Joagbaje:

@ wordtalk

I really commend your strong stand on truth.

That's just simple enough. We don't need to go into the nitty gritty of the circumstances by which they gave tithes. The bible didn't indicate the details . important thing is the fact that tithing is a spiritual deed in relationship with God.

^^
It's not a problem - simple matters are not difficult to see unless people choose not to see them.

Joagbaje:

@ wordtalk

I really commend your strong stand on truth.

That's just simple enough. We don't need to go into the nitty gritty of the circumstances by which they gave tithes.  The bible didn't indicate the details . important thing is the fact that tithing  is a spiritual deed in relationship with God.

Wordtalk, as much as I appreciate and accept your view on the Tithing subject, it is statements like the one I highlighted that I find really disturbing.

It is as though the author is insinuating that Non-tithers dont have a relationship with God. It seems to me as a tactic to draw people to pay Tithes.

The only person that knows those who has/have a relationship with him as a "Fact" is God himself.  Tithing or non-tithing.

^^ thank you Dare2think!

History has shown us that this is not so much about scholarship but about motives and the idea expressed that you have pointed out is why these issues are so delicate. Those of us who have risen above the possibility of manipulation by our "would-be masters" are not the problem but those who are young or just coming in.

These people insidiously create monsters even greater than themselves ultimately because whist they know the truth but only manipulate to self-advantage, the babe brought up on such poison will not have any background knowledge of "original" truth!

And this is why those who seemed to stand against wordtalk were so eager to have him distance himself from our true "sons of stomachs" and those who turn truth upon its head to suit personal agendas.

dare2think:

Wordtalk, as much as I appreciate and accept your view on the Tithing subject, it is statements like the one I highlighted that I find really disturbing.

It is as though the author is insinuating that Non-tithers dont have a relationship wit God. It seems to me as a tactic to draw people to pay Tithes.

I haven't shifted from or changed my views, and I'm sorry if my previous remark on Joagbaje's comments seemed unclear. Let me reiterate:

1. Tithing and any other type of giving (freewill, donations, alms, contributions, etc)  are not the basis of our salvation or justification in Christ. That is why I have said and maintain that tithing (or not-tithing) is not a salvation matter.

2. Relationships with God are founded on premises that He Himself has given at a particular time. The gifts, offerings and giving of tithes are simply the demonstration of those relationships - they are not the basis for establishing those relationships. To be clear: Abraham did not give tithes or any other offerings in order to have a relationship with God - he gave them because he was already called of God to have a relationship with Him. The same with Israel.

3. Nobody should be lured to give something (tithes, freewill, firstfruits, contributions, alms, donations, etc.) so that they can thereby have a relationship with God - Christians give what they give because they already have that relationship with Him by faith in His Son, jesus Christ.

4. Will a person lose their relationship with God because they do not give anything (whether tithes, freewill, firstfruits, contributions, alms, donations, etc.)? No, I do not find such a thing taught in the Bible.

These are the things I have tried to maintain - so if I remark on what others are saying, it does not thereby mean that I had abandoned or shifted from the position I hold.

^^

Thank you!

Let me add that whist it is an act of worship to God to give to His Work (ministries, the poor, widows and generally all those in need), tithing or indeed "giving" is NOT the basis for prosperity or success in the Christian walk.

Abram (Abraham) was blessed even before he gave his single one time tithe! And I would like to see the person who will explain why there is not one single born-again Christian (indeed tither) amongst the worlds (or Nigeria's) wealthiest people.

Tithes are NOT your way to success!

nuclearboy:

Plus the last question brings something to light (in me). If pro-tithers state that Abram instituted tithing, I think its only fair they follow his rules! If its the Mosaic law, then the rules in that should hold sway! So which is it?

The modern day tithing is not based on any of these (though it appear to be a modified version of the Levitical tithe), so there are no rules to follow (other than pastoral rules ).

Joagbaje:

The bible didn't indicate the details .  important thing is the fact that tithing  is a spiritual deed in relationship with God.

Joagbaje don come with updated/modified definition of tithe. the idea that it based on 'spiritual principle' is not selling, now it is a 'spiritual deed in relationship with God'. what next

@Wordtalk

Nice one. I'm really warming up to you. Even when I dont agree with some of your views, I admire your stand on transparency and Truthfulness. ( Unfortunately, same cannot be said about some individuals)

Much respect.

nuclearboy:
. . . .

Plus the last question brings something to light (in me). If pro-tithers state that Abram instituted tithing, I think its only fair they follow his rules! If its the Mosaic law, then the rules in that should hold sway! So which is it?

I ask that last question sincerely because in my estimation, it puts all pro-tithers in a quandary and I wonder if scripture and good sense can get them out of it - I want to know.  . . .

Zikkyy:

The modern day tithing is not based on any of these (though it appear to be a modified version of the Levitical tithe), so there are no rules to follow (other than pastoral rules ).

The claim that modern "tithing" is based on the example of Abram/Abraham is obviously a ruse because many more people are seeing that the arguments for tithing based on Malachi etc are truly untenable.    This is why it is important to seek clarification from those advocating "voluntary" tithing --- how truly "voluntary" is "voluntary".

This thread from page 3 became whether the argument is really for voluntary tithing if it cannot be accepted that it is appropriate to refer to a person whose 10% is in a form other than money or who gives his 10% outside church is a "tither" and his action is "tithing". If so called "voluntary" tithing was truly based on the Abram example or "principle", there will be no hesitation to make the acknowledgment.  

I stand by the comment below from only my second post on the thread: if the simple logical acknowledgment (assuming Abram is truly the example or "principle" had been made or if honest and straightforward answers had been provided to legitimate questions, the thread would not have needed to have dragged as it did and might have even been more "fruitful". Nah, some of us can see through the ruse and will not stand for it.

Until tithe mongers agree that (a) "tithes does not have to be money", and (b) "tithes does not have to be taken into only "church" but can instead also be given to widows, orphans and other needy people etc, they are only playing games and some of us can see through the chicanery.

Enigma:

If so called "voluntary" tithing was truly based on the Abram example or "principle", there will be no hesitation to make the acknowledgment.    

My brother, which one be Abram principle? most people are tithing to 'hammer'

Enigma:

This thread from page 3 became whether the argument is really for voluntary tithing if it cannot be accepted that it is appropriate to refer to a person whose 10% is in a form other than money or who gives his 10% outside church is a "tither" and his action is "tithing".   

i think such views will be personal. for the man that renders his tenth to either charity or church, yes he believes he is tithing (that's the easy bit ). I think a good number of peeps that chose to render their tenth to the church, giving a tenth of income to charity cannot be tithing (otherwise they would be doing it). From pastoral perspective, rendering a tenth of your income to charity can NEVER be an act tithing if you think i am wrong, ask Jo

Edit: the question i would ask is: since the modern day tithing is a modified version of biblical tithing activities, who defines what tithing is or should be? Pastor or the man rendering his tenth?

Zikkyy:

My brother, which one be Abram principle? most people are tithing to 'hammer'

i think such views will be personal. for the man that renders his tenth to either charity or church, yes he believes he is tithing (that's the easy bit ). I think a good number of peeps that chose to render their tenth to the church, giving a tenth of income to charity cannot be tithing (otherwise they would be doing it). From pastoral perspective, rendering a tenth of your income to charity can NEVER be an act tithing if you think i am wrong, ask Jo

From the experience on this thread, obviously no be only Jo think so. 

Ah that reminds me! Henry Ford (I believe) once said something to the effect:

'You can have my new model car in any colour that you like - as long as it is black'!

Similarly: tithing is voluntary ---- as long as it is money and it is taken in/to church. 

Enigma:

From the experience on this thread, obviously no be only Jo think so. 

I very much understand what you are talking about. but it was never stated in clear terms, so let's give them the benefit of the doubt.

Enigma:

Ah that reminds me! Henry Ford (I believe) once said something to the effect:

'You can have my new model car in any colour that you like - as long as it is black'!

Similarly: tithing is voluntary ---- as long as it is money and it is taken in/to church. 

Akhozem (abi what's his name) will swear for the two of you the way you are spoiling business for him!

Soemtimes also Azibalua ----- believe me, despite the elaborate ruse on that one.

Seriously Nuke, i hope you now see that it was NEVER about "emotions" for me!

Sometimes also other "supporters" we don't know yet!

About emotions, what I meant was that the "passion" for clarity & frustration at wordtalk's refusal to state a simple yes or no took this conversation to a point where we forgot who we were and it thus degenerated into something that looked more like setting a trap! You will notice Debosky got same impression.

I think wordtalk's problem was not answering but he wanted to put caveats, clarifications and thus not find himself in a corner in the future.

Wordtalk has a position which if not well articulated could end up being turned against him - he simply wanted to avoid such in future, and he's not likely a "turncoat" - such cautious people rarely are.

Best, his stated stand does even MORE damage to the argument of the compulsory tithe advocates than ours -> BECAUSE BOTTOM-LINE, it shows that AT THEIR VERY BEST, the compulsory-tithe arguments reside in quicksand!

I hope you understand me now! And I did learn from you three

@Nuke

I understand you ---- except I have a different impression of wordtalk's position. In my view there is nothing to hold against a person who preaches "voluntary" tithing and in doing so agrees that a person who gives 10% (whether in money or otherwise) to charity instead of in/to church is a tither and his action can be appropriately called tithing. 

^^ benefit of the doubt, Brother!

Time will disclose IF there's chicanery there but I wager this guy is for real.

And again, his argument actually worsens that of the real dangers - those who would turn an act of worship into their own agenda for easy monies and control over the souls of men!

^^^Ah, I had given the benefit of doubt in the past; tested and found wanting.

Even this thread doesn't warrant that benefit: I'll tell you something, if I choose to dissect that portion of wordtalk's post that is often quoted/cited as the answer you will be able to see more clearly that it is really a non-answer to the pertinent questions that were posed. I just haven't felt the need to bother to dissect it so far.

Obviously though, it is fair for others who see things differently to give that benefit of doubt.

wordtalk:

I haven't shifted from or changed my views, and I'm sorry if my previous remark on Joagbaje's comments seemed unclear. Let me reiterate:

1. Tithing and any other type of giving (freewill, donations, alms, contributions, etc)  are not the basis of our salvation or justification in Christ. That is why I have said and maintain that tithing (or not-tithing) is not a salvation matter.

2. Relationships with God are founded on premises that He Himself has given at a particular time. The gifts, offerings and giving of tithes are simply the demonstration of those relationships - they are not the basis for establishing those relationships. To be clear: Abraham did not give tithes or any other offerings in order to have a relationship with God - he gave them because he was already called of God to have a relationship with Him. The same with Israel.

3. Nobody should be lured to give something (tithes, freewill, firstfruits, contributions, alms, donations, etc.) so that they can thereby have a relationship with God - Christians give what they give because they already have that relationship with Him by faith in His Son, jesus Christ.

4. Will a person lose their relationship with God because they do not give anything (whether tithes, freewill, firstfruits, contributions, alms, donations, etc.)? No, I do not find such a thing taught in the Bible.

These are the things I have tried to maintain - so if I remark on what others are saying, it does not thereby mean that I had abandoned or shifted from the position I hold.

I didn't say anything contrary either. You are too sound to be manipulated by their schemes. God bless.

Joagbaje:

I didn't say anything contrary either. You are too sound to be manipulated by their schemes. God bless.

Lol, I know - that perhaps explains why some of them are still unsatisfied with the simple things I have said for myself even though there's nothing they find of substance to complain about.

Enigma:

Soemtimes also Azibalua ----- believe me, despite the elaborate ruse on that one.

Seriously Nuke, i hope you now see that it was NEVER about "emotions" for me!

stop derailing ,
am very much female
stay on point
the issue is
tithing existed before the law
did not go with the law
has come to stay
and its a principle for prosperity
piam

nuclearboy:

Wordtalk has a position which if not well articulated could end up being turned against him - he simply wanted to avoid such in future, and he's not likely a "turncoat" - such cautious people rarely are.

Best, his stated stand does even MORE damage to the argument of the compulsory tithe advocates than ours -> BECAUSE BOTTOM-LINE, it shows that AT THEIR VERY BEST, the compulsory-tithe arguments reside in quicksand!

While I appreciate your observation of my cautious approach to matters like this, I don't think my aim was to cause anyone damage. Although this is not an issue in the bigger picture, I've said earlier that I'm not an anti-tither by any measure. Anti-tithers, at least in my POV, have a stated premise to be totally out and against any hint of tithing among Christians: that is not even close to what i have tried to argue.

Reason why I make these observations are that:

(a) I don't want to leave anyone in doubt as to where I stand - so that people don't mistake me for an anti-tither (or even close) just by reading some of your comments;
(b) I don't want to be mistaken for someone who is out to take sides and further divide the Body of Christ. I believe we can reason out issues, even where we disagree or agree - but that should not warrant the idea of "us vs them" culture among us as believers.

You're cool, so I have nothing personal against you or your views - and I hope you can understand what I'm saying here.

Enigma:

In my view there is nothing to hold against a person who preaches "voluntary" tithing and in doing so agrees that a person who gives 10% (whether in money or otherwise) to charity instead of in/to church is a tither and his action can be appropriately called tithing. 

one has to be careful when defining 'voluntary' for most people, 'voluntary' could just be tithing or not tithing. it has nothing to do with where you render your tenth (i.e. church or charity).

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

^^^ OK prayer IS compulsory.

So, please answer this direct: is tithing compulsory?

Joagbaje:

Is prayer compulsory or voluntary?

This what am talking about. for people like you 'voluntary' can be interpreted to mean "if you like do, if you like don't. na you lose'

Joagbaje:

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

BTW, what has tithing got to do with prayer? The height of desperation. you come here with all sort of schemes to justify the 'milking' of the flock.

Enigma:

The claim that modern "tithing" is based on the example of Abram/Abraham is obviously a ruse because many more people are seeing that the arguments for tithing based on Malachi etc are truly untenable.    

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.

This thread from page 3 became whether the argument is really for voluntary tithing if it cannot be accepted that it is appropriate to refer to a person whose 10% is in a form other than money or who gives his 10% outside church is a "tither" and his action is "tithing". If so called "voluntary" tithing was truly based on the Abram example or "principle", there will be no hesitation to make the acknowledgment.    

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.

Zikkyy:

This what am talking about. for people like you 'voluntary' can be interpreted to mean "if you like do, if you like don't. na you lose'

No be hin don run away so ---- e fit be say we go wait three days before hin go "remember" dis thread and "search" for am.

Joagbaje:

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

I haven't had any issues with you personally, but this is truly dangerous doctrine.

No, the analogy is not helpful between prayer and tithing or any other type of giving.

In a Christian's walk with God,

1. Giving is not compulsory
2. Prayer is not compulsory
3. Marriage is not compulsory
4. Eating is not compulsory
5. Singing is not compulsory
6. Fasting is not compulsory
7. Going to Catholic mass is not compulsory
. . . and a whole other things that are not 'compulsory'.

The problem with many people is the effort to either side to force each person's own belief upon others - one side says because they don't do this or that, therefore every Christian MUST or MUST NOT do likewise! Just because you are married and your brother is not considering married life, should the married start castigating the unmarried therefore? As long as the unmarried is not commiting fornication or adultery or any other vice, why does his or her unmarried life become an issue for the married?

If you don't eat and I enjoy a good feast, why should my eating become a problem for those who feel that I must go about like them for not eating? The person who does not eat would argue from Genesis to Malachi that eating is not for Christians - and he may sound right and accurate and correct in all his or her arguments! But oh dear me - why should my eating become a problem to you who does not eat simply because you have chosen to not eat based on some arguments about Genesis to Malachi?


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!

For God's sake!! When will Christians move past this self-destructive arguments and let others feel free to enjoy how God leads them in their daily lives?

Zikkyy:

one has to be careful when defining 'voluntary' for most people, 'voluntary' could just be tithing or not tithing. it has nothing to do with where you render your tenth (i.e. church or charity).

Bless you.