₦airaland Forum

Old tricks. I even answered anyway: spoils of war included slaves. So, did Abram (as he was) give a tithe of slaves?

Meanwhile, it does not lie in your mouth that someone may not want to answer a question --- considering how many times you've so far evaded answering the pretty simple questions and issues I raised.

wordtalk:
^^ The reason I ask these questions is simple: the default answer often given by those vehemently opposed to tithing is that all mention of tithes in the Bible are ONLY farm produce - nothing other than that.

If that were the case, I wonder what these folks make of "spoils of war" - were they also "farm produce"?

If you cannot deal with the questions/issues I raised please hands up, man up and admit it. As it is, you have no right or privilege now to expect any more answers from me. I asked you questions, you didn't answer; you asked me a question, I answered. You continue to refuse to deal with my queries, yet you want me to answer your self-defeating question of what was in the spoils of war. OK, included were slaves --- did he "tithe" slaves too?

Just because there might be people who genuinely seek to understand some of these things. Here is what would have made the distinction between Nicodemus at that time on the one hand and the discuples in Acts 19 and Cornelius (and his household) on the other hand.
John 3

19This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. 20Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. 21But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God.”

The Acts 19 believers as disciples and Cornelius as a God-fearing person lived by the truth and came into the light ------- that is being "born again".

^^^ The demons too believe that Jesus is the son of God ---- so they must be "born again"!

You forget the people in Acts 19 were believers and disciples. What was Nicodemus' line until he met Jesus?

wordtalk:
Please tell me: what did Abraham's tithes consist of?

OK, I will indulge you: Abraham gave a tithe (or tenth) of the spoils of war.

So please deal with the questions/issues I raised.

^^^^ Both garyarnold and myself agree with you that "tithe" means "tenth" ---- there is no debate there so please stop doing this obfuscation!

Instead, please tell us a "tithe" or "tenth" of what exactly are people now supposed to give or "pay"

Of crops grown in their gardens?

Of furniture produced by a carpenter?

Where in the Bible was a tithe or tenth of money or salary required or practised?

Above all, God said He didn't want the tithe in money!

Deal with these --- stop obfuscating with irrelevance!

You keep asking again and again the same questions that had been addressed; this has happened a number of times.

Cornelius was a "God-fearing" person; thus he believed in God. Most crucially, God found this acceptable!

Let's see if you will still ask the same question in a different way.


PS I did not respond to your John 2 point because it was another red herring --- if you are interested in it further please go and study what it could mean to say "Jesus did not entrust himself to them" ---- ask if a pastor "entrusts himself" to all "born agains" in his "church".

^^^ If "tithe" means a tenth, then a tenth of what exactly are people now supposed to give (edit: or is it "pay"?

A tithe or tenth of crops produced in their gardens?

A tithe of furniture produced by a carpenter?

Where in the Bible is a "tithe" of money or salary required or practised?

And God said He didn't want the tithe in money!

^^^ Just one question: when was Cornelius (and his household too for that matter) "born again"?

wordtalk:
. . . . It is true that people could be 'believers' and 'disciples' without being 'born again' in context of new covenant as found in the apostles' preaching.

On what basis would that be? And do show the examples from the apostles' preaching.

wordtalk:
The example in John 9:28 where some Jews affirmed that they were Moses' disciples but not disciples of Jesus is a case in point.

^I'm afraid this is a red herring. Here is the relevant bit from Acts 19

1And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples, 2He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed?

Since they believed what or whom? Put that together with them being "disciples", I don't think it is difficult to figure out what or whom they believed.

wordtalk:
As for Acts 19, I think we should be careful. The context is not that they had not heard anything about the existence of the Holy Spirit, since John the Baptist made clear that Jesus would baptize believers in the Holy Spirit (Matt. 3:11). Rather, it is clear that they had not heard of the fulfilment of the outpouring of the Spirit - compare John 7:39. If there was any promise that a Jew could not be oblivious of, it was that about the Holy Spirit, as Joel 2 recorded.

^The Acts 19 passage makes clear that the above interpolation is a glaring error of reading into scripture. Here

2He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.

wordtalk:
In Cornelius' case, I'm not sure one can easily assume that Cornelius was "born again" already before Peter met him. If it was just a matter of pouring out the Holy Spirit on Cornelius' household in Acts 10, it begs the question why Peter should have been sent to him.

When was Cornelius (and his household) "born again"? During Peter's preaching? Afterwards? After the Holy Ghost had already fallen on him/them?

wordtalk:
I'm thinking about how Peter himself understood the reason for his meeting up with Cornelius - let Peter explain it himself in Acts 11:13-14 --

Peter there was saying that his mission to Cornelius was to tell him words - words by which Cornelius and his family should be saved.

Now this is a very good point (possibly the best point of the post) and shows the importance of reading scriptures in context and as a whole. Yes, they were told the message by which they were to be "saved". Nonetheless, we Christians say: 'we are saved, we are being saved and we will be saved'. Of course, even as believers now, the message of the sacrificial death and resurrection of Jesus is the message by which we are saved, being saved and will be saved. Now read just a little further in the same passage in Acts 11

15“As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit came on them as he had come on us at the beginning. 16Then I remembered what the Lord had said: ‘John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’ 17So if God gave them the same gift as he gave us, who believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I to think that I could oppose God?”

wordtalk:
The question then is, if Cornelius was already saved (in context of being "born again", what sense would it make for Peter to have been sent yet to the same Cornelius to preach salvation to him? I'm not saying this is an easy question or that I have a more cogent answer - no. I'm just curious as to how someone who was already saved would still need to be preached unto, that is: to be told words by which he should be saved?

God had a far more important point or message for Peter (and for us) in that episode than just "preaching salvation" ------- a clear and express demonstration that the gospel is equally for the gentiles! You see it in Peter's statement from Acts 11 just quoted above. Even before that, you see it clearly in Peter's statement in Acts 10:34

34Then Peter began to speak: “I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism 35but accepts men from every nation who fear him and do what is right

Well garyarnold does have a point. The tithe preachers do need to explain what "tithe" or tenth means! In other words "tithe" or "tenth" of what?

Tithe of crops growing in one's garden?

Tithes of furniture made by a carpenter?

Otherwise, they will have to show where in the Bible "tithes" mean a tenth of money or a tenth of salary.

Oh, by the way, I recall that God said He didn't even want the tithe to be money!

5STAR:
these are different scenarios bro,

in Acts 19, these brethren were already born again, how do i know?, they answered the baptism of John, what was this?, it was the baptism of repentance, bible says the people came to John "confessing their sins"  Matt 3: 5-6, they confessed their sins and were baptised. Just as Paul told them this baptism was unto repentance, Acts 19 goes further in vs 5 , When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus, before he laid his hand on them, he would have preached Jesus to them and they had willingly accepted and believed.

So it is sufficient to be "born again" to believe in the baptism of John? So it is sufficient to be "born again" to believe in repentance and to repent? What then is "repentance" ---- is it not turning to God and walking in a Godly manner?

5STAR:
Now to the issue of when Cornelius became born again, we need to point out that being born again mustn't come as a response to an altar call, a necessary ingredient is the belief in God's sacrifice for sin as undertaken by Jesus Christ on the cross and the remission of sin by His blood,

the Bible says, vs 36-43, he preached Jesus to them, as they have heard and the fact that he died and rose again to fulfill prophecies which they sure have heard about, and they "believed". these were ready and willing hearts full of faith in what the "man of God" was speaking the Holy Ghost couldn't resist such invitation(as it were),

What is the difference between the case of the people in Acts 19 and that of Cornelius and his household?

5STAR:
bottom line , FAITH IN JESUS AND HIS ATONING SACRIFICE ON THE CROSS BRINGS SALVATION AND THEY HEARD IT FROM THE MOUTH OF PETER AND GOD SEALED THEM WITH THE HOLY GHOST TO SHOW HIS WILL

SOME PEOPLE CAN AND DO RECEIVE THE HOLY GHOST BEFORE WATER BAPTISM, BUT THE FOUNDATION IS BELIEF IN CHRIST JESUS

Several people in the Old Testament also "received" the Holy Ghost ----- before the physical advent of Jesus.

Edited

Addendum: maybe I should deal with the below now --

wordtalk:
Now, if Cornelius was already born again (following the same line of reasoning as in your quote above), why would Peter need to still go and preach to Cornelius if the latter as already 'born again anyway'?

Very simple: God wanted to demonstrate to Peter and the other apostles disciples that even non-Jews (i.e. "gentiles" are acceptable in the kingdom of God. It was not to make Cornelius "born again" through Peter's preaching. Instead, to demonstrate to Peter that Cornelius was already accepted even before/without Peter's preaching, God "showed" Peter "seniority" by pouring the Holy ghost on Cornelius and his household --- WITHOUT Peter making an "altar call" or the like.

Now let me show you an example of people who were "born again" already ---- well ahead of "receiving" the Holy Ghost.

Acts 19

1While Apollos was at Corinth, Paul took the road through the interior and arrived at Ephesus. There he found some disciples 2and asked them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?”

They answered, “No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.”

3So Paul asked, “Then what baptism did you receive?”

“John’s baptism,” they replied.

4Paul said, “John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus.” 5On hearing this, they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus. 6When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tonguesc and prophesied. 7There were about twelve men in all.

Here we have people who were believers and disciples i.e. already "born again" according to your line of reasoning. Yet they had not even heard of the Holy Ghost let alone "received" Him! They "received" the Holy Ghost much much later after they were "born again".

Compare Cornelius and when he too "received" the Holy Ghost.

I'm going to wait and see how things develop and perhaps much later tonight I will explain some things further about the Cornelius' story.

In the meantime, following your request, my point has been very simple: I ask you and others to consider the possibility that Cornelius was ALREADY "born again" before Peter came to his house to preach.

Very simple.

^^ First, at what point during Peter's preaching did Cornelius (and his household) get "born again"?

wordtalk:
I'm not sure what conclusions are being drawn in this consideration between someone's gifts being accepted and his being born again. But this should not escape our notice:

- a gift offering to the poor does not equate being born again
- if Cornelius was already "saved" by his offering, why did Peter yet have to go preach to him?
- if gifts to the poor translates as being born again, isn't that salvation by works?
- being devout and God-fearing does not mean being saved: see Nicodemus in John 3.

So, if the conclusions being reached by some is that gifts to the poor translates into being saved or born again, how then does that idea square with the thrust of the New Testament that salvation is not by any man's work? Just curious.

It's incredible how prosperity "gospel" people have tunnel vision and tend to only focus on things touching on "giving" and in particular to kick against giving to the poor!

Did my post not start with saying Cornelius was God-fearing? Should it not be obvious that a person who is "God-fearing" believes and has faith in God? Is it not the same faith that was credited to Abraham and that is credited to the followers of Jesus (as the final passages of that Roman 4 shows) that was recognised by God of (and, ergo, credited to) Cornelius even BEFORE Peter went to preach to him?

I'd like to add a couple of points for consideration.

Most of us believe in the Trinity doctrine i.e. there is ONE God consisting of three persons being the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Jesus said anyone who has "seen" him has "seen" the Father. Is it not possible to invert that i.e. anyone who has "seen" the Father has also "seen" Jesus? Think about it very carefully. Thus if a person in honesty seeks to please God the Father, responds to God the Father and seeks to walk in a manner pleasing to God the Father, will Jesus cast such a person out? Will Christ and the Holy Spirit not dwell in such a person?

Also, let us go back to Abraham. Many tell us today that they agree that "tithing" is not based on the law (or Malachi) but predated the law through Abraham. But they fail to connect that, similarly, it can be said that to be "born again" predated the law through Abraham. Let me show you.

Romans 4

1What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather, discovered in this matter? 2If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had something to boast about—but not before God. 3What does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.”

We have been saying that Abraham’s faith was credited to him as righteousness. 10[b]Under what circumstances was it credited? Was it after he was circumcised, or before? It was not after, but before![/b] 11And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the[b] righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised[/b]. So then, he is the father of all who believe but have not been circumcised, in order that righteousness might be credited to them. 12And he is also the father of the circumcised who not only are circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised.

23[b]The words “it was credited to him” were written not for him alone, 24but also for us, to whom God will credit righteousness[/b]—for us who believe in him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead. 25He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification.

So what do today's so called "born agains" have that Abraham didn't have ---- other than he lived before the days of Jesus' physical crucifixion?

^^^ Except that with regard to Cornelius, you conveniently "forgot" all of the following:

1At Caesarea there was a man named Cornelius, a centurion in what was known as the Italian Regiment. 2He and all his family were devout and God-fearing; he gave generously to those in need and prayed to God regularly. 3One day at about three in the afternoon he had a vision. He distinctly saw an angel of God, who came to him and said, “Cornelius!”

4Cornelius stared at him in fear. “What is it, Lord?” he asked.

The angel answered, “Your prayers and gifts to the poor have come up as a memorial offering before God. 5Now send men to Joppa to bring back a man named Simon who is called Peter.

Cornelius who was supposedly not "saved" or "born again"

- was devout and God-fearing
- he gave generously
- he prayed to God regularly
- his prayers and gifts to the poor have come up as a memorial offering before God (bold/highlight for benefit of "tithes" and "prosperity" fraudsters and their victims)

So, how did his prayers and offerings come up as a memorial before God, if he was not already acceptable and accepted in God's sight? In other words, even in his "unsaved" and "not born again" state, God found his actions acceptable!

Joagbaje:
Here we go again. WhAt has this got to do with prosperity. Why do you hate prosperity and use every opportunity to attack it. Is prosperity of the devil,

Besides the torture on those children is from their families .

The prosperity "gospel" is certainly of the devil.

njira:
@Enigma ~ i must say i apologize ~ my points were about giving to the Church and not specifically the 10% tithing ~ if i say so myself i have not really come to an understanding about the issue but am working on it

You really don't need to apologise. And I agree with you about giving to the "church" in the sense that the New Testament obligation of Christians is indeed giving which includes giving to support the upkeep of the place of worship, to fund the upkeep of "pastors" but more especially to help the poor and needy. There is no obligation on a Christian at all to "tithe".

Even the statement of Paul that the tithe fraudsters often like to quote was not about "tithing" but an appeal to people to give voluntarily whatever they could afford to give; not any particular percentage; certainly not a "tithe". More importantly, Paul was also actually lining up with Jesus asking us to give the to the poor. When the "tithe" fraudsters quote that statement of Paul, they never point out that the collection that Paul took was invariably for the support of poorer Christians ----- not for "pastors"; not to build a "church" or edifice; not to buy sound equipment; not to buy air conditioners and so on. If a church group wants these things, they can still ask their congregation with integrity to give voluntarily but generously to support them. What they must not do is to lie and resort to fraudulent preaching of "tithing".

njira:
. . . How do we give to God?

Let Jesus Christ Himself answer the question: Matthew 25

34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

   37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

   40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’

That is how Jesus prescribed that we should give to Him, that we should give to God!

Question is ---- will you believe and accept the words of Jesus or do you prefer to follow the lies of men?

njira:
Dare2think please allow me to add,


The Gospel has been entrusted to human beings to preach. It is not going to be preached by Angels, it is not going to be preached by ArcAngel Michael nor any other heavenly body. We, you and me, are the ones who are supposed to. I assure you that even if Paul was to be alive today or even any of the disciples that they would themselves also use the media that we use these days to preach the Gospel, which include radio, satelite t.v. and so forth,  and these cost money my dear,  and as a Body of Christ we are better off if we pool our resources together and do it united than every one of us starting their own t.v stations for example ~ that is the force of Wisdom my dear

They had needs for evangelism in the days of Jesus Himself; in the days of Paul, of Peter, of James, of John etc etc! So why did NONE of them ask for "tithes"?

^^ This is what Jesus said to those people who he was scolding for "tithing" ----- "woe  to you . . . you hypocrites."

Yeah, maybe for those kinds of people Jesus "endorsed" "tithing". However, Christians know that Jesus did not "endorse" tithing for them; He did not suggest tithing for Christians; He did not teach "tithing" for Christians; He did not demand "tithing" from Christians!

@OP

First of all how do you "get a man born again"? Is it human beings that make or get others born again?

Second, I don't think you really know the consequences of this being "born again" thing! If you understand Jesus Christ, you will realise that a person who is "born again" will not really concern himself as such with all these "prosperity" and material riches business.

^^^ I will love for you to flesh out this post properly. I believe that you are a member of Oyakhilome's CEC and accordingly I am interested in your view of two statements that would seem to contradict and undermine the spirit of your post.

First let us start with what Jesus said and then compare it with what Oyakhilome and his resident nairaland pastor/representative (aka Joagbaje) has said.

Jesus said:   

John 13:34

A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another; as I have loved you, that you also love one another.

John 15:12

This is My commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you.

But

1.  Joagbaje says that this is not a commandment for "Christians" and that there is no commandment for "Christians" to be keeping.
2. Oyakhilome, Joagbaje's boss, says nowhere in the New Testament are "we" told to obey God.

So, how do we square the statements of Oyakhilome and Joagbaje with this your idea of love as the greatest revelation?

Joagbaje:
Is it church duty to provide free education? Show me in the bible where Jesus or Paul built free schools. At least Churches are doing something, giving some people scholarship and we should commend them for what they are doing. God's mandate for the church is to preach the gospel

Show us in the Bible where Jesus or Paul demanded or collected "tithes" or "first fruits" from anybody!

^^^ ha ha ha; OK the post could be "shorter and more interesting" but how much of it did you read? If you read only 1/3 of the post it will be clear that it uses Bible passages to refute the prosperity "gospel" and this should convict the followers of that gospel of mammon to repentance --- if they have a true heart for Godliness.

Or is it the fear of conviction and repentance that makes the OP "not interesting"? 

As for Cornelius, I'd say he was 'saved' alright; the Bible says that the Holy Spirit fell on him (and his household for that matter) while Peter was still speaking; so no be say Peter make "altar call" and Peter come "save" Cornelius or "win Cornelius' soul" as some people dey like to boast here.

JeSoul:
What does it mean to be 'born again legally'? I will insist beyond all resistance that only God knows when a person is 'saved'.

I like this very much; though I will perhaps just qualify it slightly to read that "only God knows absolutely that (edit: or when) a person is born again and/or 'saved'."

You see some fellow professing Christians have caused a lot of confusion with what it means to be "born again". So we wait for an answer to Jesoul's question of what it means to be "born again" and to be born again legally for that matter.

Meanwhile food for thought: if a person constantly displays the fruit that Jesus Christ desires in His disciples because the person wishes to please "God" but the person is not a "Christian" formally, is it not possible that the person is born again anyway?

Can we human beings delimit the workings of the Holy Spirit? Does the Bible tell us that there is a particular, official, specific, exclusive etc or, for that matter, "legal" way to be born again?  

It boils down to this: is it not possible, in certain circumstances, for an ostensible "non-Christian" to be "born again".

Could we not possibly simplify being "born again" to mean having the mind/fear of God and living according to Godly principles ----- in which case we can be sure that the Holy Spirit will empower/dwell in the person or perhaps is already empowering/dwelling within the person is why the person is seeking to live by Godly principles?

If it is all about being born again "legally" (maybe by saying a sinner's prayer - as we yet await definition) why are so many "Christians" who have been "born again" legally still rogues, fraudsters, inconsiderate, selfish and greedily seeking after "prosperity"?

^^^ Is it not possible for a person who has not "known" or "received" Christ (e.g. those who have not heard about him at all or those who do not understand) to feel and know the love of God? And upon feeling and knowing the love of God, to produce the "works" i.e. to live according to the tenets of Jesus' teaching ----- even without "knowing" or "receiving" him? Please also read chapters 2 to 5 of the book of Romans carefully.

Can we really say that only those who have "publicly confessed" or who have said a "sinner's prayer" or "given their life" etc etc are the only ones in whom Christ and the Holy Spirit dwells?

Are we using our own traditions and faulty reasoning to undermine the simple enough teachings of Christ?

In these circumstances, I usually like to refer to these verses from the hymn "There's A Wideness in God's Mercy"

For the love of God is broader
Than the measure of our mind;
And the heart of the Eternal
Is most wonderfully kind.

But we make His love too narrow
By false limits of our own;
And we magnify His strictness
With a zeal He will not own.

Following on from the reference to Wesley, you might also enjoy reading about George Muller. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_M%C3%BCller

. . . a Christian evangelist and Director of the Ashley Down orphanage in Bristol, England, cared for 10,024 orphans in his life.

He was well-known for providing an education to the children under his care, to the point where he was accused of raising the poor above their natural station in life. He also established 117 schools which offered Christian education to over 120,000 children, many of them being orphans.

In 1834, he founded the Scriptural Knowledge Institution for Home and Abroad, with the goal of aiding Christian schools and missionaries; distributing the Bible and Christian tracts; and providing Day-schools, Sunday-schools and Adult-schools, all upon a Scriptural foundation. By the end of February 1835, there were five Day-schools - two for boys and three for girls. Not receiving government support and only accepting unsolicited gifts, this organisation received and disbursed £1,381,171 ( approximately $2,718,844 USD) - around £90 million in today's terms - by the time of Müller's death, primarily using the money for supporting the orphanages and distributing about 285,407 Bibles, 1,459,506 New Testaments, and 244,351 other religious texts, which were translated into twenty other languages. The money was also used to support other "faith missionaries" around the world, such as Hudson Taylor. The work continues to this day.

Through all this, Müller never made requests for financial support, nor did he go into debt, even though the five homes cost over £100,000 to build. Many times, he received unsolicited food donations only hours before they were needed to feed the children, further strengthening his faith in God. For example, on one well-documented occasion, they gave thanks for breakfast when all the children were sitting at the table, even though there was nothing to eat in the house. As they finished praying, the baker knocked on the door with sufficient fresh bread to feed everyone.

He travelled over 200,000 miles, an incredible achievement for pre-aviation times.

1. Note how many people he impacted.
2. Note the type of people he impacted
3. He never asked for "tithes" or "first fruits" or other fraudulent doctrines that the modern thieves use to scam people
4. See the extent of his travelling without a private jet
etc etc etc

This one's case is worse than pathetic, it would be a waste of time discussing with him much further; moreover he is a fine example of the fruit that the fraudster Oyakhilome produces in his followers.

coogar:
but the tither already eats from the tithe in the modern era.

Now you are making things up and suggesting that people should disobey a specific command of GOD HIMSELF; go back and read the passage and see how important it was to God that the tither should eat the tithe.

coogar:
when the tithes are collected to build huge edifices with the modern hi-tech gadgets, do you not benefit from those as a member of the congregation? buses to travel from point a to b. an enabling atmosphere to pray. alternate power when nepa/phcn strike, etc. are those not the things the tithes have done that every member of the congregation enjoys? who do you think pay for the renting of the venue of the church, the plastic chairs, the people who fix the place every service? where do you think those people are paid from? the pastor's inheritance from his dad or from the federal ministry of works and housing?

God did not send anybody to build any "edifice" for Him; in fact He said He does not dwell in "edifices" made by human hands. Where God wants to dwell is in a man's heart and the man in whose heart and mind god dwells will realise eventually that God does not ask him to "tithe" anywhere in the New Testament. As for people acting in a serving role, if God dwells in their heart, they will serve joyfully especially if it is an atmosphere where everyone else, especially the "pastor", is by and large true to God and are not deceivers.

coogar:
white elephant lie. matthew 23:23 says you are lying.

Ask yourself who Jesus was talking to; check if you have ever read Matthew 23:23 (and its Luke equivalent) in proper context

coogar:
see, i don't have any problem if you decide not to tithe(it's your prerogative). . . . .but don't discourage the people who tithe with your heresy.

We have no objection to a person choosing to tithe; what we object to are false teachers and ignoramuses misleading other people back into a bondage from which Christ and His gospel has freed them ----- all simply to satisfy material desires and aspirations.