debosky:

I disagree - if we take other actions of Abraham as evidence/symbolism of things to come - his faith, his circumcision, his encounter with Melchizedek, why can't a tithe (albeit recorded as a one-off) by Abraham serve as inspiration for people today?

What I would say is that it is unlikely that 'modern tithing' (whatever this specific definition is) could have arisen solely from Abram/Abraham's example, without reference to practices under the law, just as any aspect of Christian doctrine (including broader giving) cannot be completely extricated from practices under the law.

It depends on how 'rigid' or literal you choose to be in applying this principle/example

If Abram gave his own tithe 'voluntarily' to the priest and you choose this as your reference/principle/example, then you will be inclined to believe that the 10% should go to such a priestly representative of God, as Pastors are regarded by many.

Abram didn't exhibit various types of 'tithing' - i.e. splitting that 10% between various recipients, so it follows that a literal adherence to the Abram 'principle' will not be supportive of spreading this giving outside the priestly representative of God.

Unfortunately, you are still missing my/our point.

OK let me ask you one of the questions that we have posed so far; this even assumes that the "tithes" are to be taken in/to church --- as symbolising high priest.  

If we are practising tithing based on Abram's example, can we choose to do it with anything other than money or must it be only money?

debosky:

I disagree - if we take other actions of Abraham as evidence/symbolism of things to come - his faith, his circumcision, his encounter with Melchizedek, why can't a tithe (albeit recorded as a one-off) by Abraham serve as inspiration for people today?

Ah! Thank you for being so simple and full of good sense!

What I would say is that it is unlikely that 'modern tithing' (whatever this specific definition is) could have arisen solely from Abram/Abraham's example, without reference to practices under the law, just as any aspect of Christian doctrine (including broader giving) cannot be completely extricated from practices under the law.

Wonderful! I wonder why this is sooooo difficult for some to grasp! The reality is that MOST Christian doctrines taught by the NT apostles were derived FROM THE LAW OF MOSES and from the lives of the OT prophets and covenant people. We cannot deny that. When people miss this fact, they then argue that we cannot use the Law as the basis of our giving in the NT! That is because they most probably do not realise that it is the same Law of Moses that NT giving is based!

wordtalk:

When people miss this fact, they then argue that we cannot use the Law as the basis of our giving in the NT! That is because they most probably do not realise that it is the same Law of Moses that NT giving is based!

Even so, the new covenant is based on the foundation of the Old Testament. As Christians we cannot begin to disenfranchise ourselves from the Old Testament as Scripture for the very reason that Christianity is based on the OT!

Enigma:

Unfortunately, you are still missing my/our point.

OK let me ask you one of the questions that we have posed so far; this even assumes that the "tithes" are to be taken in/to church --- as symbolising high priest.  

If we are practising tithing based on Abram's example, can we choose to do it with anything other than money or must it be only money?

debosky, how far now? You no see my question?

@Debosky:

Multiple conversations are taking place simultaneously here but I plead your indulgence over the following

I disagree - if we take other actions of Abraham as evidence/symbolism of things to come - his faith, his circumcision, his encounter with Melchizedek, why can't a tithe (albeit recorded as a one-off) by Abraham serve as inspiration for people today?

Would you OR wordtalk THEN accept his "one-off" tithe as inspiration for us to also be "one-off" tithers today? Of course, I premise that query on the idea that he started it off and "is" our example which would mean we FOLLOW his lead.

Seeing as his example is found explicitly stated in the Word and nobody is supposed to add to that word!

Maybe that question clarifies the "other" position!

wordtalk:

Even so, the new covenant is based on the foundation of the Old Testament. As Christians we cannot begin to disenfranchise ourselves from the Old Testament as Scripture for the very reason that Christianity is based on the OT!

Correcto! The NT is founded on the OT. However, every christian realizes that the OT is a shadow of things to come and act accordingly. Take for example. The OT talks about honoring your parents, but people went about it in certain ways. In the NT, we follow the same principle of honoring our parents, but not with a literal application of the OT pattern. In every NT practice, that's what we do. It's only when it comes to tithes and tithing that people insist on following it the same OT way - same percentage, given to support your local church (not other churches or ministries) etc. Can somebody explain to me why tithing is so different? Why was it so difficult for Paul, writing to non-Jews, to ask them to give 10% instead of making a general reference to OT? Was he that general and unclear in other areas?

BTW, I don't mind paying or giving tithes - like many I think 10% is too small. But I want to have a firm foundation for my beliefs. And if possible, I don't want to be under any kind of bondage, which makes it wrong for me to give 5% today and 40% tomorrow.

wordtalk:

After all the heat, people begin to compromise with suspicions at one another. The non-eaters or anti-eaters say that "it is okay" to eat "voluntarily" and not "compulsorily". Those who enjoy their meals with thanksgiving say that they do so voluntarily. Then all hell is let loose because for the anti-eaters, "voluntary" is not "voluntary" unless the eaters bend to the terms and definitive manipulations of the anti-eaters!

Now that was funny

debosky:

if we take other actions of Abraham as evidence/symbolism of things to come - his faith, his circumcision, his encounter with Melchizedek, why can't a tithe (albeit recorded as a one-off) by Abraham serve as inspiration for people today?

Of course Abraham's act can serve as inspiration. The problem is how will somebody like Joagbaje preach 'inspirational tithing' without having to threaten/coerce/manipulate the flock

nlMediator:

Correcto! The NT is founded on the OT. However, every christian realizes that the OT is a shadow of things to come and act accordingly. Take for example. The OT talks about honoring your parents, but people went about it in certain ways. In the NT, we follow the same principle of honoring our parents, but not with a literal application of the OT pattern. In every NT practice, that's what we do.

That's a good point.

It's only when it comes to tithes and tithing that people insist on following it the same OT way - same percentage, given to support your local church (not other churches or ministries) etc. Can somebody explain to me why tithing is so different? Why was it so difficult for Paul, writing to non-Jews, to ask them to give 10% instead of making a general reference to OT? Was he that general and unclear in other areas?

You should know that tithing didn't originate with the Jews. It's based on principles of faith . Just like offerings or prayers . Is offerings done away. Why 10% only God knows. Besides it's so minute when compared to other givings we do. Tithing seem to be the least of our givings.

BTW, I don't mind paying or giving tithes - like many I think 10% is too small. But I want to have a firm foundation for my beliefs. And if possible, I don't want to be under any kind of bondage, which makes it wrong for me to give 5% today and 40% tomorrow.

At least the ten . I do give above ten. Let God owe me. And I know many others who do the same. Some give 20 or 30 %

Joagbaje:

Is prayer compulsory or voluntary? Whatever the answer , same goes or tithing

Enigma:

^^^ OK prayer IS compulsory.

So, please answer this direct: is tithing compulsory?

Oya now answer question, abi fear still dey catch you?

Why will a god fear a fly . You've answered for yourself

Your own na to do fraud and deceive; when it come to intelligent discussion, na to pick race. No problem, long may you be the slave of your "spiritual vagabond" and "bastard" master.

Joagbaje:

Why 10% only God knows. Besides it's so minute when compared to other givings we do. Tithing seem to be the least of our givings.

you see yourself na you are practicing what you don't understand since nobody told you to give 10% of your monthly income to the church, it's wrong for you to say it's God that knows

Enigma:

Your own na to do fraud and deceive; when it come to intelligent discussion, na to pick race. No problem, long may you be the slave of your "spiritual vagabond" and "bastard" master.

What's intelligent to you? Your charge and bail style?

@ Enigma no vex oh, I've been busy entertaining a little girl - full time work.

Enigma:

Unfortunately, you are still missing my/our point.

OK let me ask you one of the questions that we have posed so far; this even assumes that the "tithes" are to be taken in/to church --- as symbolising high priest.  

If we are practising tithing based on Abram's example, can we choose to do it with anything other than money or must it be only money?

The answer is very clear - Abram tithed spoils of war, which would comprise of a variety of things and is definitely not limited to money. If Abram's tithe was not restricted to money but was a tithe of 'all' as it were, then clearly the tithing today can be practised using anything that belongs or can be offered by the tither - be it money, time, food, services and so on.

Ok, oh e good and thank you oh; and I gree ya answer too.

But if you fit helep us make you also answer nuclearboy hin own question about Abram tithe too; thank you very muchly!

nuclearboy:

@Debosky:

Multiple conversations are taking place simultaneously here but I plead your indulgence over the following

Would you OR wordtalk THEN accept his "one-off" tithe as inspiration for us to also be "one-off" tithers today? Of course, I premise that query on the idea that he started it off and "is" our example which would mean we FOLLOW his lead.

Of course it can. It can inspire one-off tithing just as it can also inspire regular tithing as determined in the heart of the giver. Since what we are following is a voluntary example, I believe individuals have the liberty of either rigidly following the example (hopefully not going to war ) or using it to guide their giving on a regular basis.

Seeing as his example is found explicitly stated in the Word and nobody is supposed to add to that word!

I am not advocating adding to the word in any sense - to my mind, if we are looking at an example of voluntary giving, I don't think there is any requirement to strictly follow what Abram did. This should be obvious because to require strict compliance to Abram's act as the only valid way of following his example takes away the voluntary nature of the whole exercise.

Taken to the extreme, one could then even say you can only tithe 'the Abram way' when you go to war and reap spoils and surely no one is advocating that.

Dayua!

If so why has it been difficult to get honest, straightforward, clear and direct answers to the following two questions, for example?


1. Is the "voluntary" tithing to be done only using money or can it be done in any other form e.g. with food crops, clothing etc?

2. Is the "voluntary" tithing to be done only by giving money (or any other thing acceptable) in/to "church" or can the tither instead choose to give the "tithe" to widows, orphans or other needy charitable causes?

debosky:

@ Enigma no vex oh, I've been busy entertaining a little girl - full time work.

The answer is very clear - Abram tithed spoils of war, which would comprise of a variety of things and is definitely not limited to money. If Abram's tithe was not restricted to money but was a tithe of 'all' as it were, then clearly the tithing today can be practised using anything that belongs or and so on. can be offered by the tither - be it money, time, food, services

I dont know if you would agree with me but the words that I bolded sounds like charity to me. Charity in the sense where one can give anything to the poor, and needy.

Yet, some "Pastor" said charity is just an extra requirement for the Church.

One more thing, if tithing can be Money, time, food, services and so on, how come most Churches distribute "envelopes" and specifically tell people to hand in their tithes to the "Alter" ? Why could't they just encourage the types of tithes you described and call it exactly that - Tithes-

Just wondering?

(You dont have to answer, since you are not responsible for these churches) ,they are more like rhetorics

debosky:

@ Enigma no vex oh, I've been busy entertaining a little girl - full time work.

The answer is very clear - Abram tithed spoils of war, which would comprise of a variety of things and is definitely not limited to money. If Abram's tithe was not restricted to money but was a tithe of 'all' as it were, then clearly the tithing today can be practised using anything that belongs or can be offered by the tither - be it money, time, food, services and so on.

[size=13pt]And also the only tithe Abram paid was from the spoils of war, the question now is, is our income spoils of war or is our work and income a Gift from God [/size]

MrBible:

[size=13pt]And also the only tithe Abram paid was from the spoils of war, the question now is, is our income spoils of war [/size]

Oh Lord! Why do people have to get so rigid like this? It is like saying also that since the only passover in Israel were animals, is our Christian Passover supposed to be an animal as well?

MrBible:

[size=13pt]And also the only tithe Abram paid was from the spoils of war, the question now is, is our income spoils of war or is it a Gift from God [/size]

My view is that the crucial aspect is that the spoils of war belonged to Abram, hence he had control/ownership over it and hence could give it to God as tithe, essentially as an act of worship.

In that sense, regardless of what you own, you can give a portion (be it a tithe, 1% or 90%) of it to God as an act of worship. That to me is the essence of Abram's example, not a the specifics of what he gave.

The above applies if you agree with the voluntary tithing view.

dare2think:

I dont know if you would agree with me but the words that I bolded sounds like charity to me. Charity in the sense where one can give anything to the poor, and needy.

I agree completely - charity, giving, whatever you call it is the key, which is why I am not a supporter of people having to tithe as a separate form of giving. To my mind they are all one and the same.

debosky:

My view is that the crucial aspect is that the spoils of war belonged to Abram, hence he had control/ownership over it and hence could give it to God as tithe, essentially as an act of worship.

In that sense, regardless of what you own, you can give a portion (be it a tithe, 1% or 90%) of it to God as an act of worship. That to me is the essence of Abram's example, not a the specifics of what he gave.

The above applies if you agree with the voluntary tithing view.

I agree completely - charity, giving, whatever you call it is the key, which is why I am not a supporter of people having to tithe as a separate form of giving. To my mind they are all one and the same.

Dayua!

Enigma:

Dayua!

If so why has it been difficult to get honest, straightforward, clear and direct answers to the following two questions, for example?


1. Is the "voluntary" tithing to be done only using money or can it be done in any other form e.g. with food crops, clothing etc?

2. Is the "voluntary" tithing to be done only by giving money (or any other thing acceptable) in/to "church" or can the tither instead choose to give the "tithe" to widows, orphans or other needy charitable causes?

I'm not sure if this is directed at me or not, but I'll answer anyway!

As it is voluntary in nature, it can be done in the ways you've described, as well as in any other form determined by the giver. The acceptability or otherwise is left to God.

wordtalk:

Oh Lord! Why do people have to get so rigid like this? It is like saying also that since the only passover in Israel were animals, is our Christian Passover supposed to be an animal as well?

Isreal gave first fruits as a memorial of their deliverance from Egypt . But Abel was the first Perron to offer first fruits but he didn't have any deliverance from Egypt. The reasons and structures were different. But the principles are the same. They gave first fruits to God.

debosky:

I'm not sure if this is directed at me or not, but I'll answer anyway!

As it is voluntary in nature, it can be done in the ways you've described, as well as in any other form determined by the giver. The acceptability or otherwise is left to God.

^^^Thank you very muchly --- "A Daniel comes to judgment!"

The questions were first asked on page 3 ---- about the third post I made on the thread. I assure you if they had been answered directly, honestly, straightforwardly and clearly as you did, for someone preaching/believing in "voluntary" tithing, the thread would not have dragged on my part or due to me!

debosky:

My view is that the crucial aspect is that the spoils of war belonged to Abram, hence he had control/ownership over it and hence could give it to God as tithe, essentially as an act of worship.

Glad to read the bold above. Some have argued forever that the spoils did not belong to Abraham. That would have been more problematic in reading Genesis 14. We do not find anyone giving tithes from something that they did not have any ownership or claims upon.

debosky:

I'm not sure if this is directed at me or not, but I'll answer anyway!

As it is voluntary in nature, it can be done in the ways you've described, as well as in any other form determined by the giver. The acceptability or otherwise is left to God.

May I add: that is when "voluntary" truly means voluntary!

^^

For me, the 'ultimate' guidance on giving is

2 Corinthians 9:7

"You must each decide in your heart how much to give. And don't give reluctantly or in response to pressure. "For God loves a person who gives cheerfully." NLT

By deciding in your heart, that is the ultimate example of voluntary giving.

^^^Again, thank you feri feri feri mushly!

Joagbaje:

Isreal gave first fruits as a memorial of their deliverance from Egypt . But Abel was the first Perron to offer first fruits but he didn't have any deliverance from Egypt. The reasons and structures were different. But the principles are the same. They gave first fruits to God.

You are saying first fruit is multi-purpose so why do your members (cec) offer first fruit?

debosky:

^^

For me, the 'ultimate' guidance on giving is

2 Corinthians 9:7

"You must each decide in your heart how much to give. And don't give reluctantly or in response to pressure. "For God loves a person who gives cheerfully." NLT

By deciding in your heart, that is the ultimate example of voluntary giving.

Not as decided by pastor, but by deciding in your heart well said, debosky