₦airaland Forum

Gombs:
You've always thought Abraham was an Isrealite na

Hahahahaha..#Trapped

Goshen360:
10000000000 likes. These guys are so greatly perverting scriptures.

Just one verse that says it was for only Israel. Just one. Meanwhile, Ismael was circumcised and he wasn't neither did he begat Israel.

vooks:
My broda,
I was just seeking your clarification on this not accusing you of nothing. Let's wind up this circumcision thing. Are the said physical benefits of circumcision available to heathens as well?

I took you through my position on the relationship between the Law and Grace. Once again, if it is reemphasized in the NT(love), not expressly forbidden(homosexuality), or its principle amplified (sin offering), run with it. When Holy Spirit inspires Paul to remind us that honoring parents carries a promise, that is Holy Spirit talking to me not Moses. When Hebrews tells me adulterers will be judged by God, that's not one of the Ten Commandments any more.

Tithes are NEVER reemphasized despite numerous giving exhortations which would be IDEAL for just that. They are not forbidden. The principle behind tithing is amplified. Paul says ministers of the altar live off the altar meaning he has a right to be supported in/for his ministry. Unlike OT regime which were mandatory, we have 'without compulsion' and as 'one purposes in their heart'

I think the last paragraph pretty much settles it. but that doesn't go without saying if I want to 'tithe' the least I should give is 10%. Any other thing I add untop should be without compulsion et al. But if I am giving a freewill offering, then there is no holds barred. Cest fini

vooks:
1. Romans 4. Read it backwards thrice. Abraham's righteousness came before circumcision. Circumcision just sealed it. Christians need NO MARKS to be admitted to Abrahamic covenant.

2. You claimed that Paul circumcising Gentiles is proof circumcision was not annulled. That's a bold lie. He only circumcised out of pressure. He also took the Nazarite vow. You want to do that as well?

3. Malachi curses and blessings were based on the Mosaic prescribed/MANDATORY 22% 'tithe'

1. Circular again. Nobody here has said that circumcision made anyone righteous. That is the position you have to take to make anything you say about the law non-moot. Circumcision was a SEAL of the promise the same way the HOLY SPIRIT is a seal of the promise to those who accept Jesus by faith. That's what Paul was explaining to the circumcision obsessed Jews who thought that one could not be righteous without it. He said Even Abraham was righteous without it let alone us who are children of Abraham by the spirit.

2. Totally nugatory point mate. If it was outrightly done away with Paul would NEVER have done it. Paul's argument was that it didn't make or mark anyone as righteous in Gods eyes. Period. Same way wearing trousers by women doesn't make them unrighteous. But some churches even after knowing this still insist that women forbid trousers because of the 'physical implications'.

3. Christ has redeemed us from the curses. So focus on the blessings at least the ones listed there referred to tithes and offerings. And even in the NT Paul listed some other benefits of Tithing that were not captured in the OT.

vooks:
Are you saying there are some spiritual non-righteousness BENEFITS to Christian male circumcision?

Not honoring parents is rebellion against Holy Spirit. There are good reasons why Spirit baptized Christians Ananias and Saphira perished

I never said so and if I did you can be kind enough to show it to me. I only said (to me) CIRCUMCISION is like Tithes in that one's righteousness is not tied to observing it. However, there are benefits to be enjoyed from it and they are physical.

Not honoring parents is a disobedience to the law of Moses and you cannot claim that law has been annulled for two major reasons:

1. Honoring parents preexisted the law
2. Paul mentioned it again in the NT.

So 2 christians imputed with Christ's righteousness could experience 2 different physical experiences based on the above (I.e the blessing derived). One Christian might die too soon and disobedience to that eternal principle could be the reason. While another Christian that should have died soon will live longer because of their obedience to that principle.

That's the same way with Tithes.

vooks:
1. Who said there MUST be a physical equivalent?

2. Paul was pressured by men, not by Holy Spirit to circumcise. It means he would not have done it but for the ignorant folks. So his circumcising does not mean circumcision was not annulled, only misunderstood significance of the same

3. A tithe is 10%. Jews gave that TWICE per annum and once more every third year totaling to 22% p.a. That's a principle you need to run with if at all. You just admitted that you are living out the principle of giving to God willingly without butchering animals.

1. Circular. What was the mark of the covenant? What was the significance? That's the only way we can talk about a replacement by any other means like we could do with freewill offerings.

2. Would Paul have been pressured to indulge in sexual immorality? Paul didn't say or allude to any annulment of Circumcision. He only said it had no spiritual importance!

3. They gave such percentages ACCORDING TO THE LAW. Prior to the law Abraham and Jacob gave ONLY ten per cent. Meaning 10 % was the benchmark. One could go higher if they wanted. Even on NL we have Tithers who give as much 35% of their income and it is of their own volition. Which is what God truly expected of his children.

vooks:
My brother,
Under Moses, God required BOTH heart and physical circumcision. I shared the heart verses earlier. Here they are again;

Deut 10:16 (ESV)
16 Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no longer stubborn. 17 F
Deut 30:6 (ESV)
6 And the Lord your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your offspring, so that you will love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, that you may live

This means the circumcision of the heart is not peculiar to Christians. Now, and in plainest terms, is there any VALUE in physical male circumcision on Christians?

Nobody's heart was truly circumcised until Jesus died. Remember that the law is good and righteous but it could not make anyone righteous. If it was possible for anyone to obey the law in totality such a person would have had a truly circumcised heart but none could. So Jesus met all the requirements of the law and gave us the credit. So in that sense circumcision of the heart is entirely Christian.

vooks:
Thank you. if you notice, I asked on a Christian. Am not interested in the physical. So can we say that ceteris paribus a circumcised Christian is in NO way privilleged over the non-circumcised in any spiritual sense?

In terms of being RIGHTEOUS yes. That's all Paul said. A christian that refuses to honor his parents is as righteous as the one that does but you cannot claim they will have the same christian experiences. The reason is simple: God's word gave a blessing for the latter and it is very New Testamenty!

vooks:
1. The same can only be effected through parting male believers with their foreskins?

2. Paul circumcised because he was PRESSURED by Circumcision because of his assignment which entailed mingling with Gentiles. It proves at best that Circumcision was a deadly affair during his time. Judaizers practicing and enforcing what Moses/Abraham gave them is no proof of no-annulment.

3. The principle behind Freewill offerings is worshiping God with your substance. Not all were animal so the blood theory is pretty moot. Thank you for proving my point; you don't need to carry out a Mosaic/pre-Mosaic practice in its FORM to realize the principle behind it
Besides, why do you think NOBODY has EVER offered animal sacrifices alongside their money as Freewill offerings in Christendom?

1. What else will be the physical replacement of the principle?

2. Paul was pressurized by people who thought that CIRCUMCISION MADE ANYONE RIGHTEOUS. Paul knew that CIRCUMCISION didn't do that anymore. That was his only grouse with it. People felt circumcision + Jesus = salvation but Paul said ONLY Jesus = Salvation even though circumcision is not wrong. Get it?

3. Freewill offerings were peace or thanksgiving. The importance was the way it was perceived by God. So I am not helping your case. Because a tithe is ten per cent of what you get- regardless of money, lamb or farm produce.

vooks:
Does circumcision avail ANYTHING in a Christian?

Yes in a fleshly, physical and even medical standpoint but not in Spiritual terms like Righteousness or Right standing with God.

vooks:
Galatians 3:18 says the LAW did not annul the promise God gave to Abraham. This is highly irrelevant to the subject of this debate namely pre-Mosaic practices such as tithing,circumcision,animal sacrifices incorporated into the Law were annulled TOGETHER with the Law.

There is ONLY one reason why nobody offers animal sacrifices which predate Moses in Christendom and it is not because Christ sacrifice suffices. Christ sacrifice dealt away with SIN OFFERINGS (read Hebrews 9-10). It is because they were annulled together with the Law. Whatever 'principles' are to be had in these practices is realized by other means without the sacrifices. Pauline formula of giving without compulsion is certainly derived from these.

People still give freewill offerings in church mate. They give it in form of money.

Meanwhile the covenant God had with Abraham was marked with circumcision. If the covenant was annulled, it follows logically that the circumcision should have been too but it was not.

vooks:
Why would the same Paul teach that circumcision avails NOTHING?
Have you ever read Acts 15? Circumcision is a BURDEN the Holy Spirit deemed UNNECESSARY to lay on the Gentiles

Acts 15:28-29 (ESV)
28 For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay on you no greater burden than these requirements: 29 that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well.

This means either the Abrahamic covenant of which circumcision is a token is not for the Gentiles OR they can access the same without necessarily undergoing circumcision

Paul said circumcision avails nothing. . .when it comes to the NEW CREATION. That's what he meant. So it is redundant to ask me what blessings I get from it spiritually. I can also ask you what you gain from not indulging in sexual immorality or from strangled animal.

vooks:
1. Eternal Principles. Explain what blessing a Christian receives upon circumcision

2. Paul NEVER circumcised to fulfil nothing, it was simply getting the Circumcision party off his back. He was saying, 'this guy is circumcised, can you buzz off now?'. If Paul had a modicum of reverence for circumcision as an 'eternal' principle, he would have gladly circumcised ALL or many of his gentile partners. How many did he circumcise?

3. Principles Theory again. Does/MUST the Christian realize the principle behind animal sacrifices or circumcision ONLY by offering animal sacrifices or circumcising respectively?

4. The show-me-where-in-NT-it-was-annulled argument. Show me where Freewill animal offerings were annulled.
Note the animal sacrifices abrogated were those used as a means of dealing with sin, the red heifer,Azazel and so forth. Freewill offerings had nothing to do with sin

1. It is a fleshly way of saying 'I am an heir of the promise'. Period.

2. I never said Paul circumcised to prove anything. I said by still circumcising he proved that it had not been annulled. I also stated that circumcision availed nothing in terms of righteousness.

3. What was the principle behind animal sacrifices? The blood for sin and the body burnt as a form of worship. Even if you are referring to freewill offerings we still give them today in form of money and other things. It didn't change.

Bidam:
The truth is mbaemeka and i have already reiterated on this thread to the antithers that Gentiles do not REQUIRE circumcision for salvation. The truth is that God revealed this to Peter first but i guess he had a difficulty accepting it because it goes against clear statement from scripture in Genesis 17:12-14. Those who support the necessity for circumcision on the Jerusalem council quoted Genesis which says it was an everlasting covenant for all generation and says that those who were not circumcised will be cut off from God's people. You can see why this position was a powerful position which Paul vehemently refused and refuted. The gist is circumcision for gentiles is not a mandatory requirement for salvation even Apostle James used a scripture from Amos to buttress this truth.

Gbam!

vooks:
I find it decidedly convenient that of all pre-Mosaic practices, Christ Embassy sticks with tithing. They will not hesitate to remind you that it is an 'eternal principle' simply because it predates Moses. The reason is obvious, it is one doctrine from which they stand to immensely gain financially. How does circumcising males help their coffers? What about bloody animal sacrifices? They'd stain Oyak's Benny Hinn-esque wardrobe.
Sometimes back I debated with shdemidemi and debunked his 'speaking in an unknown tongue' is different from 'speaking in tongues' theory. He never responded. A week later, he resurfaces and aks me to define GRACE,WORKS and when GRACE was 'initiated'. He said upon answering these,he would respond to my rebuttal. I saw through his shenanigans and told him I was comfortable with whatever definition he believed in. In other words, I removed this condition to his response by AGREEING with him. He still refused to respond. So he won't educate me on GRACE and WORKS and he won't respond to me.
It is a classic strategy to kill an argument; put impossible pre-conditions to proceeding. Gombs wants to divert the debate to the Abrahamic covenant annulment. That's why for the sake of proceeding with the debate am prepared to work with whatever he thinks. With that out of the way, can he in the simplest words answer this;
How comes you don't offer animal sacrifices Abraham style?

I have a feeling you are deliberately misunderstanding Gombs. There were a couple of things that God instituted to those who served him before the law that he still included in the law for regulation. Things like Tithes, firstfruits, circumcision, and offering of animal sacrifices. These things were eternal because God expected it (since time immemorial) of all his children whose hearts were unreceptive and unconditioned to obey him as such so he imputed it into the law to 'force' them to obey him. Even at that he placed the blessings for obeying them and the accompanying curses for doing otherwise.

Many years later, God's son came to die for mankind and by so doing he nailed the righteous requirements for following the law. This means that men could be numbered as part of God's folks regardless of their obedience to the law which God didn't set it aside per se. He let someone else fulfil it and then he accredited the success of that person's obedience to those who were to become part of his folk before he cancelled it.

Now the question is this; did the law that came years after the principles of God were instituted, annul ALL the principles even if those principles were still listed in the law that was cancelled? The answer is NO. The cancellation of the law was ONLY in respect to the righteous requirements from observing it and the concomitant curses for not doing so. The law or better still some of the principles in it were not cancelled in practice. A good example is circumcision that has been thrown about by both parties. Paul never said circumcision was to be done away with. He himself circumcised some gentile converts. Paul said circumcision was cancelled as a RIGHTEOUS REQUIREMENT. Meaning that, whether I am circumcised or not, I am righteous in God's eyes as long as I believe in the death and resurrection of his son. But that didn't stop your parents from circumcising you and I am very sure it didn't stop you from circumcising your own male child (if you have any). So as you can see anyone who still circumcises himself is not amiss or following any mosaic law.

Another example is the animal sacrifices we have been making references to. What was the importance of animal sacrifices? The bible declares that without shedding of blood there is no remission of sins so the blood from the sacrificed animals was a form of atonement for sin. If I wanted to be 'sinless' in God's eyes I had to make animal sacrifices to appease him for a time. Now by Jesus death and resurrection the bible unequivocally declares that the necessity for such animal sacrifices was done away with. Jesus blood was better than all such blood of bulls and goats in many regards and one of which was that those who offered such sacrifices had to keep doing them regularly to cover up for sin. In the case of Jesus he did so ONCE and for all times and he not only took away the guilt for sin but he took away the nature of sin and in turn offered RIGHTEOUSNESS to those who believed in him. This summarily means that the righteous requirements for offering animal sacrifices has not only been fulfilled in Jesus and has been DONE AWAY WITH. This is why we do not need to do so again.

In the aspect of Tithing, the bible stated that there was a blessing for observing it and also a curse for disobeying. This proves that there were righteous requirements for giving tithes in the past but when Jesus came he put away the righteous requirements of the tithes but he didn't put away the act just like he didn't do same for circumcision. This means I am not righteous or a christian because I tithe, neither am I cursed if I do not. But I can identify myself with the blessings of tithing that existed before the law and were espoused during the law without negative consequences of 'falling from grace' as long as I do not see it as a righteous requirement. For this very principle to be done away with like animal sacrifices the bible would have mentioned it like it did the latter. But the bible didn't. So I see it as equally disingenuous for anyone to stamp an authority over it and claim it has been annuled without proferring a single verse to buttress such a fact. Certainly, the bible didn't say "thou shalt continue tithing" but the bible didn't say the contrary. And what is interesting is how the same bible explained in lucid terms how the animal sacrifices were not only now unnecessary but that the very act should be abrogated. The bible also made mention of other practices and gave the same verdict but concerning circumcision for e.g, there is not a single verse saying it should be stopped- not one! All the bible said is that circumcision doesn't make anyone a child of God the way it did in the past, so if you do it and believe in Jesus, fine. If you do it and do not believe in Jesus it is useless. If you don't do it and believe in Jesus, fine. If you don't do it and do not believe in Jesus you are lost and hopeless.That's the same way with tithes. If you disagree then the onus is on you to show a single NT verse that annuls the tithing. Period.

Romans 6:14 KJV

For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.

That verse says exactly that about living above sin because of grace.

I thought I told you before that when we make reference to the OT it is in relation to the blessings there because the blessings are still intact- all of them.

As per Jeff and his ruse (if at all it was ever a ruse and not an outright lie) he is living proof that there are adulterations to every good thing. Thank God the words that are being discussed are clear words from the bible. The only debate would be if those words are out-dated and nobody can use a single verse of scripture to assert so. Poverty stricken fellows Is all a matter of time. The guy who was a poverty stricken driver years back today is a prosperity stricken Billionaire. So those 'poverty stricken guys' will become mighty men years later and their testimony will help strengthen the newly recruited 'poverty stricken folks'. What is sauce for Mrs Goose. . .

Shay that verse called it Tithes? Then it doesn't matter if it is first or 3rd year. There are blessings attached to tithing. That point is settled. And the offerings there referred to offerings. The offerings needed for meat to be in God's house. So that offering could very well be money in today's Parlance and that kind of offering isn't near being done away with.

Cheers.

Candour:
Actually, in the old testament, a child who doesn't honour his parents and was reported to the religious leaders was stoned to death.
Show me a scripture that promises we will be sinless this side of eternity and I'll drop this point. Maybe it escaped me somehow.
I hope you saw how Jeff kept up a ruse of a 'healing' for months? Maybe he'd have eventually died of same if not for Sir John's expose. Tithers really want to believe tithing works and coupled with the teaching not to acknowledge anything negative, who will like to fall his/her own hand? So they just keep on suffering and smiling. Even your church has poverty stricken folks in abundance all struggling to 'live it up'. We know them bro.
Deuteronomy 14:28-29 KJV
At the end of three years thou shalt bring forth all the tithe of thine increase the same year, and shalt lay it up within thy gates: [29] And the Levite, (because he hath no part nor inheritance with thee,) and the stranger, and the fatherless, and the widow, which are within thy gates, shall come, and shall eat and be satisfied; that the Lord thy God may bless thee in all the work of thine hand which thou doest.
How about this God prescribed way of treating ALL the tithes of the 3rd year? How faithful are you to it? Or you don't like the blessing attached at the end?
I would hazard a guess that the offerings being talked about there are the peace offerings, grain offerings, burnt offerings, etc which of course you will not be caught dead doing. So no. Those offerings there are not Christian at all. Go to Paul to see what and why Christians give.

It depends on what we want to hold unto as NT or OT. I am sure grace won't excuse any christian that refuses to honor his/her parents that is, even if Paul didn't mention it to the Ephesians. And yes sir, grace does promise that we can live above sin.

Also there are not more 'poor' tithers than antitithers. If that were the case what will the poor tithers be defending? Many times, people's convictions of the word is dependent on how much of it they have put to test and proved true. The taste of the Pudding is in the eating they say.

I know that Ananias and his wife told lies. But it was their money to give and the judgment was instant inspite of grace. The point being that God still has a prescribed way for doing things and we are expected to follow them. A man who is selfish may lack even if he is hardworking same way an intelligent christian may fail exams if he does not study. Dilligence is also something God expects of us regardless of Grace.

Besides, that Malachi 3 referred to Tithes and offerings. So are the offerings non-christian too?

Candour:
You believe non payment of tithe is a loophole that enables devourers enter your affairs, I won't begrudge you your right to hold to your belief. Nothing in the entire New covenant hints at any thing like that as a consequence of not remitting 10% of your income to a 'church'. Grace doesn't promise you'll ever become sinless. Tithe preachers however promise that the tithe is a guarantee into prosperity and non payment is a guarantee into poverty. Thank God they're totally wrong.

@the bolded. There are actually more poverty stricken tithers in Christiandom than non tithers. The difference gets bigger still if you ignore the fantasy land dwellers claiming the rich status by 'faith'




You see, if you and I decide to go on a walk through scriptures, you'll find that the tithe you claim you practice today is a sham caricature of every tithe injunction or practice in the bible.





God struck them down because they lied. They would have had nothing evil happen to them if they didn't give. There was no compulsion and Peter clearly made us realise this in that scripture. Give as you're able. No stipulated percentages.




God also gave conditions for being a Jew (circumcision) and also a condition for child dedication (turtle doves etc) and also a condition for a woman observing menses to be accepted into the sanctuary but today I'm sure you won't claim those conditions apply to you. The key is to know what pertains to you and what doesn't. Tithing has nothing to do with Christianity.





Tithing stops no devourer for a christian except maybe the G.O who founded the tithe collecting church and of course has right of first refusal to the funds. The grace of God is what prevents calamities for Christians.

1. This is jumping from pillar to post. I showed you a verse that Paul yanked verbatim from the OT law that was supposed to be done away with yet he made mention of the same promise in the NT. Now you cannot deny that Christ has redeemed us from the curses of the law and instead you endorse it but when I show that the blessings remained intact from the law you say either that that blessing belongs to all Christians or that aspect of the law has been totally done away with yet you cannot show one verse that suggests so. If the first part of your reasoning was right, then Paul didn't need to mention it specially in Ephesians 6 and if the second aspect is right, then Paul was wrong for infusing an OT teaching into the NT. I don't even see how a blessing in Malachi relates to execution for witches when Malachi relates to a blessing like Exodus 20 does too, meanwhile the execution of witches is worthless to the discourse.

2. Cornelius was an Italian who practiced Judaism and from every indication was the first Gentile to become a christian. You made need to study properly in that area to figure out how the extrabiblical idea of a Nicolaus drinking the Holy Spirit loooong before Cornelius came about. That aside, I mentioned Cornelius to say that even though he was a practising Jew who prayed at their prayer times and gave alms as was their custom the scriptures didn't say he gave tithes yet he must have to be that thoroughly dedicated Jew that he was designated to be. Same with Paul during his Judaistic days yet not a single mention of him tithing was made in the NT and you cannot with a straight face claim he never tithed. So it only behooves the scriptures to tell us how that the Jews were instructed to stop tithing because of the NT and you or the scriptures cannot dare say so.

3. As for your last point on the authorship of Hebrews now is not the time and place but if you are leaning towards the bible 'scholars' who shared that erroneous belief that someone else bar Paul wrote that then you do not know the significance of that book. The quality of information therein cannot be possessed by anyone except Paul. This is an aside from the very obvious fact that the style of writing was exactly like Paul's. I think it explains why some of the clear teachings from that book seem lost on you. For instance, your question on using Goats or grain as a Freewill offering is irrelevant because People used such things as a form of legal tender and they could still be used till date. But the aspect about using Bulls and Goats for atonement of sin has been done away with and that very book of Hebrews expressly stated it along with the many other Jewish ordinances and practices yet A chief practice like tithes wasn't mentioned.

vooks:
1. Once again, the promise is nowhere in the NT exhortations to giving. Wouldn't it have made much sense teaching this 'hidden' blessing of giving to the early church in the epistles? The reason it is nowhere is simply because there was no tithing in the NT. The Malachi promise can't be done away any more than death penalty on witchcraft or adultery can

2. Cornelius gave alms not tithes. You are the one not just arguing from silence but conjuring non existent details from silence. If he went as much as tithing, he would have been a proselyte and Peter would not have hesitated going into his house. Proselytes like Nicolaus were receiving Holy Spirit long BEFORE Cornelius. Urinating? If such was ever a doctrine with far reaching blessings or consequences such as tithing, trust Holy Spirit to have dedicated an entire book to the same

Paul never authored Hebrews. The authorship is largely unknown but definitely non-Pauline. I favor Barnabas. Some guy bet Aquila and Priscila Nowhere does the author TEACH tithing, the same is mentioned in passing. It beats me that such a crucial doctrine with marvelous benefits that determine whether God fights Satan for you or not, is NEVER taught nowhere. Is it because the early church was well versed with the same that there was no need of teaching? But how could they yet Paul went out of his way to teach them giving? The church had Jews who would have known about tithing twice in a year and once every 3 years but what about the Gentiles? Among the numerous spiritual warfare verses, I would most certainly expect this 'secret'

Can you also prove that Freewill offering of animals and grains was annulled in the NT? Is there anything wrong with presenting Oyaks with a goat as Freewill offering (Lev 22:23)? And I mean for BURNING not roasting

1. I am sure you would not go about witch-hunting to uphold that scripture. (Every pun intended). The essence of the OT to us is in identifying the promises of the principles found therein. In the case of Malachi 3 the promise is there and can never be done away with.

3. You are arguing from the silence of the scriptures on tithing but even Cornelius the Proselyte (who must have paid tithes while he was a practising Jew) wasn't identified as a tither. Do we also say he never tithed? What about urinating? Since it was never mentioned in the scriptures do we also conclude that the disciples never urinated?

Tithes wasn't done away with even during the NT. Paul was the author of Hebrews and he made references to it without announcing it's annulment and he used that book to assert the annulment of many other Jewish practices. It proves that he too wasn't against it or don't you think so? And can you prove from the NT that tithing was annuled?

vooks:
1. No sir, witchcraft had nothing to do with governance. It was everybody's role to KILL witches

2. Am glad we are not fighting

3. Prevalence of spiritual gifts is difficult to estimate. You need the ratio of total Christians to Pentecostals throughout the 1980 years of Christendom.There was NO tithing for the first 300-400 years of Christianity. There is extensive documentation of giving and funding ministry over the same period and tithing is not among them. So tithing is not something apostles did and then it died off. No sir. Tithing if at all in the first century was among Jewish Christians just like feasts to the Levites of course. There is no record of no Gentiles tithing to the Levites nor to the apostles. Secular history alone is enough to debunk tithing myth. Add to that the scriptural silence on the same in the face of the many giving exhortation and any tithing argument is stillborn

And it will bring me back to the question that always brothers me. How come the health devourer still located the addresses of some of the most vociferous tithe proponents and acclaimed payers? How come?

God's mercies and provisions sustains us and keeps evil at bay, not devourer chasing tithe.

Also bro, the tithe in Malachi 3, is it a reference to the tithe laws of Moses or the Abraham's tithe?

The devourer is the same. He is always walking about and looking for loopholes to exploit. God also has provisions for our health and it is left for us to utilise them. If a tither fails to utilise them he could prosper well in his finances but be found wanting in his health. It is the same reason 2 christians who believe in grace could be leading different lives. While one takes advantage of grace to live above sin, the other erroneously uses grace as his excuse. I can also ask why the financial devourer seems to attack more non-tithers than otherwise. I know a handful of them oo

Also bro, the tithe in Malachi 3 is 10% like in Abraham's day and during the law. Just like offerings in Abraham's day were the same with offerings in the law. The importance of that chapter is to showcase what God promised concerning tithers.

Of course caterpillars, cankerworms etc attack all farmlands all over the world but thank God for pesticides which God enabled scientists develop to combat them. God made that promise to Israel who were under a fail and get instantaneous judgement system. We are not under that system today. Malachi 3 wasn't talking to a Christian. God protects you out of love, not because you diligently paid a 10% charge in a building wrongly called church.

I am sure God loved Ananias and Saphirra too but he struck them for giving under compulsion or nah? Didn't they sell their own land by themselves and proceed to give what they had purposed in their hearts?

Sure that God protects us out of love (and God loves the whole world) but he would not let the whole world enter heaven inspite of his love. He has given the whole world a condition to meet to enter heaven and it is left for us to obey him. In this case it is wrt our finances.

Candour:
Are you trying to relate the named devourers of Malachi 3 to what the devil was seeking to do in your reference above? Have you read that entire chapter 5 to see what Peter was saying there? Pls Malachi 3 has nothing, I repeat, has nothing to do with 1Peter 5:8 except you're trying to say like creflo dollar that "its impossible to tithe properly and miss heaven". Peter was admonishing believers about guarding their christian testimony, not their finances.

That verse proves that Satan is the chief devourer. The one whom seeks to kill, steal and destroy. We can fix whatever into that box and we won't be overstretching the scriptures.

1. That was an aspect of the law that referred to the governance of then Israel. It is similar to going to jail for murder. Even a christian living in grace if he murders would go to jail

2. Is spot on.

3. No, tongues is a good example. Surely, that manifestation of the Holy spirit always existed across all generations of believers but the question is to what level of prevalence? Do you agree that the manifestation of the gift seems more pronounced now than it would have been in say 1000 years ago? That is the same way with Tithes. There were always tithers from the days of Abraham till today. The notion that the message began to spread faster of late is not erroneous neither is the teaching itself. What will be erroneous is the idea that Tithers ceased to exist in totality until recently.

vooks:
1. You just did sir. Witchcraft attracted death penalty and it is not Moses but God who did. You should kill one of the many in Naija or prescribe the same
2. Refer to 1. if there is a global devourer and God rebukes Him for those who tithe, that would only be a benefit if He doesn't rebuke him for the rest. And you said as much, they are on their own. So it is tithe and forget the devourer or watch you eaten up alive
3. People's understanding of what Paul said? That's more palatable. If you possess an understanding PECULIAR to you and nobody else BEFORE you, you basically possess something, a Truth NOBODY else before you EVER did. Regardless, the Spirit in you revealed something He didn't to Christendom for 1900 years. Tongues is a bad example. I just learned that in EVERY generation of believers. there was manifestation of the gifts! Read about that from the book I shared on this thread. Interesting
https://www.nairaland.com/2002518/skeptics-guide-tongues-prophecy

vooks:
1. You have contradicted Pauline and entire NT giving when you place such a price for not doing it. I have explained why. Of ALL the giving verses, none drew the scary motif of the devourer but you can show me if I missed something

2. We have many giving messages in the NT with the conspicuous ABSENCE of the Malachi 'flipside'. You are adding to scriptures by extrapolating Malachi into Christianity

3. When something was introduced is an honest objective test of a doctrine. Regardless of how much you imagine your understanding to be scriptural, you can't possibly beat collective wisdom of the Christians before you who drank of the same Spirit as you. At this point I would like to ask you to give me ONE truth you/Oyaks posses you believe Paul missed yet it is scriptural. Name any

1. I didn't place a price for not doing it. God did. He didn't say you are cursed for not doing it in the NT, he said I would do this for those that obey. So if the curse was that antitithers would have been broke in the OT, in the NT they won't be broke for they are not cursed. But the tithers will be blessed for doing it.

Again I didn't mention the scary motive of the devourer to scare any one into giving. I mentioned him to show the givers what blessings they were receiving. There is an astronomical difference between the two.

2. I didn't add the Malachi flipside. Just like the Exodus 20 had a blessing to it the same blessing remained status quo even into the NT. I mentioned Malachi 3 to reference the blessing/promise there.

3. It is not about what Paul missed. I never said he missed anything. But people's understanding of what Paul said can be misplaced and that is a function of those who were responsible for passing out the information. If People in authority in the 16 through 18th centuries believed that Tongue and Tongues were different, don't you think they would be culpable for disseminating the wrong teaching that some presently believe?

1 Peter 5:8 KJV

Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour:

I think you are still missing the big picture. I didn't say Moses wasn't referring to Oxes there. I said he wasn't referring to ONLY Oxes. The Ox as used there is allegorical or symbiotic for a worker who might need to have his pay from the environment that he works. So Paul interpreted it rightly in saying Ministers of the gospel should not be muzzled while they feed the flock- the word. That's the same way when God said he would rebuke the devourer for the sake of tithers he wasn't referring to ONLY locusts and cankerworms. He was alluding to something deeper in meaning- the real devourer- the devil himself as the above NT verse has shown.

Also recall, that I never claimed that the devourer seeks to attack only non-tithers. I said he seeks to attack everyone on earth, but even moreso US, christians- whether tithers or antitithers, poor or rich. Now the catch is that Tithers are those who have realised that it would be futile to battle the devourer on their own, so they let God into their finances by tithing. That way, God promised to rebuke him for them.

The teaching about the devourer in relation to finances is just one aspect. The devourer is not only financially penchant. He wants to destroy one's health, wealth, happiness, joy, peace, hope, mind etc. And Gods word has made sufficient provisions for us to countervail his attacks.

Candour:
Same scenario. Moses spoke there to Israelites. be under no illusons bro, those he spoke to understood perfectly that he refered to oxen and corn. Infact it probably was the basis for Solomon's proverb below

Proverbs 12:10 A righteous man regardeth the life of his beast: but the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel


Paul used it in his epistles to gentile Christians to drive home a point. Can you point to one instance in the new testament under grace where ''devourers'' was used to drive home any point about christian giving? You'll never find a single one because that thing called devourer coming on a christian for not following a law for jewish people is totally alien and opposed to the gospel of grace. imagine Paul telling the Macedonian Christians already reeling from deep poverty themselves that devourers would come their way in addition if they do not pay tithe? what kind of a God would he be portraying to them? when even the original tithe law in all its severity made provision for the poor to receive tithes?

Your theory of devourers and Oyakhilome's theory of robbers is totally wrong and unfounded as doctrines for Christians.

1. I am not competing with Paul. He was a Pastor, teacher, prophet, Evangelist and Apostle and I am none of the afore- that much is clear, but he didn't possess singularity of interpretations WRT the scriptures especially when mine do not contradict his- which they don't.

2. Paul quoted Exodus 20 (the very Law itself) in Ephesians 6 when he said we were to honor our parents and he explained the blessing there as he got it from the OT- that you will live long. That's exactly what I have done with Malachi 3. I took that verse from the OT but I also included the blessing from the verse as an addendum. That is scripturally valid. Now if there is a flipside to Exodus 20 there would also be a flipside to Malachi 3 in relation to the blessings. That is, if God said he would rebuke the devourer for your sake then that also means if you don't tithe he won't rebuke the devourer. It is the same way I can say if you do not honor your parents as the bible says then God isn't obliged to keep the blessings for you. That's equally scripturally valid bro.

3. As per when something was "introduced" or not- it doesn't matter. What should matter is if it is true based on the scriptures. The scriptures say Satan is the chief devourer. The scriptures say God can rebuke him on behalf of some people. The same scriptures say the 'some people' are tithers. That's lucid enough don't you think?

vooks:
ARGUMENTS AGAINST INTERPOLATING MALACHI'S 'DEVOURER'
1. You can't arrogate the same freedom Paul had to pick themes from OT and ascribe to them whatever you fancy. Paul was inspired but you are not. He is not your equal.That's stepping outside scriptures and adding to them

2. There are numerous (close to twenty) clear passages on giving in the NT,ideal opportunities to inject the devourer motif but none remotely tends to that. NT giving is on 'as you purposes in your heart' and 'without compulsion' basis, and your devourer-consequence of non-tithing not to mention tithing itself is contrary to this grace principle

3. In the entire 1900 years of post-NT Christianity, nobody appealed to the devourer motif until very recently. You can bet if the verse was ever invoked, it was long after Pentecost probably together with tithes.This is clearly a late invention

Deuteronomy 25:4 KJV

Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn.

This audience too was Jewish, living in the middle east as well. But they would have been amiss to insist that Moses ONLY referred to literal oxes because in 1 Timothy 5:18 and 1 Corinthians 9:9 Paul used that OT verse to refer to ministers of the gospel and how they should be allowed to make their living from the gospel. The same Paul used Abraham's maid and wife to teach about the Law and Grace. Which means the instance of sending the bondwoman away for the freewoman to have her say wasn't just what it was on the surface. It was allegorical of something spiritual, same with Devourers as used in Malachi 3.

Candour:
Those prophet Malachi talked in that scripture knew what he meant. There was nothing allegorical there to them. The audience was jewish, living in the middle east and they knew what damage those pests did to farm produce. The temple was operating with the temple storehouse with them then. That scripture wasn't written to a Christian.

Candour:
That scripture talks about farm produce also. A carpenter could suffer the effects of a famine because he'll buy food expensively or not see at all to buy but the farmer is the guy in danger of locusts or caterpillars. Nothing symbolic there.

Joel 2 like Malachi 3 is far more reaching than farm produce. On the surface it appears so, but they are allegorical in import of something spiritual. The locusts eating through their farm products was an illustration of God's judgment. The type of Judgement that Egypt faced in Moses day.

If you read the whole of Joel 2 in context you would have seen the promise of God pouring out his spirit on his people, Blood moon etc. These were prophecies that were fulfilled when Jesus ascended and while some are yet to happen and you can see that they were connected to the restoration from the years of the cankerworm and locust. That's why Peter could quote that verse in referring to the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost. Else, he would have been misapplying scriptures that referred to farmers in using it to explain the strange occurrence on that memorable day.

Candour:
From Rhapsody of Realities
Thats pastor Chris talking up there. Do you affirm he's wrong?
The devourers listed there were all farm pests which destroyed farm produce. how does it concern someone who isn't a farmer?

Candour:
From Rhapsody of Realities
Thats pastor Chris talking up there. Do you affirm he's wrong?
The devourers listed there were all farm pests which destroyed farm produce. how does it concern someone who isn't a farmer?

Well, I don't agree with the term Robber. If he said it, then I don't agree with it. There is a language for the mature and for babes as well. If I don't give my own tithes I would feel like a robber but I don't call those who do not share my convictions robbers.

The devourers listed there were symbolic of the products of a man's hand and not necessarily farm products. Quite similar to Joel 2:25

vooks:
Mbaemeka,
1. You present a shift in Oyaks doctrine over tithing from no-tithing to carrot-&-stick approach, to the present approach which you won't reveal yet. What is the current position and how can we independently verify this?

2. Malachi is quite clear that the non-tithers are cursed and are deemed robbers for not tithing. It follows that IF tithing is a requirement for Chriatians, non-tithing Christians are equally robbers and cursed. You once said that Christ redeemed us from the curses of the OT but not the blessings. Would a Christian be immune from the curse of non-tithing following your argument?

3. About first fruits, the page is Rhapsodies 2014 January 20th.I ran into an older (2011)blog by CE Alpha Beach Road and the first fruits message is eerily similar to the Rhapsodies'
http://cealphabeachrd./2011/01/27/kingdom-finance-prosperity-series-the-firstfruit-offering/
This implies a SYSTEMATIC teaching of the same across CE. Please note these words;

Can we conclude that Firstfruits is taught across CE as a COMMAND with EVIL consequences for not paying?

1. Rev Chris doesn't teach that a christian is cursed According to Malachi 3. That's his position on the matter. If someone else belongs to CE but teaches differently then the person is responsible for not hearing properly. It is now news that Joagbaje is a Pastor in CE. You can check his posts from 2009 till date on tithes. He never said anyone was cursed for not tithing.

2. Non-tithing christians are not Robbers and they are not cursed. But just like the children of Israel and the Egyptians, the devourer could lay siege on them and they would not have the requisite protection they need. Malachi 3 for the church today is to show us the blessings of tithing and nothing more.

3. The name of the group is Rhapsodies, I agree. The date of the message was January 2014 I also agree. But I have never seen any Rhapsody message so detailed and comprehensive like the one on that link. I even checked my January edition of Rhapsody and I couldn't find that message on Firstfruits. I know about the finance convention, but I cannot recall the evil consequences of not giving it and I am very serious about this. I believe the person behind that post made his own position on the teaching. I could be wrong.

3.

Candour:
See the scripture I quoted

Malachi 3:8-9 KJV
Will a man rob God? Yet ye have robbed me. But ye say, Wherein have we robbed thee? In tithes and offerings. [9] Ye are cursed with a curse: for ye have robbed me, even this whole nation.

Do you think a christian who doesn't pay tithe is a robber? If he's a robber, do you agree he's a sinner? If he's a robber, on whose authority are you waving the curse?

If devourers can come to a christian who doesn't tithe, why can't curses come? What is the difference between curses and devourers?

1. The christian isn't a robber.

2. The curse came by the law I.e one's adherence or disobedience of the law. But the devourer has always existed and will always exist. Besides, I said the devourer aims to attack everyone on earth not just Christians who do not tithe. What tithing does is that it gives God the access to rebuke the devourer for the tithers sake whereas in the case of the non-tithers, they would have to fend him off themselves.

Deuteronomy 27:26 KJV

Cursed be he that confirmeth not all the words of this law to do them. And all the people shall say, Amen.

Remember Tithes begun before the law and when the Law came, God put it into the law then he said anyone who didn't obey all the words of the law was cursed, so that he repeated it again in Malachi 3 is a given.

Christ came and redeemed us from the curse of law but the blessings of the law remained intact. So I can always go back to the law to be reminded of the blessings that I know now belong to me.

Personally, I don't go to Malachi 3 to force anyone to give. Rather I go there to be reminded of the blessings that God promised I would have for giving the tithes. In that chapter he said he would open the windows of heaven; pour out a blessing; rebuke the devourer etc. I don't bother looking at the "curses" because no christian is cursed. However, I can also say to a fellow christian, "Brother, you are missing out on this and that if you don't tithe". If he says he is okay that way then that is fine by me.

Candour:
@the bolded, Is there anyway for a honest human being to preach tithing to a christian from Malachi 3:8-11 without the fear factor?
Malachi 3:8-9 KJV
Will a man rob God? Yet ye have robbed me. But ye say, Wherein have we robbed thee? In tithes and offerings. [9] Ye are cursed with a curse: for ye have robbed me, even this whole nation.
That verse above says those who don't pay their tithes (whether levites or other tribes is irrelevant for now) have robbed (past tense) God and are already cursed. Any other interpretation is window dressing.
Do you think that scripture above applies to a Christian saved by the blood of Christ today?

First of all, it might interest some of you to know that Reverend Chris didn't always believe in tithing. As the first son in the line of many pastors across generations he gave tithes in obedience to the teachings he received in AG but when he became a Pastor himself in the late 70s and early 80s he taught members of his then church on the out-datedness of tithing. He believed it had been done away with by the ushering in of the NT and he taught so to all and sundry. He also taught on the fear factor that he was sold on while in AG into tithing. The Pastors always made references to curses for not doing so and he responded to such fear. Subsequently, as he began to study further by the instructions of the Holy Spirit he saw the importance and scriptural basis behind tithing and he has taught so ever since to tremendous results.

Now I said all that to say this: it is not impossible that at the earliest stages of his teaching on these things maybe he still infused a part of the fear factor that he got from his time in AG. I am saying this because the link referred to audios and tapes which means this had to be a long time ago. I can say without flinching that I have never heard him relate non-tithers to any curse neither have I seen him teach such in the last 15 years. So it is very possible that the folks who decided to re teach the issues on Facebook used old tapes or maybe they just infused their own ideas into it.

But just like he said one who doesn't tithe is setting up the persons self for financial strangulation and that is not a curse. That is just explaining the consequences of someone's actions or inactions to them. For example, when God told Adam that if he ate from the Tree of the knowledge of good and evil he will surely die. God wasn't placing a curse on Adam. He was simply showing him the consequences of his disobedience. In the real sense what God did to Adam was a form of tithes because he allowed him to eat from every other Tree but he instructed him to leave that Tree untouched and Adam disobliged and faced the consequences.

It is the same way God told the Israelites to use the blood of a lamb to mark the doorposts and lintels so that the destroyer will passover them. Sure, the children of Israel were God's people and he was trying to protect them. But if anyone of them had mistakenly forgotten to mark his doorposts with the blood of the lamb, he would have lost his first child and God would not have been to blame as he had already told them what to do to negate the effects of the destroyer. God placed no curse on anyone of them.

If I say to my child make sure you look closely before crossing the road or else you would be knock down by a vehicle I am only giving instructions with the adjoining consequences of flouting such instructions. I am not placing a curse on my child. We all have agreed from the scriptures that we live in a fallen world that is being run by the devil whose sole aim is to kill, steal and DESTROY. Now Satan wants to destroy the whole of mankind but even more so us christians because we have opted to follow the very way that he wants nobody to follow. This destroyer is similar to the one who went about the camp slaying the firstborn of the Egyptians. Remember, he didn't go there to destroy just them, he wanted to destroy all but the blood was the security policy for the initiated. That is the same way tithes is a financial security policy for us christians. When we give it, we give God the leeway to protect our finances for us. Those who do not give it are only saying they can manage their finances themselves and they are allowed that. The problem is when that destroyer comes to their doorposts, God will not be able to rebuke him on their behalf and the reason is simple: because they told him they can do it on their own. So I am not amiss if I say such a person is setting up himself for financial strangulation and I am not placing a curse on him.

As per the firstfruits, I will have to do more investigations to be certain Rev Chris said "God will take it from you it you do not give". I have never heard him say so. My understanding of the principle of firstfruits is on this thread and it is all in relation to my putting God first. I have never seen it as something I had to do nullify any curse of any sort as what anyone calls firstfruits can be subjective even from the bible. I have a Pastor friend who gave his first year (not month but year) salary as his firstfruits. I never did so and I have never heard him teach so as a doctrine of any sort. I actually cringed to see that statement on that Facebook post and I will do well to investigate it thoroughly to be certain that those words were used. I however strongly believe that it is not the case.

Sorry for my epistle. I might make corrections if need be.

Back to hibernating.

I would like to get a few things out of the way before I hibernate again.

1. CE does not teach that if you don't give your tithe or firstfruits sicknesses or diseases will come upon you. I have never heard it taught in any service by the most senior Pastor. So that goes for all the mentions WRT that.

2. Someone could begin a group on Facebook and attempt to rehash everything the Pastor said on a teaching. It doesn't mean the person will do so perfectly. We are all guilty of sometimes superimposing our own thoughts into any message we listen to. That's why Jesus said "be careful how you hear". Some people heard him talk about his body and they concluded that he encouraged cannibalism so they abandoned him. Even on this thread we have seen 2 people from the same 'Church' argue about their understanding of the same teaching by one Pastor. It is all a function of one's ability to listen and then understand.

3. Image asked for a thread where the supposed Tithers of NL invoked curses or called cursed those in the ilk of antitithers. It doesn't relate to importing links from Pastors who made such teachings outside NL. Notwithstanding, I have seen the links and I will give my own interpretations and position on the issues raised. Let me also add at this juncture that I saw no curses from any of the said Pastors. But I will delve further just to ensure I am not defending the indefensible.