Tuesday, October 31, 2006

Reformation Needed Today

In today's church, when the word "reformation" is uttered, "revival" is meant.

What do these people mean by that term, "
revival." For many it means having goose bumps, a warm feeling, loud music, jumping around, roaring like lions, and, yes, even hissing like snakes!

For others "revival" means crying a lot, falling on the ground and great, rousing sermons by the latest preaching fad all the way from the wonderful U.S. of A! Here in the South African church, it seems that everything coming from across the Atlantic from North America just must be good! The fact is, that most of these preachers that come to South Africa by invitation are charlatans and even
worse... heretics!

Maybe some think that this is "revival?!"

In these circles, whenever the Reformation, started by Martin Luther on October 31, 1517, is mentioned, eyes star
t rolling as if to say, "There you go again! We don't live there anymore! The church has moved on!"

In reality, the church has moved on! Instead of being reformed, it has become deformed!

The church no longer is making that clarion call to truth that it once did when the Reformation started. The Bible is no longer at the forefront of the church, but rather the latest fad experience that must be imported from elsewhere. Today, it is more important to be relevant (whatever that means) than to actually preach the truth.

It is more important for the church today to have a "reformation of deeds than a reformation of doctrine," according to Rick Warren. How is it that a man of his supposed importance simply cannot see the state that the church is in? The church is ignoring everything that makes it a Christian church, yet he does not think that a reformation of doctrine is needed!

If ever the church was in need of a Great Reformation, it would be now! It no longer knows why it is a Christian church. How many in the church can in any way articulate the or
thodox Christian distinctive doctrines?

Why is the church in this pitiful state? It has forgotten its roots! Pastors and preachers themselves can no longer point to history to show the validity and historical significant truth of Christianity. They have no truth-ground to stand on. They have some mystical belief in the Bible, but when they have to explain that belief to a secular audience, they have no historical ground to stand on. To them, Christianity has become just like Hinduism with all its mysticism, completely devoid of true reality. Reality that exists in time and space!

If only the church would return to the Bible! "Oh, but we do preach from the Bible. The pastor reads from it every Sunday for his sermon."

Sure, there are many pastors that actually read the Bible from
the pulpit. The problem is that many of them go off on some rant as soon as the Bible reading is done. Their sermons hardly ever interact with the Bible and when they do, then it is a verse here and there completely out of context.

Some pastors go as far as picking themes for several sermons in which they would like to make a point. The problem is, they pick a theme and then massage a string of verses into a nice little train of thought to support their premise, whether those verses really mean what they purport them to say or not.

Pastors no longer allow the Scriptures to speak for themselves. They have become lazy in their study of the Bible and do not want to put in the long hours necessary to prepare for an expository sermon.

The world around us is falling apart and still, many pastors want so much for people to like them in order to draw the crowds. In order for people to like them, these pastors must as a consequence get rid of all the offensive material in the gospel, and end up drawing the crowds with nothing but the elements of the world itself. In the end, what are these people getting saved towards? Definitely not the gospel and Jesus Christ! These preachers simply attract people to "all that is in the world--the desires of the flesh and the desires of the eyes and pride in possessions," which "is not from the Father but is from the world" (1 Jn 2:16 ESV).

The church is in need of Reformation and it does not know it. It has become intoxicated with the ways of the world. We all know how an alcoholic reacts to being told that he needs to reform. He denies he has a problem! The church is doing exactly the same. Many are denying that there is a problem and just tend to point the finger back at those that are concerned about the state of the church!

In this day and age we do not only need one Martin Luther. We need hundreds. Also of Calvin and Zwingli and other Reformers. We need someone to stand on the pinnacle of the church's "rooftop" and cry for reformation in the church.

We need to make the Bible the real center of the church before we can have Reformation. It is here that pastors, the so-called spiritual leaders and shepherds of the church MUST stand up and perform the task given to them by Christ. Jesus told Peter to go feed His sheep! If pastors do any less than that, they are NO pastors at all.

Without Reformation, true Reformation on the scale that Luther unleashed, the church is doomed to become completely irrelevant in its search for relevancy.

Yet, Jesus said that He would build His true church,
"and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (Mt 16:18).

Just thinking...

Tuesday, October 24, 2006

Pyromaniacs a bunch of mean-spiritied bullies?

Oh, get over yourselves! The dissenters to Pyromaniacs, I mean!

I have been reading Pyromaniacs since the inception of the original blog of the original
Pyromaniac, Phil Johnson. And in my opinion, which counts more than anyone else's if you use post-modern logic, these guys are not mean-spirited at all. If you want to know anything about being mean-spirited and just being nasty, you should read the writings of guys like Jack Chick and the KJV-Only clan!

Phil Johnson, wrote a post called Bully Pulpit in which he brings these complaints to light.

Are the
Pyromaniacs innocent? Is any of us innocent? The point is that many Christians today have this odd idea that Christians should not disagree. What kind of weird Orwellian foolishness is this that we may not disagree with others. Iron sharpens iron! The fact is that within Christendom there are many different views, and not all of them can be right.

The problem arises when someone else thinks that you are wrong. In this case, these complainants think that the Pyromaniacs are wrong. Wrong in their doctrine, that is. The problem, and I am not sure that it is a real problem for the Pyromaniacs, is that they are very sure of themselves and when they write anything that "sureness" comes across. What I have noticed is that many of the post-modern kind, such as the emergent species simply do not like it when people are sure of what they believe and then are willing to stand for that belief!

To the unsure type, ala emergent type, this is akin to being mean-spirited. "How can you say I am wrong? Boo-hoo!" The problem with being sure of being unsure is that there is nothing to stand on and so the foundations are real shaky! When the foundations are shaky, the easiest thing to do is to start pointing the finger to someone else in order to prevent fingers from pointing to us! Of course, then the name-calling starts.

In all the time that I have read
Pyromaniacs, and the initial blog started by Phil, I have never found them to be rude or mean-spirited. Perhaps a bit too sarcastic at times, but then they made it clear that it was not to be rude, but to use the literary device of sarcasm to make a point!

I wonder what these complainants would say if they ever dare read the writings of the great men of faith like Athanasius, Augustine and Luther who had to battle serious error and heresy in their day. When it comes to the truth of the gospel, there simply is no time to waste on beating around the bush! Get to the
truth and get to it quickly! According to what I have read at Pyromaniacs I can with certainty say (Oh yes, I cannot be sure about that!) that these guys have gone about it with a good attitude. They have used serious tones and comical tones, yet they have made their point!

All the complainants can see is rudeness because they simply "can't handle the truth!"

What amazes me is that many of these guys and gals that complain so much fall headlong into the very same thing they complain about! They complain to others about being rude, yet they are rude while doing so. Others would complain vehemently about the mean-spiritedness of the
Pyromaniacs but then do so in a very mean-spirited way!

Pyromaniacs have something to say! Deal with it! Face their arguments concerning Scripture and other things and then be like the Bereans and search the Scriptures to see if these things are so.

In my opinion, the Pyromaniacs must keep on burning for the Lord!

Just thinking...

Monday, October 23, 2006

Dawkins and The God Delusion Revisited

Dr. Al Mohler brings to our attention, a review of Richard Dawkins' book The God Delusion, by the literary theorist Terry Eagleton.

Dr. Mohler writes:

"In essence, Eagleton accuses Dawkins of not knowing about which he is writing."
He then quotes Eagleton as follows:

"What, one wonders, are Dawkins's views on the epistemological differences between Aquinas and Duns Scotus? Has he read Eriugena on subjectivity, Rahner on grace or Moltmann on hope? Has he even heard of them? Or does he imagine like a bumptious young barrister that you can defeat the opposition while being complacently ignorant of its toughest case? Dawkins, it appears, has sometimes been told by theologians that he sets up straw men only to bowl them over, a charge he rebuts in this book; but if The God Delusion is anything to go by, they are absolutely right."

This blog post by Dr. Mohler is well worth reading and you can go here to read it further.

Just thinking...

Thursday, October 19, 2006

The Relevancy of Doctrine

Here is a series of three posts on the Relevancy of Doctrine by Jim Bublitz:
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3

Also read these posts I wrote:
What is the Gospel? What is the foundation to the Gospel?
Without truth, wrong doctrine
Heresies in the Church Series
Those who call themselves Christians

Just thinking...

Calvinist Jihadists

Jim Bublitz wrote an article on the statement by Ergun Caner that Calvinists are "worse than Muslims."

Last week, a convert from Islam, now serving as the seminary President at Jerry Falwell's college, identified a group that he labeled as "worse than Muslims". Who are they? You might be surprised to find out that the Puritans were among them, so was the evangelist George Whitefield, and so was the hymn writer of Amazing Grace. Remember Matthew Henry whose bible commentaries are on most pastor's bookshelves? He's one of them too, as are numerous missionaries and martyrs in church history. If I were Jerry Falwell right about now, I'd be thinking that I have a loose cannon onboard the SS Liberty. This post takes a not-so-politically-correct look at the 'Jihad' that one man brought upon himself with his outrageous behavior.

Read more here.

According to Ergun Caner, the greatest Calvinist Jihadist is probably James White.

HT: Ingrid Schleuter

Just thinking...

Wednesday, October 18, 2006

A Reformation Day Symposium

October 31, gives us a chance to commemorate the day that Martin Luther nailed his 95 theses to the Wittenburg Church door. This year will be the 489th anniversary of that day.

Tim Challies is calling for a symposium on Reformation Day by Christian bloggers. October 31, is also known as Reformation Day. Tim wrote:

"In recognition of the significance of this day, I would like to suggest that Christian bloggers mark October 31 with reflections on Reformation Day. You may want to reflect on a person, an event, or a particular point of theology. The topic is wide open, so long as it somehow ties in to Reformation Day. And remember, you do not need to be Reformed to appreciate the Reformation and all it stood for. If you do not have a blog of your own, but would still like to participate, why not ask another blogger if you can "guest" on his site that day (which is not to say that I am offering my blog for this purpose!). "

For those that may need a kick-start, check out my post on The Reformation - Unleashing salvation from October 19, 2005. You can also read my post on how the church has neglected the Reformation.

HT: Justin Taylor


I linked to the wrong post before instead of the one that is linked now -
The Reformation - Unleashing salvation. Hope this does not create too much confusion!

Thursday, October 12, 2006

Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood re-released

Crossway books re-released the landmark book Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism (RBMW) edited by John Piper and Wayne Grudem. RBMW became the bulwark defense of gender roles in the home and church from a historic evangelical perspective and was named Christianity Today's Book of the Year for 1993.

You can read more about it here.

Just thinking...

Wednesday, October 11, 2006

Boy awakens from "hopeless" vegetative state

A boy that was in a "hopeless" vegetative state has awakened from a 22 month-long coma and is now breathing on his own.

Just thinking ...

Monday, October 09, 2006

Which Reformed Blog Are You?

Our brother Adrian Warnock created a quiz (see update at the bottom) in order for a Reformed blogger to discover what type of Reformed Blogger he is.

My top result for the SelectSmart.com selector,
Which Reformed Blog Are You?,
Miscellanies on the Gospel

Of the different blogs in the comparison, this is how my blogging is ranked among them.

#1 Miscellanies on the Gospel
#2 Worship Matters
#3 ESV Bible Blog
#4 The Blue Fish
#5 Al Mohler
#6 Together For the Gospel
#7 Adrian Warnock
#8 Girl Talk
#9 Between Two Worlds
#10 Tim Challies
#11 Frame-Poythress Blog
#12 Reformation Theology
#13 Jolly Blogger
#14 The Pyromaniacs

I don't know how Warnie came up with his criteria for grading blogs in his system, but I suppose it makes for a bit of fun.

On the other hand, the first blog I visit everyday is The Pyromaniacs, rated at the bottom of what my style is rated as.

I have never heard of Miscellanies of the Gospel until today. I guess I am going to have to read it to see why I was rated to be this type of Reformed blogger!

Which Reformed Blog Are You?

Just thinking...

Update - 10 October 2006: Our friend Warnie, from the Queen's country, informed me that he didn't write the quiz. Sorry, Adrian! I suppose I jumped to conclusions there. Well, at least I got some exercise from the jumping I did. Another blogger, Dave, from the bluefish project informed me that it was Paul Huxley - Rock Badger who created the quiz. Thanks, Dave!

The Top 50 Books That Have Shaped Evangelicals

I sometimes wonder what other Christians read. Many of the Christians I know read mostly Christian novels. I, on the other hand, read a novel for every 10 or so theological/doctrinal/biographical books I read.

If you had to make a list of the most influential books of the last 50 years, what would you include? Well, Christianity Today made a list of books that influenced evangelicalism the most in the last 50 years. Like the article explains, these "are books that have shaped evangelicalism as we see it today—not an evangelicalism we wish and hope for." I am glad they made this clear.

HT: Justin Taylor

Just thinking ...

Sunday, October 08, 2006

Tithing and giving

Tithing in the Old Testament

Deuteronomy 14:22-29 tells us that every year (v. 22) the tithe was to be taken to the designated place of tithing, and it was to be eaten there by the one who brought it (v. 23). Why did the Israelites have to eat their tithe there? So that they could "learn to fear the LORD your God always." (v. 23). Did you see who this tithe was to be given to? Did they have to give it to the priest? The priest's assistant? The building fund? The televangelist? The temple? Or church? No they had to take the tithe and enjoy it themselves!

The passage explains that if it is too far to take the tithe to the designated place of tithing, you should take your tithe, exchange it for money, and then take it to another place the Lord chooses. Now, see what we are to do with the money we got from our tithes! "and spend the money for whatever you desire--oxen or sheep or wine or strong drink, whatever you
r appetite craves. And you shall eat there before the LORD your God and rejoice, you and your household." (v. 26). When last have you been taught that if your church was too far, you could take your tithe and spend it on anything you wanted to? Now how do we get the money to the "priest?" That is, if we were ever told to tithe money! I'm just contemporising it.

The tri-annual tithe

Deuteronomy 26:12 tells us that every third year you are to deposit your tithe in your town. Now see who this tithe is for! "And the Levite, because he has no portion or inheritance with you, and the sojourner, the fatherless, and the widow, who are within your towns, shall com
e and eat and be filled, that the LORD your God may bless you in all the work of your hands that you do." (v. 29). This is the only tithe that went to the "storehouse!" AND, did you see that this happened only every third year? This is also not a tithe stretching over three years! We have already seen what happened to the annual tithe in Deuteronomy 14:22-29. This tithe was not just for the "priest," but also for the alien (not from UFOs), the orphan, and the widow in the town. This method of tithing was to bring equality.

What do I mean? Someone said before, that in the Old Testament there were approximately 33 people to every Levite (I don't know how accurate this is). How will this equalise everything between the people and the Levites. I
magine the average salary (assuming we were to pay tithes using money) of the 33 to be $50,000 per year. At the end of the third year they will pay $5,000 each for their tithes, which brings the total to $165,000. That will be $20,000 more than the average for the 33 over that three-year period, which will be $145,000 for this period after tithes. This seems to be a bit unfair! The Levites then made more during the three-year period than the people they served. Not at all! The $20,000, then, could be used for aliens, orphans and widows. However it worked out in reality in these times is beside the point. The point is that this tithed went to the Levites, the poor, widows and foreign travellers. So, for two years we use our tithes to celebrate with the Levites and the poor. This means we get to enjoy our tithes ourselves. In the third year, however, we deposit all our tithes in our towns for the Levites, aliens, orphans and widows.

What of Abraham's tithe?

Genesis 14:18-20 gives us the well-known story of Abraham giving tithes to Melchizedek. Note in this passage that Abraham gave a tenth of his war spoils. It was not given from the increase of his da
ily labours, nor does it say here that Abraham made this a principle to live by. As far as Scripture is concerned God did not even command Abraham to give the tithe, nor does it seem that Abraham ever did it again. So, for the idea that the "principle" of tithing is pre-law, makes for erroneous exegesis.

More on tithing

In Leviticus 27:30-33 we see clearly what was to be tithed: the seed of the land, the fruit of the tree, and herd or flock. It is easy to say that today hardly any of us are farmers and therefore we should give our tithe from our salary. We have to also look at who were excluded from the tithe under Old Testament law. Not all Israelites were farmers of some sort. That is a misconception.

There were all kinds of "professions" in those days. Bakers, carpenters, soldier
s, etc. The Bible never mentions anything that they should tithe! The Bible never mentions any money to be tithed. Your comment, please! Oh, so you say that they did not have money in those days? Money is mentioned as early as Genesis 17. So, money was used from early on. Should the tithe be the best part of what you have? Not according to Scripture! As the animals walked past, every tenth one would be chosen. Then the Lord says "One shall not differentiate between good or bad" (v 33).

Many who teach that tithing is still applicable for the New Testament church teach that the pastor of the church is the priest of the local congregation in very much the same way as the Levite was.

Let us look at Numbers 18:21-32 for some of the facts of the tithes the Levites received.
  • The tithe was their inheritance. v.21
  • The Levites did not have any lay preachers (or its equivalent) to help in the ministry. v.22,23. No one, except the Levites could minister. Not even from Judah, the Lord's tribe. The genealogy of each priest was carefully checked to ensure that he was indeed a Levite. With all the woman pastors out there, I am surprised that the tithe teachers are not preaching against them being pastors. You see, no woman could be a priest in the tent of meeting, even if she was a Levite! How on earth will we check the genealogy of any pastor today?
  • The Levites had no inheritance apart from the tithe they received. They didn't even own their own land. Some pastors of today own more property by far than they even need. v.23,24
  • The Levites were to offer a tithe of what they received to the Lord. v.26
  • Profaning the tithe from Israel was at the penalty of death. v.32

Deuteronomy 12:6-21 is a very interesting passage concerning tithing that probably (note that here I said probably, and not definitely) all tithe-teachers would love if it was not in the Bible. That is why you will not hear them teach from this passage in its context. Notice in verses 6, 7, 11, 12, 17, 18 and 21 what the Lord said concerning what should happen to your tithe. There is a popular teaching today that says that when you tithe to the church, you must not be concerned with what happens to your tithe. You have done your part, and the responsibility of that money no longer r
ests on you. You cannot tell the church what to do with your tithe.

Let's look at the verses that I want you to notice. In all the verses except verse 21 the Bible describes what should happen to your tithe when your designated place of tithing is near you. It describes how, when you take your tithe to that place, you and your household must take your tithe and eat it before the Lord together with the Levites. Isn't this amazing? No wonder the tithe-teachers do not want to teach all the truth from this passage. This means that they are not going to get all their 10% or all the offerings brought to the Lord. This will surely cut their income by a large margin. The next time you take your tithe to the church, first stop off at the local convenience store, buy food with it, and t
hen take it to the church, invite your pastors for a meal, and enjoy it together with them.

Verse 21 stands out among these. If the local place of tithing ("church") is too far from you, you may take your tithe and offerings, and enjoy them in your own home. Where is that 10% going? Oh my!

2 Chronicles 31:4-6 speaks for itself. After the temple was built, Hezekiah told the people in Jerusalem to bring the portion due to the priests to the temple. We have already seen above what was due to the priests according to their law. Also see Nehemiah 10:37-39.

The famous passage!

It will be good to quote Malachi 3:8-10 here, seeing that so many know it.
"[8] Will man rob God? Yet you are robbing me. But you say, 'How have we robbed you?' In your tithes and contributions. [9] You are cursed with a curse, for you are robbing me, the whole nation of you. [10] Bring the full tithes into the storehouse, that there may be food in my house. And thereby put me to the test, says the LORD of hosts, if I will not open the windows of heaven for you and pour down for you a blessing until there is no more need."

Many of our pastors have preached on this passage, and have made us feel quite condemned if we were not paying our tithes into the "storehouse" of God. Now, before we ev
en look at this passage, let's put it into its context. We will need to quote the first seven verses here to find out what was really being said here.
"[1] Behold, I send my messenger and he will prepare the way before me. And the Lord whom you seek will suddenly come to his temple; and the messenger of the covenant in whom you delight, behold, he is coming, says the LORD of hosts. [2] But who can endure the day of his coming, and who can stand when he appears? For he is like a refiner's fire and like fullers' soap. [3] He will sit as a refiner and purifier of silver, and he will purify the sons of Levi and refine them like gold and silver, and they will bring offerings in righteousness to the LORD. [4] Then the offering of Judah and Jerusalem will be pleasing to the LORD as in the days of old and as in
former years. [5] "Then I will draw near to you for judgment. I will be a swift witness against the sorcerers, against the adulterers, against those who swear falsely, against those who oppress the hired worker in his wages, the widow and the fatherless, against those who thrust aside the sojourner, and do not fear me, says the LORD of hosts. [6] "For I the LORD do not change; therefore you, O children of Jacob, are not consumed. [7] From the days of your fathers you have turned aside from my statutes and have not kept them. Return to me, and I will return to you, says the LORD of hosts. But you say, 'How shall we return?'" (Mal. 3:1-7).

This was a time in Israel's life when they did not pay the tithes as God had instructed them. At this point in the history of Israel, the wage earner, the widow, and the orphan w
ere oppressed by the leaders; the aliens were turned away and they did not fear God. If we look at the passages we have dealt with already, we will remember that the tithe was used for the widow, orphan and the alien.

The purpose of the tithe was to learn to fear the Lord. So, Israel broke the tithing law on all counts. So, God said to them that since the "days of your fathers" they have changed what God had said concerning the tithe and "have turned aside from my statutes and have not kept them." What follows logically on this then? Now we know why God said that the Israelites have robbed God in tithes and offerings! So "that there may be food in my house." For who? The widow, the orphan and the alien!

Deuteronomy 14:29 told us who the tithe was for:
"And the Levite, because he has no portion or inheritance with you, and the sojour
ner, the fatherless, and the widow, who are within your towns, shall come and eat and be filled, that the LORD your God may bless you in all the work of your hands that you do."

Can you now see why God said "put me to the test, says the LORD of hosts, if I will not open the windows of heaven for you and pour down for you a blessing until there is no more need." It was said way back in Deut. 14:29!

All that God did here in Malachi was to remind them of the correct giving and purpose of the tithe, and that He would bless them if they did it correctly. So, will a simple tithe of 10% now make a difference? No! If we want t
o tithe, we have to ensure that the tithe is given correctly, and used correctly. Who is coming to the next "tithe" party?

Let's go a little further with the Malachi passage. It has become commonplace for those who teach tithing to equate the "storehouse" with the "church." Is this really justified? No! The reason for this is obvious. The storehouse in the Old Testament was the temple. The temple was done away with in the New Testament. The temple in the Old Testament was a shadow of the real, which was to come, Christ. When Christ came, He fulfilled all types and shadows. The temple was the ordained place of worship in the Old, but in the New (when the Old was done away with) there is no centralised place of worship. We see Jesus saying this in John, "'[20]
Our fathers worshiped on this mountain, but you say that in Jerusalem is the place where people ought to worship.' [21] Jesus said to her, 'Woman, believe me, the hour is coming when neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father. [22] You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews. [23] But the hour is coming, and is now here, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father is seeking such people to worship him. [24] God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.'" (John 4:20-24).

Here Jesus clearly shows that the idea of the centralised temple was to be done away with under the New Covenant. We see further examples of this given by the apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 3:16: "Do you not know that you are God's temple and that God's Spirit dwells in you? " and "Or do you not know
that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own." (1 Cor 6:19). It is incorrect exegesis, therefore, to equate the "storehouse" of Malachi with the "church."

Of course, much is made of the sentence where God is to "open the windows of heaven for you and pour down for you a blessing until there is no more need." Many, if not all those who teach tithing will present testimony after testimony of these blessings that have been poured on those who have tithed. Now, even if tithing is the reason for these "blessings," since when are we to change what we teach based on our experiences? This is a departure from the evangelical ideal of "sola scriptura." The Scriptures are our sole guide in faith and practice.

Tithing in the New Testament

Matthew 23:23 and Luke 11:42, perhaps more than any other passage, are used to "prove" that Jesus approved of the practice of tithing. "You see," they say, "Jesus said they neglected the more important stuff like justice, mercy and faithfulness, and that they should have done these without neglecting the other things like tithing."

Before we make any assumptions about any given passage of Scripture we have to see it in context. A verse out of context is merely a pretext. Building doctrine on a verse out of context is presumption. You already know what you believe, and that is your context. What is the context of Matthew 23:23? Verse 4 says, "They tie up heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on people's shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to move them with their finger." The Lord was condemning th
e Pharisees for their hypocrisy and for twisting the Scriptures to impose legal bondage on the people. It is amazing that "tithers" would use a verse out of Matthew 23 to impose tithing, the very passage where the Lord is condemning the Pharisees for misusing the Scriptures.

Those that propose tithing as our standard of giving teach that when the Lord said we should show justice, mercy and faithfulness, "without neglecting the others," that Jesus affirmed tithing as a duty for Christians today. The Law was to bring justice, mercy and faithfulness, but the Pharisees used the Scriptures to impose bondage, the very opposite of the intention of the Scriptures. Jesus showed them that there was a place for tithing. Not of
money as some assume, but of that which was commanded in the Old Testament--the fruit of the soil--"mint, dill and cummin."

The Pharisees tithed these meticulously, without regard for the "more important matters of the Law." Remember, Jesus came to fulfil the Law, and as one under the Law, He showed the Pharisees that as people under the Law, they should practice correct tithing. Jesus was not speaking here to the subjects of the New Covenant, but those of the Old.

The Pharisees have been misusing the Scriptures to get people into practising their version of the Law in order to gain salvation, when the Law have been pointing to the Messiah who was to come,

"[22] But the Scripture imprisoned everything under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. [23] Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. [24] So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. [25] But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian." (Gal 3:22-25).

Many teachers of tithing use Hebrews 7:1-10 to prove that tithing was pre-law, and therefore the writer of Hebrews affirmed its practice for the New Testament. Again, it is imperative tha
t we look at this passage in its context.

What was the main purpose for the writing of the book of Hebrews? It was written to show that Christ was the fulfilment of all the types and shadows of the Old Testament, and that Christ was superior to the Levitical priesthood.

Whenever we look at the meaning of a passage, it is important to look for the main point of that passage. As soon as we have the main point, we will see how individual thoughts in the passage fit into the flow of the main point. So, what is the main point of this passage? In order to find this main point we have to look on in this chapter,
"[11] Now if perfection had been attainable through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further need would there have been for anothe
r priest to arise after the order of Melchizedek, rather than one named after the order of Aaron? [12] For when there is a change in the priesthood, there is necessarily a change in the law as well. [13] For the one of whom these things are spoken belonged to another tribe, from which no one has ever served at the altar. [14] For it is evident that our Lord was descended from Judah, and in connection with that tribe Moses said nothing about priests. [15] This becomes even more evident when another priest arises in the likeness of Melchizedek, [16] who has become a priest, not on the basis of a legal requirement concerning bodily descent, but by the power of an indestructible life. [17] For it is witnessed of him, 'You are a priest forever, after the order of Melchizedek.'" (Heb 7:11-17).

The writer shows that there was a change of the priesthood (from the Levitical to the order of Melchizedek - or that of Christ), and if a change of priesthood, then a change of the Law. He goes on to say that the new priesthood, that of Christ, is greater than that of Levi, because He was appointed, "not on the basis of a regulation concerning his ancestry, but rather on the basis of the power of an indestructible life," and therefore, the new "priesthood is greater than the old".

In order to show that the priesthood of Christ is greater than the Levitical priesthood, the writer tells us,
"[4] See how great this man was to whom Abraham the patriarch gave a tenth
of the spoils! [5] And those descendants of Levi who receive the priestly office have a commandment in the law to take tithes from the people, that is, from their brothers, though these also are descended from Abraham. [6] But this man who does not have his descent from them received tithes from Abraham and blessed him who had the promises. [7] It is beyond dispute that the inferior is blessed by the superior. [8] In the one case tithes are received by mortal men, but in the other case, by one of whom it is testified that he lives. [9] One might even say that Levi himself, who receives tithes, paid tithes through Abraham, [10] for he was still in the loins of his ancestor when Melchizedek met him." (Heb 7:4-10).

What is the point? The order of Melchizedek (of Christ) is greater than the Lev
itical order, because Levi, "who collects the tenth, paid the tenth through Abraham." Now that we are shown what the context of this passage is, are we still to believe that this passage teaches tithing? Far from it! It teaches that in the scheme of things, and in the teaching of the writer of Hebrews, Christ and the New Testament are greater than Moses and the Old testament. It teaches the superiority of Christ! Now that we see the context of the superiority of Christ, we find that this passage does not teach the practice of tithing for the New Testament believer at all!


The great giving passage can be found in 2 Corinthians 8-9. I believe that the
se 2 chapters define Christian giving. Let us look at a few verses from chapter 9,
"[6] The point is this: whoever sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and whoever sows bountifully will also reap bountifully. [7] Each one must give as he has made up his mind, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver." (2 Cor. 9:6-7).

Giving is a matter of decision, not a matter of law. God loves a cheerful giver, and therefore He wants us to decide what we want to give. He does not want us to feel like we are forced to give, leading to regrets and "what-ifs." Paul does give us a principle of giving in his statement, "whoever sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and whoever sows bountifully will also reap bountifully."

Paul does not want the Corinthians' giving to lead to hardship in their lives, so he writes in 2 Cor 8:12, "For if the readiness is there, it is acceptable according to what a person has, not according to what he does not have." If Paul demanded more than they had, according to him, it would not have been fair (v. 13). The over-riding argument for Paul in giving, is to give with joy what has been decided in the heart from what a person has, without compulsion.

Reasons for giving

  • We are to give to those in need. "[27] Now in these days prophets came down from Jerusalem to Antioch. [28] And one of them named Agabus stood up and foretold by the Spirit that there would be a great famine over all the world (this took place in the days of Claudius). [29] So the disciples determined, everyone according to his ability, to send relief to the brothers living in Judea. [30] And they did so, sending it to the elders by the hand of Barnabas and Saul." (Act 11:27-30). There was a definite purpose in their giving. We see this same thread in 1 Corinthians 16:1-4 and in 2 Corinthians 8 & 9. Read what John wrote in 1 John 3:16-17, "[16] By this we know love, that he laid down his life for us, and we ought to lay down our lives for the brothers. [17] But if anyone has the world's goods and sees his brother in need, yet closes his heart against him, how does God's love abide in him?" Our giving to our brothers in need must be through the same love as that shown by Christ who gave His life for us.
  • We are to give to support our teachers. Phi 4:10-20. Paul says in verse 16, "Even in Thessalonica you sent me help for my needs once and again." Note that Paul is not commanding anybody to give here, but he does commend the Philippians for providing for his needs when he was in great need. In 2 Thessalonians 3:6-9, Paul wrote in verse 9 "It was not because we do not have that right, but to give you in ourselves an example to imitate." Paul shows here that they could indeed have relied on the support of the Thessalonians. Probably the main passage for the support of our spiritual teachers can be found in 1Ti 5:17-18, "[17] Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching. [18] For the Scripture says, 'You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain,' and, 'The laborer deserves his wages.'" In the old days, as little as 20 years ago, there was the joke that the church would go to the Lord and pray about their pastor, "Lord, you keep him humble; we will keep him poor." Paul writes totally against this. We are to supply for those elders who rule well, and especially those who work hard at preaching and teaching. Some have said that the phrase "double honor" refers to mere honor that we show to our teachers, while others have said that it refers to monetary honor. I believe that the last phrase in this passage is really the decider, "The laborer deserves his wages." This is conclusive that the honour spoken of by Paul was monetary, or at least in some way to sustain the teacher in his daily living.

Giving for the New Testament believer is not to be in the form of a tithing law. The Law has been done away with and that includes tithing. If, however, you feel you have to tithe, then you will have to follow the Law properly in your tithing as shown above in the section "Tithing in the Old Testament."

Tithing is very ingrained in Christians' lives and is therefore not surprising that many believers assume it to be God's standard of giving. God expects us to give with a cheerful heart as we have decided to give. There is no need to feel under compulsion, because giving is a matter of fairness, and based on our ability to give.

Remember, it is based on the age old principle of sowing. Sow sparingly, and reap sparingly. Sow bountifully, and reap bountifully.

Friday, October 06, 2006

Liberal Christianity nailed!

Doug TenNapel of CatScratch rained on Tony Campolo's parade with very thought-provoking straight talk!

In his post, TenNapel draws a line in the sand and calls what he sees Liberal Christianity.


Related Posts Widget for Blogs by LinkWithin