nuclearboy:

I'm fine, chairman but expected a greater showing on the "chris says take it. do you believe it thread". That harakiri dude kept me away from all but 2 hours sleep since yesternight.

Hehe, as an asides. . I was up almost all through the night (my local time) studying and playing [undisclosed] as well following that thread (around 3 am local time, I even responded to one of Gary's posts). I didn't know how to come catch whatever was making them 'fall', so pardon me for not turning up for duty there sir! I didn't wanna risk falling and breaking something important in my life.

nuclearboy:
If you read Kunle's last post, Zikky's deliberately snide comments, Enigma's last post and what you just responded to from me, you'll realise we're all (you included) saying the same thing.

Acknowledged, lol. . . although I didn't think Zikky's was a snide remark though.

nuclearboy:
Nobody (including Kunle who we could call NLs' anti-tither in-chief) says giving a tithe of your income to church is wrong AS LONG AS it is with full knowledge of what you are doing i.e. it is informed AND voluntary. All everyone is saying is "THOSE" we are complaining about are those who turn it into a compulsory thing and preach it as a "requirement", not only for physical and financial well-being, but infact in many cases, go to the point of linking it to salvation.

But have I argued to the contrary? Why does the NL anti-tither fail miserably to see the point in my comments before seeking to slur and be reactive to whatever viaro says on tithes?

Where I find issues that do not make any sense, I very simply and clearly post my disagreements. At other times, I don't bother to comment - unless someone keeps repeating a fallacy and assumes that is what Scripture teaches. Everything else is unnecessary to quibble over, as I'm neither pro- nor anti- about tithing: rather, I'm willing to let others have the freedom to decide intelligently what they want to do without muddying the waters with misdirected attacks on tithes.

nuclearboy:

Just read Enigma's post again. And remember what each has written in times past as to support for the work of God and ministry of those engaged in the work of the Gospel. And your correction above may be true of "some" that you know. Truth is that here, most all do not work like that. They tell you it MUST NOT go anyplace except to them.

I sympathise with the Nigerian situation; which is why often my comments surprise many who only see things from the 'greatest country in Africa' (I'm disappointed, though, thay they got booted from the ongoing worldcup). Anyways, let's endeavour to maintain a balance rather than being reactive.

Enigma:

All the talk of "principle" always stops at "paying/giving" the so called "voluntary" "tithes" into "church"; the "principle" never includes seeing tithing in Deuteronomy, Numbers, Leviticus etc as being given to widows, orphans, strangers etc.

That is not true.

The talk of "principle" does not stop with tithes (a tenth, ten percent, etc.) - however that may be given. Besides, in responding to Zikkyy's request on the principle of the Levitical system, I have already noted that our giving "ought not be based ONLY ON TITHES - not at all so, and it could include tithing as well as other forms of expressing our giving".

Outside of my comments, there are others who tithe of their income but have not therefore stopped at that point. Their tithes and offerings of other kinds do not end up only in the local Churches, but go from there to outreaches and Missions. I know this happens in my local Baptist church; and I also know from experience that this is what happens in many AoG (Assemblies of God) Churches.

We should avoid making very misleading generalizations - they do not help foster understanding or appreciation for real issues.

^^Commander-in-charge, I salute! Howdy?

nuclearboy:

Where do you find Paul basing NT christian giving on the Levitical system that would make you expect we castigate him for it?

Well, it is pretty obvious when we turn to 1 Corinthians 9:13-14. In verse 13, Paul was referring to the Levitical system; in verse 14 he declares that "EVEN SO hath the Lord ordained. . " (KJV), or as ESV renders it: "In the same way, the Lord commanded that . . ."

I was not calling for the castigation of Paul; rather, I was directly challenging those who have a problem with preachers and teachers basing their teaching about giving on the Levitical system. If they have a problem with quoting the Law of Moses today, surely they should have had the same quarrel with Paul for directly citing verses from the Law of Moses as he did in 1 Corinthians 9:9, no?

Instead of the legalistic arguments we often hear, I have been trying to call attention to just one thing: PRINCIPLES. I thought this would have been so clear, understandable and easy to grasp - but seeing that it was not helping Gary, I then quoted from the Amplified -

   '[On the same principle] the Lord directed that those who
    publish the good news (the Gospel) should live (get their
    maintenance) by the Gospel' - 1 Corinthians 9:14.

I hope now it should come home a bit closer. . . we should understand the simple and very effective point about 'PRINCIPLES' rather than looking for pedantics and formalisms derived from legaistic interpretations.

nuclearboy:

No-one here has, to the best of my knowledge, castigated even our dart-board (chris oyaks) for preaching holiness etc. Its only on the subject of prosperity WITH the proviso THAT a tenth of your income MUST come to him that makes everyone bare fangs. And you agree with this so what brings a "nerve" to accuse Paul into the issue of tithes?  

No, I think sometimes you should not be in a hurry to jump to conclusions, commander. I do not agree with frauds or scams in any shape or form. Perhaps anti-tithers expect me to concentrate my energies on castigating preachers all over the place; but I have noted that I DO NOT favour those who "use the ministry as a super-highway for filthy lucre".

On the other hand, I also do not favour or agree with anti-tithing misinformation, false assertions and logical fallacies. Just because our neighbour's son is called 'Clinton' does not mean every 'Bill' one comes across automatically is a Monika-Lewinsky-randy (apologies to the man himself, no pejorations intended). We should be able to look at issues a bit more maturely rather than bandy everyone who mentions 'tithe' and then assume all are guilty by association.

nuclearboy:

BTW, I do agree with "tithes" if they come from an informed point of view and are voluntary rather than coerced either via ignorance or "legalism" WHICH is the meat of this matter i.e. what you call "use of the ministry as a super-highway for filthy lucre."

Humbly acknowledged.

Zikkyy:

There is a whole lot of difference between Paul's preaching and what we have today Viaro. I see legalism instead in the preching of tithe.

I understand and have acknowledged that on several occasions. This is why I said to Gary in post #525 that "others who live from their ministry are on sound grounds to do so as long as they do not use the ministry as a super-highway for filthy lucre."

However, this does not then mean that we should all get worked up and make every preacher or teacher of tithes guilty by association. One problem with dealing with issues like this is that aany people tend to see some of these abuses in their own local environment and experiences - but what is selling the Body of Christ short is that these folks would tend to make these local events larger than they are, and then assume that is what goes on in all occurences of the mention of 'tithes'. The result? All mention of tithes anywhere will simply spell doom for them, so that they do not even give room to reconsider the possibility of the fact that not everyone is guilty of the abuse.

Typically, those who are driven by a default anti-tithing position often do not take the time to recognize that there are preachers and teachers who are not guilty of the said legalism; nor has it occured to many of these anti-tithers that they are indeed arguing on the misguided ground of their own legalism.

Either way, I don't think we should be polarised to either extremes. The anti-tither who rattles his inconsistencies is not making any more sense than the pro-tither he seeks to condemn. I'm willing to agree with simple and honest discussions regardless who the discussant is, whether anti-tither or pro-tither. I do not see how dividing the Body of Christ with these arguments is helping our Christian lives.

Hello Zikkyy,

Zikkyy:

Viaro, I am not so keen on interfering in your discussion with gary. But I have been going through your posts which I find interesting. You talked about ‘principles’ which to a good extent, I agree with, but I would like to understand how the Levitical tithing practice is applied in the teaching of ‘giving a tenth of our income to the church’. Can you do this for me Viaro, it will be appreciated. Thanks

Pardon me for saying this: but I don't know what else there is to say if you agree with the core of my position on 'principles' in discussing with Gary. The one thing I wanted to point out was that we need not be so fastidious and legalistic with issues around this subject; and that is why we should see PRINCIPLES rather than hammer endlessly on about and around legalism.

As regards the question of how 'the Levitical tithing practice' is applied in Church, the basic point is that ministers and the needy ought to be supported by our active giving in Church. This ought not be based ONLY ON TITHES - not at all so, and it could include tithing as well as other forms of expressing our giving. Perhaps that is why I have reiterated often that I'm not polarised to either camps of 'anti-tithers' or 'pro-tithers'. The bottom line (for me, at least) is for us to go beyond meaningless arguments and actually get involved more actively in our giving - be it in the forms of tithes, contributions, donations, offerings, assitance, wages (yes, wages - it's there in the Bible), etc.

Another point here is that tithing, even under the Levitical system does not save anybody as far as justification is concerned. Neither the non-tither nor the tither becomes more justified, saved, or glorified at any point for choosing to tithe or not tithe. The major concern there is that we express our love for our brethren and the Kingdom of God through the Body of Christ by actually giving in principle as exemplified in the Levitical system.

Thirdly, the Levitical system contains so many principles we find and have had no problems at all flirting with in our Christianity, whatever denomination we prefer. Rather than get bogged down with petty pedantics and formalisms, we could express our concern for the 'weightier matters of the LAW' without becoming Jews in the flesh nor having to argue for eons about non-essentials. When we begin to argue about 3-year tithes, and other formalisms of "festivals", etc. . . where do we end up?

I don't know if the foregoing affords a gist of what I've been saying; but if I happen to have skipped your point, please let me know.

Ganjaseed:

This guy needs explanation about " take it and they will fall down" well, what are they actually taking from P Chris?

Good question.

^^No one is arguing anything else.

Enigma:

The scam must be resisted and condemned.

That is where the problem is - and that is what should be dealt with. The attack on tithes is misguided, that is why no intelligent anti-tither has anything of substance to say when their arguments have been closely examined from Scripture.

This is also why no anti-tither has the nerve to accuse Paul of basing new covenant CHRISTIAN doctrine on the Levitical system. NONE of these anti-tithers has ever had the nerve to condemn Paul for the same things that we see preachers do today. To keep arguing legalistically on tithes and yet shy away from making the same legalism on Paul's new covenant doctrines for Christians is simply double standards and not befitting for intelligent Christians.

garyarnold:

THAT IS THE LORD'S TITHE, AND IT WAS PAID.  You won't find even ONE verse where THE LORD'S TITHE is given.

I'm afraid the highlighted and bold part of your statement is a bold LIE. I have already shown you one simple example where the Lord's tithes were GIVEN -

[list]Deuteronomy 26:12 - 'When thou hast made an end of tithing all the tithes of thine increase the third year, which is the year of tithing, and hast GIVEN it unto the Levite, the stranger, the fatherless, and the widow, that they may eat within thy gates, and be filled.'[/list]

Did you deliberately miss that verse, Gary? WHY? Are you so desperate now that the only thing you can show is your hardheadedness that completely ignores Scripture, even though it was pointed out to you already? Be careful: such stubbornness is the essential ingredient that cook the broth of cultists.

garyarnold:

It is YOU are want to confuse the issues by bringing in the 3-year tithe which is NOT what pastors are teaching that Christians should be doing.

Please stop this nonsense! I did not bring in any '3-year tithe' for any Christian. Just above I've hinted at a few examples of pastors who are not basing their teaching of tithes on the Levitical system but rather on the Melchizedek priesthood! I've also explained again and again that Christians do not need to go to the land of Israel for such legalistic application of the Levitical tithes! Further, I have been consistent to maintain that the Christian is called to see PRINCIPLES in the OT and not legalism.

The length folks like you would go to spout false accusations to defend your legalism - that is the eleventh wonder of the world!

garyarnold:

But I expect you will write another long essay to show others how smart you are and how wrong I am.  Go for it.  You just keep showing your own confusion.

Look who's complaining now. So, tell me Gary. .  you never write long essays to show how smart and wrong you want to be? Never? Are you not the same Gary who wrote long essays in this thread in posts #214 (to prettyeyes), #154 (to stagger), and #95? Oh, I understand. . . since you've run out of gas for your farts, you come back weeping and polluting the thread with ridiculous belches instead. Well done.

I can now reckon why you never take the time to read my replies - which is not surprising. Folks who want to slave themselves on legalism often ignore the responses that challenge their falsehood and misinformation - which is what you keep doing, so keep on going for it!

garyarnold:

They are basing their teaching on the Levitical tithe, but changing it from crops and animals to income and instead of taking it to the Levites they teach you take it to the church.

Have you ever heard other Christians who base their reason for tithing on Abraham's example insteadof the Levitical tithe? No? Then you're living in a small world indeed. There are so many pastors and members of churches around the world who teach tithing on the basis of the Melchizedek priesthood and not on the Levitical priesthood. On this forum, we've seen the example of a Nigerian pastor, Tunde Bakare. There are many others in the USA. . . some I know of in Europe and Asia. These are not all basing their teaching for tithing on the Levitical tithe but rather on the priesthood of Melchizedek - the very priest that Ph.D anti-tithers dubiously referred to as a 'pagan priest' (even though the Bible clearly says he was the priest of the Most High God).

If we even have to look a bit closely at your complaint here, how many times do we have to remind you that your legalism is a complete waste of your ministry? So, there are Christians who base their teaching on the Levitical tithes. . . and so super-bleeping what?!? Did the apostle not base their teaching on many things connected with the Levitical system? Let me remind you of two examples:

(1) In 1 Corinthians 9, Paul uses the Law of Moses to teach on CHRISTIAN giving. In verse 9 he emphatically declares, "it is written in the law of Moses" and uses Deuteronomy 25:4 from that Law to teach Christians on giving. Why are you not accusing Paul of changing that verse from 'ox' to become something else and use it to teach CHRISTIANS on giving to support ministers? Gary, ever since I brought out this point, neither you nor any other anti-tither has coughed about that! Tell me, what has an 'OX' in Deut. 25:4 got to do with CHRISTIAN giving of any kind at all, Gary? Why are you so silent on that if your legalism is anything to go by?

(2) Yet in the same 1 Corinthians 9, was Paul not referring to the LEVITICAL system in verse 13 when he declares: 'Do ye not know that they which minister about holy things live of the things of the temple? and they which wait at the altar are partakers with the altar?' Then immediately afterwards in verse 14 Paul says: "EVEN SO hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel." It is clear to any sound mind that Paul was basing his teaching in 1 Cor. 9:13-14 on the Leivitical system - yet, no one reads you accusing Paul of 'changing the crops and animals' in the Levitical system into something else so he could use them to teach CHRISTIAN giving, WHY?!?

I like the way the Amplified version renders that verse 14 -

[list]'[On the same principle] the Lord directed that those who publish the good news (the Gospel) should live (get their maintenance) by the Gospel.'[/list]

Do you now see why no sane mind would be arguing your anti-tithing legalism? Yes, the apostles taught Christian doctrines on the basis of the Levitical system; but rather than apply the Law in a legalistic manner championed by anti-tithers, they rather sought to follow simple PRINCIPLES. This is why Christians can tithe from their income without waiting for your legalism of 'crops and animals'. Just get rid of your legalism and you will be thankful for the release that follows.

@Gary,

garyarnold:

My LAST remarks, because you STILL aren't getting it.

You're not explaining anything but going round in circles and then repeating that no one is 'getting it'. What is so difficult in seeing simple issues?

garyarnold:

THE LORD'S TITHE is ONLY defined in Leviticus 27:30-33, not deuteronomy. NO OTHER TITHE does The Lord claim to be His Holy Tithe.

I never said the tithe was "defined" in Deuteronomy. I made clear that the term 'tithe' (ma‛ăśêr) in Genesis 14:20 is the very same term used for 'tithe' in Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy. There is absolutely NO DIFFERENCE in the meaning of the term, and I invited you to show any such different meaning to that term that is found in Scripture.

You made so much noise about my using 'current dictionary definition' even though my meaning of the term 'tithe' was taken from the Bible. You have never shown us the different meaning of 'tithe' other than 'a tenth' which is used in Scripture.

After quibbling about emptily and showing nothing at all, all we read are your moanings. Why?

garyarnold:
Churches aren't teaching the festival tithe or the 3-year tithe.

That is probably because Churches are not legalistic as you often tend to do. Paul didn't teach the "festival Passover" in the NT, did he? The author of Hebrews didn't teach a "festival sabbath" when he said: 'there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God' did he (Heb. 4:9, ESV)? Anti-tithers waste their time and energy arguing about "festive tithes" as if any Christian has to go back to the land of Israel to fetch farm produce to fulfill your 'festive' this and that!

Dude, wake up - God never called the Christian to legalism, and that is why no one is bothering with your arguments about "festive tithes". Legalism only strains at a gnat and swallows a camel. . . and that's what shows in your arguments. This is why it is hard for you to see simple principles and yet quibble on and on about empty words to no avail. When asked to show the difference, you return with vacant complaints and show absolutely NOTHING - that's what legalism does to you.

e36991:


   [flash=200,200]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bV0gNayKNEM&hl=en_GB&fs=1&[/flash]


@Viaro

You've probably pi$$ed GaryColemanArnoldJackson off with the above wrist slapping

@e36991 , hehe. .  that vid made me laugh so hard!

Gary,

You seem to be convicing me the more that you're merely a showman who loves quibbling over non-essentials. The wonder of it all that I've had to endure trying to make you see reason - and perhaps you're far too set in your ways to reconsider your arguments, if perhaps it might be possible you are just creating further problems for yourself.

Look at the latest quibbling you presented:

garyarnold:

The Lord's Tithe was PAID.

And your big point is. . .? Please furnish us with verses showing that ONLY the word 'PAY' (or 'paid') was used for the Lord's tithe. You just do not see anything beyond your small carpings that is why you just blab about.

Just for the record, so many other words were used in connection with tithes mentioned in the Bible. Some of these words include (but are not limited to) - give, pay, receive, take, bring, offer, etc. To say that the Lord's tithe was PAID sounds as if that is the only thing you have learnt is connected with tithes in Scripture, which is not true.

garyarnold:

Abraham gave a tenth.  The word tithe in Genesis means a tenth.

The word used in Genesis for TITHE is the exact same word used in Leviticus and Numbers for TITHE - basically, it means a tenth. Abraham gave "tithes" [ma‛ăśêr] (Gen. 14:20) in just the same way that Num. 18:22 speaks of "the tithes [ma‛ăśêr] of the children of Israel".

If you want to get very particular and create problems for yourself, then check out Leviticus 27:32 where both words are used in the same connection -

        'concerning the tithe [ma‛ăśêr] of the herd, . . . .
         the tenth [‛ăśıyrıy] shall be holy unto the LORD'

What this all boils down to is simple: Abraham's tithes basically means a tenth; and that is the same thing that we find in Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy. If you have any other meaning different from this in your "definition" of tithes in the Bible, please let us know.

garyarnold:

Once God defined His tithe in Leviticus 27, His definition CHANGED what tithing meant and it was NO LONGER GIVEN.

That is patently false.

As explained just above, the meaning of "tithe" is the same as used in Genesis to mean a tenth - no new definition was given of 'tithe' in either Leviticus, Numbers or Deuteronomy.

However, even after Leviticus 27, we find that tithe/tithes were still GIVEN - what then does Deuteronomy 26:12 (KJV) tell you, Gary? Here is the verse -

[list][li]'When thou hast made an end of tithing all the tithes of thine increase the third year, which is the year of tithing, and hast GIVEN it unto the Levite, the stranger, the fatherless, and the widow, that they may eat within thy gates, and be filled[/li][/list]

Does that not say the tithes were still GIVEN?!?  You see why your misinformation poisons the well and muddies the waters?

To be sure, there are many other words besides "given" that we find in connection with tithes. If you still want to play games with piffling over words, then take Num. 18:24 from the ESV translation - "the tithe of the people of Israel, which they present as a contribution to the LORD". . . does that sound hypertensive? What is wrong with anyone either presenting or giving or offering a tenth of their income as "contribution" as they see fit? What is really behind your quibbling over these useless misinformation you like to often peddle around, Gary?

garyarnold:

Even Hebrews 7 makes the distinction between Abraham's GIVING and the PAYMENT of the Levitical tithe.  Hebrews 7 does NOT use the word tithe with Abraham to avoid confusion.

Please stop this nonsensical talk. A tithe is simply a tenth - that is what the Bible teaches, and they mean the same thing. That Abraham gave a tithe is the same as his giving a tenth, go check it out in both Gen. 14:20 and Heb. 7:2 & 4.

garyarnold:
I am done with this.  Some people are just set in their thinking and no matter what, they can't see what is right in front of them.

You had nothing to present other than your small carpings and horrifying misinformation. Perhaps you want to check yourself and relax your legalism a wee bit - issues are not the way you have cemented for yourself.

garyarnold:

Viaro uses the word tithing to mean a form of giving. Viaro uses the current dictionary definition.

I use the word tithing to mean the Biblical Tithe, a payment. I use the definition given to us by God.

Gary, are you for real?!? Tithing IS a form of giving, and there are no issues over that! What is so big that you can't see the simplicity in that? Abraham gave tithes to Melchizedek, no? Does God tell you that the patriarch did any other than 'GIVE' a tithe (Gen. 14:20)?

Again, what is wrong with Hebrews 7:2 - 'Abraham GAVE a tenth part of all'?!? What is all this piffling about your "definition" as if it's the next big discovery in interstellar space?

garyarnold:

Using the word for both meanings is what causes confusion, and is causing confusion right here on this blog.

Please just go and sleep if you have nothing else to say! The BIBLE uses both expressions ('GIVE' and 'PAY') and several more in regards to tithing - so what is the huge confusion there?

Folks like you who can no longer see Scripture for what it says are the ones causing themselves a huge jumble on this subject. A Christian can indeed choose to GIVE a tithe without waiting for this childish game of your definition reconstruction to fit your narrow carpings about this subject.

garyarnold:
Since I personally know many who THINK they are paying God's tithe, PER THE LAW, not from the heart, I say THEY are sinning BECAUSE THEY THINK THEY ARE UNDER THE LAW, but they are breaking the law. What is sin to one may NOT be sin to another. And yes, SOME, I believe, have fallen from grace because they believe they are UNDER THE LAW of tithing.

No Christian has fallen from grace. To keep recycling the LIE that any tither has "fallen from grace" is the international anthem of anti-tithers! Get over it. The Bible does not connect tithes with justification or salvation, so the argument of 'falling from grace' for simply giving a tithe of one's income is misplaced, dubious and illiterate.

Those who feel that they are under the Law for giving or paying a tithe of their income should not be lied to with anti-tithing gimmicks - to lie to them would just be worsening things for them. Tell them the truth - and the truth is that they have NOT fallen from grace; but they should not give tithes with a sense of being under coercion!

It is far more helpful and liberating to let people know simple things than lying to them with all sorts of gimmicks like "falling from grace", etc.

garyarnold:
I am sure that many following this blog will see how using the word tithing for giving and ALSO for the Biblical Tithe (the law of tithing) can AND DOES cause confusion.

The confusion stems from folks who are desperate to LIE to the public about tithers 'falling from grace' - there is not a single verse making such an argument. No Christian I know today has to go to the land of Israel to fetch farm produce and present as "tithes" in order to satisfy your legalistic "definition" of tithes - who is that stupid?!? So, just because some Christians give a tenth of their income and call it a tithe, all of a sudden they have "sinned"? And therefore, since these folks have "sinned" (according to you), what then - they're going to hell?

Please re-think your theology - your ideas are baseless and empty, not to mention that they are impractical and legalistic. Tithing is a form of GIVING - Abraham GAVE tithes; Jacob in Genesis 28:22 did not think about tithes as a "payment" to God when he said: "I will surely GIVE the tenth unto thee". Nobody has to quarrel about the expression of GIVING a tithe or a tenth of their income as part of their Christian testimony - and your reconstruction to obfuscate that point with evasive words are not helping you in particular.

alimat 2:

Solid Rock Church's King of Kings monument struck by lightning.
Updated 4:25 PM Tuesday, June 15, 2010
MONROE — Charred remnants remained this morning, June 15, of the large Jesus statue iconic to Interstate 75 that was destroyed following an apparent lightning strike during a thunderstorm late Monday night.

The statue was constructed of wood and styrofoam over a steel framework that was anchored in concrete and covered with a fiberglass mat and resin exterior, according to the church. It was slated to undergo renovations this summer.

Whether jostled by the incident, or ready to call out zingers, all agreed the statue is what makes that stretch of I-75 in front of the church special.

@alimat,
Nobody has said that a "statue" is 'Lord'. Does Islam make you think so cheaply? Anything can happen to any statue - the statue is NOT the Person or Being; nor does the LORD need any 'renovations'. Learn to put on your thinking cap next time, huh - you're not sitting a Cambridge exam.

garyarnold:

I see the confusion on a daily basis. The problem is the false teachers, not those giving a tenth of their income. But I also see that calling giving, tithing, is confusing many. I see it, because I am involved in my finance ministry seven days a week.

Gary, that is the real problem - and NOT "tithing". I have said somewhere in this thread that tithing is a form of giving; and you cannot argue otherwise. Hence, if the problem is false teachers, why then bastardise the word just because of false teachers? To begin to argue over non-essentials about not calling 'giving', 'tithing is also adding confusion to the whole issue. We may not be involved 24/7 in ministry, but we know that what you are presenting is a logical fallacy.

The problem is not those giving a tithe of their income (call it a tenth, ten percent, etc) - you have acknowledged this yourself, so why harp endlessly against tithes? Why go to such length of inferring that tithers are sinning or that they have fallen from grace or even that they are rejecting what Jesus did on the Cross? If you understood the difference in all this from the onset, I'm sure you would not have had to make such regrettable assertions initially.

garyarnold:

It's not a crime to call giving, tithing. It's not a sin to call giving, tithing.

Why then did YOU Gary refer to it as "disgusting"? You seem to be inconsistent - and this inconsistency is a serious problem with many anti-tithers (of course, many pro-tithers do have many inconsistencies).

garyarnold:
But it does add to the confusion. I've never condemned anyone for giving a tenth of their income to the church or anywhere else.

My dear Gary, I'm not trying to pick on you or show you up for anything; but I dare say that your arguments are adding hugely to the confusion. What you have said about tithers are quite condemnatory - not only have you asserted that tithers were sinning; or that they had fallen from grace; but also that they were rejecting what Jesus did on the cross, etc. You therefore cannot maintain that you had never condemned anyone for giving a tenth of their income to the church - for "a tenth" is quite simply the same as a "tithe".

garyarnold:

In fact, I am all for giving. But, ON A DAILY BASIS, I am talking to people who THINK they are paying The Lord's Tithe UNDER THE LAW to the church. This is what I deal with EVERY SINGLE DAY OF THE WEEK.

Do you travel to meet people ALL OVER THE WORLD who say the same thing? Do you imagine that every tither assumes the same thing? If some have inferred such misleading ideas from tithing, are we then to condemn 'tithing' altogether?

Let me give you two examples why your arguments are weak logical fallacies.

(1) I have met many Christians who said very erroneous things about the value of the Old Testament. Of course, I later came to realize that these folks were wrong (I'm not hypothesizing - if you want specific names of groups, I could furnish you a list). But what then? Because I met these folks spouting these things on a daily basis, should that become sufficient reason to attack the Old Testament simply because the particular folks I met were abusing the OT?

(2) In the Bible, we find that the Corinthians were abusing the fellowship of the Lord's Supper (or 'Communion' Table). Even today, I know quite a few pastors who are selling the bread and wine elements on the "promise" that when "customers" order those packaged 'Lord's Supper' from those pastors, the customers' promotion and breakthroughs will be rapid, abundant, instantaneous, etc. Now, just because these pastors are abusing the Lord's Supper in this way, or that the Corinthian Church was abusing it in their own way - should that make Christians today attack the Lord's Supper itself?

When people attack a particular thing just because others have misused or abused it, that is what I mean by logical fallacy. In such scenarios I would rather say that Christians should celebrate the Lord's Supper in a healthy manner instead of attacking the Supper itself because of the abuses! Attacking the Supper would be reactionary and senseless indeed.

In the same way, we know that 'tithing' in itself is NOT the problem. Yes, many have abused it in applying it as a tool for fraudulent practices in the Church. So what? We should set clear that the abuses be dealt with, and not instead be making vacuous assertions to attack tithing in itself. Someone who teaches that a non-tither would go to hell for not tithing is teaching falsely - the false message should be dealt with, rather than attack tithing. Another teaches that the tither has fallen from grace, and we know that is false as well - hence, we should deal with the false notion there instead of attacking the tither or tithing. You get my drift?

garyarnold:

My ministry is aimed at pastors but I also minister on a one-on-one basis to anyone who requests it.

Be encouraged - serve as the Lord enables you, and God bless you more. However, endeavour to help them soundly by eschewing inconsistent assertions you can't maintain from God's Word.

garyarnold:

My ministry is FREE TO ALL. I refuse donations. I pay for it all out of funds God has already blessed me with. Whether one calls giving, tithing, whether one believes tithing is required, or whether one believes tithing is voluntary has no bearing on my income. I, obviously, am not in ministry for monetary profit.

There's nothing wrong or biggy about that - as others who live from their ministry are on sound grounds to do so as long as they do not use the ministry as a super-highway for filthy lucre.

garyarnold:

viaro again takes what I say and tries to imply I said something different.

I did not. Your point was clear and stands as was written - let's not begin to play games on semantics.

garyarnold:

He said, "Second, the assertion that pastors all over the world teach that tithing is not an option is a bold LIE! Even where some churches teach that it is "obligatory", the fact is that not all pastors everywhere around the world teach that tithing is "required" - what part of your salvation is it "required" for?"

Yes, I said so - in response to your assertion that "pastors all over the world are teaching that tithing is not an option, but required". If you had been careful to not generalise in such a manner, there would have been no need for me to have responded and called your bluff.

You sounded as if no pastor anywhere in the world teaches a voluntary tithes, and therefore 'pastors all over the world' are teaching the same thing that it is "required". When anti-tithers make clumsy statements to make everyone guilty by association, such assertions should not be left to run wild unchecked.

garyarnold:

What I said is NOT a lie! There are pastors all over the word that teach tithing is required. I didn't say ALL pastors teach tithing is required.

There is a difference between "pastors all over the world" when left as a bland statement, and "there are pastors all over the world". In a very controversial subject like this, you can't afford to be careless to make such generalizations. This was why I noted that 'some churches teach that it is "obligatory"' - but that is not to generalize that "churches all over the world" do the same thing!

garyarnold:

You have done this type of manipulating what I write time and time again.

My friend stop quibbling! If you want to communicate, do so clearly instead of looking for loopholes where you can write off tithes as "disgusting" and then come back whining hypocritically that you have no problem with Christians tithing!

garyarnold:

I am a finance minister. Finances is my whole ministry. I come across this problem every day of the week. I talk to people who tell me they are afraid God is going to punish them because they were unable to pay His tithe to the church. I talk to pastors who tell me they believe tithing is not an option.

You do a very poor job on your finance ministry, if that is the way you present issues. Of all people, you should be in a position to help others understand there is a huge difference between tithing and taxation. Christians pay taxes in most of the countries they live in, and the Bible is not against that at all. However, when the Bible discusses tithes in view of the priesthood of Melchizedek in the NT, it does not confuse the one for the other at all. What one pastor tells you does not mean that the majority of pastors around the world would have the same conclusions on whatever you heard from those few.

garyarnold:

I talk to people who actually believe they are under the OT laws, and they insist Jesus taught tithing to the Christian Church in Matthew 23:23. NOBODY ever told them the New Covenant didn't start until after Calvary.

Please sit up. WHICH Christian in your entire life has ever argued that the New Covenant started earlier than Calvary? You make assumptions that are surprisingly weak for your arguments. So, the new covenant started after calvary - and so super-bloody what?!? Matthew 23:23 then should be thrown out of the window, yes? Then what business do YOU as a Christian have to do with the weightier matters of the LAW stipulated in that verse, Gary? Please throw away faith and mercy and let's see what is left of your Christianity and "new covenant".

The point in all this is that you yet are unable to see the simple difference in this issue all rest on PRINCIPLES. Indeed, the issues around "judgement, faith and mercy" as weightier matters of the LAW does not suppose that we seek to apply legalism in these things. Nor does it mean therefore that all what Jesus ever said BEFORE Calvary become automatically useless because of the emergence of the "new covenant". The new covenant is based on the foundation of the Old Testament - has that EVER occured to you at all?

garyarnold:

Many tell me the New Covenant starts at the birth of Jesus. Because many pastors use Matthew 23:23 to show tithing is valid today, they are confusing people into believing the NT began at the birth of Jesus.

If you want to be very particular, does Matthew 23:23 become void on the basis of the new covenant? If so, how so? The moment you void that verse, your entire Christianity collapses! If you never realised this fact, you never knew anything about the new covenant.

^^ I appreciate that very much, ogajim.

ogajim:

@viaro

I was actually expecting an answer to my enquiry as regards where tithes are ever taught in Scripture as a matter of justification or salvation. Since there's not a verse teaching such a connection, why do anti-tithers desperately use all sorts of gimmicks to dribble in that inference? Where does the Bible teach that a tither has fallen from grace? Where does the Bible teach that a tither is rejecting what Jesus did on the Cross?

I don't recall saying tithe was taught as a matter of Justification or Salvation, That is what the "wofers" teach, that you aren't justified if you don't tithe, some even "elevate" you based on your tithing history and or potential. You need to "reach out" more to see what I am saying here because the "established" Churches don't make tithe/money their focus and you're lucky to find one that meet your Spiritual needs.

Thank you, ogajim. I share your concerns, and I know that some have taught erroneously about tithes and other types of giving. Extreme examples include those who say that non-tithers cannot go to heaven, or that tithers have lost their salvation because of tithing.

The reason why these two extreme positions are patently erroneous is because tithing is never connected with the salvation of anybody in Scripture. So, neither a pro-tither nor an anti-tither can argue tithing in connection with salvation or justification - for either of them to connect tithing with salvation is quite erroneous.

ogajim:

I would under no circumstance call any monetary contribution I make in any Church tithe, I can't call the "one to one" help tithe either because I don't want to and it's my prerogative. Charity is something we need to focus on as much as cash money (straight cash honey )

There should be no problems with whatever you may choose to call whatever you give, even if it is alms. The problem, however, is with the anti-tither who refers to what the tither gives as "disgusting" just because he cannot bring himself to the simple fact that legalism in these matters does not help one bit.

garyarnold:

Those who wish to keep the legalistic ten percent will continue to do so.

My dear Gary, let's put these petty noises aside once and for all. Did you ever for once consider the fact that your anti-tithing arguments are patently legalistic? Did you ever for once take time to consider the possibility of any "principle" on this subject?

Reading through your legalistic arguments bring out a whole lot of questions: which Christian do you know of today who literally has had to go back to the land of Israel to harvest crops in order to fulfill your legalistic definition of 'the LORD's tithe'? And when Christians give a tenth or tithe of their income, does that amount to paganistic tithes as anti-tithers falsely interpret Abraham's tithes? Where at all does Scripture ever teach that a tither has fallen from grace simply for giving a tenth or tithe of their income? Where did you read that any Christian who tithes is rejecting what Jesus did on the Cross?

You make such pedantic and legalistic arguments without ever seeing how puerile they really are when examined a bit more closely.

garyarnold:

I will continue to be Spirit led in my giving, and I will continue to call it giving.

Call it whatever suits your legalism; tithers are not demon-led in their giving tithes of their income.

garyarnold:

If calling your giving a tithe makes you happy, I guess you will continue to do so. I find it disgusting to call giving, tithing, since pastors all over the world are teaching that tithing is not an option, but required. Using the word tithing for both of these situations just adds to the confusion.

First, no one has to feel disgusted about giving a tenth or a tithe of their income if they choose to do so. There is no verse in God's Word that makes such a prescription anywhere if someone has determined that the proportion of their giving would amount to a tithe - and they are alright to call it a 'tithe' without feeling ashamed for that choice!

Second, the assertion that pastors all over the world teach that tithing is not an option is a bold LIE! Even where some churches teach that it is "obligatory", the fact is that not all pastors everywhere around the world teach that tithing is "required" - what part of your salvation is it "required" for?

Third, anti-tithing arguments for the most part have added to the confusion in the claims that a tither has fallen from grace or is rejecting what Jesus did on the Cross! Such anti-tithing assertions are no better than pro-tithing claims that without tithes a Christian cannot go to heaven! Extreme assertions blown in our faces from either side should be discouraged.

garyarnold:

I am convinced, however, that some of you call your giving, tithing, just to keep the arguments going, or to straddle the fence and not take sides, or just for show.

Your convictions are respected, even if they do not apply to all who are in favour of tithing. The idea of calling yours 'giving' is quite comical - it seems uninformed and fosters your quibbling on empty claims.

When Christians tithe, they are also 'GIVING'. If those who give a tenth decide to call it a 'tithe' of their income, why is "disgusting" about that? It seems that after all your anti-tithing 'show' and 'straddling of the fence', there's nothing else to do than come down to the excuse that you just want to call yours 'giving' - for no apparent substance other than the pre-conditioning your legalism has hammered out of you!

Let people decide what to call their giving - even if it is a tithe, an offering, a freewill offering, contribution, donation, gifts, aid, fellowship offering, etc. There's no need getting disgusted about that as long as they are not dipping their hands into your pocket for what they give!

ogajim:

Tithes in the Bible are never presented to us as a matter of JUSTIFICATION. Galatians 3 and 5 point out the matter of the Law, and most conspicuously highlights the subject of JUSTIFICATION. Where in the Bible do we find tithes discussed as a matter of justification?


Those who like to pay the standard tithe can pay for all I care because I know each of us will have to "work out his/her own Salvation with fear and trembling", No one get's blessed simply because they tithe and not follow God's Word, the "promise of a bountiful harvest" related to tithes remind me of the "sugar candy mountain" references in Animal Farm

I was actually expecting an answer to my enquiry as regards where tithes are ever taught in Scripture as a matter of justification or salvation. Since there's not a verse teaching such a connection, why do anti-tithers desperately use all sorts of gimmicks to dribble in that inference? Where does the Bible teach that a tither has fallen from grace? Where does the Bible teach that a tither is rejecting what Jesus did on the Cross?

When anti-tithers use all these gimmicks to muddy the waters, are they better than the 'pimps' who use all sorts of spiritual gimmicks to force Christians to tithe?

Many people on either side make a lot of excuses for their assertions and claims. Most anti-tithers tell us they have 'no problem' with Christians who tithe or give a tenth of their income  - but we know that is pretentious and dubious talk because it is evident in their legalistic arguments that they want to force Christians to stop tithing altogether! In the same way, many pro-tithers sing us tithing tunes that tend to force everyone to tithe. Neither positions is a healthy one to adopt; and that is why we need to grow beyond this point and deal maturely with the real issues about this subject.

To this end, I feel it is about time to squarely face up to such dubiously legalistic arguments from our friends like Gary Arnold. Where we find the apostles quoting verses from the LAW of Moses and other OT passages, it is clear that they used those verses in PRINCIPLES and not in legalistic "exactitude". The examples of the OT 'Passover' and the 'ox' in Deut. 25:4 have been explicated earlier - but if we are seeking the legalistic interpretation of such OT verses, then Jesus would never have been our Passover nor would we have found Deut. 25:4 quoted TWICE in matters relating to giving and care of leaders in Church in the NT!

If Gary or Nairaland's anti-tithers want to keep pursuing legalism on this subject, I would be most glad to show them that they would have absolutely NO NEW COVENANT as a consequence. Why? Because many verses which the apostles quoted in the NT were directly spoken to the JEWS and not a word mentioned legalistically anywhere about 'the Christian Church'. Yet, anti-tithers never for once argue their legalisms in those other examples.

chukwudi44:

Please can anyone help me with any single difference between the the abuse of indulgences by the catholic church of the sixteenth century with the modern tithes being preached by today's prosperity preachers.

Agreed the granting of indulgences was abused which led to the protestant reformation,but today's tithing doctrine is ten times worse than the abuses recorded 500 years ago.That now leads me to the question of what Martin Luther achieved with the reformation ?

How are the indulgences ten times worse than tithing being preached today?

garyarnold:
You take God's Word and twist it, change it, and then use the result to base your beliefs.

Then I guess you can accuse Paul of having done the same in quoting Deuteronomy 25:4 TWICE in the NT to instruct CHRISTIANS on giving (1 Cor. 9:9-10 and 1 Tim. 5:18) - since an 'ox' in Deut. 25:4 has nothing in that passage to do with any kind of giving at all!

I guess again you would accuse Paul of referring back to Numbers 18 (the OT passage on tithes) and using that OT passage (or akin passages) to instruct CHRISTIANS on NT giving, no?

The NT also talks about Christ being our Passoever - that word "passover" must have been "twisted" from the OT where it occurs and used to teach that Christ has become our passover, yes? So, after all the "twisting" as you say, the NT declares: "Therefore let us keep the feast . . ", no? Why are you not yelling at Paul to remind him that he was "twisting" the OT word on passover (animals) and applying it to Christ?

Your legalism presents very shallow arguments.

garyarnold:
It doesn't matter who God was speaking to in Malachi - it was NOT the Christian Church.

Okay then, it doesn't matter who God was speaking to in so many OT Scriptures that are quoted in the NT for CHRISTIANS - because when we go back to them, we see that those OT verses were NOT speaking to the 'Christian Church' but specifically to the JEWS! Start with Hebrews 8:8-10 and compare with Jeremiah 31:31-34 . . . the latter (Jeremiah 31) was speaking to "the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah" - where did you read the "Christian Church" in Jeremiah 31?

If you cannot see the divine principles in the OT scriptures, then YOU HAVE NO NEW TESTAMENT CHRISTIANITY and you should stop fooling yourself about! If you want to maintain your legalism, please apply the same thing and read my lips: "It doesn't matter who God was speaking to in Jeremiah - it was NOT the Christian Church" - then you can stop being a hypocrite who has no qualms accepting Hebrews 8 as applicable to your own Christian life!

garyarnold:
All these arguments that really don't matter. THE LORD'S TITHE WAS ONLY ON THE MIRACULOUS INCREASE FROM GOD'S HAND, NOT MAN'S INCOME.

WHO gave Abraham the victory in the war against the kings? What is it that we can boast is ours that was not given to us as Christians?? "What do you have that you did not receive? And if you did receive it, why do you boast as though you did not?" - 1 Cor. 4:7, NIV.

garyarnold:

If you want to continue IGNORING God's own definition and God's own ordinances (instructions; commands) and call you measly ten percent a tithe, go ahead. You only show your lack of understanding what God's tithe was all about.

Quite on the contrary, your anti-tithing arguments are the most ignorant and pathetically misguided I ever came across! Your misfooted assumptions of "definitions" are small carpings fit for wireless noise - a tithe is a tithe; and if Christians with understanding give a tithe of their income to further Christian ministry in the Body of Christ, you cannot come round making very silly comments on illiterate "definitions" built on nothing else than your anti-tithing legalism.

garyarnold:
Three years ago I might have agreed with you. But God opened my eyes to His truth.

You want to check again to see if your eyes are opened indeed! The funny legalism you present hardly speaks of having one's eyes opened.

garyarnold:

Malachi DOESN'T matter. Malachi is referring to the ORDINANCES of tithing which is in Numbers 18. Neither YOU nor anyone else is following God's ordinances today.

Malachi matters - as does every other scripture of the OT. That is what the NT states in Romans 15:4 when it says, 'For whatever was written in former days was written for our instruction' (ESV); and we are familiar with 2 Timothy 3:16 - ALL scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.' These verses should help you see why Malachi matters, for that book is part of the 'ALL Scripture' that the NT talks about.

It is because folks like you cannot see the value of the OT scriptures, that is why you keep looking for legalistic answers everywhere and come to the conclusion that this or that does not matter. If that is the case, then by your legalistic arguments, even Christ Himself would not be the 'Passover' for Christians - for the term "passover" is derived from the OT scriptures of the LAW; and everywhere it refers to an animal and NOT a human being! But oh, you don't have any qualms about that and would not make the same legalistic argument in this case as you do for tithes.

For those who keep looking for legalism in applying the substance of the Law, please tell me: what has an "ox" in Deuteronomy 25:4 got to do with any type of Christian giving that anti-tithers never argue with Paul in quoting it TWICE in the New Testament (1 Cor. 9:9-10 and 1 Tim. 5:18)?!? I guess you Gary would have yelled at Paul the same thing as you often do, that Deut. 25:4 "does not matter" because it was referring to animals and not to money!

People often make the argument about tithes being agricultural produce and not money, without for one moment realising a simple fact here: no Christian who tithes today has to go to Israel to fetch farm produce to tithe in Church! Believers can tithe of their income without quarrelling about mundane anti-tithing arguments seeking legalism here and there. Abraham tithes cannot be argued on agricultural products, yet he is categorically said to have given a "tithe", no? What is wrong in people giving a tithe of their income, that you Gary and anti-tithers are making all these very childish and legalistic arguments?

Legalism does not help the Christian - NEVER has, NEVER will. Yes, Israel tithed on agricultural produce according to the Law; they also did so many things (like keeping the Passover) according to the Law. But in the NT, God is not looking for legalism at all; rather, He is seeking hearts that simply understand the PRINCIPLES of His Word. . .

[list]>> It is because of "pinciples" that we don't have to argue whether the 'Passoever' today for Christians should be an animal or a Human Being![/list]

[list]>> It is because of "principles" that we don't have to wonder why an 'ox' in Deut. 25:4 is used to talk about CHRISTIAN giving in the NT.[/list]

[list]>> It is because of "principles" that the NT says there is a "sabbath" to the people of God (Christians) without asking us to seek legalistic application of a 'seventh day' according to the Mosaic Law.[/list]

[list]>> It is also because of "principles" that the NT tells us that the experiences of Israel are written as EXAMPLES for us CHRISTIANS! See 1 Corinthians 10:6-11.[/list]

In these examples, we are not asked to be looking for "exactitudes", which is what legalism does. The believer who argues for the sake of legalism will never see any principle anywhere unless all things are cemented and "to be followed as it is written". We already know that if one wants to read his or her legalism into the OT, then they should remember: the Passover according to the Law was an animal and not a human being, and as such no one would be able to see why Christ is called "our Passover" unless they drop their legalism pronto and see the "principle" in the OT 'passover'.

A Christian can indeed tithe - there is NO VERSE that condemns tithes. NONE. Christians who are tithing are not fetching farm produce from Israel to present as tithes; more so because the word 'tithe' is NOT used only in reference to farm produce. The Jews today understand this fact; that is why the maaser is not tied to only agricultural produce. Anti-tithers should play less on their legalism, for legalism has NEVER helped nor will ever help anybody in the Body of Christ.

garyarnold:

For those who want to use Malachi today, you are rejecting what Jesus did for us on the cross. How can we be under the curse of Malachi when Jesus redeemed us from the curse of the law?

This is a very stupid way of setting forth an argument. MANY Christians who tithe are NOT rejecting Jesus sacrifice on the Cross just because they give a tithe of their income - no Christian is going back to the land of Israel seeking "JUSTIFICATION" by tithes! Where in God's Word is tithing mentioned as a matter of salvation?

To be sure, any person who assumes that the NT does not warn us against a "curse" ought to think carefully. The New Testament indeed warns CHRISTIANS against a "curse", regardless of the fact that Christ has already laird down His life for us on the Cross - see Hebrews 6:8 - 'But that which beareth thorns and briers is rejected, and is nigh unto cursing; whose end is to be burned.'

The "curse" in that verse is not based on tithes; but the fact still remains that you cannot ignore the warning of a "curse" in the NT, even after Christ's sacrifice.

Tithes in the Bible are never presented to us as a matter of JUSTIFICATION. Galatians 3 and 5 point out the matter of the Law, and most conspicuously highlights the subject of JUSTIFICATION. Where in the Bible do we find tithes discussed as a matter of justification?

But when you say -

garyarnold:

For those who want to use Malachi today, you are rejecting what Jesus did for us on the cross.

. . . that is simply not true on a second note: because the apostles used many verses from the LAW and other pasrt of the OT to establish Christian doctrines as well, yet none of them make the conclusion you're making.

Anybody can use any verse of the OT to teach a subject in a healthy, balanced manner. This is why Paul cites Deut. 25:4 TWICE in the NT to talk about Christian giving where in fact Deuteronomy 25:4 has absolutely nothing to do with any kind of giving at all.

In the same manner, anyone can indeed use Malachi to teach about tithes and offerings for Christians without seeking to be placed under a curse or stand accused of rejecting the sacrifice of Christ.

Not even 1 for Korea! 7 is full circle - the Koreans have a lot to do!

@InesQor,

Thank you for continuing the 30-day digest.

I like the post for Day 9 above: Encounters with the Pharisees. It reminds me of a study we had recently on 'Seeing the Big Picture'. While the Pharisees may argue 'that which is not lawful', they often are not aware about the substance of their argument - which was why the Lord showed them in Matthew 12 that it is in the same Law that the leaders (the priests) profane the sabbath are yet are blameless!

What's the 'big picture' there? Verse 6 - 'in this place is One greater than the temple'.

How often we miss this. Indeed, the Temple and all that occur there in service are important. But above that, the essential and most vital aspect of our spiritual relation and worship is often missed out. Sometimes I wonder where many Christians 'lost it' - it seems the buildings, public address systems (PAS), gadgets, etc have become prominent to such an extent that we lose sight of the One who is greater than all those things!

Christ is greater than the Temple - He is greater and more important than our edifices, empires, and all such things. I love the song: Heart of Worship - says it all, and how refreshing to hear and sing it again this morning.

God bless us as we come back to the most important part of our lives and worship: the One who is greater than the 'things' we emphasize these days.

           [flash=380,270]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PH-snsXw1as&hl=en_GB&fs=1&[/flash]

garyarnold:

Image123, you just don't get it.

You said, "Malachi 3v9 ye are cursed with a curse: for ye have ROBBED me, EVEN THIS WHOLE NATION."

EVEN THIS WHOLE NATION WAS ROBBED.  You have robbed me, even this whole nation.  That doesn't mean the whole nation robbed God, it means the whole nation was robbed.

@Gary, your interpretation is incorrect - and factually wrong. You have tended to repeat that fallacy now that it becomes necessary to just stand up to it and ask you to please stop recycling that obviously dubious interpretation. Your eisegesis is one of the reasons why I noted that a whole lot of anti-tithing arguments are misinformation that are often recycled in desperate attempts to muddy the waters and complicate simple issues.

The sense in Malachi 3:9 is clear: "You have robbed. . ." WHO? The answer is right there before your eyes in that verse: ME! The sense is that the whole nation robbed God - it is not the other way round as you put it ['the whole nation was robbed']: that is just denying the plain statement of that verse.

It was NOT the whole nation that was robbed, for the sense was that they (the whole nation) robbed God (Mal. 3:9 - "for ye have robbed me, even this whole nation". The "me" does not represent the whole nation - it rather represents God; and the "ye" stands for the whole nation.

Other English translations or versions (apart from the KJV) will yield the same basic sense as above on Malachi 3:9 -

[list][li]'You are under a curse—the whole nation of you—because you are robbing me' - NIV[/li][/list]

[list][li]'You are under a curse, for your whole nation has been cheating me' - NLT[/li][/list]

[list][li]'You are suffering under a curse, yet you—the whole nation—are [still] robbing Me' - HCSB[/li][/list]

However, rather than quote a whole range of versions on that verse for you, the sense is already made clear in verse 8, where God lays it bare: "Will a man rob God? Yet ye have robbed me." This verse is the foundation for the statement in verse 9 where God reiterates that the whole nation had robbed Him. There is no reason to get desperate and dishonet in recycling your fallacy that it was the whole nation that was robbed.

garyarnold:

How was the whole nation robbed?  By the closing of the Temple because the priests had taken the Levites food from the tithe.

Where do you find this fib or taradiddle in the Bible? Are you on errand to introduce your own fallacy and pass it off as Scripture? It is even more pathetic to read the same you who had argued that it was GOD who was robbed -

[list]

garyarnold:

The PRIESTS robbed God of the offerings. See Malachi 1.

The PRIESTS robbed God of the tithe. See Nehemiah 13.

[/list]
. . . so how come you now turn round to argue that "the whole nation was robbed"??

garyarnold:

Malachi says take all the tithes to the storehouse.  ONLY THE PRIESTS were allowed to take the tithes to the storehouse.  NOT the people.  How could Malachi be telling the PEOPLE to take the tithes to the storehouse?

First, Malachi was declaring God's prophetic utterances - in other words, it was God Himself who asked Israel to take the tithes to the storehouse.

Second, the "storehouse" is nowhere stipulated in the Law - it was introduced long after Moses! It was Hezekiah who commanded that such chambers be built to store the tithes and offerings in the house of the LORD (2 Chron. 31:11-12). This is an excellent example to show that not everything one reads about tithes in the OT were based on the Law of Moses; and the "storehouse" in Malachi 3 is certainly not based on the Law, yet God did not reject it!

Third, the PEOPLE indeed were to bring the tithes and offerings to the storehouse, to the house of the LORD, for that is what that verse says, and is confirmed in Nehemiah 10:39 -

[list]'For the children of Israel and the children of Levi shall bring the offering of the corn, of the new wine, and the oil, unto the chambers, where are the vessels of the sanctuary, and the priests that minister, and the porters, and the singers: and we will not forsake the house of our God.'[/list]

This is what is known as a collective responsibility - rather than outline specifications, Malachi 3:10 simple and concisely stated what ALL Israel understood was their responsibility according to Neh. 10:39. In verse 38, the Levites were to bring the tithe of the tithes to the chambers; but in verse 39, the children of Israel and the children of Levi were to bring these offerings to the chambers! The difference is that when the children of Israel borught their offerings to the chambers at the house of the LORD, the priests that minister were standing there, ready to receive Israel's into the chambers.

When you obfuscate issues on any subject and assume that your fellow discussants are "ignorant", you simply have no clue what damage you make of your own dubious arguments and desperate eisegesis! Please quit recycling your fallacies.

nuclearboy:

How is that so hard to understand? Look at Gary's caveat (also bolded) that it wouldn't be a problem if the right teaching WHICH YOU SAY you advocate was what was being taught i.e. it is voluntary and not a law.

I know people who teach it voluntarily - and we don't have to go very far to see anti-tithers in this thread who have a problem with voluntray tithes. So the so-called caveat from Gary is pretentious - people who say they don't have a problem with Christians tithing are the same folks who condemn voluntary tithes; some neatly tell us that such tithing Christians are sinning (why, they do know). . or that these Christians have fallen from grace. In some other "caveat", anti-tithers tell us that tithing Christians are going to hell!

It is because of noise like that that I just don't want to be bothered by pro-tithing or anti-tithing arguments. I cannot trust anti-tithers who see everything wrong with tithers and then turn round and say that they do not have a problem with them when in bold fact they do not hide or pretend about condeming tithers. Yes, I know some would be quick to tell me that pro-tithers also condemn anti-tithers. . . I thank those who remind me about that; but I also remind them that their own condemnation against tithers are not better if they think that tithers have fallen from grace.

nuclearboy:
God will prevail, Viaro and I know you will in time seriously regret this thing you're doing, for you will see its effect firsthand one day.

I do not regret "this thing". . . I've had enough time in my life to have regretted arguing against tithe before God openned my eyes on how many anti-tithers are using falsehood to condemn tithers! If I am going to regret rejecting the fallacies of anti-tithing arguments which I counter, so be it - I say this not in pride or haughtiness; but rather because I know that the legalism of anti-tithing arguments is not what God has setout for me.

nuclearboy:

This is mainly a Nigerian forum - always remember that; and most everyone we speak of here operates here and ARE destroying people's lives telling them NOT to support poor or orphaned or widow but to bring all streams to the billionaires who build monuments to themselves and say "God is good" because they are thriving through the fear of others. Can you honestly read a thread like "pay debt or pay tithe" and see what a guy named Mantraa decided to use to show truth; yet insist this is a good thing? Its the usage that we condemn since it is not binding you pay tithe. What is binding is that you "give willingly and as led". Now, if you would contest that, let me know. If that is true then, why not say that rather than defend the indefensible simply because God gave you an intellect that is "tops". You're not fair.

Okay, if you don't want me to discuss with Nigerians because this is a Nigerian forum, I shall leave you in peace and wish you love till Jesus comes.

Shalom.

@nuclearboy,

I'm sorry that what you may read in this reply to yours would come down very strong. I don't mean to, but it is inevitable because there are certain things which cannot be excused in your assumptions about my position on this subject.

nuclearboy:

I'd decided not to speak concerning this issue again on this thread. I'd also come to believe the only pro-tither on earth with a brain was Viaro. Sad to see Debosky has joined him. One thing I notice though - Gary made a point that you both have ignored in the attempts to turn this whole thing upside down.

Gary said . . .

I don't know how you could be so assuming, nuclearboy. The quote from Gary that you claimed I ignored was already addressed in my reply - see post #324. How then could it be said that I "ignored" whatever Gary had said in the post you quoted from him?!?

nuclearboy:

IF you, Viaro, know that IT IS AS YOU ARE LED IN YOUR HEART, why insist it is the Word "tithe" that must be used? Why THAT Word? Why not "Gifts". Why not "Support".

This is absolutely hypocritical, sorry to say. The question of "insisting" is mine personally - I did not insist that it should be called 'tithe' for any other Christian who wants to play games with semantics. I set aside a tithe - call it "a tenth part" or "one tenth" or "1 out of 10" - that is what I do on my own personal choice. I will not wait for any anti-tither to come slave himself insisting that I call it "support" or "gift", as if my tithe is NOT to support the ministry in Church, or as if by not calling it a "gift" it was meant to be a merchandise!

My position on this subject has been made clear so many times on this thread and others besides. If I choose to tithe, it is what I have determined to do from my own heart. If another Christian decides that he/she prefers to NOT tithe, I don't have any quarrels with him/her. The one thing I have always maintained is that NEITHER anti-tithing nor pro-tithing arguments should become LAW for the Body of Christ. Anti-tithers who are at pains to say we should change the word 'tithe' to something else are just being mischievous - and yours. . "support", "gift"?? Please, let's leave these childish excuses far behind us.

Do what you decide to do - I will have no problem with you any day if whatever you decide is rather to NOT tithe. I look beyond these polarising arguments to the actual giving; and if any Christian wants to call theirs anything else even though the amount is about 10% of their income, then let them call it whatever else they choose to, and stop worrying over what viaro has decided to do. You stick your hand in your own pocket and do as you would with what is thine - and let me decide to do what I would with what is mine. Above that, neither arguments over the fence prevails anything over love in our faith, no?

nuclearboy:

Why the legalistic term that is being used to scare people.

Tithe is NOT a legalistic term - let anyone who wants to scatter their intestine do so anytime they hear the word 'tithe'. It is not the word in itself that is legalistic; rather it is the way people misuse that word to dramatic effects to argue non-essentials. This legalism of anti-tithing arguments is what I have taken time to point out in posts #291 and #292 - I didn't see you say anything about Gary "ignoring" those posts altogether before complaining that I ignored what he pointed out! What kind of double standards is this?

Have you ever sat down to ask yourself why anti-tithers on the most part are so legalistic in their arguments? When people talk about "tithes", who in the Church today is going to Israel to fetch 10% of literal agricultural produce to give in church? So, if one wants to give 10% which is a "tithe" of their income, what is the quarrel in that? Anti-tithers often argue as if NOTHING in the history of the world has ever been tithed except Israel's agricultural produce! This narrow carping is what is most disdainful in legalistic arguments - and it is the argument that is legalsitic, not the word 'tithe' in itself. So, if anyone wants to faint and be rushed to the hospital for just hearing that word, they are also free to faint and let's stop worrying over childish talk.

nuclearboy:

Do you remember what Jesus said was His duty? " To set the Captives free?" amongst others. Do you read what Joagbaje's milk teeth people say here that is purely opinionated and not backed by any scriptural sense? For these, it is "how can you say pastor is wrong"? Is that true, Viaro? Is pastor perfect? Is pastor saying "it is voluntary"? Is that why these "babies" come here and curse because pastor is being factual?

The Biblical principles for people tithing today does not stand or fall on what Joagbaje or any other person says on the subject. NOBODY (including you and me) is perfect - NONE! Just because some people tend to have taught wrongly does not therefore mean anyone who says anything about tithe must by default be wrong! That is a fallacy that would not even stand at all, and it is just about the same thing as using one person to foist guilt by association.

nuclearboy:

We all say GIVE. Then we again say GIVE. But you say aniti-tithers are stingy BECAUSE we say the word tithe is being used to convince people that they OWE IT AS AN OBLIGATION.

Please don't misrepresent what viaro stands for. I am opposed to dubious assertions and fallacies that anti-tithers employ to foist their legalistic arguments upon the Body of Christ in order to see Christians stop tithing altogether. That is the point.

You say 'GIVE'? Do tithers not "give"? What is so special about this word "give" that it has become the singular anthem of anti-tithing brethren. Please differentiate this for me - "Abraham GAVE tithes" - what is the difference between "GAVE" and "tithes"?? What did he GIVE?!? You say 'GIVE' - fine. . . that is what many tithers do: they GIVE, and what they give is a "tithe". What is the biggy in that?

Google is your friend - search and see that it is anti-tithers who argue that it is wrong for Christians to tithe - these same folks will not argue that it is okay for Christians to give 10% of their income. Everywhere you turn, their message is clear: tithing is wrong - in the other cases, they wil tell you that a Christian who is tithing (10% of their income) has fallen from grace! If you point out that Christians who tithe are GIVING a portion of their income, our anti-tithing brethren then subtly say they have no problem with such - yet, these same anti-tithers hold that such Christians have fallen from grace!

If the real problem is the talk of "obligation", then let's focus on that rather than shout everywhere that "tithing is wrong" and yet come back pretending that we don't have a problem with Christians who choose to tithe! That, my brother, is the height of hypocrisy. If something is wrong, don't come back saying if some people are doing it, you don't have a problem with them even though you are condemning what they do. Let us not muddy the waters with ambiguous language - rather, let us be clear.

To be clear, I have no worries at all with anyone who chooses to tithe or NOT to tithe; but I do have a problem with making tithing an "obligation" upon the Body of Christ - and in the same way, I have a problem with people who want to make their own anti-tither arguments "obligatory" unto others! This is why I have often said that people should be left to decide what they want to do - either ways, as long as we are not forcing anything upon anyone, then the arguments would not need to even arise at all.

garyarnold:

viaro said, "When you argue against tithe, are you not recommending that people should not tithe? "

Yes, I said so.

garyarnold:
CORRECT.

Why? Why are you recommending that people should not tithe and then turn back to ask flat out - "WHY recommend anything"?

If you don't think anyone should recommend anything, then in the first place you should not be recommending your anti-tithing arguments as if that is what the Holy Spirit wants for all Christians. You don't believe in it, fine - just let others who want to tithe do so with their own freedom as well.

garyarnold:

I refrain from using the word tithe when I mean give.

Tithing is a form of giving - one who tithes is also giving.

garyarnold:

I say what I mean. I recommend they pray and be led by The Spirit. IF that results in 10%, fine. But I don't recommend ANY percentage.

There's nothing wrong with recommending any percentage if done prayerfully and not set as a legalistic code or obligation that becomes a burden to anyone. I would recommend a tithe to Christians - but in recommending it, I won't force it upon them or excuse it with fallacious arguments as if it is something to be ashamed of.

When you argue against tithing and assume that tithers are sinning, you most definitely are recommending your own opinion that they should not tithe. You cannot be negating tithes and at the same time approving 10% with a mellow "fine" - such a postion lacks conviction that you're serious about what you believe. If you're open to the Holy Spirit urging any believer to give what amounts to 10% (or "a tenth part", or a "tithe" or any specific percentage for that matter, how come you want to argue endlessly AGAINST tithing at the same time?

garyarnold:
I DO recommend giving, FROM THE HEART, and ACCORDING TO ONE'S MEANS.

What makes you think that one who tithes is not doing so from his/her heart and according to their means? I think you assume far too much in your apologetics.

garyarnold:

debosky,

When you give to your local church, how much of every dollar goes to help the poor or needy?

When you give to a church, in most cases what you give goes for the COMFORT of the church members - a building to keep you out of the weather, a PA system so you can hear better, seating, heating, cooling, paper supplies, salaries, building upkeep and maintenance, utilities, etc. etc. Most ALL of what you give is for MAN'S COMFORTS and for the salary of a pastor.

Gary, do you give at all in Church? You talk as if you alone define what any giving in church should be, or what any church is supposed to do with the offerings they receive. If your own local church never receives anything for taking care of the poor, or to pay salaries of leaders and workers, or for the rents of buildings and utilities where fellowship is held each week, or for maintenance in any way, does that therefore mean that every other church follows the same as obtains in your church?!?

The problem here should never be that we should be complaining about giving in Church. If you don't want to give in church, don't complain about others who understand that giving in Church is part of the Christian life and testimony. You may look for all excuses to discourage giving in Church, but that would be your own problem - not the problem of any other Christian who is actually giving in Church!

The Bible shows indeed that those who are labourers in the work of the Church SHOULD BE PAYED! The sad thing today is that anti-tithing arguments have conditioned so many people that they cannot see this point any longer. If you ignore this fact, you're definitely living in disobedience to God's Word - and should you seek clarification, I would be most happy to show you this point in the New Testament! Just because Christians are urged to give in Church does not therefore mean we should be seeking excuses to cushion any disobedience displayed against God's Word.

garyarnold:

In most cases, when you give to the local church, you are giving little or nothing to the poor.

Okay, you stop giving to your own Church. Happy now?

The problem here is that, what obtains in your church does not mean therefore that it is the same in many other churches. These kinds of remarks you make are actually a logical fallacy, because you don't know what most churches are doing with what they receive as giving or offerings from their members. If we look closely, we find that many churches around the world actually are concerned for the poor in their Missions Outreaches. Not every church you come across would be doing this, but that it is not reason enough to be complaining about giving in church and concluding that it is for man's comfort.

garyarnold:

In MY OWN OPINION, when you give to the local church, you are giving to man, but also giving to promote God's Word.

Jesus did say when you give to the poor/needy you ARE giving to Him.

Your opinion is yours. There is absolutely nothing wrong with giving in Church - I know that many other churches receive from their members and reach out to the poor. Is that not the same as giving to the Lord, even when done in the CHURCH? You sound as if giving in Church is NOT giving to the Lord - if not, why separate them in that manner above^^?