In this post, I would like to answer some objections that have occurred in my head. If you have others I have not thought of then please comment them.
First, now someone might say that Jesus is speaking to Pharisees under the Old Covenant. The Christian is under the New Covenant for the Book of Hebrews informs us that the Old has passed away.
I would simply ask, “Is ‘thou shalt not murder’ still in place?” Or how about honoring your parents?
It has been argued that if Jesus positively gives us commands, and He does about these things, then those things apply and only those things.
My response would still be the same. For there are many laws that Jesus does not address specifically that the Old Testament would address. For instance, Jesus never mentions homosexuality, yet who doubts that Jesus did so implicitly by quoting Leviticus in other matters?
Therefore, Jesus’ clear teaching in Matt 5 that He did not come to abolish the Law but to fulfill it informs the Christian the Law is still in place, even more so for God’s people.
2) This could lead to legalism.
Yes, it could. That was exactly the problem Jesus was speaking to. Yet does Jesus do away with the Law simply because men have built Tradition around it? In the Sermon on the Mount Jesus spends much time debunking the Traditions of men by saying, “You have heard it said….” Yet Jesus doesn’t do away with the laws such as adultery. Instead Jesus strengthens the Law to the point that it breaks the backs of men’s souls.
The point of the Sermon on the Mount is to teach that the Law of God points to a perfect and Holy God who demands nothing short of Glory and perfection. It is to bring men to their knees and cast themselves on the mercy of God.
3) How could we keep the law if we cannot keep the law?
It is intuitive that Christians must keep the law. Even my own pastor would agree that even Christians desire to do what is right. The New Testament however teaches that no man is able to keep the Law.
The answer according to the New Testament is that Christ fulfills the Law for us. Therefore, since we are joined to Him by faith, we have a new life. This new life in Christ desires and delights in the Law of God. We do not keep it to gain righteousness, but because we possess that alien righteousness by faith. The true regenerated heart will cling to Christ.
4) The New Testament teaches us Principles, not Law?
This objection begs the question. Where do the principles of tithing or Sabbath observance (a day of rest once a week) or other aspects of these principles come from?
The book of Genesis is clearly taught in Romans 2 that God has written His Law upon the hearts of men. Have you ever wondered why men are trying to “earn” their way into heaven? The answer is simple again. God made Adam in the Garden of Eden to obey the Law and to gain his way to eternal life in the Covenant of Works.
No one is recorded as to commanding tithing to Melchizedeck. Yet Abraham tithed to him and his priesthood long before the Old Covenant. This is not merely because Abraham felt this to be a good idea of worship. He was obeying a command recognized universally by true men of God as dictated by God at Creation.
There is much more that could be said and other perspectives on this very subject that I haven't even begun to explore. I am sure there are plenty of other objections. Perhaps you will think of many I haven’t thought of. It is late, and I am not able to think anymore.
God Bless
7 comments:
There is no Biblical evidence of your conclusion about Abraham - "He was obeying a command recognized universally by true men of God as dictated by God at Creation".
Please consider viewing a free video "The Truth About Abram's Tithe" at www.inyourbible.com .
George
The book of Genesis is more than just a story. It is a part of the 5 books of the Law. Do we not see murder is wrong in the account of Cain and Abel? Do we not see capital punishment instituted in Genesis 9? Is not marriage established and reaffirmed by Jesus. Why is Jesus able to affirm marriage and not Tithing?
Also, the New Testament has much to say about Genesis. Hebrews tells us there was a priesthood prior to Moses and Abraham. It also tells us this was an act of worship. Worship is dictated by God. We tend to think we may worship anyway we want.
The main point is that I quoted Jesus Himself. Therefore I was not relying upon the Old Covenant for absolute proof. Jesus said to the Pharisees that they ought to Tithe plus keep the weightier matters of the law. What could be more clear than that?
If you have others I have not thought of then please comment them.
…………………………………………….
Russ: The objections you conjured up in your head miss the point. I have hundreds of objections which you are probably not willing to deal with. And I am sure that George has another hundred or so also.
………………………………………
First, now someone might say that Jesus is speaking to Pharisees under the Old Covenant.
………………………………………
Russ: That “someone:” is Jesus Himself. Read the text! Jesus said he is discussing “matters of the law” for his Jewish followers. In Matt 23:2-3 he says to obey the scribes and Pharisees because they “sit in Moses’ seat.” How do you get around that clear context?
………………………………………..
The Christian is under the New Covenant for the Book of Hebrews informs us that the Old has passed away.
………………………………………..
Russ: Yes. That is clear in Hebrews, chapters 8 and 10. It is also clear in Hebrews 7:18 that the laws governing the sustenance of the Levitical priesthood were abolished (Compare 7:5, 12, 18).
………………………………….
I would simply ask, “Is ‘thou shalt not murder’ still in place?” Or how about honoring your parents?
……………………………………
Russ: When the Declaration of Independence was signed, was British law which forbade murder still in place? Yes. But it did not apply to the USA any more. A totally “New” Law was constituted on better principles which included the good and moral things from the “Old” law which reflected natural law. Why is that so hard to understand? It is simple to demonstrate.
…………………………………
There are many laws that Jesus does not address specifically that the Old Testament would address.
………………………………….
Russ: Jesus did not need to address all of the Mosaic Law. He was still living under its full jurisdiction and taught Jews to obey all of them. Jesus lived and taught and died under the Old Covenant before Calvary.
…………………………………
Therefore, Jesus’ clear teaching in Matt 5 that He did not come to abolish the Law but to fulfill it informs the Christian the Law is still in place, even more so for God’s people.
………………………………….
Russ: Not at all. Your argument proves too much and defeats your own logic. Jesus taught that “until all the law is fulfilled” the Jews were still obligated to observe “all of the law.” Yet there is not a single Jewish or Christian church who obeys Jesus in that!!! It is either all or none. When you teach that the statutes and judgments no longer apply you place yourself under the curse of the whole law per Deut 26 to 28 and Neh 10:29.
…………………………………..
Instead Jesus strengthens the Law to the point that it breaks the backs of men’s souls.
………………………………………
Russ: You never define the word “law” but toss it around to condemn others. Tell me, what is the difference between the old and new covenants?
………………………………………..
The point of the Sermon on the Mount is to teach that the Law of God points to a perfect and Holy God who demands nothing short of Glory and perfection.
………………………………………….
Russ: And that perfect sinless righteousness can only be found in the sinless Jesus who imputes that righteousness to believers by faith alone. That is what Luther and Calvin taught!!! The whole law of God as seen in Mt 5:20-38 and not just the Ten Commandments is the context.
………………………………..
It is intuitive that Christians must keep the law.
………………………………….
Russ: Wrong if you mean the whole Mosaic Law. Correct if you mean the inner natural moral law written in the heart. That is what Luther and Calvin taught also. And tithing is not included.
………………………………………..
Even my own pastor would agree that even Christians desire to do what is right.
……………………………………………
Russ: The Holy Spirit writes the new covenant law of love and obedience in the heart of the believer who is a new creation. And tithing is not part of that law which lost all of its glory per 2nd Cor 3:10.
…………………………………..
The New Testament however teaches that no man is able to keep the Law.
……………………………………
Russ: Paul said that Jewish believers “died” and the Mosaic Law cannot tell a dead man what to do. See Romans 7:4.
………………………………………
This new life in Christ desires and delights in the Law of God.
………………………………………..
Russ: That “Law of God” in Romans 7:25 is not referring to the Mosaic Law of Romans 7:4! It is the new covenant new law of love. Read Romans 8:1. There is not a speck of the Mosaic Law which can condemn the believer –including tithing.
……………………………………
4) The New Testament teaches us Principles, not Law?
……………………………………..
Russ: A new “covenant” is a new set of spiritual laws, or principles written in the heart per Hebrews 8:8-13.
…………………………………..
The book of Genesis is clearly taught in Romans 2 that God has written His Law upon the hearts of men.
………………………………………
Russ: Not the Mosaic Law, but the natural law.
Rom 2:14-15 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)
………………………………………..
No one is recorded as to commanding tithing to Melehizedek.
………………………………………….
Russ: No one in the Bible. However, there are cuneiform and hieroglyphic documents which prove that tithing was very common among pagan idol worshippers before Abraham’s time. It was nothing new and was commanded by pagan law.
………………………………………..
This is not merely because Abraham felt this to be a good idea of worship. He was obeying a command recognized universally by true men of God as dictated by God at Creation.
………………………………………….
Russ: I agree with George. You have invented this and are rewriting the Word of God to make it agree with your opinion.
…………………………………………..
There is much more that could be said and other perspectives on this very subject that I haven't even begun to explore.
…………………………………………..
Russ: Hang in there long enough and George and I will use God’s truth to change your mind.
………………………………………..
I am sure there are plenty of other objections. Perhaps you will think of many I haven’t thought of.
…………………………………………….
Russ: I have just begun.
…………………………………………….
The book of Genesis is more than just a story. It is a part of the 5 books of the Law.
…………………………………
Russ: Please do not insult my friend.
…………………………………….
Do we not see murder is wrong in the account of Cain and Abel? Do we not see capital punishment instituted in Genesis 9?
………………………………………….
Russ: Murder and capital punishment are crimes against universal natural law and exist in all societies. However that proves nothing because idolatry, worship of the heavens, child sacrifice and temple prostitution also existed in most primitive societies. The mere existence of something before the Mosaic Law thus proves absolutely nothing unless God specifically punished the crime.
…………………………………….
Is not marriage established and reaffirmed by Jesus. Why is Jesus able to affirm marriage and not Tithing?
……………………………………….
Russ: Jesus did not oppose plural wives or condemn Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David, Solomon, etc for having many wives. Does that make it right? Concerning tithing, Jesus affirmed it as long as the Levitical priesthood existed. However, when the Levitical priesthood ended the law of tithing (Heb 7:5) was changed (7:12) and the “change” was its total abolishment (7:18) in favor of the new covenant principles (7:19). Is that not what God’s Word clearly teaches?
…………………………………
Hebrews tells us there was a priesthood prior to Moses and Abraham. It also tells us this was an act of worship. As head of households they were also priests.
…………………………………
Russ: Hebrews does not inform the reader that almost every major Canaanite city was ruled by priest-kings such as Melchizedek. Consider the Philistine Abimelech and and Canaanite Adoni-zedek. Also, where does the Bible say that Abraham’s tithe to Melchizedek was “an act of worship”? Either post the text or retract the statement. According to most commentaries the 90% of Genesis 14:21 was controlled by pagan Arab tradition. There is no reason not to conclude that the 10% of 14:20 was also.
………………………………..
The main point is that I quoted Jesus Himself. Therefore I was not relying upon the Old Covenant for absolute proof. Jesus said to the Pharisees that they ought to Tithe plus keep the weightier matters of the law. What could be more clear than that?
………………………………………..
Russ: Again Jesus himself said that he was discussing “matters of the law.” He told the Jews whom he healed to go and show themselves to the priests but he could not tell the Gentiles whom he headed to do the same thing. Neither could he tell them to tithe to the Temple. Think about it. How clear could Jesus be yet he is quoted out of context.
Russell Earl Kelly. Check me out on the web for much more
Russ, your response was far too long to even begin to deal with, so I'll just pick a couple. This statement seems to be the heart of the matter.
"Russ: A new “covenant” is a new set of spiritual laws, or principles written in the heart per Hebrews 8:8-13."
This is the problem. There are not a "new set of spiritual laws" but the same law applied under a New Covenant. If you study the term Law in Jer. 31, I think you will see it is refering to the Decalogue and the whole Law itself as summed up in the Decalogue. Tithing would most certainly have been included.
You make the point that Jesus is speaking to Jewish leaders who were not yet under the New Covenant. Therefore you separate His commandments to them from the future church. However this is what I was attempting to answer. Jesus is not doing away with the "Law" and never says that the Law will become obsolete. In fact, He says they are to keep doing it.
If there was anytime for Jesus to make some kind of distinction between the Covenants and how tithing and mercy and... would apply, that would have been it. He does not do so.
Jesus also says very specifically that He was not doing away with the law. The Apostles never do away with tithing but only the ceremonial aspects of the law including the dietary laws. Hence, I see the burden of proof is incumbent upon you to demonstrate that Tithing is not a part of the Law of God now being administered under the New Covenant.
"You never define the word “law” but toss it around to condemn others. Tell me, what is the difference between the old and new covenants?"
First, I never condemned anyone. Second, the difference between them is the first is written on Tablets of stone and is a repeat of the Covenant of Works (see Romans 5) and the New Covenant is written upon the heart.
"However, when the Levitical priesthood ended the law of tithing (Heb 7:5) was changed (7:12) and the “change” was its total abolishment (7:18) in favor of the new covenant principles (7:19). Is that not what God’s Word clearly teaches?"
This is a great example. You seem to not understand Covenant Theology. We are saying it is a part of the natural law. Tithing was applied to the Covenant people under the Old Covenant in the Mosaic economy. Jesus is now instituting the Law under His "economy" or Covenant.
You raise a point about God not punishing the first four commandments prior to the Old Covenant. I would disagree. I believe the first four commandments were binding as a part of the "natural law". Simply because men pervert it doesn't justify man's ignorance.
So basically we disagree at a fundamental level.
God Bless
"However, when the Levitical priesthood ended the law of tithing (Heb 7:5) was changed (7:12) and the “change†was its total abolishment (7:18) in favor of the new covenant principles (7:19). Is that not what God’s Word clearly teaches?"
This also raises another important point. Are we supposed to keep these "principles"? Are they merely principles or are they commands that Christ gives His church? Calling the Law of God something Christians should do because they are "good principles" goes beyond the Biblical text and Americanizes it.
Also, I find it interesting you would cite Calvin in order to refute my position. Are you seriously contending that I, a Calvinist, would fundamentally differ from Calvin on the Law?
Strange indeed.
What you are going to have to do is demonstrate to me that Peter and the other Apostles would have seen Tithing as something that passed away and as Jewish Christians ignoring that particular law and telling others to do so whether they be Jew or Gentile.
"Russ: A new “covenant” is a new set of spiritual laws, or principles written in the heart per Hebrews 8:8-13."
………………………………………….
Russ: I stand by my statement. Would you like to be tried in a court in the USA but under Chinese law?
……………………………………….
This is the problem. There are not a "new set of spiritual laws" but the same law applied under a New Covenant.
…………………………………………….
Russ: Was the US Constitution a “new set” of laws or was it merely English Law with a new binding? You do not seem to realize that we started all over again and wrote an entirely different set of laws based on freedom of religion and self-government. Likewise the only things brought over from the Old Covenant are those eternal moral principles which are part of the character of God. The “thou shalt not” was replaced by “we will obey” because of a new creation in Christ. The old person DIED to the law in Romans 7:4.
………………………………………..
If you study the term Law in Jer. 31, I think you will see it is refering to the Decalogue and the whole Law itself as summed up in the Decalogue. Tithing would most certainly have been included.
………………………………………….
Russ: It is referring to the whole law which was never supposed to be diminished in even one dot. How can you ignore Hebrews 8:9 “Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers …” It was truly “new” –not “recycled.”
What gives you the authority to retain tithing and abolish plural wives, Saturday-Sabbath, circumcision, unclean foods, etc?? Do you retain the part about paying tithes to the Levite servants? Do you retain the part about tithe-recipients not owning property? Do you retain the part about tithe-recipients killing believers who try to worship God as priests? Of course not! You pick and choose and make up your own rules as you go along!
………………………………..
Jesus is not doing away with the "Law" and never says that the Law will become obsolete. In fact, He says they are to keep doing it.
…………………………………
Russ: I assume by the word “Law” you mean the “entire Mosaic Law.” Have your or your church made any one part of it obsolete? Do you keep the Saturday-Sabbath? Do you observe the unclean food law? Etc, etc. You are your own worst enemy. You place yourself under ALL of the Law and all of its curses in order to defend tithing.
I didn’t make up Galatians 3:10. “For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.” Explain it if you can.
……………………………………….
If there was anytime for Jesus to make some kind of distinction between the Covenants and how tithing and mercy and... would apply, that would have been it. He does not do so.
…………………………………………
Russ: Wrong. Your logic makes no sense at all. Why would Jesus tell a Jewish audience under the law about a new covenant when tithing would not be practiced? It would have been completely irrelevant! The perfect time was after his resurrection. Luke 24:44
“These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled , which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.”
…………………………………………….
Jesus also says very specifically that He was not doing away with the law.
…………………………………………….
Russ: Wrong. He said that NONE of the three components of the Mosaic Law would end until ALL of it had been fulfilled. Mt 5:17-19. And that was accomplished when he said “It is finished” on the cross. (1) The ripping of the veil prevented the sacrifice of the law from continuing. (2) Christ’s Melchizedek priesthood ended the law’s stipulations for a Levitical priesthood (Ps 110 was not part of the Law). (3) The destruction of the Levitical cities and Temple ended bringing tithes to them. (4) The end of the old covenant ended Satutday-Sabbath which was a sign and seal of the old covenant (Ex 31:13). (5) The Temple’s destruction ended the law’s demands for sacrifices there. (6) The priesthood of believers ended the law’s demands for a Levitical priesthood. (7) Tithing ended when not one single tithing law found in Numbers 18 is followed by any church today.
……………………………………………..
The Apostles never do away with tithing but only the ceremonial aspects of the law including the dietary laws.
………………………………………………
Russ: You just contradicted yourself and completely ignore Matthew 5:19 “Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
……………………………………
The Apostles never do away with tithing ………
………………………………………….
Russ: Text please. None? O.K. then withdraw your statement that the burden falls upon me.
………………………………..
Hence, I see the burden of proof is incumbent upon you to demonstrate that Tithing is not a part of the Law of God now being administered under the New Covenant.
………………………………………………
Russ: I do not see it that way at all. Again, look at Numbers 18 and tell me one single tithing law from the Old Covenant which is followed today.
……………………………………….
Second, the difference between them is the first is written on Tablets of stone and is a repeat of the Covenant of Works (see Romans 5) and the New Covenant is written upon the heart.
………………………………………….
Russ: That is simply wrong.
LUTHER: We must therefore silence the mouths of those factious spirits who say, "Thus says Moses," etc. Here you simply reply: Moses has nothing to do with us. If I were to accept Moses in one commandment, I would have to accept the entire Moses. Thus the consequence would be that if I accept Moses as master, then I must have myself circumcised, wash my clothes in the Jewish way, eat and drink and dress thus and so, and observe all that stuff.
…………………………………………………
You seem to not understand Covenant Theology.
……………………………………………
Russ: I understand that neither Luther or Calvin taught “covenant theology” the way you have distorted it concerning the Law.
LUTHER: But we will not have this sort of thing. We would rather not preach again for the rest of our life than to let Moses return and to let Christ be torn out of our hearts.
Calvin: It is a fact that the law of God which we call the moral law is nothing else than a testimony of natural law and of that conscience which God has engraved upon the minds of men.
………………………………………………………….
We are saying it is a part of the natural law.
…………………………
Russ: And I am saying you have absolutely no biblical proof whatsoever for that remark. If you did then you would have produced it.
……………………………………………..
Tithing was applied to the Covenant people under the Old Covenant in the Mosaic economy.
……………………………………………..
Russ: So were 600 other laws that you have deemed no longer necessary.
………………………………..
Jesus is now instituting the Law under His "economy" or Covenant.
…………………………………….
Russ: You forget the text again.
……………………………………..
You raise a point about God not punishing the first four commandments prior to the Old Covenant. I would disagree. I believe the first four commandments were binding as a part of the "natural law". Simply because men pervert it doesn't justify man's ignorance.
………………………………………..
Russ: Men did not pervert the Sabbath day. When the old covenant ended it Calvary, it also ended.
LUTHER: But the other commandments of Moses, which are not [implanted in all men] by nature, the Gentiles do not hold. Nor do these pertain to the Gentiles, such as the TITHE and others equally fine which I wish we had too.
…………………………………………………….
So basically we disagree at a fundamental level.
………………………………………….
Russ: Not a single OT tithing law from Numbers is followed by the church today. Show me one.
…………………………………….
This also raises another important point. Are we supposed to keep these "principles"?
………………………………………………
Russ: The “principles” are the details of the law itself as in Numbers 18.
……………………………………..
The apostles did not teach:
(1) tithes to Levites; (2) tenth of tithes to priests; (3) tithes to Levitical cities; (4) 2nd tithe to yearly festivals; (5) third year tithe to the poor; (6) pastors replace OT priests; (7) tithes to church storehouse (none existed); (8) financial blessing if tithed; (9) curse if did not tithe; (10) tithe-recipients cannot own or inherit land. I have a lot more but they do not seem to phase you.
In Christ’s love
Russ Kelly
"Russ: It is referring to the whole law which was never supposed to be diminished in even one dot. How can you ignore Hebrews 8:9 “Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers …” It was truly “new” –not “recycled.”"
This seems to be common among NCTers. Are you one? You equate "Covenant" with "Law". Richard Barcellos' book, In Defense of the Decalogue, makes that point very well.
""Russ: A new “covenant” is a new set of spiritual laws, or principles written in the heart per Hebrews 8:8-13.""
Again, the text does not say "new laws". It is clearly referring to the Decalogue as a summary of the moral law written by God Himself.
"Was the US Constitution a “new set” of laws or was it merely English Law with a new binding?"
No parallel at all with what is being argued in Hebrews. The New Covenant is not being made with a new nation, but is being made with a people that are becoming wider in scope. IE: world and Gentiles being grafted in. SO I have already answered this objection in part.
"What gives you the authority to retain tithing and abolish plural wives, Saturday-Sabbath, circumcision, unclean foods, etc?? Do you retain the part about paying tithes to the Levite servants? Do you retain the part about tithe-recipients not owning property?"
This has been answered.
"I assume by the word “Law” you mean the “entire Mosaic Law.” Have your or your church made any one part of it obsolete? Do you keep the Saturday-Sabbath?"
Again this has been answered. But the Sabbath is a great example. The Law as summed up by the Decalogue is present in the NT. The Sabbath is still in force. Does your church gather on the Lord's Day? Is this just a principle or a command?
I have always been amazed that nearly all Christians in all of the Christian church in all of these nearly 2,000 years have worshiped on Sunday. Accident?
I agree that the Old Covenant has been abrogated. To use an analogy, I also believe the body will die. Although the same body is raised there is discontinuity as well. The Law that was written by God (think Decalogue here) in the Old Testament is the same Law that is written on the heart in the New Covenant. The fact that certain non-moral (laws that a gentile would not know about without special revelation) have been repealed by God is not at question.
"You just contradicted yourself and completely ignore Matthew 5:19 “Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven."
Again, I have answered this. No contradiction here. Peter was not about to break the law and eat "unclean" foods. Yet God commanded him to do so. Why? Jesus did away with this particular dietary law. It took time for Peter to understand this.
Again, the Law that is being referred to is the Law that is summed up in the Decalogue. The Law that God wrote with His own finger on stone and then on our hearts.
The NT makes several references to the Laws of the Decalogue. I fully realize that the Old Testament views the entire Law as a single unit. That was Peter's problem. Yet God clearly makes distinctions in His abrogating certain aspects of the Law. I also realize that the entire Law was abrogated from that Old Covenant as Hebrews teaches.
"So were 600 other laws that you have deemed no longer necessary."
Again,Tithing being applied under the Old Covenant had it special application to the Nation of Israel. God is able and right as to how he applies the moral law under that economy.
So obviously we would not Tithe to the Levites. We are obviously mixing terminology. I say Covenant you mean something different. I refer to Law as it is being applied by God in the New Covenant, you define it at the entire Old Covenant application.
"Not a single OT tithing law from Numbers is followed by the church today. Show me one."
Neither do we follow their Sabbaths. But the moral Law of the Sabbath has not ceased to exist. Instead God has applied it under the New Covenant by creating the First Day as a Memorial to the New Creation created by Christ by His resurrection. Do you worship on Sunday? Do you feel comfortable worshiping on another Day? If you are so confident that you are correct, then start a church that worships on Monday morning and throughout the day and work entirely on Sunday. Then I'll believe you really believe what you are saying.
"LUTHER: But we will not have this sort of thing. We would rather not preach again for the rest of our life than to let Moses return and to let Christ be torn out of our hearts.
Calvin: It is a fact that the law of God which we call the moral law is nothing else than a testimony of natural law and of that conscience which God has engraved upon the minds of men."
I am not sure the context of Luther, but he was clearly a man who did not want to bring people under the bondage of the Law again. Perhaps that is why RCs often level the charge of antinomianism against him? Nevertheless, you seem to think me a legalist. If you knew me, you would never make that connection.
As for the Calvin quote, I can't see where I would disagree at all?
Calvin states in his Institutes, (Westminster press, 1960, pg 376-77) "The whole law is contained under two heads. Yet our God, to remove all possibility of excuse, willed to set forth more fully and clearly by the Ten commandments everything connected with the honor, fear, and love of him, and everything pertaining to the love toward men, which he for his own sake enjoins upon us."
All of this is too much for a Blog. This much discussion is really designed for a BBS system.
You seem to be making claims for Covenant Theology (the Numbers 18 thing) that Covenant Theology doesn't claim. Perhaps I, the layman, have not set the table by defining what I mean well enough. But hey, it is a Blog man.
I was only raising the issue that Tithing would be a part of the Moral Law of God and is being applied under the New Covenant as being written upon the heart.
On commentating on Eph 2:15 Barcellos says in his book, "It is very clear from this passage and other explicit statements of the New Testament that the Old Covenant and its law, as Old Covenant Law, has been annulled by christ's death. Though the law of the Old Covenant still exists and is called law [a point he defends by demonstrating the NT still does this] it no longer functions as the Law of the Old Covenant, because the Old Covenant has been replaced by the New Covenant."
You may cite Matt 5:17 in support that I am changing the law. This seems to be the heart of our disagreement. Yet, Jesus says it will remain until heaven and earth pass away. Do we both agree with that? You seem to say that at the death and resurrection Jesus fulfilled it, therefore it is set aside? Which is it according to your view, fulfilled and set aside now, or later? Why does fulfill mean set aside or abrogated all together? According to Paul, Christians fulfill the Law. Yet the law s not disappearing with us is it?
Anyway, Jesus is our High Priest in the order of Melchizedek. We may make our offerings to God through Him.
Also, I may be doing a very poor job at explaining and defending CT. So don't think me an expert.
:-)
Post a Comment