Is Reformed Important? Friday Night Outline
Dr. Sean Michael Lucas
New St. Peters PC, Dallas, TX
October 26-27, 2007
Who Are You?: Understanding Identity
When you think about who you are, what comes to mind?
- Son, upper middle class, suburbs, two parents married 38 years, one sister
- Moved many times, mainly up an ddown the I-95 corridor between Washingong DC, and NYC.
- Husband, married nearly 14 years, four children
- Became a believer when a teenager–unusual religious journey
- Pastor with scholarly bent; historian with a pastor heart
- Writer and reader–love Mark Twain and Wendell Barry
- Gardner
- Avid sports fan–Indiana sports teams
- Springsteen, U2, country music
- Trucks, Fords, but when I follow NAsCAR, I am a Gordon fan.
Three Key Aspects to identify.
Belierfs
- the core understandings that form and motivate what and how I practice; they are also reinforced by these practices and by my stories.
Practice
- The regular activities that I engage in shape my understanding of myself and the world.
Stories
- narratives that help to make sense of what I believe and what I do.
“Identity Crisis”
- When someone is having an “identity crisis,” he/she has become disillusioned or is experiencing dissonance within her core.
- Perhaps produced through a lengthy questionaing of previously held beliefs.
- Perhaps caused through an interruption of key practices that reinforced identity.
- Perhaps result of a disillusionment with the master story
- A version of this identity crisis would be the “mid-life crisis.”
Identity Formation in “Modernity” and “Post-Modernity”
Pre- and Early Modernity
- Social relations and family connections
- Trade generally passed on through generatons.
- Church connections more by birth than over belief.
- Identity fairly stric==pre-determined by others and before birth.
Late and Post-Modernity
- Social mobility, loss of extended and nuclear family.
- Trades determined through interest,
- Church connections determined by belief less than birt; challenge to lay on any type of denominationalism
- Identity radically dynamic-self-created through choices
Forging Christian identity
The transition from “non-religious” [non-Christian] to “religious” (Christian] identity.
- New Beliefs–from Idolatry to faith in Father, Sond, Spirit (1 Thessalonians 1:9)
- New Practices–from non-observent to observant (Ephesians 4:17-24)
- New Stories—from “self-determined” to divinely determined within the story of Israel and the Church as found in the Bible.
- The forging of Christian Identity is varied and common
- Varied:
- No two transitions are exactly the same
- No two experiences of sin, grace, faith, repentance are exactly the same
- Common:
- The need experience by all human beings is the same
- The Gospel embraced by all believers is the same
- The grace granted to believers is the same
- Varied:
- The means for forging Christian identity (Acts 2:42-47)
- Word
- Sacraments
- Prayer
- Fellowship
Tomorrow, I’ll post Saturday night’s outline.
Is Reformed Important?
A friend of mine (actually, my old boss), is a member of New St. Peter’s (NsP) 
Presbyterian Church in Dallas, Texas. Over this past “Reformation Weekend,” as I call it, NsP hosted a conference by Dr. Sean Michael Lucas of Covenant Theological Seminary in St. Louis, Missouri. The topic of the conference, “Is Reformed Important?” was a Power Point presentation summarizing the material from Dr. Lucas’ book, On Being Presbyterian, which I have not read. I found the conference very interesting, for his approach does not start with a defense of all of the Reformed and Presbyterian controversial, distinctive doctrines. The approach Dr. Lucas took was to deal with what it means to be Presbyterian as a facet of one’s personal identity. In this I think he’s attempting to appeal to, or at least converse with a postmodern worldview, which seems, by and large, skeptical of evangelical theologizing.
The sum of the conference was that a person’s identity is the result of one’s beliefs, practices and stories (bps), which colors his perspective on life, the universe and everything (to borrow from the British theologian, Douglas Adams). Therefore, the basic outline of “Is Reformed Important?” is a look at the beliefs, practices and stories of confessional, Reformed Presbyterianism in particular, rather than merely Reformed in general.One benefit of the format of the two day conference, followed by a Reformation Sunday sermon at NsP (which I did not attend, but the link to which I’ll post if and when it becomes available) lies in the fact that the first night really helps a non-Reformed, non-Presbyterian (like my beloved wife) not have to immediately endure all the stuff he disagrees with, but gently points out that one’s beliefs andpractices are worth taking a critical look at. Dr. Lucas did this by sharing much of his own bps in a rather disarming manner. This is definitely user-friendly material, not fodder for theology geeks, but down-to-earth and practical stuff.
At one point during the second lecture, Dr. Lucas brought up the prospect of what he’d do were he to notice that someone had published a book with the same title as his, On Being Presbyterian, yet noticed that the table of contents seems an awful lot like the one in his own work, and not only that, but that the other author happens to mention that he comes from the same hometown as Dr. Lucas. He said the first thing he’d probably do is punch the guy in the nose. This compelled me to approach him after the lecture to request permission to post his outline on my blog, which permission, Christian man that he is, he graciously granted. Thus, in my next post, I’ll give you Lecture Number One of “Is Reformed Important?”
Hope you all had a pleasant Reformation Sunday!
Reformata Semper Reformanda (”Reformed, Always Reforming”)
update
I just took a look at http://www.newstpeters.org/ and noticed that they give their members something called “Rooster Tracks” which provides short, weekday theological and devotional items to think through and/or study. The one for this week, naturally, introduces us to the Reformers and asks its readers to think through a topic related to the contribution of each individual Reformer which is treated, namely, Luther, Melancthon, Zwingli, Calvin, and Knox.
The Delusion of Extreme KJV Onlyism
In this simple paragraph from the Massachusetts General School Law of 1647, aka “The Old Deluder Satan Law”
Yt being one cheife piect of ye ould deluder, Satan, to keepe men from the knowledge of ye Scriptures, as in formr times by keeping ym in an unknowne tongue, so in these lattr times by pswading from ye use of tongues, yt so at least ye true sense & meaning of ye originall might be clouded by false glosses of saint seeming deceivers, yt learning may not be buried in ye grave of or fathrs in ye church & comonwealth, the Lord assisting or endeavors,—
lt is therefore ordred yt evry towneship in this jurisdiction, aftr ye Lord hath increased ym to ye number of 50 householdrs, shall then forthwth appoint one wthin their towne to teach all such children as shall resort to him to write & reade, whose wages whall be paid eithr by ye parents or mastrs of such children, or by ye inhabitants in genrall, by way of supply, as ye maior pt of those yt ordr ye prudentials of ye towne shall appoint; pvided, those yt send their children be not oppressed by paying much more ytn they can have tm taught for in othr townes; & it is furthr ordered, yt where any towne shall increase to ye numbr of 100 families or househouldrs, they shall set up a gramer schoole, ye mr thereof being able to instruct youth so farr as they may be fited for ye university, pvided, yt if any towne neglect ye pformance hereof above one yeare, yt every such towne shall pay 5 Ito ye next schoole till they shall pforme this order.
Now, let me revise the above highlighted clause in order to make it easier to read.
“. . . so in these latter times by persuading from the use of tongues, that so at least the true sense and meaning of the original [Old Testament Hebrew & New Testament Greek, that is] might be clouded by false glosses of saint-seeming deceivers . . . ”
What is the moral of this story? If you simply prefer the use of the King James Version of the Holy Scriptures for your own personal study and devotional reading, or even if you believe after a considerate examination of the issues of textual criticism, that it is best to retain the Byzantine readings of the New Testament, and therefore ought to not revise the King James Version with a modern, eclectic, critical Greek text, this post does not criticize your view (even though I certainly disagree with your view). But if you believe that the King James Version of the Bible was given by the special inspiration of God, and that it’s English text is superior to the lost original Hebrew and Greek manuscripts for the simple reason that we can hold the KJV in our hands, while we cannot hold the original manuscripts in our hands, and that therefore, we need not bother burdening our congregations with recourse to the original languages to properly interpret the words of the KJV, the Massachusetts General School Law of 1647 identifies those who would undermine the need to understand the Word of God in the original languages as “saint-seeming deceivers” whose efforts would in effect, bury learning in the graves of our fathers in the church. If only you would see the error of your ways, and stop deceiving unlearned believers under your care that it’s dangerous to “correct the King James” with anything, even the sense of the original Hebrew and Greek languages.
Augustine on the Decrees of God: Roman or Reformed?
I had to look up what the Roman Catholics claim about Augustine’s views on the sovereign grace of God, and I was surprised by what I found. But not entirely. One, “Albert,” posted the first comment to Bob Hayton’s Fundamentally Reformed post, “Legacy of Sovereign Joy: Augustine,” reviewing John Piper’s book, Legacy of Sovereign Joy, focusing on Piper’s reflections of Augustine, and Albert asked Bob if he was aware of what Augustine believed about grace and free will, and asserted that what he did believe was consistent with present, official Roman Catholic teaching. That’s why I wanted to see what the online Roman Catholic encyclopedia, New Advent, had to say about the matter. The entry entitled, “Teaching of St. Augustine of Hippo,” section II on “His System of Grace,” got into some interesting reading about some details regarding free will which differs from the traditional Reformed view, but what really astounded me was what the online encyclopedia reports was Augustine’s view of how God determined his decrees regarding election and reprobation:
Here is how the theory of St. Augustine, already explained, forces us to conceive of the Divine decree: Before all decision to create the world, the infinite knowledge of God presents to Him all the graces, and different series of graces, which He can prepare for each soul, along with the consent or refusal which would follow in each circumstance, and that in millions and millions of possible combinations. Thus He sees that if Peter had received such another grace, he would not have been converted; and if on the contrary such another Divine appeal had been heard in the heart of Judas, he would have done penance and been saved. Thus, for each man in particular there are in the thought of God, limitless possible histories, some histories of virtue and salvation, others of crime and damnation; and God will be free in choosing such a world, such a series of graces, and in determining the future history and final destiny of each soul. And this is precisely what He does when, among all possible worlds, by an absolutely free act, He decides to realize the actual world with all the circumstances of its historic evolutions, with all the graces which in fact have been and will be distributed until the end of the world, and consequently with all the elect and all the reprobate who God foresaw would be in it if de facto He created it.
If Augustine taught this imaginitive concept of God’s determinate counsel, then he would have gone beyond what is written in order to come up with it. This reminds me of an anecdote of Augustine which is intended to warn of the danger of attempting to explain that which is not revealed in Scripture about spiritual realities, in which someone asks Augustine, “What was God doing before he created the world?” to which Augustine replied, “Creating Hell for the curious.” I think, if Augustine taught what is contained in the paragraph cited above, then he failed to heed his own anecdotal warning. Another thing I found interesting about the presence of this concept in Augustine’s thought is the fact that the first time I’d ever heard of such a concept, it came from someone near and dear to me, who was taking exception to the Reformed view of God’s decrees of election and reprobation, claiming that this divine consideration of all possible realities and settling on the ones that come to pass, leaving folks free (in the sense Adam was) to choose between good and evil as effectually influenced by the particular circumstances and graces God places in the individual’s path, was the more biblical view.
In my opinion, this extra-biblical view is just a more elaborate form of the prescient view of foreknowledge, about which, long before I’d become a Calvinist, when thinking it through, I concluded that in this semi-pelagian system, God was leaving man free to determine his own election, but having looked forward from before the creation in order to ordain it before man made his free choice, thereby cutting man off at the pass for the glory. You could probably say I persuaded myself in favor of Calvinism when I came to that conclusion, but it would be a couple of more years before God would force me to deal with the issues once and for all.
But the final observation I want to make about Augustine’s view of grace and free will, election and reprobation, is that I don’t think the Reformers needed to adopt exactly what Augustine speculated about the doctrine, because, after all, the Reformers were in the business of double checking writers like Augustine with the Scriptures, practicing that more noble virtue of searching the Scriptures to see whether what he taught was so. The Reformation may not have been a pure Augustinian revival, but the Reformers certianly did stand on the shoulders of this theological giant from Africa, Augustine of Hippo.
The Pelagian Drinking Song
Several years ago, back when I worked at “The Reformation Station,” Dr. Tom Browning taught a series on “The History of the Doctrine of Justification” (which I hear will be available in the future from his website!) at Arlington Presbyterian Church, Arlington, Texas. One of the lessons was on the debate between Augustine and Pelagius over the necessity of God’s grace in overcoming original sin. Dr. Browning had requested that my then boss, Randy Buster (founder of “The Reformation Station”), arrange a tune to a song he’d dug up in his studies about Pelagianism. It’s a hilarious song called “The Pelagian Drinking Song.”
I recently thought to email these dear brothers of mine to request the recording of Randy Buster’s arrangement of Hillaire Belloc’s “The Pelagian Drinking Song” and permission to blog about it. You can listen to this recording in the black Box.net widget toward the bottom of my sidebar.
And now, without further ado, I give you, “The Pelagian Drinking Song,” by Hilaire Belloc, through the teaching ministry of Dr. Tom Browning and the musical arrangement and perfomance of Randy Buster:
The Pelagian Drinking Song, by Hillaire Belloc (1870 – 1953)
Pelagius lived at Kardanoel
And taught a doctrine there
How, whether you went to heaven or to hell
It was your own affair.
It had nothing to do with the Church, my boy,
But was your own affair.
No, he didn’t believe
In Adam and Eve
He put no faith therein!
His doubts began
With the Fall of Man
And he laughed at Original Sin.
With my row-ti-tow
Ti-oodly-ow
He laughed at original sin.
Then came the bishop of old Auxerre
Germanus was his name
He tore great handfuls out of his hair
And he called Pelagius shame.
And with his stout Episcopal staff
So thoroughly whacked and banged
The heretics all, both short and tall –
They rather had been hanged.
Oh he whacked them hard, and he banged them long
Upon each and all occasions
Till they bellowed in chorus, loud and strong
Their orthodox persuasions.
With my row-ti-tow
Ti-oodly-ow
Their orthodox persuasions.
Now the faith is old and the Devil bold
Exceedingly bold indeed.
And the masses of doubt that are floating about
Would smother a mortal creed.
But we that sit in a sturdy youth
And still can drink strong ale
Let us put it away to infallible truth
That always shall prevail.
And thank the Lord
For the temporal sword
And howling heretics too.
And all good things
Our Christendom brings
But especially barley brew!
With my row-ti-tow
Ti-oodly-ow
Especially barley brew!
The Connection Between Election And Apostacy
Here’s my transcription of a listener’s telephone comment on the Sunday, August 12 edition of The White Horse Inn, “Grace & Election in the Book of Ephesians.” On the one hand, the following conversation includes an anecdote which well portrays a “fightin’ fundamentalist” standing his ground against election in a way he may assume is as bold as Paul declaring that if resurrection didn’t really happen, then Christ died in vain and we’re dead in our sins. But on the other hand, it can really make you nervous about the danger to which professing believers expose themselves when they stubbornly deny the Word of God on the doctrines of grace. No, I don’t think dedicated Christians who love and serve Jesus and otherwise believe the Bible and sound conservative theology are apostate if they disagree with election–I mean those who go to the extreme and deny the faith because they refuse to accept the clear teaching of Scripture because of election. The kind to which I’m referring are the kind who understand exactly what the Bible says about election and reject the faith because of it.
Be afraid. Be very afraid.
Horton: Greg in Littleton, Colorado, good evening.
Greg: Hello. This is providential that you’re discussing this tonight, because my uncle who’s an Independent Baptist, to his disappointment, discovered that Spurgeon actually taught this.
Riddlebarger: (while other hosts laugh) Oh boy, did he ever!
Greg: . . . and he really is quite hostile to this teaching, and I really think, for one thing, I said to him, “If I could show you in Scripture where election is clearly taught, wouldn’t you have to give in and believe it?” And I was disappointed at his response–he said, “well, I would have to question the authenticity of the Scriptures.”
Rosenblatt: Holy smokes!
Riddlebarger: Oh, boy!
Horton: Wow. You know, this does bring up an important point. I’ve been in situations where I’ve been talking about this and people have said–even older folks, people who’ve been lifelong Christians, committed to the authority of Scripture, and Bible-believing Christians, and you go through this, and, uh, I remember throwing my Bible across the room when I read Romans 9.
Riddlebarger: Oh, I remember listening to a Donald Grey Barnhouse tape on election, up all night with my Bible going through all the passages he mentioned, just sick in the pit of my stomach. But, you know, that’s just like John chapter 6, when Jesus utters the hard words, “Unless the Father draws you, you can’t come,” and the crowd starts grumbling, so he says it again, and they all walk away.
Horton: Tough words. Even his own disciples: “This is a hard teaching and who can hear it?”
My Newest “Study Bible”!
This one is definitely an “easy-to-read” Bible! Not only that, there are pictures on every page! What can be learned from this “study Bible” is not what the Greek word for so-and-so means, there are no charts of the Kings of Israel or anything like that, this study Bible teaches the reader that among the other popular and overused and often abused interpretations of Scripture, the main reason the stories of the Bible are written is to teach us about the One God promised to send to crush the Serpent’s head. And that’s all it teaches.
That’s also what preachers are supposed to base all their practical application and character studies on, too. How easy it is to forget. I can testify just in trying to write Sunday School and AWANA lessons for elementary age children. How much more is it necessary to keep in mind when the moms and dads are being preached to by the “teaching elder” (Ephesians 4:11; 1 Timothy 5:17).
Modern Christians have plenty of the other kinds of “headknowledge” about dates, locations, and name meanings, but most forget (in word and action, which are the ways that count), no, neglect, that which is “of first importance” according to Paul (1 Corinthians 15:3-4).
Bob Hayton of Fundamentally Reformed, in his post, “The Storybook for Preachers,” quotes Dr. Tim Keller as saying, ““I’d urge ministers to buy it and read it for themselves. It will improve their preaching.” That’s what hooked me, and that’s why I bought it. Sure, I’ll probably tackle one or two of my younger children (who are well into chapter books by now) and force them to listen to one or more of these stories on occasion, and any grandchildren the Lord may send my way someday will certainly benefit from it, but in the meantime this children’s book is mine! I’m also going to buy a copy and donate it to my church library, and I suggest you do the same. But some of you more daring (yet gentle and respectful–see 1 Peter 3:15) sorts may like to sweetly give a copy to your pastor with a copy of Keller’s quote tucked in as a bookmark.
One of my new favorite old radio shows is Haven Today, featuring the warm, fuzzy and comforting tone of Reformed radio man, Charles Morris (think Steve Brown, but not as funny), features a few recordings of Jesus Storybook Bible author, Sally Lloyd-Jones (I wonder if there’s any relation to D. Martyn? I suppose if there were, it would have come up), reading her Christ-centered children’s Bible stories. There are a lot of other interesting videos and links related to Sally and her book on the “Going Deeper” section of Haven Today’s homepage (on the right sidebar toward the bottom). Check out The Jesus Storybook Bible Sampler, and buy a few copies. We need to encourage Christ-centeredness in Christian publishing!
From Justification to Sanctification
A Primer for Fantasy-Phobes
End Time Redux
The God-Given Righteousness of Noah
The God who promised to send the Seed of the Woman to crush the Serpent’s head (Genesis 3:15) gave Noah the faith to believe this promise. God was the ultimate basis of Noah’s righteousness. The way in which the Seed of the Woman would crush the Serpent’s head, destroying Satan’s power through sin over God’s chosen, had not yet been revealed. Noah did not know how God’s promised Seed would save him from sin, he just believed that he would. As we study through the Old Testament, we’ll learn that God reveals his plan to save sinners progressively, a little bit at a time.
Our lives are like that. We set goals, but we don’t know everything we’ll need to do yet, or what will happen to us before we reach our goal, but these details become clear to us day by day. This is the way it works with the history of God’s work of redemption from sin. First we learn the big picture: God had announced his plan to send Someone to defeat the great enemy of our souls; then, bit by bit, who this Someone is, and how he’s going to defeat this enemy slowly became clear to people like Adam, Seth, Enoch and Noah one detail at a time. A few of these details are revealed to us in the righteous life of Noah.
By his grace, God promised to deliver Noah from the flood of judgment which he and the entire world deserved (Genesis 6:18), and Noah believed God’s promise, so one of the factors of Noah’s righteous life was faith. This faith in God’s promise was the basis for Noah’s righteous life, but it was not his faith that saved him, it was the gracious, promise-keeping God who chose to save him that was the ultimate basis of his righteousness and his salvation. Noah was a righteous man because God made Noah a righteous man.
The other factor that adds up to righteousness for Noah was his obedience to God’s commands. God gave Noah very specific instructions to build an ark (Genesis 6:14-16), what size to build it, what to build it with, how to build it and how many of the various beasts, birds and bugs to gather into the ark (Genesis 6:19-20). The testimony of Moses was that Noah obeyed all that God commanded him to do (Genesis 6:22). Yet this obedience by itself did not earn for Noah his status as a righteous man. Remember he was righteous by God’s grace through the faith granted to him by God (see Ephesians 2:8-9) with which he believed the God of the promise of salvation from sin, Satan and the flood. Noah’s faith was the root of Noah’s obedience. Noah’s obedience was the fruit of Noah’s faith. Therefore Noah’s faith evidenced by his obedience was what Moses was talking about when he wrote that Noah was a righteous man (Genesis 6:9).
God saves us the same way. All of us were born with Adam’s guilt legally imputed to us (Romans 5:12-14) by virtue of the fact that Adam represented us in the covenant with God which he violated when he ate the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Genesis 3; cf. Hosea 6:7). In addition to this, we were born, having inherited a corrupt human nature that wants nothing but sin (Romans 3:10-18), unable to do anything (Romans 8:7) that will please him (Hebrews 11:6) and save ourselves. As things stand, we deserve death and an eternity of suffering the wrath of God.
But out of the mass of condemned humanity, a remnant finds favor with God (Genesis 6:8; cf. Romans 11:5-7). Because of Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection for sinners, God looks on this remnant with grace and gives them the faith (Acts 13:48; 18:27) to trust the work of Christ that is preached to everybody (Mark 16:15). We then rely on his grace to give us the obedience with which we show our thanks and love for the work of Christ on the cross (John 14:15). So we learn how God saved us in the Bible, and we also learn how to respond to this good news in grateful love by learning the commands of God—because true faith works by love (Galatians 5:6). That’s how we can be remembered as a righteous man or a righteous woman after our story has been told, just like Noah, by a God-given faith in Christ that obeys God’s commands.
In The Even You Are Seated Next To A Calvinist
Click on the image above and you can read your anti-Calvin safety procedures. . .
“‘I have made you a light for the Gentiles,that you may bring salvation to the ends of the earth.’”
48 And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed.
7 What then? Israel failed to obtain what it was seeking. The elect obtained it, but the rest were hardened, 8 as it is written,
“God gave them a spirit of stupor,eyes that would not seeand ears that would not hear,down to this very day.”
9 And David says,
“Let their table become a snare and a trap,a stumbling block and a retribution for them;10 let their eyes be darkened so that they cannot see,and bend their backs forever.”
Kingdom Coffers: Rabbit Trail on Government and Reformation
Kingdom Coffers: "Flat Tax" or "Love Offering"? Part 3
The History of the Relationship Between Church, State and Tithing
I highly recommend that everyone read the Wikipedia entry on the Tithe. It gave me some very interesting insight into the way in which the historically blurred line between church and state has helped to seal in our minds the assumption that giving ten percent of one’s income (at least) is a New Covenant principle.
It seems that the Roman Catholic Church adopted tithing from the Old Testament as a workable, pragmatic model to ensure a regular income for their growing heirarchy. As you know, Rome during the middle ages exerted enormous influence over the nations of Europe, during which millennium, the concept of tithing became well ingrained. Thus, when the Reformation began, the governments of Europe seized the opportunity to protect themselves from similar influence from the diverse Protestant churches, by themselves exerting influence over the church, rather than allowing the status quo to continue at the hands of these upstart Protestants.
Part of this influence was in the various ways the governments of Europe extracted “tithes” from the people and supported their various state churches (Lutheran, Reformed, Anglican, etc.), which trend has just in the past couple of hundred years begun to diminish. Here’s an example of how America “dun good!” (for once, if you consider Americanism’s various other less than fortunate influences on American Christianity–no nation is exempt from syncretism) in refusing to take money from the church and give money to the church (the current President excepted–I wonder what other Presidents have likewise contradicted this national emphasis in other ways? That would be an interesting history lesson . . . ). Another way the government prevented complete Reformation was on the issue of the Lord’s Supper (at least in “Calvin’s Geneva”). But I’m done with that topic for now, but the comments apparently keep rolling in, much to my glee!
More on the government’s ability to inhibit Reformation later . . .
Kingdom Coffers: “Flat Tax” or “Love Offering”? Part 2
Abram, Melchizedek and “Christian Tithing”
Is it, or is it not, appropriate to call our giving to God in the church “the tithe,” applying Mosaic principles regulating the giving of it (“Will a man rob God?”), and stressing its importance (“The tithe is the LORD’s!!!”), or would it be more biblical to simply “purpose” in one’s own heart how much he ought to give, in order to ensure that it is given with love (1 Corinthians 13:3) or, as Paul wrote in his second letter to the Corinthians, as a “cheerful giver?”
It is held by many that tithing is only a part of the civil/ceremonial aspect of the Mosaic Law and it is, therefore, assumed to be abrogated in the New Testament, in which Paul gives a New Covenant principle of “cheerful giving.” In light of this argument, Christian tithing is defended on the grounds that Abram’s tithing to Melchizedek (Genesis 14:20b) precedes the Mosaic Law and thus ought to be retained after the civil/ceremonial parts of the Mosaic Law are abrogated. For example, consider the Statement of Faith of the World Baptist Fellowship, International. In Section 20 on “The Grace of Giving,” it reads, Under grace we give, and do not pay, the tithe – “Abraham GAVE a tenth part of all” – “Abraham GAVE the tenth of the spoils” – Hebrews 7:2-4 – and this was four hundred years before the law, and is confirmed in the New Testament; Jesus said concerning the tithe, “These ye ought to have done” – Matt. 23:23.
This was the view with which I had been raised. In fact, the Statement of Faith I just cited was the one adopted by the church in which I was saved and baptized. Ever since I’ve been earning money, I’ve been striving to be faithful to this principle. My current church is the first to which I have belonged which specifically denies this concept of some kind of eternal principle about tithing that ought to be retained, even though the civil and ceremonial aspects of the Law have been abrogated. I have been considering the relative merits of both views for the last few years.
If tithing is an eternal principle which transcends the Mosaic administration of the covenant of grace by virtue of Abram’s tithing to Melchizedek, then tithing ought to be retained in Christian worship, further informed, I would say, above and beyond the letter of tithing by Paul’s teaching on evidencing one’s love for the Lord and the people of God by the cheerful giving of that which the believer purposes in his heart in gratitude for the Lord’s blessings (2 Corinthians 8-9).
But if it is a mere aspect of the temporary civil/ceremonial laws, then it is abrogated by Christ and the Pauline giving principle is the only rule for the people of God today. So the challenge for me has been to evaluate whether or not the Abram/Melchizedek tithe in Genesis 14 and Hebrews 7 is a valid basis for the idea that tithing is demanded outside the Mosaic Law.
One of the points that got me thinking about this issue is the claim that the New Testament does not expressly command tithing, therefore it ought not be retained. This argument that there is no explicit New Testament command to tithe was coming off as another application of the same argument invalidly used (in my mind, with all due respect) by Baptists when they argue against pedobaptism. It did not sit well with me to hear pedobaptists using this line of reasoning. So the question is raised in my mind as to just what it is about the New Testament that abrogates the practice of tithing?
There are New Testament Scriptures abrogating everything from sacrificing animals (Hebrews 10:9) to eating unclean animals (Acts 10:9-16); but nothing was surfacing as I searched the Scriptures in my mind that explicitly abrogates the principle of giving ten percent of one’s income to the church. In my mind, this pointed to the perpetuity of tithing as a New Covenant principle.
So that’s what helped me think to scrutinize the Abram/Melchizedek tithing account. How does the New Testament treat this passage? Does its treatment affect the tithing question? Simple answers:
The New Testament treats the Abram/ Melchizedek tithing account as a type fulfilled by Christ. The very same New Testament book which gives the apostolic interpretation also warns us against reinstating Christ-fulfilled types and shadows. So if the account of Abram tithing to Melchizedek typifies the superiority of Christ to the Levitical priesthood, then this Old Testament passage is irrelevant to the question of giving in Christian worship. Therefore, I conclude that the New Testament treatment of that Old Testament account does affect the tithing question by taking this event off the table as a passage to be considered in the context of Christian giving. To do so would be tantamount to returning to Old Testament types and shadows.
Therefore, it is not a misguided baptistic argument to say that New Covenant believers don’t tithe because the new Testament doesn’t command us to tithe but does command us to give cheerfully that which we purpose in our hearts to give as we have been blessed. This is an offering made in the context of New Covenant worship that is pleasing to the Lord!
An IFB associate pastor friend of mine counters this argument with the principle, “There is one interpretation, but there are many applications,” as justification to take this passage about how much greater Christ is than Levi and apply it to the doctrines of giving in New Covenant worship. While it may be true that there are (at least some of them) many applications, those applications are accountable to the one interpretation, rightly exegeted. Does the application of the Abram/Melchizedek type to “Christian tithing” meet this exegetical standard?
The Misadventures of Captain Headknowledge 