Candour:

@Ihedinobi, i know you addresed the above to debosky but i decided to chip in as i believe it's in a way related to the point you raised to me.

i want to believe when you make mention of Laws in the old testament, you're not restricting it to just the 10 commandments on tables of stone? If you are, then you'll be right to say circumcision is not there just as Tithe, laws of bodily discharge etc do not also feature. If however, you are talking about all the laws(613 of them) by which the theocracy of Isreal operated, then i'm afraid you'll be wrong to say circumcision is not included. read Joshua chapter 5 to see how it was fully incorporated.Then also remember it was the main distinguishing feature between Jews and gentiles.

When John came baptising, people were still being circumcised. Even Paul had to shave his head and circumcise timothy just to keep the judaizers quiet and this was more than 10 years after Peter's preaching on the day of pentecost when over 3000 were baptised as believers.So i'll disagree that circumcision corresponds to the baptism of today.

i'm open to more enlightenment on the issue pls

debosky:

Ah ok, so instead of eating 10% in the church, I can eat 50% instead? Wonderful.

Since the OT said don't eat pork, more sacrificially means don't eat cow, goat, ram or even donkey.

Legalistic folk are always looking for 'references' and 'lowest levels'.

Now seriously, the OT is a shadow, but only in some respects and the 'shadow' aspect of tithing is simply what Paul indicated as follows:

1 Corinthians 9:13-14 13 Don’t you know that those who serve in the temple get their food from the temple, and that those who serve at the altar share in what is offered on the altar? 14 In the same way, the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should receive their living from the gospel.

Note - no percentage, no figure, simply a principle of support. Nothing more! Mandating 10% as a compulsory minimum is a purely human requirement not from God. That is not to say those who tithe are wrong, but those who insist it is a requirement are in error.

Enigma:
A potential consequence of this is that an action that is truly led by the Spirit may even go against "the law" or conventional understandings of "the law"!

stillwater:

To your words in bold, I don't know if i'm getting you right, but I just want to say that Jesus has paid the SACRIFICE on the cross. There is no need to pay another sacrifice. That is a false doctrine if your intention is to say that we are to still make sacrifices to God. I believe that's a false doctrine. Read the following verses...

As a result, Jesus has become the guarantee of a better covenant. The others who became priests are numerous because death prevented them from continuing to serve. In contrast, he holds the office of priest permanently because he continues to serve forever. This is why he can completely save those who are approaching God through him, because he always lives to speak with God for them. It’s appropriate for us to have this kind of high priest: holy, innocent, incorrupt, separate from sinners, and raised high above the heavens. He doesn’t need to offer sacrifices every day like the other high priests, first for their own sins and then for the sins of the people. He did this once for all when he offered himself. The Law appoints people who are prone to weakness as high priests, but the content of the solemn pledge, which came after the Law, appointed a Son who has been made perfect forever. (Hebrews 7:22-28 CEB)

Jesus has sacrificed himself once and for all!
We can come to the father freely with no charge.

kunlejazz:
You know, if what you're looking for in the bible are 'contradictions/confusions', we will find many but actually, THE BIBLE HAS NONE OF THOSE if we let the holy spirit teach us! That's what I crave and all of us should.

Your last two paragraphs were great! You spoke the truth.
The concept of tithe in the NT is human doctrine. And if we are to impose the NT kind of giving (Acts 4:34-37) where we'll have to sell our possessions and share it among the saints, we'll find out we NT believers are still giving much less than we ought to! And I doubt if majority will ever be able to match up to this standard.

The monthly tithing thing is then by far a very reasonable yardstick for giving for today's church, just like any other church doctrine, not necessarily given as a direct command in scriptures.

Here's what beats

1. The concept of one man one wife is not commanded any where in scriptures, neither in the OT nor the NT(except for bishops 1 Tim 3:2)- but a doctrine adopted and accepted by the church to apply to all.

2. The concept of 'never taking alcohol' too isn't directly commanded anywhere in scriptures, but it is church doctrine and very few believers will go against it, at least in this part of the world.

But when the tithe is used as a yardstick for NT given, because it concerns money we hear a lot of complnts.

Now, I challenge anyone on this thread to propose a standard of giving for the NT believer, close enough to what we have in Acts 4:34 (selling your possessions and distributing among believers) that will allow us give less than a tenth of our income!

debosky:
Firstly, those in the NT were not 'instructed' to sell all their possessions - they did so because that is what they decided in their hearts to do, not because they were trying to 'meet' any standard.

In terms of giving as much as we 'ought to', I believe this is a personal thing between the individual and God. If God is leading you to give more, by all means do so, but don't enforce that on others - let them give as they are led.

I'm not a big fan of 'yardsticks' when it comes to giving, but I do hear what you are saying. Used as a guide, and clearly explained as not mandated/commanded in scripture, tithing is a valid practice. It is when tithing is taught as compulsory and 'robbing God' that issues arise.



But it is stated Genesis 2:24, and repeated by Jesus in Matthew 19:5.

Goshen360:

New Living Translation
When God speaks of a "new" covenant, it means he has made the first one obsolete. It is NOW out of date and will soon disappear. Hebrews 8:13

New Living Translation
He has enabled us to be ministers of his new covenant. This is a covenant not of written laws, but of the Spirit. The old written covenant ends in death; but under the new covenant, the Spirit gives life. 2 Corinthians 3:6

kunlejazz:
The monthly tithing thing is then by far a very reasonable yardstick for giving for today's church, just like any other church doctrine, not necessarily given as a direct command in scriptures.
Here's what beats

kunlejazz:
Now, I challenge anyone on this thread to propose a standard of giving for the NT believer, close enough to what we have in Acts 4:34 (selling your possessions and distributing among believers) that will allow us give less than a tenth of our income!

kunlejazz:



The monthly tithing thing is then by far a very reasonable yardstick for giving for today's church, just like any other church doctrine, not necessarily given as a direct command in scriptures.
Here's what beats

1. The concept of one man one wife is not commanded any where in scriptures, neither in the OT nor the NT(except for bishops 1 Tim 3:2)- but a doctrine adopted and accepted by the church to apply to all.

2. The concept of 'never taking alcohol' too isn't directly commanded anywhere in scriptures, but it is church doctrine and very few believers will go against it, at least in this part of the world.

3. And about women keeping their mouths shut in church (as Paul commanded the Corinthian Church)- that was a doctrine adopted by the church then to take care of the Corinthian women's high-handedness, being that they were, more often than not richer than their husbands and intend to dominate and slight their husbands in church gatherings (this is topic for another time though. God willing, we'll get to trash it).

But when the tithe is used as a yardstick for NT given, because it concerns money we hear a lot of complnts.

Now, I challenge anyone on this thread to propose a standard of giving for the NT believer, close enough to what we have in Acts 4:34 (selling your possessions and distributing among believers) that will allow us give less than a tenth of our income!

Tithing is a doctrine. Yes! Just like many other doctrines in the NT church, which we all adhere to without reservations.

I'm getting to learn a lot from this thread. I hope we all are. God bless everyone that has being a part.
Peace!

Bidam: I guess no soul here is willing to respond to my questions.

debosky:

Sir, I was not looking for contradictions.



Firstly, those in the NT were not 'instructed' to sell all their possessions - they did so because that is what they decided in their hearts to do, not because they were trying to 'meet' any standard.

In terms of giving as much as we 'ought to', I believe this is a personal thing between the individual and God. If God is leading you to give more, by all means do so, but don't enforce that on others - let them give as they are led.

I'm not a big fan of 'yardsticks' when it comes to giving, but I do hear what you are saying. Used as a guide, and clearly explained as not mandated/commanded in scripture, tithing is a valid practice. It is when tithing is taught as compulsory and 'robbing God' that issues arise.



But it is stated Genesis 2:24, and repeated by Jesus in Matthew 19:5.



Again, as long as it is taught in light of scripture, there is nothing wrong with this doctrine.



No it causes complaints because of the manner in which it is taught and practiced, which in many cases, is not in line with scripture.



It is not for any man to propose a standard, it is for all men to give as they purpose in their heart. Don't be obsessed with creating rules just let God lead you. If God leads you to give 10%, 20% or 100%, then do so.

Bidam: I guess no soul here is willing to respond to my questions.

Zikkyy:

Maybe its because your question been answered

kunlejazz:
And if no standard should be imposed, what will guide baby christians/young believers with much less knowledge of scriptures than you have to give?

Goshen360:

Where is the question again, please?

Bidam: Paul said laws(Heb. 10:15-16). in contrast to Jeremiah who said law(Jer. 31:33). .If we agree the law is the nature of the Christ-life. what are the laws Paul is talking about here?

Bidam: Where? could you please refer me to the answers.It's been bugging me for sometimes now.

Zikkyy:

You are talking about baby christians/young believers, some of the believers in Acts 4 were day old/week old believers and they gave their all. I repeat, you don't need standards, you need (true) Christians.

kunlejazz:

Really, one fact continues to crystallize from your posts- that you're just not a fan of tithing and you're aren't willing to be un-biased about it.
There's also really not much for me to say.

Matt 19:5 was not a direct command not to have more than one wife, as I stated in my last post.
In today's church, It is a treated as such. This modification is what makes it a doctrine.

Also, why is it not for any man to propose a standard for giving but he can propose standards for every other thing (e.g. order of services, leadership election procedures, courting procedures and so on)? Or do you now mean there should be no doctrines/statutes for any thing in the church?

And if no standard should be imposed, what will guide baby christians/young believers with much less knowledge of scriptures than you have to give?

Please brother/sister, try to be a little more open. Please

kunlejazz:
So many of them were matured Christians too. And the bible never said they all gave. Only some did and their names were even mentioned. They were probably the more matured ones

kunlejazz:
Of course i don't agree with forcing people to give. Or threatening them with curses etc. I can't be a member of any church that does that. Yet, giving must be taught and taught well.

Candour:

@the bolded is where man worship starts. See what Paul says

2Cor 1:24
'Not for that we have dominion over your faith, but are helpers of your joy: f[b]or by faith ye stand[/b]'

Even the great apostle knew he had no power over the lives of believers.He acknowledged that we stand by faith. Check his letters, you'll find plenty 'i beseech', 'i admonish', i exhort' which are all synonymous with pleading.there are very few places where he tried to stamp authority.

DLBC does not use gown for wedding and the bride should not receive anything from the groom during courtship(my younger sister's engagement was almost broken off by this in 2003).LFC and Christ Embassy allow gowns and buying of gifts for each other during courtship so which one is the standard approved by God?

Religious monsters are created when Children of God have to get directions on how to leave their lives from one 'infallible' MOG and that is a negation of grace my bro.

Zikkyy:

Read Acts 2 below:

Acts 2:41 (NIV)
41 Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day.

Acts 2:42-47 (NIV)
42 They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. 43 Everyone was filled with awe at the many wonders and signs performed by the apostles. 44 All the believers were together and had everything in common. 45 They sold property and possessions to give to anyone who had need. 46 Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, 47 praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved.

Notice the blue highlight (v.46), "ate together with glad and sincere hearts". Every they did was from the heart.

Reading verse 44-45, i don't see any name mentioned o! verse 47 says day old believers were involved as well. They did not have the NT yet they performed so beautifully. You can see you don't need standard.

debosky:

You're close - what I meant is that they are not prescriptive in the same manner as the OT rules were. Like in the to eat or not to eat conundrum, what you get is not a specific law saying eat/don't eat (as they had in the OT), what you get is value your brother above all, and act with that goal in mind.

We could have along conversation about this particular subject, but what I'll say is this: God did not change his mind, but he has changed his approach. We were previously not children of God but now we can boldly approach the throne of Grace - the change is unmistakable.

God had one end-goal in mind - that is Jesus - and the Old Covenant played its role for that period. It was only a shadow, so even at its best, can only give an image. Now we have Christ so we look to him. Even in studying the Old, we do that in Him.

I also agree - study is valid, but must be done in the light of the New Covenant to understand the purpose/intent/True Law behind the Old. Failure to do so will mean leaving the substance and clinging to the shadow.

We'll agree to disagree - circumcision was a law as it was mandated in Leviticus, but not a 'True Law' or principle as we've said above.

kunlejazz:

*smiles* thot I was done for the day
Joses and Ananias
Acts 4:34-36; 5:1-
And it also says 'as many as had...' in chap 4 vs 34

kunlejazz:
Who says they weren't taught? The bible didn't say that. They could have and even if they weren't, seeing others give was enough- that is leading by example.

kunlejazz:
and even if they weren't, seeing others give was enough- that is leading by example.

kunlejazz:

Sir, as much as you don't want anyone to control your life...no one does really; there still has to be procedure! Standards!
God speaks through his prophets, and they are to be obeyed. You know the funny thing, even if they seem wrong in our eyes, it isn't your prerogative to judge them. They're humans afterall.
They are called 'Men' of God, not 'God' of Men; they are first and foremost MAN!

Remember when Moses disobeyed God by marrying the Ethiopian (black) woman. He sinned, but God punished those that condemned him (Aaron and Miriam). He has God and his own spiritual heads (if he/she has mentors) to answer to. Not us!
I've said enough for one day

Peace

Zikkyy:

don't usually talk about myself, but let me share an experience.

There was this day (a very long time ago) i found myself intervening in a fight between a friend and a third party. The other guy was chasing my friend with a piece of wood with the intention of 'planking' my friend (Rivers SHA style ). I got in the way in an attempt to stop the other guy from committing murder, i got 'planked' instead (cracked a bone). The wood fell in the process and i picked it up. The other guy decided it was time to retreat unfortunately it was at a corner, with no-where to run. I was in pain and contemplating the next line of action. Would hitting back ease my pain? Looking at the guy's face (he already surrendered himself for some 'planking' ), i decided it was not the best thing to do (i know some posters will dis-agree ), but i found myself advising him instead. Now did i consider any listing/law in making that decision? No i did not. It all comes down to who i am (my nature), and it just wasn't me to hit back in such a situation.

Zikkyy:

don't usually talk about myself, but let me share an experience.

There was this day (a very long time ago) i found myself intervening in a fight between a friend and a third party. The other guy was chasing my friend with a piece of wood with the intention of 'planking' my friend (Rivers SHA style ). I got in the way in an attempt to stop the other guy from committing murder, i got 'planked' instead (cracked a bone). The wood fell in the process and i picked it up. The other guy decided it was time to retreat unfortunately it was at a corner, with no-where to run. I was in pain and contemplating the next line of action. Would hitting back ease my pain? Looking at the guy's face (he already surrendered himself for some 'planking' ), i decided it was not the best thing to do (i know some posters will dis-agree ), but i found myself advising him instead. Now did i consider any listing/law in making that decision? No i did not. It all comes down to who i am (my nature), and it just wasn't me to hit back in such a situation.

Ihedinobi:
Oh I don't know. Perhaps that could be said but then the question "from what approach to what approach did He change?" would arise. Then again, even in our sin, we have always been God's children. We were rebellious children, dead children, lost children, but still children.

D'you remember when Jesus said that the Scriptures spoke of Him? It was Him in the Old Covenant.

The Old and the New are one, my brother.

And like He said to such people, they don't know the Scriptures. The Scriptures never called what Jesus did breaking the Sabbath, they did.

Image123: As if i knew that this 'revelation' was going to acrtually boil down to thou shall not tithe. New revelation indeed, i'm not interested in useless revelations that wake the likes of zukky from their hibernations.