₦airaland Forum

H2O2:
How did you arrive at this conclusion? It didn't say that anywhere in the passage.

Hi H202,

I agree that it is not "explicitly written", but please refer to verses 12 & 13.

12 But to the rest I, not the Lord, say: If any brother has a wife who does not believe, and she is willing
to live with him, let him not divorce her. 13 And a woman who has a husband who does not believe, if he is willing to live with her, let her not divorce him.

If your intendeds religion was an issue why would you marry them in the first place? The church was still nascent at that time and many converts were new.

Listen to Paul in chapter 9 of the same epistle - 5 Do we have no right to take along a believing wife, as do also the other apostles, the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?

Conversion after marriage is not grounds for the new believer to depart, but the still unbeliever may well seek to leave on that basis. One who believes and is unwed is not to enter into a marriage union with an unbeliever.

^{Having said all that, please note that that is more of a doctrinal statement. I don't believe that the fullness of the Christian life is lived by written rules. Marriage was instituted before religion - and whilst God obviously does not want religious differences to precipitate divorce, it is clear that deeply held but differing beliefs can be all but impossible to reconcile after the fact, so it's best not too in the first instance.}

God bless
TV

KarmaMod:
I'm confused

How is this possible if you're not allowed to marry a non Christian in the first place?

Hi KarmaMod,

It speaks to a situation where neither party was a Christian prior to the marriage. If during the course of the marriage, one converts, divorce is not consequent,or at least not to be pursued by the converting party. You - for a while at least - have a situation where there is one Christian believer and one unbeliever in the marriage.

Hope that clarifies.

JJYOU:
BREATHE IN AND OUT. THINK DEEPLY IT WILL BECOME CLEARER.

SOME PEOPLE LOVE FOLLY AND HEAD ACHES

Hi JJYOU,

1. Rather than discourage seekers, please exercise some forbearance.
2. Caps lock indicates shouting/yelling - would you give us all e-headaches ?

God bless
TV

debosky:
I agree with your surmise TV01,

Actually, I don't think you do, but no problemo!

debosky:
but you cannot neglect the fact that, in large groups of people, it becomes cumbersome to deal with everything simply on a 'family basis' - there are church finances to be managed, buildings, provisions and the like - to properly achieve this, you will require some level of formalisation to have proper accountability in those areas.

And here's why; My underlying premise is that church should not be "institutionalised". I believe that is what you are suggesting, or maybe I should say what you are suggesting will inevitably lead to.

debosky:
I believe there shouldn't be heirachial operation in the church, but you do require functionality and delegation of responsibility to manage things properly.

Elders and deacons only. Church assembly is to equip and care for believers.

debosky:
It's all well and good to say it is all a family arrangement, but there is also responsibility as well.

As above. Elders and deacons, give the assembly of believers enough structure, without forcing it into an organisational mould.

debosky:
As to your last bit about 'pastoring' a church, I think it depends. If one goes to a new area and starts off a church, will he immediately form an 'elders council' from his new converts? There will be some level of formal leadership from one person at some point, even if it's not a be all, end all person. The elders are required as well, but in a case where someone gets to know Christ and grows, moves to a new area and forms a fellowship of believers - which body of elders will he report to? We do not have a single structure of elders to which all christians can agree to as the leading body, so inevitably, till there is growth within a particular fellowship for that to occur, individuals will have to take on that role.

I made that caveat in the subscript - all things being equal, i.e. in normal circumstances. Contingent situations will have to be dealt with on that basis. What if there are 3 or 4 believers in a female prison? I'm not being religious about it.

In most "normal" situations these days, what could be considered the norm does not obtain. It's usually a hierarchy of pastors, with a "sole authority pastor" atop. Everything from associate, assistant, co-head, head, conference, regional national overseer, G.O and variations thereof. Attendant in most denominations it may be, but it's not the biblically prescribed norm. IMO.

debosky:
Even in the household of God, there is still a need to submit to authority/leader in certain aspects.

I agree. In certain respects, to certain degrees, in certain ways and perhaps for certain times.

debosky:
People do need to be weaned off needing to see the Pastor so often, but in the interim, administrative measures are needed to ensure that all members of the family get their desired audience with the shepherd.

God never gave anyone a pastor, nor is there anyway to discern what obtains for the normal "SAP" mandate from the biblical narrative. The audience of Christianity is with the "Most High". If you would allow, God would place exactly who you need in your path when you need them. And it may not be a "pastor". No administration required. Can a pastor be with you - or promise to go with you - wherever you go, even to the ends of the earth?

I don't deny people the right to exercise or fellowship in anyway they see fit, I am merely enunciating what I see outlined in the biblical narrative.

God bless
TV

Pastor AIO:
The question on my mind now is - What does one do?

Nothing.

Pastor AIO:
We know the situation but how should one react?

Don't react. Just observe. Share your concerns with Him, pray if you like. Mourne, lament even. But be very still and in His presence. That I believe is where everything is to be found.

Pastor AIO:
Should we go on a crusade against these churches?

No. They have their place in the eternal scheme of things. Everything is under control. And without His bidding and hence empowering, even with the best intention it is best not too.

Pastor AIO:
Or should we just mind our own business? Our own business being serving christ.

Exactly.
In truth any action you take must be clearly instructed by the Master.

Pastor AIO:
Is there any point in denouncing them as not True christians when every denomination and their grandfather is already denouncing everyone else as not true christian?

No. And it would be an essentially fruitless task. In fact, it could well be counter-productive to your own walk. You'll in all liklihood add to the mindless cacaphony out there and potentially tire/frustrate yourself doing so.The Lord knows those who are His. He will build His church.

Pastor AIO:
How would you set yourself apart?

You don't have to. He will. All you have to do is "Come out of her", as He says to His own. Leave what you percieve to be false religion and set your sights on Him. Don't worry about the labels, anyone can call themselves anything. He knows, His church.

Pastor AIO:
It is one thing to moan and complain and produce arguments but it quite another thing to propose a plan of action.

And what do you suggest? A plan of action - of your own devising anyway - is the last thing you want. That could very easily lead to the building of the very thing you lament about. Many denominations and sects started that way. A little truth, a small revelation, some structure around it and boom, next thing you're G.O'ing your own sect. Careful sir.

God bless
TV

Believers & Priesthood

In the Body of Christ, there are no class or hierarchical divisions. The only real distinction is maturity in your walk and time spent in His presence (Acts 4:13). There is no mandate or requirement to have some believers differentiated (i.e. elevated) by ordination or theological/seminary training (John 7:15).

The bible clearly attests to the priesthood of all believers (1 Peter 2:9, Revelations 1:6). More mature believers if they fulfill the criteria may serve as elders (this role is the same as pastor/shepherd/bishop, the different renderings merely describe various facets of the same role). Likewise, others may serve as deacons. The personal qualities for both are clearly spelt out in the pastoral epistles (Timothy & Titus). These are the only roles required in NT Christianity.

Furthermore, the ethos is one of servant-leadership;
Matthew 20:25 But Jesus called them to Himself and said, "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and those who are great exercise authority over them. 26 Yet it shall not be so among you; but whoever desires to become great among you, let him be your servant. 27 And whoever desires to be first among you, let him be your slave-- 28 just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many."

Hierarchies, reporting lines and corporate structures are simply not necessary in the Body of Christ (and I believe that authority stems primarily from the family and not the Church. 1 Corinthians 11:1-3).

1 Peter 5:1 The elders who are among you I exhort, I who am a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that will be revealed: 2 Shepherd the flock of God which is among you, serving as overseers, not by compulsion but willingly, not for dishonest gain but eagerly; 3 nor as being lords over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock;

Christian leadership is a sacrificial service aimed at providing an example to the less mature and guidance, counsel and direction for the whole flock of God. The aim of our collective fellowship, the various gifts and all the offices, so beautifully enunciated in Ephesians chapter 4, is to bring all believers to maturity in Christ.

And just as the interaction between the Head and members of this family is relational, likewise, fellowship between the individual members of the body of Christ is clearly meant to be relationship based and not functionally ordered. It’s corporeal and not corporate, a body not an institution. It is edification by knitting together through love. He’s a Father not a Chairman/CEO.

As long as a hierarchical (religious) divide exists between clergy and laity, this will never be the case. Ironically, it takes both sides to both justify and perpetuate. To do this they have to foster spiritual dependence by the laity (so called) on the clergy (so called). For this unscriptural state of affairs to continue, certain truths have to be suppressed or misapplied. The situation is further compounded by the cult of personality, which grows up around certain religious figures. Please, don’t let the fallen nature (and it’s lust for Power, Profit, Position & Prestige) along with your affection for human culture and love of religious tradition to rob you of intimacy with God.

The new covenant appoints a new royal priesthood comprising of ALL BELIVERS (1 Peter 2:5, 9, Revelations 1:6), and a new High priest, sworn by an oath according to the order of Melchizedek. (Hebrews 6:20, 7:26, 8:1, 9:11). Hallelujah! Praises to God most high. It’s that simple.


God bless
TV

^{note: the mandate assumed by so called pastors in most churches today is a self-arrogated one and nowhere found in scripture. Eldership in a church setting is always by a plurality of qualified male elders (all things being equal). Nowhere in the biblical narrative is there leave or example of a single person "pastoring" a church. I acknowlege the right of all to make kings over themselves if they so wish.}

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

And one other thing, what was the promise for keeping the law?

God bless
TV

Pastor AIO:
This is brilliant! May I forward it to some of my contacts? I think more people need to read this that are on Nairaland.

Thank you. And please, be my guest.

DavidDlyan likes to say "God deals with us as individuals" or words to that effect. I totally agree. I feel a form of fellowship that has been crowded out by commercialised religion, is the simple "coming together" of believers to share the experiences, insights and developments of their walks, as we all press towards the upward call of God in Christ Jesus - Intimacy with God and Christlikeness. That's is what this is about right?

God bless
TV

I often wonder if this discussion will ever reach an end point? After all, surely doctrine is not intended to remain purely theoretical without any practical value or application? And if not, one must always ask “how consonant is the practical outworking of any doctrine with what we would consider Christian behaviour or character?” How indeed, does doctrine affect notions of worship and church structure.

So, how does “the tithe” play out in everyday practical Christian living? As one who confesses –as I believe the bible clearly shows – in simple Christian giving to meet physical need, how do believers in the tithe, Gods ordaining, distinguishing and blessing it, explain the outworking of tithing, even in the simplest terms?

~ How does a Christian worship God with money, or any other physical thing in this dispensation? And in the NT biblical narrative, can any such instance be found?

~ Who is the tithe given to/received by? And what subsequently happens to it?  With the saints as priests and The Lord as High Priest, how does this
tithe thing work?

~ Please, can somebody explain “Gods covenant secret/mystery for prosperity?” as some term it. And in the kind of plain English the spiritually simple can understand. Thank you kindly.

~ Is there anything in the biblical narrative – without reference to the Law & Prophets – that upholds the notion that God has ordained, distinguishes and blesses a tithe by New Testament Christians, which is clearly separate from needs based giving?

Attempts to monetise worship are not new. One need only look back to the era of indulgences. I think most of you will be aware of this practice and period in history and what it entailed, for those that are not I would urge you look it up. It was nothing more than extortion, regardless of the good intentions or the attempted justification by lending it the imprimateur of the religious establishment or attempts to normalise it by quoting scripture.
I’ve already alluded to my belief that the tithe is at best an erroneous form of “temple tax”, which is rather odd as temples or dedicated physical places of worship are at best an optional extra, and by no means normative. God has clearly stated that His temple is no longer of stone and His dwelling place is no longer buildings.

It’s not too complicated to see the need for some form of subtly coerced giving, no matter how spiritualised, when religion is institutionalised and physical structures are integral to worship. In fact its simply a way of raising funds Organisations have to be funded somehow. Organisations cannot first survive without funding.

Organisations need to be busy, churning out goods and keeping a captive consumer audience. It’s why there are “programs” more or less daily and why non-attendance is frowned upon. It’s about growth, hence the emphasis on members (not converts and certainly not discipleship). It works to foster dependence and control of your time and resources (mostly money).

It  also helps justify a salaried leadership hierarchy, aka clergy. No where does the bible prescribe such. It’s man made tradition. The church is never a business opportunity career path or even vocation.

As ever there is branding. And franchising for the more solid brands. As it evolves, it becomes commoditised. The physical product offering is wide ranging. From programs, including, crusades, deliverance sessions, power nights, dominion evening, conventions, vigils, singles outreach, marriage seminars and the like. Workshops, with specialists and product experts in each field. Secondary product based revenue streams kick in and the organisation is no longer solely dependent on coerced giving, although for the most part the source of their funding is the same.

Then there are the smaller consumables, anointing oil, snake oil, handkerchiefs, chains, branded and customised literature, tapes, CD’s, personal prayer/visits and even cruises. Multiple revenue streams kick in, still from mostly the same source demographic, but the net is wider and consumers don’t have to be local or members.

Like any organisation/institution, they have reflective defensive mechanisms, aimed at eliminating opposition and threats. Try to change or challenge from the inside and you will be branded insubordinate, rebellious, suffer calumny or be ostracised. Do not judge, do not touch the Lords anointed, or talk against the “man of God” – which is pitifully laughable, as almost all such are self styled.

With the doing away with of a physical structures of worship in the form of temples, a mediatory priesthood, physical/burnt offerings and the observance of holy days or otherwise ritualised religion, worship of God is in spirit and in truth. Without physical/ritualised religion, men cannot control it or each other. To do so, the things that have been done away with have to be re-instituted. 1 Corinthians 7:23 - You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of men.

How does money come into it? It’s pretty simple really, as the bible warns severally, one way of identifying wolves will be their emphasis on gain, lucre and riches. Openly citing it as the very reason for Christianity - prosperity anyone - and it being implicitly obvious for their involvement in ministry. One of the biggest myths in Christian religious circles is “the gospel needs money for propagation”, no it don’t. Organisations and institutionalised religion need money to survive. Take that to the bank! Whenever there’s a crime, a major line of inquiry is always the money trail.

Politics and religion they say are twin evils. I used to hate that phrase, but false and man-made religion, which is very evident in many strains of Christianity and directly opposed to true faith and undefiled God kind religion – caring for orphans and widows, sounds needs based to me?  - is exactly that, a great evil. Who can spot the difference between many so called MOGS and the political rulers in Nigeria, in many, if not most respects. Indeed, aren’t they in many instances willing bedfellows?

In many countries with a longer historical “Christian tradition”, religious funding even comes from the state. Now that’s what they talkin’ about. Tithe ke? That’s small time for auditoria and planes. This thing get levels. Money and power and greater dominion, come with political liaison. Ultimately the institutionalised church would like to be a political force in it’s own right , and it once was. These days, it has to make do with a wary liaison with the state. In many ways the aims of religion and politics are the same, so it makes a certain amount of sense. Again, this is not new. The biblical narrative is replete with examples of the religious establishment in bed with the state.

But that’s just the “physical stuff”, dig deeper for the "spiritual".

Seek truth people.

God bless
TV

Point of correction,

Earlier, I said this;

God served notice long ago that he no longer dwells in physical – houses, temples – buildings , in fact, almost  immediately we entered this current dispensation.

Acts 7:48-49 - However, the Most High does not dwell in temples made with hands, as the prophet says: 'Heaven is My throne, And earth is My footstool. What house will you build for Me? says the Lord, Or what is the place of My rest?

Acts 17:24 - God, who made the world and everything in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands

If anything, the point was actually made - earlier - intra-dispentianally;

John 4:19 The woman said to Him, "Sir, I perceive that You are a prophet. 20 Our fathers worshiped on this mountain, and you Jews say that in Jerusalem is the place where one ought to worship." 21 Jesus said to her, "Woman, believe Me, the hour is coming when you will neither on this mountain, nor in Jerusalem, worship the Father. 22 You worship what you do not know; we know what we worship, for salvation is of the Jews. 23 But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for the Father is seeking such to worship Him. 24 God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth."

My bad, I apologise, if I wasn't as clear as I could have been.

But seriously, that's part of the reason why He gave His life. Not just to free us from sin, but also mindless ritual and law-bound institutionalised religion. Which not only could man not abide by, didn't actually afford true intimacy with God - that is what this is all about right?

And lest I am remiss and forget, freedom from the religious terrorists who would not go to Him and stop you from going to Him also. As He said, thy'd make you twice a son of hell as they themselves.

Matthew 23:15 - Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel land and sea to win one proselyte, and when he is won, you make him twice as much a son of hell as yourselves.

How many times did the Lord have encounters with satan? But think of the amount of time He spent railing against the hypocrisy and abuse of the religious establishment. Those are the one's to watch out for. There the one's that'll fool you with their hyper-religiousity and fake piety.

They're pretty easy to spot, they often come with temples attached and try and chain you to it, whilst binding you to them. They'll claim spirutal authority, over you. And demand your obedience. They'll control your time and money, busy you with programs and "the work of God". Tragic. They certainly won't leave you time for Him or point to Him. They'll name "ministries" after themselves and put their imprimateur on everything.

John the Baptist sought decrease, that "He may increase", not with this bunch, hell no! They'll claim to be holier than the early saints and more knowledgable, point out the errors of the apostles, increasing only in filthy lucre and there denial of Him. Paul was clear that the Lords strength was magnified in his weakness. Not these ones, they brag about their worldly accomplishments and accroutements as they plan their dominion, their reign and their territorial advancement. Don't be fooled His Kingdom is not of this earth, His love, not for the things or those of this world. Seek truth, that you may enter His kingdom and not be caught up in their carnal ambitions.

And please don't get me wrong, I have no beef with those that want to build temples, hire priests - 10 shekels a suit of clothes and sustenance - write themselves laws, subject themselves to men and assign themselves spiritual badges or even fund their fancy at whatever percentage they so choose. But why do they have to drag the name of Jesus into it

Good evening.

God bless
TV

Ilelobola:
It's interesting I was watching a programme on how foreign aid is used in Africa (well mainly Uganda and Sierria Leone) 2 days ago and with the poverty shown on TV, I thought to myself, what is the role of the church in all this? And I come across this today.

Before the TV programme, I had been seriously reconsidering what I do with my tithes i.e. pay it to the church or actually pay it to an orphanage in Nigeria where I know it will make a positive difference. I still haven't been able to decide and whilst the original article does make score a few points; I am still unclear. I have started paying the equivalent of my tithes to a Nigerian orphanage caring for underprivileged children and still pay my tithes to the church but one has to give way at some point as I cannot afford both for long.

I certainly am not happy when we are shown the church's annual reports that shows that more was spent on visiting guest ministers and other types of hospitality than was actually spent on charity. Something like 10:1! The reports suggests what is given to charity is an after thought. Half the time we are asked to make special contributions for charity if it is Xmas presents for underprivileged children or to build a refuge in Uganda when visiting pastors stay in the best hotels with funds taken from the church's accounts. We build the largest churches in the world but our people languish in poverty.

One day the church has bought a building with the building funds, another day, they say we are renting the building. Do they think people forget? I believe in God but I can't help but feel some pastor's just see tithes as free money.

One of my friends is a treasurer at a new start-up church in London (she's unpaid but it just so happens that she is the only one with a finance qualification in the church and the responsbility fell on her). It was started 5-10years ago and the pastor's bought 2 properties (fully paid up) in London and more in Nigeria in that time. Question is, where did he get the money from , she always reserves her comments.

I do agree with some parts of the original post but if we don't tithe where will the maintenance of the church come out from? Where will pastors and church staff be paid from if we don't pay tithes and would it not be hypocritical to be part of something and not contribute towards the upkeep? These are the questions that I still have no answers to that make me pay my tithes still.

All of these have left me very disillusioned.

Hi Ilelobola,

Very pertinent questions. I’ll post what I believe to be some pointers to the questions you raised. It was a cause for concern for me also at one point, but I looked to God and searched for truth, being willing to follow wherever it led. So whilst I’ll post my thoughts and discuss if you so wish, I’ll heartily exhort that you do likewise. Don't take my word for it, seek truth for yourself.

God served notice long ago that he no longer dwells in physical – houses, temples – buildings , in fact, almost immediately we entered this current dispensation.

Acts 7:48-49 - However, the Most High does not dwell in temples made with hands, as the prophet says: 'Heaven is My throne, And earth is My footstool. What house will you build for Me? says the Lord, Or what is the place of My rest?

Act 17:24 - God, who made the world and everything in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands

Along with physical building, out the window went a mediatory priesthood between God and His own. Oh yeah, and observance of holy days and mandatory sacrifices. Welcome to liberty in Christ.

But men won’t have it; they love their rituals, traditions, position, power, pomp and pageantry. Religion by any other name. The Lord spent a lot of time railing against it and them.

One has to have a clear understanding – from the biblical narrative – of exactly what church is. It’s not buildings made with hands, it’s one of living – people – stones. It’s not an institution, it’s a family. Alive! It’s not an organisation, it’s an organism – a living breathing thing.

As a facade for their love of religion, men will build temples and tell you God lives there. No He don’t. Like the organisation they’ve made it, it’ll need a hierarchy, staff, a board, steering committees etc. If it gets large enough, it’ll make sense to have them full-time and salaried. Like all organisations, it’s reason for being will be itself, it’s own survival and growth, overcoming or eliminating threats to it’s existence. This long stopped being about God by the way, although His name will be used liberally to justify it. Along of course with other religionese such as, “my ministry”, “my pastor “, “my church”.

So don’t wonder why money is spent on the “leaders” or visiting “ministers, rather than the needy, it’s just organisations doing what comes naturally. Did you mention “annual reports~?” Yes O! Organisational/ Institutionalised religion.

Churches don’t require “maintenance”, buildings do. People require care, nurture love and their physical needs met.

And lest I forget, the tithe. A necessary but mostly fraudulent re-introduction by the same religionists – along with temples, mediatory MOG’s, set worship times and “programs” – to fund this delusion or madness, or evil; take your pick.

Without the mandatory tithe and other forms of coerced giving, the “church” – in the space we are talking about namely African/Nigerian/Black Pentacostal type would almost certainly never have got off the ground, or it would cease to exist in it’s current form.

But take the mandatory tithe away, coerced giving away and imagine the shape the church would take. Look no further than the book of Acts.
I’ll stop now, but like I said, happy to discuss further, but you don’t really need me. Seek the truth with all your heart.

Your dissilussionment is almost certainly not with Christ, it's with needless, empty religion.

I wish you well

God bless
TV

Hello Pilgrim.1,

Hope alls well.

You ended your last post thus;

pilgrim.1:
When I see a moment inviting me to share, I'll do so.

Let me see, 12 posts ago - between the two of us - I asked if you'd be willing to answer some questions, you replied in the affirmative. Ten posts back, I posed a question. In the subsequent posts since then, you have asked various questions of your own, which I have answered and clarified as best I can where requested. However, for some reason you have singularly refused or been unable to answer my original question.

The sheer relentlessness with which you have pursued this course has itself intrigued me. I decided that on that basis alone I should try and see if I could at least understand your reasoning, hence my decision to see if you would answer some simple questions. Whilst I said "not purely" doctrine, I was by no means saying it shouldn't be resorted to, but I really wanted to get an idea of the dynamics of this from your view.

You now come out with the point above? Like I said, I don't want to be tedious. No offence Miss, but if I'm wasting my time, mine or yours, pray tell and I'll bother you no further.


Thanks again.
TV

Hello Pilgrim,

pilgrim.1:
Sorry, I can't do that. Money is quite a different matter altogether, and if I pally with you on that compromise just now, there's going to be a huge issue in the near future that we may not be able to reconcile. So, for our own sakes, I'll just like to keep things in their proper perspectives.

No problem.

Please clarify what else one gives. Specifically what one gives as a "proportion of" or that is determined in percentage terms, whatever that percentage may be. Just so I understand your thrust, please be very specific. If I am in danger of misreading or totally overlooking something, please be sure to say.

pilgrim.1:
Was that due to a "need" as well?

It does not appear you have a consistent position - and I grant you anyways. "Folding" worship into a need does not address worship in true essence. That takes us so close to the idea of idolatry that we all disavow. Worship does not arise from a need, and it would be difficult to fold one into the other - not in this regard.

God has no need of our worship, and we have no need to worship? Is that your position?

Please explain or show an example in this dispensation of how we would worship God with anything physical.

Pilgrim.1, it's not to difficult to say answer yes or no and then clarify if you wish. it's not overly onerous to simple state a position or share an insight. Once again, it's inference, leading questions, teasers, promises of future outlines and the like. Further your reading "idolatry" into my posting just comes across as diversionary. And why, oh why are you going on about condemning tithers to hell. You seem bent on keeping this discussin at the edges.

I have stated clearly and laid myself open to scrutiny. "I don't see how one would worship God with something physical in this age" Kindly explain or show differently.

I am discussing on the basis that your desire is to share and edify, if not please say so and I will desist.

I await your answers.

Thanks
TV

pilgrim.1:
While I respect your persuasions about this matter, perhaps you would have recognized that I was not particular about money - the question was about giving, however you may term that or what is included in that giving.

Second, perhaps you need to go back and review your submissions that you may not have seen any:
ordinances
commands
exhortations
. . either by the Lord or the apostles. Perhaps if you took the time to check these matters carefully, you may actually find some surprising answers to that address them in the NT. Would that help?

Okay, it seems this is a middle course and not really saying anything cogent. Probability doesn't seem a safe ground to occupy where we are seeking direct answers. I urge that you take a second look and see if indeed every inference to giving has always been prompted by a "need". Whatever happened to worship - nothing at all about that as well?

Yes one can give food, time, counsel etc, but presmably your thrust has not been about tithing or giving a proportion of those? For the sake of simplicity, please let's keep it tight. Let's use money as a metaphor shall we .

Yes, a fragrant oil was once used to worship the Lord.

But I said earlier, I would fold worship into "need" as I don't see how in this dispensation we would worship the Lord with physical things. If you have a different perspective or insight, please share.

"Sacrifice of praise/worship.

Thanks again
TV

Hi Pilgrm.1,

pilgrim.1:
Just curious, though: do you see giving only as a matter of "need"?

In a word;  "Yes"

Why? Because I find no where in the NT narrative examples of

~ money moving amongst the body of Christ for any other reason.
~ exhortions, pleas, ordinances or commands given by the Lord/apostles - for money to move for any other reason.
~ examples shown for money to move for any other reason

Neither can I personally see any other reason that I would consider mandated/ordained, although there may be situationally specifc  need for money to move. But in all probability, even that would probably still speak to a specific physical need.

Best
TV

pilgrim.1:
For now, I think we all have come to the point where we understand that this ministry is not a matter of "just give" as some of us have held it to be in the past, for such an idea was not pointing to anything specific (IMHO).

I for one do not concur with you on this. I absolutely believe it is a matter of "just give", with the specific being "need". If you have a specific question to pose on this, I'll happily answer.

I await your response to my previous question.

Thanks
TV

Hi Pilgrim.1,

I trust you are well today.

Thanks for offering to answer my questions around your understanding on this issue. As I said I am equally ready to respond to any you may have. Could I crave your indulgence and request concise replies, submitting myself to reciprocally clarifying any questions you may raise in turn in like manner.

From your submissions, you obviously define a difference between Christian "tithing" and Christian "giving", although you claim tithe is not any fixed %age or in any way mandatory. I also read your alluding to a specific use for the tithe. On that basis could I ask that you;

1. Clearly outline the difference, noting the the reasons for this difference and or the application of both.

(Correct me if I've misunderstood and ignore the question, I'll be happy to rephrase if I'm wrong)

Look forward to your response.

Regards
Deji

Hi Pilgrim.1,

I trust all is well with you and with yours.

I'd like to discuss this further with you, but not in a manner that will become tedious. I'd like to put some questions to you, in some ways away from a purely doctrinal basis, more towards the practicality of giving.

I must say, although you say your giving is not predicated on the law, your recourse to it in establishing your position is such that it may as well be. Neither is it properly established in my mind, by resort to shakey "inferences" from the NT, opaque "principles" from the OT and some as yet unclarified "mystery",, from I'm not exactly sure where?

There are two dispensations clearly outlined in scripture "The Law of Moses" and the "The Grace & Truth of The Lord Jesus" (John 1:17). If you read or have been shown a third, surely it should be clear from scripture and not too difficult for you to show?

If the basis is on the Melchizedekal, surely there must be inferences to be drawn from Melchizedek and not just the one action of Abraham, for which there are other understandings, which again - to my mind - are far superior to any you have postulated.

If you are a 23% taxpayer and the deadline for tax returns is December 31st, with a a 1% penalty for every day that you are late and you subsequently end up paying 28% because you are 5 days late, does that make you a taxpayer at the rate of 28%? There's no way one of your obvious intelluct and repeatedly demonstrated scholarship should be making that kind of arguement.

Again, if one pays two yearly tithes of 10% and a three yearly one of 10% averaging approximately 23%, would you sincerely argue that on that basis a tithe is therefore 23%?

Having said that I'd to discuss further, hopefully by way of some concise answers in return for some brief answers. Of course I am more than willing to reciprocate. If you are amenable please advise by return, otherwise, I am happy to just follow.

God bless.
TV

And so to the sharp end of this matter;

Trying to determine applicable elements of the law or parts the apostles overthrew or directly incorporated is a needless exercise. Looking prior to the law is unprofitable. The whole of history - before after and during the law - is pointing to one thing. The law and prophets themselves are pointing to one thing. Jesus. By Whom the law is "fulfilled".

Paul said this;

Philippians 3:3 For we are the circumcision, who worship God in the Spirit rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh, 4 though I also might have confidence in the flesh. If anyone else thinks he may have confidence in the flesh, I more so: 5 circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of the Hebrews; concerning the law, a Pharisee; 6 concerning zeal, persecuting the church; concerning the righteousness which is in the law, blameless.

Forget the law peeps, it's so behind. It’s backwards looking. No matter how scrupulously one masters it, applies it, or keeps it. Be that in part or in whole.

7 But what things were gain to me, these I have counted loss for Christ. 8 Yet indeed I also count all things loss for the excellence of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them as rubbish, that I may gain Christ 9 and be found in Him, not having my own righteousness, which is from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which is from God by faith; 

Did you really think it was down to doctrinal excellence or theological rigour? No, no and thrice no. It's by knowing Him being in Him and focusing on Him.

13 Brethren, I do not count myself to have apprehended; but one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind and reaching forward to those things which are ahead, 14 I press toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus.

It’s the grace to be found in Christ Jesus that is the key, not principles of the law or even ordinances or practices that were pre-law.

John 1:17 For the law was given through Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.

Recourse to the mosaic law - for Christians - is nothing short of tragic.

2 Corinthians 8:1 Moreover, brethren, we make known to you the grace of God bestowed on the churches of Macedonia: 2 that in a great trial of affliction the abundance of their joy and their deep poverty abounded in the riches of their liberality. 3 For I bear witness that according to their ability, yes, and beyond their ability, they were freely willing, 4 imploring us with much urgency that we would receive the gift and the fellowship of the ministering to the saints. 5 And not only as we had hoped, but they first gave themselves to the Lord, and then to us by the will of God. 6 So we urged Titus, that as he had begun, so he would also complete this grace in you as well. 7 But as you abound in everything--in faith, in speech, in knowledge, in all diligence, and in your love for us--see that you abound in this grace also.

I beseech thee brethren, don't give yourselves to figuring out which parts of the law "pertain", trying to glean "principles" from it, or "infer" relevance to it, give yourself to the Lord. Forget having to determine the bits to discard and those to keep, forget seeking solace in carnal ordinances or righteousness in fleshly commandments and give yourselves over to The Lord.

Quit fretting over ministers being cared for and temples not being built. Cease to worry over people not giving, the church not growing or the commission not being fulfilled and give yourselves over to the Lord.

May you abound in grace as you seek and know Him.
God bless
TV

_{John 1:16 And of His fullness we have all received, and grace for grace.}

Gamine:
Things still went on as usual while Jesus was still alive

His death on the cross changed things.

His sacrifice was the ultimate sacrifice

thats why the temple things had to be done away with.

No spiritual backing to any sacrifice done now.

Thank you Sis' Gamine.

JJYOU:
tell me my dear sister what do we keep and what do we throw away? talk to me in honesty. you know i will still love you whatever you say

There are many of us lovin' the sister' delightful & insightful simplicity already.

Gamine:
You don't have to ask me that

can't u see it for your self?

Things that were done in the temple

have no place now after Jesus's death and resurrection.

Because

One, We are now the temple

Two, The presence of God is everywhere

So its strictly a heart and faith thing now

Out of the mouth of babes,

JJYOU:
you probably have missed Jesus saying in Luke 11:42  GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
"How horrible it will be for you Pharisees! But you have ignored justice and the love of God. You should have done these things without ignoring the others.

New American Standard Bible (©1995)
"But woe to you Pharisees! For you pay tithe of mint and rue and every kind of garden herb, and yet disregard justice and the love of God; but these are the things you should have done without neglecting the others.

King James Bible
But woe unto you, Pharisees! for ye tithe mint and rue and all manner of herbs, and pass over judgment and the love of God: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.


Jesus  would have seen them tithe don't you think so?

No JJYOU, I don't, as per my post above.

pilgrim.1:
They are not sure and have been ever scuttling behind that verse. To them, it is a half-measure: "do this and not the other" is how they assume that verse reads - whereas it simply stands out clear: "these ought ye to have done and not to leave the other undone". I think if there was any verse they had hoped that tithes were ever condemned in the NT, it should have been that one - and we wonder why the Lord did not use that opportunity to tell them straight to cease from thence.

Pilly dear, you know full well that the Scibes and Pharisees were under the written code which Christians are not bound by. Did The Lord fulfill the law? Yes, perfectly. He lived it in all it's aspects. Under the NT dispensation we shall fulfill the weigtier matters also, but not by a written code.

When that is fully understand and how it is to be achieved is grasped, all notions of tithing will hopefully disappear.

Gotta run, fellowship later.

God bless
TV

@ All,

Please forgive my somewhat __________ literary style, my often being ________ when discussing issues (fill the blanks as you please !), but my intentions are none the less sincere.

So as not to be tedious, or miss sight of the fact that the aim is to edify here, let me share this.

Gods has - in our relationship (with Him) and with each other - unchanging requirements across testaments and in all dispensations.

Micah 6:8 - He has shown you, O man, what is good; And what does the Lord require of you But to do justly, To love mercy, And to walk humbly with your God?

Hosea 6:6 - For I desire mercy and not sacrifice, And the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings.

Matthew 9:13 - But go and learn what this means: 'I desire mercy and not sacrifice.' For I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance."

Matthew 12:7 - But if you had known what this means, 'I desire mercy and not sacrifice,' you would not have condemned the guiltless.

Mattew 23:23 - Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith. These you ought to have done, without leaving the others undone.

Please search for yourselves, there are numerous verses which attest to this.

In Matthew 23:23, this is what the Lord had in sight when rebuking the Scribes & Pharisees. The "weightier matters of the law" are these unchanging concepts. A written code - tithing etc - in achieving them is for Christians redundant. For those under the law both aspects should have been in view. They were judged hypocritical because despite their slavish adherence to the written code, they neglected the spirit behind it.

This is in no way enforcing the written code or parts of it on Christians surely that is abundantly clear?

God bless
TV

pilgrim.1:
I don't have any "Alagba" scholarship to showcase. The question is simple: a yes or no would have cleared you from this dribbling. Thank you.

Oh Pilly, regardless of my soft spot for you, I can't but wish you wouldn't take things so personal. ! Okay, as requested, NO!

pilgrim.1:
As above. A direct, simple, not dodgy answer would help show the sort of mindset you have. If playing these hide and seek games is all you have to show for your efforts, I think it may be best to leave you singing.

No dear, you know that's one of your ruses. I always state my position clearly and am willing to stand corrected - and eat pie if need be. Leading questions are just not in my chauvinistic repertoire ! How far?

Bless
TV

And not to overlook this;

pilgrim.1:
It was for this reason as well that I asked a question: did the apostles not teach anything of Christian practice that was derived directly from the OT Law of Moses? I know this seems to be a most embarrassing question for those who are driven always to assume the extreme idea of having nothing to do with the Law; and that is why as soon as they can help themselves to answer that question in simplicity and honesty, I will then walk them through this very matter yet again.

I would welcome embarrasment if it came with my being disabused from a wrong belief. Please walk us through Christian practice that is " derived directly from the law". Twenty words or less will completely debunk that notion, but let me allow you the chance to make us swallow and of course showcase your "Alagba" scholarship once again.

pilgrim.1:
Christian gentiles were actually practicing so many things derived directly from the Law of Moses - and that was taught by the apostles. Christianity was not built on the ideology of gentile thinking - go and read some more and if the case is not clear, I shall be only too glad to serve some sizeable examples for your consideration.

Like I said, please show us exactly where in scripture and how Christians - be they Jew or Gentile - were " practicing so many things derived directly from the Law of Moses". Could I ask that they not be inferred or mysterious or ordained but not specifically referenced. Ta !

pilgrim.1:
We only assume that "no Christian" was practising tithes, and that is why that idea still makes those believing such things to be unable to proffer simple answers to a few questions I have asked about this matter. As long as we continue to think that tithing is all about the Levitical priesthood, we shall continue to miss the real issue of why the apostle mentioned it categorically in positive light in Hebrews 7:8. The oracles of God were not given to Gentiles, but rather to the Jews (Romans 3:1-2); and when Gentiles became believers, they only had to learn and live by the Scriptures committed to the Jews as well (Romans 15:4).

When you do it, its "logical inference", when we do others do it its "questionable assumption". Kindly reference - directly - where NT believers of any hue "had to learn and live by the Scriptures committed to the Jews". Not neglecting that you have already stated - umpteen times - that your argument for tithes is not based on the law and prophets. But your statement here obviously means that your position on some notions is. And while you are at it, please explain the "categorical positve light put on tithe in Hebrews 7:8 that makes it a valid NT practice. I must have missed it.

pilgrim.1:
Every time people base their theology on the Levitical priesthood for discussing tithes, they will always have a problem with Hebrews 7:8 and never be able to see the power of Melchizedek in relation to tithes there. You just imagine someone who was a Jew (or a Gentile familiar with the Jewish scripture) when he heard that verse read to him - what do you think would have been his reaction? Protest? Nonchalance? Or just plain argument to disavow tithes and Melchizedek? The only reason why there was no argument about this issue is because they knew clearly that a solid teaching was already given on the matter, and not the excuses we hear today about why we should do or not do this, that or the other.

So here you are inferring that there was already "solid teaching" on "tithe" and "Melchizedek", hence no need to treat it in the NT. Maybe you should tell us who is High Priest for Christians, Christ or Melchizedek !

Thanks again.
TV

As requested.

pilgrim.1:
My dear sir, it was an issue, in as much as the Law we are discussing is concerned, it actually was an issue - and that was why you will not find anywhere in the NT condemning tithes. No, not one! If the apostles felt that it was to be condemned, they would no less have directly mentioned it as they did the following already highlighted:

        ●  observance of days

        ●  observance of months

        ●  observance of times

        ●  observance of years

        ●  outward circumcision

        ●  keeping a sabbath ritually

        ●  meats and drinks and divers washings

        ●  carnal ordinances

pilgrim.1:
All these and many more were specifically outlined and the teaching of the apostles were clear about them to such extent that they categorically discouraged them under the new covenant. For anyone to assume that merely circumcision or sabbath were "metaphors" for the Law is to indicate indeed that such a person has not studied the subject at all - and that is why they often fail to notice these very detailed issues mentioned in the NT.

pilgrim.1:
Where the apostles would have us discourage certain matters/practices, they clearly said so - and it is remarkable that a huge issue such as tithes and offerings in the OT that God categorically spoke about in many places should not even at any time be condemned in the NT. The challenge still stands - let any careful student of Scripture go and find out if there is any verse at all that condemns tithe, and let them share that verse with us publicly. My answer still is this: until such a time, there is not a single verse condemning tithes - NOT ONE.

Hebrews 7

1 For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the Most High God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him, 2 to whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all, first being translated "king of righteousness," and then also king of Salem, meaning "king of peace," 3 without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like the Son of God, remains a priest continually. 4 Now consider how great this man was, to whom even the patriarch Abraham gave a tenth of the spoils. 5 And indeed those who are of the sons of Levi, who receive the priesthood, have a commandment to receive tithes from the people according to the law, that is, from their brethren, though they have come from the loins of Abraham; 6 but he whose genealogy is not derived from them received tithes from Abraham and blessed him who had the promises. 7 Now beyond all contradiction the lesser is blessed by the better. 8 Here mortal men receive tithes, but there he receives them, of whom it is witnessed that he lives. 9 Even Levi, who receives tithes, paid tithes through Abraham, so to speak, 10 for he was still in the loins of his father when Melchizedek met him.

11 Therefore, if perfection were through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further need was there that another priest should rise according to the order of Melchizedek, and not be called according to the order of Aaron? 12 For the priesthood being changed, of necessity there is also a change of the law. 13 For He of whom these things are spoken belongs to another tribe, from which no man has officiated at the altar. 14 For it is evident that our Lord arose from Judah, of which tribe Moses spoke nothing concerning priesthood. 15 And it is yet far more evident if, in the likeness of Melchizedek, there arises another priest 16 who has come, not according to the law of a fleshly commandment, but according to the power of an endless life. 17 For He testifies: "You are a priest forever According to the order of Melchizedek."18 For on the one hand there is an annulling of the former commandment because of its weakness and unprofitableness, 19 for the law made nothing perfect; on the other hand, there is the bringing in of a better hope, through which we draw near to God.

Please note;
~ Abraham gave a tenth part of all - of the plunder, not any of the blessings of God thereto or therafter.
~ the mention of tithes paid to the Levitical priesthood according to the law v5.
~ the emphasis of the Melchizedek type being superior to the Aaronic/Levitical type v7. Demonstrated by Abraham as proxy for Levi/Aaron.
~ change of the law mentioned in v5. v12.
~ the law, the whole of it being referred to as a "fleshly commandment". V16 (that is the exact same as "carnal ordinance " in meaning)
~ Note annulling - redundancy - of that same law. v18

There are two types of shadow high priesthood. Aarons and Melchizedeks. Melchizedeks is superior to Aarons and the one on which The Lord Jesus Christs is patterned. Melchizedek is not our High Priest. Melchizedek did not pay the price or act as propitiation. He was "made like the Son of God" not the Son.

We are all priests now, with the Lord as high priest. To insist some priests must tithe to other priests is to introduce a split clergy/laity, leaders/followers, nowhere to be found in NT scripture. And doesn't explain a further tithe to the High Priest. Further how would a further tithe to the High priest work? For orderliness and completeness, check out how we minister to our High Priest in Matthew 25: 31-46. Sounds suspiciously like ministering to physical need to me.

But please draw your own conclusions.

Here the tithe was a metaphor for the whole law - which is a fleshly commandment or carnal ordinance; that is for mere mortals who have not the power of an "endless life" - and clearly shown as an article of it and annulled along with it.

Also note;
~ I did not have to rummage through the OT looking for pre or post law stipulations
~ I did not trawl through the NT pick tenuously related verses and link them to OT scripture,
    (which I had already acknowledged was not the basis for my position)
~ I did not have recourse to "principles" - which I never actually outlined - found in the law, although it is no longer in effect
~ I did not "infer" from that or other scripture which was not plainly stated
~ I did not  claim it was "ordained" but not specifically refered to or mentioned
~ I did not claim it was a"mystery" or an esoteric revelation, merely posted/referenced scripture as it reads

Thanks
TV

Hi @Pilgrim.1

Not that I should be shocked, but I’m always surprised at the methods you employ. !

Slicing my post and then answering way off-point will not progress this discussion, but I wonder, is that your aim?
I clearly stated that I accepted JJYOU’s point that there would be those who would take advantage of facilities laid on by some, without contributing proportionally to it’s upkeep. I also decried such behaviour.

But to say that is the norm is conjecture, because no empirical studies have been done. Further your own anecdotal submission is just that anecdotal and does not necessarily obtain everywhere or apply to everyone.

And to continually insinuate that stinginess is the driver for non tithing is disingenuous at best. There is nothing to suggest that non-tithers are non-givers or give less overall.

Most importantly, doctrine is not shaped so as to control peoples behaviour, nor is it to be re-defined to produce "outcomes" that may seem desirable, even righteous. No matter how “worrisome” such behaviour may seem.
I am yet to be convinced that you would if given leave forcefully impose your spiritualised religiosity on us all. God forbid. !

As to where would the church be? The Lord said He would build his church. Don’t you believe that? Those who champion physical structures and the attendant hierarchies will almost certainly claim such structures are key to church growth and fulfilling the great commission. The desire of those to control believers and appear pivotal in building the Lords church is exactly what prompted this

1Corinthians 7:23 - You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of men

As I said, if a group of people come together and decide they require a physical building for their worship, let them contribute to it’s build and upkeep - or rent - as they are able and those who wish to join them should be notified of the requirement to do likewise. In the OT it was called a temple tax. Even the Lord paid, He used the temple.

But to teach it as doctrinal, spiritualise it and claim the Lord ordain it is just plain rotten. Again, although I don't personally subscribe to it and see few situations were it would be warranted, I have no problem with it on the grounds of Christian Liberty. As long as the basis is not the warping of scripture. So to answer your question, it’s not wrong, nor is it sin for the saints to have a place to gather for worship.

By the way, you wilfully misread my submission, and posted replies that didn’t actually answer anything, and you answered absolutely none of my questions. You can do better, can't you? .


God bless
TV

JJYOU:
some of these no tithing people here go into church buildings people they are richer than built and continue to fund.

That is at best conjecture, but I dare say, you'D probably find a few such cases. And I take your point, that if one decides that a physical building is integral to their worship, then they should by all means contribute to it's upkeep as they are able.

JJYOU:
the question i asked the other time is if you say you don't like tithing please tell us how you want the churches to be funded

How should churches be funded? As I mentioned above.

I wouldn't necessarily do it myself, but I have no problem with people coming together and deciding to build a place of worship, of whatever cost. As long as they don't preach buildings as "doctrine, as "ordained" and the required contributions as mandatory, or otherwise spiritualise the building and/or the giving to it.

But let me ask you this;

~ Are church buildings - temples - required?
~ Does God dwell in them?
~ Did God mandate them or ordain such?
~ Is there a pattern or example in the NT narrative for "church building" or "temple construction"?
~ Per the above, is there an example of collection or offering - voluntary or mandatory - for such?
~ Was any collection or offering employed or given on anything other than physical need of the brethren?
~ Indeed, does Acts not clearly recount that land and buildings were actually sold to minister to need.
~ Why did they not use the land or convert the buildings for churches?
~ When the brethren had all things in common, was there any record of use of the common purse to build or acquire temples or churches?

pilgrim.1:
I was waiting to get there at some point, but patience. . it won't be long before we see the so-called "liberty" they have been preaching manifest itself for what it actually is! "Just give" - talk is cheap: let these same fellows tell us how they hope to sustain the idea of "Christian liberty" while parodying their lazy sanctimonius confusion that they themselves cannot digest.

Pilgrim.1 feel free to answer as requested, you know I love to hear your thoughts. However my expectation is of a  "mystery religious jig" albeit a highly spiritualised one  . And please don't use that as an excuse for avoidance. Go on dear, make me swallow !

God bless
TV

Morning Pilly,

I trust you are well.

Please answer the question. Live and direct. Like you promised too. Don't use the excuse of my "not inviting discussion" to derail the thread. On the basis of a trite aside, of which you are undisputed champion.

@ All, I understand if you are loathe to backtrack and re-read previous posts. For discussion is always best if progressed linearly and I for one am happy to repeat and clarify as necessary.

However, I've re-read some of the links Pilgrim.1 attached. If you have the time and the inclination, please do so. It will be an eye-opener.

Thanks.
TV

pilgrim.1:
We don hear - neither here nor there. Anything else?

For you dear, of course ~ Women can minister in some capacity and "lead", quote unquote, in some areas - most notably in female on female and childrens ministry. But overall leadership is always by a plurality of male elders.

How was that?

Bless
TV

Pilgrim.1 asked this;

Now, my question: dear Kunle, what do you think: did the apostles overthrow the whole law or they taught certain doctrines for the Christian life directly from the LAW?


My response;

Acts 15:5 - But some of the sect of the Pharisees who believed rose up, saying, "It is necessary to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses."

Acts 15:24 - Since we have heard that some who went out from us have troubled you with words, unsettling your souls, saying, "You must be circumcised and keep the law" to whom we gave no such commandment--

Did they reference the law when the “principles were essentially the same? Certainly, it made sense and afforded easier understanding, especially when preaching Jews. Did they seek to incorporate the law or the letter of the law into NT life? No they did not.

Further the apostles had no notions of it being their place to “overthrow anything”. The saving work of the Lord was completed. "The law fulfilled". They merely leant insight and understanding to that work and structure for practical day to day Christian living.

Now please answer mine. In a post that will fit into a standard screen without scrolling. Please refrain from wuruwuru, circular reasoning, cut and paste theology or your favourite, endless droning .

Much obliged.

Pilly, Did The Lord Jesus Christ "fulfill" the whole law or part? Or anywhere teach that certain elements remained, or give leave for the apostles to mix certain elements of law with grace?

Best
TV

A church - proper one anyway - cannot be led by "a woman". Neither can it be led by "a man".

I'm well thanks sis'  . How far?

Let me now share a few reasons as to my persuasions for tithing.

(1) My persuasions for Tithing are not predicated on the Law

No points here, not even you can spin scripture that much

(2) My persuasions for Tithing are based on the priesthood of Melchizedek

My persuasions against are based on the High Priesthood of Jesus Christ. Melchizedeks priesthood was a shadow, a type. Demonstrated as superior to the Aaronic by the symbolic paying of a tithe by Abraham to Melchizedek.

(3) My persuasions for Tithing derive from what the Lord Jesus ordained

The Lord never – as a commandment or an institution – ordained tithing for His disciples or followers.

~ No more physical temples or altars that require maintenance

~ The only ones who can claim to preach the gospel and be supported by that are those who are solely given to just that. That is itinerant ministers or full time missionaries, and they are supposed to be ministered to by those and amongst those they minister to, and to the extent of their needs. As was the Lords example. Jesus was ministered too by those He ministered too. No tithe was ordained. And that is the point Paul was making, not an organisational hierarchy funded by tithing which has always been at the core of your thinking and insinuated not so subtly though out your submissions.

(4) My persuasions for Tithing are derived from Abraham’s example

Abraham married His sister
Abraham circumcised his male children

(5) My persuasions for Tithing derive from its relevance in the NT

Scribes and Pharisees! And The Lord said it was under the law, which He went on to fulfil. Redundant with a capital “R”.
Judgment, mercy and faith are the principles underpinning the law and are eternal. Paying tithe and neglecting those is like keeping the sabbath and not helping someone in need, claiming that you are keeping the Sabbath. Letter not the spirit/principle.

(6) My persuasions for Tithing are based on the test of Stewardship

A weak argument. If you cannot avail yourself of the Liberty we have in Christ and give as you are able based on “ability” (2cor8:12) and feel the need to demonstrate you faithfulness and commitment by “regularly setting aside”, then do so. Don’t cramp or constrain others, by trying to appear hyper-spiritual and thereby introducing “mystery” where there is none. All you are demonstrating is strained religiosity.

(7) My persuasions for Tithing express my freedom

Au contraire, it expresses you lack of liberty and your desire to suffer others likewise. Or else you would simply choose to tithe and not spiritualise it and claim it’s a mystery.

(8.) Tithes – Not Condemned in the New Testament

And as ever you use the old to justify it. There is no NT verse commending it.  Was written for our learning meant to mean introduce wholesale into Christian life? Weaker and weaker.

Any more for any more?

God bless
TV

pilgrim.1:
Let me share just a little point that may help in this matter of understanding the Law, and then I would like to ask you a simple question following that.

Go on then  !

pilgrim.1:
Now, if the apostles were categorical in wanting to let us know that something in the Law is no longer effective for the Christian, I'm sure they stated that in no uncertain terms. Take circumcision, for instance: where the apostles wanted us to know for definite that its ceremonial rites are not to be observed by the Christian, they said so plainly:

Are you sure on that point?

pilgrim.1:
1 Corinthians 7:19

          Circumcision is nothing,
          and uncircumcision is nothing,
          but the keeping of the commandments of God.

Oh, I see you reasoning here.

pilgrim.1:
Nowhere would anyone find the same thing said about tithes! It is very important that we make our inferences based on what Scripture says plainly, even when we may make exegetical conclusions, and not be forcing any text to say what they did not say. Where indeed do we find any apostle making statements about the tithes as they did for circumcision? Do you know why you will not find them attacking tithes the way many people have done so? Simple: because they do not teach that the Law was all about tithes or circumcision - they kept each matter in their rightful context; and if they meant to let us know that tithes, like circumcision, were "nothing", they would have said so plainly. But is that what they taught? We know that is not so.

Ok 0!

So your aguements goes something like this. ;

~ You preach tithe not based on the law, but on the fact that it was before the law and done by Abraham in faith?
~ You are here stating that circumcision was categorically stated as ineffective under the law by the apostles, yes?

But Abraham by faith entered into a covenant of circumcision before the law.

So your reasoning calls for this to be spiritualised and practised by NT Chrtistians as the "mystery of circumcision" not based on the law, but on the "principles" of the law"

_{I am also very saddened by the fact that I spent an age describing the difference between the "spirit" and the "letter" of the law, and how one could act in the spirit, not keep the letter and yet not violate the law. You resisted me with all your might, yet you now have recourse to "principles" of the law for Christians which has to be distinguished from the letter or else you are at once denying and enforcing the mosaic law. Duh? !}

pilgrim.1:
Nowhere would anyone find the same thing said about tithes! It is very important that we make our inferences based on what Scripture says plainly, even when we may make exegetical conclusions, and not be forcing any text to say what they did not say. Where indeed do we find any apostle making statements about the tithes as they did for circumcision? Do you know why you will not find them attacking tithes the way many people have done so? Simple: because they do not teach that the Law was all about tithes or circumcision - they kept each matter in their rightful context; and if they meant to let us know that tithes, like circumcision, were "nothing", they would have said so plainly. But is that what they taught? We know that is not so.

Neither will you find it for most of the 600 or so other laws. Circumcision is a metaphor for the whole law! Clearly enunciated by apostle Paul in Galations and posted earlier by KunOsh, for you reading pleasure.

pilgrim.1:
Now, my question: dear Kunle, what do you think: did the apostles overthrow the whole law or they taught certain doctrines for the Christian life directly from the LAW?

Wrong question. And let me counter with this, Dear Pilly, Did The Lord Jesus Christ "fulfill" the whole law or teach certain elements remained, or give leave for the apostles to mix certain elements of law with grace?

Pilly, as ever I applaud your efforts, but you are so wrong on this.

God bless
TV