| Author | Message | ||
     David Conklin (Djconklin) member Username: Djconklin Post Number: 59 Registered: 11-2005 |
With regard to the IJ see http://www .pickle-pu blishing.c om/papers/ investigat ive-judgme nt.htm | ||
| Thomas A Norris (Tom_norris) member Username: Tom_norris Post Number: 559 Registered: 9-2004 |
David, I have a challenge for you and anyone else that thinks the SDA doctrine of NT Tithe is valid. You seem like a sharp fellow, are you up to it? Let's find out shall we? To make it worth your while, I will personally pay you $50,000 if you can find any Christian paying tithe or receiving tithe or promoting the doctrine of tithe in the apostolic church. That sounds like a pretty simple challenge don't you think? Because if you can't do this, there is no way that this doctrine can stand without such NT evidence and support. But you are going to have to do better than declaring my position "bunk." That would not be sufficient evidence, apostolic or otherwise, to support the doctrine of New Testament Tithe. Rather, the Apostles must teach this doctrine by either practice or example or by their teaching or preaching; otherwise the practice of tithe can have no validity for the New Testament Church. While I realize that the Old Covenant Jews did indeed practice such a doctrine, we are not Jews and thus your task is to show that such a doctrine is valid for the Apostolic church and thus for us today. Are you up to this challenge? I should also mention that you are free to use whatever help from the church or the SDA scholars that you can secure. You can even use whatever help you can get from the Mormons, as they too follow this doctrine. In fact, considerin g that this alleged "sacred" doctrine is the foundation for the entire SDA organizati onal system, you should be able to get some substantia l assistance from them. Such assistance is fair and welcome as this exercise it meant to discover the truth about this popular doctrine that many believe is valid for the church. And to prove that this is not about money, but only about doctrine, you will not be placed at financial risk. If you fail to prove your point, all you have to do is recant the doctrine of NT Tithe, and promote honest theology within the SDA Community? In other words, I am at financial risk, not you. But of course the entire denominati on is also a great risk, because if you fail, they will be embarrasse d and ruined for obvious reasons. But if you win, they also win 10%, so they should be greatly motivated to assist you, and that is fine with me. Do we have a deal? Do we have a public online debate about the doctrine of New Testament Tithe? It sounds like this will be some easy money for you, because judging from your response, you obviously think you can quickly support this fundamenta l and "sacred" SDA doctrine upon which the entire denominati on operates? So what do you have to lose? But I warn you; this is what we were doing over at Atoday when it was shut down. And there was no one that could even come close to defending the doctrine of NT Tithe. It surprised and stunned many, and was the main reason why the church leaders shut that site down with a rude and Machiavell ian crash. After all, if Tithe cannot be supported from the NT, the Adventist Community would soon realize that their leaders have been taking advantage of them and misleading them about theology. And a great cry would naturally be raised to reform and re-organiz e the confused, dishonest, and self-servi ng SDA church. So no wonder they felt they had to take action for their own self-prese rvation. Thus, because neither the leaders, nor any of their supporters could credibly defend their position on tithe, they resorted to censorship in order to stop the discussion . It was an obvious attempt to protect this great scam that brings in billions of dollars into their coffers. I understand why they did it, but it was not right whatsoever . Censorship is not a fair way to establish Christian doctrine. But who wants to give up such a great income stream regardless of what the NT teaches? Who wants to give up the hierarchic al system of control that they have establishe d for themselves ? Money is a great motivator for evil and thus no one should be surprised at their wicked and self-servi ng action. However, the church has no power or control over this site, so we will be able to openly and honestly deal with this point without fear of censorship or denominati onal interferen ce. We can take as long as necessary to make sure that we get it correct. So in the end, we should all know the truth of this matter, which is the point. So if you are up to it, let's ask JR to open up a special new thread and let's agree on whatever ground rules may be necessary to make sure that this is a serious, fair, and honest debate. If you are too busy right now, that is fine, we can schedule this for the spring or whenever it is convenient for you? Tom Norris for Adventist Reform | ||
| Thomas A Norris (Tom_norris) member Username: Tom_norris Post Number: 557 Registered: 9-2004 |
David Conklin said: "The problem is two-fold; the first and foremost is that you let the words of man shake you instead of relying on Scripture. " If the SDA's started to "rely on scripture" they would have to repudiate this utter nonsense about NT Tithe, as well as the IJ and many other things that they routinely teach. There is no doubt that both this pastor and his wife teach many myths. All SDA's Pastors teach mountains of false doctrine, even as they are paid and sustained by the false doctrine of Old Covenant tithe that has no place in any New Covenant theology. David said: "Secondly, you should know Scripture well enough to know that what the Pastor's wife was talking about is unconfesse d sin. " How do you know that? But guess what? She was wrong no matter what she meant. The NT does not teach that we are at anytime "without sin," un-confess ed or confessed. And anyone who thinks otherwise is not in the "truth." The many and confused ideas of the SDA's about law and sin are for the most part double-tal k, they don't understand the Gospel or salvation. 1John 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us. The fact of the matter is that the SDA's do not understand the Gospel properly and thus they contradict themselves as well as scripture. No one should listen to any SDA Pastor, who themselves are paid by the false and mythical doctrine of tithe. That is a great "un-confes sed" sin that every SDA is guilty of participat ing in on a weekly basis. And this confused Pastors wife is guilty of sin every time she spends this money that is the fruit of false and anti-Gospe l doctrine. 1John 5:16 If anyone sees his brother committing a sin not leading to death, he shall ask and God will for him give life to those who commit sin not leading to death. There is a sin leading to death; I do not say that he should make request for this. 1John 5:17 All unrighteou sness is sin, and there is a sin not leading to death. I wonder how the confused Pastor and his more confused wife understand the scriptures that teach about sins that are not mortal? Much less that others are to pray for these sins? They probably don't even know these apostolic texts exist, much less what they mean. The SDA's are a confused and arrogant church that has no right to condemn anyone. They are great sinners themselves . David said: "Of course, she should have made that clear; if she didn't then God will hold her accountabl e for giving out false informatio n. " God is holding all SDA's "accountab le" for their legions of false doctrine, including the great sin of exiling Dr. Ford for preaching the Gospel. Anyone who supports such Gospel persecutio n will never step foot in the New Jerusalem, and they have no business stepping behind the pulpit to preach their confused theology to anyone. Moreover, God will also hold everyone "accountab le" for teaching and practicing the Old Covenant doctrine of Tithe, as well as many other silly and twisted doctrines of the SDA's. These myths are incompatib le with the Gospel, which is why they cannot be practiced by anyone who embraces the New Covenant. So it is time for the SDA's to drop their arrogance and repent for their legions of false doctrines and sins that have so confused so many. Hubert F. Sturges said: "I glanced at that website. It is the SS quarterly lessons. These were good lessons, but had some problems." The first problem is that they teach this absurd doctrine of the IJ, which has zero apostolic support. Although they teach it in a more Gospel friendly manner that Uriah Smith would never support, it is still dishonest and uncertifie d doctrine that has no place in the Christian Faith, nor in the eschatolog y of the Three Angels Messages. Just because the SDA's are now trying to paint a better picture of themselves , such self-servi ng promotion gives them no right to revise false doctrine and try to make them appear to be true. This is a grave sin that will not fool heaven in the slightest. The IJ, no matter how it is sanitized and cleaned up, is still false doctrine that must be repented of. The failure of the church to do this is sin. It is time to stop playing games with the Gospel and the Word. There is no doctrine of the IJ. Period! It is time for this wicked church to tell the truth about this theologica l fact. Hub said: "First, it is hard to spend a whole quarter on "Assurance " and stay with the subject. " Such a topic must be dreadful for the TSDA's because their theology has no real "assurance ." So it must seem very strange to them, Hub said: "Second, the concept of "Assurance " is anthropoce ntric. Our religion needs to be theocentri c. In other words, we need to focus on God and bring honor and praise to Him, not on ourselves -- even for "assurance ". To make assurance a major goal is essentiall y selfish." Like I said, the TSDA's don't understand the Gospel or its purpose for mankind, and the rest of the SDA's can hardly comprehend it either. So no wonder things are still in a mess within the SDA church. Until they stop playing games, nothing is going to make any sense, and their mission to complete the Protestant Reformatio n will remain a joke. Hub said: "I like the approach of trusting Him, and letting Him take control of my destiny. I let Him "worry" about it. My goal in life is to live for Him." How can anyone trust God when they don't understand the GOSPEL? How can anyone "live for Him," when they have embraced so many false and outrageous doctrines that neither "He" nor his Apostles teach or support? I find such an approach arrogant and worthless. Sorry. | ||
| David Conklin (Djconklin) member Username: Djconklin Post Number: 55 Registered: 11-2005 |
"If the SDA's started to "rely on scripture" they would have to repudiate this utter nonsense about NT Tithe, as well as the IJ and many other things that they routinely teach." Bunk. | ||
| Paul Filinovich (Third_angel) new member Username: Third_angel Post Number: 1 Registered: 12-2005 |
I think Tom Norris would have a valid point if we accepted only the NT without the OT. But the last I heard, the OT was still considered inspired Scripture as well. When the Apostle Paul said that ALL Scripture was inspired by God (2 Tim. 3:16), he was referring to the OT. The practice of tithing is not a NT Church doctrine, but it is a doctrine that transcends the dispensation between the old and new covenants. Its purpose is to support the ministers of the sanctuary (this would include ministers of the church today) and to fund the work of spreading the news of God to the world. There is no reason why this practice should have ceased after the death of Christ, and the NT's silence on this can pretty much clue us in to the fact that there was no dispute about it. Compare the NT silence on this with the uproar that was made about circumcisi on. If the Jewish believers made such an issue about circumcision being obsolete, they would have done likewise about tithing as well. Just the fact that the NT Apostolic Church was a community organization that survived and was sustained solely on the contributions of the believers should indicate that tithing was not only practiced, but was exceeded to the point where ALL substantial possessions and wealth were donated, not just the 10% tithe. Now all who believed were together, and had all things in common, and sold their possessions and goods, and divided them among all, as anyone had need." Acts 2:44, 45 (Message edited by Third Angel on December 12, 2005) "they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so." Acts 17:11 | ||
| Hubert F. Sturges (Hfsturges) Moderator Username: Hfsturges Post Number: 1732 Registered: 2-2002 |
Tom, Here is my chance. I offered to take up your challenge about a year ago, but you copped out. Here is what you must do: Write a certified check for $50,000 and put it in escrow -- with a neutral person if you will. We will choose a panel to determine who has made a valid point. Then we will present our arguments. What the panel decides is final. OK? He must increase, but I must decrease. (John the Baptist) | ||
| robert d lackey (Boblackey) member Username: Boblackey Post Number: 1126 Registered: 9-2004 |
Paul. Tom is correct. The NT church from the day of pentecost NEVER required a 10 percent tith. But giving to support the work of the gospel is certainly valid but it is up to the believer what percentage to give. Most people who are devoted Christians actually give MORE then 10 percent anyway. Also as to the OT. It is NOT a PROTESTANT position for the OT to be used for DOCTRINE. So again, if you want to be a PROTESTANT , then Tom is correct again. When Paul wrote, the NT Scrupture was not complete. When it WAS completed, then the position of the early church as is the protestant churches today, that ONLY that which is preached by the apostles, ONLY that which is REPEATED by the apostles is DOCTRINE FOR THE CHURCH!!! Taking the postion that what the NT is silent about means that OT/Jewish pratice is for the church is NOT protestant positionin g. Plus the fights about circumcisi on was actually fights about keeping the whole law, which Paul was opposed to. And Paul gave Peter some chin music to his face about putting Jewish law and doctrine on gentiles. Now if you want to be a "tradition al" Seventh-Da y Adventist, then by all means USE the OT for doctrine and let EGW decide what in the OT is for you and what is left behind in Judaism. And use EGW for doctrine too and position her writings as INSPIRED, ACCURATE AND AUTHORITAT IVE....JUS T LIKE THE BIBLE. Yes, yes. Do all of that. Because "tradition al" Adventism in NOT protestant . No it is a cultic legalistic religion which is unique and off to its self like the Mormons and the JWs. | ||
| robert d lackey (Boblackey) member Username: Boblackey Post Number: 1127 Registered: 9-2004 |
David Conklin. Where IS the IJ/1844 IN the Bible? Tom is correct. It is not there. Nowhere does this strange doctrine appear in the Scripture. Dr. Barnhouse, the great Presbyteri an scholar told the Adventists that "there is not the slightest hint of this strange doctrine in the entire Bible. It is only a face saving device to explain the Miller error about the second coming happening in 1844" Yes we all now Desmond Ford and ALL the theologian s and scholars in the protestant denominati ons reject the doctrine and can't find it in Scritpure. But Adventist scholar Raymond Cottrell was upset back in the 1950's when Dr. Barnhouse' s remark about the IJ and told him so. Barnhouse said that he could not show him the doctrne in the Bible and only Adventists believe because it is in the supposed inspired writings of Ellen White. So Raymond Cottrell decided he would prove the doctrine FROM SCRIPTURE ALONE. Dr. Raymond Cottrell worked for decades and begged other Adventist scholars to show him and he COULD NOT PRESENT THE IJ DOCTRINE FROM THE BIBLE AND THE BIBLE ALONE. Indeed, all the Adventist scholars who accepted the doctrine said they did so because ELLEN WHITE believed it. So Tom is right. If you want to be protestant and Scritpure Alone...th en you must surrender the IJ doctrine. Now if you want to be "tradition al" Adventist and NOT be Bible ONLY and use the extra-Bibl ical writings of EGW is inspired as is the Bible and a continuing source of truth and authoritat ive just like the Bible, then enjoy and accept the doctrine. Just don't call yourself PROTESTANT !! | ||
| robert d lackey (Boblackey) member Username: Boblackey Post Number: 1128 Registered: 9-2004 |
David. Mr Pickle must have been pickled when he wrote all that on the link you provided. Well he is clearly trying to bend those Scritpures to say what he wants them to say. He is trying to teach Ellen White theology without using Ellen White. Pickle didn't get ANY of that theology he is spouting out about from Bible study alone. He is actually using his Bible to try to prove what he learned from reading the "red books". Also much of his twisting of Scripture to prove his doctrine is twisting the OT and using it in a way to establish DOCTRINE. That excuses Pickle from being a protestant right there. ONLY that which is taught and repeated by Paul and the APOSTLES is doctrine for the church. THAT IS THE PROTESTANT WAY. "tradition al" Seventh-Da y Adventist doctrine is far, far from protestant theology. It is cultic, legalistic and certianly NOT Bible ALONE. I use to think that maybe it was protestant , especially IF when one reads Questions on Doctrine. But now I know the Adventists who worked with Martin and Barnhouse in the 1950's lied to them about Adventist doctrine and Neal Wilson lied to Martin just before Martin died about 15 years ago. It turns out it is NOT true that the majority of SDAs support the postions given in Questions on Doctrine. That then means that the SDA church in the main doesn't square with the protestant churches on the human nature of Christ, the atonement, the way salvation works, grace, original sin, assurance and several other important doctrines. | ||
| Hubert F. Sturges (Hfsturges) Moderator Username: Hfsturges Post Number: 1734 Registered: 2-2002 |
Bob, I am not sure that "protestan t doctorine" is as you say it is. When I was in London, I found a Book of Common Prayer in an Anglican Church. It could have been written by EGW when it comes to faith, grace, and the law. So I thought I would see what the Methodists say about the Old Testament and the law. Here it is: Methodist Articles of Religion from: http://mb- soft.com/b elieve/txh /methodar. htm V. Authority of the Old Testament The Old Testament is not contrary to the New. Both Testaments bear witness to God's salvation in Christ; both speak of God's will for His people. The ancient laws for ceremonies and rites, and the civil precepts for the nation Israel are not necessaril y binding on Christians today. But, on the example of Jesus we are obligated to obey the moral commandmen ts of the Old Testament. The books of the Old Testament are: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronom y, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 Samuel, 2 Samuel, 1 Kings, 2 Kings, 1 Chronicles , 2 Chronicles , Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiast es, The Song of Solomon, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentatio ns, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi. VI. New Testament The New Testament fulfills and interprets the Old Testament. It is the record of the revelation of God in Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. It is God's final word regarding man, his sin, and his salvation, the world, and destiny. The books of the New Testament are: Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, 1 Corinthian s, 2 Corinthian s, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippian s, Colossians , 1 Thessaloni ans, 2 Thessaloni ans, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, Hebrews, James, 1 Peter, 2 Peter, 1 John, 2 John, 3 John, Jude, Revelation . He must increase, but I must decrease. (John the Baptist) | ||
| Paul Filinovich (Third_angel) member Username: Third_angel Post Number: 5 Registered: 12-2005 |
Robert, The tithe principle was laid out in the OT long before the Jewish nation came into existence. Like the Sabbath, it is not dependant upon ceremonial laws such as circumcision. Abraham gave tithe to Melchizedek (Gen. 14:18-20), who represented Christ (Heb. 7). Now consider how great this man was, to whom even the patriarch Abraham gave a tenth of the spoils. And indeed those who are of the sons of Levi, who receive the priesthood , have a commandment to receive tithes from the people according to the law, that is, from their brethren, though they have come from the loins of Abraham; but he whose genealogy is not derived from them received tithes from Abraham and blessed him who had the promises. Now beyond all contradiction the lesser is blessed by the better. Here mortal men receive tithes, but there he receives them, of whom it is witnessed that he lives. Even Levi, who receives tithes, paid tithes through Abraham, so to speak, for he was still in the loins of his father when Melchizedek met him. Heb. 7:4-10)} (Message edited by third_angel on December 12, 2005) "they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so." Acts 17:11 | ||
| Paul Filinovich (Third_angel) member Username: Third_angel Post Number: 6 Registered: 12-2005 |
Also, I would point out that Larry Birket, a renowned Protestant Christian economist who is broadcast on Moody radio and other outlets, teaches the tithing principle. It is not just an SDA doctrine. "they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so." Acts 17:11 | ||
| robert d lackey (Boblackey) member Username: Boblackey Post Number: 1129 Registered: 9-2004 |
Yes Hubb. I agree with the Methodists . It is exactly what the Baptists believe. The NT interprets the OT!!! That NT is the FINAL WORD OF GOD on man, his sin and salvation. Paul said he preached the WHOLE GOSPEL. We should not pull passages from the OT and add to Paul's gospel thinking that Paul's letters in the Bible do not contain ALL that Paul preached. Paul is not equal to Daniel or Moses. Paul and the apostles are OVER THE OT WRITERS AND THE FINAL WORD ON THE GOSPEL AND SALVATION. Bill Soresnon would say that EGW is subject to Paul and Paul is subject to Moses and Moses is the final authority in the line which is called the Word of God. Protestant s don't agree with that. Luther would take Sorenson to the woodshed for that. And protestant s wouldn't allow EGW to even be in the line of the Word of God. I know what Pastor Larry Kirkpatric k, the author of the site Ron Corson linked and many other SDAs say about EGW. That EGW's writings are inspired just like the Bible and are a continuing source of truth and authority. As Kirkpartic k wrote on his webstie. "The Bible is the Word of God but not ALL the Word of God. The SOP is part of the Word of God too. The SOP also is writings from the inspired pen." Old mean Martin Luther would have Pastor Kirkpatric k dipped in hot oil for making such an anti-prote stant, such an anti-sola scritpura statement about EGW. Paul. I agree that the tith principle is for the NT church. But the 10 percent is left behind in Judaism. Actually a NT believer who is serious about working for the Lord is going to do more than 10 percent in most cases. | ||
| Ron Corson (Ron) member Username: Ron Post Number: 811 Registered: 8-2004 |
Hebrews 7:5 5 And indeed those who are of the sons of Levi, who receive the priesthood , have a commandmen t to receive tithes from the people according to the law, that is, from their brethren, though they have come from the loins of Abraham; So if we follow the Old Testament instructio ns on Tithe then we should also follow the instructio ns in the old testament which tell us to give it to the Levites right? Now I am sure the Christians and the Jews at least in the Jews view would have probably got along better if the christians gave their 10% tithe to the Levites. However in practical matters with the diaspora after the destructio n of Jerusalem it would have become quite a problem finding the Levites to give the tithe too. Http://www.ProgressiveAdventist.com | ||
| Sirje Walkowiak (Sirje) member Username: Sirje Post Number: 2014 Registered: 2-2002 |
Paul, ...Not to change the subject here but, if every practice that was establishe d before the Jewish nation came into being is to be continued, why is the Passover not kept in exactly the way it was establishe d substituti ng the bread and the wine for the lamb, of course. Jesus certainly continued the tradition in the upper room and in exactly the right time. Why do we think it's ok to change the Passover to be kept one Sabbath out of a quarter? Haven't we changed this celebratio n just as much as we claim the Catholic church changed the Sabbath to Sunday? By the way, since Christ is the High Priest according to the order of Melchizede k, He would have nothing to do with the sanctuary service since this, too, came on the scene with the Heberew nation. How DO we reconcile all this? It seems we pick and choose which to keep and which to relegate as obsolete. With regard to the NT/OT relationsh ip, it seems that something did change when Jesus changed the meaning of the commandmen ts to deal with motives and attitudes rather than actions (Sermon on the Mount); but I doubt anyone takes those commandmen ts sereously since not too many guys are coming to church minus an eye or an arm. | ||
| Thomas A Norris (Tom_norris) member Username: Tom_norris Post Number: 560 Registered: 9-2004 |
Paul Filinovich said: "I think Tom Norris would have a valid point if we accepted only the NT without the OT. But the last I heard, the OT was still considered inspired Scripture as well. When the Apostle Paul said that ALL Scripture was inspired by God (2 Tim. 3:16), he was referring to the OT." You have "heard wrong" my friend. When it comes to CHURCH doctrine, only what the Apostles teach can be valid doctrine and practice for the CHURCH today. At least this is the Protestant Position. Thus for any that are "in Christ's Body" they must "first" submit to the authority and teaching of the Apostles. 1Cor. 12:27 Now you are Christ’s body, and individual ly members of it. 1Cor. 12:28 And God has appointed in the church, first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, administra tions, various kinds of tongues. While the OT is inspired, and is indeed the Word of God, it does not have authority over the church for doctrine, nor does it even contain or explain the Gospel. Why? Because not until Jesus and the Apostles came on the scene did the Gospel become clearly known to man. Eph. 3:4 By referring to this, when you read you can understand my insight into the mystery of Christ, Eph. 3:5 which in other generation s was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed to His holy apostles and prophets in the Spirit; The church is built and founded on the Words of the Apostles, not on Moses or the OT. Eph. 4:10 He who descended is Himself also He who ascended far above all the heavens, so that He might fill all things.) Eph. 4:11 And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelist s, and some as pastors and teachers, Eph. 4:12 for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ; Eph. 4:13 until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ. Eph. 4:14 As a result, we are no longer to be children, tossed here and there by waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, by craftiness in deceitful scheming; Eph. 4:15 but speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in all aspects into Him who is the head, even Christ, Eph. 4:16 from whom the whole body, being fitted and held together by what every joint supplies, according to the proper working of each individual part, causes the growth of the body for the building up of itself in love. Thus only the Apostles have doctrinal authority for the church. 1Th. 2:5 For we never came with flattering speech, as you know, nor with a pretext for greed—God is witness— 1Th. 2:6 nor did we seek glory from men, either from you or from others, even though as apostles of Christ we might have asserted our authority. Only the Apostles speak the "commandme nt of the Lord and Savior," the head of the Church, Jesus Christ. No one in the OT can make such a claim, nor did they. 2Pet. 3:1 This is now, beloved, the second letter I am writing to you in which I am stirring up your sincere mind by way of reminder, 2Pet. 3:2 that you should remember the words spoken beforehand by the holy prophets and the commandmen t of the Lord and Savior spoken by your apostles. Jude 1:17 But you, beloved, ought to remember the words that were spoken beforehand by the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ, The church is built on the Words, teaching, and authority of the Apostles. Period! Which is why the New Jerusalem is "founded" on the 12 Apostles and not on Moses or any OT person. Rev. 21:14 And the wall of the city had twelve foundation stones, and on them were the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb. The SDA's have made a tremendous error by thinking that they can rummage around in the OT to pick and choose this or that text to then formulate whatever NT doctrine they fancy. There is no such valid hermeneuti c for any Protestant . The leaders should be ashamed of themselves for teaching such a false and confused hermeneuti c that is a great source of confusion and false doctrine. Continued | ||
| Thomas A Norris (Tom_norris) member Username: Tom_norris Post Number: 561 Registered: 9-2004 |
Paul the TSDA said: "The practice of tithing is not a NT Church doctrine, but it is a doctrine that transcends the dispensati on between the old and new covenants. " While it is very true that tithing is not a NT doctrine, how can it ever become one? Who said that Old Covenant Tithing could be placed into the New Covenant church? Did any Apostle say this? Did Jesus say this? Where is your authority that this Old Covenant doctrine, that supported the Temple Priests and their ceremonial sacrifices , can become New Covenant doctrine? You have made a fatal assumption that has no basis in Protestant theology. While I realize that the SDA's have taught everyone for generation s that the early church practiced the doctrine of tithing, they were not telling the truth. They were deceiving the Adventist Community for their own benefit. And thus they have built for themselves a corrupt Empire with which to repudiate the Gospel, and abuse and mislead the people. Paul said: "Its purpose is to support the ministers of the sanctuary (this would include ministers of the church today) and to fund the work of spreading the news of God to the world." While this may sound logical, where is the authority for it? And where is this "sanctuary " that you speak about? Are you saying that our tithe goes to support the heavenly sanctuary? Wow! How exactly does that work? Or perhaps the GC is the modern day sanctuary? This what the church would love for people to think. But this is an absurd and impossible doctrine. There is no truth to any of it. There is no such doctrine as NT Tithing any more than there is the doctrine of the Easter Bunny or Santa Claus. Moreover, why did the apostolic church fail to use the doctrine of tithe to "fund the work of spreading the news of God to the world?" If they did not authorize this Old Covenant doctrine to support the Pastors, (and they did not), who did and when did that take place? The fact is that the Apostles chose a very different method to finance the church other than tithe. And this historical fact disproves your point, even as it shows that there is no such doctrine in the church with any such Gospel purpose as you claim. You have just assumed way too much and have not demonstrat ed that there is even a need for tithe, much less that the Apostles taught such a doctrine. Paul said: "There is no reason why this practice should have ceased after the death of Christ, and the NT's silence on this can pretty much clue us in to the fact that there was no dispute about it." If there was "no reason" for Old Covenant tithing to have "ceased", WHY DID IT CEASE? Why did the Apostles choose another method to finance the apostolic church "if there was no reason for it to cease?" Moreover, while you assume that that the Apostles were silent on this point, you have assumed way too much, because they were not "silent" at all about how the church was to be financed. What ever gave you such a silly idea? (That was a rhetorical question, because it was the SDA's that taught you this idea. That is where we all got it from.) The Apostles had to set up a financial system for the church did they not? And guess what? We have the record of what they did and why they did it. Thus we have no choice but to follow their system if we are to submit to their authority. We have no right to set up a different system for any reason. We have no such authority. Furthermor e, you are not quite correct to assume that there was "no dispute" about how they set up there financial system. Some church members did not like the way things had been set up and thus they tried to change the rules and make some personal and self-servi ng adjustment s. But they paid dearly for disrespect ing how the Apostles had set things up, even as they were struck dead for this great sin, which stunned the early church and made the point that this new financial system had the serious approval of God. In fact, the point was made very dramatical ly that any who dared to try and revise or change the financial system of the Apostles would have to answer to God for their great sin. Here is the record of this; Acts 4:32 And the congregati on of those who believed were of one heart and soul; and not one of them claimed that anything belonging to him was his own, but all things were common property to them. Acts 4:33 And with great power the apostles were giving testimony to the resurrecti on of the Lord Jesus, and abundant grace was upon them all. Acts 4:34 For there was not a needy person among them, for all who were owners of land or houses would sell them and bring the proceeds of the sales Acts 4:35 and lay them at the apostles’ feet, and they would be distribute d to each as any had need. Acts 4:36 Now Joseph, a Levite of Cyprian birth, who was also called Barnabas by the apostles (which translated means Son of Encouragem ent), Acts 4:37 and who owned a tract of land, sold it and brought the money and laid it at the apostles’ feet. Acts 5:1 But a man named Ananias, with his wife Sapphira, sold a piece of property, Acts 5:2 and kept back some of the price for himself, with his wife’s full knowledge, and bringing a portion of it, he laid it at the apostles’ feet. Acts 5:3 But Peter said, “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back some of the price of the land? Acts 5:4 “While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not under your control? Why is it that you have conceived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God.” Acts 5:5 And as he heard these words, Ananias fell down and breathed his last; and great fear came over all who heard of it. Acts 5:6 The young men got up and covered him up, and after carrying him out, they buried him. Acts 5:7 Now there elapsed an interval of about three hours, and his wife came in, not knowing what had happened. Acts 5:8 And Peter responded to her, “Tell me whether you sold the land for such and such a price?” And she said, “Yes, that was the price.” Acts 5:9 Then Peter said to her, “Why is it that you have agreed together to put the Spirit of the Lord to the test? Behold, the feet of those who have buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out as well.” Continued | ||
| Thomas A Norris (Tom_norris) member Username: Tom_norris Post Number: 562 Registered: 9-2004 |
Acts 5:10 And immediatel y she fell at his feet and breathed her last, and the young men came in and found her dead, and they carried her out and buried her beside her husband. Acts 5:11 And great fear came over the whole church, and over all who heard of these things. Paul said: "Compare the NT silence on this with the uproar that was made about circumcisi on. If the Jewish believers made such an issue about circumcisi on being obsolete, they would have done likewise about tithing as well." Again you are making unfounded assumption s and pretending that they are facts. First, the Apostles had set up a system of voluntary giving and sharing, NOT TITHING. And there were many reasons for this, but suffice it to say this can be proven by looking closely at the above story. Acts 2:45 and they began selling their property and possession s and were sharing them with all, as anyone might have need. 1Cor. 10:16 Is not the cup of blessing which we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread which we break a sharing in the body of Christ? Heb. 13:16 And do not neglect doing good and sharing, for with such sacrifices God is pleased. Luke 3:11 And he would answer and say to them, “The man who has two tunics is to share with him who has none; and he who has food is to do likewise.” Gal. 6:6 The one who is taught the word is to share all good things with the one who teaches him. 1Tim. 6:18 Instruct them to do good, to be rich in good works, to be generous and ready to share, If the Apostles had been promoting NT tithe, (which I suppose they could have done if they had been so instructed by Jesus and the Holy Sprit), they would not have told A & S that they could have kept all the proceeds from the sale of their land. But this is what they said: Acts 5:4 “While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not under your control? Why is it that you have conceived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God.” In other words, if the SDA doctrine of Tithe were operative in the apostolic church as the SDA's claim, Peter would have had to say: "While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, you were only required to pay 10% on the proceeds? Why is it that you have conceived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God." Do you see it? Do you understand that A& S did not have to pay anything to the church after that sale, not even 10%? Why? Because there was no such doctrine as tithing in the NT church. But A & S's problem was that they had pledged to "share" 100% of the proceeds with the church, but then they changed their minds and tried to dishonestl y reduce their voluntary pledge and deceive the Apostle Peter and the church. Second, contrary to your assumption , there was a great uproar about the death of A & S. In fact, the whole church was stunned and shocked about what had taken place. Acts 5:5 And as he heard these words, Ananias fell down and breathed his last; and great fear came over all who heard of it. This means that the Holy Sprit was setting his seal upon the principle of "voluntary giving." And thus it was a sinful and dangerous thing to play games with this new method of finance that was being used to establish the church. But tithe was not used whatsoever . It was the doctrine of "sharing." This is the point; the Old Covenant method of finance had been replaced with free will and voluntary giving that is so in line with the free gift of the Gospel. And that is very, very different from the rigid doctrine of Old covenant tithing. This principle of giving and sharing to support the church can also be seen all through the NT, while there is not one instance of tithe being used to finance the church. Eph. 4:28 He who steals must steal no longer; but rather he must labor, performing with his own hands what is good, so that he will have something to share with one who has need. Thus "sharing" or "giving" was the method of church finance, NOT TITHING. Paul said: "Just the fact that the NT Apostolic Church was a community organizati on that survived and was sustained solely on the contributi ons of the believers should indicate that tithing was not only practiced, but was exceeded to the point where ALL substantia l possession s and wealth were donated, not just the 10% tithe." I don't think you understand what you just said. If the church survived "solely on contributi ons," which it did, how does that prove that the doctrine of NT tithe was operative? That would actually prove the opposite. In fact, the record shows that they did not use tithe whatsoever , but ONLY free will offering. So your logic makes no sense. Those that gave 100% were not paying tithe whatsoever . In fact that is not even close to tithe, which is only 10%. Continued |
