distinction in our own minds. The issue is not really to do with the covenants as it is with the way we wind up treating them. Thats my $0.02. | ||
| Dennis |
BEYOND TITHES AND OFFERINGS It is often surprising to people to find that a large segment of people in Israel did NOT tithe! The owner of a farm had to tithe, but his hired hands were exempt. Was a hired hand required to to tithe on his salary? Not at all! There was no law that required a tenth of one's salary to be tithed (which was earned for services rendered). Only CROPS and ANIMALS of those who owned them were subject to the tithe. After all, the crops and the animals did not belong to the hired hand and only the increase from one's land or animals was subject to the tithe. There never was a tithe on monetary income. And note this. Fishermen did not tithe, though this industry is mentioned in the law (Lev. 11:9-12). Likewise, the mining industry is referred to (Deut. 8:9), but the tithe of minerals extracted from the earth was never called for. The lumber business is mentioned (I Kings 5:7-12) and construction work on buildings (I Kings 5:13-18) but tithes were not extracted from people who worked in those trades. The same held true for those earning an income from weaving, handicrafts, or from any form of manufacturing or merchandising. They all were immune from tithing including all those in the military and government workers. And though the Levites were commanded to pay a tenth of the tithe they received from the farmers and ranchers to the Priests, those Priests themselves were totally exempt from paying any tithe. To make it plain and simple, only the owners of farms and flocks were required to tithe. Thankfully, Jewish theologians know better than their Christian counterparts. They are well aware that only Levites have the right to receive tithe of the people. After all, the Jewish leaders have the Old Testament as their Scripture and that's what it commands. And since there is no temple in existence (and consequently no ordained Levites or Priests serving in a Temple), then a major factor in fulfilling the laws of tithing does not exist in our modern world. No one has the right to choose to whom they pay the tithe that God ordained to be paid to the Levites. Without the Levitical system in place, it is impossible to tithe. Tithing is a biblical law. But so is circumcision and so is the sacrificing of animals. Does that mean that Christians today should ritualistically circumcise their children or sacrifice animals because these laws were once ordained in the Bible? Why not make "principles" out of all the ritualistic laws? The New Testament shows a different set of legal precepts for financing Christian activities. For example, Jesus never received tithes for His ministry (His lineage was not from the tribe of Levi). The early Christian leaders were smart enough to know that they were not Levites. The OT tithing codes would have been far too limiting and/or restrictive for the generosity exhibited by the early Christians. The great Protestant Reformer, Zwingle, was strongly opposed to the legalistic tithing laws as well. Both BIBLICAL Sabbathkeeping and BIBLICAL tithing are impossible to practice in our modern society. The most strict observance, of these two Old Covenant directives, is merely a perversion today. The one's advocating these doctrines today, are simply picking and choosing what part they want to practice (cafeteria Christians). Under the New Covenant, we have the freedom to give according to how the Lord has blessed us. In summary, the DISTINCT stewardship differences between the Old and New Covenants are as follows: (1)OLD COVENANT (GOD determined the amount) (2)NEW COVENANT (WE determine the amount). God wants us to be cheerful, responsible, and generous stewards of the material blessings He has entrusted to us. Indeed, there is a higher standard of righteousness under the New Covenant of Jesus Christ. Generosity is the inevitable result of living a Spirit-filled life. HAPPY GIVING! Dennis J. Fischer | ||
| Colleentinker |
Dennis. . .Thank you. That was so clearly explained. The new covenant is a completely new reality. Our relationship with Jesus determines our behavior. The Holy Spirit makes possible what we cannot do by merely trying. The old covenant does not guide our behavior at all! Praise God for Jesus! Colleen | ||
| Doug222 |
Andrew, I agree with Hannah that the tithe system is a part of the Old Covenant. Dennis Fisher gave an excellent analysis of this topic in another thread (I believe it is called "Tithe = Tax"). Rather than get into a theological dicussion, let me just ask you a question. Now be honest with me. If you were suddenly to find out that the tithe was no longer required, how would your giving be affected? To be honest, when I initially discovered that the tithe was not a "requirement" for new covenant Christians, my giving initially went down. It was then that I realized that my giving (which was more than a tenth by the way) was based on compulsion. I had to face the fact that it was reflective of my relationship (or lack thereof)with God. Since I have grown in my understanding of the Gospel, my giving has increased, but I couldn't even tell you how much (percentage wise)I give now. It is no longer relevant. I have come to see stewardship in a totally different light. I now see my life as a gift from God. I have a responsibility to be a faithful steward in all that I do and all that I am. So, I now see my giving as an investment into the Kingdom--not for myself, but for others. As I have embraced the good news of the Gospel, I feel more compelled to give to support it so that others may experience the same grace. By the same token, if I do not see a particular ministry bearing fruit (in the sense of changed lives)I believe I have an obligation not to invest the resources (time, money, influence, etc)God has blessed me with there. You will rarely hear any church teach stewardship in this manner because it requires accountability on the part of the ministry. It is much easier to use guilt as a means of extracting as much money from their congregants (sp) as possible. I contend that if churches began to teach stewardship in the manner I describe (by focusing EVERYTHING on the Gospel), the giving would take care of itself. And if it didn't, that is not the churches problem. God will not allow His Word to return unto Him void. I am so grateful to be given the privilege to helping to share Jesus to a dying world. In His Grace Doug | ||
| Andrew_adams |
So far I agree with all comments. I still pay or return a tithe, more that a tithe, to the church, I just use the Bible version of CHURCH, church is found in the new test. 77 times, all 77 are refering to people, never is the word refering to a building. AA | ||
| Windmotion |
Thank you for your thought-provoking post, Doug. I think you have to be careful, though, treating a ministry too much like a business. God's desired rate of return may be different than ours. I think it was Hudson Taylor who was a missionary to China for multiple years before even one person was saved. Maybe I'm taking this part out of context. I really liked your post overall. --Hannah | ||
| Doug222 |
Hannah, Maybe I misstated my point. What I am saying is that as stewards we have an obligation to evaluate "where" we invest (I really like that word better than "give" or "return") God's resources. I no longer believe that the church is God's storehouse and that I have an obligation to blindly do my giving there without any consideration for what is being done with the resources (time, money, influence, etc.) that have been entrusted to it. A common teaching in many churches is that God expects you to give without regard to how the money is being used. If the money is misused, then God will hold the leadership accountable, but you have done your part. I do not believe this is biblical stewardship. In fact, in the parable of the unfaithful steward, the master condemns the steward who buried his talent in the ground out of fear of the master. I think when we give out of obligation, we are "playing it safe," just like the unfaithful steward. Instead, God wants us to use the resources he has given us to increase the Kingdom of God. As I said, most churches would be uncomfortablt with this teaching, but I believe it is Biblical. I look back at my past experience and realize that some of the churches that I have gone to in the past have had more interest in building programs and politics than the lives of people--even their own, let alone the lives of the unsaved. I will no longer support organizations (I hesitate to use the word "ministries) such as these. I am constantly amazed by the freedom that is found in the Gospel. Not freedom to do my own thing, but freedom to follow the Spirit "wherever" He may lead. Relationshps such as this are a threat to organized religion. In His Grace Doug | ||
| Andrew_adams |
You know I don't remember Jesus ever saying to bring money into a building, He always said to help people, the least of these His little ones, the widow, the fatherless, and the tranger, those that have a need. To support the church would be to support the people of God. AA | ||
| Fdauns |
Andrew, I don't think he said that directly. But two points are worth observing. 1. He did commend the widows mite and point out that she gave out of sacrifice. I think it would be fair to assume he did this for a reason. 2. Paul spoke at least once and possibly more than once about the saints giving an offering. So I do think Paul and Christ did promote the giving of a tithe or offering or whatever. But to the point about the church as people -vs- just the ministers salaries. It was, at least in Biblical times, to go to more than just the clergy. Paul's comments on the collections were always to assist other churches ( the entire church body from clergy to laity ) not for his personal salary. Paul made a point that he didn't take any compensation for his services but he did allow that it was something he could, and others could do. And in Pauls day there were the equivalent of some TV evangelists. ( IE. Preaching just to get the money ). Pauls observation was that even if the message was just being preached for profit it was being preached and he praised God. | ||
| Andrew_adams |
Fdauns, you are right, and when Jesus said what He said it was still in the old test. And yes I would love it if we took in money for churches (people). Then we would be bringing in more money than we do now. You know in Jesus day the leaders of His church talked to God face to face and they didn't get it. He called them some bad words. So down through the years the the leaders of the church think they have it all going on. Just remember, the leaders of the church didn't tell about Jesus birth, and they knew about it. They didn't tell about His entering the ministry, John the baptist did that. They didn't anoint his body before His death a lady of the night did that, and when He was on the cross He didn't tell the leaders of the church that they would be in heaven. Hummmmmm. Lets see, Wise men and shepards, a funny man in the wilderness, a lady of the night, and a sinner. Hummmm | ||
| Fdauns |
Andrew, The old covenant was still in force when Christ made those comments. But when Paul spoke of such things the new covenant was clearly established. Also Christ wasn't, even then, establishing a tithe, because the widow he commended was giving 100%. I'm in fundamental agreement with the whole idea you are driving at but I just felt the need to make the point that Christ and Paul did say to bring money in that is all. Your last statement : Lets see, Wise men and shepards, a funny man in the wilderness, a lady of the night, and a sinner. .... Is a very good point we would all do well to remember........ Happy New Year | ||
| Dennis |
Let us arrive at the real problem regarding the doctrine of tithing. The matter actually has nothing to do with the need to raise funds to support evangelistic and church activities. It ought to be a foregone conclusion that any minister or church organization that is benefitting the Christians they serve ought to be supported (even generously) by those who associate with the organization and love Christ and his teachings. This is especially so if those Christians are being properly edified and educated in the real teachings of the Holy Scriptures. There is nothing wrong in raising funds for Christian activities, but it should be done in accordance with biblical principles, not by misusing the tithing laws of the Bible. The matter of raising funds for Christian activities, as indicated earlier, is not the problem. It is the METHOD that is being used by ministers and churches to raise those funds that is at issue. Ministers who teach that God commands Christians to pay the biblical tithe to them or their churches (and citing some Scriptural verses on tithing to support their claims) are taking biblical teachings out of context and making God teach something that he has never taught. This tactic is outright deception on the part of those ministers. It further reflects a blatant misinterpretation of the concept of covenant. Sadly, this procedure is being used on a wide scale today and ministers are brazenly showing an attitude of arrogance in regard to this erroneous teaching. It is this reckless application of biblical laws that do not apply to modern Christians that is the difficulty. It is really an ATTITUDE problem with the preachers. The wrong attitudes of many ministers on the question of tithing are so engraven in stone that they think nothing of telling Christians that they must pay them the biblical tithe or suffer the consequence of God's wrath for their so-called "disobedience" to God. Such teaching is an outrageous example of the misuse (or abuse) of Scriptural doctrine. In no way is their teaching correct. The fact is, most preachers are not even close to abiding by the tithing laws of the Bible when they exact tithe from their congregations. What is sad is the fact that most of the preachers know they are taking the teaching of tithing completely out of context in the Bible when they use it to get funds to operate their Christian work. Let us note what their misapplication of Scripture is like, and sadly they usually perform their tasks without the slightest blushing for their transgression of biblical law. Furthermore, this activity is a disrespectful approach to (and a violation of) the laws of God. It shows an ATTITUDE of carelessness with the explicit commands of God. Paul and Jesus never used biblical tithe to support their ministries. Paul was too trained in biblical law to suggest such a thing. It would have been illegal for hm to take tithe because he was from Benjamin, not from Levi. Likewise, Jesus was not from the tribe of Levi. It comes as no surprise why Hasting's Dictionary of the Apostolic Church states: It is admitted universally that the payment of tithes or the tenths of possessions, for sacred purposes did not find a place within the Christian Church during the age covered by the apostles and their immediate successors." Likewise the Encyclopedia Britannica records: "The Christian Church depended at first on voluntary gifts from its members." And the Americana says: "It [tithing] was not practiced in the early Christian Church." Even the New Catholic Encyclopedia, published by a denomination that later called on its members to pay tithes, states: "The early Church had no tithing system...it was not that no need of supporting the Church existed or was recognized, but rather that other means appeared to suffice." These quotes are under the articles "Tithe" or "Tithing" in each case. There is not the slightest evidence in the New Testament or in early Church History, to show that the Christian Church used the tithing system of the Old Covenant to finance its operations. The rules are now changed. Since tithing is not applicable to members of the Christian ekklesia, all the the money (and this includes all the increase in crops and animals) belongs to the Christian who produces the income. This means 100% of his or her income still belongs to the income producer as far as God is concerned. Now some of that money will go to pay taxes (and the Bible states that taxes should be paid--Romans 13:6,7), but as far as God is concerned, 100% of the money Christians earn is theirs. This means that when a Christian gives the first 1% of income to support the work of the Gospel, that 1% is from the start reckoned as a FREE WILL offering. If one gives 5% or even 10% (or whatever one gives), it is ALL a free will offering. But with the tithing system which was in force in the Old Testament, that 1% (or more) of free will offering only started after one gave the required 10% to the Levite. But with Christians, all the support is reckoned to be FREE WILL. With the advent of the information age, the days of blind faith are over. Aristotle correctly stated, "truth invites examination." It takes a lot of faith to step out from under the rules and regulations, that do not exist, into an Absolute Love that does not depend on the position of the sun. We instead rely on the position of the Son, Who is within the kingdom of God, not on the position of the sun that shows us shadows of "lesser light." In His amazing grace, Dennis J. Fischer |
