₦airaland Forum

First Words Go A Long Way

First words are as important as the whole of one’s speeches. Great achievements are remembered for many things, including first words – they either point the listener to a sense of satisfaction; or else what needs to be improved upon; or otherwise that a particular course of action be completely abandoned. What was your first word/words for the New Year? Someone said a first word of thanks that starts the year will not be regretted at the end.

Reference:_____________________________

1 Thessalonians 5:18

In every thing give thanks:
for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus concerning you.
__________________________________________

Image123:
Hi pilgrim.1,its great to have you back,what happened?

How are you doing, Image123? Nothing really happened, just busy with quite a lot until recently. I hope you're doing okay? More blessings to you.

ttalks:
Heb 8:6-13
(6) But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a[b] better covenant[/b], which was established upon better promises.
(7) For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.
(8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:
(9) Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.
(10) For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:
(11) And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.
(12) For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.
(13) In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

Is it not clear that you're confirming what I said earlier about confusing the 'old convenant' for 'the Law'? The verses above which you quoted do not teach that the Law is decaying or waxing old or ready to vanish away! Rather, it is the old covenant that is said to be waxing old and ready to vanish away.

Second, God did not say He would make a "new Law"; rather he declared He would make a "new covenant" with His people. It is clear that there was nothing wrong with the Law; and Hebrews 8 does not blame the 'old covenant' - rather, it was the people themselves that God found fault with, for they broke His covenant with them. This is why God declared He was going to make a "new covenant" with them, and not a 'new law'.

Third, in making a new covenant, He had not declared therefore that tithing has come to an end. People who read their biases into those text often amaze me how they never see that Hebrews 8 does not confuse "old covenant" for the Law. God infact said he would write His laws into our mind and hearts - not so that we go after the Law of the old covenant in "the oldness of the letter" (Rom. 7:6); but that we understand the spirit of God's Law and live by its power and principles.

ttalks:
All the law had to say or all the laws under the old covenant are for those who are under the law:

Romans 3:19
(19) Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.


But Christians are not under the law:

Galatians 5:18
(18) But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.

The Law was given to the Jews; but the Law also speaks to Gentiles as well who are not in the covenant of Judaism. Let's see this in simple terms:

(a) the Gentiles are not ignorant of the import of the law:
[list][li]For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another- Romans 2:14-15[/li][/list]

(b) the Law speaks to Christians in the Body of Christ:
[list][li]"For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen? Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written: that he that ploweth should plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope" - 1 Corinthians 9:9-11[/li][/list]

As you can see, in quoting the Law of Moses and highlighting its principles, the apostle makes clear that what he quoted from the Law of Moses was written for OUR SAKES - addressing specifically the Christian. We are not under the Law, yes; but the same Law speaks to US. . . for our sake, no doubt, this was written!

We often claim the blessings of Israel and yet want to rubbish the very basis of those promises. Please go back a step and re-read Hebrews 8 that you quoted again: does it not show clearly that the promises were SPECIFICALLY addressed to the Jews?
[list][li] "For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord. For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people: " - - Heb. 8:8 & 10[/li][/list]

No Christian making so much about the "new covenant" against tithes has yet pointed out that his claim to the promises from Jeremiah 31:31-34 were SPECIFICALLY addressed to the Jews and not to Nigerians or Americans! Yet, we gloss over these matters and outrightly reject the fact that Malachi 3 was also addressing CHRISTIANS! How? Simple: Paul noted that whatever was written aforetime was written for OUR learning (Romans 15:4).

In the same way, the Law speaks to us and shows us divine principles for our lives. To reject this basic point is to yet quote the NT in an empty manner without understanding its implications. God is not asking us to be Jews bent twice under the old covenant of Judaism; rather He lays His laws in our hearts and points us to the spiritual import of the Law, so we can serve in newness of life and not the oldness of the letter.

ttalks:
What then is the purpose of the law?:

Gal 3:19
(19) Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.

The law was added because of transgressions but only till Christ came to establish the new covenant.After then, it was no longer necessary to those who were in Christ through faith.

The purpose of the Law was to point us to Christ - but that is only one aspect of the Law. Galatians 3:19 does not teach that is the only purpose of the Law, but just one of its purposes. If the Law is no longer necessary, then Christians should not be making recourse to the same Law for Christian marriages and the place of women in the Church!

I have said this so many times, and will say it yet again: if the law is no longer necessary, what business does it have to do with the doctrine of Christian marriages (1 Cor. 7:39 - the wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth)? Why are women to keep silence in the churches (1 Cor. 14:34 - "commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law"? Saying that it is only upholding aspect of the Law just does not cut it! If "the Law" (not "aspects of the law" is no longer necessary, what then is the same Law having to do with Christian doctrines in marriage and the church?

ttalks:
In what way is the law useful today?:

1Timothy 1:8-11
(8 But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully;
(9) Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,
(10) For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;
(11) According to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust.

Lol, I know those verses; but you're complicating issues all the more for yourself, ttalks! Let me show you:

(a) first, you claim that the Law is no longer necessary, abi?
(b) then, you're trying to convince us about what way the law is useful today?

How do you reconcile both ideas? Something that you say is "no longer necessary" should not at the same time be looking for its utility today! Haba!

Okay, jokes aside. I know how difficult we sometimes get into issues like this. The simple answer to all this is that we refrain from making unfounded assertions about the Law that Scripture does not teach. It is good to quote as many verses as we want about the law; but when you do so, think about the practicality of what you're inferring.

God bless you.

ttalks:
What is a covenant?
A covenant is simply an agreement.
The laws are the principles or rules by which an agreement/covenant is upheld.

While your simple definition is appreciate about a 'covenant', the secodn part misses the point. The Law is not the principle by which an agreement is upheld - rather, the covenant is upheld by the very thing that RATIFIES it.

One may speak about any Law; but such a law is not upheld until it is RATIFIED. Covenants made in the OT were ratified in one way or another - whether by blood, or by a fellowship meal. The law or whatever else is spoken in the covenant are only the contents of such a covenant; and the contents do not in themselves make the covenant effective. When Moses had read all the precepts of the Law, they would still have been meaningless and without effect. What made them effective was the fact that he ratified the covenant by the blood of animals (compare Heb. 9:18-20) .

ttalks:
The old covenant had it law/rules.
The new covenant has its own law/rules; some of them including/mirroring certain rules/law of the old covenant.
So, Christians are to keep the law of the new covenant, not the law of the old covenant.

I don't know how many Christians lately are saying that they are keeping the Old Covenant when they tithe. Anti-tithers often accuse tithing Christians of that idea; but even such accusers have not a clue what they themselves are arguing. In very fact, majority of those who tithe and are well informed will tell you that their tithing is not a matter of keeping the old covenant of Judaism.

ttalks:
What are the laws of the new covenant?
They are those which Christ commanded under the new covenant and those which his apostles laid down through the doctrine they preached.
Tithes are not part of the law of the new covenant.They are part of the law of the old covenant.

Nowhere did any apostle declare that tithes are NOT part of the new covenant. For instance, I can show you many verses where the apostles specifically taught that CIRCUMCISION as practised in Judaism is not part of the Christian life (1 Cor. 7:19 for example); but can you show me ANY VERSE where they taught specifically that tithes are NOT part of the new covenant?

ttalks:
This is the main and only valid reason why there should be arguments against tithes in the world of Christianity.
It isn't and should not be because of any form of coersion or force on the payment of tithes.

The "only valid" is made up by anti-tithers; and not because it is a matter argued against in the Bible! Anti-tithers would argue endlessly against tithes simply because they see it as a coercion from the Law. If you examine their own recommendations closely, you would be amazed that they don't practise what they preach at all! This is why you find them confusing their ideas about the Law and make confusing statements which they cannot defend when queried.

ttalks:
And besides, Act 15 make it clear that the apostles never commanded Christians to keep the law of Moses(old covenant):

Act 15:23-24
(23) And they wrote letters by them after this manner; The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia:
(24) Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:

Acts 15 does not tell command anyone to stop tithing. Remember that the Law of Moses was also quoted for the Christian doctrine of loving God and loving one's neighbour? Does Acts 15 also say that because such matters are also in the Law of Moses, we should also stop loving God and loving neighbour?

ttalks:
Romans 3:31 does not suggest we follow the law; it only points out the fact that the law is powerful/established/recognized in the sense that it was God that instituted it and also because it pointed and led to the new covenant which completely replaced it(not joined it).

I never said that Romans 3:31 was suggesting that we "follow the law". Rather, I quoted your preferred version of CEV for it and asked you what you thought. I've noted that Christians, whatever they may claim or argue, yet CANNOT void the Law (see KJV on that verse). That does not suggest in my reply what you're suggesting.

Second, neither of the two versions (CEV or KJV) or any other version leads to the inference you gave for it. It does not say that "the law is powerful/established/recognized", nor does it say that the new covenant replaced the Law! Read that verse carefully - it is not passive but active: "we establish the law" or "we make it more powerful". It is a matter of our response to it; not a matter of its own response to itself.

Thank you, ttalks, for taking the time to enunciate your points further. Nothing personal against you; but I'd have to correct a few impressions that are yet unbalanced in your reply. Please bear with me.

ttalks:
It is very clear that tithes are of the law and we are not obligated to keep the law.

Tithes did not start with the Law. Another way of saying this is that the Law did not originate or invent the tithes. When people worry about what is "of the Law", they often draw the inference that Christians are therefore not to have anything to do with such matters - simply because they are "OF THE LAW". If that arguments holds, then in the same way Christians should have no business quoting the same Law for loving God and loving neighbour, or for matters about marriage and the woman's place in the Churches. The argument often made from the notion that 'xyz is of the Law' does not stand up to its own face value at all. There are many things which are also "of the Law" and yet practised in the Christian faith - nobody is hooting or arguing against such matters.

ttalks:
The new testament has its laws and that is what we keep.

What are those "laws", if you care to enunciate further? Where were they derived from?

ttalks:
The new testament upholds aspects of the law but not all.

A nice way to put it; but doesn't that very idea collapse your previous arguments? Compare that with the statement:

'Christians are dead to the Law'

If you're dead to the Law, why argue to "uphold aspects" of what you are DEAD to? It would either mean that you cannot have anything to do with what you are dead to; or such a person does not believe they are actually dead to the Law. To suggest "upholding aspects" is to confuse the grounds of one's standing.

ttalks:
The aspects upheld by the new testament as indicated in the new testament are part of the law of the new testament,
so we have to uphold them.

I understand what you're trying to say; but that is not what is taught in Scripture - if we keep to the strain of your previous arguments. The Bible does not speak of "aspects" when it mentions the fact that Christians are not under the Law; nor does it give the idea of "aspects" in the statement that we are DEAD to the Law. For these two things, if not properly understood, are often confused with another fact about the Law: "yea, we establish the Law" (Romans 3:31). The basic point here is that people often make wholesale overthrow of the Law, instead of seeing the PRINCIPLE inherent in the law.

ttalks:
Those aspects of the law not upheld by the new testament(tithes inclusive) are not to be upheld by Christians.

The Bible never once mentioned that tithes are condemned - not in one instance. The only reason why people condemn it is because they read their own bias into the texts to make it appear so - and that is why they cannot answer simple questions when further queried.

JJYOU:
hello my dear sister. i trust you are well. it saddens me to see kunle insult the church and pastors the way he does. we are all free to rant and rave on NL but i know humility and respect for others is a christian virtue.

i suspect he is a very young person so i keep him in my prayers.

God bless and welcome

@JJYOU,
I'm okay and doing well, thanks. Just that so many things have occupied me lately. And you, I trust you're doing great? Glory to God.

Indeed, the forum being a public place for discussing should not mean that we should throw decorum out the window. It is not by disparaging other people that Godly solution is produced - alas! we all find ourselves one way or another in that grip and need to be careful. All the same, thanks for the greeting and God bless you.

Hallo sancta,

Your comment raises a most important question for us:

sancta:
The gates of hell used by Christ does not just apply to all “churches” but only the Holy Roman Catholic Church.

How is that so - from the verses being quoted for it?

Hi chukwudi44,

The Bible does not teach that Peter is the foundation of the Church. That is the basic point being made by those you're trying to query. However,

chukwudi44:
CULD YOU PLEASE EXPLAIN WHY OUR LORD JESUS ASKED PETER IN JOHN 21" TO FEED MY LAMBS " AND "TEND MY SHEEP"

There are answers to that - yet, the commission to feed and tend believers with God's Word does not make Peter the foundation of the Church.

chukwudi44:
ALSO EXPLAIN WHY PETER WAS NAMED FIRST BY ALL THE GOSPEL WRITERS INCLUDING MATHEW AND JOHN.

True, Peter was first named in several instances; but that he was named first does not make him the foundation of the Church either.

chukwudi44:
WHY WAS HE THE CHIEF SPOKESMAN OF THE APOSTLES AT THE ELECTION OF MATHIAS,ON THE DAY OF PENTECOST ,AND JUDGE IN THE CASE OF ANANIAS AND SAPHIRA.

Again, being the chief spokesman does not make him the foundation; neither does his being 'judge' at anytime make him the foundation upon which the Church is being built.

None of the questions you offered in reply proves anything near the idea that Peter was at anytime the foundation upon which the Church is being built. Those questions do not suggest your idea at all. Perhaps you may want to point out HOW, WHERE and WHY those questions in your thinking may have made Peter the FOUNDATION upon which the Church is being built. Care to do that for us?

Regards.

ttalks:
pilgrim.1

From all you've said, I can only see that the only way to lay this issue about tithes to rest is to show that Christians are not obligated to keep the law.Because tithes are clearly of the law.

Romans 7:4
(4)  Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.

Hi ttalks,

I was hoping you would do me the favour of being consistent in your mishandling of the Law. Just to satisfy your curiosity, I was well aware of all those verses you posted, and I'm thankful. However, just posting them as a desperate attempt to ignore their contextual meaning does not solve your problem.

We're aware that the NT teaches that Christians are, among other things:
      (a) not under the Law; and
      (b) dead to the Law.

However, what you have failed to highlight is the fact that Christians CANNOT void the Law (Romans 3:31). According to your CEV which you quoted earlier, I noted that it says effectively: "Do we destroy the Law by our faith? Not at all! We make it even more powerful". Do you have anything reasonable to say on that?

Coming back to your response, perhaps you need to go back a few pages in another relevant thread and see how REPEATEDLY we've made the point that tithing (or ANY OTHER type of giving) is not a matter of being "obligated". To excuse it as such every single time is to build your argument on a false and very misleading premise. Here is a reminder:

                  'I don't think you have noticed how many people ackowledge that tithes
                  have nothing to do with the idea of ~

                            DEMAND,
                            COERSION,
                            COMPULSION,
                            FORCE,
                            CAJOLING,
                            MANIPULATION,
                            INDOCTRINATION,

                            . . . or any other ONOMATOMANIA!!

The only reason why many people continue to argue tithes and consequently condemn it is because it has assumed the dimension of coercion in many quarters. That does not mean therefore that "obligated" (or any such ideas) should become the norm across the world among those who choose to tithe.

Secondly, those who often assume an anti-tithing stance do so on many occasions with a very weak idea about the Law. I have often noted that many Christian doctrines in the Church are derived directly from the Law, and nobody has complained or whined about such issues. I also gave you several other examples in my reply - what have you said about them? If you want to do completely away with the Law, please let's then all make a choice to completely reject anything that comes from the Law - and they include the following:

    Loving God
    Loving your neighbour
    Christian marriages
    Children obey your parents in the Lord
    and many, many others.

If you want to maintain that we have nothing to do with the Law (please read "tenets" or principles, not legalism), then stop being selective. You need to understand the balance presented in the NT with regards to the Law, the covenants, the priestshoods and the dispensations. That may be of tremendous help, instead of just simply quoting all those verses in the mistaken idea that one cannot tithe because the only thing anti-tithers see is the Law!

@OLAADEGBU,

Thank you for your unfailing prayers - I saw your short email, and beg your forgiveness for not having replied until now. Just want to acknowledge and say a personal thanks, and God bless you everyday.

Shalom, it is well.

[list]You Are What You Say!

Your words are your own, unless you plagiarise them from others without having passed through their experiences. They make you the person you are; and whether you can be trusted for your words or not, will all depend on how you have used your them. Your words gain power or lose effect by how you live your life. A man's words are worth the value of his very life and outlook.

Reference:____________________________________

Matthew 5:37
Simply let your 'Yes' be 'Yes,' and your 'No,' 'No';
anything beyond this comes from the evil one.

James 5:12
Above all, my brothers, do not swear—not by heaven or by earth
or by anything else. Let your "Yes" be yes, and your "No," no, or
you will be condemned
__________________________________________
[/list]

[list]Words Make or Break You - Watch It!

Words are the building blocks of any human language; but meaning only comes from words in their proper arrangements. Misunderstandings are words misplaced, or right words spoken to the wrong audience. Great careers, respected names, and strong families are the result of carefully chosen words spoken or expressed at the right time and in the proper measure. What words make or break you?

       Reference:____________________________________

       Proverbs 6:2-3,5 (NIV)
       If you have been trapped by what you said,
       ensnared by the words of your mouth,
       then do this, my son, to free yourself,
       since you have fallen into your neighbor's hands:
       Go and humble yourself;
       press your plea with your neighbor! . . .
       Free yourself, like a gazelle from the hand of the hunter,
       like a bird from the snare of the fowler.
       __________________________________________
[/list]

Hi House,

I've enjoyed the exhortations and fellowship in this thread - and I just want to say, God bless una plenty-plenty. There's a lot that occupy me these days; but between times, I'll try and drop a few lines here and there. . . if nothing else, but to say hallo to all.

Just to share a few from my personal notes:

[list]Interesting Things About Words

Words are expressions of our thoughts and personalities. Without them, we would
never be able to understand ourselves or communicate coherently and intelligibly
with others. Words are what you saw that moved you to click this thread to want to
read what is said here. Words. . . they move people, build dreams, change the course
of history, and shape nations.

[i]Reference[/i]____________________________________

1 Corinthians 14:9 (NIV)
So it is with you.
Unless you speak intelligible words with your tongue,
how will anyone know what you are saying?
You will just be speaking into the air.
__________________________________________
[/list]

Now, let's look at a few references you cited:

ttalks:
Romans 10:4(KJV)
(4) For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.

Romans 10:4(ISV)
(4) For Christ is the culmination of the law as far as righteousness is concerned for everyone who believes.

Romans 10:4(CEV)
(4) But Christ makes the Law no longer necessary for those who become acceptable to God by faith.

They are thoughtful; but CEV is flawed - for nowhere in Scripture ddid the apostles teach at anytime that Christ made the law "no longer necessary" - please see Romans 3:31. Is it not remarkable that the same CEV has this to say in Romans 3:31 - "Do we destroy the Law by our faith? Not at all! We make it even more powerful"??

There is a difference between making something "no longer necessary" and then making it "even more powerful". Perhaps you would like to reconsider this matter before drawing unbalanced inference such as you did?

ttalks:
Galatians 5:18
(18) But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.

Tithes are confirmed to be of the law(don't come up with Abraham and Jacob cos that has been explained times without number) and we as Christians are not under the law.

So also loving God and loving neighbour (Matt. 22:37-40 >> see Deut. 6:5 and Lev. 19:18) - as well marriage as taught among Christians (1 Corinthians 7:39). Just because we are not under Law does not mean we have nothing to do with its tenets (principles).

ttalks:
Romans 3:19
(19) Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.

The law of tithes is in relation for those who are under the law which we Christians aren't under.

Does Scripture make tithing only and always a matter of the Law?

ttalks:
You say tithing is a way to appreciate your spiritual leader/pastor. Fine, if that's what u feel go ahead and practice it but do not expect us all to flow with ur feelings or opinions.

Okay, just in the same way, do not expect anyone to flow with your opinions expressed above.

ttalks:
Christians operate based on the truth in the bible,not opinions derived from it.

In just the same way, you should be operating from the Bible; not your opinions.

ttalks:
There are so many ways which people can appreciate pastors that do not have to be tithes.

I absolutely agree.

ttalks:
Giving 10% according to the teachings of the law or based on the law is downright not Christian.

Is loving God and neighbour not based on the Law - are they also "downright not Christian"? If you want to throw the Law overboard and completely disconnect from it, that's fine. However, you are making a big mistake between the Law and the Old Covenant.

ttalks:
But giving 10%,more than 10% or less than 10% as a person willfully and freely decides at any point in time without any law backing it or expectation following it is purely Christian.

That's not true. Paul derives his instruction for Christian giving in 1 Corinthians 9:13-14 from the Law (see Numbers 18)! If you want to be "purely Christian", you need to cool down and digest the big picture and not just some narrow idea.

God bless you.

Hi ttalks,

I like your reasoning, but still there are serious problems with your summations or inference.

ttalks:
Matthew 23:23 does not in anyway promote tithe paying. if you do honest bible study, u will see that it does not in any way promote it.

Why do you think so, ttalk? Could one deduce your reason from the following? - -

ttalks:
That verse itself clearly makes it clear that tithes are part of the law. Christians are not under the law.

If that is the case, then by the same logic, "judgment, mercy, and faith" are under the law, and you should have no business practicing them as a Christian. Why do I say so? Simple: in that same single verse, BOTH matters ("judgement, mercy, faith" AND "tithe" are all matters of the same Law. If you remove one simply because you find it impossible for you, then you cannot keep the other - for both of them are matters of the Law that you're happy to do away with. Can you make that deal?

ttalks:
We are not under the law as Christians but under Grace.When u aren't under something(law),u are not subject to it or its tenets.

I don't think so. In stating that, "when u aren't under something(law),u are not subject to it or its tenets", you're not making issues any simpler for yourself. In simple terms, a "tenet"  is a "principle"; hence, it is sadly untrue to draw the inference that Christians are not subject to the principles of the Law. Let me show you a few reasons why:

1. Christians cannot void the Law:
[list][li]"Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law" - (Romans 3:31)[/li][/list]

2. Some Christian doctrines are based on the Law:
[list][li]"The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord" (1 Corinthians 7:39; see also Romans 7:2)[/li][/list]
For this reason, even other matters essential in our Christian lives are derived from the Law:
[list][li]Loving God and loving your neighbour - Matt. 22:37-40 (see Deut. 6:5 and Lev. 19:18)[/li][/list]

Therefore, it is quite untenable to assert that just because we are not under something (law), you're not subject to its tenets (principles). If that is true by any stretch, then we Christians have no business quoting the Law in matters such as loving God, loving one's neighbour, Christian marriages, etc. It is not the legalism of the Law that is being sought after in the NT; rather, it is the "tenets" (that is, the "principles".

This logically leads me to address a consequence of your fundamental flaw:

ttalks:
Christ fulfilling the law was just that; fulfilling it. He didn't abolish it; he only fulfilled it,put it at an end as a requirement for salvation, and established a new covenant as the new requirement for salvation.

.

First, the Law was not given as a means or requirement for salvation at anytime. Please don't mix them up in that fashion. Only in Christ is salvation found (see, for example, Romans 5:18-19).

Second, to "fulfill" does not mean to "put it at an end", in the sense of making it useless. If that were so, we would not read Romans 3:31 saying "yea, we establish the Law". Besides, as Christians, we also are called to live a life that points to a "fulfilling" of the Law -
[list][li]"for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law" - Rom. 13:8[/li]
[li]"therefore love is the fulfilling of the law" - Rom. 13:10[/li][/list]
These are clear enough to show that one cannot just draw the inference that to "fulfill" is to "put an end" to something - for we see from the above that our "fulfilling of the law" through love does not mean that we are "putting an end" to it.

ttalks:
Putting the law at an end does not mean it is destroyed or abolished. it simply means it is no longer required for our salvation.

The Law was not given at any time as a requirement for our salvation.

ttalks:
But it is there for us to understand the pattern that led to our salvation; that's all it is as at now.
The new covenant has all that is necessary for us to live a proper life in Christ.
The old covenant/law is there for us to understand some things but not to be implemented in our lives.

The "old covenant" is not the same thing as "the Law", although many people confuse them. Think about it, the apostle does not say "yea, we establish the old covenant"; rather he said simply: "yea, we establish the Law".

ttalks:
An example(might not be good enough but shld help a bit):

A movie has two parts. You watch part one and it comes to an end.
You remove it from the player and put in part two.
As part one has come to an end and is removed from the player, does it mean it has been destroyed?
No.
But it is always there for one to view so as to understand the events in part two as regards how
they came about  
But it is no longer necessary for the completion of the story the movie is portraying.

Good analogy, applause. The problem, however, is that it does not work that way with 'the covenants' and 'the Law'.

Hello all,

Just thought to revisit the forum after a long vacation. Hope you're all doing great.

__________________

@Kunleoshob,

KunleOshob:
Romans 16:17-18:

17 And now I make one more appeal, my dear brothers and sisters. Watch out for people who cause divisions and upset people’s faith by teaching things contrary to what you have been taught.[paul, the other apostles and our lord Jesus never taught tithing] Stay away from them. 18 Such people are not serving Christ our Lord; they are serving their own personal interests. By smooth talk and glowing words they deceive innocent people.

Evidently tithing is one of the contrary things to the teachings of the apostles that we are being warned about in this passage, it goes on to tell us that people that preach such things are only after their own personal interest[of course we know the beneficiaries of tithes]

You know it is quite unfair to use Scripture in the manner you have often done. In the first place, it is dishonest to teach anyone that "our lord Jesus never taught tithing" - for we know He actually did, among other things (Matt. 23:23, et al).

Second, while you're accusing others of twisting Scripture by often quoting Jeremiah 8:8-10, are you not doing the very same thing by inserting and twisting Romans 16:17-18? In quoting verse 17 of Romans 16, you inserted "[paul, the other apostles and our lord Jesus never taught tithing]", just so you could dribble in your own unfair dealing into that text. You have done the same thing you quoted from Jeremiah 8:8, for you have "twisted it by writing lies" into Romans 16:17, in as much as you cannot assert that "our lord Jesus never taught tithes" (unless you're deliberately ignoring the fact that He did so in Matt. 23:23). It is quite unwholesome to be condeming others and yet doing the same thing that you condemn.

Third, let us understand clearly that Galatians 5:4 has nothing to do with tithing. Not in a single verse does Scripture present tithing as a matter of "justification", and to often pander that verse about as reason to condemn tithes is dishonest. The verse simply addresses the idea that people are seeking to be justified by the Law; it does not teach that tithing was ever given to justify anybody - whether in the OT or NT. I don't know how many people you have come across who are tithing because they are seeking to be JUSTIFIED by their tithes. How many such people have you come across? We know that there are many people who tithe, and yet they have never done so on the basis of trying to be "justified" by tithing! I'm referring to your previous posts here and here. In part, you have argued that:

[list]

Yes there is punishment for tithing, by accepting to tithe you are placing yourself under the devourer's(any time you are unable to tithe) curse also you are cutting yourself away from the grace of christ. Galatians 5:4

[/list]

Quite to the contrary, you magically dribbled in those ideas, and you're sadly wrong on both premises. There's not a single verse that teaches that people who tithe were placing themselves under a devourer's curse - it is quite the opposite, for it is the anti-tither or one who did not tithe that were exposing themselves to the devourer (check it for yourself - Malachi 3:10-12). Further, tithing did not cut anyone away from the grace of Christ, and to insist that it does so is to teach the same fallacy that Jeremiah 8:8 condemns, as you have severally quoted.

It is not Christ-like to do the same thing for which you condemn other people in the mistaken idea that they are wrong and you are right, especially when your distortion is unarguable.

JeSoul:
Wassup saints, hope everyone is doing well      and please more stories/words of encouragement/etc . . . some of us are hiding behind the scenes and enjoying from a distance  .

Stay blessed!

Sis, you no lie at all! Yours truly is guilty, but na work load wey i get.

Bless you all for the enriching testimonies and exhortations. Your lives will continually be blessed. Jesus is Lord.

KunleOshob:
I don't know why you have resort to deceit and selective memory just to vent out your fustrations on my stance against tithes as preached by most churches. I already explained that what i meant was tithing based on the Law which is what most pastors preach from is what is wrong, if how ever a chrsitian knows the truth about tithes and he is tithing or giving whatever percentage of his income to the church out of his own desire to contribute to the church, it is perfectly okay. You should please try and be honest when typing your posts there is no prise for winning arguments on this forum. Even Pastor AIO attested to my clarifications earlier which you read so i don't know why you are still hammering on this over flogged line.

Kunle, please rest your pride. If any deceit has been expressed all along on this subject, we can harvest them aplenty in the relevant threads from your own entries. There is nothing I have typed to edit your ideas; and I've often called you several times to clarify your inconsistent arguments. It is not even as if you have handled the Law intelligently before using that to seek to win your own prize in arguing this subject. My response was to anonimi who had misread my post, and i simply explained why I did not think you have been consistent. If he did not mention you, I would not refer to you - and you cannot thereby claim I was still hammering on this issue. Pastor AIO that you mentioned should not be used to patronise your compromise here - he clearly said he did not suppose the paying of tithes is wrong.

segyemaro:
i say some pastors will go the extra lenght to call you ROBBER if you should refused to give tithe,and the way they will put it,if you don't have strong mind,they will make it look assive you have committed an abomination.

That is only one side of the story. On the other side, have you considered that if you give tithes, some pastors who are against it will openly pronounced judgement on you and sentence you to HELL! Just for giving tithes, not because you did not give tithes! If you think I am joking, here's just one example:

This guy believes that if you give tithes, you will "lose your salvation and start down the road to hell".

Now, this is an example of someone who is against tithes. Just like some people will harrass you to pay tithes and say you're under a curse if you don't pay tithes, so this example typifies so many European and American pastors that argue that if you pay tithes you will lose your salvation and go straight to hell. He goes further to say:

"I have warned you of the danger in observing the law of tithing
or any other old testament law for that matter."

When people argue endlessly about the OT Law on this subject, it is clear that they are often showing that they have no clue what actually is the basis of the Law in the NT. They just have no clue. If someone like this argues that there is a danger in keeping "any other old testament law" - ANY of the OT Law - then I often ask these fellows why they often fail to open their eyes to see that SO MANY MANY Christian doctrines and practices are based on the same OT Law!! In another thread, I asked two questions:

* Is it not the OT Law that people quote to ask women to shut up? 1 Cor. 14:34
Let your women keep silence in the churches:
for it is not permitted unto them to speak;
but they are commanded to be under obedience,
as also saith the law

* Is it not the OT Law that people quote on NT marriage? 1 Cor. 7:39
The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth;
but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to
whom she will; only in the Lord

The problem about this subject is that people are often arguing with untenable assertions about tithe - especially using the OT Law that they have never studied for one minute! People who preach about tithes on shaky grounds, as well as people who oppose tithes on the basis of the OT Law - both are often quarrelling against one because their assumptions are based on faulty reasoning about the place of the OT Law in the NT. That is why I often ask people to just go back and study Romans 3:31. Until such people calmly study that verse, I'm afraid this subject will continue to be problematic for so many people - and it is easier for one to condemn what they have never studied carefully.

I only gave that one example about the tithe opposer who sends people to hell for giving their tithes - because I have used it before and don't want to upset so many people who are always shouting against tithes, if I quote so many others. If you want other cases where these tithe opposers have said far worse things than the above, I shall be too glad to post your 35 different cases and refer you to their books, websites, and DVDs. Not many people take the time to check out what opposers are saying, but every time we worry only about what some tithe pastors are preaching. My stance is that faulty reasoning and assertions whould not be tolerated from either camp.

segyemaro:
what i am saying is that is because of tithe thats why we have churches at every 1kilometer,if this very tithe is cancelled today most of them will go bankcrupt.

Lol, please learn to separate the jive from the gist. The sad scenario you're complaining about is not based on tithes. If you cancelled tithes, you will find the problem doubled - because anyone who wants to make merchandise of you will think of many smart ways to take out your earnings.

@anonimi,

anonimi:
Thank God for this revelation!

Pilgrim.1, do you see any similarity in the above two quotes?
- - -

And these, my dear sister is what we have been saying in the past few pages of back and forth since KunleOshob opened up on the "abuse" by church ( ) leaders of this deplorable thing.

Please understand something crucial here. The question of tithes is arguable either way - for or against. Everyone arguing that subject has their own convictions; and what KunleOshob has been arguing is inconsistent. First, he argues against tithes, and then later says it is perfectly okay to give tithes.

However, what you were quoting from mine should not be misunderstood as if i did not understand the subject of tithes all this while, or what was involved in the way many people argue it. Many people who argue this subject on Nairaland do so on the limited assumption of the Nigerian scenario - that was what I had not taken into consideration, and that was why my statement that I am beginning to understand that I never understood before. I have studied this subject extensively in many places outside Nigeria; and if you took the time to do so, you would see why people should not generalise to make the Nigerian situation the standard reaction for Christians all over the world.

anonimi:
What would you call any (wo)man engaged in such "deplorable" things
Would you call him a Christian talk less of a pastor?

The question of tithes is not sufficient reasons for me to question anyone's relationship as a Christian. If one has to question whether someone was a "Christian" on this subject, there are many cases to apply the same rule to question those who oppose tithes with very heretical assertions. I have already shown a case which you posted from Yomisays where he got most of his ideas to castigate Pastor Adegboye. How could someone be asserting that anyone who gave tithes was "going down the road to hell" just because the opposer is against tithing? Yet, I never question whether that person was a Christian for making such a deplorable statement! Let us not get too passionate about something and then make very fallable assertions - and that is why I never question whether someone is a Christian just because of tithes.

On the question of deplorable things, open a thread on that and I shall meet you there. I'm not given to using this subject of tithe to castigate anybody as to question whether they are Christian or not. You cannot refer to tithe as "deplorable", and I don't see why you should dribble that in here as an extension to begin calling people any names as if tithes in itself is "deplorable".

Regards.

@I-fy,

[quote author=I-fy link=topic=203250.msg3185402#msg3185402 date=1228485956]I've never seen any pastor forced his hand into somebody's pocket or account to get money for tithe. You can only be preached to to pay your tithe. It's your interest whether to pay or not. Afterall, the Ten Commandment stated what we should do and not do, but we still go against them, not having any fear for God's punishment, how much less pastor's preachings about tithe? Wait a bit, do you know that most churches pay salaries to full-time pastors and other workers of the church. They also visit the less-privileged for help? Where do these monies come from?

Come to think of it, How much is the 10% or more or less you're crying for? Is it up to the amount you spend for just an outing with a girl-friend or other guys? Whether you pay tithe or not, God remains God, and the work of God must go forward. Not paying a tithe cannever stop the church from preaching the Good News.

People that believed in tithing should go ahead and tithe while the people that never believed or how they believe should go ahead and do so.

I'll always pay my tithe.[/quote]Thank you, simply well said.

However, I am beginning to understand what I never understood before. So many people especially in the Nigerian case are convinced that people are being forced to pay tithes - I believe that is true, and I have experienced it a few times. The one thing that you and I may be fortunate on is that we may be in places of fellowship where things are not as deplorable as in the Nigerian scenario. Let's take that into consideration as well. But it is not only in Nigeria that this case is observed - there are many other places where these things happen.

On the whole, I agree with you: one should do as they are led by the Spirit of God to do in this matter. It is a conviction of the heart. Like you, I shall give my tithes for the grace of fellowshipping where pastors are very open and accountable.

Let me try and offer a bit more help on this subject, if some of us are willing to receive it. I don't know everything about this subject and definitely not more knowledgeable about it than any other. But here is something about the term "the law" and its applications in the NT.

When you think of the Law and have the ideas that it is completely cancelled, please try and think within the context of what you find in Scripture. We run into problems too many times when we make broad generalisations, select certain texts and ignore others.

It is true, for instance, that we are not under the Law, and therefore sin should not have dominion over us as believers. But even so, should we sin because we are under grace? God forbid - we definitely could not do so (Rom. 6:14-15). That is just an example of how the same thing is pointed to both under the Law and under grace. This one thing is that we should not live in sin - and whether someone was under the Law or under grace, the one thing is that they should not live in sin.

Another example is about living in holiness - both the Law and the ministry of grace point to the necessity of holiness in the believer. But does the NT therefore say that because we are not under the Law, we can then disregard it and look for our own holiness? I don't think so, otherwise the apostles would not have been pointing back to the same Law and stating that "it is written". For example, the apostle Peter urges the Christian to be holy, and establishes his urge by stating: "Because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy" (1 Pet. 1:15-16).

Now, supposing one of us "clever" modern thinking Christians were in Peter's day and raised our hand in objection. The apostle might have asked, what is the matter with you? Just picture the scenario if that Christian would say, "Dear apostle sir, why are you quoting the Law for holiness, when it is clear that we are not under the Law?!? Why are you saying that it is written and pointing us to the very thing that has been cancelled?"

In effect, we may all smile benignly and wonder what is wrong with this fellow? Granted, holiness as "it is written" is pointing to the Law; but if all the Law was "cancelled", what are we left with than to be . . . ?!?

You see the point? I am not asking us to go back and be under the yoke of a legalistic requirement of keeping the Law by following Judaism. But the key here (as I have argued in a separate thread of its own) is the principle of the Law! Yes, God wrote His laws in our hearts and minds, but if that which was written is to be thrown wholesale behind our backs, why do we go back to the same "it is written" in 'the Law' to quote the same "Law" to argue for so many, many things that we practise in Christianity?

* Is it not the Law that people quote to ask women to shut up in church (1 Cor. 14:34)??
'Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak;
but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.'

* Is it not the Law that people quote for marriage (1 Cor. 7:39)??
'The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband
be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord'

Besides these few examples, there are so many, many, many more matters that Christians unwittingly practice as valid in their faith that they are so unware are founded upon the Law. Women in Church and marriage are so very few examples - but because I don't want to scare Christians, it would have been an easy thing for me to show 43 more matters! I am serious, folks. If we all argue about women having to shut up in church using 1 Cor. 14, are we aware that the argument is founded upon the Law that so many people have unwittingly negated? If the Law has no place at all, why quote it in the NT to ask women to shut up? Or to say that women are bound in marriage for as long as the husbands live?

I don't want us Christians to start getting uneasy about this matter of the Law - indeed the apostle said that strivings about the Law is unprofitable (we all know that). But hey, while I have maintained that pilgrim.1 is persuaded to tithe but not in fulfillment of the Levitical Law that points to Judaism; many people still have not grasped this matter about the Law. It is not something that is too difficult to understand, really. It is the simplest of matter (IMHO) in the teachings of the apostles, and it is perfectly balanced.

Let me share just one thing we should watch out for in understanding the principles of the Law: please seek to carefully see what each verse is saying in context. In the example of tithes, it does not justify any believer - whether in the OT or the NT!! Tithes, giving by grace, freewill offerings, donations, contributions, love offering, etc. . . have never been used in Scripture to justify anybody! I may be mistaken; but I have searched again and again about that fact! Please somebody should help me whenever they find a verse that negates my assumption here.

The tithes you give (not by coercion) should be a happy exercise by faith. I would like to agree with so many people that it is perfectly okay to give tithes; but it should not be done under any type of yoke - not under the yoke of misinterpretations of Judaism; or even under the more sinister yoke of greed for filthy lucre! I feel deeply for many brethren who are in a dilemma of being in places where they are being burdened with all kinds of talk and practices. But I hold them in my heart in prayers that when they find places where they can fellowship in true freedom, may God bless them to happily engage in tithes as led by the Spirit of God.

TV01:
Jesus was endorsing tithe as a legal requirement under the law as it stood at that time.

Then we should also do away with the wieghtier matters, yes? You cannot be so selective - "this do without negating the other" - not do this and dispense with the other. That is why debosky spelt it out simply and effectively with other instances such as Matt. 5:38-39.

TV01:
The key is understanding the “weightier matters” and what they refer to – it also answers Romans 3:31 – about “establishing the law”.

The law of God is eternal and unchanging – He changeth not. There is in effect only one law. Love God and your neighbour as yourself.

Romans 3:31 says you cannot void the law through faith. It does not say we should be selective between tithes and love. That is why I keep appealing that people should carefully weight their assertions and not wrap their notions in general ideas to woosh the whole thing away from what they don't understand. That verse continues to be so enigmatic to many people, because when they first make statements around it and then later check their ideas in the translations, they see two different and opposing things. I'm not going there at this point other than to note the fact.

TV01:
To circle around number of laws, whether The Lord did or did not specifically abrogate tithing like in the eye-for-an-eye quote, or why there is not clear repeal as there was for circumcision, or why the Apostles do not appear to have condemned it, is totally needless.

You can't be that selective - for the whole point was to show the distinction between that which was specifically stated and that which we force into the text that do not warrant such.

TV01:
The way the law is effected is what has changed. Previously it was by written laws, physically codified, by self righteousness.

Now, it’s written on hearts and by grace through faith in God.

So is the law established? Yes and Amen! Does that mean that a written code is still in place and to be slavishly followed? No and amen!

It is why one could break the written code if it meant fulfilling the “weightier matters” and be found blameless.

So, should one tithe from the heart where the law is written instead of by the codified that you argue here? Do you, or rather, have you taken the time to see the distinctions between the righteousness of the Law and of faith - and then look again at Romans 3:31 that says you cannot void the law through faith?

TV01:
No non Jew was ever preached or spoken to about the tithe.

What is the meaning of these two examples:

(1) Leviticus 24:22 - "Ye shall have one manner of law, as well for the stranger, as for one of your own country: for I am the LORD your God"

(2) Numbers 15:15-16 - "One ordinance shall be both for you of the congregation, and also for the stranger that sojourneth with you, an ordinance for ever in your generations: as ye are, so shall the stranger be before the LORD. One law and one manner shall be for you, and for the stranger that sojourneth with you."

Dear Kunle,

KunleOshob:
@Pilgrim.1
And when you ask the question "is it right to tithe"? which type of tithes are you talking about?? Is it the biblical tithes that was food stuff eaten, shared with needy people and given to the decendants of levi or is it the church version of income/money given only to the church. because if we are talking about tithes based on what is in the bible we have to do it properly not manipulate it to suit the whims and caprices of those who propagate it

When you said: "However if the tithes is being paid from a willing heart(not under compulsion) then it is perfectly ok", what type of tithes are you perfectly okaying here - the one you find in the Bible or the one you made out of nowhere? Kunle, why is it so impossible for you to be consistent?

[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=113108.msg3184852#msg3184852 date=1228478356]As for the Malachi 3 issue, my position may be wrong indeed; for I have argued that it does not necessarily apply to the Christian. I am willing to admit that such a reasoning of mine may be deeply flawed after listening and reading from others, both here on the Forum and outside in other places. Very strong reasons they gave, which brought me back to the first page to what Alta argued. I see so much sense in the latter's arguments as far as principles are concerned, even though I had argued otherwise.[/quote]I beg you pardon, that was not the first page - my bad. Here are the relevant replies in this same thread where Allta's made some sense to me on the Malachi 3 issue:

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-113108.352.html#msg2395529

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-113108.352.html#msg2396262

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-113108.352.html#msg2396521

debosky:
@ Pastor AIO

What do you say about Matthew 23:23?

"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices—mint, dill and cummin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former."

Jesus here is clearly endorsing tithing as a valid practice - so why should we not do it (each deciding in his heart), with understanding of course, that God loves a cheerful giver?

I don't buy the former argument that this was 'directed at pharisees' or simply 'fulfilling the law'. When other issues in Mosaic law such as 'an eye for an eye' came up, this is what Jesus said:

Matthew 5:38-39
"You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.'But I tell you not to resist an evildoer. On the contrary, whoever slaps you on the right cheek, turn the other to him as well.

What this implies to me is this: If Jesus wanted to abrogate tithing, he would have done so at this point, the same way he abrogated an eye for an eye. Jesus does not condemn the practice, neither do subsequent New Testament authors - it is definitely de-emphasised due to the wider audience involved now, both Jews and non-Jews. but that in no way negates the practice in my view.

The only caveat is this - all giving must come from a cheerful and grateful heart and not out of compulsion. Do not give the tithe if you feel compelled to, but only out of a right heart condition.

As to the matter of Malachi 3:10, We need to see things in context - there is no doubt that 'whatever a man sows so will he reap'. The core of our belief is (or should be) love and gratitude to the Saviour, but that does not negate the divine principle of sowing and reaping.

I totally agree with your input here. It was something I had hoped to take some time to point out further, but you have made it very concise for some of us. Many thanks.

Hi guys,

Pastor AIO:
There are a few things that I'd like to say about this thread.  

1) in the opening post KunleOshob said:
I think that the part highlighted in bold in the quote sets the context for everything that KunleOshob says.  His statement that the paying of tithes is wrong should be seen in light of his intent to 'remove the yoke from people who labour to pay tithes'.  When someone says to me they are paying a tithe I immediately think of the compulsory payment imposed on the Jews.  Actually a Tithe merely means a Tenth.  To tithe therefore can only be understood in the context of this law otherwise telling someone that you are Tenth-ing your money is nonsense in the english language.  To tithe is to give in accordance with the Levitical law.  

Christian are still asked to give to the needy and to church, but to call such giving a tithe is just a conflation.  

2)  If Pilgrim1 takes objection to the fact that KunleOshob said “it is wrong for us as Christians to receive or pay tithes” regardless of the context in which he has said it, then I think that her objection should be given due consideration.  Perhaps Kunle would find it a bit pedantic, but let's look on the positive side.  From what I can tell it seems that the spirit is inspiring KunleOshob with this message for christians and it will do no harm for him to consider what she is pointing out so that in future as he continues to deliver this message he is more careful of his choice of words.  Ultimately she is in fact helping you to sharpen your delivery of the message.  
Saying it is wrong to pay tithes is like saying that it is wrong to be circumcised.  It would be wrong to pay tithe or be circumcised under the old law thinking that that is what is going to save you.

3)
The promises and curses of Malachi3: 8-10 that influence christians so much opens up another can of worms.  The inner motivations of many christians in pursuing their beliefs.  In my opinion too many people have their faith encouraged by promises of prosperity and fear of retributions.  There is something very base and unspiritual about the practice of a lot of religionists including christians.

I am indeed refreshed from the contributions so far. Sincerely. Special thanks to Pastor AIO for the reasonable and effective delivery in contextualizing this discussion, and indeed i had read through the OP carefully before drawing my inference on just one question: is it wrong for Christians to tithe? That is just the crux of the matter for many people. The arguments for or against are merely ancillary seeking to establish whatever side of the divide that many people take. If one argues that it is wrong for Christians to tithe, I would be looking to see his or her reasons for saying so - which I was led to believe was a matter for Kunle based on what he believed Hebrews taught (regardless of what we find in other texts - which debosky has pointed out).

Choice of words matter - for without it, how would you even understand what I am saying in this reply? That is why (even though we all make mistakes) my appeal has been in several instances to seek clarification. . . whether as regards the way we perceive matters related to the Law, or other issues asserted out of hand.

As for the Malachi 3 issue, my position may be wrong indeed; for I have argued that it does not necessarily apply to the Christian. I am willing to admit that such a reasoning of mine may be deeply flawed after listening and reading from others, both here on the Forum and outside in other places. Very strong reasons they gave, which brought me back to the first page to what Alta argued. I see so much sense in the latter's arguments as far as principles are concerned, even though I had argued otherwise.

On the whole, the basic question is this: is it wrong for Christians to tithe? What may be confusing for many is to state that it is wrong, and yet argue later that it is perfectly okay. That's not something that would interest further deliberation, but thanks again for weighing in with reason and resolve.

@KunleOshob,

KunleOshob:
But the truth is that most people pay tithes based on the promises and the curses of Malachi3: 8-10 which their pastors use to stimulate and threaten them. Contrary to what pilgrim.1 said, most people that tithes are not aware that as christians they are not under any obligation to tithe.

Why is it that you cannot discuss your problem about tithes and leave it at that until you have worried yourself about what pilgrim.1 says or has said? Did I ever say that most people that tithe are under any obligation to do so? I find this tawdry attitude of yours a bit of a bore these days.

I have tried to be reasonable, discussed my position in the relevant thread, made clear that my persuasion to tithe is not borne out of Judaism, as well constantly invited dialogue and calm discussions on such a passionate subject - borne out of the extensive discussions I have had with so many, many people across the world from diverse backgrounds and denominations! You may not be aware, but over 95% of these people amazed me when they calmly responded that they tithe but not under any legalistic obligations or feelings of compulsion to do so! You should seek to be reasonable and consistent in your position and not be shifting the goal posts every which way between yes and no about this matter.

KunleOshob:
Further to my previous post on why it is wrong to pay tithes based on the levitical law, another way of looking at it is that one is placing himself under the curse stated in Malachi 3. As christians we have been set free from all those curses because we have been bought by the blood of Christ.

That does not address the Law as a whole - and that is why I have appealed time and again that you go and examine the meaning of the term and see what Romans 3:31 says. I don't want to drag this as another argument because I know that verse has been an enigma to you; but people should be careful in their assumptions about the meaning of the Law.

KunleOshob:
Paying tithesbbased on law is tatanmount to not having faith in the blood of Jesus which was shed to redeem us. However if the tithes is being paid from a willing heart(not under compulsion) then it is pefectly ok.

This is why I keep saying your ever changing goal posts is a serious problem on this subject. "Is it wrong for Christians to tithe?" - that is the basic question many people are asking! Some may give tithes as a matter of appealing to the Law; others may not refer to the Law and yet they also tithe. In this instance, both sets of people are doing the same thing: they are tithing! For me, I have maintained consistently that my persuasions to tithe are not founded upon the tenets of Judaism, and I would wish that many people come to understand for themselves why they also tithe without appealing to the Levitical priesthood of Judaism.

But you have maintained up until recently when it was blown open, that "it is wrong for us as Christians to receive or pay tithes" - whether it is as regards the Law or as regards the NT! You're only now coming back with these compromising excuses to tell us the opposite of what you have maintained! On what basis then (Law or NT) are you now arguing that "it is perfectly okay" to give tithes? You see why I asked you guys to calm down and allow for balance - because in the long run it would become apparent that your arguments are inconsistent! This talk about giving tithes out of a willing heart is a matter of both the OT and NT, and I have shown the many verses in both instances where people responded with willing hearts! "As for me, in the uprightness of mine heart I have willingly offered all these things: and now have I seen with joy thy people, which are present here, to offer willingly unto thee" - 1 Chron. 29:17 and Exodus 35 show us the principle of willingness of heart, and these are only few!

Please, please. . . let's try to be consistent. If "willing hearts" is a matter of both the OT and NT, why did you argue long and hard that "it is wrong for us as Christians to receive or pay tithes" - which is the opposite of your admission now that "it is perfectly okay" for people to tithe, if done with willing hearts?!? Thank you for the compromise - at least we can have a good day to open the discussion that you have invited us to, by noting your admission that "it is perfectly okay" to tithe (nevermind that "willing hearts" is the very same thing God showed us in both Testaments). Enjoy.

chukwudi44:
THE FACT IS THAT TITHING HAS BEEN ABOLISHED(heb7:18,eph 2:15).WE CAN GIVE TO THE CHURCH AND THE POOR WITHOUT MAKING ANY REFENCES TO THE OLD TESTAMENT.MIND YOU THERE IS A WHOLE LOT OF DIFFERENCES B/W FREE GIVING AND TITHING.

Could you share the difference(s), please?

Edit:

chukwudi44:
WE CAN GIVE TO THE CHURCH AND THE POOR WITHOUT MAKING ANY REFENCES TO THE OLD TESTAMENT.

That's okay - there are a whole lot of things Christians do without making reference to the OT either.

KunleOshob:
I have been very very consistent in my submissions against this fraudulent practise of compulsory tithing based on a manipulation of old testament scripture. However if a christian should decide to devote 10% or whatever % he feels like giving to the church based on his on personal convicts and not twisted scripture he is in order. But if he is doing it based on what our pastors preach about compulsary tithing, then he is definitely wrong.

Please have the grace to acknowledge your inconsistency - it does not hurt to do so. You can't be speaking two opposite things and claiming they are the same! To declare that "nobody has said it is wrong to pay tithes" is not the same thing as your declaring that " it is wrong for us as Christians to receive or pay tithes". Excusing these convoluted declarations both coming from none other but you is why I wonder about the consistency you claim.

KunleOshob:
I responded to sleekymags post their and stated that he was just trying to confuse issues as none of the questions he asked even had anything to do with tithes. He was trying to draw parrallels by making unrelated inferals and asking mischievious rhetorical questions.

I said I would let it pass and had hoped it won't be such a bother to you. If you would rather be too concerned about it, then understand that dismissing his questions with that excuse is not the same thing as answering them. Honestly take a look at those 12 questions he offered and tell me you don't find anything there related to tithes! If you didn't bother to look at them, that is okay and understandable - but if after looking at them and didn't feel like answering any one of them, you can't pretend that there was no question there related to tithes. One only has to go there and see the first 5 questions, then #8, #11 and #12. You were not mandated to answer if you felt you didn't want to; but please try not being so dismissive.

KunleOshob:
There absolutely no question i have been asked on tithes that i never answered and i have alwys been able to justify my submissions on tithes biblically

That is what you think, and I can let it pass. Did you answer sleekymag's questions (here), even after he reminded you on the same issues (here)? I may have missed it; but I appreciate your statement here.

KunleOshob:
The fact that most christians who have heard several sermons on tithes are not even aware of deut 14: 22-29 and several other scriptures which deal with tithes is enough evidence that most preachers don't preach them. Most of my friends are shocked when i refer them to deut 14. Most pastors just preach form Malachi 3 since it is vague on explaination and subject to manipulation.

This does not warrant your attitude to the subject. We should all seek to discuss, not make assertions too broadly as to ignore others. Like Pastor AIO has said, this subject should warrant a proper discussion of it throughout the whole christian community; but if we begin by being too closed to the views of others, how is a healthy discussion ever going to be achieved?