wendytilda:

The impression that tithes are just used to finance the "Pastor's SUV" or whatever you call it is a very wrong one.
They are given to charities too,and also used for the up keep of the church and it's physical properties/needs.

In many cases it is mainly to give the paster a good life. In many of those charismatic protestant churches, the pastor lives a life of luxury while his flock is suffering and hoping that the message of earthly reward will be theirs as well, as long as they keep giving all their money to the church.
If the paster would forsake marriage and live a sober life, then I would somewhat understand it, but this is not for me anyway

nferyn:

In many cases it is mainly to give the paster a good life. In many of those charismatic protestant churches, the pastor lives a life of luxury while his flock is suffering and hoping that the message of earthly reward will be theirs as well, as long as they keep giving all their money to the church.
If the paster would forsake marriage and live a sober life, then I would somewhat understand it, but this is not for me anyway

Are you talking out of experience or are you just saying what you heard?Which of these churches have you been to?How true do you think what you said is?
Would you prefer that Pastors don't get married and go ahead committing adultery like some priests that don't get married?Don't you think it is wiser be married so temptations from that aspect will at least be less.
And who says wifes are burdens or hindrances to soberness?

wendytilda:

nferyn link=topic=272.msg292499#msg292499 date=1145046195:

In many cases it is mainly to give the paster a good life. In many of those charismatic protestant churches, the pastor lives a life of luxury while his flock is suffering and hoping that the message of earthly reward will be theirs as well, as long as they keep giving all their money to the church.
If the paster would forsake marriage and live a sober life, then I would somewhat understand it, but this is not for me anyway

Are you talking out of experience or are you just saying what you heard?Which of these churches have you been to?How true do you think what you said is?

I'm not talking about personal experiencs, but rather about the experiences of some people close to me (even though they don't always see it that way). fact remains, a pastor, who needs to focus on the spiritual salvation of his flock, should not lead a good life on the back of the poor and needy.

wendytilda:

nferyn link=topic=272.msg292499#msg292499 date=1145046195:

If the paster would forsake marriage and live a sober life, then I would somewhat understand it, but this is not for me anyway

Would you prefer that Pastors don't get married and go ahead committing adultery like some priests that don't get married?Don't you think it is wiser be married so temptations from that aspect will at least be less.
And who says wifes are burdens or hindrances to soberness?

1. When one is married and has a family, the natural urge to take fist and foremost care of your wife and especially children will take a fron seat. I do not blame them per se, but it is in conflict with the primacy of their calling.
2. A family costs a considerable investment of time and money. that time and money needs to come from somewhere.

wendytilda:


Would you prefer that Pastors don't get married and go ahead committing adultery like some priests that don't get married?Don't you think it is wiser be married so temptations from that aspect will at least be less.
And who says wifes are burdens or hindrances to soberness?

Those priests enjoy them self and will account by themselves. What of those pastors of Pentecostals with wife at home eating all tithes yet go about with their church members, parenting their secretaries, joining OCCULTS to get power for the so call miracles?. Stealing tithes is worst than having fun with ladies which you mentioned.

Hnd-holder:

Those priests enjoy them self and will account by themselves. What of those pastors of Pentecostals with wife at home eating all tithes yet go about with their church members, parenting their secretaries, joining OCCULTS to get power for the so call miracles?. Stealing tithes is worst than having fun with ladies which you mentioned.

I'm not saying it is not true that some Pastors are like that.
Thank God for being God because He alone knows those who are His and those who are using other powers and claim they are using Gods'.
On the last day,everyone(Pastors inclusive) will stand before God and give account of there works here on earth.
I don't  think Pastors count the tithes and offering after service,i think there are people in charge of finance in the church,so how could the Pastor steal church money?
Point of correction,there is no "worst" sin,all sins are equal.

[b]Fellow Christains
Paying Tithe does not in anyway contribute to one's salvation,yes it brings blessing if it's given from the depth of your heart
Paying tithe was a religous traditon in Jew belief and Christ met it when he walked on Earth. He did not condemmed it. yet It's not Mandatory or compulorsy or in anyway makes you holy

Yes God loves and blesses cheerful givers!

It's a thing of choice and the best tithe I believe is when you give those offers to the Destitutes,less privelages and Orphanages!

Remember what Christ said '' whatever you do to least of my brother that you do unto me! When the Rich Fool came to Christ for Salvation, Christ did not ask him to Pay tithe but was ask to Share it among the less privillages!

But Nowadays So called spritiual leader (Pastors) Uses Tithe to BLACKMAIL their  Adherents, quoting that '' Whoever that does not pay Tithe robs Gods! Look at how those pastors ironically belittles God with earthly things. God never demands Earthly Things, He made them. If the church needs funds for a project, it's not wrong to ask for Tithe or Offerings! But pastors should not Make people feel guilty, that they re robbing GOD. It's a False Teaching!
They quote malachi and other Old testments about Tithe, Why is it that they still don't preach about burnt offering and  feast of Passover,afterall they re all Jewish tradition,yet They Choose the one that benefits them, Wears Expensive outfits,Cars and other other thing at expense of the Tithe! Funny![/color][/b]

God love cheerful giver, hates wage like tithe

I strongly agree with you(ijele).

Preaching on Money& tithe should not be over emphasized.
I believe as Christians,we know what is right & what is wrong,and we have the Holy Spirit in us and He guides us.
If you feel giving your money to the poor is what you are led to do then do it.Some of us just say it here just to make points but sometimes we don't really put them into practice,that is why it is somehow better to offer it to God in the church knowing that the money will also go to the poor/less previlaged.
And lets not forget that all that matters is the heart that we give with and not the money.

Thank you.

you just have to give that customary 10% no escaping this.

Hi flyKude,

In one sense you are absolutely right

flyKUDE:

you just have to give that customary 10% no escaping this.

If it's a "custom" in your tradition or church denomination, fine. Give it on that basis.

But no where, to no one and at no time does the Bible teach tithing as a Christian obligation.

God bless

TV01:


If it's a "custom" in your tradition or church denomination, fine. Give it on that basis.
But no where, to no one and at no time does the Bible teach tithing as a Christian obligation.

Hi TV01,

Tithe or no tithe, even giving is NOT an obligation in the NT to Christians.

In the OT, tithing and other kinds of giving were obligatory; but in the NT they are rather set forth as a call to obedience. Rather than see it as a custom of "church denominations", try seeing it as a commitment in the Christian faith. Look at it this way:

"Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity:
for God loveth a cheerful giver." - II Cor. 9:7

Two things here are brought out:

(a) one's giving is not obligatory - God does not set giving as an obligation to the Christian.

(b) you give as you purpose in your heart - and that includes the best part, even if you call it a "tithe".

God loves a cheerful giver, and in the spirit of cheerfulness, I purpose in my heart to give both tithes and other kinds of giving. People sometimes feel uncomfortable about this, mostly because we are so occupied with questioning what "the pastor" does with "my money". I'm not called to be God's accountant-general; rather, it's up to me to participate in giving cheerfully - for that is what God loves.

God is able to deal with those who mess with the gifts of God's people; whether it's now or later at the Judgement. Trouble is, most people want instantenous judgement to fall on "those pastors" now; and if not, then they question if they should give at all. Great - no one is under obligation to tithe, give or obey God: on Judgement Day He knows how to shut our mouths and take care of our arguments. He has shut my mouth now - so I have no qualms giving and tithing, because I'm purposed in heart to both tithe and give, and to do so cheerfully. I tell you, I'm amazed how He answers in His goodness - I have never lacked, not ONE TIME EVER SINCE!

Second, when I was struggling about this "denominational" doctrine of 'no tithe', I used the Bible to justify my "non-denominational" stance. Could you believe that? But one day, God opened my eyes to see what Luke11:42 teaches:

"But woe unto you, Pharisees! for ye tithe mint and rue and all manner of herbs, and pass over judgment
and the love of God: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone."

The Lord Jesus did not condemn anyone for tithing; but His rebuke of the Pharisees was informed by their selective obedience, which is no obedience at all. He recognized that they tithed ("ye tithe", but also that they paid no attention to other matters of faith ("judgement and the love of God". Consequently, He admonished them to both tithe and pay attention to the other matters ("these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone". In fact, when you read the parallel passage in Matt. 23:23, you see that He called this selective obedience hypocrisy.

I'm not trying to be sarcastic here; but please hear me: Luke 11:42 was what shut my mouth up from arguing against tithing - selectively obeying God in some matters and refuting others because of our interpretations of doctrine is called hypocrisy; and that was what I was up until God changed my heart. Please, I ask you to do something - cease from arguing for just a month; ask God to show you His word on tithing - follow Him in obedience, and my-o-my, come back and tell us your testimony!

As long as we keep arguing against or about tithing, believe me, God will not come from heaven to show who is right or wrong. My views are not the best about this, and I'm ready to thankfully withdraw them if God decides to shut me up again. All I can say is, ask God to prove His word to you - and see the tremendous impact it will have on your life.

Much blessings.

4get_me , This is Purely Philosophical Jagons. You need to know the truth not merely the use of words. Kai!

Hi 4get_me,

Thanks for your post.

You started by agreeing with me, so I can hardly take issue with that   .

The term "call to obedience", kindly explain how one is too understand that?  You also seem to tie this call with a "commitment to the faith"?

About the above, I'll say this; my commitment to the Christian faith (in terms of giving), is attested to by the fact that I give. Cheerfully and as I purpose in my heart. Finito.

You talked about giving. And I absolutely agree. Your 2 points,

a) not an obligation - agreed
b) 1. as you purpose - agreed
   2. call it a tithe - tithe means "a tenth", but if you want to call whatever you give a tithe, I  
       won't be semantic.

Again I would like you to explain "tithe & other kinds". If we are talking about resources generally (i.e time) with tithe equating to money, we are agreed. But if tithe is one kind of financial giving and there are other kinds, again I do not see anything scriptural to necessitate this distinction.

"What Pastor does with my money"

That is not a concern of mine. (The whole "Pastor" discussion, including scriptural mandate and job spec, is a whole other discussion. Maybe sometime  !)

However, unlike some, I do not subscribe to the view that I give into collections/coffers and ask no questions about the use of the money and character/conduct of those charged with disposing it. And no, I don't believe I am called to be God's "Accountant General", but I do believe I will be calle to account for the gifts and resources entrusted to me and my stewardship of same. In this regard, my feelings about God's judgment of pastors guilty of financial mismanagement becomes a mute point.

Luke 11:42 and Matthew 23:23[/color]
Personally, I think this is where some find it quite tricky.
Have you truly pondered these verses in conjunction with the Lords attitude to the law as a whole? And with reference to the Lords "fulfilling" of the law (in His birth,ministry and death)? And the doing away with the law for grace?

(I will share what informs my view on this in another post if you like, as I don't want this one to be too lengthy)

I'll say this though, I don't believe The Lords rebuke of the Pharisees was not for selective obedience;
[color=#000099]Matthew 5:20 - For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven.
I believe the rebuke was for holding tightly to the letter of the law and utterly missing it's intent.

I appreciate your responses, and no, I don't find you sarcastic. You shared a little of your walk, so I'll do likewise. I used to be the "tithers tither". When God showed me how wrong I was, I refused to agree. It went against everything I held dear. But in the end, my call to obedience was between loving Him and His way or obeying my denominational inclinations. I am committed sir. To Him and to His Word. By His Spirit and by His grace.

God bless

Hnd-holder:

4get_me , This is Purely Philosophical Jagons. You need to know the truth not merely the use of words. Kai!

I'll be interested in knowing "the truth" that you have to share. TY

Hi again, TV01,

I suppose that as long as you're holding this Law-Grace dichotomy the way you do, it'll be difficult for you to see things in their contexts. I've been there - so nothing new. However, take a look at the texts and read them once more: there's nothing to suggest what you've infered - Jesus was not rebuking them for "holding tightly to the letter of the law and utterly missing it's intent"; it does not say so in Luke 11:42 or Matt. 23:23 - otherwise, He would have had to rebuke everyone in His day. Afterall, His own disciples did not understand the content of the Law until Jesus opened their eyes to understand the scriptures after His resurrection (see Luke 24:45).

The Lord Jesus was indeed showing that they were partial in their obedience to God's word on certain issues - this is what is explicitly stated in Luke 11:42. Notice the latter part of the text says: "these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone." In effect, He said - "do these. . . and don't leave the other things undone - do both of them, not some of them!"

Your reference of Matt. 5:20 should have helped you see the misapplication you made here about Jesus rebuke about the Jews' "holding tightly to the letter of the law and utterly missing it's intent" - which is hardly the case. How? Well, you ought to have asked what kind of righteousness the scribes and the Pharisees displayed. The answer is found in that same chapter in Matthew 23 in my earlier post:

        "Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat:
        All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say,
        and do not." - Matt. 23:1-3.

There you have it, my dear: the mark of these set of scribes and Pharisees was that "they say, and do not" - that's why he called them hypocrites in verse 23. His rebuke was not because of the letter they held and missed its intent - it was because of the hypocrisy of partial obedience they displayed which was commonly referred to as "the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees". This type of righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees is not to be misconstrued for the righteousness of the Law: they are not the same thing sam-sam.

TV01:

The term "call to obedience", kindly explain how one is too understand that?  You also seem to tie this call with a "commitment to the faith"?

Simple. How could anyone "purpose" in his/her heart where "committment" is lacking?

             "Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity:
              for God loveth a cheerful giver." - II Cor. 9:7

              to purpose in your heart = "commitment to the faith"

If the commitment is lacking, the rest is empty ritual.


As to the issue of "What Pastor does with my money", since it is not a concern of yours at this time, I'll remain zipped on that and other issues not necessary to elaborate upon.


Many thanks again for taking the time to make some perceptive response. God bless. 

Hi 4get_me,

Thanks for your response, I appreciate your sharing. That is not to say I agree. We both obviously have strong and differing views on this.

For a fuller outline of my views you can refer to my post dated  April 04, 2006, 05:08 PM.

However, there is nothing to prevent us  progressing this discussion a bit at a time, which will probably help us get to the meat of it (and have a good chew! ).

Firstly, re your quote below;
I suppose that as long as you're holding this Law-Grace dichotomy the way you do, it'll be difficult for you to see things in their contexts. I've been there - so nothing new.

I wasn't at all suggesting that you where ignorant of this. In fact, I wasn't suggesting anything at all, but I absolutely appreciate that you may well have a different take on it. I'd also appreciate your sharing your views on how grace/law ties into this particular aspect of the faith.

It would also be greatly appreciated if at the same time you could briefly spell out your understanding of the following verse;

Matthew 5:17 - "Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill.

Thanks again.

God bless

Hello TV01,

Good to read yours. It's true we all have differing views and the best we can do is try to persuade one another from our convictions of what each one of us thinks the Scriptures say. With regards to your enquiries, I'll take them in three parts.

(A) Jesus' Fulfilling The Law

Rom 8:3-4: "For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh,
God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned
sin in the flesh: That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk
not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

The law had a righteousness that we could not fulfill (reach unto), and it was Jesus' death and resurrection that accomplished the basis for our being set free as well as fulfilling this righteousness in us. The word 'fulfill' has more than one sense in Matt. 5:17 - while Jesus did not come to 'set at nought' (destroy) the Law and the Prophets, He came to give them their real meaning and essence (fulfill).


(B) Law-Grace Dichotomy

Quite often, I notice you mix up the teaching of Law and Grace in scripture. My inability to fulfill its requirements is because the Law is spiritual and I am carnal (Rom. 7:14). However, through Jesus Christ, God gives me grace to live according to His will through the power of the Spirit.

The problem is that, many times you quote texts in the epistles to "prove" that the Law was not applicable under the economy of the OT during the earthly ministry of the Lord Jesus. An example in your quote of April 04, 2006, 05:08 PM was Gal. 2:6 following your explanation of Luke 18:12. You clearly mixed up issues. The Pharisee could not be "justified by faith in Christ" (Gal. 2:6) while the law was still standing! Infact, Gal. 3:23 says, "But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed." The faith was not 'revealed' (that is, did not come into full effect) until Jesus Christ was glorified. So, the Pharisee's problem was not Gal. 2:6 but rather a question of pride and self-righteousness which Jesus exposed in Luke 18:9 & 14. You may want to take time out to study it.

And finally. . .

(C) Tithe Explained By You

I read your April 04 piece patiently twice over - commendable. However, here I'll outline a few things you got wrong and your tone and attitude in that wirte-up; and then in another post share what you're missing in your understanding about the subject.

You stated in reference to the number of times 'tithe' was mentioned in the Bible that -

"Six times in the 36 verses above, and twice when God uttered the curse of Kingship
on the Israelites for rejecting Him (quite interesting this, and so very relevant to the
current model of church ~ 1 Samuel chapter 8 ).

Are you infering that tithing was a curse of Kingship on the Israelites and therefore a curse on the church currently?

Again, about Leviticus 27:

"Note also that it was the tenth one (verse 33), not the first one that was counted.
So that would indicate that those with an increase of less than ten would not be
required to tithe."

Wrong. Everyone was expected to tithe whatever was their increase, and Lev. 27:32 was "concerning the tithe of the herd, or of the flock" passing under the rod; and not about tithes of other things.

In your last paragraph, Matt. 17:24-26 that you referenced was concerning taxes, not tithes, unless there's a good explanation that you may have for mixing up both.

Lastly, your undertones were a bit worrisome. Without being tedious to you, I'd offer that you refrain from using such sarcasm (words underlined) in reference to views you don't agree with or understand:

(i) Under Leviticus 27 the third point you mentioned has this:

"Feasting. (Yes feasting, not that impoverished monthly ritual we call communion!)"


(ii) There is no longer a Levitical priesthood (but those pesky Pharisees won’t quit!).



Warm regards.

Hi 4get _me,

Good to hear from you. I appreciate you reading my earlier piece.

I'll respond in reverse order to your last two posts.

TWO

"My Tone" ~ Yes, I I've been upbraided a million times about it since I originally wrote that piece. I take all correction graciously. I dare say, you have had no cause to rebuke me since we started talking. That piece was posted unedited as it was where I was at the time of first copy, and in essence remains my position.

"A curse on the church currently" ~ Yes I do. It's a consequence of men asking for a king. Another thread? 

"Tithing details" ~ I won't say to much about this as we could infer anything up to 23.33% as tithe (almost like income tax in a religious community). Our positions are whether the tithe is current or redundant, so we can subsume those details to the greater truth for now.

"Taxes not tithes" ~ No, I wasn't mixing them up. My point was that as children of the Kingdom, God does not legislate taxes for us.

I've apologised for my tone, but do not hesitate to do so again in the interest of peace and progress. However, I don't retract the underlying inference, being that the real communion of the Lords supper is a meal (I must confess I don't know how you celebrate it - How do you?). I can't tell a lie, when I saw the truth of it  (or should I say was shown), I wasn't the happiest of bunnies. I find the bondage of enforced tithing a great evil, and nothing less than a blight on Christians and Christendom. And is there still a Levitical priesthood?

ONE

Your quote below;
The Pharisee could not be "justified by faith in Christ" (Gal. 2:6) while the law was still standing! Infact, Gal. 3:23 says, "But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed." The faith was not 'revealed' (that is, did not come into full effect) until Jesus Christ was glorified.

Well said.
So, does that not make it abundantly clear that if the Lord was addressing Pharisees, who where under the law, then tithing was something that they should have done/do as they where as yet under that dispensation. It's not something addressed to NT Christians under a totally different dispensation. I'm sure you are familiar with the verses in Hebrews which state that a change in the priesthood (after the Glorification of the Lord) necessitated a change in the law. QED methinks, although as ever, I both appreciate and accept you right to differ.

Again, the intent vs selective obedience stance is spoken to here. These "you should have done" (being under the law) without leaving the others undone (justice, mercy etc, which is the intent/essence of the law). Of which the two parts are 1. Love the Lord your God.2. Love your Neighbour. Again, to me it's glaring. I would ask that you read the opening of Matthew 12. The Pharisees charged the disciples with breaking the Sabbath. Which they had. What was the Lords response? Was that not to speak about "Mercy vs Sacrifice?" again, the intent of the Law is at the heart of the narrative.

One last thing,

4get_me:

Hi TV01,

Tithe or no tithe, even giving is NOT an obligation in the NT to Christians.

In the OT, tithing and other kinds of giving were obligatory; but in the NT they are rather set forth as a call to obedience. Rather than see it as a custom of "church denominations", try seeing it as a commitment in the Christian faith. Look at it this way:

"Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity:
for God loveth a cheerful giver." - II Cor. 9:7

If your position is tithing (I view heartfelt giving as something entirely different) is not obligatory, why would you go to great lengths to prove that it is, do it, and then claim you do it as an act of freewill? To be honest, I think the discussion could have ended there, but I was interested to hear your reasoning (and I greatly appreciate the input as it helps sharpen my own thinking) and I was still keen to hear your take on the Law/Grace distinction. Please don't be offended, but do I detect an attempt to reconcile the clear leading of scripture with "traditional church" practice?

Your say my brother,

God bless

*Wow! This thread is stil on.*

That is because the conscience of carnal christains as well as their atheist counterparts will not let them rest.

@Allenpowered

, I believe that one should give what one wants to give, it may be more than the tithe for all I care, but one should not be compelled to pay tithes.

Yes i get your point, but look at it like this: The OT people which we have as references to the subject of tithing were not compelled. They knew what was expected of them, according to the Law of God.

The modern day Christians are compelled(i would rather use the word encouraged, coz it will be extremely wrong for any pastor to be punishing anyone becoz of tithe issues) because they are so much in-tune with sin and the cares of the world, that they have forgotten what God expects. Many of them dont personally read the Bible. They live their lives based on whatever the pastor says during church meetings, the reason: a decline in interest about things of God. Thats where the problem is.

donnie:

That is because the conscience of carnal Christan's as well as their atheist counterparts will not let them rest.

You want to reap where you did not sow Donnie by waiting daily for others to bring tithe. Please cover your face, let listen to those who are new on board like 4get_me He should read early posts. We are not in court and the BIBLE is not a constitution for philosophical debate. That is the way you see the bible, we know the history and you can not claim to know more than the authors of those verses. Why they use those words has implication and dogma was never intended as today sociologist, psychologist turn pastor use it to milk the unsuspected believers. Only the truth that can set us free.

Hi Donnie,

Further to your quote below,

donnie:

That is because the conscience of carnal christains as well as their atheist counterparts will not let them rest.

"Carnal Christians". Would that be those who do or those who do not tithe?
(Please indulge my taking the easy option and not scrolling through 18 pages of discussion to see if you have posted previously on this thread )

And one more thing, could you please explain what exactly the "atheist counterpart" of a carnal Christian is.

Thanks

God bless

Hi 4get_me,

I copied this from a reply to a post you made in "Is It Right For A Christian To Take Alcohol?"

4get_me:

One more thing: let me quickly chip in here that those who want use Deut. 14:26 as the champion excuse for boozing should answer the following questions in all sincerity:

(a) that scripture is connected to tithing and meant for the Jewish people alone - are you a Jew?

I take it you gather the import of what you plainly stated ?

God bless

seyiox:
i believe we should pay our tithes.
The reason many have opposed the idea on this posting is that they fear what pastors will do with it.

Que.
If you think your pastor is that greedy then why do is he still your pastor?
How come you're so interested in your pastor only when it comes to money matters?
If you decided to give your tithes to the poor. How come the command to give your tithe and to give to the poor are completely different?
If your pastor is really greedy, why you feel you are they one to react by not giving your tithe? Or God cannot defend his own again?

I believe that if you wanted to analyse every things in the bible, you'll finally find a reason to sin. That's because you finding a way to align what is written to what you feel should have been written.

Forgive my being blunt.

Wonderfully said bro!

@Hnd-holder, are you a Christian or a Muslim? You seem to be lost.

donnie:

That is because the conscience of carnal christains as well as their atheist counterparts will not let them rest.

Dear Donnie, why is almost everyone a carnal Christian who does not fall into your camp? And don't atheists have a right as much as you to give their own views here and elsewhere? What kind of world are you encouraging with such snide remarks? They may not fit your description of spirituality, but we should love and respect the atheist for being a human being at least.

Hnd-holder:

You want to reap where you did not sow Donnie by waiting daily for others to bring tithe. Please cover your face, let listen to those who are new on board like 4get_me He should read early posts. We are not in court and the BIBLE is not a constitution for philosophical debate. That is the way you see the bible, we know the history and you can not claim to know more than the authors of those verses. Why they use those words has implication and dogma was never intended as today sociologist, psychologist turn pastor use it to milk the unsuspected believers. Only the truth that can set us free.

My dear Hnd-holder, you missed the point, I'm afraid. Whether or not you hold anything against me as a JJC is not the issue - I asked for "the truth" you claimed you know; not the petty vexations you've expressed here. Second, I was not aware that tithing had anything to do with a "philosophical debate" - neither did I hold anyone to ramson in a court proceeding. It's true that I didn't go through everyone of the more than 560 views and opinions expressed; but of the more than 230 (including long and short ones) that I read, there was nothing new that the others were likely to input - it's either a 'yes' or 'no' sort of thing. I only gave my inputs from my understanding and experience, nor did I claim to know more than the authors. But if your pastor is a sociologist-psychologist-turned-pastor (if you have one at all), that's not my problem: it's yours.

The truth that I see has set me free from the hand-to-mouth experiences and complaints I had when complaining against tithes and "what-the-pastor-did-with-my-money" attitude. I notice one thing, though - those who complain hardly receive in abundance. If you don't want to give tithes, I respect that, and may God bless you for that; yet, it does not take anything away from me. Ask, and you'll receive - that's what I see in the Bible, and that's what I've been experiencing.

Regards.

Good talk, by their fruit we shall know them. Christ once said that not all that call me lord will enter into paradise but only those that does the will of God. If tithe was a way to paradise Christ would have taught us. Today Malachi intention to warn the priests has been twisted.

Hnd-holder:

Good talk, by their fruit we shall know them. Christ once said that not all that call me lord will enter into paradise but only those that does the will of God. If tithe was a way to paradise Christ would have taught us. Today Malachi intention to warn the priests has been twisted.

@Hnd-holder,

Indeed, Christ did not teach us that tithing was a way to paradise; rather He clearly taught that repentance and faith in Him is the prerequisite to being saved. This is what the NT calls being born again (John 3:3-5).

That notwithstanding, there are a few things not mentioned in the Gospel naratives but are found in the NT Epistles - should we therefore reject these just because Christ did not teach about them as the way to paradise? A few examples: (a) Christ in the Gospels did not teach about the Body of Christ; but it is a NT teaching in the epistles; (b) head covering is a matter dealt with in the NT, but it is not found in Christ's teachings in the Gospels; etc. Just because Christ did not teach this or that as a way to paradise does not mean that they don't matter as much as what He taught. Our whole lives as Christians do not revolve around John 3:16 alone. The NT teachings in the epistles are still the teachings of Christ which He promised that the Holy Spirit would communicate to the apostles (John 14:26 and 16:14-15). That's why He said: "Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen." What the apostles teach, therefore, are part of Christ's commandment to believers.

Now, the question is: if tithing was so bad and Christ did not teach it in the Gospels, did He or the apostles rather condemn it in the NT? Or, are those who tithe going straight to hell? You'll find people have twisted the whole Bible, not just Malachi; but that does not mean Malachi or any other passage dealing with tithes is necessarily twisted.

Another text is Prov. 3:9 - "Honour the LORD with thy substance, and with the first fruits of all thine increase." Is this any different from what I Cor. 16:2 says? - "Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come." I don't see the difference between "the first fruits of all thine increase" and "as God has prospered him". As long as the Bible did not condemn tithes in the NT, there's no reason for me to pretend it does. This does not mean that Prov. 3:9 is all about tithing - please read my earlier posts to see where I'm coming from.

Regards.

Dear TV01,

Gratefully acknowledge your replies. I'll try to very quickly make some observations.

TV01:

"A curse on the church currently" ~ Yes I do. It's a consequence of men asking for a king. Another thread?

Your Curse on the Church

I'm staggered about your 'curse on the church'. I don't know where or how you ferreted that idea to lay such an allegation on God's NT people. There may be a lot of things wrong in the various expressions of worship among Christians; but to go the distance of laying a curse on the Church - please watch your tongue - you can get into trouble with God!

You'll have to settle this issue by clearly showing me a NT verse that places a curse on the Church as you have done.

You remind me of Num 23:8 - "How shall I curse, whom God hath not cursed? or how shall I defy, whom the LORD hath not defied?" You ought to ask yourself if God has indeed cursed His Church before you come off sounding so emphatic about this curse of yours. Does it mean that just because you don't see your own interpretation of "church model" in other churches, they must necessarily come under your curse? You'd have to get me the NT verse that spurred you to utter such; or be courteous enough to withdraw that statement.

One more thing: 1 Samuel 8 does not indicate anything of a curse of Kingship on the Israelites, as you emphatically inferred in your piece on tithing - go and read it again. Worried about Samuel's old age and the ungodly lives of his sons (who were judges at the time - verses 1-2) the people asked for a king to judge them (perhaps, an indication of democracy? - verse 5). What followed was God's displeasure, but He did not utter any curses - NO, He did NOT!! Rather, God instructed Samuel to deliver a solemn protest to them - a very different thing from a curse (see verse 9). Is a solemn protest the same thing as a curse? You really need to calm down and take a second look at the way you read the mind of God on any subject.

TV01:

"Taxes not tithes" ~ No, I wasn't mixing them up. My point was that as children of the Kingdom, God does not legislate taxes for us.

Well, that is your opinion. On the contrary, while taxes are not divine institutes to be practised within the church (such as our financial giving), God yet asked us Christians to be responsible citizens of our various countries and pay our taxes (Rom. 13:6-7). In hindsight, I realise you might be referring to temple taxes in Matt. 17:24 - which is quite a different thing. However, taxes are part of our daily social and political experiences today wherever we find ourselves.

TV01:

However, I don't retract the underlying inference, being that the real communion of the Lords supper is a meal (I must confess I don't know how you celebrate it - How do you?). I can't tell a lie, when I saw the truth of it (or should I say was shown), I wasn't the happiest of bunnies. I find the bondage of enforced tithing a great evil, and nothing less than a blight on Christians and Christendom. And is there still a Levitical priesthood?

The Communion Supper (or, Lord's Supper) is not just a meal - it has a significance greater than any other meal. Anyone could enjoy any meal at home or elsewhere, but the Lord's Supper transcends that simplistic view.

In I Cor. 11:21-22, if you look carefully, there are two meals that the apostle might have hinted at, and often we make the mistake of lumping them together as one meal called the Supper. From Jude 1:12 and Acts 6:1, it is clear that there was a love feast (agapé) as well as the Lord's Supper that were held among the early disciples. They were not the same. The agapé could be called "the daily ministration" where certain were chosen to "serve tables" (Acts 6:1-2) as well as "love feasts (NIV)/feasts of charity (KJV)" (Jude 12). In this, everyone brought their own meals sometimes to share with the poorer folk in church - that is why Paul remonstrated with the Corinthians that their carelessness shamed and despised the have-nots, while others were taking their own supper before others arrived. Afterwards, he sets the tone of the Lord's Supper and called for discernment (verses 23-29).

You may have objections to this view, and I hope I don't come under your curse for that.
However, please study well those scriptures, and you'll perhaps see that the love feasts and the Lord's Supper were two distinct meals which were often held in the same meeting but never lumped up in one whole or confused the one for the other.


As for the Law and Grace issue, looks to me that there are many things you're mixing up - and that will take me a whole greater volume to explicit upon at the moment. So, perhaps you'd grant me the grace to let that wait until after my trip and then treat it in another thread.

Thank you so much for your forebearance, and I look forward to your comments - welcome anytime.

God bless.

Generally defined as "the tenth part of the increase arising from the profits of land and stock, allotted to the clergy for their support or devoted to religious or charitable uses". A more radical definition is "the tenth part of all fruits and profits justly acquired, owed to God in recognition of his supreme dominion over man, and to be paid to the ministers of the church".

The custom of giving tithes reaches back into unknown antiquity. It is mentioned in Genesis 14, without anything to indicate that it was something newly instituted. Just as Abraham is there represented as offering tithes of the spoils of the enemy to the royal priest, Melchisedech, so in Genesis 28, Jacob is recorded as giving a tithe of all his possessions to the Lord. Under the Mosaic Law the payment of tithes was made obligatory.

The Hebrews are commanded to offer to God the tenth part of the produce of the fields, of the fruits of the trees, and the firstborn of oxen and of sheep (Leviticus 27:30;

Deuteronomy 14:22). In Deuteronomy there is a mention not only of an annual tithe, but also of a full tithe to be paid once every three years.

While it was to God Himself that the tithes had to be paid, yet we read (Numbers 18:21) that He transfers them to His sacred ministers: "I have given to the sons of Levi all the tithes of Israel for a possession, for the ministry wherewith they serve me in the tabernacle of the covenant."
In paying the tithe, the Hebrews divided the annual harvest into ten parts, one of which was given to the Levites after the first-fruits had been subtracted. This was partitioned by them among the priests.

The remainder of the harvest was then divided into ten new parts, and a second tithe was carried by the head of the household to the sanctuary to serve as a sacred feast for his family and the Levites.

If the journey to the temple was unusually long, money could be substituted for the offering in kind. At the triennial tithe, a third decimation was made and a tenth part was consumed at home by the householder with his family, the Levites, strangers, and the poor.

This triennial year was called the year of tithes (Deuteronomy 26:12). As the tithes were the main support of the priests, it was later ordained that the offerings should be stored in the temple (2 Chronicles 31:11).

It is to be noted that the custom of paying sacred tithes was not peculiar to the Israelites, but common to all ancient peoples.

In Lydia a tithe of cattle was offered to the gods;

the Arabians paid a tithe of incense to the god Sabis;

and the Carthaginians brought tithes to Melkarth, the god of Tyre.

The explanation of why the tenth part should have been chosen among so many different peoples is said to be (apart from a common primitive revelation) that mystical signification of the number ten, viz., that it signifies totality, for it contains all the numbers that make up the numerical system, and indeed all imaginable series of numbers, and so it represents all kinds of property, which is a gift of God. [color=#990000][/color]


All species of property were consequently reckoned in decades, and by consecrating one of these parts to God, the proprietor recognized the Source of his goods. However, the payment of tithes was also a civil custom.

They were payable to the Hebrew kings and to the rulers of Babylon, and they are mentioned among the Persians, Greeks, Romans, and later the Mohammedans. Tax today to Nigerian government.
COREN, NITE, NSE, ICAN and other professional bodies depend on it.