KunleOshob:

@debosky
Most of our preachers preach tithe from malachi 3:8-10 and preach it as compulsary based on the law (which is what i am against) if they preach it as free will then i would not have a problem with it, My submission that those who tithe out of compulsion based on the law are cutting themselves out of grace according to galatians 5:4 still stands. The Abraham example you gave is not not valid as it has no semblance to the tithes being extorted from xtians today neither was anyone directed to follow abraham's example.i f yohenu choose to tithe purely out of free wil then you are in order but if you are tithing based on law t you are in grave danger of being cut off from christ. This is the truth all christians must know, pastors in their greed are not telling the whole truth about tithes

huh?

KunleOshob:

@debosky
Most of our preachers preach tithe from malachi 3:8-10 and preach it as compulsary based on the law (which is what i am against) if they preach it as free will then i would not have a problem with it, My submission that those who tithe out of compulsion based on the law are cutting themselves out of grace according to galatians 5:4 still stands. The Abraham example you gave is not not valid as it has no semblance to the tithes being extorted from xtians today neither was anyone directed to follow abraham's example. if you choose to tithe purely out of free wil then you are in order but if you are tithing based on law then you are in grave danger of being cut off from christ. This is the truth all christians must know, pastors in their greed are not telling the whole truth about tithes

GBAM!

Well said

Kunle, I see, you are fooloing your self, and no one else, i did not reply your post cos feel nausiated when i read your post. it make me feel like vommiting, well thank God for people like ud4u, God cannot be mocked and whatsoever a man soweth, that he shall reap, also the bible says lay up your treasure where no moth or thief can get to it. You need to pray for better understanding of the bible and not carnally give it an interpretation, the verses you quoted in hebrews do not condemn tithing. so you are yet to answered my question. Mr. Kunle

if you choose to tithe purely out of free wil then you are in order but if you are tithing based on law then you are in grave danger of being cut off from christ.

So says Kunle's Bible.

Kunle, I see, you are fooloing your self, and no one else, i did not reply your post cos feel nausiated when i read your post. it make me feel like vommiting, well thank God for people like ud4u, God cannot be mocked and whatsoever a man soweth, that he shall reap, also the bible says lay up your treasure where no moth or thief can get to it. You need to pray for better understanding of the bible and not carnally give it an interpretation, the verses you quoted in hebrews do not condemn tithing. so you are yet to answered my question. Mr. Kunle

if you choose to tithe purely out of free wil then you are in order but if you are tithing based on law then you are in grave danger of being cut off from christ.

So says Kunle's Bible.

todak:

Kunle, I see, you are fooloing your self, and no one else, i did not reply your post cos feel nausiated when i read your post. it make me feel like vommiting, well thank God for people like ud4u, God cannot be mocked and whatsoever a man soweth, that he shall reap, also the bible says lay up your treasure where no moth or thief can get to it. You need to pray for better understanding of the bible and not carnally give it an interpretation, the verses you quoted in hebrews do not condemn tithing. so you are yet to answered my question. Mr. Kunle

if you choose to tithe purely out of free wil then you are in order but if you are tithing based on law then you are in grave danger of being cut off from christ.

So says Kunle's Bible.

At least i have done my bit a reveal the truth to you, if you decide to remain in bondage and keep yourself under the yoke of tithing coupled with all the curses attached to it despite the fact that the bible clearly anulls it's practise for christians in Hebrews 7:11&18(wether you like it or not ) that is your problem but remember the bible says in the book of John that the truth would set you free [John 8:32:32And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.] . The bible also says people perish for lack of knowledge, it is my prayer that you come to the true knowledge of the word so that you and others can be be set free from this bondage.

KunleOshob:

At least i have done my bit a reveal the truth to you, if you decide to remain in bondage and keep yourself under the yoke of tithing coupled with all the curses attached to it despite the fact that the bible clearly anulls it's practise for christians in Hebrews 7:11&18(wether you like it or not ) that is your problem but remember the bible says in the book of John that the truth would set you free [John 8:32:32And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.] . The bible also says people perish for lack of knowledge, it is my prayer that you come to the true knowledge of the word so that you and others can be be set free from this bondage.

saint kunle the only truthfull christian in nigeria. last week it was light you were carrying this week it is truth. i know you always have your interpretation of scriptures try seeing if you can like these and reason with it. there are many people in Gods book you are writting off. i refuse to accept you are the only one standing right in nigeria. you dont know it all my brother.

Luke 10:16-29 (New Living Translation)

16 Then he said to the disciples, “Anyone who accepts your message is also accepting me. And anyone who rejects you is rejecting me. And anyone who rejects me is rejecting God, who sent me.”

17 When the seventy-two disciples returned, they joyfully reported to him, “Lord, even the demons obey us when we use your name!”

18 “Yes,” he told them, “I saw Satan fall from heaven like lightning! 19 Look, I have given you authority over all the power of the enemy, and you can walk among snakes and scorpions and crush them. Nothing will injure you. 20 But don’t rejoice because evil spirits obey you; rejoice because your names are registered in heaven.

Romans 8:6-16 (New Living Translation)

6 So letting your sinful nature control your mind leads to death. But letting the Spirit control your mind leads to life and peace. 7 For the sinful nature is always hostile to God. It never did obey God’s laws, and it never will. 8 That’s why those who are still under the control of their sinful nature can never please God.

9 But you are not controlled by your sinful nature. You are controlled by the Spirit if you have the Spirit of God living in you. (And remember that those who do not have the Spirit of Christ living in them do not belong to him at all.) 10 And Christ lives within you, so even though your body will die because of sin, the Spirit gives you life[a] because you have been made right with God. 11 The Spirit of God, who raised Jesus from the dead, lives in you. And just as God raised Christ Jesus from the dead, he will give life to your mortal bodies by this same Spirit living within you.

[size=15pt]12 Therefore, dear brothers and sisters,[b] you have no obligation to do what your sinful nature urges you to do. 13 For if you live by its dictates, you will die. But if through the power of the Spirit you put to death the deeds of your sinful nature,[c] you will live. 14 For all who are led by the Spirit of God are children[d] of God.
[/size]
15 So you have not received a spirit that makes you fearful slaves. Instead, you received God’s Spirit when he adopted you as his own children.[e] Now we call him, “Abba, Father.”[f] 16 For his Spirit joins with our spirit to affirm that we are God’s children.

Ephesians 4:19-29 (New Living Translation)

19 They have no sense of shame. They live for lustful pleasure and eagerly practice every kind of impurity.

20 But that isn’t what you learned about Christ. 21 Since you have heard about Jesus and have learned the truth that comes from him, 22 throw off your old sinful nature and your former way of life, which is corrupted by lust and deception. 23 Instead, let the Spirit renew your thoughts and attitudes. 24 Put on your new nature, created to be like God—truly righteous and holy.

[size=16pt]25 So stop telling lies. Let us tell our neighbors the truth, for we are all parts of the same body. 26 And “don’t sin by letting anger control you.”[a] Don’t let the sun go down while you are still angry, 27 for anger gives a foothold to the devil.

28 If you are a thief, quit stealing. Instead, use your hands for good hard work, and then give generously to others in need. 29 Don’t use foul or abusive language. Let everything you say be good and helpful, so that your words will be an encouragement to those who hear them.[/size]

2 Peter 2:3:
3 In their greed these fasle preachers would make up clever lies[like tithes, seed sowing and first fruit] to get hold of your money. But God condemned them long ago, and their destruction will not be delayed.


Jeremiah 8:8-10:


8 “‘How can you say, “We are wise because we have the word of the Lord,”
when your preachers have twisted it by writing lies?[i.e twisting the meaning and practise of biblical tithes]
9 These wise teachers will fall
into the trap of their own foolishness,
for they have rejected the word of the Lord.
Are they so wise after all?
10 I will give their wives to others
and their farms to strangers.
From the least to the greatest,
their lives are ruled by greed.
Yes, even my prophets and priests are like that.
They are all frauds.


The bible as said it all, need i say more

Romans 16:17-18:

17 And now I make one more appeal, my dear brothers and sisters. Watch out for people who cause divisions and upset people’s faith by teaching things contrary to what you have been taught.[paul, the other apostles and our lord Jesus never taught tithing] Stay away from them. 18 Such people are not serving Christ our Lord; they are serving their own personal interests. By smooth talk and glowing words they deceive innocent people.

Evidently tithing is one of the contrary things to the teachings of the apostles that we are being warned about in this passage, it goes on to tell us that people that preach such things are only after their own personal interest[of course we know the beneficiaries of tithes]

Hello all,

Just thought to revisit the forum after a long vacation. Hope you're all doing great.

__________________

@Kunleoshob,

KunleOshob:

Romans 16:17-18:

17 And now I make one more appeal, my dear brothers and sisters. Watch out for people who cause divisions and upset people’s faith by teaching things contrary to what you have been taught.[paul, the other apostles and our lord Jesus never taught tithing] Stay away from them. 18 Such people are not serving Christ our Lord; they are serving their own personal interests. By smooth talk and glowing words they deceive innocent people.

Evidently tithing is one of the contrary things to the teachings of the apostles that we are being warned about in this passage, it goes on to tell us that people that preach such things are only after their own personal interest[of course we know the beneficiaries of tithes]

You know it is quite unfair to use Scripture in the manner you have often done. In the first place, it is dishonest to teach anyone that "our lord Jesus never taught tithing" - for we know He actually did, among other things (Matt. 23:23, et al).

Second, while you're accusing others of twisting Scripture by often quoting Jeremiah 8:8-10, are you not doing the very same thing by inserting and twisting Romans 16:17-18? In quoting verse 17 of Romans 16, you inserted "[paul, the other apostles and our lord Jesus never taught tithing]", just so you could dribble in your own unfair dealing into that text. You have done the same thing you quoted from Jeremiah 8:8, for you have "twisted it by writing lies" into Romans 16:17, in as much as you cannot assert that "our lord Jesus never taught tithes" (unless you're deliberately ignoring the fact that He did so in Matt. 23:23). It is quite unwholesome to be condeming others and yet doing the same thing that you condemn.

Third, let us understand clearly that Galatians 5:4 has nothing to do with tithing. Not in a single verse does Scripture present tithing as a matter of "justification", and to often pander that verse about as reason to condemn tithes is dishonest. The verse simply addresses the idea that people are seeking to be justified by the Law; it does not teach that tithing was ever given to justify anybody - whether in the OT or NT. I don't know how many people you have come across who are tithing because they are seeking to be JUSTIFIED by their tithes. How many such people have you come across? We know that there are many people who tithe, and yet they have never done so on the basis of trying to be "justified" by tithing! I'm referring to your previous posts here and here. In part, you have argued that:

[list]

Yes there is punishment for tithing, by accepting to tithe you are placing yourself under the devourer's(any time you are unable to tithe) curse also you are cutting yourself away from the grace of christ. Galatians 5:4

[/list]

Quite to the contrary, you magically dribbled in those ideas, and you're sadly wrong on both premises. There's not a single verse that teaches that people who tithe were placing themselves under a devourer's curse - it is quite the opposite, for it is the anti-tither or one who did not tithe that were exposing themselves to the devourer (check it for yourself - Malachi 3:10-12). Further, tithing did not cut anyone away from the grace of Christ, and to insist that it does so is to teach the same fallacy that Jeremiah 8:8 condemns, as you have severally quoted.

It is not Christ-like to do the same thing for which you condemn other people in the mistaken idea that they are wrong and you are right, especially when your distortion is unarguable.

Hi ttalks,

I like your reasoning, but still there are serious problems with your summations or inference.

ttalks:

Matthew 23:23 does not in anyway promote tithe paying. if you do honest bible study, u will see that it does not in any way promote it.

Why do you think so, ttalk? Could one deduce your reason from the following? - -

ttalks:

That verse itself clearly makes it clear that tithes are part of the law. Christians are not under the law.

If that is the case, then by the same logic, "judgment, mercy, and faith" are under the law, and you should have no business practicing them as a Christian. Why do I say so? Simple: in that same single verse, BOTH matters ("judgement, mercy, faith" AND "tithe" are all matters of the same Law. If you remove one simply because you find it impossible for you, then you cannot keep the other - for both of them are matters of the Law that you're happy to do away with. Can you make that deal?

ttalks:

We are not under the law as Christians but under Grace.When u aren't under something(law),u are not subject to it or its tenets.

I don't think so. In stating that, "when u aren't under something(law),u are not subject to it or its tenets", you're not making issues any simpler for yourself. In simple terms, a "tenet"  is a "principle"; hence, it is sadly untrue to draw the inference that Christians are not subject to the principles of the Law. Let me show you a few reasons why:

1. Christians cannot void the Law:
[list][li]"Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law" - (Romans 3:31)[/li][/list]

2. Some Christian doctrines are based on the Law:
[list][li]"The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord" (1 Corinthians 7:39; see also Romans 7:2)[/li][/list]
For this reason, even other matters essential in our Christian lives are derived from the Law:
[list][li]Loving God and loving your neighbour - Matt. 22:37-40 (see Deut. 6:5 and Lev. 19:18)[/li][/list]

Therefore, it is quite untenable to assert that just because we are not under something (law), you're not subject to its tenets (principles). If that is true by any stretch, then we Christians have no business quoting the Law in matters such as loving God, loving one's neighbour, Christian marriages, etc. It is not the legalism of the Law that is being sought after in the NT; rather, it is the "tenets" (that is, the "principles".

This logically leads me to address a consequence of your fundamental flaw:

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.

.

First, the Law was not given as a means or requirement for salvation at anytime. Please don't mix them up in that fashion. Only in Christ is salvation found (see, for example, Romans 5:18-19).

Second, to "fulfill" does not mean to "put it at an end", in the sense of making it useless. If that were so, we would not read Romans 3:31 saying "yea, we establish the Law". Besides, as Christians, we also are called to live a life that points to a "fulfilling" of the Law -
[list][li]"for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law" - Rom. 13:8[/li]
[li]"therefore love is the fulfilling of the law" - Rom. 13:10[/li][/list]
These are clear enough to show that one cannot just draw the inference that to "fulfill" is to "put an end" to something - for we see from the above that our "fulfilling of the law" through love does not mean that we are "putting an end" to it.

ttalks:

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.

The Law was not given at any time as a requirement for our salvation.

ttalks:

But it is there for us to understand the pattern that led to our salvation; that's all it is as at now.
The new covenant has all that is necessary for us to live a proper life in Christ.
The old covenant/law is there for us to understand some things but not to be implemented in our lives.

The "old covenant" is not the same thing as "the Law", although many people confuse them. Think about it, the apostle does not say "yea, we establish the old covenant"; rather he said simply: "yea, we establish the Law".

ttalks:

An example(might not be good enough but shld help a bit):

A movie has two parts. You watch part one and it comes to an end.
You remove it from the player and put in part two.
As part one has come to an end and is removed from the player, does it mean it has been destroyed?
No.
But it is always there for one to view so as to understand the events in part two as regards how
they came about  
But it is no longer necessary for the completion of the story the movie is portraying.

Good analogy, applause. The problem, however, is that it does not work that way with 'the covenants' and 'the Law'.

Now, let's look at a few references you cited:

ttalks:

Romans 10:4(KJV)
(4) For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.

Romans 10:4(ISV)
(4) For Christ is the culmination of the law as far as righteousness is concerned for everyone who believes.

Romans 10:4(CEV)
(4) But Christ makes the Law no longer necessary for those who become acceptable to God by faith.

They are thoughtful; but CEV is flawed - for nowhere in Scripture ddid the apostles teach at anytime that Christ made the law "no longer necessary" - please see Romans 3:31. Is it not remarkable that the same CEV has this to say in Romans 3:31 - "Do we destroy the Law by our faith? Not at all! We make it even more powerful"??

There is a difference between making something "no longer necessary" and then making it "even more powerful". Perhaps you would like to reconsider this matter before drawing unbalanced inference such as you did?

ttalks:

Galatians 5:18
(18) But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.

Tithes are confirmed to be of the law(don't come up with Abraham and Jacob cos that has been explained times without number) and we as Christians are not under the law.

So also loving God and loving neighbour (Matt. 22:37-40 >> see Deut. 6:5 and Lev. 19:18) - as well marriage as taught among Christians (1 Corinthians 7:39). Just because we are not under Law does not mean we have nothing to do with its tenets (principles).

ttalks:

Romans 3:19
(19) Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.

The law of tithes is in relation for those who are under the law which we Christians aren't under.

Does Scripture make tithing only and always a matter of the Law?

ttalks:

You say tithing is a way to appreciate your spiritual leader/pastor. Fine, if that's what u feel go ahead and practice it but do not expect us all to flow with ur feelings or opinions.

Okay, just in the same way, do not expect anyone to flow with your opinions expressed above.

ttalks:

Christians operate based on the truth in the bible,not opinions derived from it.

In just the same way, you should be operating from the Bible; not your opinions.

ttalks:

There are so many ways which people can appreciate pastors that do not have to be tithes.

I absolutely agree.

ttalks:

Giving 10% according to the teachings of the law or based on the law is downright not Christian.

Is loving God and neighbour not based on the Law - are they also "downright not Christian"? If you want to throw the Law overboard and completely disconnect from it, that's fine. However, you are making a big mistake between the Law and the Old Covenant.

ttalks:

But giving 10%,more than 10% or less than 10% as a person willfully and freely decides at any point in time without any law backing it or expectation following it is purely Christian.

That's not true. Paul derives his instruction for Christian giving in 1 Corinthians 9:13-14 from the Law (see Numbers 18)! If you want to be "purely Christian", you need to cool down and digest the big picture and not just some narrow idea.

God bless you.

pilgrim.1

From all you've said, I can only see that the only way to lay this issue about tithes to rest is to show that Christians are not obligated to keep the law.Because tithes are clearly of the law.

Romans 7:4
(4)  Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.



Galatians 3:17-26
(17)  And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.
(18)  For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise.
(19)  Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.
(20)  Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one.
(21)  Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.
(22)  But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.
(23)  But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.
(24)  Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
(25)  But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.
(26)  For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.


Romans 7:6
(6)  But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.

Acts 15:1-11
(1)  And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.
(2)  When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question.
(3)  And being brought on their way by the church, they passed through Phenice and Samaria, declaring the conversion of the Gentiles: and they caused great joy unto all the brethren.
(4)  And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received of the church, and of the apostles and elders, and they declared all things that God had done with them.
(5)  But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.
(6)  And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter.
(7)  And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.
(8 And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us;
(9)  And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.
(10) Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?
([/b]11)  But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.

Act 15:23-24
(23)  And they wrote letters by them after this manner; The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia:
(24)  Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words,[b] subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:

These are just a few verses showing that as Christians, we are not to keep the law.
We only have to follow the law of Christ which is contained within the new testament/covenant.

Tithes are not part of the law of Christ.

Ephesians 2:11-16
(11)  Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;
(12)  That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:
(13)  But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.
(14)  For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;
(15)  Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;
(16)  And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:


2Corinthians 3:6
(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.

Just some more verses showing that we as Christians are not obligated to do the law.

ttalks:

pilgrim.1

From all you've said, I can only see that the only way to lay this issue about tithes to rest is to show that Christians are not obligated to keep the law.Because tithes are clearly of the law.

Romans 7:4
(4)  Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.

Hi ttalks,

I was hoping you would do me the favour of being consistent in your mishandling of the Law. Just to satisfy your curiosity, I was well aware of all those verses you posted, and I'm thankful. However, just posting them as a desperate attempt to ignore their contextual meaning does not solve your problem.

We're aware that the NT teaches that Christians are, among other things:
      (a) not under the Law; and
      (b) dead to the Law.

However, what you have failed to highlight is the fact that Christians CANNOT void the Law (Romans 3:31). According to your CEV which you quoted earlier, I noted that it says effectively: "Do we destroy the Law by our faith? Not at all! We make it even more powerful". Do you have anything reasonable to say on that?

Coming back to your response, perhaps you need to go back a few pages in another relevant thread and see how REPEATEDLY we've made the point that tithing (or ANY OTHER type of giving) is not a matter of being "obligated". To excuse it as such every single time is to build your argument on a false and very misleading premise. Here is a reminder:

                  '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!!

The only reason why many people continue to argue tithes and consequently condemn it is because it has assumed the dimension of coercion in many quarters. That does not mean therefore that "obligated" (or any such ideas) should become the norm across the world among those who choose to tithe.

Secondly, those who often assume an anti-tithing stance do so on many occasions with a very weak idea about the Law. I have often noted that many Christian doctrines in the Church are derived directly from the Law, and nobody has complained or whined about such issues. I also gave you several other examples in my reply - what have you said about them? If you want to do completely away with the Law, please let's then all make a choice to completely reject anything that comes from the Law - and they include the following:

    Loving God
    Loving your neighbour
    Christian marriages
    Children obey your parents in the Lord
    and many, many others.

If you want to maintain that we have nothing to do with the Law (please read "tenets" or principles, not legalism), then stop being selective. You need to understand the balance presented in the NT with regards to the Law, the covenants, the priestshoods and the dispensations. That may be of tremendous help, instead of just simply quoting all those verses in the mistaken idea that one cannot tithe because the only thing anti-tithers see is the Law!

pilgrim.1:

Hello all,

Just thought to revisit the forum after a long vacation. Hope you're all doing great.

__________________

@Kunleoshob,

You know it is quite unfair to use Scripture in the manner you have often done. In the first place, it is dishonest to teach anyone that "our lord Jesus never taught tithing" - for we know He actually did, among other things (Matt. 23:23, et al).

Second, while you're accusing others of twisting Scripture by often quoting Jeremiah 8:8-10, are you not doing the very same thing by inserting and twisting Romans 16:17-18? In quoting verse 17 of Romans 16, you inserted "[paul, the other apostles and our lord Jesus never taught tithing]", just so you could dribble in your own unfair dealing into that text. You have done the same thing you quoted from Jeremiah 8:8, for you have "twisted it by writing lies" into Romans 16:17, in as much as you cannot assert that "our lord Jesus never taught tithes" (unless you're deliberately ignoring the fact that He did so in Matt. 23:23). It is quite unwholesome to be condeming others and yet doing the same thing that you condemn.

Third, let us understand clearly that Galatians 5:4 has nothing to do with tithing. Not in a single verse does Scripture present tithing as a matter of "justification", and to often pander that verse about as reason to condemn tithes is dishonest. The verse simply addresses the idea that people are seeking to be justified by the Law; it does not teach that tithing was ever given to justify anybody - whether in the OT or NT. I don't know how many people you have come across who are tithing because they are seeking to be JUSTIFIED by their tithes. How many such people have you come across? We know that there are many people who tithe, and yet they have never done so on the basis of trying to be "justified" by tithing! I'm referring to your previous posts here and here. In part, you have argued that:

[list][/list]

Quite to the contrary, you magically dribbled in those ideas, and you're sadly wrong on both premises. There's not a single verse that teaches that people who tithe were placing themselves under a devourer's curse - it is quite the opposite, for it is the anti-tither or one who did not tithe that were exposing themselves to the devourer (check it for yourself - Malachi 3:10-12). Further, tithing did not cut anyone away from the grace of Christ, and to insist that it does so is to teach the same fallacy that Jeremiah 8:8 condemns, as you have severally quoted.

It is not Christ-like to do the same thing for which you condemn other people in the mistaken idea that they are wrong and you are right, especially when your distortion is unarguable.

hello my dear sister. i trust you are well. it saddens me to see kunle insult the church and pastors the way he does. we are all free to rant and rave on NL but i know humility and respect for others is a christian virtue.

i suspect he is a very young person so i keep him in my prayers.

God bless and welcome

JJYOU:

hello my dear sister. i trust you are well. it saddens me to see kunle insult the church and pastors the way he does. we are all free to rant and rave on NL but i know humility and respect for others is a christian virtue.

i suspect he is a very young person so i keep him in my prayers.

God bless and welcome

@JJYOU,
I'm okay and doing well, thanks. Just that so many things have occupied me lately. And you, I trust you're doing great? Glory to God.

Indeed, the forum being a public place for discussing should not mean that we should throw decorum out the window. It is not by disparaging other people that Godly solution is produced - alas! we all find ourselves one way or another in that grip and need to be careful. All the same, thanks for the greeting and God bless you.

pilgrim.1,


It is very clear that tithes are of the law and we are not obligated to keep the law.
The new testament has its laws and that is what we keep.
The new testament upholds aspects of the law but not all.
The aspects upheld by the new testament as indicated in the new testament are part of the law of the new testament,
so we have to uphold them.

Those aspects of the law not upheld by the new testament(tithes inclusive) are not to be upheld by Christians.

What is a covenant?
A covenant is simply an agreement.
The laws are the principles or rules by which an agreement/covenant is upheld.

The old covenant had it law/rules.
The new covenant has its own law/rules; some of them including/mirroring certain rules/law of the old covenant.
So, Christians are to keep the law of the new covenant, not the law of the old covenant.

What are the laws of the new covenant?
They are those which Christ commanded under the new covenant and those which his apostles laid down through the doctrine they preached.
Tithes are not part of the law of the new covenant.They are part of the law of the old covenant.

This is the main and only valid reason why there should be arguments against tithes in the world of Christianity.
It isn't and should not be because of any form of coersion or force on the payment of tithes.

And besides, Act 15 make it clear that the apostles never commanded Christians to keep the law of Moses(old covenant):

Act 15:23-24
(23)  And they wrote letters by them after this manner; The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia:
(24)  Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:

Romans 3:31 does not suggest we follow the law; it only points out the fact that the law is powerful/established/recognized in the sense that it was God that instituted it and also because it pointed and led to the new covenant which completely replaced it(not joined it).

Heb 8:6-13
(6)  But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a[b] better covenant[/b], which was established upon better promises.
(7)  For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.
(8  For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:
(9)  Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.
(10)  For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:
(11)  And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.
(12)  For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.
(13) In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

All the law had to say or all the laws under the old covenant are for those who are under the law:

Romans 3:19
(19)  Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.


But Christians are not under the law:

Galatians 5:18
(18)  But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.

What then is the purpose of the law?:

Gal 3:19
(19)  Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.

The law was added because of transgressions but only till Christ came to establish the new covenant.After then, it was no longer necessary to those who were in Christ through faith.

In what way is the law useful today?:

1Timothy 1:8-11
(8  But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully;
(9)  Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,
(10)  For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;
(11)  According to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust.

Thank you, ttalks, for taking the time to enunciate your points further. Nothing personal against you; but I'd have to correct a few impressions that are yet unbalanced in your reply. Please bear with me.

ttalks:

It is very clear that tithes are of the law and we are not obligated to keep the law.

Tithes did not start with the Law. Another way of saying this is that the Law did not originate or invent the tithes. When people worry about what is "of the Law", they often draw the inference that Christians are therefore not to have anything to do with such matters - simply because they are "OF THE LAW". If that arguments holds, then in the same way Christians should have no business quoting the same Law for loving God and loving neighbour, or for matters about marriage and the woman's place in the Churches. The argument often made from the notion that 'xyz is of the Law' does not stand up to its own face value at all. There are many things which are also "of the Law" and yet practised in the Christian faith - nobody is hooting or arguing against such matters.

ttalks:

The new testament has its laws and that is what we keep.

What are those "laws", if you care to enunciate further? Where were they derived from?

ttalks:

The new testament upholds aspects of the law but not all.

A nice way to put it; but doesn't that very idea collapse your previous arguments? Compare that with the statement:

'Christians are dead to the Law'

If you're dead to the Law, why argue to "uphold aspects" of what you are DEAD to? It would either mean that you cannot have anything to do with what you are dead to; or such a person does not believe they are actually dead to the Law. To suggest "upholding aspects" is to confuse the grounds of one's standing.

ttalks:

The aspects upheld by the new testament as indicated in the new testament are part of the law of the new testament,
so we have to uphold them.

I understand what you're trying to say; but that is not what is taught in Scripture - if we keep to the strain of your previous arguments. The Bible does not speak of "aspects" when it mentions the fact that Christians are not under the Law; nor does it give the idea of "aspects" in the statement that we are DEAD to the Law. For these two things, if not properly understood, are often confused with another fact about the Law: "yea, we establish the Law" (Romans 3:31). The basic point here is that people often make wholesale overthrow of the Law, instead of seeing the PRINCIPLE inherent in the law.

ttalks:

Those aspects of the law not upheld by the new testament(tithes inclusive) are not to be upheld by Christians.

The Bible never once mentioned that tithes are condemned - not in one instance. The only reason why people condemn it is because they read their own bias into the texts to make it appear so - and that is why they cannot answer simple questions when further queried.

ttalks:

What is a covenant?
A covenant is simply an agreement.
The laws are the principles or rules by which an agreement/covenant is upheld.

While your simple definition is appreciate about a 'covenant', the secodn part misses the point. The Law is not the principle by which an agreement is upheld - rather, the covenant is upheld by the very thing that RATIFIES it.

One may speak about any Law; but such a law is not upheld until it is RATIFIED. Covenants made in the OT were ratified in one way or another - whether by blood, or by a fellowship meal. The law or whatever else is spoken in the covenant are only the contents of such a covenant; and the contents do not in themselves make the covenant effective. When Moses had read all the precepts of the Law, they would still have been meaningless and without effect. What made them effective was the fact that he ratified the covenant by the blood of animals (compare Heb. 9:18-20) .

ttalks:

The old covenant had it law/rules.
The new covenant has its own law/rules; some of them including/mirroring certain rules/law of the old covenant.
So, Christians are to keep the law of the new covenant, not the law of the old covenant.

I don't know how many Christians lately are saying that they are keeping the Old Covenant when they tithe. Anti-tithers often accuse tithing Christians of that idea; but even such accusers have not a clue what they themselves are arguing. In very fact, majority of those who tithe and are well informed will tell you that their tithing is not a matter of keeping the old covenant of Judaism.

ttalks:

What are the laws of the new covenant?
They are those which Christ commanded under the new covenant and those which his apostles laid down through the doctrine they preached.
Tithes are not part of the law of the new covenant.They are part of the law of the old covenant.

Nowhere did any apostle declare that tithes are NOT part of the new covenant. For instance, I can show you many verses where the apostles specifically taught that CIRCUMCISION as practised in Judaism is not part of the Christian life (1 Cor. 7:19 for example); but can you show me ANY VERSE where they taught specifically that tithes are NOT part of the new covenant?

ttalks:

This is the main and only valid reason why there should be arguments against tithes in the world of Christianity.
It isn't and should not be because of any form of coersion or force on the payment of tithes.

The "only valid" is made up by anti-tithers; and not because it is a matter argued against in the Bible! Anti-tithers would argue endlessly against tithes simply because they see it as a coercion from the Law. If you examine their own recommendations closely, you would be amazed that they don't practise what they preach at all! This is why you find them confusing their ideas about the Law and make confusing statements which they cannot defend when queried.

ttalks:

And besides, Act 15 make it clear that the apostles never commanded Christians to keep the law of Moses(old covenant):

Act 15:23-24
(23) And they wrote letters by them after this manner; The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia:
(24) Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:

Acts 15 does not tell command anyone to stop tithing. Remember that the Law of Moses was also quoted for the Christian doctrine of loving God and loving one's neighbour? Does Acts 15 also say that because such matters are also in the Law of Moses, we should also stop loving God and loving neighbour?

ttalks:

Romans 3:31 does not suggest we follow the law; it only points out the fact that the law is powerful/established/recognized in the sense that it was God that instituted it and also because it pointed and led to the new covenant which completely replaced it(not joined it).

I never said that Romans 3:31 was suggesting that we "follow the law". Rather, I quoted your preferred version of CEV for it and asked you what you thought. I've noted that Christians, whatever they may claim or argue, yet CANNOT void the Law (see KJV on that verse). That does not suggest in my reply what you're suggesting.

Second, neither of the two versions (CEV or KJV) or any other version leads to the inference you gave for it. It does not say that "the law is powerful/established/recognized", nor does it say that the new covenant replaced the Law! Read that verse carefully - it is not passive but active: "we establish the law" or "we make it more powerful". It is a matter of our response to it; not a matter of its own response to itself.

ttalks:

Heb 8:6-13
(6) But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a[b] better covenant[/b], which was established upon better promises.
(7) For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.
(8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:
(9) Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.
(10) For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:
(11) And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.
(12) For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.
(13) In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

Is it not clear that you're confirming what I said earlier about confusing the 'old convenant' for 'the Law'? The verses above which you quoted do not teach that the Law is decaying or waxing old or ready to vanish away! Rather, it is the old covenant that is said to be waxing old and ready to vanish away.

Second, God did not say He would make a "new Law"; rather he declared He would make a "new covenant" with His people. It is clear that there was nothing wrong with the Law; and Hebrews 8 does not blame the 'old covenant' - rather, it was the people themselves that God found fault with, for they broke His covenant with them. This is why God declared He was going to make a "new covenant" with them, and not a 'new law'.

Third, in making a new covenant, He had not declared therefore that tithing has come to an end. People who read their biases into those text often amaze me how they never see that Hebrews 8 does not confuse "old covenant" for the Law. God infact said he would write His laws into our mind and hearts - not so that we go after the Law of the old covenant in "the oldness of the letter" (Rom. 7:6); but that we understand the spirit of God's Law and live by its power and principles.

ttalks:

All the law had to say or all the laws under the old covenant are for those who are under the law:

Romans 3:19
(19) Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.


But Christians are not under the law:

Galatians 5:18
(18) But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.

The Law was given to the Jews; but the Law also speaks to Gentiles as well who are not in the covenant of Judaism. Let's see this in simple terms:

(a) the Gentiles are not ignorant of the import of the law:
[list][li]For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another- Romans 2:14-15[/li][/list]

(b) the Law speaks to Christians in the Body of Christ:
[list][li]"For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen? Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written: that he that ploweth should plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope" - 1 Corinthians 9:9-11[/li][/list]

As you can see, in quoting the Law of Moses and highlighting its principles, the apostle makes clear that what he quoted from the Law of Moses was written for OUR SAKES - addressing specifically the Christian. We are not under the Law, yes; but the same Law speaks to US. . . for our sake, no doubt, this was written!

We often claim the blessings of Israel and yet want to rubbish the very basis of those promises. Please go back a step and re-read Hebrews 8 that you quoted again: does it not show clearly that the promises were SPECIFICALLY addressed to the Jews?
[list][li] "For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord. For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people: " - - Heb. 8:8 & 10[/li][/list]

No Christian making so much about the "new covenant" against tithes has yet pointed out that his claim to the promises from Jeremiah 31:31-34 were SPECIFICALLY addressed to the Jews and not to Nigerians or Americans! Yet, we gloss over these matters and outrightly reject the fact that Malachi 3 was also addressing CHRISTIANS! How? Simple: Paul noted that whatever was written aforetime was written for OUR learning (Romans 15:4).

In the same way, the Law speaks to us and shows us divine principles for our lives. To reject this basic point is to yet quote the NT in an empty manner without understanding its implications. God is not asking us to be Jews bent twice under the old covenant of Judaism; rather He lays His laws in our hearts and points us to the spiritual import of the Law, so we can serve in newness of life and not the oldness of the letter.

ttalks:

What then is the purpose of the law?:

Gal 3:19
(19) Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.

The law was added because of transgressions but only till Christ came to establish the new covenant.After then, it was no longer necessary to those who were in Christ through faith.

The purpose of the Law was to point us to Christ - but that is only one aspect of the Law. Galatians 3:19 does not teach that is the only purpose of the Law, but just one of its purposes. If the Law is no longer necessary, then Christians should not be making recourse to the same Law for Christian marriages and the place of women in the Church!

I have said this so many times, and will say it yet again: if the law is no longer necessary, what business does it have to do with the doctrine of Christian marriages (1 Cor. 7:39 - the wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth)? Why are women to keep silence in the churches (1 Cor. 14:34 - "commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law"? Saying that it is only upholding aspect of the Law just does not cut it! If "the Law" (not "aspects of the law" is no longer necessary, what then is the same Law having to do with Christian doctrines in marriage and the church?

ttalks:

In what way is the law useful today?:

1Timothy 1:8-11
(8 But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully;
(9) Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,
(10) For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;
(11) According to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust.

Lol, I know those verses; but you're complicating issues all the more for yourself, ttalks! Let me show you:

(a) first, you claim that the Law is no longer necessary, abi?
(b) then, you're trying to convince us about what way the law is useful today?

How do you reconcile both ideas? Something that you say is "no longer necessary" should not at the same time be looking for its utility today! Haba!

Okay, jokes aside. I know how difficult we sometimes get into issues like this. The simple answer to all this is that we refrain from making unfounded assertions about the Law that Scripture does not teach. It is good to quote as many verses as we want about the law; but when you do so, think about the practicality of what you're inferring.

God bless you.

pilgrim.1:

@JJYOU,
I'm okay and doing well, thanks. Just that so many things have occupied me lately. And you, I trust you're doing great? Glory to God.

Indeed, the forum being a public place for discussing should not mean that we should throw decorum out the window. It is not by disparaging other people that Godly solution is produced - alas! we all find ourselves one way or another in that grip and need to be careful. All the same, thanks for the greeting and God bless you.

thanks well noted.  i am always trying to run away from loveless religious speak but i can never run away from this word i have been trying to show saint kunle for ages.

Galatians 6 (The Message)

Galatians 6
Nothing but the Cross
1-3 [b]Live creatively, friends. [color=#000099]If someone falls into sin, forgivingly restore him, saving your critical comments for yourself. You might be needing forgiveness before the day's out. Stoop down and reach out to those who are oppressed. Share their burdens, and so complete Christ's law. [size=18pt]If you think you are too good for that, you are badly deceived.[/size]

4-5Make a careful exploration of who you are and the work you have been given, and then sink yourself into that. Don't be impressed with yourself. Don't compare yourself with others. Each of you must take responsibility for doing the creative best you can with your own life.

6Be very sure now, you who have been trained to a self-sufficient maturity, that you enter into a generous common life with those who have trained you, sharing all the good things that you have and experience.

7-8Don't be misled: No one makes a fool of God. What a person plants, he will harvest. The person who plants selfishness, ignoring the needs of others—ignoring God!—harvests a crop of weeds. All he'll have to show for his life is weeds! But the one who plants in response to God, letting God's Spirit do the growth work in him, harvests a crop of real life, eternal life.[/b][/color]

i know a little about the Spirit of God. like i know He wont lead me into a sexual relationship with some strange woman, He wont lead me to abuse you even when i catch you doing wrong.  the word say be angry but DO NOT SIN. 

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.

i live with a non religious christian it is all please, thanks and non abusive/ threatening even if you are so wrong.

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

may God bless my brother david

may God help us.

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

pilgrim.1,

You have a fine way of making ur points.But still,u are not right in ur submissions.
I noticed in one of ur responses that u distinguished the old covenant from the law;as in,them not being the same thing.

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

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.

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)

You say there is no where the new testament discontinued tithes.
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.
So if the law that commnded a practice has been changed or discontinued,should that practice continue?

@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.

@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.

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.

pilgrim.1:


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

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

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.

@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.

pilgrim.1,

Don't try to do a word play here.You know that one word can mean different things in diferent contexts.
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.
When I said the law was not abolished,it was within the context that it meant being destroyed(annihilated,rendered into non existence).

So I never in anyway contradicted myself.

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

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

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

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

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).

@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.

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?