| Author |
Message |
Jeremy
Registered user
Username: Jeremy
Post Number: 1210
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Friday, April 28, 2006 - 2:28 pm: |     |
Grace,
You wrote: "What would be the point of proclaiming the gospel or praying for people?"
In addition to what Colleen posted above, the Bible says that the Word is the means that God uses to regenerate people's dead spirits.
quote:"So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ." (Romans 10:17 NASB.)
"for you have been born again not of seed which is perishable but imperishable, that is, through the living and enduring word of God.
24For,
'ALL FLESH IS LIKE GRASS,
AND ALL ITS GLORY LIKE THE FLOWER OF GRASS.
THE GRASS WITHERS,
AND THE FLOWER FALLS OFF,
25BUT THE WORD OF THE LORD ENDURES FOREVER'
And this is the word which was preached to you." (1 Peter 1:23-25 NASB.)
So our spirits are born again by the Spirit (John 3), through the Word, through faith. God, through His Word, produces faith in us.
So, the preaching of the Word is important because it is His Word that God uses to bring people to eternal life. Of course, God does not need us--He can and has spoken to people directly to save them (Paul for one example). But for some reason, He does choose to use us and commands us to preach the Gospel. 
Jeremy
(Message edited by Jeremy on April 28, 2006) |
Riverfonz
Registered user
Username: Riverfonz
Post Number: 1593
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Friday, April 28, 2006 - 3:34 pm: | |
Grace,
You are asking a lot of great questions that everyone has when starting to grasp the great Biblical doctrines of sovereign grace. As Colleen mentioned, the Reformed faith (BTW, the systematic theology text by Wayne Grudem that colleen mentioned is highly recommended and easy to read), has two sides of the coin--God's total sovereignty, and human responsibility. Once I was able to put full faith in the fact that the Bible teaches both, then these great doctrines take on a new life. You feel more freedom, and you realize that everything is in God's hands.
There are a couple of books to recommend for further study: 1.Putting Amazing Back Into Grace by Michael Horton, and 2. Chosen By God by RC Sproul. These books are so well written, and brings the Biblical evidence into sharp focus.
Stan |
Chris
Registered user
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1220
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 28, 2006 - 4:24 pm: | |
I think that anyone who really wants to get a handle on this topic should also read Chosen but Free by Norman Geisler as a companion book to Chosen by God by R.C. Sproul. Together these two books form a dialogue that will help you understand how two Christians, who are equally conservative and equally strong on the innerancy of scripture, can understand the biblical data in differing ways.
By the way, both men call themselves "Calvinist", but Geisler calls himself a "moderate Calvinist". Geisler interacts with the actual writings of Calvin to demonstrate that the "Calvinism" so common today is more extreme then what Calvin actually believed or taught. There is a great appendix in Chosen but Free called "Was Calvin a Calvinist". It's very interesting stuff!
Regardless of where you come down in this debate it's worth reading both of these books just to understand the issues completely. Too often I come across people who's arguments are greatly weakened simply because they do not really understand their opponent's position.
Chris |
Riverfonz
Registered user
Username: Riverfonz
Post Number: 1594
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Friday, April 28, 2006 - 10:41 pm: | |
Jeremy,
Those are some excellent posts above. You have become an articulate defender of the true faith taught by Jesus, the apostles, and restored by the great Reformers Calvin and Luther. Those posts have been of great help. Keep up the good work.
Stan |
Snowboardingmom
Registered user
Username: Snowboardingmom
Post Number: 77
Registered: 11-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, April 29, 2006 - 8:31 am: | |
Thanks for the book recommendations.
This morning, I was reading a chapter in "Classic Christianity" by Bob George called 'Living By a Higher Law'. He gives a really good illustration about legalism (back to the grace thing). He tells of a person who is sitting in a room listening to music enjoying himself. His body naturally reacts to the music by tapping his toes and snapping his fingers to the rhythm of the music. He goes on to say that a deaf person walks into the room and sees the hearing person's actions and begins to imitate him. At first it's clumsy, but after awhile, he is able to "keep in time" with rhythm without actually hearing the music but by just following the actions of the hearer. The deaf guy wonders why it's so fun, and that it's okay, but not that great. There is no way an outsider can tell who the deaf person is, because the actions are the same, even though in reality there is a big difference.
George goes on to say, "When we are approaching the Christian life in the way God intended, our attitudes and actions are a response to the "music" we hear. That music is our personal relationship witht the living Christ who indwells us. It's the music of walking in a trust relationship with a loving God and Father that we are learning to love more and more every day. On the other hand, a legalist couldn't care less if you are stone-deaf to the love and grace of God. All legalism cares about is getting people to tap and snap at the right time. The legalist will always say that an emphasis on grace will lead to more sinning."
It doesn't do any good to put efforts towards "work" if our hearts aren't in the right place. This illustration taken a step further: God through His grace provides us with both the music and the gift of "hearing". Our natural physiologic response, like a reflex, responds by works -- but works guided by the Spirit (or music) . Without the music or the ability to hear (which is only provided by God), it's meaningless.
It's starting to make more and more sense. |
Flyinglady
Registered user
Username: Flyinglady
Post Number: 2500
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, April 29, 2006 - 9:41 am: | |
Snowboardingmom,
The analogy of music and the deaf person is so right.
"This illustration taken a step further: God through His grace provides us with both the music and the gift of "hearing". Our natural physiologic response, like a reflex, responds by works -- but works guided by the Spirit (or music) . Without the music or the ability to hear (which is only provided by God), it's meaningless."
I do agree with this. And yes, it is starting to make sense.
|
Dennis
Registered user
Username: Dennis
Post Number: 682
Registered: 4-2000
| | Posted on Saturday, April 29, 2006 - 10:23 am: | |
I heartily recommend Bob George's book, "Classic Christianity." Also, listen to his radio program (PEOPLE TO PEOPLE MINISTRIES) at www.realanswers.net . Their Project Manager is Richard Pfeifer, a former SDA pastor in southern California. He interned under Dr.Walter Rea.
Dennis Fischer |
Doc
Registered user
Username: Doc
Post Number: 211
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 29, 2006 - 2:46 pm: | |
Hello Grace and Joyce, and everyone,
Don't worry about not being happy with limited atonement. Neither am I. It is not the only possible doctrine accepted by evangelical Christians. Admittedly this is a difficult subject, but this is usually considered the weakest link in the Calvinist structure.
The Bible very clearly teaches in several verses that Jesus died for the whole world, even for those who reject him. In this case the first illustration with the doughnuts is the right one.
For instance:
"We have put our hope in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, especially of those who believe." 1 Timothy 4: 10.
"I urge then, first of all, that requests, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for everyone - for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. This is good, and pleases God our Saviour, who wants all men to be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth. For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Jesus Christ, who gave himself as a ransom for all men..." 1 Timothy 2: 1-6.
"He (Jesus Christ) is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world." 1 John 2: 2.
"But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them - bringing swift destruction on themselves." 2 Peter 2: 1.
The way I would put it, is that Jesus died for everyone, but his death is only effective for those who believe.
God bless,
Adrian |
Snowboardingmom
Registered user
Username: Snowboardingmom
Post Number: 78
Registered: 11-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, April 29, 2006 - 4:49 pm: | |
This afternoon, I've been reading a lot about Calvinism and God's sovereignty. I came across this website that replaces TULIP with ELECT. It's interesting. The website tells why they use ELECT instead. It's pretty much the same (I think), but ELECT has a much more positive tone to it (at least I think so). What do you think? Is it still accurate to Calvinist beliefs?
http://www.biblelighthouse.com/sovereignty/elect.htm
Anyway, it's been an interesting study with lots of reading this afternoon. I'm far from knowing where I stand, but I'm also in no rush to get there. This is really fascinating, and I love learning about God's sovereignty, but I also realize realistically this will probably take quite awhile to really comprehend. This is a complete mind shift type of comprehension. This makes you look at everything differently. The more I learn about it, the more answers AND questions I have. |
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 3861
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 29, 2006 - 10:54 pm: | |
Grace, thanks for your Bob George quote. It's a powerful analogy. I also liked the "ELECT" acronym described on the website you linked above. I admit to having trouble with the "L" of the TULIPóthe texts Adrian quoted are some of the reasons for my difficulty.
Yes, I believe the elect are the savedóand for them, Christ's atonement was "effectual". (I still like the sentence, "Jesus' blood was SUFFICIENT for the whole world but EFFECTUAL for the elect.) But I do see the Bible saying also that Jesus died for the sins of the world, not just for the sins of the elect. This detail, though, doesn't bother me a great deat because I believe there is something I can't see that is going on. Jesus' death had to be effectual for the sin of all creation, because all of creation will be remade in sinless perfection.
At this point I see myself as neither a "calvinist" nor an "arminian"óthe labels feel too rigid to me. I know that I lean strongly toward four of the five points of the TULIP, but I am open to the idea that God may be at work in ways I can't explain completely. (I admit I really may be blinded in some wayóbut I am actively praying that God will teach me truth.)
Colleen |
Dennis
Registered user
Username: Dennis
Post Number: 684
Registered: 4-2000
| | Posted on Saturday, April 29, 2006 - 10:59 pm: | |
Adrian,
Why are not all men saved? The Arminian view likewise imposes a "limited atonement" based solely upon human will and/or response.
Dennis Fischer
|
Riverfonz
Registered user
Username: Riverfonz
Post Number: 1604
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, April 29, 2006 - 11:23 pm: | |
Grace,
I like that acronym ELECT, and that site looks very good, and when the terminology is explained better, it is more effective in conveying Biblical truth. I agree with all five points.
Stan |
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 3866
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 30, 2006 - 9:59 pm: | |
Dennis, good point about the Arminian "limited atonement".
Colleen |
Doc
Registered user
Username: Doc
Post Number: 213
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 01, 2006 - 10:37 am: | |
Dear Dennis,
Thank you for your remark, though I did not in fact mention Arminians at all in my post.
The point I think I should like to make, or was trying to make, is that if we wish to establish some doctrine, then surely our understanding must be based on everything the Bible has to say about the particular subject, not just one or two isolated proof texts plus reams of philosophical speculation.
From the verses I mentioned it is clear, at least to me, that Jesus died for all men, the whole world. It is also clear from Scripture that not everyone will be saved. I donít really think I need to prove that, do I? Just try John 3: 18, 36 for instance. Any understanding of the atonement that is truly Biblical, therefore, will require that both of these facts be accommodated.
So if we say either, if Christ died for everyone, then everyone will be saved, or, not everyone will be saved, so Christ did not die for everyone, then these arguments may sound logical, but as they both involve the denial of clear Biblical statements, neither can be right.
Sorry to labour the point,
God bless,
Adrian |
Dennis
Registered user
Username: Dennis
Post Number: 686
Registered: 4-2000
| | Posted on Monday, May 01, 2006 - 10:46 pm: | |
Adrian,
Thank you for your comments. What is meant by inclusive words like "all" and "whoever" in some NT passages? Clearly, these salvific terms do not teach universalism which is foreign to Scripture. Thus, by utilizing the important hermeneutical tool of CONTEXT, we can discover unity of biblical thought. The context, for these inclusive words, may vary from just a few verses or chapters to even the entire Bible. God does not call everyone. Indeed, not every person loves Jesus in spite of their knowing about him. Obviously, we cannot choose what we do not desire. This world is not filled with saints. If in doubt, we can simply take a quick look around in our communities to find that many people are perpetual rebels against God. Born as rebels, many die as rebels as well.
Therefore, knowing that universalism is unbiblical, how should we interpret or understand these inclusive terms of "all" and "whosoever" in some NT passages? Who is Jesus drawing or compelling to himself? Since we agree that universalism is out of the picture, this leaves us with only one option; specifically, these inclusive words refer to the ELECT or CHOSEN. Jesus did not endure the cross with the possibility of nobody deciding to follow him--a failed mission. Without God doing something first, fallen man would never desire Christ due to his moral inability. God is not at our mercy. We are not the captains of our destiny. Indeed, we are at God's mercy. We are in desperate need of a Savior and Substitute.
Dennis Fischer |
Doc
Registered user
Username: Doc
Post Number: 216
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 06, 2006 - 7:03 am: | |
Hello again Dennis,
Sorry to have been away for a while. My server was down, and I was then busy for a few days.
I have been thinking a bit more about your question on limited atonement. As far as I am aware from my theology studies, I think two areas are generally distinguished - the extent of the atonement and the application of the atonement.
The difference between the way Calvinism and Arminianism would see this, is that in Calvinism the extent is limited - Christ did not die for everyone, but the application is unlimited - all those who Christ died for will neccesarily be saved.
In Arminiamism, on the other hand, the extent is umlimited, Christ died for everyone, but the application is limited - only those will be saved who respond to the gospel in faith.
I think I have correctly represented the two views here.
More below,
Adrian |
Doc
Registered user
Username: Doc
Post Number: 217
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 06, 2006 - 8:53 am: | |
Dennis,
Thanks for your reply as well.
First of all, "We are in desperate need of a Saviour and Substitute." You won't find me arguing with that.
We agree then that the Bible does not teach universalism. Sometimes, though, we end up misunderstanding each other as we may use terms differently. What I understand universalism to teach is that everyone will eventually be saved. Even if people have not lived as Christians in this life, and they may go to hell when they die, this punishment is only temporary and corrective and they will get to heaven in the end. That is the way I understand it and it is unbiblical.
I also see that not everyone in the world is a Christian, this is quite clear.
The scenario you give is one possible explanation but it is not the only imaginable one.
I am not saying I necessarily agree with the Arminian view, I am not sure yet, but it does offer an altermative. Welsey believed in "total depravity" just like his Calvinist contemporaries. He said that no-one could be saved without the intervention of the Holy Spirit, but believed this was a general work, called "prevenient grace." This is based on verses like, "No-one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him" (John 7: 44) compared with, "But I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself." (John 12: 32) - same word for draw in both cases, and about the Holy Spirit, "He will convict the world of guilt in regard to sin and righteousness and judgement." (John 16: 8).
The work of the Holy Spirit, however, can be resisted. This is seen most clearly in the history of Israel. The nation of Israel was chosen by God to be his people, but simply being the elect did not guarantee that they were obedient or that they inherited the promises. Stephen says they resisted the Holy Spirit (Acts 7: 51-53).
Jesus said they refused to listen to the prophets, "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing." (Luke 14: 34).
So those who respond would be those who hear God's call, are enabled by the Holy Spirit to understand it, and are willing to come.
If Jesus really knew that God had decreed the damnation of these people before the beginning of time, for his good pleasure, then wouldn't Jesus be somewhat hypocritical for pretending to be upset about it? Though the Bible says, "He committed no sin and no deceit was found in his mouth." (1 Peter 2: 22).
Anyway, just a few thoughts again.
God bless,
Adrian |
Dennis
Registered user
Username: Dennis
Post Number: 693
Registered: 4-2000
| | Posted on Saturday, May 06, 2006 - 5:45 pm: | |
Adrian,
Due to time constraints, I will abbreviate my response. Thank you for your comments. Soteriologically, your citing Old Testament examples is not valid in light of the New Covenant teachings of Jesus Christ on soteriology. In the Arminianism vs. Calvinism controversy, it all boils down to who wears the crown, shares the glory, or who gets all the glory. The vast majority of the adherents of the Christian faith today seem to say that "God helps me to save myself" (a partnership salvation as taught by Adventism, Catholicism, and many others).
Certainly, God is not at our mercy, but rather we are at His mercy. Biblically, all glory belongs to God in providing our salvation. Under the Arminian view, fallen man deserves some of the credit for his wise decision to cooperate with God on behalf of his salvation. All in all, it comes down to either cooperative grace or free grace. Since my righteousness has absolutely no salvific merit, I am compelled to embrace and exalt free grace alone through the finished work of Christ alone.
His grace still amazes me,
Dennis Fischer |
Doc
Registered user
Username: Doc
Post Number: 222
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 16, 2006 - 12:47 pm: | |
Hello Dennis,
Thanks again for your reply. You always seem to raise so many issues in one post, I don't really know where to start. I hope to get back to this conversation sometime soon, but I am afraid I am so busy at the moment.
It is exam time right now, and as I am teaching both theology and English at the moment, I have to give all my students exams and tests and essays, and then mark them, so I am really snowed under. Not to mention church, and life in general. I would like to get back though.
Right now, I have another question for you, if you don't mind. I saw on another thread you wrote something about tithing that was certainly very informative. It appears you have looked into this topic very thoroughly. On my last two visits to the Bible College where I teach (in Budapest) I have managed to get into "discussions" about tithing. Today, one of the teachers was enthusing over how he had spent the whole lesson talking about tithing (that is, advocating it) so I can hardly say I was supportive. One thing that my studies of Adventism, as well as other things, have convinced me of, is that tithing is very definitely Old Covenant!
So I questioned his conclusions, and said I thought tithing was part of the Mosaic covenant, and so it has been abolished. So he came up with the usual reply, that Abraham and Jacob mentioned tithing, and that is before Moses. So I came up with the usual reply, that cicumcision and blood sacrifices also go back to Abraham (before in the latter case) and they were certainly abolished at the cross. So I asked, if we retain tithing, then why not circumcision, the Sabbath, and blood sacrifices?
At which he said, that these were different, as all these had a typological value, like the Sabbath is a type of rest in Christ, and "circumcision of the heart" is still valid, according to the New Testament, but what is the "fulfilment" of tithing?
I must say, I could not answer that question at once! Later on, the idea came to me that we now offer our whole selves as living sacrifices to Christ (Romans 12: 1) and not just a portion of our money.
So after all that ramble and preamble, can you, or anyone else, think of anything for which tithing may be a "type?" I suppose not everything in the law has to be a type, but a lot of the cermonial stuff certainly is.
I would appreciate any help, and this is definitely a "want to know the answer" type question.
Bye for now,
Adrian |
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 3964
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 16, 2006 - 4:50 pm: | |
Dennis really is a tithing expert, so he will give a much more complete answeróbut I believe tithing was a way for God to teach Israel to realize that His blessings were not just to be taken for granted. OT tithe was part of Israel's ceremonial thanksgiving to God; they used it, at least in part, to celebrate God's bounty. It was not a "tax" in the same way we see it today.
It was a shadow of the complete sacrifice of all we are and all we have for the glory of God and for being available for Him to bless others through us. It was a way God taught Israel that their covenant with Him demanded not just certain sacrifices but also commitment of their material blessings.
Others will doubtless have more details; it really is an interesting subject.
Colleen |
Doc
Registered user
Username: Doc
Post Number: 223
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 16, 2006 - 11:08 pm: | |
Thanks Colleen,
That sounds a pretty good answer, and it was sort of what I thought, eventually :-)
God bless,
Adrian |
Dennis
Registered user
Username: Dennis
Post Number: 711
Registered: 4-2000
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 17, 2006 - 6:33 pm: | |
Adrian,
Tithing was a common practice in the ancient Near East. God simply utilized a practice that was already well-known and greatly expanded it. The biblical accounts of Abraham and Jacob clearly reveal the voluntary nature of tithing. In fact, Abraham didn't keep any of the spoils of war. Later on, Moses revealed a separate law pertaining to the spoils of war that had a different percentage from tithing. Historically, tithing served several roles as a tribute, vow, governmental tax, welfare for the needy, support of the Levitcal priesthood, annual parties where all benefited from the celebration, etc. The laws surrounding tithing and sabbathing were clearly ceremonial in nature. Both changed within the Old Covenant itself from time to time. Moral laws never changed.
Actually, the tithing doctrine was developed over the forty years of the Exodus period. Its final development came at the close of the Exodus (the last month of the fortieth year). In that final month, Moses brought the Israelites together in order to give them his final instructions. He found it necessary to make some adjustments on many of the points of the law. This was needed because the Israelites were leaving their nomadic existence in the desert and they were entering a civilized type of environment in the Land of Canaan. The laws that had been given to guide them in the wilderness had to be adjusted to account for this new civilized type of life which they were about to encounter in the Land of Canaan.
It became clear to Moses that the giving of the tithe had to be different in the Land of Canaan than in the wilderness. That land was well over one hundred miles long and some fifty miles wide. The various Israelite tribes were going to be scattered over an expansive area and even the Levites and Priests were to live in forty-eight cities located throughout the land (Joshua 21).
This dispersal of the people made it difficult to pay the tithe at one central location. This prompted Moses to authorize the forty-eight priestly cities scattered over the land as official sites where tithes could be stored or to be paid in certain tithing years. Moses commanded that the Israelites were no longer to perform their tithing obligations in the manner they had observed them in the wilderness. "You shall not do at all what we are doing here today, every man doing whatever is right in his own eyes" (Deut. 12:8 NASB). Moses began to regulate the religious activities of the Israelites with more precision. He made the laws more strict and with greater detail for Israel's observance in the Land of Canaan.
Look at what Moses did. Since the tribe of Levi was a small tribe in Israel, Moses saw that tithing ten percent of all agricultural and animal increase to them every single year (without any let-up) would give the Levites tremendous financial advantage over the other Israelites. He would have none of this.
When Moses saw that the Levites would be receiving more money than ordinary Israelites, he decided on a plan that would equalize the situation and let all Israelites have a share in the economic blessings that God was giving. For example, when the Israelites arrived at the Temple, Moses commanded them to do something with their tithe that they were not allowed to do while in the wilderness. They could now use part of their tithe to rejoice before God at the central sanctuary. They were also to share it with the Levites (Deut. 14:27). While formerly, only the Levites were to be given all tithes, now it was different.
In a seven year sabbatical period, the first, second, fourth and fifth years were times when the tithe payer himself could eat of the tithe at the Temple with the Levites having only a share. But in every third and sixth year, the tithe was to be kept in the Israelite's own home area. In those years the tithe was not be brought to the central sanctuary but given to the Levites and needy peoples located in the communities throughout the country (Deut. 14:28,29).
Look at what this meant. Every third and sixth year of a seven year sabbatical period were the only times that Levites got the full tithe (with the exception of that part of the tithe which went to the fatherless, strangers,and widows, that is, to those who were destitute). This system was most equitable.
What must be clearly understood about this tithing plan devised by Moses is that there was only one tithe being discussed. It was one tithe being used differently in the various years of a sabbatical cycle. There was no so-called "second" or "third" tithe in the plan of Moses. To find reference to those extra "second" or "third" tithes, on has to leave the Bible and consult the opinions of various Jewish interpreters who (after the Babylonian Captivity, when so much previous knowledge from the Bible had been lost) became so strict that they invented a second and third tithe to show an excessive "righteousness" (Tobit 1:7; Josephus, Antiquities, IV, 240). The so-called second and third tithes were devised through traditional concepts, and not from heeding the biblical commands of Moses.
Making laws into principles when God has given no such authorization to do so is risky business and it has no sanction within the Holy Scriptures. If one wishes to make tithing a "principle," then why not make all rituals of the Bible to be principles? For example, the wearing of phylacteries is an Old Testament teaching (Numbers 15:37-39), but if one insists that the wearing of phylacteries should be done today as a principle, it then means that people would still be performing this law which is no longer necessary. But applying the "principle" is actually tampering with the laws of God and making them fit the human concepts that people have devised to hold on to old teachings that God has long ago rescinded or changed.
All in all, tithing was an equitable way of financing the mission and ministry of the Hebrew people. However, the half-shekel tax brought in much more support than tithing did. The sacred tithe was not by itself considered a shadow, like the Sabbath was (Col. 2:16,17), pointing to anything specific in the New Covenant--other than supporting the Levitical system which collectively pointed to Christ. Furthermore, like the weekly Sabbath, tithing cannot be accurately practiced without the Levitical system being fully in place. Both the sabbath and tithe laws were ceremonial in nature as part of the Old Covenant alone.
Dennis Fischer
|
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 3975
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 17, 2006 - 9:57 pm: | |
Thank you, Dennis. Your final point is really incisive: "Furthermore, like the weekly Sabbath, tithing cannot be accurately practiced without the Levitical system being fully in place. Both the sabbath and tithe laws were ceremonial in nature as part of the Old Covenant alone. "
Colleen |
Doc
Registered user
Username: Doc
Post Number: 225
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 24, 2006 - 1:08 pm: | |
Yeah, thanks for that Dennis!
I'll file it away for future reference,
Adrian |
|
