Sunday, January 18, 2015

Up For Debate - link to broadcast

Here is the link to listen to the debate between Dr. Ken Hemphill and myself on the issue of the applicability of tithing to the Christian. I hope this clarifies the issue for many of you!

1 comment:

Russell Earl Kelly said...

Dr. Hemphill wrote an extremely long article after I appeared on CBS Sunday Morning and I replied in like kind. He never replied. I do not think he does a great job of defending tithing: (1) he uses textual hermeneutics, (2) he defines the holy tithe wrong, (3) he ignores the differences between the Old and New Covenants, (4) he ignores the purpose of the tithe in Numbers 18, (5) he ignores the importance priesthood of all believers in this discussion and (6) he ignores the history of the holy tithe.

Yes, he is very eloquent and has numerous PHD degrees. Yet he cannot defend tithing with all the eloquence and degrees in the world because it is wrong for the Christian.

Yes, we all want giving among Christians to increase and to see them give more sacrificially, generously, and cheerfully. Again, that is no excuse for going to the Old Covenant for principles of stewardship. Tithe-advocates keep on repeating the lie that tithes and firstfruits are the same thing. That is disgusting. They often even want the first 10% of welfare and Social Security checks and could not care less whether anything remains for medicine, food and shelter contrary to First Timothy 5:8.

Your explanation of Luke 18:12 is excellent and makes perfect sense. He focuses on one verse with a questionable definition and ignores 16 which are clear, including the other two uses by Jesus. Neither does he have any validation from non-biblical sources. Honestly, I do not think the O.T. required tithes from spices which would be a burden to measure.
While you could claim “no scripture validation” for saying “spontaneously,” he could use the same argument against our “entire cultural background of the Ancient Near East” argument. At least our argument has archaeological evidence.
I do not appreciate “Dr. Hemphill's emphasis on the New Testament” because he fails to consider the fact that Matthew 23:23 and Luke 11:42 and 18:12 are prior to Calvary and must be treated (at the very least) as subject to caution. I propose “deepening” the discussion with an extended detailed debate sponsored by a school of theology and sitting beside you. That would be fun.

“Let us give generously, but for some that might be under 10% and for others much, much more.” Sounds like I am listening to myself.

In Christ’s love
Russ Kelly