viaro:

At the end of the day, whatever anyone has so chosen to do, let him/her do - as long as we try to hold love and faith above any other issue.

Word !

@Enigma and nuclearboy:

I responded to your concerns, but I was mobile and busy, and I lost all the information so I was too tired to type it all over again. I'm just coming back to NL again today.

In summary, my reply was that if you consider the references to Lot very carefully, you will see that Lot is always mentioned BESIDES the plundered stuff that used to belong to Sodom and Gomorrah. Read the verses to see "Sodom's stuff AND Lot's belongings", even though Lot was in Sodom.

I take this to mean that the REASON Abram went into war was Lot and his stuff, so those were an exclusion from the selection for tithes, or for division as spoils of war. At the risk of a rough analogy, Lot was the prodigal son, and Sodom's stuff was the fattened calf. We can't lump them together, even the Bible made a distinction.

But if you yet disagree with this view and the earlier post I made, please let us agree to disagree. Stay blessed.

InesQor

P.S> Wow! I have been away from the privacy of NL for so long that I almost signed my real name above. LOL

^^ Whichever you consider it to be, Inesqor, it still comes back to what we're saying and did from the onset

[a] Exclusion from the selection for "tithes" infers Abram "chose" what to tithe and what NOT to tithe; showing it was a choice He made rather than an "obligation" as we're being told to see it today. More a free-will gift.

[b] Division as "Spoils of War" informs that Abram considered at least a part of the "recovered" possessions to NOT BE his property showing that as we said, he'd given up right to "some" if not all. - That solves the issue of ownership of the spoils since the "owner" effectively said "I do not own these".

I walked away from this debate because of the respect I have for Viaro and because we'd so derailed that we were asking/answering questions which weren't the basis of the conversation. Moreso, we ended up playing to a gallery that was coming in to applaud "points" and seek for excuses to self-justify their avarice. I still sincerely believe all this is so so wrong turning Abram into a greedy "winner takes all" warrior. This for the same man who looked ahead at God's promise and stated "he wouldn't touch these things".

Sad. But as Viaro then said - "love and faith". AND TRUTH!

as a genuine seeker waht are we suppose to do as regards this subject as end time christians

Lol, let's get a few issues in perspective.

nuclearboy:

I walked away from this debate because of the respect I have for Viaro and because we'd so derailed that we were asking/answering questions which weren't the basis of the conversation.

Again, let me apologise if it seemed to have turned into a "debating" thread - it was not meant to be that at all. There are indeed far too many threads already where debates about 'tithes' have been raised. In this one, I sought to discuss - sort of 'rub minds' - and not 'win points' here or there.

Like I said, it was not my intention to persuade anyone to change their minds about the subject of tithes/tithing - whatever anyone has chosen to do, let them do so in simplicity. There is no need to appeal to unfounded assertions not found in Scripture and then use them to argue for or against tithes. IMO, People who try to 'force' others to NOT tithe are no different from those who try to force tithes upon believers. The watchword for us should perhaps be "voluntarily" - same as 'willingly', and not by compulsion in any form.

toba:

as a genuine seeker waht are we suppose to do as regards this subject as end time christians

The answer is always the same: 2 Cor. 9:7 - 'Every man according as he purposeth in his heart' . . . not grudgingly . . not by force (nor fear, nor trickery, nor dubious statements, nor by eisegesis, nor by _______[fill in the gap]).

Okay, the highlighted in blue is not a translation - I extended the implication of that verse as applicable to our times (and in fact, all times). So, if a man/woman has purposed in his/her heart to set aside what amounts to a 'tithe' (however defined), let them do so and God be praised. If, however, another person had purposed in his/her heart to set aside what does not amount to a 'tithe' (whether more or less), let that person also do as he/she wishes. At the end of the day, the principle of faith that could be applied in this matter for our benefit could be from three of my fav verses in Romans 14 -

** "Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind" (verse 5);
** "Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace" (v. 19)
** "Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God.
Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing
which he alloweth" (verse 22)

So, whatever you choose to do (whether it amounts to a 'tithe'/'tenth', or more or less than those), let God be glorified in all things.

OK, here are all the verses from Genesis 14 referring to the items/goods/possessions/ concerned.

11And they took all the goods of Sodom and Gomorrah, and all their victuals, and went their way.

12And they took Lot, Abram's brother's son, who dwelt in Sodom, and his goods, and departed.

and pursued them unto Hobah, which is on the left hand of Damascus.

16And he [i.e. Abram] brought back all the goods, and also brought again his brother Lot, and his goods, and the women also, and the people.

[20b] And he [i.e. Abram] gave him [i.e. Melchizedek] tithes of all.

21And the king of Sodom said unto Abram, Give me the persons, and take the goods to thyself.

22And Abram said to the king of Sodom, I have lift up mine hand unto the LORD, the most high God, the possessor of heaven and earth,

23That I will not take from a thread even to a shoelatchet, and that I will not take any thing that is thine, lest thou shouldest say, I have made Abram rich:

24Save only that which the young men have eaten, and the portion of the men which went with me, Aner, Eshcol, and Mamre; let them take their portion.

1. The first thing you note is that Genesis does not even refer to any of them as "spoils of war"; (I can deal with Hebrews 7 later if I could be bothered)

2. The four kings captured the goods of Sodom and of Gomorrah; they also captured Lot; not only that, they also captured Lot's goods.

3. Abram brought back all the goods; he also brought back his brother Lot and Lot's goods.

Let us stop here for a minute: note again that Genesis did not use the technical expression "spoils of war". On the face of it, even though Lot and his goods were captured, Genesis does not explicitly describe either Lot or his goods to be the property of the four kings; Genesis does not consider the goods of Sodom and Gomorrah as goods of the four kings --- even when the kings had captured them. Genesis continues to refer to them as the goods of Sodom and Gomorrah; or as Lot and his goods.

Secondly, when Abram had recaptured the goods of Sodom and Gomorrah as well as Lot and his goods, Genesis does not explicitly refer to any of them as belonging to Abram. You see, it is very simple: the author of Genesis had a simplistic approach to the whole thing; the goods concerned were goods of Sodom and Gomorrah and Lot's goods that had been captured and re-captured. Yes, in a loose sense we tend to refer to these good as spoils of war; however, neither we nor the author of Hebrews, for example, are using "spoils" or "spoils of war" in a technical or legal sense. We and the author of Hebrews use "spoils" or "spoils of war" in a general every day sense as goods captured in war.

Thus it is a waste of time to go on at length about Grotius who was formulating his principles concerning the law of nations almost 2000 4000 years after the Genesis story ---- even if Grotius himself was looking for ways to support his arguments ----- some of them a bit tenuous. But I digress; normally, I get paid to advise on applying or to teach people Grotius, the Laws of Nations among others.  

Back to Abram and what he did with what he captured. What Genesis said is that Abram gave Melchizedek "tithes" of all. Question: what is "all"? Does it include a tithe of Lot's goods; "tithes" of the goods of Sodom and Gomorrah; and if you want to use "spoils of war" in the technical sense, does it include "tithes" of human beings captured/recaptured?

Finally, notice that Abram himself considered the goods to be goods belonging to the king of Sodom.

The long and short of it is that Abram gave "tithes"to Melchizedek from loot.  You will not find a passage in the Bible where Abram gave "tithes" from his own personal property. End of.

Edited for spelling etc

I agree with Enigma.

21And the king of Sodom said unto Abram, Give me the persons, and take the goods to thyself.

IF the "goods" belonged to Abram, why would the king of Sodom give Abram permission to take the goods to thyself?

In my opinion, and not to open this up again, verse 21 reinforces that it was custom to give the tenth. Otherwise, I don't believe Abram would have given a tenth of property not belonging to him.

nuclearboy:

@Aletheia:

YOU, I expected to make your views known. Why did you keep so quiet? Enigma was the other but I never thought he'd even notice this thread considering enigmalet's demands. Still waiting to read your views, Sir

I apologize for being a bit silent here. I 've been tied up with my patients all week. Due time pressures, I didn't see the need to rehash your arguments all over again. Except for some points of difference, my views on Genesis 14 pretty much align with yours.

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible:

And he gave him a tithe of all. - This is a very significant act. In presenting the tenth of all the spoils of victory, Abram makes a practical acknowledgment of the absolute and exclusive supremacy of the God whom Melkizedec worshipped, and of the authority and validity of the priesthood which he exercised. (see Hebrews)

I have lifted up my hand. - This is a serious matter with Abram. Either before, or then and there, he made an oath or solemn asseveration before God, with uplifted hand, that he would not touch the property of Sodom. He must have felt that there was danger of moral contamination in coming into any political relationship with the cities of the vale. “The Lord, the Most High God, the Founder of heaven and earth.” In this conjunction of names Abram solemnly and expressly identifies the God of himself and of Melkizedec in the presence of the king of Sodom. The Most High God of Melkizedec is the God of the first chapter of Genesis, and the Yahweh of Adam, Noah, and Abram.

While Abram refrains from accepting any part of the spoils beyond what had been consumed in supplying the necessities of his followers in the expedition, he expressly excepts the portion to which his confederates, Aner, Eshcol, and Mamre, became entitled by their share in the recovery of the property. This is sufficient to prove that the transaction regarding the spoil was not an offer of generosity on the part of the king of Sodom, but an act of disinterestedness on the part of Abram.

I think in the heat of argument we may have missed the point of the interaction between Abraham and Melchizedek which was a foreshadow of Christ:

For this Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him; To whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all; first being by interpretation King of righteousness, and after that also King of Salem, which is, King of peace; Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually. Now consider how great this man was, unto whom even the patriarch Abraham gave the tenth of the spoils. And verily they that are of the sons of Levi, who receive the office of the priesthood, have a commandment to take tithes of the people according to the law, that is, of their brethren, though they come out of the loins of Abraham: But he whose descent is not counted from them received tithes of Abraham, and blessed him that had the promises. And without all contradiction the less is blessed of the better. And here men that die receive tithes; but there he receiveth them, of whom it is witnessed that he liveth. And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes in Abraham. For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him. If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron? (Hebrews 7:1-11)

The LORD hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.
(Psalms 110:4)

The testimony of all scripture is Jesus Christ.

We shall all continue to give different interpretations to the subject and what the bible actually meant on same. Gods direction that will please him on tithes and offerings is exactly what i think we need.

How do we know we are on the right path on this subject of tithing

We shall continue to give responses as perceived by us on what we read from the bible. But without the holy spirit, the spirit of truth leading us to do exactly that which would please God and that which is acceptable unto God, yet we labour in vain

We need to separate our selves from hypocrites that does things lavishly for show off in religious gathering as regards offerings/tithe. Yet we must not be stingy unto giving to God, source whence all the blessings flows.

I will like to say not according to every man purposeth but as the spirit of God directs is my humble take on this

toba:

I will like to say not according to every man purposeth but as the spirit of God directs is my humble take on this

Lol, if we would obey God's Word, I reckon then that we can't improve on Scripture. You are still doing the same thing if you have made up your mind that the above is your 'take' on these things - because that also would mean that you have as well "purposed" in your heart that such is according to yourself.

viaro:

Lol, if we would obey God's Word, I reckon then that we can't improve on Scripture. You are still doing the same thing if you have made up your mind that the above is your 'take' on these things - because that also would mean that you have as well "purposed" in your heart that such is according to yourself.

Theres difference between purposing to follow Gods direction and purposing to be directed by intuition. What i vote for is Gods direction and not as an individual thinks in his/hr heart which may be in contrast to what God requires and acceptable unto God

aletheia:

I think in the heat of argument we may have missed the point of the interaction between Abraham and Melchizedek which was a foreshadow of Christ:

Thanks for that input, aletheia. I would like to highlight a few things again from the excerpt you quoted from Albert Barnes:

Albert Barnes: And he gave him a tithe of all. - This is a very significant act. In presenting the tenth of all the spoils of victory, Abram makes a practical acknowledgment of the absolute and exclusive supremacy of the God whom Melkizedec worshipped, and of the authority and validity of the priesthood which he exercised. (see Hebrews)

I agree - absolutely. The question may have been asked somewhat about the significance of Abraham's tithes to Melchizedek: was it in "fulfilment of traditions demands"? Or was it to be a question of "pagan tithes" as some have concluded without Biblical exegesis? It shouldn't be difficult to see that a careful study of Genesis 14 shows Abraham's recognition of those two things highlight above: (a) his acknowledgement of God's supremacy; and (b) the authority of Melchizedek's priesthood.

Those are the same things I had hinted at in post #39 -

[list]

viaro:
For this reason, there was something far more intrinsic in Abraham's tithing to Melchizedek - it was a question of priesthood.

[/list]
[list]

viaro:

The priesthood of Melchizedek is the foundation of the tithes in Abraham's case - it was again the foundation of the tithes in the NT discussion in Hebrews 7; and it was also the foundation of Levi's tithes. Being merely 'king of Salem' does not so much make for this; but the priesthood is what Abraham recognized - and that was what moved him to have singled out Melchizedek above every other king, above pagan customs, above any so-called 'tradition' or 'coventions' of pagan societies, and above any eisegesis to the contrary: and upon the basis of that priesthood, Abraham gave tithes.

[/list]

I think that these are easy to see in carefully studying Genesis 14. It's not difficult to see why other theologians come to the same conclusion.

I was quite concerned that some have tried to force their own ideas into Scripture and made unfounded assertions which they cannot show. That was the reason for this thread - to honestly examine them.

toba:

Theres difference between purposing to follow Gods direction and purposing to be directed by intuition. What i vote for is Gods direction and not as an individual thinks in his/hr heart which may be in contrast to what God requires and acceptable unto God

But Scripture is clear on that one in 2 Corinthians 9:7 - "Every man according as he purposeth in his heart". That is not open to any vote this way or that: it is the individual believer's choice to determine what to give - and that is God's direction on the matter.

If you go through Scripture, you will find other verses saying practically almost the same thing.

viaro:

But Scripture is clear on that one in 2 Corinthians 9:7 - "Every man according as he purposeth in his heart". That is not open to any vote this way or that: it is the individual believer's choice to determine what to give - and that is God's direction on the matter.

If you go through Scripture, you will find other verses saying practically almost the same thing.

Individual can either be led by his/hr own spirit or by the spirit of God. So they are two. if someone says i just felt by my spirit to give N200 or another says i prayed and the spirit of God led me to give N200 are they saying the same thing?

Enigma:
1. The first thing you note is that Genesis does not even refer to any of them as "spoils of war"; (I can deal with Hebrews 7 later if I could be bothered)

Nonetheless, we understand that what was taken by the conquerors is understood in the very sense that Hebrews 7 says it is: "spoils". To argue that just because 'spoils' in very fact was not the word used in Genesis 14 does not take anything away from the fact that they are understood nonetheless to be spoils.

This is one of the 'technicalities' I cautioned us to shy away from. If one wants to get technical in search of a particular word used in a chapter or verse, then a whole lot of other unnecessary issues creep into the discourse. Recently, someone was on about particular words used in this and that chapter and verse and the other. . . until when I could take it no longer, I said to him: please show me where you find "God" or "LORD" or "prayer" in the book of Esther. Of course, he could not show any such occurences of those particular words. Then I made the point: just because we don't find the particular and exact words ['God' or 'LORD' or 'prayer'] in Esther, that does not mean that we cannot understand that the Jews prayed to God who was their LORD (Esther 4:16).

In the same manner, getting too technical on simple issues often tends to becloud issues being discussed. Such technicalities, I guess, is why some people go to great lengths to assert that Abraham gave "tenths" and not "tithes" - as if there is such a fantastic difference between those terms! Or that Hebrews 7 must have got it all confused because it mentions "spoils" where Genesis 14 did not use any such word! So, rather than get down to these unnecessary worries, let's just learn to acknowledge the simplicity of Scripture and eschew unfounded assertions that lead nowhere.

Enigma:

. . . in a loose sense we tend to refer to these good as spoils of war; however, neither we nor the author of Hebrews, for example, are using "spoils" or "spoils of war" in a technical or legal sense. We and the author of Hebrews use "spoils" or "spoils of war" in a general every day sense as goods captured in war.

Scripture does not confuse between the words it uses, nor was Scripture using 'spoils' in a 'loose' sense. We can be thankful that the word 'spoils' is well understood to be whatever is taken and claimed by conquerors in warfare - and that is the very same sense that we find it used in Hebrews 7 which discusses Genesis 14. It is not out of ill-conceived prescription that Scripture in Hebrews 7 refers to the same thing as "spoils" from which Abraham gave his tithes/tenths.

It is just about the same sense that we see a basic principle is shown in 1 Chron. 26:27 - 'Out of the spoils won in battles did they dedicate to maintain the house of the LORD'. This is straight forward, even though behind it all we know that the "spoils" were taken from those who were their original owners before the warfare/battles.

Enigma:

Thus it is a waste of time to go on at length about Grotius who was formulating his principles concernng the law of nations almost 2000 years after the Genesis story ---- even if Grotus himself was looking for ways to support his arguments ----- some of them a bit tenuous. But I digress; normally, I get paid to advise on applying or to teach people Grotius, the Laws of Nations among others.

 

Lol, if Grotius was a waste of time, I don't think any Christian theologian should have been quoting him at all, least of all a Ph.D anti-tither! Besides, I don't see what it is with Grotius that is so worrisome that nothing is shown to fault what he wrote other than complaining about his work coming almost 2000 years after the Genesis story. Most theologians today who came after Grotius have discussed the same Genesis 14 and arrived at the same inference we find in Grotius' work! Could we also say that these same theologians are a total waste of time (prolly because they agree with Grotius)??

Grotius is not above or at par with the Bible; but if what he has written concerning this issue on Genesis 14 is wrong, it would be far better to show us how that is so. Complaining about Grotius writing many centuries later does not cut it at all! People who have written before and after Grotius have said practically the same thing. What then is the problem here in what Grotius said on that?

Enigma:

The long and short of it is that Abram gave "tithes"to Melchizedek from loot.  You will not find a passage in the Bible where Abram gave "tithes" from his own personal property. End of.

I see. . . after the analysis of "items/goods/possessions/" and the technicalities or non-technicalities of whether they were "spoils", we can rest at "loot". Hehe - but I like the fact it all came back to the same thing: Abraham gave tithes to Melchizedek. We know the signficance of that - as has been pointed out already.

toba:

Individual can either be led by his/hr own spirit or by the spirit of God. So they are two.

That is true; but equally true for the Christian is the fact of 1 Corinthians 6:7 - "he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit."

toba:

if someone says i just felt by my spirit to give N200 or another says i prayed and the spirit of God led me to give N200 are they saying the same thing?

Two expressions, but pointing to the same thing. The fact in that example is that they gave - that is what is important. And that they gave N200, is again the same thing, IMO. One who feels in his/her spirit to give whatever they have determined to give could still be said to be acting on the principle of those two verses (1 Cor. 6:7 and 2 Cor. 9:7).

The same could be inferred from Exodus 35. In verse 5, the instruction was simple: "whosoever is of a willing heart, let him bring it, an offering of the LORD". Then the response in verse 21: "And they came, every one whose heart stirred him up, and every one whom his spirit made willing".

The basic point here is that a believer's heart is prepared by God, and out of that preparation a believer gives willingly as he/she desires. I think that is what 1 Chron. 29:17-18 reveals >>

'I know also, my God, that thou triest the heart, and hast pleasure in uprightness. As for me, in the uprightness of mine heart I have willingly offered all these things: and now have I seen with joy thy people, which are present here, to offer willingly unto thee. O LORD God of Abraham, Isaac, and of Israel, our fathers, keep this for ever in the imagination of the thoughts of the heart of thy people, and prepare their heart unto thee".

viaro:

That is true; but equally true for the Christian is the fact of 1 Corinthians 6:7 - "he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit."

Two expressions, but pointing to the same thing. The fact in that example is that they gave - that is what is important. And that they gave N200, is again the same thing, IMO. One who feels in his/her spirit to give whatever they have determined to give could still be said to be acting on the principle of those two verses (1 Cor. 6:7 and 2 Cor. 9:7).

The same could be inferred from Exodus 35. In verse 5, the instruction was simple: "whosoever is of a willing heart, let him bring it, an offering of the LORD". Then the response in verse 21: "And they came, every one whose heart stirred him up, and every one whom his spirit made willing".

The basic point here is that a believer's heart is prepared by God, and out of that preparation a believer gives willingly as he/she desires. I think that is what 1 Chron. 29:17-18 reveals >>

'I know also, my God, that thou triest the heart, and hast pleasure in uprightness. As for me, in the uprightness of mine heart I have willingly offered all these things: and now have I seen with joy thy people, which are present here, to offer willingly unto thee. O LORD God of Abraham, Isaac, and of Israel, our fathers, keep this for ever in the imagination of the thoughts of the heart of thy people, and prepare their heart unto thee".

Theres a contrast between the bolded in u first agreeing with me on

toba:

Individual can either be led  by his/hr own spirit or  by the spirit of God. So they are two.

and later disagreeing in the other part of your post on this

toba:

if someone says i just felt by my spirit to give N200 or another says i prayed and the spirit of God led me to give N200 are they saying the same thing?

Do u believe that sometimes the evil spirit can enter into mans heart to do or not to do? Remember the case of Ananias and Sapphira were they led in their heart by the spirit of God to bring insufficient before the apostle?

Many are the plans in a man's heart, but it is the Lord's purpose that prevails.
Prov 19:21 (NIV) 

Which means part of the many could be evil taught to cheat God or pay little. But when our purpose is directed by God in according to his purpose  through his spirit, then one can be said to have done Gods purpose and not mans purpose like what Paul prescribed

we should live our lives to please God and leave the results in His hands. which include inviting God for his own purpose to be taught in our heart and not by our own heart.

The word let thy will be done is paramount in all we do and all we think in our heart to do

aletheia:

I think in the heat of argument we may have missed the point of the interaction between Abraham and Melchizedek which was a foreshadow of Christ . . .

The testimony of all scripture is Jesus Christ.

I very much agree that the testimony of all scripture is Jesus Christ. I also agree that Melchizedek was a foreshadow of Christ.  

Also, indeed Abram acknowledged the priesthood and authority of Melchizedek though it is not indicated that he thought that he was giving "tithes" to God. Moreover, even though Melchizedek foreshadowed Christ, Christ Himself never asked anyone to give Him "tithes"; instead He said as long as you [give] do it for the least of these (i.e. the poor, the hospitalised, the prisoner) you [gave] did it for Him.

toba:

Theres difference between purposing to follow Gods direction and purposing to be directed by intuition. What i vote for is Gods direction and not as an individual thinks in his/hr heart which may be in contrast to what God requires and acceptable unto God

The biblical direction is to give as a person purposes in his heart. This injunction is to the Christian. If one is a Christian the Holy Spirit dwells in him and will therefore help him in purposing rightly --- if the person allows Him. It does not even necessarily have to be by prayer; a renewed conscience, renewed mind, renewed heart, renewed spirit should be enough.

Enigma:



The biblical direction is to give as a person purposes in his heart. This injunction is to the Christian. If one is a Christian the Holy Spirit dwells in him and will therefore help him in purposing rightly --- if the person allows Him. It does not even necessarily have to be by prayer; a renewed conscience, renewed mind, renewed heart, renewed spirit should be enough.

I will have to disagree with u. Jesus said its not all that call me lord lord that will enter the kingdom of God. Many honour me with their mouth and their heart is far away. Many christians that are like that can think of evil in their heart

toba:

Theres a contrast between the bolded and the other part of your post

Do u believe that sometimes the evil spirit can enter into mans heart to do or not to do? Remember the case of Ananias and Sapphira were they led in their heart by the spirit of God to bring insufficient before the apostle?

@toba,
I understand your concerns in the long run. However, for simplicity sake, let's also understand that I was more focused on what a believer would do in sincerity, and not spectacular cases of people who tend to go by mixed spirits.

In the case of Ananias, I don't think it was a matter of bringing what was "insufficient". Whether they gave all or gave 10% of what they had or far, far less . . . what mattered above all else was the condition of their hearts.

Acts 5 teaches us many lessons; but the most significant for me is that God does not countenance falsehood in our actions and motives. Peter's statement is quite revealing: "While it remained unsold, did it not remain yours? And after it was sold, was it not in your control?" (Acts 5:4, EMTV). What you and I have are in our own individual control(s) - we are to determined from ourselves what to do. The problem was not about Ananias' offering being insufficient; but rather a question of the condition of the heart.

toba:
Many are the plans in a man's heart, but it is the LORD's purpose that prevails.
Prov 19:21 (NIV)

Which means part of the many could be evil taught to cheat God or pay little. But when our purpose is directed by God in accordind to his purpose through his spirit, then one can be said to have done Gods purpose and not mans purpose like what Paul prescribed

I don't know if God asks for any particular fixed amount from His children - I don't know, as I'm not His secretary. Some have said that they knew God spoke to them in some cases about particular or fixed amounts for specific purposes and times (and these are people I know and respect) - and they live very exemplary Christian lives.

However, I think in very broad terms, Christians have the freedom to determine what we want to give from each one of ourselves. That does not mean that we ignore God in the process; but each one is to determine what they want to give. The simple rule of thumb in this case would be that, while the believer is encouraged to give abundantly (2 Cor. 9:6), at the same time, the believer should give from what he/she has, and not be coerced into giving what they don't have (2 Cor. 8:12).

toba:

we should live our lives to please God and leave the results in His hands. which include invitig God for his own purpose to be taught in our heart and not by our own heart.

The word let thy will be done is paramount in all we do and all we think in our heart to do

Very well put, thank you.

+

Edit

Hopefully tommorrow when im less busy at work,we shall continue God willing. To reach a reasonable conclussion on mans heart.We can also link the heart thoughts of man to what Abram did.If he acted as he purposed or has God purposed. We can learn from each other on this subject
Shalom viaro

toba:

Individual can either be led by his/hr own spirit or by the spirit of God. So they are two.

True

toba:

if someone says i just felt by my spirit to give N200 or another says i prayed and the spirit of God led me to give N200 are they saying the same thing?

Yes. They are both saying the same thing viz: "I gave N200." Only one of them is "forming" to be more spiritual than the other.