Jump to content
Online Baptist Community
  • Newest Sermon Entry

    • By Jim_Alaska in Jim_Alaska's Sermons & Devotionals
         14
      Closed Communion
      James Foley
       
      I Corinthians 11:17-34: "Now in this that I declare unto you I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse. For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it. For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you. When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's Supper. For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken. What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not. For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come. Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged. But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world. Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another. And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come."

      INTRODUCTION

      Historic Baptists, true Baptists, have believed in and still believe in closed communion. Baptists impose upon themselves the same restrictions that they impose on others concerning the Lord’s Supper. Baptists have always insisted that it is the Lord’s Table, not theirs; and He alone has the right to say who shall sit at His table. No amount of so called brotherly love, or ecumenical spirit, should cause us to invite to His table those who have not complied with the requirements laid down plainly in His inspired Word. With respect to Bible doctrines we must always use the scripture as our guide and practice. For Baptists, two of the most important doctrines are Baptism and The Lord’s Supper. These are the only two doctrines we recognize as Church Ordinances. The Bible is very clear in teaching how these doctrines are to be practiced and by whom.

      We only have two ordinances that we must never compromise or we risk our very existence, they are Baptism and The Lord’s Supper.

      The moment we deviate from the precise method God has prescribed we have started down the slippery slope of error. True Baptists have held fast to the original doctrine of The Lord’s Supper from the time of Christ and the Apostles.

      Unfortunately, in this day of what the Bible describes as the age of luke warmness, Baptists are becoming careless in regard to strictly following the pattern laid out for us in Scripture. Many of our Bible colleges are graduating otherwise sincere, Godly and dedicated pastors and teachers who have not been taught the very strict, biblical requirements that surround the Lord’s Supper. Any Bible college that neglects to teach its students the differences surrounding Closed Communion, Close Communion and Open Communion is not simply short changing its students; it is also not equipping their students to carry on sound Bible traditions. The result is men of God and churches that fall into error. And as we will see, this is serious error.

      Should we as Baptists ignore the restrictions made by our Lord and Master? NO! When we hold to the restrictions placed upon the Lord’s Supper by our Master, we are defending the "faith which was once delivered to the saints" Jude 3.

      The Lord’s Supper is rigidly restricted and I will show this in the following facts:

      IT IS RESTRICTED AS TO PLACE

      A. I Corinthians 11:18 says, "When ye come together in the church." This does not mean the church building; they had none. In other words, when the church assembles. The supper is to be observed by the church, in church capacity. Again this does not mean the church house. Ekklesia, the Greek word for church, means assembly. "When ye come together in the church," is when the church assembles.

      B. When we say church we mean an assembly of properly baptized believers. Acts 2:41-42: "Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers."

      The church is made up of saved people who are baptized by immersion. In the Bible, belief precedes baptism. That’s the Bible way.

      Acts 8:12-13, "But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done."

      When we say properly baptized, we mean immersed. No unbeliever should take the Lord’s supper, and no non-immersed believer should take the supper. Those who are sprinkled are not baptized and cannot receive the supper. The Greek word for baptize is baptizo, and it always means to immerse.

      "In every case where communion is referred to, or where it may possibly have been administered, the believers had been baptized Acts 2:42; 8:12; 8:38; 10:47; 6:14-15; 18:8; 20:7. Baptism comes before communion, just as repentance and faith precede baptism".

      C. The Lord’s Supper is for baptized believers in church capacity: "When ye come together in the church," again not a building, but the assembly of the properly baptized believers.

      D. The fact that the Lord’s Supper is a church ordinance, to be observed in church capacity, is pointed out by the fact that it is for those who have been immersed and added to the fellowship of the church.

      E. The Lord’s Supper is never spoken of in connection with individuals. When it is referred to, it is only referred to in reference to baptized believers in local church capacity I Cor. 11:20-26).

      I want to quote Dr. W.W. Hamilton,

      "The individual administration of the ordinance has no Bible warrant and is a relic of Romanism. The Lord’s Supper is a church ordinance, and anything which goes beyond or comes short of this fails for want of scriptural example or command".

      “The practice of taking a little communion kit to hospitals, nursing homes, etc. is unscriptural and does not follow the scriptural example.”

      IT IS RESTRICTED TO A UNITED CHURCH

      A. The Bible in I Cor. 11:18 is very strong in condemning divisions around the Lord’s table. For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it.
      19 For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.
      20 When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper.

      There were no less than four divisions in the Corinthian church.
      I Cor. 1:12: "Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ."

      Because of these divisions, it was impossible for them to scripturally eat the Lord’s Supper. Division in the local church is reason to hold off observing the Lord’s Supper. But there are also other reasons to forego taking the Lord’s Supper. If there is gross sin in the membership we do not take it. Here is scriptural evidence for this: 1Co 5:7 Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us:
      8 Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. 9 I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:
      10 Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world. 11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.

      B. At this point, I want to ask these questions: Are there not doctrinal divisions among the many denominations? Is it not our doctrinal differences that cause us to be separate religious bodies?

      IT IS RESTRICTED BY DOCTRINE

      A. Those in the early church at Jerusalem who partook "continued stedfastly in the apostles’ doctrine" Acts 2:42. And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.

      B. Those that do not hold to apostolic truth are not to partake. This means there is to be discipline in the local body. How can you discipline those who do not belong to the local body? You can’t. The clear command of scripture is to withdraw fellowship from those who are not doctrinally sound.

      II Thes 3:6: "Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us."
      Rom. 16:17: "Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them."
      To commune together means to have the same doctrine.
      II Thes. 2:15: "Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle."
      II John 10-11: "If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds."

      C. Some Baptists in our day have watered down this doctrine by practicing what they call “Close Communion.” By this they mean that they believe that members of another Baptist church may take communion with us because they are of the same beliefs. Once again, this is unscriptural.

      The welcome to the Lord's Table should not be extended beyond the discipline of the local church. When we take the Lord’s Supper there is supposed to be no gross sin among us and no divisions among us. We have no idea of the spiritual condition of another church’s members. If there is sin or division in the case of this other church’s members, we have no way of knowing it. We cannot discipline them because they are not members of our church. This is why we practice “Closed” communion, meaning it is restricted solely to our church membership. 
      So then, in closing I would like to reiterate the three different ideas concerning the Lord’s Supper and who is to take it. 
      Closed Communion = Only members of a single local church. 
      Close Communion = Members of like faith and order may partake. 
      Open Communion = If you claim to be a Christian, or simply attending the service, you may partake. 
      It is no small thing to attempt to change that which was implemented by our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. 
      Mt. 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen. 
      Many of our Baptist churches have a real need to consider the gravity of the act of observing The Lord’s Supper. It is not a light thing that is to be taken casually or without regard to the spiritual condition of ourselves or our church.
      1Co. 11:27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

       28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.

       29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.

       30 For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.

Tithing: Established by Law


swathdiver
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

http://www.baptistpillar.com/article_609a.html

"And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God. And he blessed him, and said, Blessed be Abram of the most high God, possessor of heaven and earth: And blessed be the most high God, which hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand. And he gave him tithes of all." Gen. 14:18-20.

This text gives the first record of tithing, and it was some four hundred years before the giving of the Law of Moses, for Abraham lived over four hundred years before Moses, Gal. 3:16-17. However, nothing is said in the Genesis text to show that this was a new thing even in Abraham's day.

What is suggested, is that inasmuch as Abraham is the "father of all that believe," Rom. 4:11, and Melchizedek was an outstanding type of Christ, Heb. 7:1ff, therefore Abraham's paying of tithes is an example to believers today, who are to tithe to the representative of Christ, the local assembly. We must remember that Bible examples are equally as authoritative as commands where there are no commands to the contrary.

Many Christians reject tithing, but their rejection of it must be for one of two reasons:

(1) Ignorance of the duty. Or

(2) Rebellion against that duty because of selfishness.

Sometimes it is objected that "I earned what I have by my own labor, and it's mine to do with as I please." But this is to ignore the teaching of Deut. 8:17-18: "And thou say in thine heart, My power and the might of mine hand hath gotten me this wealth. But thou shalt remember the Lord thy God: for IT IS HE THAT GIVETH THEE POWER TO GET WEALTH, that he may establish his covenant which he aware unto thy fathers, as it is this day."

Tithing - the paying of ten percent of our income to the Lord - is an acknowledgement of God's ownership of all things, and that we are but stewards of what He has committed to our hands.

Tithing is not just based upon a need, for every believer has the duty of tithing regardless of the condition of the church treasury.

Tithing is an established duty; and it is established by law, but not just by the Law of Moses, for it is not a mere legal duty, to be forgotten when one becomes a Christian. Tithing is not legalism any more than any other duty, such as repentance, faith, baptism or consecration, is, for they are all the commands of the Lord to His children, and it is but an attempt to becloud the issue to call it legalism.

I. IT IS ESTABLISHED BY THE LAW OF THE LORD.

The proof-text for this is Lev. 27:30: "And all the tithe of the land, whether of the seed of the land, or of the fruit of the tree, is the Lord's: it is holy unto the Lord." All the tithe of all produce was holy, and not to be used for selfish purposes except, in some cases when one wished to keep some especially good grain for seed, by adding 20 per cent to it, V. 31. But when the animals were run under the rod to count them, there could be no changing of the tenth for the ninth or eleventh, as one might be tempted to do, if the tenth appeared to be a superior breeding animal, V. 32-33. These things are here couched in pastoral terms for the Israelites were a pastoral people.

But of course, the immediate objection that is lodged by non-tithers is: "O but that was before Christ came. That was in the Old Testament." May we be permitted to ask: "What difference can that possibly make? Do we serve a different God than Israel did?"

Before we assume that ANYTHING in the Old Testament has been abrogated, we must see a specific command revoking it. Such a revocation of the law of tithing does not appear in the New Testament. But a specific state­ment is made in the New Testament which does bear upon the very issue at hand. Matt. 5:17-18: "Think not that I am come to DESTROY THE LAW, or the prophets: I AM NOT COME TO DESTROY, BUT TO FULFILL. But verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."

Our Lord declares that He did not come to disannul or abrogate the law. Who dares to argue with this? Let him be ready to answer for his rebellion against the revealed will of God if he does.

But even more specific in this matter is the inspired comment of Paul on this issue in I Cor. 9:13-14: "Do ye not know that they which minister about holy things live of the things of the temple? and they which wait at the altar are partakers with the altar? EVEN SO HATH THE LORD ORDAINED THAT THEY WHICH PREACH THE GOSPEL SHOULD LIVE OF THE GOSPEL."

The reference in V. 13 is to the support of the ministry of the Tabernacle and Temple by TITHES AND OFFERINGS. The Lord has "ordained" that the ministry of the church is to be supported "even so", or "in this manner" as the word is also rendered. This ought to be clear enough, shouldn't it? What then will you do about this duty?

II. IT IS ESTABLISHED BY THE LAW OF LOVE.

Our Lord Himself said in John 14:15: "If ye love me, keep my commandments," and the law of tithing is as much a com­mandment from Jesus Christ as it is from the Father. In proof of this, we have but to recall 1 Cor. 9:14; the Lord Jesus has "ordained" the tithes for the support of His churches and the ministry of the Word. The word rendered "ordained" appears sixteen times in the New Testament, and is rendered "com­manded" seven times; "appointed" four times; "ordained" three times; "set in order" once; and "give order" once. Clearly, the word is used in the sense of an authoritative com­mand. Who dares to disobey this commandment?

Who can claim to love the Lord while disobeying Him? Such is a strange kind of love. When we eat in a restaurant, we "tip" the waitress, yet it is an unwritten law that the tip shall be at least a minimum of ten percent of the check. Does the Christian love that often unknown waitress more than he loves the Lord who died for him? Shame on him if his love is no deeper than this!

Who can claim to love the Lord while robbing Him of that portion of his material possessions that He claims as His own? Mal. 3:8-9 says: "Will a man rob God? Yet ye have robbed me. But ye say, Wherein have we robbed thee? In tithes and offerings. Ye are cursed with a curse: for ye have robbed me, even this whole nation."

Tithing has always been a test of the Lord's people:

(1) It tests their love: do they love Him more than Mammon--the god of riches, Luke 16:10-13.

(2) It tests their faith: do they believe God's promises, Matt. 6:24-25, 33-34.

(3) It tests their concern for the souls of men: do they love souls enough to give to get the gospel preached, I Cor. 9:14.

Tithing is intimately associated with the gospel, both in the church and on the mission field.

This law of love also is concerned with those who preach the gospel, for those who hear are to share their material posses­sions with those who do the preaching. Gal. 6:6: "Let him that is taught in the Word COMMUNICATE unto [share with] him that teacheth in all good things."

Interestingly, this same word is used of giving for the preaching of the Word on foreign fields in Phil. 4:15: "Now ye Philippians know also, that in the beginning of the gospel, when I departed from Macedonia, no church COMMUNICATED with me as concerning giving and receiving, but ye only."

Love for the Lord and love for the souls of men will compel the believer to tithe every time, for Christian love (that highest of all kinds of loves as signified by the Greek word AGAPE) is always a GIVING type of love, not a selfish kind of love, John 3:16; I Car. 13:5.

III. IT IS ESTABLISHED BY THE LAW OF LOGIC.

One of the objections lodged against tithing is that the New Testament says so little about it. But it is unnecessary to say much about that which is already established. What the New Testament does say, strengthens rather than takes away from its authority. Heb. 7:5-8: "And verily they that are of the sons of Levi, who receive the office of the priesthood, have a com­mandment to take tithes of the people according to the law, that is, of their brethren, though they come out of the loins of Abraham: But he whose descent is not counted from them received tithes of Abraham, and blessed him that had the promises. And without all contradiction the less is blessed of the better. And here men that die receive tithes; but there he receiveth them, of whom it is witnessed that he liveth."

This is in reference to the text in Gen. 14, and notice the contrast that is drawn in V. 8: "Here" refers to the Levitical priesthood (under the Law) which had just been dealt with, while "there" refers to the Melchizedecan priesthood which typified Christ's priesthood under the New Testament dispensation. The conclusion is irresistible: tithes are to be received in the New Testament dispensation as well as under the old dispensation. This is the only logical meaning of this text.

Some argue that the reference to tithing in Matt. 23:23, which says: "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for YE PAY TITHE of mint and anise and cummin, and have omited the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: THESE OUGHT YE TO HAVE DONE, and not to leave the other undone," had only to do with "a self-righteous Pharisee", and so could have no bearing on Christians. It is true that it was addressed to the Jewish leaders, many of whom were self-righteous hypocrites, but is it logical that we who have received so much more under grace would be required to do less than they? Does love obligate us to less or more than mere law does? Find a person who really loves the Lord, and he will give at least a tithe every time. This is the logic of love.

We knew a godly deacon once who expressed his doubts about tithing being the duty of believers in this age, but when pressed about his own practice, he admitted that he personally gave a double tithe. His love for the Lord overpowered his mental reservations against tithing. And it will ever be, but until the heart-strings are strongly attached to the Lord Jesus, and there is a compelling love for the Lord, the purse-strings will be tightly shut and the idol Mammon will continue to reign in the heart.

Logically, no church can survive unless it has many, many non-tithers putting in their pitiful one dollar per week, but on the other hand, a small church that is made up mostly of tithers can be very successful in missionary and evangelistic work. Ten family heads who are tithers can support a pastor adequately. The writer was called some years ago to pastor a small church whose attendance only ran thirty to fifty, but he was told by the church treasurer that all the adult members were tithers, and the result was that the church was able to pay the pastor an adequate salary, support numerous mission works, plus purchase a nice parsonage, yet without any financial problems whatsoever.

But it is illogical to expect a church to fulfill its work when no one is willing to give to pay its expenses. The church is the Body of Christ, and He never meant for His Body to be a beggar. He has decreed, not only the correct means to do His work, but also the correct way to support that work, and NOTHING ELSE WORKS JUST AS WELL.

Notice how Paul was inspired to establish tithing logically in the context of I Cor. 9:13-14. In V. 7-10 he shows that:

(1) Soldiers are not expected to supply their own support, but they are decreed a daily ration, V. 7.

(2) The keeper of the vineyard is permitted to eat of the fruit, V. 7.

(3) The shepherd eats of the flock, V. 7. The law decreed this.

(4) Thus, even the ox that treads out the grain was permitted to take bites of it, V. 9, and this fact is intended as an instructive example to Christians, V. 9-10.

(5) The farmer likewise labors in the assurance that he will partake of the fruits of his labors. Then

(6) he shows that on the basis of these facts, it is but logical that the same principle holds true in spiritual things as well, V. 11. And

(7) he declares that this was the practice of other preachers of his day, though he personally had not asked for this support, V. 12.

All of which leads up to the declaration that just as the ministers in the Tabernacle and Temple were supported by the tithes and offerings, so those who labor in the gospel ministry likewise are commanded by the Lord to be so supported.

Logically it may not seem that one can get by and prosper easier on the nine-tenths left after tithing than on the whole ten-tenths, but this is only because we often forget God, the sometimes UNSEEN FACTOR In all things. If we but take into account the threat against non-tithers and the promise to tithers in Mal. 3:9-11, immediately the logic changes in favor of the tither. Every tither has seen how that God sometimes seemed to miraculously make the nine-tenths go further in paying the bills than even the ten-tenths would. And every non-tither, though he may not have considered this, has had unexpected bills come from every direction because God's curse was on the work of his hands.

CONCLUSION: It is both foolish and sinful for church people to expect outsiders to support their church through sales, suppers, subscriptions, etc., if the members themselves are unwilling to support the church. In so doing, they give their own estimation of their church; i.e., that it is unworthy of support. Someone once well said of Christ that "He is either worth everything, or He is worth nothing". We believe that since every true church is a Body of Christ, the same thing may be said of it.

Tithing is the only equal means of support for the Lord's work, wherein everyone from the poverty-stricken widow to the millionaire has the same responsibility--duty according to ability. Someone has well said that every Christian is a tither, but from many God must go and collect the tithes, and He is a good collector, and He often charges an additional collection fee when His children refuse to respond to their duty.

Tithing is established upon three strong pillars--the LAW OF THE LORD, the LAW OF LOVE and the LAW OF LOGIC. Nothing can or will raise its voice against tithing except one of two things: Ignorance or Greed, and neither of these is a Christian virtue. Are you a faithful tither? If not, why not begin today to honor the Lord with the firstfruits of all thine increase, Prov. 3:9-10? It will be a blessing to you, your church, your minister and your missionaries.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • Members

The biggest problem with the article is the fact that one has to go outside of Scripture to teach that God requires monetary tithes.

Not one verse in the Bible teaches that God requires monetary tithes.  It is interesting that BBC quotes 1 Corinthians 9:13-14, stressing the "even so" in the text means "in like manner", and yet teach a tithe that is not "in like manner to the tithes taught in the word of God.

If they were teaching "like manner" tithes, they would be teaching tithing from war spoils, or tithing from agricultural increase."  Those are the only tithes taught in the Bible.

They don't teach, "like manner" tithes... they teach a tithe that neither Abram, nor the children of Israel ever tithed in the Scripture.

The author of the article also used Matthew 5:17-20 to bolster the claim that tithes are to be required.  And yet, if the Law is still in effect as they claim, then it is not enough to say God requires a tithe. 

One must also teach what God said the tithe is to consist of, where it is to be taken, to whom it is to be given, and when it is to be given. 

To observe one point of the Law, (thou shalt surely tithe" without observing the rest of the Law (agricultural; to Levites, widows, orphans and foreigners; in the promised land; at the end of the harvest) is NOT observing the Law.

James 2:10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.

Galatians 3:10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.

Edited by Standing Firm In Christ
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators
56 minutes ago, Standing Firm In Christ said:

The biggest problem with the article is the fact that one has to go outside of Scripture to teach that God requires monetary tithes.

I'm just curious, where in the article did he go outside Scripture?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
17 minutes ago, BroMatt said:

I'm just curious, where in the article did he go outside Scripture?

For one, by making tithing a Law for the Church.

Also, by saying that tithing is, "the paying of ten percent of our income to the Lord".  Not once in Scripture do we find that tithing is the paying of ten percent of one's income to the Lord.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators
26 minutes ago, BroMatt said:

I'm just curious, where in the article did he go outside Scripture?

 

5 minutes ago, Standing Firm In Christ said:

For one, by making tithing a Law for the Church.

Also, by saying that tithing is, "the paying of ten percent of our income to the Lord".  Not once in Scripture do we find that tithing is the paying of ten percent of one's income to the Lord.

Well, he definitely did not go out of Scripture. One could argue that he took verses out of context, but not say the biggest problem with the article is that it went out of Scripture. Two completely different things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Also, in this paragraph...

"This is in reference to the text in Gen. 14, and notice the contrast that is drawn in V. 8: "Here" refers to the Levitical priesthood (under the Law) which had just been dealt with, while "there" refers to the Melchizedecan priesthood which typified Christ's priesthood under the New Testament dispensation. The conclusion is irresistible: tithes are to be received in the New Testament dispensation as well as under the old dispensation. This is the only logical meaning of this text."

The author mentions the contrast of the people being compared, yet fails to point out that Hebrews 7 is also contrasting the tithes given in the "here" and there". 

The "here" is the tithe according to the Law, i.e.; agricultural.  I believe the "there" is tithes of war spoils.  But, even if the "there" was speaking of the tithes being received by the Levites, they would not be money, for they are "according to the Law." (v.5) 

Either way, tithes of monetary income has to be inserted into the text.  The author of Hebrews does not say money is to be tithed. 

Are we supposed to preach the word? If so, then we cannot preach that God requires tithes of monetary income.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...