tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8614009373413502880.post4224608279190535449..comments2024-01-10T22:34:05.663+13:00Comments on Contra Celsum: Douglas Wilson's Letter From AmericaJohn Tertullianhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11195747255458392629noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8614009373413502880.post-85439444332609317442010-11-10T06:48:05.180+13:002010-11-10T06:48:05.180+13:00Even if the OT laws are still binding, you have ch...Even if the OT laws are still binding, you have changed them to fit your pocketbook.<br /><br />You even acknowledge you have "adapted" the scripture to fit the times. Then I guess it is okay to adapt the scriptures to fit the times and say the scriptures support same sex marriage. <br /><br />Neither you nor I have any right to change God's Word to fit what we want it to say.<br /><br />In Numbers 18 God commanded that His tithe be taken to the Levites. The Levites were the servants to the priests. They were the singers, the musicians, the janitors, the carpenters, the workers at the Temple. The Levites were to take a tenth of the tithe to the priests. Is that how your church follows God’s law? Do you take The Lord’s Tithe to the singers, musicians, etc. and let them give a tenth to the pastor?<br /><br />Numbers 18:27 proves that neither wages nor income could be tithed on for The Lord’s Tithe. Without this interpretation, Numbers 18:27 has no meaning and is only taking up space.<br /><br />The definition of The Lord’s Tithe is NOT ten percent. It is a TENTH. Here is the difference. Since God said to tithe every TENTH animal, if there were only 9 new born animals that year, NOTHING was tithed. They were not instructed to tithe ten percent of the value of the animals.<br /><br />The tithe was NEVER on man’s increase. God defined His tithe to be a tenth of His increase. That is why it is HOLY!<br /><br />Matthew 5:18 tells you that if you change even one dot or one tittle and teach it to man, you will be the least in the Kingdom of Heaven.Gary Arnoldhttp://www.TithingToday.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8614009373413502880.post-76118587328140450502010-11-09T20:46:22.717+13:002010-11-09T20:46:22.717+13:00Hi, Gary
Sorry, we did not mean to give the impre...Hi, Gary<br /><br />Sorry, we did not mean to give the impression of avoiding your question about the interpretation of God's law. We intended then, and still do, to answer your question right up front.<br /><br />Our simple reply to your challenge is II Timothy 3:16. This is our principle of interpretation used when working through all of the Older Testament's revelation. If that is not satisfactory to you, we acknowledge your position, whilst disagreeing with it. <br /><br />Let us change tack. Here is how it seems to us. We believe your principle of interpretation is fundamentally wrong: viz, that whatever is not explicitly ratified from the Old Covenant in the New Testament is not binding upon God's people today. We primarily find this a nonsense because that is not how the New Testament authors regarded the Old Testament text. We secondarily regard it as wrong because it so quickly reduces to absurdities.<br /><br />We also believe it to be wrong because it necessarily makes most of the Bible irrelevant and redundant. We believe this is a grave error. We have cited biblical evidences and arguments to support our contentions. For whatever reason you have chosen not engage with these. We are not sure why.<br /><br />So, at this point, we should conclude that there appear to be world-views in conflict here, and it would probably be more constructive at this stage to let the ships pass through the night. <br /><br />All the very best.<br /><br />JTJohn Tertullianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11195747255458392629noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8614009373413502880.post-24588678449911779162010-11-09T11:15:01.384+13:002010-11-09T11:15:01.384+13:00Tithing opponents throughout the years as compiled...Tithing opponents throughout the years as compiled by Dr. David Croteau, Liberty University, You Mean I Don’t Have to Tithe?, p271-292. <br /><br />Clement of Rome 100<br />Didache 100<br />Justin Martyr 165<br />Tertullian 230<br />Origen 255<br />Cyprian 258<br />Waldenses 1150+-<br />Thomas Aquinas 1275<br />John Wycliff 1384<br />John Huss 1415<br />German Peasants 1520<br />Anabaptists 1525<br />Erasmus 1536<br />Otto Brumfels 1534<br />Martin Luther 1546<br />Philip Melanchthon 1560<br />Separatists Amsterdam 1603<br />John Smythe 1609 Baptist<br />John Robinson 1610<br />English Parliament 1650+-<br />Puritans & Plgrims Mass 1650+-<br />John Cotton 1652 Puritan<br />Roger Williams 1636 Baptist<br />Little Parliament 1653<br />Oliver Cromwell 1658<br />John Milton 1658 Puritan<br />Particular Baptists 1660<br />John Owen 1680 Baptist<br />Francis Turretin 1687<br />John Bunyan 1688 Baptist<br />Quakers 1768<br />John Gill 1771 Baptist<br />John Wesley 1791<br />BAPTISTS IN AMERICA 1800s<br />Adam Clarke 1832 Baptist<br />Charles Buck 1833<br />J C Philpot 1835 Baptist<br />Charles H Spurgeon 1832 Baptist<br />Parsons Cooke 1850<br />Samuel Harris 1850<br />Edward A Lawrence 1850<br />John Peter Lange 1876<br />Henry William Clark 1891 Engllish<br />S H Kellogg 1891<br />G Campbell Morgan 1898 Congregational<br />Albert Vail 1913 Baptist<br />Frank Fox 1913<br />David MaConaughy 1918 Episcopal<br />William Pettingill 1932<br />John Harvey Grime 1934 Baptist<br />John T Mueller 1934 Lutheran<br />H E Dana 1937 Bapt Historian<br />R C H LENSKI 1946 Lutheran<br />Lewis Sperry Chafer 1948 DTS Foundeer<br />W E Vine 1949<br />James F Rand 1953<br />Francis Pieper 1953 Lutheran<br />Ray Stedman 1951<br />L L McR 1955 Catholic<br />Paul Leonard Stagg 1958 Baptist<br />Hiley H Ward 1958 Baptist<br />Roy T Cowles 1958<br />Elizabeth P Tilton 1958<br />R C Rein 1958 Lutheran<br />Robert A Baker 1959 Bapt Historian<br />Wick Bromall 1960<br />John Byron Evans 1960<br />Norman Tenpas 1967<br />James Edward Anderson 1967<br />Alfred Martin 1968<br />CHARLES C RYRIE 1969 DTS<br />Jerry Horner 1972 S Baptist<br />Pieter Verhoef 1974<br />Dennis Wretlind 1975<br />Jack J Peterson 1978 Pres<br />Donald Kraybill 1978<br />Jon Zens 1979 Baptist<br />Richard Cunningham 1979 S Bapt<br />Gary Frieson 1980<br />JOHN MACARTHUR 1982-2000<br />Paul Fink 1982<br />George Monroe Castillo 1982<br />Tony Badillo 1984<br />James M Boice 1986<br />Michael E Oliver 1986 Rest<br />W Clyde Tilley 1987<br />Scott Collier 1987<br />Ronald M Campbell 1987<br />R E O White 1988<br />William McDonald 1989<br />Charles Swindoll 1990 Dallas Seminary<br />Rhodes Thompson 1990<br />J VERNON MCGEE 1999<br />Jerome Smith 1992<br />CRAIG BLOMBERG 1993 Denver Seminary<br />J Duncan M Derrett 1993<br />Walter Kaiser Jr 1994 Gordon-Cromwell<br />Moises Silva 1994<br />Benny D Prince 1995<br />Brian K Morley 1996<br />Linda L Belleville 1996<br />Ron Rhodes 1997<br />Ernest L Martin 1997<br />Michael Webb 1998<br />R Johnston 1999<br />Mark Snoeberger 2000 Baptist<br />Stuart Murray 2000 Eng<br />George W Greene 2000<br />Old Line Primitive Baptists 2000<br />Jaime Cardinal Sin 2000 Cath Archbishop<br />RUSSELL EARL KELLY 2001 Baptist<br />Jonathan Kitchcart 2001<br />Frank Viola 2002<br />George Barna 2002<br />Michael Morrison 2002<br />Elliott Miller 2003<br />Matthew Narramore 2004<br />David Alan Black 2004 Baptist SEBTS<br />Andreas Kostenberger 2007 Baptist SEBTS<br />Danny Akin 2007 Baptist SEBTS<br />Mark Driscoll 2008<br />Roman Catholic Church<br />Jehovah’s Witnesses<br />New Worldwide Church of GodGary Arnoldhttp://www.TithingToday.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8614009373413502880.post-34532374131070078682010-11-09T11:13:22.206+13:002010-11-09T11:13:22.206+13:00I see you avoided answering my question as to what...I see you avoided answering my question as to what method you use to determine which of the 600+ OT laws you choose to bring forward.<br /><br />You seem to think it is okay to change God's Word to fit the occasion. You change God's definition of the tithe, and you change His instructions as to where to take the tithe. And you think that makes God happy?<br /><br />Hebrews 8:13 (KJV)<br />In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth<br />and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.<br /><br />Colossians 2:13-17 (KJV)<br />13And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he<br />quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;<br />14Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to<br />us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;<br />15And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a show of them openly,<br />triumphing over them in it.<br />16Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of<br />the new moon, or of the sabbath days:<br />17Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.<br /><br />Galatians 5:18 (KJV)<br />18But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.<br /><br />Galatians 3:23-25 (KJV)<br />23But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should<br />afterwards be revealed.<br />24Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be<br />justified by faith.<br />25But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.<br /><br />And I can go on and on.<br /><br />You don't following any one of the three tithing laws contained in the OT. You pick out one of them, change the definition, change where to take the tithe, and try to justify it by saying you have to adapt the Word to the times. Do you really think that God didn't know the future, or do you believe God just left the future out of His Word?<br /><br />I do not believe that God left it up to man to adapt His Word to fit the times. Gee, I could go through the Bible and change a lot of it to fit what society already does.<br /><br />You have NO scripture to support tithing on income, and you have NO scripture to support taking the tithe to a pastor or church.<br /><br />When you finally realize that you are not as smart as God, and that you just don't have the knowledge to re-write His Word, you will see the truth.Gary Arnoldhttp://www.TithingToday.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8614009373413502880.post-2494028957899547572010-11-09T10:34:37.803+13:002010-11-09T10:34:37.803+13:00OK, Gary
Just nailing this down now . . . your vi...OK, Gary<br /><br />Just nailing this down now . . . your view is that Christians are neither necessarily obligated to believe nor obey anything in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John because it was all delivered to those still "under the law", and, therefore, is before Calvary, and therefore is not part of the New Testament? <br /><br />Our principle for working through and being subject to Old Testament law is II Timothy 3:16. All the Law, being Scripture, is profitable for teaching, reproof, correction, and training in righteousness.<br /><br />To be sure, our Lord delivered us from the curse of the law, but not our obligation to keep it. Otherwise, you would end up advocating that sin is OK under the New Covenant, since, to quote a famous catechism from the Reformation, in answer to the question, What is sin? : "sin is any want of conformity unto or transgression of the <b>law of God,</b>." It is the Law which defines and exposes sin, as Paul says. Romans 7:7--8:8. The law itself is holy, just and good. (Romans 7:12). Not to keep it as a Christian must therefore be unholy, unjust and evil, non? Consequently, as we walk under the control of God's Spirit, He leads us and enables us to live in obedience to the Law (Romans 8:3,4). It is the mind of flesh (evil, wickedness) that is hostile to God's Law and refuses to be subject to it. (Romans 8:7) Such a person, says the Scripture, is hostile not just to the Law but to God Himself. <br /><br />Now we have no doubt that you love God and our Lord and you want to please Him, but we believe your approach to Holy Scripture displeases Him. <br /><br />Paul himself had absolutely no hesitation in requiring, for example, that the church observe the "non muzzling" law (I Corinthians 9:9; I Timothy 5:18; Deut. 25:4) and required that Christians extend the application of this law way beyond how one treats one's farm animals. Not to obey and fulfil all the obligations of this Law, including the implied obligations, he clearly regards as sinful. We are commanded to follow Paul's example, including in his use and application and subjection to God's Law.<br /><br />Note, he did not say, well no-one uses oxen anymore, so it is impossible to keep this law--as you have argued with respect to the tithe, when you said: "No one can pay the Biblical tithe today. It is impossible." Rather our obligations and duties under the non-muzzling law extend not just to oxen, but way, way beyond--and yes, we do believe that if we were working oxen on our farm we would be law-obligated to God to ensure they were well fed as they laboured. <br /><br />So, we urge you to repent of this principle which appears to justify cutting off your obligations to the entirety of Scripture, and return in humble submission to all of God's Word, embracing all of it's teaching, its reproof, its correction, and its training in righteousness. <br /><br />JTJohn Tertullianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11195747255458392629noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8614009373413502880.post-41805479040454963312010-11-09T09:27:26.388+13:002010-11-09T09:27:26.388+13:00John,
First, in Matthew 23:23 Jesus is speaking t...John,<br /><br />First, in Matthew 23:23 Jesus is speaking to those still under the OT law. The New Testament doesn't begin until after Jesus died on the cross.<br /><br />Out of 600+ OT laws, what is your method of deciding which are relevant to Christians today? Do you have a consistent method to determine which laws you bring forward?<br /><br />I believe we can learn from all scripture, but Christians are not under the OT laws.<br /><br />Galatians 3:13 “Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us…”Gary Arnoldhttp://www.TithingToday.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8614009373413502880.post-7579503367738114622010-11-09T09:08:36.747+13:002010-11-09T09:08:36.747+13:00Hi, Gary.
Yes, we thought it might be your positio...Hi, Gary.<br />Yes, we thought it might be your position that Christians are obligated only to believe and obey that which is repeated in the New Testament. <br /><br />Do you believe that Christians are bound under all of the New Testament, or only those portions addressing Gentiles? One reason we ask is that Messiah commanded the Pharisees to tithe even their herbs (Matthew 23:23, Luke 11:42), but you don't seem to regard yourself as being required to obey this. On the principle you currently hold, one expects you would say, since Christ commands the tithe even of the smallest gain (herbs), we Christians are obligated under it. But you do not, so we wonder what you really mean when you say the New Covenant has to "repeat" an Old Testament teaching before Christians are obligated to it. <br /><br />In effect, one suspects you would be quite comfortable with dropping the Old Testament entirely as now functionally irrelevant, and probably significant portions of the New as well. After all, pretty much the entire public ministry of our Lord was restricted to the Holy Land and was addressed to His covenant people who were obligated to obey the Old Testament Scriptures, and it was delivered (to use your expression) "before Calvary" but under the principle of Old Testament irrelevance you currently espouse, this must make most of Christ's public ministry irrelevant, or not binding to non-Jewish people as well. <br /><br />In the end you are going to have to make a further excision of Scripture, we suspect, since the apostles, including the apostle to the Gentiles, worshipped and sacrificed in the Temple and continued observing feasts like the Passover. This was "after Calvary" note. <br /><br />Also, since there is lots of Old Covenant teaching not repeated in the New , one presumes that under your principle of being bound only to what the New Testament repeats, bestiality would be now OK--neither a sin nor a crime. Abortion would be fine, since the New Testament does not affirm that a foetus is a human being. "Theistic evolution" would definitely be a goer. Marrying your sister would be acceptable. We would no longer need to regard rape as sin, let alone a crime. These are all Old Testament prohibitions, not repeated in the New--so under your principle, we are no longer obligated or prohibited.<br /><br />Moreover, while some forms of coveting would be prohibited, the New Testament does not specify that <b>all</b> coveting is evil, so it would be OK for Christians to covet, say, the car of one's neighbour (since the New Testament does not address this). God's people would not be obligated to sanctify one day in seven and rest and worship publicly on that day--and so forth. <br /><br />In addition, since the New Testament revelation binds us to believe, obey and keep all of the Old, we think you should ditch your principle and go back to Scripture again. Matthew 5: 18,19 springs to mind. <br /><br />Further, in II Timothy 3:16, we are told that <b>all</b> Scripture is God breathed and is profitable for teaching, reproof, correction, and training in righteousness. Presumably you would have to gloss this as follows: "all Scripture is God breathed, but only some is now profitable for teaching, reproof, correction, and training . . ." But that would be pretty brazen, especially since Paul would be referring to the Old Testament in this passage. <br /><br />Finally, where in the New Testament does it actually and explicitly state your principle of being obligated to believe and obey only the (post-Calvary) New Covenant scriptures? Might this be something you have actually brought to the Holy Scriptures and overlaid as a principle above Scripture, or is it actually taught in Scripture itself? <br /><br />Actually, we think that what you are currently espousing (we hope you will ditch it) is actually yet another form of Phariseeism: a human tradition that removes one from being under the authority of the Scripture itself. This cannot be honouring nor pleasing to our Lord.<br /><br />JTJohn Tertullianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11195747255458392629noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8614009373413502880.post-17727742913354213112010-11-08T18:20:53.850+13:002010-11-08T18:20:53.850+13:00My belief is that only that which is repeated in t...My belief is that only that which is repeated in the New Testament is meant for Christians.<br /><br />Abraham gave a tenth of war spoils, the ONLY tithe recorded for Abraham. War spoils that Abraham did not own. Not a tithe from his regular income or wealth. What Abraham did was not carried forward into the Mosaic law, and Abraham did not tithe what was required in the later law.<br /><br />Hebrews 7:18 is telling us that Numbers 18 was disannulled. Numbers 18 established the Levitical priesthood, and part of the establishing included tithing.<br /><br />There is no teaching of tithing after Calvary.Gary Arnoldhttp://www.TithingToday.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8614009373413502880.post-53670406568816165542010-11-08T17:50:20.861+13:002010-11-08T17:50:20.861+13:00Hi, Gary
Mmmm. To cite your argument: "Chris...Hi, Gary<br />Mmmm. To cite your argument: "Christians should NEVER adapt God's Word to the times. Christians should adjust their lives to the Word.<br /><br />You have taken God's Word and changed it to fit what you want it to say. " It would seem that there might be a lot of this going on in what you say. Since the tithe did not just go to the Levites (as Wilson pointed out), and since we are a Kingdom of Priests, and since we do enter into the Tabernacle of God, and since Abraham paid tithes, it would seem that there is a good deal more to the tithe than the Older Covenant institution of the Levitical priesthood. Moreover, Hebrews 7:5 does not say that the tithe itself was expended with the abolition of the sacrificial system, because tithes were paid to Him who is a priest after the order of Melchizedek, as the next verse mentions. <br />Probably no progress will be able to be made in this discussion until we drop it down to a deeper issue--namely, the relationship of the New Covenant Scriptures to the Old. What would be a fair representation of your beliefs on this question?John Tertullianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11195747255458392629noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8614009373413502880.post-54075328780406462032010-11-08T11:12:37.935+13:002010-11-08T11:12:37.935+13:00Actually, John, only Israelite farmers and herdsme...Actually, John, only Israelite farmers and herdsmen were commanded to tithe, and only on crops and animals raised ON THE HOLY LAND.<br /><br />No one can pay the Biblical tithe today. It is impossible.<br /><br />The New Testament teaches generous, sacrificial giving, from the heart, according to our means. For some, $1 might be a sacrifice, while for others, even giving 50% of their income might not induce a sacrifice. In the Old Testament, ONLY the farmers and herdsmen tithed, and it was equal percentage (a tenth). The New Testament teaches the principle of equal sacrifice instead of equal percentage. Equal sacrifice is much harder to achieve, if not impossible, than giving ten percent.<br /><br />OLD TESTAMENT - THE FIRST OF THE FRUITS SHOULD GO TO GOD<br />Proverbs 3:9 (KJV) “Honour the LORD with thy substance, and with the firstfruits of all thine increase:”<br /><br />NEW TESTAMENT - THE WORKER SHOULD BE FIRST TO RECEIVE A SHARE OF THE FRUIT<br />2 Timothy 2:6 (KJV) “The husbandman that laboureth must be first partaker of the fruits.”<br /><br />When was the last time you heard a pastor say that you should spend the FIRST part of your income on yourself and your family?<br /><br />1 Timothy 5:8 (KJV) “But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.”<br /><br />The New Testament makes it clear that we are to use the FIRST of our income to take care of ourselves and our family. We are talking about needs, here, not just anything we want. Then we should give generously from what is left.<br /><br />The tithe ended when the Levitical priesthood ended per Hebrews 7:5,12,18.Gary Arnoldhttp://www.TithingToday.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8614009373413502880.post-25901010383541315252010-11-08T11:02:01.441+13:002010-11-08T11:02:01.441+13:00Hi, Gary. Thanks for your thoughts. Since we in ...Hi, Gary. Thanks for your thoughts. Since we in NZ have lots of increases of seed and flocks, please tell us where we can find a Levite so that we can deliver our tithes. And, oh, we are curious to see how you will be able to help us out here without "adapting" God's Word to the times. <br />Just thinking about that a bit--one presumes that since Scripture does not mention TV's and cars you would counsel us to have nothing to do with them either.John Tertullianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11195747255458392629noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8614009373413502880.post-24100697867198562722010-11-08T09:56:37.524+13:002010-11-08T09:56:37.524+13:00You avoided giving the true definition of the tith...You avoided giving the true definition of the tithe. It isn't a tenth of all increase. God defined His tithe in Leviticus 27:30-33 as a tenth of the increase OF THE SEED (crops) and every tenth animal in herds and flocks. Those are assets that came from God's hand, not income from man's labor.<br /><br />You correctly state the scriptures say the tithe was to be taken to the Levites (plus poor, etc.) but then want to "translate into modern terms." That is nothing but manipulating. In Numbers 18 God commands the tithe be taken to the Levites, FOREVER. God never gave any pastor or any church permission to receive the tithe.<br /><br />Christians should NEVER adapt God's Word to the times. Christians should adjust their lives to the Word.<br /><br />You have taken God's Word and changed it to fit what you want it to say.Gary Arnoldhttp://www.TithingToday.comnoreply@blogger.com