₦airaland Forum

brainbox1:
In summary, the situation is like the blind leading the blind. Most people feel they should pay the tithe because of the blessings purportedly attached to it; sometimes not willingly. The pastors are having a field day qouting from the laws while they are not ready to practise the law to the full. Why not sacrifice animals, burn incense, honor the sabbath etc instead of just taking out the tithe issue because of its percuniary benefits? I blame not the pastors who deceive but their followers who are gullible and who are lazy to figure out the truth for themselves. I am afraid most proffesed christian are puppit xtians; it's now my pastor said, not the bible said. We should do more than just listen but like the Boerian christians in Paul's days we should find out for ourselves whether what we've heard are truly biblical.

If you follow Christian doctrines for your life, why base marriage on the Law? Why quote the Law for loving God and loving neighbour? Why base the teaching of women in Church on the Law? Why are Christians today not also complaining that all those and many more are "based on the Law" and therefore reject them as well?

KunleOshob:
Yeah that was quite some debate, and from experience it can be quite exhausting debating/arguing with pilgrim.1 she NEVER ever agrees even when it is obvious she is wrong, she would run circles around you, distorting your posts and quote scriptures out of context. She actually is really good at this, but then again i appreciate her because despite all her brilliant efforts at justify tithing with her numerous biblical and extra biblical submissions she as only been able to confirm to me further that there is no real substance to the deception of tithing that as gained so much popularity amongst some of our pastors this is evident with the fact that all her brilliant submission never stand up to scrutiny when put under the magnifying glass. If tithing was required for christians it would have been clearly stated/ taught by the apostles and pilgrim.1 would not be trying to force the idea of tithing into 1 corinthians 9:13-14. but then if you are not adequately versed, you can get easily swayed away by prolific quotes of scriptures albeit in the wrong context.

Hi Kunleoshob,

It is obvious that people with different views can have the grace to be civil in their dicussions - and that is what I've very well enjoyed with ttalks. It is unnecessary to become personal against me with childish accusations when you have had nothing intelligent to offer - that game has waned and makes you look really out of date. If you do have anything intelligent to say, please offer them and save all the caterwauls: they're quite unnecessary - unless you're only out to prove your vacancy of thought.

@chukwudi44,

chukwudi44:
That Jesus as GOD is the head of the church is incontestable,but as he was about ascending to heaven ,it was only pertinent that he appointed someone to takeover ffrom him here on earth.That responsibility fell upon Peter.

Contrary to your assertions the KEYS of heaven mentioned in mattew 16:19 applied only to Peter and his successors (Bishops of Rome),no other Apostle was given this right.

Your explainations on why his name was changed Fromm Simon to Peter is untenable.You want to tell me that the meaning of the name Peter (Rock) has nothing to do with he rock mentioned in Mattew 16?

I want to say here that catholic beleif that Peter was the rock upon which the church was built does not make him above Jesus,that was the point St Augustine was trying to say.

St Augustine whom you called a politician ,had the greatest impact on christian life since the death of the Apostles .
St Augustine presided over the synod of hippo and the local council of carthage which decided the Books of the Bible.
If you think he was not a man of God why don't reject the books he selected.

Your reply is appreciated, and here's what I'd like to bring to your attention again: where in all your latest argument have you established that Peter was the foundation upon which the Church is being built? You seem to be trying ever hard to survive this point by repeating the vacant traditions of Catholicism, not by showing anything to substantiate your persuasion.

chukwudi44:
About you claims on the decline of Roman catholicism in the U.S.A. ,you seeem to narrow it down to schools,priests ,forgetting that the overall population of catholics in america has risen tremendously.

The statistics quoted earlier was about Catholicism - is that a different thing from Roman Catholicism? What makes up the structure of the Catholic Church that you've been arguing if there's nothing to talk about its priests? Perhaps you're seeking to just excuse this point as you may never have guessed such an observation was possible.

chukwudi44:
200 years ago roman catholics were less than 3% of the american population today there are over 25% of the population making them the largest religious sect in the country

Does that prove anything about Peter being the foundation of the Church?

chukwudi44:
The donatists you mentioned in your write up ,have they not gone into extinction? wher are they today ,If they were of God why didnt they survive?

For starters, I'm not a Donatist. Second, I made the point merely to show that Augustine was being more policital than theological when addressing the Donatists - and I offered a source for you to check it up for yourself: did you do so?

chukwudi44:
Wether you like it or not we cannot ignore the writings of the early church fathers since they told us which books we should read ,the books you regard as scriptures today were not the only books used by the early christians .
We also had books like the shepherd of hermas,Gospel of Hebrew and so many many other works which were not canonised.
You keep on saying that they never quotesd scripture,the bible only existed after almost 400 years after Jesus ascended into Heaven.These books ,also with epistles of clement,ignatiusand polycarp were regarded with the same authourity with the pauline epistles before the synod of hippo met.

I'm quite familiar with the works of those names you mentioned; and you're not quite correct to say that the 'epistles of clement, ignatius and polycarp were regarded with the same authourity with the pauline epistles'. Read again your quote of Tertullian: "That doctrine is evidently true which was first delivered. On the contrary, that is false which is of a later date." Unless you have a magical way of making Clement, Ignatius and Polycarp to be Paul's contemporaries, I think Tertullian should do nicely in deflating your idea.

chukwudi44:
Some of the criteria used in canonising these books was the citations of quotation from clement,irenaeus,polycarp ,ignatius and the other fathers of the church.This St Augustine you so much disparaged was a man God ureally imbued with so much wisdom,his views are well respected by catholics and protestants alike.

You're misreading me, as I did not disparage Augustine. I only showed you the prevailing circumstances of his day and the conditions that led him to form his opinions of both visible and invisible foundation for the Church - not because that is what the 'scriptures' teach, but simply because that is the mantra being sung in Roman Catholic traditions.

chukwudi44:
About your obstinacy in denying the Primacy of StPeter,Even st paul acknowleged him alongside James and John as the pillars of the chuch in Galatians 2:9

I saw Galatians 2:9 before my request that you show where Peter is ever called the foundation of the Church. Does that verse teach such a thing, or you don't understand what a 'pillar' is? A pillar is not to be confused for a foundation, I trust you know this. Besides, if you mistake 'pillar' for 'foundation', then you effectively saying that there are three foundations for your church, since three names (James, Cephas, and John) were mentioned in that verse as 'pillars'.

chukwudi44:
If after all this biblical evidence and tetimonies from the early church fathers ,you are still not convinced ,Iwish you good luck

You didn't give me the evidence for what you asserted, but I wish you grace in your understanding.

JJYOU:
chei if you are not too far into IT just stop and go get proper training towards being a prof. u were born for academia not for IT work.

you know those kind that teach hebrew or reformations those kind of things with strong eye glasses.

my mrs always read your work and she agrees with me. i only go half way becos i dont know too much book. i like your thorough and balanced mind.

God bless you.

Lol, God bless you plenty.

ttalks:
That in Malachai had positive effects for paying it and had negative effects/circumstances(robbing God/devourer ever present) for not paying it.Which makes it mandatory cos nobody would want any negative effects/circumstances.

Malachi 3:10 does not make anything mandatory to anyone - we read our own fear into that verse and see it as God shouting a coercion to the believer. First, God invites the believer to "prove" Him and see the results - it is up to the believer to yield to that invitation or reject it outright and miss the testimony to God's power.

Even the new covenant also has positive and negative effects to the believer - as Christians, there are numerous negative effects for disobedience even though Christ has obtained "better promises" for us. In just the same manner, nobody wants any negative effects/circumstances, yet indeed a Christian will find to his surprise that the new covenant does not excuse disobedience at any range.

ttalks:
Anything mandatory always has positive effects for carrying it out and negative effects for not carrying it out.
But something that does not have negative effects for not carrying it out is not mandatory but voluntary.

Either way, even some of those things we consider as "voluntary" also carry negative effects when we neglect or disobey them. Particularly in giving, we read very strong words in the NT:
[list][li]as regards giving, 'Even so hath the Lord ordained' - 1 Cor. 9:13-14[/li][li]reading from CEV: 'each Sunday each of you must put aside part of what you have earned' - 1 Cor. 16:2[/li][/list]

Now, I may not be a fan of the CEV, but I only quote it here to see the very strong language that it bears out in conveying that verse; whereas other versions as the KJV have it as "let every one of you" do such and such (perhaps with the import that this is not meant for a select few in the Church to obey). We need to be careful about reading "mandatory" into verses that may not suggest that idea - as in Malachi 3:10.

ttalks:
Which is why using Malachai 3 to buttress or support any kind of tithing in this dispenstion would pertain to coersion.

Not true. People see coercion in Malachi 3 when God did not intend it as such. God doesn't "force" any believer to "prove me now herewith" - it is up to the believer to prove the faithfulness of God to His Word in their lives. Indeed, some people, even without mentioning Malachi at all, still preach a certain kind of "coercion" in Christian giving; but we should not yield to the temptation to be reactive and throw the baby out with the bath water.

ttalks:
Using Malachai 3 as a basis to tithe would be tithing according to the Law because it contains both the blessing for doing it and the consequences for not doing it(robbing God,devourer not rebuked).

Not necessarily. Paul used verses from the Law and other OT references that had absolutely nothing to do with giving in order to exhort and teach about Christian giving. He did so without intending what we often argue today - "it is of the Law, therefore I cannot". If that idea has any substance, all the other Christian doctrines derived from the Law should also be rejected - no selective reading and picking according to our fancy.

ttalks:
Only if the negative aspect isn't highlighted when using that portion of Malachai 3 to talk about tithing would one say coersion isn't being used and then say it isn't according to the law.

I understand you, and I've also tried to share my concern about the "curse" in that chapter that scares many Christians. When I can find the link, I'll post it.

ttalks:
Now, I feel I've said much about this tithing issue and I think it's quite enough.My points might have gotten through to some,it still might not make sense to some.But it is left to every individual to try to do what is right pertaining to this situation.

Anyone who feels like finding out more as regards this tithe and giving issue can read this book: Tithing,Giving and the New Testament.

Thanks for the link.

ttalks:
@pilgrim.1,

It really was an experience debating/conversing/communicating/dialoguing with u.
I hope our convictions always help us to maintain the truth.

Also, I noticed in another thread that u're into IT. That's my field too and I'm loving it; although it could be tasking on the brain sometimes.

Take care.

Oh well, I must confess that I'm not quite advanced in IT (Juniper). But hey, I have enjoyed our discourse tremendously. Thank you for sharing, and many blessings to you.

@ttalks,

How's your Sunday so far? I trust you're enjoying every bit in God's grace.

ttalks:
The summary of all I've been saying is this:

Giving ten percent(tithe) of your income based on how you determine personally is very good.
The only time it becomes a problem is when it is given according to the law.

Thanks for your summary. While I agree with much of your persuasion, there are definitely some points which may not be quite balanced.

For one to be able to make sense of Malachi (and any other OT book for that matter), they need to understand the spirit of the Word, rather than merely seeing it only in "letters". True, the only time we have problems in practical Christian living is when believers assume that everything they see is 'according to the Law'. If that is the case, we shall never be able to claim anything from the OT scriptures - because MANY Christian doctrines are derived directly from the same Law. I've already highlighted this, so I'll spare.

However, for the OT scriptures to make any sense at all to us as Christians, we need to see beyond the "letter" and grasp the spirit of the Word - that in a nutshell is what we find in 2 Cor. 3:14-16, viz:

[list][li]"in the reading of the old testament. ." (v. 14)[/li][li]"the vail is upon their heart. ." (v. 15)[/li][li]"when it [the heart] shall turn to the Lord, the vail shall be taken away. ." (v. 16)[/li][/list]

In this regard, as we grow to see beyond the "letter" and touch the spirit of the Word, we shall then be able to see that Malachi speaks to Christians today, because it is part of what Romans 15:4 means when it says: "whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning". Now, let's see you concerns for Malachi -

ttalks:
What do I mean?
When I say those who use Malachai 3 to back their tithe giving, I say they are doing so based on the law because:
[list]
[li]They believe that if you tithe, the windows of heaven will open and pour u out a blessing and so on and so forth - Malachai 3:10[/li]
[li]They believe that if you do not tithe, you are robbing God and then would not have the devourer rebuked from ur land/finances - Malachai 3:8 and 11[/li][/list]

Those points above existing in Malachai 3 stand to show that if u tithe, u reap a blessing; if u do not tithe, u are robbing God. That was the situation under the old covenant.

But we know in the new covenant, if u tithe (that which falls under the giving in the new covenant), definitely fruit would abound to ur account; also, if u do not tithe, there isn't any devourer that would exist in ur finances and you would not be robbing God. This is because tithing under the new covenant is seen as a voluntary type of giving and not as that highlighted in Malachai.

I like your take that "tithing under the new covenant is seen as a voluntary type of giving"; although not many people are convinced that there is even a hint about tithing in the new covenant. I'm well persuaded that the new covenant teaches tithing, though; the problem for many who may not see this is how it works out in the teaching of the apostles.

There are three things I should point out here:

[list][li]Malachi 3:8 & 10 transcends the old covenant[/li][li]Malachi 3:10 is not limited or restricted to the Law of Moses[/li][li]Preaching tithe for Christians from Malachi 3 is not "based on the Law"[/li][/list]

If anyone would like me to expound on those three basic points, I would gladly do so.

However, I've already hinted that Christian giving could be taught from any OT scripture without making it a matter of what is "based on the Law". When the apostle Paul taught about Christian giving, he definitely quoted and referred to many OT scriptures without arguing to "base it on the Law". Other examples besides those I earlier highlighted in my previous post include:

A
► principle: 'if there be first a willing mind' || NT: 2 Cor. 8:12
► cross-ref.: 'whosoever is of a willing heart, let him bring it,
an offering of the LORD' || OT: Exo. 35:5

- - - - - - - - - -

B
► principle: 'by an equality. .
As it is written, He that had gathered much had nothing over;
and he that had gathered little had no lack' || NT: 2 Cor. 8:14, 15
► cross-ref.: 'he that gathered little had no lack; they gathered
every man according to his eating. . || Exo. 16:18

- - - - - - - - - -

C
► principle: 'As it is written, He hath dispersed abroad;
he hath given to the poor: his righteousness remaineth for ever. . || 2 Cor. 9:9
► cross-ref.: 'He hath dispersed, he hath given to the poor;
his righteousness endureth for ever; his horn shall be exalted with honour' || Psa. 112:9

It is interesting that in the case of B above, the apostle quoted Exo. 16:18 that had nothing to do with any type of giving, and yet he freely used that in exhorting about Christian giving! The believer who has problems seeing beyond the "letter" would argue typically that Paul was "backing up his preaching from a verse in the Law", just as people argue that Malachi is "based on the Law". Those who are very quick to refer to 2 Corinthians 8 and 9 have never once complained against the fact that Paul quoted Exo. 16:18 (an 'old covenant' verse in the Law of Moses) that had absolutely nothing to do with any type of giving! Yet, the apostle used it to preach "new covenant" giving.

The simple thing to see in Malachi 3 is to go beyond the "letter" and see the spirit behind the declaration there, as well attest to the faithfulness of God to keep His promise to the believer who responds to His invitation: "prove me now herewith".

Dear sancta,

Thank you for your calm response to my rejoinder to chukwudi44, and the offer you made to log on to the website in your reply. I'm grateful.

sancta:
kindly lod on to the section of "refuting protestantism " or audio section of www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com and find all the answers to your objections on this issue.

To be honest, I have not done so, and will find the time to consider your offer. However, what answers particularly would you hope to present to my objections?

sancta:
also, know that as regards the figures which you quoted as the decl;ine in catholism, that which you called the catholic church is not it at all but the vatican II sect. The catholic church is still in existence but actually reduced to a remnant.

Okay, point noted - the distinction between the Catholic Church and the Vatican II sect. However, I didn't offer those statistics to 'prove' that Catholicism or the Catholic Church no longer "exists", but to provide chukwudi44 something to consider about the "decline" in Catholicism. He had thought that 'Lutheran[b]ism[/b] ,calvin[b]ism[/b] and others that started the reformation are fast disapearing'; and the figures was to remind him that the "ism" is Catholicism was also something that is of deep concern to its authorities, in as much as "decline" and "reduction" are concerned and not "disappearance".

sancta:
Yes , we are actually small because catholicism is basically holding the faith whole and entire, outside of which one is not a catholic and not saved.

I'm sorry, the Bible does not teach being in the Roman Catholic Church is what actually saves a person - that is just a tradition repeatedly offered as part of Catholicism. Salvation is found in the Son of God alone, for it is in His name alone that salvation is offered to humanity. The apostle Peter didn't preach the Catholic Church for the salvation of any man, but rather preached the Lord Jesus Christ to save people (Acts 4:12). In another place, the same Peter acknowledged that all the prophets pointed to Jesus Christ for salvation, rather than to any church (Acts 10:42-43). Your idea that if one is not a Catholic to be saved is re-affirming the debunked doctrine of the Roman papacy.

sancta:
the monks have written a book "the bible proves the teachings of the catholic church". if you need it, you can contact me on my mail and i'll send them free to you.

I'd like to ask that you share such insight on the forum from the monks' book; and my first question to you is simple enough: if the Bible "proves" their teaching, where did God place the salvation of people in a system on condition that "one is not a catholic and not saved"? It would not help to reharsh their tradition, but showing where God says what you said would be more helpful.

sancta:
my dear Chukwudii44,
what you say is the truth. However, to be honest with you, it only takes the grace of God to convert a muslim or protestant to the true catholic faith because of their stubborn heartedness and strong hatred for the catholic church.
i beg you in the name of God, forget about them for now and try to know what the true catholic faith is all about and hold unto it since you are still with the vatican II sect which is claimning to be the catholic church and misleading people. go through the site of the monks (www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com) and should you have any question,you cam mail me or prefarably the monks. if you also need any of their materials, contact me and i'll send them free of charge.
this was the main reason behind my posting this topic so those going along with the new faith of the 2nd vatican council and thinking they are catholics would be aware of this.
above all, pray earnestly the rosary so our Lady can enlighten you on all these.l

Although the above was addressed to chukwudi44, I'd like to just comment briefly, if you permit me.

Dear chukwudi44,
just think carefully about where sancta has placed you in Catholic eschatology. According to him, you belong outside of the "catholicism" that "saves".

Another way of putting that is this: you're not even saved and are going about deceiving yourself and those you're arguing with. >sigh<

This is clear from the fact that sancta first 'praises' you for "telling the truth"; but for all that, he remarks that you're misleading people with all your 'catholic labours', . . "since you are still with the vatican II sect which is claimning to be the catholic church and misleading people".

I just wonder that after all is said and done in your defence of the Catholic Church, another Catholic doesn't think you're even saved. Think about it carefully - salvation is found in the Son of God, not in a branch of Vatican or Catholicism.

Blessings.

ttalks:
If a person wants to give a tithe of his/her, it should be whenever he/she is moved or feels like giving such.It is not a fixed stipulation unless that person freely chooses to make it a fixed stipulation based on his/her personal decision.

You're blessed, dear brother - I cannot improve on your summation as I wholeheartedly agree.

ttalks:
In the old covenant, tithes had a fixed stipulation on the people as regards when/the time to give/pay it.Within the new covenant,whosoever chooses to tithe does so without the fixed stipulation as regards when to give it.

Bless you. I might add: within the new covenant, whosoever chooses to tithe does so by carefully planning when to give, how to give, and to whom their giving is made.

ttalks:
Within the new covenant, a person who gives tithes lets say 3,4, or 5 times in a year has not done wrong.This random no of times of giving the tithe show personal choice as to when to give it; no fixed stipulation.

Amen - 2 Cor. 8:11-12 ('so there may be a performance also out of that which ye have. . . and not according to that he hath not')

ttalks:
A person who gives tithes 12 times in a year in relation to the 12 salaries or 12 monthly gains he/she makes has not done wrong as long as it is as he/she decided personally and not based on what a Pastor commanded or based on Malachai 3.

Okay.

ttalks:
A person who gives or is involved in different forms of giving based on his or her choice as to how much and when and whom to give and does not give any tithe at all, also has done no wrong.

True.

ttalks:
The person who does wrong is the one who gives tithes based on a fixed stipulation of time as promulgated by most pastors and also based on what Malachai 3 says and not based on the principle of giving as promoted by 2 Corinthians 9:7.

I don't think it is healthy to make these rigid statements, because you may be formulating your own personal by-laws for others, which is not a spiritual thing to do. 1 Cor. 16:2 shows that the apostle instructed giving at a "particular timing" (on the first day of the week) - and he had given the same instruction to other churches (see verse 1).

Second, there are godly pastors among 'most pastors' who give godly counsel about the manner of giving and what timing is suited to people's needs under their care.

Third, there are people who have repeatedly proven the faithfulness and power of God to keep His promises according to Malachi 3 - and this does not violate their principled giving and stewardship based on 2 Cor. 3:7 at all. If this is the case, it is unhealthy to accuse anyone of doing wrong simply because we don't know what the Spirit of God has been doing in their lives.

ttalks:
Now it is pretty clear that you've decided to abandon the explanation I gave as regards the "ministration of death/condemnation" as regards the law which I gave before.

Look again - did I really do that? I only expounded on what you're missing, because I anticipated you would run into huge problems when it came to a discussion of "justification", which again is what I've done in explaining how that the old covenant does not justify any believer at all.

ttalks:
If u still have that explanation in view, u wouldn't ask this question.
The attempt of trying to do what the law requires is what makes the law the "ministration of death/condemnation" because that attempt is a futile one, and thus results in the negativity contained within(the results of not hearkening/doing what he law commands).
But what the law promotes is not the "ministration of death/condemation".It promotes the "right stuff" that I refered to.

Do take the time to go through my recent reply: try as hard as anyone may, the old covenant was not given to justify ANYBODY. Not one.

ttalks:
Those who tithed before the law did so based on their own personal decisions and not on a commandment or law from God to do so.

Even so, tithing (before, during, and after the Law) was never established to justify the believer or taught as the basis of anyone entering into a covenant with God.

ttalks:
If the practice of tithing is not based on the law but is based on people's personal choice and decision as to when to give it,FINE.

Okay.

ttalks:
But we know that most of the preachers of today don't preach this.

That is why we should not become so reactive in our replies and then mix up issues as they have. If we help people to a proper understanding of what the Word teaches, the confusion between both camps would be minimized. Don't you think so?

ttalks:
Rather they make most of their followers to tithe based on the law;using Malachai 3 as their back up.

There's nothing wrong with anyone quoting Malachi 3 or any part of the OT for tithing; afterall, Paul tells us that whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning (Rom. 15:4). I have no problem with anyone quoting any part of the OT for tithing or any other type of giving.

Some people have become so angry and put off by the word "tithe" that any mention of Malachi 3 just gets them riled up. It may surprise you that even Paul quoted so many OT verses that had absolutely NOTHING to do with giving and used such verses to encourage Christian giving! Oh yes, he did so. Think again: what has an "ox" got to do with Christian giving - (1 Cor. 9:9-11)?!? Or again, what has an "ox" got to do with "double honour" for the elders of the Church - (1 Tim. 5:17-18)?!?

You see, we Christians today should have large enough hearts to see beyond the "letter". This is the very lesson that we learn in 2 Corinthians 3 that you quoted several times - even unto this day when 'Moses' is read, the vail is upon some people's hearts; but as soon as the heart turns to the Lord, understanding and powerful insight comes to us (vv. 15-16). In the same manner, let a man quote Malachi 3, Proverbs 3:9-10; Jeremiah 31, etc. . I have no problem with them as long as they are not trying to rob believers one way or another. To say that we cannot quote Malachi 3 is to effectively rob God's people of His wonderful promises as well!

ttalks:
Look at my last response above.

I did.

ttalks:
1 corinthians 9:13-14 does not refer to tithes, it refers to the proceeds of what is gotten from the "freewill", "personally decided","compulsion free","not based on the law" giving which includes the right tithe giving not the wrong tithe giving which is based on the law.

You just proved you may not have read 1 Corinthians 9:13-14 but just glossed over it. Although you said it does not refer to tithes, you also remarked that it includes the right tithe giving. I'm not all about "wrong tithes"; but carefully reading those verses removes your idea that it does not refer to but includes tithes. Which one you dey?

Take another look -

[list]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.[/list]

Compare with Numbers 18. Paul definitely was not asking people to give anything "based" on the Law - that was not his point at all. He noted the principle in the OT, and then drew this conclusion - "EVEN SO hath the Lord ordained" it in the Church. It is not now a matter of whether it was "freewill", "personally decided","compulsion free","not based on the law", etc, etc, etc. The fact that the Lord ordained what the apostle declared does not make it a matter of coercion upon any believer. So, wherever you got the idea that it was from some "proceeds" of the things you mentioned, I just wonder.

Bottom line: Christians can tithe without any sense of coercion. The idea of "freewill", "personally decided","compulsion free", etc., etc., etc., does not make it any different from what believers did in the OT - in many instances we find that they gave exactly in the same manner! This is why even the apostle was quoting directly from the OT Law in his exhortation on giving in 2 Cor. 8 and 9. If you haven't seen this, I'd be too glad to share them with you.

Shalom.

ttalks:
Hebrews 8:7
(7) For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.

The old covenant had fault in the sense that it expected the impossible from the people for it to justify them based on what it required.

I'm glad you finally quoted Hebrews 8:7, thank you. I acknowledge that the first covenant had a "fault" - and that fault was not because it expected the impossible from anyone. . . not at all. Rather, the fault was simply its inability to make anyone "perfect" (compare Heb. 7:19). In what ways then is it taught in Scripture that the old covenant had a 'fault'? Let's go back to Romans 8:3 -

[list]"For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh"[/list]

That is one pivotal "fault" of the first covenant - it simply had no power in itself to 'condemn sin in the flesh' - it could not do it! In this sense, it made nothing "perfect", according to Hebrews 7:18-19 --

[list]"For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof. For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God."[/list]

The "weakness" is simply highlighted in Romans 8:3, as cited already - its weakness (of 'fault') was not because of the inability of the people, but rather the inability of the Law itself ("what the law could not do". So, no matter how much any godly believer tried to keep the 'old covenant' by seeking something from the Law, such a person could not thereby attain "justification" in the sight of God!

Therefore, if the 'first covenant' had this basic 'fault' (in that it could not condemn sin in the flesh), how then could it justify anybody at all?

ttalks:
I think my response above deals with this.

Please review, as I've taken time to expound on what you were missing.

ttalks:
I know it is the blood of the covenant that ratified the covenant or "passed it into law" as said in legal terms.
But remember,the covenant was conditional.
Fine,the blood ratified it, but it still required action from the people for its promises to take effect in their lives of for it to be a part of their lives.Action in the sense that they do what it requires.
If it wasn't ratified, it wouldn't even be a covenant,so why would the people even be considering following something that isn't ratified?

The answer to the highlighted question in yours is simple enough: it would still be a covenant even before it was ratified, the difference being that it would have had no strength at all until it was ratified (Heb. 9:17).

ttalks:
So, my point is not in what made it a covenant, but in what the already ratified covenant expected of the people for its promises to take effect.
If the people did not do what the covenant expected, they couldn't reap what it promised.

Well put, appreciated. Point is that the 'old covenant' never promised "justification" to anyone.

ttalks:
There is nothing evil in giving a tithe(10%) of our financial resources as part of Christian giving.People who do this are not doing wrong.

Okay, thanks for that.

ttalks:
But those who do wrong are those who give tithes of their financial resources based on the law in Malachai 3.

Malachi 3 is NOT the Law. I have said this so many times. The Law never said anything about a "storehouse" - go and see. The concept of a storehouse came after the Law, not during Moses' time, but during the time of king Hezekiah in 2 Chronicles 31:11-12. So, if Christians are proving God's power after Malachi 3:10-11, that is not doing wrong - for God Himself invited believers with these words: "prove me now herewith".

ttalks:
Those who give tithes of their financial resources based on lies that some ministers have formulated saying that tithes must be given whenever one gets an income or gain in income(Which makes it a constant/an automatic response when an income is gotten or gained).

Please clam down and go and check your Bible in 1 Corinthians 16:2 - anything you set aside as a PORTION is a percentage of your income. You cannot accuse tithers of giving their tithes based on lies, if the apostle Paul clearly set forth the same thing in that verse, quoting the CEV (if you please) - "each Sunday each of you must put aside part of what you have earned". Dialogue like this should be carefully thought through, rather than being reactive.

ttalks:
Giving as we see in the new covenant is not based on any "must do" condition, but rather as the person decides to.2 Corinthians 9:7.
It is not based on compulsion or neccesity.It is as the person freely chooses to.

I perfectly agree with you - and have already highlighted this point in the previous page:

'I don't think you have noticed how many people ackowledge that tithes
have nothing to do with the idea of ~

DEMAND,
COERSION,
COMPULSION,
FORCE,
CAJOLING,
MANIPULATION,
INDOCTRINATION,

. . . or any other ONOMATOMANIA!!

Even in Malachi 3:10, do the words "prove me now herewith" indicated that God was "forcing" His people to give tithes and offerings? It's all up to the hearer to trust God and prove His promise, and we know that proving God's faithfulness and promises are not a "do-or-die" matter in the life of a Spirit-led believer.

@ttalks,

You have done quite well in calmly reasoning out your persuasions and answering questions. This is what sustains my interest in continuing the dialogue, a breath of fresh air from other encounters. Thank you again.

ttalks:
This is the result of the justification which existed through the law(Note:it isn't the true justification as we know through the new covenant,but it is a justification in itself)

Well, I wouldn't call it "justification" of any type, whatsoever - the Bible does not call it that, nor is there any basis by which one may assume that anybody was "justified" in the sight of God by adhering to the old covenant or even the Law (Acts 13:39 and Galatians 3:11 - a fact that even those under the old covenant were aware of: "for in thy sight shall no man living be justified", Psalm 143:2).

For starters, the references you offered from Deuteronomy 28:1-14; 29:12-13 and 30:15-16 do not address the question of the justification of a believer at all. They all point out the fact that doing those things stipulated would bring them earthly blessings, or otherwise curses if they disobeyed them. This is why there was nearly always a reminder that those under the covenant were prone to turn away from their God (Deut. 29:18-19).

Those verses you cited could therefore not be said to be a "result" of justification, nor could they be said to be "a justification in itself". Three basic things about Biblical justification -

[list][li]a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law (Rom. 3:28)[/li][li]no man is justified by the law in the sight of God (Galatians 3:11)[/li][li]the law is not of faith (Galatians 3:12)[/li][/list]

If there was a 'justification' through the 'old covenant', then indeed we could argue that a man obtained "justification" in the sight of God through his "tithes" (which would immediately contradict those three points above). The same could be argued for the sabbath keeping; as well for circumcision; as well yet for numerous other rituals and observations (such as the Jewish feasts, sacrifices, animal offerings, etc) in Judaism. Clearly, we know that none of these things (including tithes) ever justified any man in the sight of God. So, we cannot use the references you proffered to point to justification of any type, whatsoever.

ttalks:
For justification through the old covenant, the people had to hearken unto (do all) the commandments of the Lord.

As hinted earlier, "no man is justified by the law in the sight of God", for the Law is not of faith (Galatians 3:1-12).

ttalks:
God giving them the promises for hearkening shows that they were expected to hearken and reap the results of hearkening.

The "results" were earthly blessings which are not the same thing as justification.

ttalks:
Doing all the commandments would show they hearkened and make them justified under that covenant.

If that was the case, then the NT would not afterwards tell us that "no man is justified by the law in the sight of God", would it?

ttalks:
But the problem is that they never could hearken completely and that is why they couldn't be justified within that covenant.

Nope, hearkening partially or completely has nothing to do with justification at all. There were men who hearkened to God in the OT (Old Testament, not 'old covenant') - and yet, they were not justified by any works of any Law. Take Abraham, for example:

[list][li]'For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.[/li][/list]

There are many such men in the OT who could not obtain justification in the sight of God by any "works"; and the same with those who were of the "works of the Law". One of the pivots of the 'old covenant' was what ratified it, otherwise "it is of no strength at all" (Heb. 9:17). However, even when the 'old covenant' had been ratified, we learn that the very thing that ratified it could not "take away" sin (Heb. 10:4). Nothing in the 'old covenant' ever justified a believer; and the reason why the 'old covenant' could not justify anyone was not because they could not hearken to it, but rather because in itself it could not justify the believer! The 'old covenant' was powerless to justify any believer, even if that believer hearkened diligently to all its stipulations (Gal. 3:11).

ttalks:
The old covenant was conditional; it required the response/doing of the people as regards what it commanded for justification.

Anyone who responded fully could not be justified by the old covenant.

ttalks:
The thing is,in the dispensaton of the old covenant or while the old covenant was in force,the people were justified before God if they kept the commandments.

I just have to keep reminding you of the huge mistake you're making, easy bro --

[list][li]'no man is justified by the law in the sight of God' (Gal. 3:11)[/li][li]'a man is not justified by the works of the law' (Gal. 2:16)[/li][li]'for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified' (Gal. 2:16)[/li][li]'for in thy sight shall no man living be justified' (Psa. 143:2)[/li][li]'by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight' (Rom. 3:20)[/li][li]'if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God' (Rom. 4:2)[/li][/list]

These all would not make any sense at all if it is true to maintain that "the people were justified before God if they kept the commandments". See what I mean?

ttalks:
But now,in the dispensation of the new covenant, people are not justified by keeping the commandments, they are justified by having faith in Christ.

Amen. As ever, before the 'new covenant' no man could have been justified by Judaism.

ttalks:
It was on the basis of the impossibility of being justified under the old covenant(because the people could not do what was required) that the new had to be put in place.

Okay, I see your point; but it's a totally different take for me - let me reiterate:

Even if the people could do what was required in the 'old covenant', they still could not be justified in the sight of God. Why so? For the simple reason that the 'old covenant' in itself had no power whatsoever to justify anyone. Someone might be found doing all that that was required - and there were many instances (Luke 1:6; Php. 3:6). . it is even said at various times concerning the nation of Israel -

[list][li]"the children of Israel did according to all that the LORD commanded Moses, so did they" (Exo. 39:32, 42; Num. 1:54; 2:34)[/li][li]"And they kept the passover on the fourteenth day of the first month at even in the wilderness of Sinai: according to all that the LORD commanded Moses, so did the children of Israel" (Num. 9:5)[/li][li]"As the LORD commanded Moses his servant, so did Moses command Joshua, and so did Joshua; he left nothing undone of all that the LORD commanded Moses." (Josh. 11:15)[/li][/list]

What's the point in all this? Simple: inspite of the monumental evidence that there were many people who obeyed the commandments under the 'old covenant', for all of that the Bible says that -

[list][li]'no man is justified by the law in the sight of God' (Gal. 3:11)[/li][li]'a man is not justified by the works of the law' (Gal. 2:16)[/li][li]'by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight' (Rom. 3:20)[/li][/list]

It was not because people could not obey the old covenant to perfection that they therefore could not be justified - nope; it was rather because even when there is evidence that there were many people who walked according to all that was required, the 'old covenant' simply had no power of justifying the believer.

Hi JJYOU,

Good evening sir. Lol, of course I know you meant no harm. As for my background, I'm into IT (not quite good at it, though. . . but I dey manage).

ttalks:
All we need to do within the new covenant is to obey the Spirit of God. Romans 7:6.
How do we obey the Spirit of God?
By simply following what the Spirit teaches as expressed in the new covenant;found in the doctrine of the apostles.
As Christians,we do not need to make sure we are obeying the individual commandments in the ten commandments.
As long as we love our neighbours as we love ourselves,we're fine.

Yes, I agree. I don't remember saying that we need to seek obedience to individual commandments in the Decalogue as Christians; although we cannot deny the fact that loving God and loving neighbour are clearly the "fulfilling of the Law and the prophets", even as Christians (Rom. 13:8 & 10) .

ttalks:
This is what Christians need to know:
Gal 5:16
(16) This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.

When we walk in the Spirit, we would not fulfil the lust of the flesh(doing the stuff that is sin).
It is those who do not walk in the Spirit that need to be mindful of keeping the individual commandments.
Those in the Spirit do not need to bother themselves because the fruit of the Spirit will always be good and never evil.

A very good point. If I may ask: what then is "evil" in giving a tithe of our financial resources as part of Christian giving? Mind you, there are many tithers who do so without trying to fulfill the 'old covenant'; and in many instances, many of them have been led by the Spirit of God to do so. If then these Christians are tithing their financial income as an expression of their stewardship to honour the Lord, what "evil" could there be in that?

ttalks:
Gal 5:22
(22) But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,

Amen.

ttalks:
Back to "ministration of death".As I said earlier,the bible calls the ten commandments/law/old covenant the ministration of death.
It was called so because the law/ten commandments/old covenant could not give life but only brought death because it was very certain
that no man could keep the law perfectly due to the nature of sin in man.

The law in itself was good,but in its whole embodiment,as regards what it requires of man;which was impossible due to man's nature,made it a ministration of death.

No wahala.

ttalks:
An instance:
In a jungle,the very best food which would provide the best nourishment for the jungle clan resides upon a tall,thin, edifice
rising out of the middle of a crocodile infested river.
The information about what this food can do to those who get to eat it makes people within the jungle clan attempt to cross the river with the dangers lurking within.
The natural thing happens and the crocodiles feed upon those who attempt to cross the river.
Now,those of the clan that did not make the attempt do desire the food but because of what is involved ,they can't get it.
So, in their usual conversations about the food,the process of getting the food is termed "an attempt of death".
The food is good but the requirement to get its wonderful attributes is called "attempt of death."

Hmm, again thank you for the analogy. I don't want to run the risk of misconstruing which fits where. But if I may attempt: since the "food is good", it makes me think of the same thing in Romans 7:14 - "the Law is good". I could only hazard a guess that the "attempt of death" is not the food, but the experience of the person reaching for the food, not so? In which case, it is the person himself who 'finds in his own experience' that the 'attempt' is the problem and not the food itself. In same manner, Paul in Romans 7:10 says that while the commandment was "ordained unto life", by experience he found to be unto death ("I found".

ttalks:
It is this mind boggling and impossible situation about the law that Paul was highlighting in Romans 7:14 down to the end.
It explains why the law is regarded as a ministration of death;because the nature of sin in man makes it so.

The 'nature of sin in man' points to his experience ('I am carnal' -v. 14); but his experience does not change anything about the true nature of the Law ('I consent unto the law that it is good' - v. 16).

ttalks:
Any area in the new covenant highlighting a law of the old covenant should not be surprising because the new covenant is promoting the right stuff and if a law in the old covenant does promote the same right stuff, it definitely will play a part in buttressing the doctrine it promotes.

This is where you've again run into a huge problem. Let's be consistent here, biko. You have held the view all along that -

* the 'old covenant' is the Law - they are the same thing
(your quote: "As said before, it is the law which is the same as the old covenant"

* as being the same thing, the Law is the 'ministration of death'

Question: if the 'old covenant' = 'the Law' = 'ministration of death', what "right stuff" are you bringing over from a 'ministration of condemnation'? Are you forgetting that the apostle in 2 Cor. 3:10 declares that the old covenant has "no glory in this respect"?

Lol, it's simple, really. If something as a whole is called the 'ministration of death and condemnation', one would think twice before trying to select some of its pieces and carry them into 'the glory that excelleth'. A 'ministration of death' is still a 'ministration of death' anyway you look at it, small-medium-or-large.

ttalks:
Now,the new covenant does not in any way promote tithes as one of its requirements and as we all know,the practice of tithes is based on what the law says.

First, tithes were never established as a "requirement" anywhere for one's salvation - whether old or new covenant. Those who tithed before the Law were not doing so in order to be "justified" or "saved" or to "enter" into any covenant with God.

Second, the practice of tithing is not "based" on what the Law says - rather, the Law incorporated tithing that was already in existence long before the emergence of the nation of Israel. Like I said, what the Law did not originate, it cannot annul as if they both had a common history.

ttalks:
If the new covenant had in anyway promoted tithes as one of its requirements of service, there would have been no problem.

The new covenant does not promote any type of giving as a "requirement" for service - it is men who make "requirements" where there are none. This is why many people who argue againts tithes would always think of it as a "requirement" or "obligation" - and many people who tithe become confused all the more. This should not be the case.

ttalks:
But it does not so there is no point trying to find a way of letting it remain within the covenant when it was not put there in the first place.

You seem to dismiss it simply because you haven't taken the time to understand what it means or the principles in the NT that point to tithing, not as a "requirement" of service, but as a response to what the apostle taught. Look closely at 1 Corinthians 9:13-14 and think about what the apostle was alluding to - it may throw some more light on the subject for you.

Shalom.

@ttalks,

ttalks:
I'm beginning to see signs to bow out of this debate cos my points just ain't getting across.

Well, what can I say? I get your points, but my concerns are simply that the way you handle the Law is making it difficult for you to answer the questions that arise from your inferences. I reckon that when the coherent whole is grasped, the other matters are easily accessible.

ttalks:
When the bible says "done away", that does not mean destroyed.It has to be understood in terms of what the covenants stood for.

So, you agree then that "done away" does not mean that the Law was "nailed to the Cross" in Colossians 2:13-14? Again, "done away" (2 Cor. 3:11) is not the same thing as "took it out of the way" (Col. 2:14)?

ttalks:
When the bible says the old covenant is done away with,it simply means it does not serve as a requirement by God for justification.

This presents a problem. I wonder where it is taught that the 'old covenant' ever justified anybody? It seems to me that "justification" was not one of the purposes of the 'old covenant', considering such verses as the following -

[list][li]the Law of Moses could not justify anyone - Acts 13:39[/li][li]'no man is justified by the law in the sight of God' - Gal. 3:11[/li][/list]

Seeing this is the case, I'm really concerned when people assume (or seem to infer) that the 'old covenant' previously was the basis for "justification" until the new covenant was established. In that case, it gives the idea that there are two grounds of justification in Scripture: (a) one by the old covenant; (b) the other by the new covenant. Yet, it is evident that the collective testimony of Scripture does not presuppose that any man was justified in God's sight on the basis of the Law or 'old covenant'. If there is such a verse actually teaching justification at any time by the old covenant, please share and I shall gladly consider it (perhaps I've been terribly mistaken).

ttalks:
It's purpose had been fulfiled.
The old covenant pointed to the raising up of a new covenant.That was all it stood for;it was there till the new and perfect covenant would come.
The old covenant only serves to point to the need for the new covenant.

Wait a mo. If "justification" was at all possible at any time by the 'old covenant', what then was the need for a 'new covenant' to come and do the same work? Does this not make the case simple that the 'old covenant' never justified anyone?

The case you're trying to make here is no different from your initial position, part of which was your stating that:

[list][li]"Putting the law at an end does not mean it is destroyed or abolished. it simply means it is no longer required for our salvation.[/li][/list]

And my answer to that was: "The Law was not given at any time as a requirement for our salvation." Whether it was "salvation" or "justification", neither of them were purposes of the 'old covenant' - and the case is no different as repeated here.

Once we are able to grasp this simple fact that the Law was never at any time given for "justification" (or "salavation", then we more easily see why there's no reason to say that "it is no longer required for" such things, for it was not the basis of such things in the first place.

ttalks:
Now, you say how can we say the ten commandments have been done away with?
The ten commandments have been done away as requirements for us to be in covenant with God.The old covenant was based on these ten commandments and the conditions for enabling the covenant to be constant was obedience to its requirements.

Okay, I get you. Again, though, the Ten Commandments were never committed to "us" as Gentiles in the first place (remember Deut. 5:2-3; Rom. 2:14 and 3:19). Following this, it could not be said that the old covenant was a requirement for "us" to be in covenant with God. Secondly, the apostle Paul clearly says that we as Gentiles were "aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise" (Eph. 2:11-12) - for the old covenant were never committed to the Gentiles at anytime.

Third, what made the old covenant 'operative' (or "enabled" was not the Ten Commandment or anything written. No, not at all. Remember we already have dealt with this very point, and I shared that what made a covenant to be operative and effectual was what ratified it. If the words of the covenant had only been written and read to the people, it was as ineffectual as if there were no covenants at all! That is what Hebrews 9:17 - "For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth". Following this, it goes on to say:

[list]Therefore not even the first covenant was inaugurated without blood. For when every commandment of the law had been declared by Moses to all the people, he took the blood of calves and goats, with water and scarlet wool and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people, saying, "This is the blood of the covenant that God commanded for you" (Heb. 9:18-20, ESV)[/list]

Indeed, I agree with you that the substance of the old covenant was its contents - i.e., what it declares. However, what "enabled" or put it into force or operation was the very thing that ratified it: the 'blood of the covenant' (again verse 17 - "otherwise it is of no strength at all". It was not their obedience or disobedience that "enabled" the covenant; rather, it was its ratification by blood that did so.

ttalks:
The new covenant does not require us to obey the ten commandments for it to be effective in our lives.

Agreed; and I don't remember saying that it did.

When people quote several other 'Church fathers' , it's often my appeal to them to be very careful. So many of these quotes are recycled repeatedly until nobody is ever sure what the original quotes actually say. An example is your quote of Jerome's above, where he is reputed to have said:

[list][li]"I speak with the successor of the fisherman.Though I acknowlege none as first except christ .I am joined in communion with your holiness ,that is to say in communion with the chair of peter"[/li][/list]

compared with another source, the same Jerome along such lines says rather:

[list][li]"My words are spoken to the successor of the fisherman, to the disciple of the cross. As I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with none but your blessedness, that is with the chair of Peter."[/li][/list]

At surface value, it may not seem so much in difference; but if you care to compare notes:

* "I acknowlege none as first except christ"
* "I follow no leader save Christ", etc.

Following on, other 'fathers' merely repeat the same mantra vacantly without showing us where in Scripture we find Peter as the foundation of the Church. Infact, when you compare the sources, you begin to wonder at their contradictions. Let me refer to Irenaeus:

chukwudi44:
Irenaeus went on to name the lists of popes begining with Peter down to Eleutherius (AD174-189) who was pope when he wrote his work adversus haereses(Againt the Heretics)

But what did Irenaeus say in his oft-repeated quotes? Sample:

[list][li]"The blessed Apostles, then, founded and built up the church in Rome. They committed the office of bishop into the hands of Linus. Of this, Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus. After him, in the third place from the Apostles, Clement was allotted the office of bishop." St. Irenaeus, "Against All Heresies," c. 180 A.D.
source: Catholic News Agency[/li][/list]

What are we to infer from the above? We have three names of bishops:
* Linus
* Anacletus
* Clement
If Clement is said to be the third from the Apostles (as Irenaeus said), it simply means that Linus was the first, as appears in that list. Counting on from Linus is why sometimes some list have Pope Benedict XVI as the 264th Pope, and others list him as the 265th Pope. Yet, many Roman Catholics hardly notice this and just repeat the same song all along that Peter (not Linus) was the "first".

chukwudi44:
Do you mind telling me why Jesus changed his name from simon to peter,like he changed Abram to Abraham and Jacob to Isreal.

First, it was not in Matthew 16 that Simon was surnamed Peter: the naming from Simon to Peter occured much earlier (John 1:42 and Mark 3:16). The Lord Jesus named him 'Peter', not to "prove" that Peter was the foundation of the Church, but simply to show the sort of character and personality by which he would be known. It is remarkable that after the resurrection, Jesus did not call him 'Peter' or 'Cephas', but thrice he called him 'Simon' (see John 21:15, 16, 17).

The surnaming of Simon as 'Peter' is characteristic of Jesus' naming other disciples - to highlight their personalities, just as He did to James and John when he "surnamed them Boanerges, which is, The sons of thunder". It was these same fiesty brothers (typical of their 'thundering excitement') who wished to command fire from heaven upon the Samaritans for rejecting Christ - but the Lord cautioned them about the type of spirit they demonstrated (Luke 9:51-56). So, in surnaming Simon as 'Peter', it proves nothing about Peter being the foundation of the Church.

chukwudi44:
Why was the statements "do you love me " ," feed my lambs" and "tend my sheeps applied to only Peter while other members of the twelve were present.

Perhaps you need to remember that it was Peter who denied Jesus thrice at a critical moment after having boasted that he would follow the Lord even unto death. After the resurrection, you could imagine how the other disciples felt about Peter: sure, they all had desserted Jesus (Mark 14:50), but it was only Peter that categorically denied Him, even cursing and swearing in the process (Matt. 26:74). At that reunion, Jesus affirmed Peter by thrice asking if he loved the Lord. Following Peter's third response, rather than say that Peter was the foundation of the Church, the Lord Jesus instead warned Peter about the type of death by which he would glorify God (John 21:18-19).

chukwudi44:
In John 21 Jesus handed over his church to the care of peter,whether you like it or not that remains the truth.

Whether you like it or not, Jesus instead spoke to Peter about the type of death he would face in order to glorify God - that was simply the lesson for you in John 21.

chukwudi44:
While do you think the RCC has survived all this years despite the various battles waged against it.

The RCC is not a 'victim' - history is replete with factual and well attested documents to show the devastation and havoc it wrecked on non-Catholics.

chukwudi44:
Lutheranism ,calvinism and others that started the reformation are fast disapearing.

Okay, if that's what you believe. However, you seem to have no clue that it is rather the RCC that has been expressing deep concerns over her diminishing membership. I don't mean to trouble you, but if you care it may be helpful to calm down and not overreact against non-Catholics. You only need to check the performance record documented from various sources, example:

[list]In 1965 there were 58,000 priests in the U.S.;
in 2002 there were 45,000, of whom 16% come from other countries.

In 1965 there were 1,575 ordinations to the priesthood;
in 2002 there were 450.

In 1965 there were 49,000 seminarians;
in 2002 there were 4,700.

In 1965 there were 180,000 sisters;
in 2002 there were 75,000, with an average age of 68.

In 1965 there were 1,556 Catholic high schools;
in 2002 there were 786.

In 1965 there were 10,503 Catholic grade schools;
in 2002 there were 6,623.

In 1958 weekly Mass attendance was 74%;
in 2000 it was 25%.

Source: BNet United Kingdom
COPYRIGHT 2005 National Review, Inc.
COPYRIGHT 2008 Gale, Cengage Learning[/list]

There shouldn't be ill-feelings about these discussions, the one thing being that you should try to establish a Biblical basis for the RCC idea that Peter was ever the foundation upon which the Church is being built. So far, only one thing stands - such an idea has not been established from the very same source that the RCC appeals to: the Bible.

Regards.

@chukwudi44,

I appreciate your citations in order to persuade the idea that the earlier Church Fathers taught that Peter was the foundation upon which the Church is being built. There are a few basic problems with your citations, though:

(a) you just quoted lines without leaving us their direct sources; probably, those citations were recycled without carefully checking them out.

(b) the quotes clearly contradict themselves in their arguments;

(c) they do not draw their ideas from the very source they appealed to - the Scriptures;

(d) they still do not establish the basic query here, which is that Peter is the foundation upon which the Church is being built;

(e) sources attributed to the Church fathers about Peter being the foundation are simply untenable.

Now let's see them in simple outlines:

chukwudi44:
" I am kept in church by the succession of bishops bfrom st peter ,to whom the Lord committed the care cof his sheep ndown to the present Bishop"
-st Augstine of hippo(contra epist fundam,5)

This in itself standing alone does not establish anything about Peter being the foundation upon which the Church is being built. Let me help you: one would have looked for direct statements that were made stating exactly what we're asking - and indeed there are many of them. I am very well acquainted with such sources, including Origen, the Cappadocians, Chrysostom, Theophanes Kerameus, Callistus I (patriarch of Constantinople in the 14th century) and Augustine are said to have 'affirmed that it was Peter's faith that made it possible for him to become the rock on which the church was founded' (see, for example, The Bible in History by David William Kling, page 75). However, Callistus I and Theophanes Kerameus affirmed rather that 'the keys were given not to one single person but to the faithful'.

However, since the citation in your quote borders around Augustine of Hippo, just so I don't be tedious to you, I shall leave out those of later date and those who were merely propounding ideas to buttress their tradition. These names include Jerome, St Cyprian, St Irenaeus, Tertullian and others. Why? For the following reason:

(a) even Tertullian himself that you quoted clearly said "that is false which is of a later date". If what is of a later date was false to him, there's no reason to be confident in his own ideas, in as much as he was himself not an apostle and certainly was not in living contact with any of the apostles who would ever have told him that Peter was the foundation upon which the Church is being built;

(b) Tertullian in your quote also said: "it is plain as we have said that heretics are not allowed to appeal to the scripture since they have no claim to it." The funny thing to note is that even these fellows making Peter the foundation of the Church were not even appealing to Scripture in the first place! It would indeed be dishonest for them to make appeal to Scripture with mere pretences of quotes that are not found in Scripture at all.

For these two basic reasons, we find that the citations from those sources are themselves gravely flawed and self-contradictory. I shall show a few more in a moment; but presently, let's come back to Augustine of Hippo, which has been dubbed the theological 'doctor of the Church'.

We have noted that Augustine of Hippo is often quoted as asserting that Peter was the foundation of the Church. But are you aware, chukwudi44, that the same Augustine also affirmed that Christ is the foundation of the Church? It's seems confusing, until you understand that Augustine meant that:
(i) Peter was the visible foundation; while
(ii) Christ was the invisible foundation of the Church.
Put in that simplistic manner, it may all seem well. . . until you zero in on the prevailing background that led Augustine to make these notions. It is undeniable that he was making these statements more as a politician than as a theologian, because he had hoped to win back to Donatists to the Roman Papacy. The Donatists had rejected the unscriptural dogmas emanating from Rome, because the authorities there were making unfounded assertions which were found nowhere in Scripture! Some of these were identified earlier in my previous reply. Thus, it is understandable why Augustine was making such "visible and invisible" foundations for the Church and yet doing so more politically than theologically. A beautiful reference to check this out would be Mary T. Marks' "Augustine", pages 74-77.

However, of the Church itself, who did Augustine proclaim as her Head? Was it Peter. . or rather CHRIST Himself? People who are quick to cite Augustine for Peter often fail to realize that infact Augustine declared numerous times that Christ was indeed the Head of the Church. This presents serious problems for the papacy-inclined faithfuls; but I shall refer you to check the facts for yourself from any authentic source of your choice for the following especially: "St. Augustine of Hippo - Expositions on the Psalms, PSALM III. " (you can view an example here).

In such works of Augustine, we read the unmistakable assertion several times that Christ (not peter) is the Head of the Church:

[list][li]'This Psalm can be taken as in the Person of Christ another way; which is that whole Christ should speak? I mean by whole, with His body, of which He is the Head, according to the Apostle, who says, "Ye are the body of Christ, and the members." He therefore is the Head of this body; wherefore in another place be saith, "But doing the truth in love, we may increase in Him in all things, who is the Head, Christ, from whom the whole body is joined together and compacted'[/list]

[list][list]"The Virgin Mary is both holy and blessed, and yet the Church is greater than she. Mary is a part of the Church, a member of the Church, a holy, an eminent – the most eminent – member, but still only a member of the entire body. The body undoubtedly is greater than she, one of its members. This body has the Lord for its head, and head and body together make up the whole Christ. In other words, our head is divine – our head is God." [read it from this source][/li][/list]

There are so many other instance in which the same Augustine does not discuss Peter as either the foundation or the Head of the Church, whether visible or invisible; rather in such works he often referred to Christ alone as the foundation and Head of the Church. Does this not make you think for a minute who's been playing politics about Peter being the foundation of the Church for the sake of appeasing groups like the Donatists?

So what is the 'ministration of death/condemnation'?

Clearly, the Ten Commandments do not minister death and condemnation to anybody. In the first place, no Gentile was given the 'old covenant' - we know this from verses already cited (Deut. 5:2-3; Rom. 2:14 and 3:19). So, we as Gentile believers in Christ cannot start claiming that the Law was against us when we were never given that Law in the first place!

Second, following the principle of 2 Peter 1:20-21, we need to compare scripture with scripture to get a coherent whole of a subject. For this, we turn to Romans 7 where we are told precisely how this 'ministration of death' comes about.

1. First, the Law was not the problem -
[list][li]Is the law sin? God forbid - Rom. 7:7[/li][li]the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good -  Rom. 7:12[/li][li]'For we know that the law is spiritual' - Rom. 7:14[/li][/list]

2. Paul never said that the Law was a ministration of death -
[list][li]'Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid' - Rom. 7:13[/li][/list]
It is clear that he saw the Law as both 'spiritual' and 'good, holy and just' (v. 12, 14); and he asked the astute question: could we say then that the thing 'which is good' has suddenly been 'made death' unto him? His answer is strong: GOD FORBID!

You see, 'the Law' was not a 'ministration of death' - for the 'ministration' was itself something that came about from the experience of a carnal man: ('For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin' - Rom. 7:14). How then was the 'good thing' (the law) found in his experience to have become something that it was not meant to be?

3. Paul points to something else as the problem: sin --
[list][li]'And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death' - Rom. 7:10[/li][li]'For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me' - Rom. 7:11[/li][/list]

This is simple enough:
(a) the commandment was 'ordained unto life'
(b) as a carnal man sold under sin, he found the same commandment to be 'unto death'
(c) he does not blame the commandment for his problem
(d) rather, he discovered that it was "sin" that deceived him, for the Law did not deceive him.
(e) 'If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good' - v. 16

If the law was actually itself a 'ministration of death', could you please tell me why the same apostle would be saying afterwards:

[list][li]"For I delight in the law of God after the inward man" - Rom. 7:22[/li][li]'So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God' - Rom. 7:25[/li][/list]

I just want to know how the very same apostle could "delight in" and "serve" the Law, if that same Law was to be called "the ministration of death/condemnation"?  How do we connect both ideas and make sense of the idea that something is considered a 'ministration unto death' and yet the same apostle is saying, 'yes, I "delight in" and "serve" that same thing!?!

Now, back to 2 Corinthians 3:1-18.

The simple issue there to understand is this: the 'old covenant' which is simply Judaism is what God was doing away with in 2 Corinthians 3. It was not the 'Ten Commandments' or the Law. No offense to anyone, but Judaism was what was simply being discussed in that chapter. That is why it is clear that it appertains to the glory of Moses. 

Unfortunately, many people who mistake 2 Corinthians 3:1-18 for the idea that the 'Ten Commandments' are done away (verse 11) do not understand simply that the 'ministration of death/condemnation' was not the Decalogue. If it were the Decalogue, then please test out that assumption by carefully considering the following questions:

  - To do away with something means that it is no longer obeyed.
    That is what many people have argued; and we know that once
    you do away with something as a unit, you cannot appeal to any
    "aspects" from that same thing to carry over elsewhere - because
    it would mean simply that you truly have NOT done away with that
thing.

Consider therefore the "parts" or aspects of the Decalogue - have these also been done away with? --

[list][li]Exo 20:14 - Thou shalt not kill.[/li][li]Exo 20:14 - Thou shalt not commit adultery.[/li][li]Exo 20:15 - Thou shalt not steal.[/li][li]Exo 20:16  - Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.[/li][li]Exo 20:17 - Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.[/li][/list]

Those are "aspects" of the same 'Ten Commandments'. Questions:
[list][li]are they contrary to us?[/li][li]are they against us?[/li][li]have they been nailed to the Cross?[/li][li]have they been done away?[/li][li]if they are done away, WHY do we find Christian doctrines derived from the Law that is supposed to have been done away with?[/li][/list]

I hope you can see that the idea that the ten Commandments are done away just does not stand up to face value. Not at all - because if that is the case, then NOTHING from what is "done away" should be used in Christian doctrines for practical living. If any "aspect" is addend from what is 'done away' and carried over into Christianity, it immediate collapses the idea you derived from 2 Corinthians 3:1-18, for Paul never in one instance made any inference of carrying any part over from what is "done away".

@ttalks,

Again, I well appreciate your persuasions and understand why you see things the way you do. However, when we draw inferences, it is important to test them out to see if they endure a coherent whole. If ideas are made which cannot be sustained by comparing other verses, then the initial inferences immediately collapse and cannot stand up to be defended.

On that basis, when we carefully examine the inferences you drew and then test them out, the one question to ask is this: can they be sustained or would they suffer an immediate inward collapse? The reason why I offer this point is because that is what a balanced understanding of Scripture comes about. The apostle Peter warned that we should not give "private interpretation" to any single verse (2 peter 1:20-21); and only when we compare them can we see the substance of any verse.

ttalks:
Look at verse 7.It says the ministration of death was written and engraven in stones.
The question we should now ask is:
What was written and engraven in stones?
Answer: The ten Commandments,which is the old covenant/what the old covenant is built upon.
Here we see that the ten commandments are refered to as the ministration of death.
They are also refered to as the ministration of condemnation in verse 9.
They are also said to have been done away in verse 11.

Thanks for quoting again 2 Corinthians 3:1-18. One is tempted to simply assume that the 'old covenant' = 'the Ten Commandments' = 'the Law', as you had opined. If that is the case, please notice the striking point you highlighted in that chapter: "They are also said to have been done away in verse 11". From this, the only inference(s) you seem to have offered is that:

[list][li]the 'old covenant' (all of it) is done away[/li][li]the 'Ten Commandments' (all of them) are done away[/li][li]'the Law' (the entire whole) is done away[/li][/list]

Now, if that is the case, then there is therefore no need to appeal to ANY part of what is "done away" and carry them over into Christianity. To "do away" with something and yet come back to maintain that "some aspects" are to be "upheld" is to fall into the convenience trap and resort to selective reading. I draw this from your assertion earlier that - "The new testament upholds aspects of the law but not all". But as we can see, 2 Corinthians 3:1-18 does not suggest at all that ANY "aspects of the Law" or parts of what is "done away" were preserved! Nothing preserved, upheld, sustained or addend from what is done away, according to that chapter. The apostle Paul does not teach such a notion of "some aspects" in that chapter, especially in verse 10 where he stated clearly that "even that which was made glorious had no glory in this respect" - the old does not add anything to the new to make the new glorious in any respect.

ttalks:
And you ask how could the law be against us/How could it be contrary to us?

It was against the israelites because they could not keep to its requirements;hence it became a ministration of death since there were curses for not being able to keep the requirements.

From the foregoing, I'd like to now examine the concerns you highlighted from 2 Corinthians 3:1-18. You will notice there are at least a few descriptive terms used for what is 'done away' in that chapter:

[list][li]'the ministration of death' - verse 7[/li][li]'the ministration of condemnation ' - verse 9[/li][/list]

Yet, the point here is to seek to understand what exactly these descriptive terms are pointing to. True, the Decalogue was written/engraved on stones (Exo. 32:15-16; and 34:28). But were the Ten Commandments (ie, the Decalogue) a "ministration of death/condemnation" to anyone? If that is the case you seek to make, then nothing from the Decalogue should be carried over into Christianity, much as the point is that verse 11 asserts it (the ministration of death) is "done away". But we know that the Decalogue still plays an effective role in Christian living - we know this, don't we? Therefore, if the Ten Commandments are "done away", why are there so many Christian doctrines that derive from the same Ten Commandments?

It does not even help to say that the Decalogue was 'contrary to us' or 'against us' just because there were curses for not being able to keep its requirements. I have news for you - in the new covenant, a person who is unable to keep its 'requirements' was exposing himself/herself to more severe penalties! You can see in the text below that there were penalties in either case of the old covenant and the new covenant were they were despised -

[list][li]"He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?" - (Hebrews 10:28-29)[/li][/list]

The Ten Commandments were not "against us" or "contrary to us" - that was not what was "nailed to the Cross" in Colossians 2:13-14.

@ttalks,

ttalks:
If you agree that the law comprises of the ten commandments and the other laws, then I find it hard to understand why u do not see that the law and the old covenant are the same thing.

Okay, I'll tell you why I do not see it so. Notice first that my agreement with you was on the operating word "comprises" - this gave me the idea that the Law "comprises" (that it, "includes", and not 'limited to only') the 'ten commandments' and the other laws of the Old Testament ('OT', not 'old covenant').

In that sense, if 'the Law' comprises (ie., 'includes') something, it does not mean that is the only thing that makes up the Law. For this reason, I shared other matters contained in the Law, such as prophecies, doctrines, and its acting as a witness.

To ignore this point is to make the Law narrower than what Scripture points out, and then when we assume that the "Law" was nailed to the Cross, we're effectively saying that both the prophecies, the doctrines, and the witness have been nailed to the Cross and taken out of the way (if that is what you wanted to point out from Colossians 2:13-14). Further, it would be saying that 'the Law' with its prophecies, doctrines and witness were "contrary to us" and "against us" - is that what Scripture teaches? Since we know that is not what Scripture teaches, how come some are assuming that Colossians 2:13-14 was speaking about 'the law'? How come, if they make such an inference, they assume that the Ten Commandments were "against us" and "contrary to us"?

These and some other issues are the reason why I don't make the mistake of thinking that the Law is simply the 'old covenant' as one and the same thing: meaning, if the 'old covenant' waxing old and decaying, it would be the same thing to say that the Ten Commandments was waxing old and decaying as well, yes? If that is so, please show me any verse that teaches that the ten Commandments are decaying. Just one verse from either OT or NT will do nicely, thank you.

Now, to other matters:

ttalks:
Look at the following verses:

Exodus 34:27-28
(27) And the LORD said unto Moses, Write thou these words: for after the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with thee and with Israel.
(28) And he was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat bread, nor drink water. And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments.

Deuteronomy 4:12-13
(12) And the LORD spake unto you out of the midst of the fire: ye heard the voice of the words, but saw no similitude; only ye heard a voice.
(13) And he declared unto you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, even ten commandments; and he wrote them upon two tables of stone.

Deuteronomy 9:9-11
(9) When I was gone up into the mount to receive the tables of stone, even the tables of the covenant which the LORD made with you, then I abode in the mount forty days and forty nights, I neither did eat bread nor drink water:
(10) And the LORD delivered unto me two tables of stone written with the finger of God; and on them was written according to all the words, which the LORD spake with you in the mount out of the midst of the fire in the day of the assembly.
(11) And it came to pass at the end of forty days and forty nights, that the LORD gave me the[b] two tables of stone, even the tables of the covenant.[/b]

Then you said:

ttalks:
The passages highlighted above show that the ten commandments were the old covenant.

I'm sorry to note that you've again not handled this issue properly. I've re-highlighted those quotes and can summarize them as below:

[list][li]"the words of the covenant, the ten commandments"[/li][li]"his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, even ten commandments[/li][/list]

You'll notice something striking here - 'covenant' as used those passages point merely to the Decalogue - the Ten Commandments, and nothing else. To underscore this point, after Moses read the Ten Commandments to Israel in Deuteronomy 5, he clearly stated that "he added no more" (verse 22). As regards the Decalogue, there was nothing more than the Ten Commandments written on the tables; yet, the decalogue alone did not constitute the whole of what is properly called 'the Law'.

Despite this, when we speak of God's 'covenant' with Israel in a wider context than the Decalogue, then we find other matters not expressed in the Ten Commandments. Examples:

[list][li]although God had made a covenant with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, He yet brought the remembrance of this covenant to be operative upon Israel for their sake (Exo. 2:24; Deut. 4:31; Lev. 26:42, 45) - yet, this covenant is not to be confused with the covenant which He made with Israel as a nation specifically.[/li]
[li]within the matrix of the 'covenant' He already made with Israel, He specially promised a 'covenant of peace' unto Phinehas and his lineage. This is not the same thing as the Decalogue, and there was no "laws" upon which this 'covenant of peace' was granted to Phinehas other than that it was because he turned God's wrath away from Israel (Numbers 25:10-13; compare Mal. 2:4-5)[/li]
[li]besides the covenant of the Decalogue, God made yet another 'covenant' with Israel - "These are the words of the covenant, which the LORD commanded Moses to make with the children of Israel in the land of Moab, beside the covenant which he made with them in Horeb." (Deut. 29:1-2, 10-12)[/li][/list]

The point in all this is that we be careful to see what exactly is meant by 'the covenant' in the texts which you quoted - those are referring to the Decalogue which contained just ten commandments with the emphasis: "he added no more". However, that which is called "the Law" has a wider application and is not the same thing as "the covenant".

One distinction to note is that the Decalogue does not contain a commandment about "circumcision" (check Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5); we can only find matters above the circumcision in the statutes which were given unto Israel in other instances (Lev. 12:3).

Going back to your basic premise, if you are arguing that the "old covenant" is the same thing as "the Law", and therefore assume that it is nailed to the Cross and taken out of the way (inferring from your quoting Colossians 2;13-14), are we then to say that the Ten Commandments have been -

[list][li]nailed to the Cross?[/li]
[li]taken out of the way?[/li]
[li]they were contrary to us?[/li]
[li]they were against us?[/li][/list]

If Colossians 2:13-14 is speaking about the Decalogue (the 'covenant' for which you quoted Exo. 34:27-29; Deut. 4:12-13; and Deut. 9:9-11), would you be saying that the same Decalogue was contrary to us and against us? Was that what was nailed to the Cross? if not, how then are you making the law and the old covenant the very same thing?

ttalks:
The ten commandments were the old covenant;the other laws/precepts that followed were commandments within/under that covenant, altogether comprising the Law.

So then, has the Law been nailed to the Cross, including the Ten Commandments - were such things taught as having been taken out of the way because they were contrary to us or against us?

Thank you, chukwudi44.

However, I don't see where anything you said has established the idea that Peter was the foundation of the Church. Not a single convincing line you offered has made the point. Let's see:

chukwudi44:
The primacy of st peter was never doubted by the early church .That was why the bishop of Rome is regarded as the first among the church since peter died as bishop of Rome.It might interest you to know that in AD96 pope clement 1 resolved a dispute in the corinthian church even whe Apostle John who was bishop of a nearby diocese of Ephesus was still alive.

So, how does the above establsih Peter as the "foundation" upon which the Church is being built? In the first place, you made the point that it was "regarded", not that such is actually the case in the Bible. Second, just because Peter died as Bishop of Rome still does not mean that he was therefore the foundation of the Church. Dying as a 'bishop' whether in Jerusalem, Bethlehem or Rome does not make a man the Church's foundation - that is the point.

chukwudi44:
The bishop of rome has always been regardedas being the leader of the christian church since the first century AD

This conjecture is a mere assumption that cannot be defended Biblically by anyone who holds that assumption.

chukwudi44:
This view is clearly expressed by st Irenaeus in his work Against the heretics where he wrote

"The blessed Apostle[b]s[/b](peter and paul) after having founded the church committed into linus the episcopate .Of this linus paul makes mention in his letter to timothy,to him succeeded anacletus and after him third place from the Apostles clement was alloted the bishopric"

Something is deeply wrong here. You earlier stated that the 'bishop of Rome' is always "regarded" as the leader of the Church, not so? How is it that after the Apostles (Peter and Paul) founded the Church, they sought someone else (Linus) to be its episcopate/bishopric?

Besides, how does the above establish Peter as the foundation of the Church which both he and apostle Paul founded? Did 'St. Irenaeus' which you quoted say that Peter was the foundation of the Church?

Third, please note that even in Paul and Peter's day, there were several BISHOP[b]S[/b], not just one. Yes, I remember you said "Bishop of Rome"; but you may want to remind yourself that the Church did not begin in Rome but rather in Jerusalem (Acts 2). The previous chapter (Acts 1) makes the case clear enough - they were to begin witnessing in Jerusalem, and then in all Judaea, and then in Samaria, before other parts of the world. Having seen Christ ascending, they returned "unto Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is from Jerusalem a sabbath day's journey" (verse 12). It was from there that the Church was established, and not in Rome.

When Paul was converted, he did not go to Rome to seek Peter; rather he went to Jerusalem (Galatians 2:1); and it is in this chapter that Cephas was named second after James (see verse 9 - "when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars".

In all of this, neither Irenaeus nor anyone else asserted that Peter was the foundation of the Church.

chukwudi44:
Irenaeus is regarded as anunbroken chain in the line of the apostles because he grew up under polycarp of smyrna who was brougt up by John the Apostles.Obviously Irenaeus was not far from the true teachings of the apostles his writings alongside those of Tertullian,ignatius of Antioch point to the fact that the church has always been built around petr and the bishop of rome as the suuccessors of peter inherited this powers

To be built "around" someone does not make that person the foundation of the Church. Please quote us some specific statements from Irenaeus that points to Peter being the foundation of the Church; and we shall patiently look into it and show you what you're missing.

chukwudi44:
You protestants Please if the RCC is not the church left behind by the apostles could anyone here please tell me what happened to the church left by the Aposstles ,how come a "delvish church" came and held sway for more than 1400 years before the protestant reformation.It is ridiculous to think that the church built by the apostles could just disapear while those od Adeboye,Oyedepo,benny hinn et.c flourishes.

Where was the so called true church when the RCC decided the books of the bi

Hmm, this outburst is not establishing anything. There's only one point I'm requesting that you simply establish - the idea that Peter is the foundation upon which the Church is being built. Neither Adeboye, Oyedepo, nor Benny Hinn have proclaimed that they are the foundation of the Church - it is Roman Catholics that have been asserting Peter as the Church's foundation. That is the only thing you may help us settle here presently - do you care to do so for us?

Cheers.

@No2Atheism,

This is why I've missed people like you - good reasoning, simple and well contained. Thank you.

No2Atheism:
Secondly, I am not saying that everyone should learn hebrew or greek or english in other to be saved far from it, salvation is not a matter of language, instead what i am saying is that even while people use their language to converse, it would go a long way to avoid deception if the correct spelling/or translation and pronunciation of the real name of the Messiah is used in all the languages.

Good point, aye.

No2Atheism:
Nevertheless my concern is that if the names of the Creator and the Messiah were not of uttermost importance, the bible would not have place a[b] high emphasis[/b] on them, hence it becomes a highly dangerous thing to continue to allow the wrong names to be used in any of the languages. Infact, the mere fact that we are even discussing this issue now shows you how dangerous it has become because it was restored in the past.

Yes, I see your point.

No2Atheism:
Take for example:

", Everyone has been indoctrinated to believe that the Messiah is White , when world and bible history actually shows us that he's not white, hence imagine the danger such a brainwashing poses to the decisions that would be made by people during the Second Coming of the Messiah, when they find out that the Messiah does not look like they think. Infact am sure some racist white people would simply be too proud to accept such a realisation". Now imagine the kind of catastrophic confusion that would happen during the second coming of the Messiah when people expect him to come in a particular name called "Jesus Christ" and yet instead find out that is actually not His name, don't you think there is a very serious danger of people mistaking the "Real Messiah" for the Anti-Christ and the Anti-Christ for the[i] Real Messiah[/i] merely on the basis of indoctrination with a wrong name.

I was coming to that as well, but you anticipated me. Having thought about such things as well even recently again, it was such a comforting thought to read 2 Cor. 5:16 - "Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more." One of the points that the verse highlights for me is that the skin colour of our Saviour is not half as important as His work of saving us. To even drive this home, the apostle John says in 1 John 3:2:

[list][li]"Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is"[/li][/list]

What that says to me is that I don't even know in what 'skin colour' I shall appear or the texture of my African beautiful skin I may assume (makers of 'Dove' pomade go suffer for my hand, walai fa!). Hehe, but the important thing is that as one who is redeemed, we all shall see Him as He appears and we shall be like Him. It's amazing that the apostle was deeply honest enough to not assume anything, but committed such a revelation to God who knows all things.

Thus, one may not actually say with exactitude whether Christ was white, black, brown, or any other - at best, only 'circumstantial evidence' may lead one to assume either one thing or the other.

No2Atheism:
The bible shows that the Devil has always been very good at mixing both truths and lies since the beginning, hence as bible believers i believe its our duties to ensure we speak the truth at all times even if even don't know or can't quantify the effect such a truth would have on what is going on or what might happen.

Agreed; and thus also the reason why we should be careful in these matters.

No2Atheism:
Thirdly, Yourself would notice that all translations of the word Messiah look and sound similar in all the languages that you listed, yet non of them sounds or looks similar to the word "Khristos or Christ"

I noticed; but I also made the remark that they carry the same weight of import in their various renderings.

No2Atheism:

1. I am not too bother about spelling "so long as they are close " and they bear similarity under different languages.
2. I am also not too bother about pronunciation "so long as they are close" and they bear similarity under different languages.


Please don't take this the wrong way, however one thing i have come to understand is that:

The best possible scenario that i have realised is that it is possible the Creator is just showing us grace and mercy for the miracles to keep happening because of the sincerity of heart of the people using the names "Jesus Christ".

I don't even want to consider the other scenario,

Lol, I didn't take it the wrong way. And indeed, I'm reminded of Isaiah 35:16-17 where such a scenario occurs -

[list][li]"Hearken not to Hezekiah: for thus saith the king of Assyria, Make an agreement with me by a present, and come out to me: and eat ye every one of his vine, and every one of his fig tree, and drink ye every one the waters of his own cistern; Until I come and take you away to a land like your own land, a land of corn and wine, a land of bread and vineyards."[/li][/list]

There - "a land like your own land" is not nearly the same as "your own land", no be so?

My bros, I grab your concerns quite well; that's why I would leave you with the same greeting as earlier:

[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=266122.msg3805801#msg3805801 date=1241118905]I must say your exercise and research is worthwhile, so please don't despair. I trust that God Himself will reward your labours for His Name; and whether or not we arrive at the precise articulation or pronunciation (some say 'Yahweh', others 'Jehovah'), may all the Glory be His and His alone for the blessed salvation we have in His Son.

Rejoice.[/quote]

ttalks:
pilgrim.1,

Your response to my question was quite helpful in understanding ur view.

Now, if you could still indulge me once again:

@ttalks,

I'm open anytime to dialogue - and yes, I'd still be willing to consider further queries.

ttalks:
Are we in agreement when one says that the law comprises of the ten commandments along with all the other laws in the old testament?

Simply: yes - in as much as the operating word there is 'comprises'.

However, that is not all that the term 'the Law' entails. It includes not just what things are commanded as 'other laws' in the OT; but also the prophecies enunciated in the body of the Law. I know you're quite aware of this point; but for the sake of our readers. Examples of such prophecies may include Deuteronomy 18 about 'the Prophet' who came in the fulness of time as the Saviour, God's own Son.

'The Law' also includes doctrine about other matters - such as the nature of God (He is holy - Lev. 19:2), the unity of God (Deut. 6:4 - 'The LORD our God is one LORD'), etc.

The term 'the Law' is used sometimes, not so much as 'laws to be obeyed'; but rather as a witness to something about God's divine dealings with His people. In this sense, we read such texts as that the righteousness of God is being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets (please see Romans 3:21). As a witness, it also provides the basis for exposing false teaching and false teachers (compare Isaiah 8:20).

There are at least seventeen other matters that I've found are denoted by the term 'the Law' as variously used in Scripture (both the OT and NT), and this not including other mentions of 'laws' arbitrarily mentioned in many instances. What may be helpful here on our subject is to see the context in which 'the Law' is spoken of in regards of both our relationship to Christ and practical Christian living.

May I apologise if you might have been unclear about my previous entries - I certainly didn't mean for you to be unclear in my comments about how that 'the Law' features in Christian doctrines in quoting Romans 3:31, 1 Corinthians 7 and 14, as well other passages. I'll try and make it a bit more coherent so we all could benefit.

Cheers.

@Omenuko,

Omenuko:
@pilgrim.1,

Nice to see that your back.  I'm doing quite well.  I look forward to dialoging with you on matters of faith,  you seem to be well versed in yours. 

I definitely understand where you're coming from.  From reading the article there seems to be two things the Cardinal is advocating: 1) The tetragrammaton 'YHWH' should not be distinguished from who we know and worship as Jesus Christ.  It seems to me that the Vatican does not want the faithful to see 'YHWH' and Jesus as separate, but rather as one and the same.  Alot of Christian denominations use the name 'YHWH' in a way that divorces the God of the Israel (the OT) from the Messiah (Jesus Christ).  Maybe this phenomenon is trickling its way into the Catholic Church and they (the Vatican) want to emphasize the oneness of God, I don't know.  Why limit the usage of 'YHWH' in liturgy and prayer and song?  I don't know.  What are the other circumstances where we may use the name 'YHWH'?  I'm clueless; and 2) The Cardinal may have issued this request in giving deference to our Jewish brothers/sisters (just my thoughts).  I believe the Jews do not call out or speak aloud the name 'YHWH' (I could be wrong).  What do you think of the article I posted?

Thank you again. Like I said, your summary of the Cardinal's take is well appreciated. We may have mixed reactions (Catholics and non-Catholics alike); but the highlighted part well captures for me his concern - which, I think, should be calmly considered by all readers. Cheers.

@No2Atheism,

Thank you for your outline, I'm sure there's much to digest that's of benefit to all who may consider them. As I would not like to rush to any premature conclusions, let me thank you for the links you offered - in due course I'll take some tiem to consider them as well.

That said, I think something of the nature of your enquiry has crossed my path sometime or another (even before I became a Christian, it was one of the features that accentuated my quest to seek out God's name, whatever language that may be). Yet, the remarkable thing is that while I never was able to come to a 'scholarly' conclusion about what that 'Name' was, I was amazed that just calling the name of Jesus Christ turned my life around, saved me and evidently wrought miracles that are still evident in my family. I don't mean these things to negate your points; but isn't it amazing that when His Name is called in 'every tongue and language' of the world in their own translation - and He answers? Men have been saved by that same Name - whether they called Him 'Jesus', or 'Jesu' or 'Yeshua'. This does not suggest, however, that His name should just be translated just about anyhow.

A second point is that God is not seeking to make Greeks or Hebrews of any believer. I say this respectfully; for if we contend that His Name should never be translated at all, then none of the Biblical names today would make any sense, don't you agree? Even the appellation 'Messiah' is neither Hebrew nor Greek nor Aramaic, but rather an anglicized term. Perhaps this may also open up a research as to which of the semitic terms is correct between -

    - Mašíaḥ
    - Māšîªḥ
    - Moshiach
    - משיחא
    - Məšîḥā
    - لمسيح‎
    - al-Masīḥ

or even . .

    - מלך המשיח, Méleḫ ha-Mašíaḥ

We may never arrive at a conclusion, for in this instance every scholar may argue for his own scholarship and language as being the only correct one on the divine term/appellation. Should it be 'Messiah' or 'Christ' or even 'Kristos'? Do these not all carry the same import? Just a thought, though.

I must say your exercise and research is worthwhile, so please don't despair. I trust that God Himself will reward your labours for His Name; and whether or not we arrive at the precise articulation or pronunciation (some say 'Yahweh', others 'Jehovah'), may all the Glory be His and His alone for the blessed salvation we have in His Son.

Rejoice.

@noetic,

noetic:
@ pilgrim

welcome back.

why did u go on exile?

Lol, na wah. I apologise, for it was not 'exile'. There was a lot that occupied me, and I'm on a good break and thought to see what's happening on the forum. How body? I trust you dey kampe, abi?

ttalks:
Colossians 2:13-14(KJV)
(13) And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;
(14) Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;

Colossians 2:13-14(NIV)
13 When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins,
14 having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross.

pilgrim.1,

What is the handwriting of ordinances/written code with its regulations?

Good question, ttalks.

Often times, people assume that Jesus nailed 'the Law' on the Cross and thereby took it away - which idea they derive from quoting such texts as Colossians 2:13-14, etc. However, I don't think it makes a coherent sense to assume that "the Law" was nailed to the Cross - if that was the case, then "the Law" should have no place at all in any Christian doctrine whatsoever. One cannot take something away and then appeal to aspects of what was nailed to the Cross when teaching Christian doctrines. To do so is to play the game of selective reading and the convenience trap.

However, the text in simple terms tells us that the things which were written against us have been taken away. Let's see this together:


1. Those verses are not speaking about the Law:

The Law was not "against us" or "contrary to us"; for it it were otherwise, why would a believer desire something that is against him in his heart? Remember: "For I delight in the law of God after the inward man. . . So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God" (Romans 7:22 & 25).


2. The Law is not evil

For this, one only needs to look at the nature of the law in Romans 7 -
[list][li]verse 7 - "What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid."[/li]
[li]verse 12 - "Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good"[/li][/list]
If the Law was "contrary to us", it could not be said in other instance by the same apostle to be 'holy, just and good'. If something is said to be against us in context of Colossians 2, we should closely examine it and not make giant leaps to assume what it does not.


3. What was "written against us"?

The things that are written against us are the ordinances of our sins - these are the things written against us (as in the idea of 'debts' in Jewish eschatology).

The verse as expressed in NIV is quite misleading, for by adding or inserting "with its regulations" would make one think that it was the Law that was nailed on the Cross. Those insertions are mere conjectures and not the thought expressed in that verse. Other simple translations make the point precisely:

[list][li]"having blotted out [or, canceled] the handwritten record of debts in the ordinances against us, which was contrary to us, and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross" - Colossians 2:14, ALT (Analytical Literal Translation)[/li][/list].

What is the point here? Simply this: that Christ took our debts away - nailed them to the Cross, for which verse 13 declares that we are forgiven ALL trespasses. But this may not do justice to it if we fail to look at other verses to affirm the point.

The 'ordinances' written against sinners is a well known teaching in the Bible. An example - God makes clear in the Law that whoever sinned againt Him would be blotted out of His book (Exo. 32:33). However, we know that Israel broke God's covenant again and again (Jer. 11:10 & 22:9). What was God's answer to this? Let's see an example:

[list][li]"Take thee a roll of a book, and write therein all the words that I have spoken unto thee against Israel, and against Judah, and against all the nations, from the day I spake unto thee, from the days of Josiah, even unto this day. It may be that the house of Judah will hear all the evil which I purpose to do unto them; that they may return every man from his evil way; that I may forgive their iniquity and their sin. " - (Jeremiah 36:2-3)[/li][/list]

Now, these things were written as an "ordinances against" His people (and indeed ALL nations of the world) - the 'evil' which was determined against us for our iniquity and our sins.

YET, in all these, God had declared that He would make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah (Jeremiah 31:31-34) - and in quoting the same in Hebrews 8, God said He would remember our sins and iniquities no more (verse 12)! How would He accomplish this? By the vicarious work of His own Son on the Cross - whose death took away those "handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us" (Colossians 2:14). On the basis of this, verse 13 could declare that we are forgiven ALL trespasses - all that was written against us ("us" - whether it be Israel, Judah or ALL nations - Jer. 36:2-3). If God took away "the Law" and nailed it to the Cross, He would not afterwards come back to write them in our mind and hearts! How could God come back writing on our hearts the very things that were "against us"?

It's important to seek to understand Colossians 2:13-14, not as the NIV misreads it, but as the ALT helps us to see the point: "having blotted out [or, canceled] the handwritten record of debts in the ordinances against us, which was contrary to us, and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross".

I hope this helps?

Hallo No2Atheism,

While I admire your cogent style, I'm wondering if you could expatiate on the following, among other things:

No2Atheism:
STUDY THE BIBLE AND GET TO KNOW THE REAL TRUTH

[color=#000099]THE MESSIAH WAS NEVER CALLED "JESUS CHRIST",  WHY AND WHO REMOVED THE REAL NAME OF THE MESSIAH FROM THE BIBLE KNOWING THAT THE REAL NAME CARRIES SPIRITUAL POWER.

In what context do you mean that the Messiah was never called Jesus Christ?

Just a small observation:

Hi Omenuko,

How body? I see your point, and think it's important, though:

Omenuko:
@All, Greetings,

If I'm understanding the article correctly, it seems that the Vatican (per Cardinal Arinze) has said for the Hebrew name for God 'YHWH' is not to be used during certain situations and conditions (i.e., during liturgy, and in song and prayer). It does not say we should not use or speak his name at all. In other words, Catholics are asked to not use YHWH (Yahweh) during worship, prayer and song. It seems to me that outside these specific situations we may use this name for God (without breaking the 2nd Commandment of course). Also, I think they maybe issuing this in keeping with our older brothers in the faith (aka the Jews).

You've given a good summary of Cardinal Arinze's consideration. This is not directed at you; but methinks the reason why there are mixed reactions to the Cardinal's take is because it does not make good theological sense. Outside of "worship, prayer and song", what other circumstances may (in his view) be considered 'appropriate' for the use of God's Name? I don't mean to be funny here; but it would suggest that if God's holy Name could not be used in any of the aforementioned circumstances, then perhaps it makes one wonder if less honourable situations are more 'appropriate' for the use of the divine Name. Just a thought.

@ttalks,

ttalks:
Don't try to do a word play here.You know that one word can mean different things in diferent contexts.

To be sure, I was not engaging in any word play, in as much as I was not quoting myself. The assertion you're referring to were your own, not mine. I only recalled them to afford you the opportunity to clarify them yourself so no one is left wondering how two directly opposite things are pointing to one and the same thing. Even in your clarifications, you don't seem to have reconciled them quite smoothly. All the same. . .

ttalks:
When I said the law was not abolished, it was within the context that some people felt that the argument against tithes was suggesting that the law was destroyed.

That does not help make any sense in light of what we have been saying. It seems to me that those who are arguing against tithes are the ones who have been suggesting that the Law was destroyed or abolished; so we cannot come back to say the same thing on the same subject of tithes and mean it differently without clear pointers.

ttalks:
When I said the law was not abolished,it was within the context that it meant being destroyed(annihilated,rendered into non existence).

Okay, no worries. In light of that, should we then assume from 2 Corinthians 3:13 was leading to the idea that the Law was abolished? if not, would it not make the simple case of what I pointed out earlier - that the Bible does not confuse the Law for the 'old covenant'? If they mean the same thing, then you might as well be saying that the Law was abolished - which contradicts your earlier statement that it was not. Am I missing something here?

ttalks:
So I never in anyway contradicted myself.

Okay, no wahala.

ttalks:
Your approach is quite similar to that which atheists use against the Christian faith when they see two passages seemingly contradicting each other.

I'm sorry if that is what you seem to be reading; but my approach is far from that. Rather than see a 'contradiction' between the NT verses on the Law, I see a 'coherence'. It is only a matter of the way we Christians often vaguely quote verses carelessly and assume what is not there that makes me point out these issues. As a rule of thumb, I often try to highlight the coherent whole rather than leave citations standing on their own. The problem is that when some of our brethren cannot handle these issues, then assume that someone is using atheistic approach. Far from it.

ttalks:
To ur question as regards what was being abolished in 2 cornthians 3: As said before, it is the law which is the same as the old covenant.

Sorry, it was not the Law that was being abolished, but the 'old covenant'. The one does not mean the same as the other; otherwise God would not be saying that He would write His laws on our mind and hearts, if he meant to abolish those laws in the first place. It was not a 'new law' that God was going to make; but a 'new covenant' - and they are not the same thing (see Jeremiah 31:31-34 and Hebrews 8:6-13).

ttalks:
Maybe I should ask you: What is the old covenant?

Good question, and glad you asked. You might have seen several times my inference to Judaism - that in a nutshell is what the 'old covenant' is. If you'd like me to expound on that, I'd gladly do so.

ttalks:
The chapter in question already lets us know that the law is the old covenant.At least we know that it was the old covenant that was abolished.

Now, an interesting feature here: if the old covenant is the same thing as the Law, and you assume that the Law has been abolished, then why do we still adhere to the same abolished law to teach Christian doctrines? Is it not the Law (that you assumed was 'abolished') that the apostles still used in teaching about loving God, loving neighbour, women's place in the churches, Christian marriages, children obeying their parents in the Lord, etc? If the law was abolished, they should have no place whatsoever in the "new covenant". The problem is that traditionally, when issues like these are brought up, we want to excuse the conundrum with ideas of 'aspects of the Law', which gives the idea that it was not "the law" that was abolished but only "aspects" of it. But is that what we find in apostolic teaching?

ttalks:
So if this chapter is saying that the law is abolished after showing how it is the same as the old covenant,what then are we talking about?

The chapter in question does not teach that the law was abolished. The problem here is that you're mistaking the law for the 'old covenant' where it does not teach such a thing.

ttalks:
You say God established a covenant with Abraham without law.Perhaps u need to check that part of the bible again.

Please show me.

ttalks:
What do you think all those things God told Abraham to do were, if they weren't some form of laws to uphold the covenant?(Genesis 17)

You have a point; but did you notice that the covenant was not a Law, but pointing to a blessing? The circumcision was simply a "token" of the covenant, not the covenant itself (Gen. 17:11). That was what "ratified" the covenant, as we may so speak. Before Genesis 17, God already gave Abram these same covenant in Genesis 12 - "I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing: And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed" (verse 2-3; compare Gen. 17:4). Nothing said about any Law (or laws) when God first gave him the covenant.

Not only so, but the case of the circumcision was evidently addressed in Romans 4, especially noting why circumcision was given to the patriarch -
[list][li]"For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith" (verse 13)[/li][/list]
God did not give the promise of His covenant to Abraham by a Law - but simply "through the righteousness of faith". So, why was circumcision given? Verse 11 answers:
[list][li]"And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also."[/li][/list]

Abraham was not given circumcision as a law concerning the covenant that God made unto him in Genesis 12, and reiterated in chapter 17. The point is simple: if the covenant made in chapter 12 was by a law or some laws, it would present a real problem unto us - for it would not be a "promise" at all; which is the point in Romans 4:13 (the promise was not made to Abraham through any law).

ttalks:
The old covenant started with Moses,not before him.Any other covenant before the old covenant had their own rules which are their laws.

I agree the old covenant started with Moses; but as we have seen, the covenant which God made unto Abraham was without a law.

ttalks:
I'm not going to go into a discussion of tithes before the law because that is an overflogged issue.

Do I suspect that is because anti-tithers have been confusing themselves making unfounded statements about such issues and have tired themselves out on such ideas?

ttalks:
Again,I say it: The law and the old covenant are one and the same.It has been abolished(put at an end since a new covenant is in place.This does not mean it is destroyed but it is no longer a requirement for Christians).

The Law and the old covenant are not one and the same - Hebrews 8; Jeremiah 31; 2 Corinthians 3; and many other texts prove the fact. To maintain that they are one and the same is to confuse their meaning and misread what Scripture says about either of them.

@ttalks,

I haven't seen anything in your reply to shift my previous comments and observations; so I'll highlight them yet again:

ttalks:
You have a fine way of making ur points.But still,u are not right in ur submissions.

it's okay if that's what you believe. However, please don't just say so - go one step further to show HOW.

ttalks:
I noticed in one of ur responses that u distinguished the old covenant from the law;as in,them not being the same thing.

That's correct - and I would not have made the distinction if Scripture did not already do so.

ttalks:
As I said before, a covenant is an agreement and the law within the covenant is the principle or rules by which that covenant is upheld.

Maintaining this idea is why you will run into problems, as below:

ttalks:
Without one u can't have the other.
Without the covenant,there would be no law;without the law there would be no covenant.

See why I said you will run into problems by thinking like that? Let me remind you: in the OT there are several covenants that God made with people WITHOUT "the Law", are you forgetting that? Think of Noah, think of Abraham - just a few cases. If you're looking for covenants without the Law (or without any law as such), check out several of them in the OT, and you'll see why you cannot maintain that one does not exist without the other.

ttalks:
Going to the bible,the Law represents the old covenant/testament and vice versa, so it is safe to conclude that the law is the old covenant.

It is not safe to make that conclusion, in as much as God does not give us such an idea in Scripture. That was why I left you several questions to think through - and I may not be surprised that you didn't respond to them.

ttalks:
The chapter below makes that more evident:

2Corinthians 3:1-18
(1)  Do we begin again to commend ourselves? or need we, as some others, epistles of commendation to you, or letters of commendation from you?
(2)  Ye are our epistle written in our hearts, known and read of all men:
(3)  Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart.
(4)  And such trust have we through Christ to God-ward:
(5)  Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves; but our sufficiency is of God;
(6)  Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.
(7)  But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away:
(  How shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious?
(9)  For if the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory.
(10)  For even that which was made glorious had no glory in this respect, by reason of the glory that excelleth.
(11)  For if that which is done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious.
(12)  Seeing then that we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech:
(13)  And not as Moses, which put a vail over his face, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which is abolished:
(14)  But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ.
(15)  But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart.
(16)  Nevertheless when it shall turn to the Lord, the vail shall be taken away.
(17)  Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.
(18)  But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord.


Look at verse 6 to the end.
It clearly shows that the law represented or is the old covenant(the letter,ministration of death written and engraven in stones,ministration of condemnation,that which is done away)

Unfortunately, 2 Corinthians 3:1-18 does not misconstrue the Law for the old covenant. Thanks for recommending verse 6 to the end, but what does it point out, really?

For starters, we read up to verse 13 that notes: "the children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which is abolished". Now a simple question: WHAT was it that was being abolished, ttalks? You already asserted something in this instance, that the Law was NOT abolished, did you not? Now, if here you are arguing that the Law was abolsihed, you're clearly contradicting yourself, are you not? Let me remind you of your earlier statement:

[list][list]

ttalks:
Christ fulfilling the law was just that; fulfilling it. He didn't abolish it; he only fulfilled it,put it at an end as a requirement for salvation, and established a new covenant as the new requirement for salvation.

The terms old and new speak volumes even without going into much deliberations.

Putting the law at an end does not mean it is destroyed or abolished. it simply means it is no longer required for our salvation.

[/list][/list]

Let me first say that I would agree with you that Christ did not abolish the Law. However, it seems your latest discussion turns against that previous position and contradicts it directly. May I ask why that has happened all of a sudden?

Coming back, I don't see how you could use 1 Corinthians 3:1-18 to maintain a contradiction of what you previously asserted. However, I'm not bending you on that point, so please don't feel belaboured on it.

ttalks:
You say there is no where the new testament discontinued tithes.

That's what I said, yes.

ttalks:
Going through the whole of Hebrews 7, it is very clear that the commandment that brought about tithes as practiced today was disannulled because the law had been changed.

Look carefully at Hebrews 7 - the Law did not originate tithes for Abraham; and the Law did not abolish tithes for anyone. There are two tithes spoekn of there - that of Abraham and that which was commanded unto the Levites. Did you notice that even Levi paid tithes in Abraham? And was Abraham's tithed legislated by the Law?

ttalks:
So if the law that commnded a practice has been changed or discontinued,should that practice continue?

The Law did not originate tithes; rather, it incorporated a standing practice that predated it. If the law received under the Levitical priesthood came to an end, did Hebrews 7 teach that what came before it also came to an end? The "practice" was not changed or discontinued - for the Law was not even yet enacted when Abraham gave tithes. It is amazing that even the Levites were said to have paid tithes in Abraham - long before anybody talked about the Law.

KunleOshob:
You and i know that my statement is factual as there are several staements you made in that regard in previous threads on tithes we debated in, however i don't have the energy to start another debate with you on this topic since you have already made up your mind to ignore the biblical truths on this issue. I still love you all the same

@Kunle,

When you do have the time, please quote me directly so that no one is left wondering what "factual" allegations you're making. Could you do so when you may? Thank you.

KunleOshob:
AAAAHHHHHHHH My darling Pilgrim.1 is back miss ya but i won't comment on any of your submissions i believe i have shared enough with you about the biblical truths as per tithing

@Kunle,

How body? Indeed, I miss all of una well-well, no be small. I'm not fully back as yet, but you see as you see me. I like your summary line about having shared your concerns on this subject with me. More grace to you if you feel there's anything more you might want to chip in between times. Enjoy.

KunleOshob:
@ttalks
Trust me pilgrim.1 knows the truth about tithing and she knows christians are not under obligation to follow the law talkless of tithe, however she is for reasons best known to her obessed about this tithing thingy so she consistently strecthes the truth and misrepresent facts just to justify the obsolete practise of tithing. She already admitted on previous threads that she agrees that christians are not under the law, i wonder why she is trying to insinuate that christians should up hold the law now.

Not in one line did I infer what you're alleging. Please don't make accusations that you cannot defend, thank you.

@JJYOU,

First, I apologise if you misread me - it must have been my fault. I actually did not mean to infer at all that your admonition to our fiesty brethren was wrong or sinful. Not at all. If anything, I should say that even me sef I've been in that situation (passionately disparaging others) until I learnt how I was robbing myself of the grace of God to be Christ-like.

That said, let me briefly comment on others:

JJYOU:
what i find strange with all the abuse oyedepo, oyakhilome and the redeem man and all that ask for tithes get from kunle and his cronies is that it is "allegedly" done with the spirit of god approval.

Well, it is certainly unhealthy to harbour such an attitude against people who preach tithes and those who tithe. As the Word says, who are we to judge 'another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand' (Rom. 14:4). We certainly should not encourage wrong; but even when we think some ministers are preaching what we cannot agree with, that does not provide licence for anyone to be mean-spirited and start disparaging people just anyway they so wish.

JJYOU:
thanks once more. i have enormous respect for you and the grace you show. if i have erred, i am sorry and sincerely ask for forgiveness

I've come to grow into respecting everyone that come my way - including you. Afterall, why are we Christians if we cannot grow to display the grace He has bestowed upon us?

You did not wrong me, so bless your heart.