@joagbaje


biblical evidence ko biblical evidence ni

where is the biblical evidence dat christians paid tithes

chukwudi44:

where is the biblical evidence dat christians paid tithes

There are many things in Christianity that Christians love to practice and will die for that have no Biblical evidence. The Catholic Church is full of them aplenty.

Joagbaje:

Nice Article, but there's no biblical evidence for it that's why I don't quote such. But certain truths are universal .

It is true that certain truths are universal (Religious Giving Is Universal). But it is not helpful to say that you cannot quote such outside sources just because you feel that there is no Biblical evidence. In very fact, there is - only some men do not see them by careful study. However, the use of external sources for buttressing Biblical truth was well known among the prophets - see Daniel 9:2 for example. We can cite other references as long as we do so without confusing matters all the more.

So the spirit of men even in it's dead state can still pick some spiritual truths even though they may go about it wrongly.

That's true, and is confirmed in many places in the Bible. Romans 2:14 says that Gentiles who do not have the Law can do by nature the things contained in the Law; and Romans 3:29 affirms that God is also the God of the Gentiles and not only of the Jews.

But the idea that Abraham was influenced by Babylonia culture is not acceptable , he would have copied some of their evil culture also.

Good point. Abraham was not unaware of tithing among the Babylonians; but Scripture does not argue that he gave tithes as a matter of such an influence.

Joagbaje:

Who are the other tithers who didn't know God?

nlMediator:

The Babylonians, for example, who tithed well before Abram was born. See : http://www.keithhunt.com/Tithe2.html. Certainly, they did not know the true God and their tithes were to their gods.

Joagbaje:

Nice Article, but there's no biblical evidence for it that's why I don't quote such. But certain truths are universal . . .

(Edited)

I too have now quickly read the article. There are some things I disagree with in the article especially the assumption that Abram/Abraham must have tithed on other occasions ---- we simply cannot conclude this from the Bible. I also disagree with the conclusion implying that "tithing" is for today because of Abram/Abraham ---- unless the "tithing" is truly voluntary in the sense that we have now established on pages 8, 9 & 10 of this thread.

Beyond that, the article makes one important point that I made on the "Why Evangelicals should stop evangelising" thread  https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-720610.0.html which shows the duplicity of people like Joagbaje! If you say "tithing" predates the law because of Abram/Abraham --- why do you then deny that "born again" or salvation by faith/grace ALSO predates the law?.

Let us take a couple of quotes from the article --- which I will now also go and paste on the other thread.

The basic truths of the WAY TO SALVATION by grace through
faith have always been there in the Word from the beginning. In
the process of time when that grace and faith was made manifest
to Israel and the world through God who came as flesh and blood
in the form of Jesus Christ, Paul was used to proclaim that truth
more than any other single man in recorded detail for the New
Testament scriptures.

It was not surprising then that when apostles like Paul came
along and started to preach Jesus as the Messiah, and that
salvation was not through ANY works but by GRACE through FAITH in
Christ Jesus, there would arise a certain OPPOSITION from
certain religious Jews.  When Paul preached that "circumcision
was nothing, and uncircumcision was nothing" there would bound to
be opposition from some Jews.

Paul had to DEFEND the truth of his teaching with the truth
FROM the WORD of the Lord.  He had to painstakingly proves from
the Scriptures of old that GRACE and FAITH to be saved came
BEFORE the Old Covenant with its Tabernacle, priesthood and
sacrifices. [b]He had to prove also that grace and faith to
salvation came BEFORE circumcision. [/b]This he did in large portions
of the letter to the ROMANS and his letter to the GALATIANS.
     And one of the most important EXAMPLES he could possibly
give to the Jews especially, as that of THEIR FATHER ABRAHAM!!

Paul proved in his writing that Abraham was JUSTIFIED by God
through FAITH, and that BEFORE he was introduced to the rite of
circumcision by God for him and his seed. Abraham Paul showed,
found the true way to salvation BEFORE circumcision, BEFORE the
Old Covenant with Israel, BEFORE the tabernacle, priesthood and
sacrificial system was given to Israel through Moses. Paul argued
that what came AFTER could not annual what came BEFORE.
     Abraham is held up by Paul and the entire New Covenant as
the FATHER OF THE FAITHFUL, that "if you are Christ's then are
you Abraham's seed and heirs according to the promise"
(Gal.3:29).
     Jesus told the Jews that if they were really the children of
Abraham then they
ould do the WORKS of Abraham (John 8:39).

So if you say tithing is for today because it predated the law through Abram/Abraham, integrity demands that you also accept that "born again" ALSO predated the law through Abram/Abraham!

Very educative thread, wordtalk you too much. I learnt so much from your posts.

Joagbaje:

Nice Article, but there's no biblical evidence for it that's why I don't quote such. But certain truths are universal . Men gave offerings, dance,and do worship to other Gods. In certain towns here nobody can eat yam until till priest of the village has eaten the first or biggest yam. That is first fruits. The spirit of man can pick certain spiritual truths.
The father Inlaw of Moses was a priest, but was not a Jew .

Job was not a Jew but he was offering sacrifices to God . So the spirit of men even in it's dead state can still pick some spiritual truths even though they may go about it wrongly. But the idea that Abraham was influenced by Babylonia culture is not acceptable , he would have copied some of their evil culture also. It was clear God called him out of idolatry . If tithing was pagan practice ,he definateky would have dumped it. Tithing , prayers, offerings, worship are all based on spiritual principles .

Yes, even if we shorten the argument and concede that tithing was instituted by God, even among heathen nations, and that God in the same way also instituted prayers, worship and firstfruits, it still doesn’t meet the burden on why tithing is mandatory. My point is that prayer and fasting are good for us, but nobody tells us that we need to pray or fast everyday to reap the benefits of prayer or avoid the dangers of prayerlessness. The emphasis is on regular praying. Ditto when we use the example of first yams brought to the village priest in pagan cultures. It doesn’t mean that the first cocoyams, oranges or chicken are also brought. But when it comes to tithing, there is little preaching that you can fulfill the need for tithing by doing it regularly and with some of the income but not all the time and on all the income.

So, even if God prompted Abram to tithe, it doesn’t mean that he prompted him to tithe on everything he gets, all the time. Just as God can prompt somebody to give thanksgiving offering, because it is a good thing, but we don’t establish a practice of thanksgiving every time something good happens. Or if God prompted Jesus to fast for 40 days and 40 nights, we now teach that every christian needs to do that once a year. Or if God told somebody to pray at night, and the person sees the benefits, we now establish a principle that God wants us to pray every night. My point is that God can prompt us to do something without it being interpreted to mean that He wants us to do it all the time. That being the case, voluntary tithing, in the sense of tithing when you are led or on certain occasions is the only thing we can establish with the universal practice of tithing. So, can somebody then show me the basis for saying that the principle is paying tithes out of every income, instead of occasionally, since that deviates from what we do with such other things as prayer, fasting that we admit are good for us?

Excellent post NlMediator.

I'd like to respond to a few things

nlMediator:

voluntary tithing, in the sense of tithing when you are led or on certain occasions is the only thing we can establish with the universal practice of tithing.

I agree completely. In the same vein, we should also be open to accepting that some believe they are led to do so regularly.

So, can somebody then show me the basis for saying that the principle is paying tithes out of every income, instead of occasionally, since that deviates from what we do with such other things as prayer, fasting that we admit are good for us?

This may be a matter of semantics, but I'll leave linguistic experts like WT to handle this better. From my perspective, the 'principle' is giving a tithe, the 'application' (that should be determined by each giver in his heart) may be paying it out of every income.

Some folk fast regularly as well - some do on the first day of every month (i.e. it is regular), some do at a set period each year. I don't think giving tithes monthly from every income deviates at all from practices like prayer and fasting.

What I think you are saying (please correct me if I'm wrong) is that tithing on a regular basis out of every income should NOT be elevated/treated as a principle, while[b] leaving everything else (prayer & fasting) free to interpretation when it comes to frequency[/b].

Elevating monthly tithing as such may lead to genuine concerns about the motives behind such an elevation, and rightly so.

nlMediator:

So, even if God prompted Abram to tithe, it doesn’t mean that he prompted him to tithe on everything he gets, all the time. Just as God can prompt somebody to give thanksgiving offering, because it is a good thing, but we don’t establish a practice of thanksgiving every time something good happens. Or if God prompted Jesus to fast for 40 days and 40 nights, we now teach that every christian needs to do that once a year. Or if God told somebody to pray at night, and the person sees the benefits, we now establish a principle that God wants us to pray every night. My point is that God can prompt us to do something without it being interpreted to mean that He wants us to do it all the time. That being the case, voluntary tithing, in the sense of tithing when you are led or on certain occasions is the only thing we can establish with the universal practice of tithing. So, can somebody then show me the basis for saying that the principle is paying tithes out of every income, instead of occasionally, since that deviates from what we do with such other things as prayer, fasting that we admit are good for us?

My brother, if this post was meant for Joagbaje, you are wasting your time. Jo is bent on 'milking' the congregation The Abrahamic tithe thing is just a front, pastors need money and they will do whatever it takes to get it out of the congregation.

debosky:

Excellent post NlMediator.

I'd like to respond to a few things

I agree completely. In the same vein, we should also be open to accepting that some believe they are led to do so regularly.

This may be a matter of semantics, but I'll leave linguistic experts like WT to handle this better. From my perspective, the 'principle' is giving a tithe, the 'application' (that should be determined by each giver in his heart) may be paying it out of every income.

Some folk fast regularly as well - some do on the first day of every month (i.e. it is regular), some do at a set period each year. I don't think giving tithes monthly from every income deviates at all from practices like prayer and fasting.

What I think you are saying (please correct me if I'm wrong) is that tithing on a regular basis out of every income should NOT be elevated/treated as the principle, while leaving everything else free to interpretation when it comes to frequency. Elevating monthly tithing as such may lead to genuine concerns about the motives behind such an elevation, and rightly so.

Yes, you captured my sentiments accurately. Thanks!

This is where (and perhaps why) I like to allow people to hold their own opnions and conclusions - especially because I learn awhole lot from everyone.

debosky:

This may be a matter of semantics, but I'll leave linguistic experts like WT to handle this better. From my perspective, the 'principle' is giving a tithe, the 'application' (that should be determined by each giver in his heart) may be paying it out of every income.

That line in your comment is very captivating and exhilarating for me! Good point about the 'principle' and 'application' - you have a way of putting things in perspective and in very few words.

However, I do not hold so much that tithes (even voluntarily given) be out of every income. I recognize that you didn't say that it must be so; but in some other practical situations it may be all well to give from some sources of income. That's just an opinion, as I'm only speaking from experiences I've seen in some Christians' lives.

Zikkyy:

My brother, if this post was meant for Joagbaje, you are wasting your time. Jo is bent on 'milking' the congregation The Abrahamic tithe thing is just a front, pastors need money and they will do whatever it takes to get it out of the congregation.

wordtalk:

However, I do not hold so much that tithes (even voluntarily given) be out of every income. I recognize that you didn't say that it must be so; but in some other practical situations it may be all well to give from some sources of income. That's just an opinion, as I'm only speaking from experiences I've seen in some Christians' lives.

I agree as well - the import of my comment was that, regardless of how you and I or anyone else feel about a particular 'application', it is perfectly valid for someone to decide in his/her heart that not a single cent will pass through his/her hands without giving a tithe.

Such an individual should be free to do so, without being castigated for his/her action. That person may not exhibiting the same regularity with other practices, but we are not called to conformity, beyond one Faith, one Father, one Lord and one Baptism.

This one stands over and above everything I have tried to say:

debosky:

. . . but we are not called to conformity, beyond one Faith, one Father, one Lord and one Baptism.

God bless you very much for that!

debosky:

I agree as well - the import of my comment was that, regardless of how you and I or anyone else feel about a particular 'application', it is perfectly valid for someone to decide in his/her heart that not a single cent will pass through his/her hands without giving a tithe.

Such an individual should be free to do so, without being castigated for his/her action. That person may , not exhibiting the same regularity with other practices, but we are not called to conformity, beyond one Faith, one Father, one Lord and one Baptism.

You my friend have nailed this thread effectively. Nice Posting.

It's only sad that some insidious individuals hare telling people they are "robbing" God if you dont pass over your monetory valuables. They are actually acting as baillifs for God, such is the intensity of some prosperity "teachers".

I have to admit that this blog has opened my eyes and I have learned much from it.

However, isn't it odd that I can find no websites or sermons where voluntary tithing is taught where anyone says you can tithe on whatever you want, wherever you want, and do it only once or as often as you wish, EXCEPT on this blog?

The "mainstream" Christian does not see voluntary tithing this way.  The vast majority of Christians who believe tithing is an option, or voluntary, believe it must be on their gross income, every week or month or year.  I see no one trying to educate these people.

You may find one pastor here and one there that teaches voluntary tithing as we have come up with here, but those are definitely in the minority.  The majority teach tithing on gross income from every source of income and every time you get income.

If a person is taught that tithing IS (must be) a tenth of their income, then whether it is taught as mandatory or voluntary, it is still false teaching, and that teaching should be corrected and/or flat out condemned.

If those teaching voluntary tithing as we have concluded here, I would have no problem with it.  But in the vast majority of cases it isn't taught that way.  Therefore, I have a problem with teaching voluntary tithing UNLESS the whole truth is told.

All this rigmarole really would be unnecessary if Christians and especially the preachers/teachers/"pastors" would really and truly follow or teach according to the simple New Testament message of 2 Corinthians 9:7 interpreted in accordance with Jesus' teaching and emphasis on helping the needy, Paul's stressing of helping poor Christians and general consensus of supporting churches' reasonable* financial costs.

Each man should give what he has decided in his heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.

PS @ garyarnold, did you know of this: https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-676553.0.html#msg8403977



* i.e. NOT extravagant.

garyarnold:

If those teaching voluntary tithing as we have concluded here, I would have no problem with it.  But in the vast majority of cases it isn't taught that way.  Therefore, I have a problem with teaching voluntary tithing UNLESS the whole truth is told.

If you feel so strongly about this issue, then the best way to help would be to consistently offer more teaching to present this alternate view of tithing. I still do not agree 'whole truth' issue - those teaching tithing from their point of view do not have any obligation to cover every aspect of tithing before their views are valid.  As long as there is no claim that theirs is the ONLY way tithing is acceptable to God, then they have done nothing wrong.

You can do promote such teaching without castigating others that haven't covered this area and without demanding that they edit their sites to reflect your view.

PS @ garyarnold, did you know of this: https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-676553.0.html#msg8403977

I participated in that blog.

Voluntary tithes can never be a HOLY tithe.  A HOLY tithe had to come from the Holy land.

@garyarnold

I meant did you know that Russ Kelly once posted on this site --- at least, I believe it was him. 

EDIT PS sorry, I understand you now; you mean you participated in that debate.

I still do not agree 'whole truth' issue - those teaching tithing from their point of view do not have any obligation to cover every aspect of tithing before their views are valid.

Presenting only a part of the truth might be seen as lying by some.

I graduated from college with a Bachelor of Science degree AS AN ATHEIST.  What was it that convinced me there was no God?  My college courses, where evolution was the ONLY theory presented.  When only one side is presented, one cannot make an intelligent decision.

If the ONLY example given for voluntary tithing is on one's income, many will reach the wrong conclusion that only income is used for tithing.

The whole issue of voluntary tithing is a farce as far as I am concerned because it is nothing by voluntary giving.  I can voluntarily give whatever amount I want, of anything I want, to whomever I want, whether it be a tenth of something or not.  WHY is it necessary to include a percentage in the giving?  IT IS NOTHING BUT A FARCE USED BY THOSE WHO WANT TO "THINK" THEY ARE DOING SOMETHING SPECIAL.  IT IS ALL ABOUT THE TITHER AND HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH GOD.  MAKES ONE FEEL GOOD.  Doesn't change the FACT that the tithe one gives today has NOTHING to do with any of the three tithes God commanded.  It is done for SELFISH reasons.  To make one feel good.

It's not following any example from Jesus.  It's not following Abram's example unless it is done on war spoils, and done one time only.  It's not following Jacob's example of a vow.  It is a farce to encourage giving of one's income.

garyarnold:

The whole issue of voluntary tithing is a farce as far as I am concerned because it is nothing by voluntary giving.

This just sums up the base of a rigid anti-tithing preoccupation. You have said earlier that "If those teaching voluntary tithing as we have concluded here, I would have no problem with it", and honest to God I suspected that such a statement had nothing to it - and you just proved yourself. WHY is it that those who say that "if voluntary tithing is preached as" they have seen it somewhere (like on this forum) would go on to claim that they have no problem with it - only to come back denying what they have just claimed?

I don't see anyone compelling you to tithe voluntarily - but to turn round and castigate what you say 'you don't have problems with' is doing you no good at all: at best, it simply deflates your own claims.

debosky:

If you feel so strongly about this issue, then the best way to help would be to consistently offer more teaching to present this alternate view of tithing.

That is the whole wonder about it, isn't it? If some of these folks truly "have no problems with" voluntary tithing as they have read here, why do they at the same time have serious problems encouraging the very thing they claim to be okay with? Is it not strange that they demand "whole truth" from others when they themselves are not willing to see alternative sides of the "truth"?

It is like the analogy garyarnold used between atheism and evolution. His concern was that the alternative side was not given a hearing - and that was what led him to change his mind from his previous perception. He did not glibly say that, well. . . since the alternative side has been told, he had "no problems" with it - but it was all still a farce! Tell me, would he have changed his mind to embrace what he formerly rejected?

As long as anti-tithers say that they have no problems with voluntary tithes/tithing, I don't think that some are actually ready to embrace it. For them, it is still a farce (or worse) - and one wonders what grounds they then have to demand "whole truth" from others when they are rejecting what they say they have no problems with? Something is patently wrong with that kind of attitude.

wordtalk:

This just sums up the base of a rigid anti-tithing preoccupation. You have said earlier that "If those teaching voluntary tithing as we have concluded here, I would have no problem with it", and honest to God I suspected that such a statement had nothing to it - and you just proved yourself. WHY is it that those who say that "if voluntary tithing is preached as" they have seen it somewhere (like on this forum) would go on to claim that they have no problem with it - only to come back denying what they have just claimed?

I don't see anyone compelling you to tithe voluntarily - but to turn round and castigate what you say 'you don't have problems with' is doing you no good at all: at best, it simply deflates your own claims.

^^ Well it does seem there are two views of voluntary tithing here; my presumption is that the voluntary tithing that garyarnold supports is that in which the tither can give the tithe in a form other than money and/or outside "church". I believe this is what he means by "what we have concluded here".

In that case, it would make sense if he criticises 'voluntary' tithing that does not meet that standard.

Enigma:

^^ Well it does seem there are two views of voluntary tithing here; my presumption is that the voluntary tithing that garyarnold supports is that in which the tither can give the tithe in a form other than money and/or outside "church". I believe this is what he means by "what we have concluded here".

I don't know; but I can bet the world trade center a dozen times that garyarnold's anti-tithing arguments have ABSOLUTELY NO PLACE for even a hint of ANY KIND OF TITHING. NONE. He may say that "voluntary tithing" is okay or that he has "no problems" with a certain kind of "voluntary tithing" - but the same chap comes back a few short breathes and totally backflips from his claim to being okay with "voluntary tithing" at any level.

I'm not putting him on spot or demand that he adjusts his seatbelt - No. What I marvel at is his being "okay" with something and then totally condeming the same thing!

In that case, it would make sense if he criticises 'voluntary' tithing that does not meet that standard.

I think even you would have read the same garyarnold saying that "NOBODY, ABSOLUTELY NOBODY" gives or pays the "Biblical tithes" TODAY. (Sorry about the emphasis). He has made such claims numerous times that I wonder what "standard" of voluntary tithing would satisfy him at any level? What type of tithing would garyarnold recommend to anybody - "standard" or not - that we could consider and apply in our lives as Christians today?

garyarnold:

Presenting only a part of the truth might be seen as lying by some.

I agree - however I don't necessarily think that is the case here. If I present my opinion on how I give tithe, why am I obligated to explain every possible way others might give tithe? As long as I have not precluded other possibilities, then others are free to make up their minds.

This is different from someone teaching that preachers MUST ALWAYS be paid from the ministries they serve, while ignoring the example set by Paul supporting himself.

I graduated from college with a Bachelor of Science degree AS AN ATHEIST.  What was it that convinced me there was no God?  My college courses, where evolution was the ONLY theory presented.  When only one side is presented, one cannot make an intelligent decision.

The bible is available to all Christians - anyone who accepts a teaching without checking for himself has only himself to blame. This applies not just to tithing, but to every teaching out there.

If the ONLY example given for voluntary tithing is on one's income, many will reach the wrong conclusion that only income is used for tithing.

Give people credit and don't assume they can't think for themselves. Secondly, we have already established that this is not the ONLY example given - if nothing else, this thread is evidence that other views and examples are being presented.

We might also say that since the predominant day of worship is on Sunday, many will come to the wrong conclusion that only Sundays should be the accepted day of worship. Those who read their bibles will find out that isn't the case and will find out the truth. You can't eliminate the potential for confusion or wrong interpretation, all you can do is provide guidance.

The whole issue of voluntary tithing is a farce as far as I am concerned because it is nothing by voluntary giving.  I can voluntarily give whatever amount I want, of anything I want, to whomever I want, whether it be a tenth of something or not.  WHY is it[b] necessary[/b] to include a percentage in the giving?

No one deems it necessary - that is why it is voluntary in the first place. However, you cannot wish away the tithing that occurred in the OT and stop people from using those examples to guide their giving today. People are interested in giving tithe, so it is only reasonable for examples on how to give tithes to emerge.

 IT IS NOTHING BUT A FARCE USED BY THOSE WHO WANT TO "THINK" THEY ARE DOING SOMETHING SPECIAL.  IT IS ALL ABOUT THE TITHER AND HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH GOD.  MAKES ONE FEEL GOOD.  Doesn't change the FACT that the tithe one gives today has NOTHING to do with any of the three tithes God commanded.  It is done for SELFISH reasons.  To make one feel good.

I disagree with your opinion - you are in no place to deem an individual's action special or otherwise, neither are you in a position to determine how a person's actions are received by God. Stick to things you have control over and stop trying to tell people how to think.

It's not following any example from Jesus.  It's not following Abram's example unless it is done on war spoils, and done one time only.  It's not following Jacob's example of a vow.  It is a farce to encourage giving of one's income.

Again, this is your opinion, which is not enforceable on anyone. I have tithed previously and I believe I was following Abram's example - if you disagree, you are free to do so. What you think in this case is quite immaterial beyond being your personal opinion.

I think post #343 above is a misrepresentation of garyarnold's view

He does not believe in "tithing" as taught; he believes it is not even right to use the word tithing BUT if what some of us have concluded is voluntary tithing is what it is he doesn't mind but for himself considers it meaningless to use the word tithe.

I don't think that is an unreasonable position for him to hold.

^^ No problem. I just wondered that someone could be so vehemently opposed to tithing while claiming that he has no problems with "voluntary tithing" - yet come back to log issues even with what he should have no problems with. As debosky well put it, conformity is not the goal; and if I find something to be "okay", I think it would only be fair and safe to encourage it rather than give people the idea that it is meaningless.

But it's all good.

He has no problem with voluntary tithing if it means the tither can give tenth of anything anywhere.

I think it remains logical for him to have problems with voluntary tithing that means something else ----- on that obviously I am in agreement with him.

If I present my opinion on how I give tithe, why am I obligated to explain every possible way others might give tithe?

Giving ONE example of tithing on income is not proper in my opinion. Yet, no one would be obligated to explain every possible way. How about just two or three EXAMPLES, and call them examples.

I have no problem with someone tithing as we concluded on this blog IF THEY FULLY UNDERSTAND that tithing can be on anything, given to anyone, and only once or as often as they wish. I wouldn't criticize that giving. I would, however, think it absolutely silly to call it tithing since everyone on this blog seems to concur that tithing means absolutely nothing more than giving a tenth of something. Since giving is supposed to be secret, WHY in heck does anyone need to use the word "tithe" other than to get an acknowledgment from either God and/or man? To me its the same thing the Pharisees did - bragging.

garyarnold:

Giving ONE example of tithing on income is not proper in my opinion. Yet, no one would be obligated to explain every possible way. How about just two or three EXAMPLES, and call them examples.

This is absolutely meaningless. An example qualifies as an example - even if it is ONLY ONE example. Demanding more than one before it makes an example is setting an unfounded demand that is unwarranted and dishonest. Jesus died ONLY ONCE on the Cross - and the apostle Peter effectively points to that as AN EXAMPLE for Christians (1 Peter 2:21ff). It would make absolutely no sense at all for us to be looking for up to three so-called "examples" of Christ dying on the Cross before that qualifies as your desired example!

I have no problem with someone tithing as we concluded on this blog IF THEY FULLY UNDERSTAND that tithing can be on anything, given to anyone, and only once or as often as they wish.

If that is what you recommend, why is it that you have been all out against any hint of tithing? I do not have a problem with your compromise since there's nothing you can argue against voluntary tithing. Those of us who have been trying to share our views on voluntary tithing do not have to conform to your own "standards" before you can pay heed to the simplicity of tithing done "voluntarily". It would make no sense for us to decry "compulsory tithing" and then begin to set up criteria and definitions of "compulsory" only to end up with the idea that "compulsory is not compulsory" unless it is meets our own "standards" of "definition".

There was no need to have gone this far with all this back and forth oon very simple matters. As long as people are not made to come under any form of compulsion, that is enough to let them do whatever they want to do in a voluntary manner. No need to begin all this unnecessary seacrh of enquiry as to whether another man's "voluntary" whatnots meets our own "definition2 of voluntary.

I would, however, think it absolutely silly to call it tithing since everyone on this blog seems to concur that tithing means absolutely nothing more than giving a tenth of something. Since giving is supposed to be secret, WHY in heck does anyone need to use the word "tithe" other than to get an acknowledgment from either God and/or man? To me its the same thing the Pharisees did - bragging.

A thousand million times WRONG. On the one hand, many who tithe voluntarily are not seeking approval from you or anyone else. Second, anti-tithers would not bother to find out what anyone else does if they truly believe in the discreet manner in which others may choose to give. Afterall, I have read you boasting in other places of how you give "far-far-far-far above" 10% - and I'm sure that made you feel "good" and somewhat braggadocio. In this regard, you have no right to turn your nose down on anyone else on what you yourself are guilty of doing!

garyarnold:

If I present my opinion on how I give tithe, why am I obligated to explain every possible way others might give tithe?

Giving ONE example of tithing on income is not proper in my opinion. Yet, no one would be obligated to explain every possible way. How about just two or three EXAMPLES, and call them examples.

So before I can express my opinion on how to tithe I must give three examples? That is an unrealistic expectation - what if the one way I give is the only one I am aware of? Not everyone is as sophisticated or as knowledgeable as you are - will you now dissuade folk from sharing their own personal experience with tithing unless they satisfy YOUR requirement for multiple examples?

I have no problem with someone tithing as we concluded on this blog IF THEY FULLY UNDERSTAND that tithing can be on anything, given to anyone, and only once or as often as they wish. I wouldn't criticize that giving. I would, however, think it absolutely silly to call it tithing since everyone on this blog seems to concur that tithing means absolutely nothing more than giving a tenth of something.

Whether they fully understand or not, as long as their giving is accepted by God, there is no issue. Knowledge about God is progressive - the fact that I do something with partial knowledge today doesn't render it unacceptable to God, which is the key here.

Whether it is called tithing or not is immaterial - your big hang up with the usage of this term isn't really beneficial.

Since giving is supposed to be secret, WHY in heck does anyone need to use the word "tithe" other than to get an acknowledgment from either God and/or man? To me its the same thing the Pharisees did - bragging.

It is the motive of disclosing the tithing that matters here.

If my motive is not to brag but to inspire (not coerce) others to do likewise and thus increase giving to God's kingdom (be it directly to a church or otherwise) then it remains a good thing.

I do understand your concern about it becoming a 'show' for others to see how much you give, and we must all guard against this and carefully examine our motives.

Finally, giving is not necessarily in secret - when folk sold their homes and brought the money to the apostles/shared their possessions, it was done in public.

An example qualifies as an example - even if it is ONLY ONE example.

Only IF it is labeled as an example and not written to infer that it is the only way.

I don't brag about my giving. The problem is that anti-tithers are constantly being accused of being stingy. I try to make the point that I am not stingy and in fact give far more than most tithers, percentage wise.

There is no other reason for using "voluntary tithing" other than to let others know what you are doing. You must want others to know you are giving a tenth or you wouldn't need to use the word tithe. You don't need to advertise the percentage that you give. Giving is between you and God.