₦airaland Forum

Hello Pilgrim,

[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=272.msg2982906#msg2982906 date=1224778577]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. [/quote]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.

[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=272.msg2982906#msg2982906 date=1224778577]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.[/quote]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

[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=272.msg2982538#msg2982538 date=1224773970]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?[/quote]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,

[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=272.msg2981697#msg2981697 date=1224765999]Just curious, though: do you see giving only as a matter of "need"?[/quote]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

[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=272.msg2981526#msg2981526 date=1224763653]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).[/quote]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.

[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=272.msg2961029#msg2961029 date=1224344661]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. [/quote]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

[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=272.msg2960991#msg2960991 date=1224344237]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.[/quote]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!

[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=272.msg2960991#msg2960991 date=1224344237]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.[/quote]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;

[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=272.msg2957518#msg2957518 date=1224272910]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.[/quote]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.

[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=272.msg2957518#msg2957518 date=1224272910]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.[/quote]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 !

[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=272.msg2957518#msg2957518 date=1224272910]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).[/quote]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.

[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=272.msg2957518#msg2957518 date=1224272910]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.[/quote]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.

[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=272.msg2957518#msg2957518 date=1224272910]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[/quote][quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=272.msg2957518#msg2957518 date=1224272910]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.[/quote][quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=272.msg2957518#msg2957518 date=1224272910]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.[/quote]
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?

[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=272.msg2954255#msg2954255 date=1224235851]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.[/quote]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

[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=61492.msg2952934#msg2952934 date=1224195591]We don hear - neither here nor there. Anything else? [/quote]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

[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=272.msg2951496#msg2951496 date=1224173599]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.[/quote]Go on then  !

[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=272.msg2951496#msg2951496 date=1224173599]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:[/quote]Are you sure on that point?

[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=272.msg2951496#msg2951496 date=1224173599]1 Corinthians 7:19

          Circumcision is nothing,
          and uncircumcision is nothing,
          but the keeping of the commandments of God.[/quote]Oh, I see you reasoning here.

[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=272.msg2951496#msg2951496 date=1224173599]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.[/quote]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? !}

[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=272.msg2951496#msg2951496 date=1224173599]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.[/quote]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.

[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=272.msg2951496#msg2951496 date=1224173599]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?[/quote]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

I am just putting the finishing touches to a scanner that will detect false doctrine! Soon to be deployed by border agencies and immigration officers worldwide. !

Good evening all,

I earlier summarised my position on tithing thus;

1.Tithing is not mandatory, but it is permissable - and like most opponents, my opposition is to those that would make it mandatory for Christians and warp scripture to do so - not tithing per se.

2. I believe that in the fullness of NT living, it is redundant and with time one would see that. But why and who can force understanding on people who do not yet see that? Hence, Christian liberty.

3. It cannot be justified/enforced under the law and the prophets or based on something else and then enforced by same.

4. Abrahams sole instance was/is not a pattern or ordinance. Abrahams faith is the only pointer for NT Christians.

5. Tithing confers no distinct or unique blessings over one who simply gives - whatever amount/frequency - with the right posture.

6. I don't actually agree that God is obliged to respond to our giving in any form on the basis of some set pattern or return.

7. I don't believe that God ranks giving or distinguishes giving types or gifts/offerings and then responds accordingly.

8. NT giving is predicated on need, also noting;

9. the offering/worship element - #1459 - but in the NT dispensation I see no real examples of that, although I stand to be corrected.

10. Following on from 8 & 9, I'D be really interested to hear how one would worship God directly with any physical gift in this dispensation. New thread?


I will now briefly outline my views on NT Christian giving;

1. There are only two reasons to give, the first predicated on need and the second based on a desire to bless and honour God. One may say worship, no problem!

2. However, both reasons are valid worship responses, especially when motivated by a good and cheerful heart. Living out life to do His will, through His power, under His grace and to His glory, means every act is one of worship.

3. Even if one gives as a “blessing to God”, it’s ultimate end will be to minister to need, so while I note and will not quibble over the two reasons, the final employ of any “giving” will be to minister to need.  Hence, I may say all giving is predicated by need to keep it simple, with my first point as a rider.

4. Giving is not classified, although it may be described using different terminology, including but not limited to; giving; offering, blessing, sacrifice, gift, etc. Start to worry if it’s called salary, wages, stipend, remuneration etc and/or is given for “ministry” . Worry even if it’s called any of the first listing and is predicated on ministry”

5. There are different needs to - all pertaining to physical wellbeing and ministering – give too, different times to give, different constituencies to give too, different degrees of giving, but there are not “types of giving”. And there are certainly not different types of giving that attract different blessings or returns or negative blessings or returns for non-compliance. No giving is legislated for or mandatory.

6. Giving is a ”grace” – one of the many facets of grace – which a Christian grows into and which enables the Christian to give even to a sacrificial degree. One of the main distinctions from giving by law.

7. I don’t believe God ascribes absolute or relative value to the gift. It’s is acceptable based on heart and posture. No part of any giving is considered more hallowed or sanctified or holy or indeed needs to be or is “spiritualised” in any way. As believers focus on the Giver, The Lord also see’s the heart of the giver.

8.  Giving can take many forms.  Often it will be monetary, but it can be time, counsel, fellowship, food and as we all know and acknowledge, things one can’t always apply a monetary value too, such as a life. Let’s thank God for His “indescribable gift”.

9. There is no NT mandate or ordinance – be that as law or institution – or anything that can be gleaned from the scriptural narrative that would suggest that at that time, or in the future, money would be required for temples, salaried or professional clergy or in any way to build or support the “church” as an organisational entity.

10. There is no hidden mystery to giving.


God bless you as you seek and live for Him.
TV

@All

I am really saddened by some of what is being postulated on this thread. I had been somewhat remiss by not following as closely as I should, so read a few pages back to try and pick up some lines of enquiry and themes that were being explored.

I must also confess that I didn't read ab initio neither did I cover all that I had missed, but I saw enough to cause me grave concern. I have mixed feelings - not about the issue in question - about the motivation behind some of the postings here. I'm sensing something else, but I shall hold counsel for now.

In as much as I have no problems with indviduals who unilaterally or corporately choose to tithe, that is based on my belief that the walk with God is essentially an individual thing. And I believe that God will in His own time and according to His own purpose enlighten/deliver those who truly seek Him.

Do I need to repeat that I believe the paying or enforcing or supporting of a tithe on the basis of the law and prophets is wrong and potentially dangerous? And doing so on the basis of Abrahams one off tithe of spoils to Melchizedek at best misguided?

But do I for one minute believe, that even if my stance on tithing if 100% correct, it makes me in some way better or spiritually superior or even closer to God than someone who takes the opposite stance. No, no, no. Do I believe the essence of Christianity is doctrinal excellence? Again, no, no and thrice no. It's one of the reasons I no longer engage like before. I do not seek - if it indeed exists - doctrinal excellence as I do not believe that is key - although it may well derive frm - a closer walk with God and knowing The Lord

I don't want us to become tedious or way tiresome to one another, neither do I necessarily want us to abandon what has been a for the most part a wothwhile discussion.

I'm not totally sure of the way forward, but perhaps is we discussed Christian life in the NT, with an emphasis on the daily lives of the saints and elders, the injunctions about giving we will recieve further insight. Perhaps we could - even on a seperate thread - consider what predicated giving and distribution in the NT, how and what collections or aid were used for,and further, how in this dispensation one would worship The Lord with physical gifts.


May The Lords light shine.

God bless
TV

sarmy:
It seems you've got a kind of revelation of it and also trying very hard to explain it. Is there a mystery to that name tithe and from your perspective, how do you define tithe (I'm sorry if this has been mentioned b/4)

Yes 0! All this talk of deeper meaning, allowing God to show us what we are not seeing, hallowed part etc etc. This would suggest a revelation of sorts or at least an insight/understanding that we are not seeing.

But no problem. I would therefore request that you share! If you cannot share for some reason, why go there? If it's divine say so, if you cannot reveal it, advise. If it's your own study or by dint of scholarship, again, I would exhort you to share. If you recieved it from someone, pray tell and reveal your source and provenance. But why keep us in suspense or attempt to spiritualise it?

A true revelation would be bourne out by scripture. Easily, logically, unambiguously, obviously even. After it had been pointed out and it would leave no room for gainsaying. If by sound scholarship, again any postulation would stand on it's own merits, fit well with scripture and not jar with other doctrine.

And I don't think balance is a big issue here. The discussion has not revolved around "exreme positions". It's the meaning, basis, validity, practicality, use, scriptural narrative, examples, form and many other things that have been chewed on and mulled over on this thread.

We eagerly await this revelation/insight/scholarship piece/teaching .

Hi Sis' P,

[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=272.msg2936187#msg2936187 date=1223910138]My dear brother, I urge you to please go back and spend some time on this matter and not to just be cemented on one assumption, no matter how many times you think you have read it. I am begging you, because you may have no opportunity to come back and shy away from this assertion if your errors are pointed out. Let's not be too much in haste to understand issues. [/quote]It was always on farm produce, not on money. There was a clause about converting to money for long journeys, but it was not based on monetary income.

I won't shy away. I believe it's necessary to state ones position clearly and clarify if required, which I'm happy to do. If undecided or in doubt, one should also say so. However, if you can show differently, I'm all ears.

[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=272.msg2936187#msg2936187 date=1223910138]My brother, try and go back and see it O. . . you may be arguing from a secular humanistic ideology and not actually seeing what is there. I am begging. [/quote]Please feel free to correct - as opposed to assert - if I am. Don't beg, just show. As mentioned, I'm all ears.

[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=272.msg2936187#msg2936187 date=1223910138]Please, please and please - go back and see that the extremum is applicable to both those arguing for and against tithes in Scripture. I have given an example already - there are so many others I could easily repost here, but I don't want to scare anyone to see what tithe-antagonists have said about their brethren.[/quote]The discussion has always been about an obligation to tithe. I don't recall - although I may be wrong - anyone who was against tithing attaching curses to the practise. Not on this thread anyway.

However, I stand by the fact that, making tithing an obligation and doing so on the basis of the mosaic law could be very dangerous. And to knowingly enforce tithing on that basis cannot be condoned or considered merely extreme.

God bless
TV

Hi All,

I appreciate and applaud the brotherly way the conversation is progressing. Now to work;

Did Jesus pay tithes?

I doubt it, he was a carpenter by profession and not from a land owning family that I can tell. The tithe was always on agricultural/land based produce. Livestock or arable crops. It was never money, so the poor, disenfranchised etc would not be liable or considered in default.

Indeed, tithe was in part meant to cater for such. It makes little sense to demand a tithe from those whom it was meant for. Or insist on a tithe of a poor persons recipt of the tithe distribution?? Although a heartfelt freewill offering in appreciation would be kind of cute  !

Extreme?

It's extreme to claim curses accrue for not paying tithe, it's also lie.

It's extreme to claim hell for those who pay, but if you do pay as a mandatory obligation based on the law, it's very dangerous, why needlessly fall from grace.

However I'm convinced that God leads those who are seeking him. I was mandatory tithings biggest proponent. I waged war on non-payers, even those who paid, but questioned if it should be net. It was one of the first things God delivered me from as I sought Him, and I was'nt even asking about it.

If a true seeker pays a law based tithe ignorantly, I know God will deliver such a one as they seek Him.

Hell for those who knowingly warp the scriptures to enforce a mandatory tithe? That would depend on your definition of hell and it's purpose. Don't lets go there, at least not on this thread. But there is still the "falling from grace" penalty for such, no?

Could we perhaps take it further, with the following posers, or others that contributors may have?

Why don't Catholics, Anglicans, JW or others pay tithe
What is the tithe used for
Is it's use biblically prescribed
What would happen if it was eliminated and all giving became freewill and disbursement became needs based?

God bless
TV

Morning Pilgrim,

Hope you are well.

Ah, ah, you know the sheer length of your replies will deter me . Rather than reply to every point, I'll share.

First, I know I stepped in midway, I had been kind of following, but yes, I am remiss for not reading thoroughly, your submissions are too detailed for me to render that disservice. Apologies.

Never the less, I don't see the premise of your arguement and still feel that you are set on justifying your position by sheer dint of scholarship.

Mine has been simple;

1. Tithing is permissable, but not mandatory - and like most opponents, opposition is to those that would make it mandatory, not tithing per se
2. I believe that in the fullness of NT living, it is redundant and with time one would see that. But why force it? Hence, Christian liberty
3. It cannot be justified/enforced under the law and the prophets or based on something else and then enforced by same
4. Abrahams sole instance was/is not a pattern or ordinance. Abrahams faith is the only pointer for NT Christians.
5. Confers no distinct or unique blessings over one who simply gives - whatever amount/frequency - with the right posture
6. I don't actually agee that God is obliged to respond to our giving in any form on the basis of some set pattern or return
7. I don 't believe that God ranks giving or distinguishes giving types or gifts/offerings and then responds accordingly
8. NT giving is predicated on need, also noting
9. the offering/worship element - #1459 - but in the NT dispensation I see no real examples of that, although I stand to be corrected.
10. Following on from 8 & 9, I'D be really interested to hear how one would worship God directly with any physical gift in this dispensation. New thread?

I'm happy to discuss any point, or any that you may raise, but after so long and with so little consensus, I appreciate that it may start to get circular and tedious.

I'll find time - or there'll be opportunity at some stage - to explain all the failed jokes/one liners !

Best
TV

[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=272.msg2932280#msg2932280 date=1223832492]Hi again TV01,[/quote]Hi Miss.

[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=272.msg2932280#msg2932280 date=1223832492]How body?[/quote]Body dey fine sis', I have reason to really thank God, I've been all but incapacitated recently, but I'm on the mend.

I'll make a few brief points;

[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=272.msg2932280#msg2932280 date=1223832492](1) The percentage (%) thingy: My point is that we have always been stuck on a particular percentage in this question of giving; whareas my effort has been to help readers see that is not the point God has always wanted us to look at (IMHO). And what point is it? I think that tithes go further than mere calculations based on income - it goes as far as its spiritual value - which points to that which is the 'hallowed part' of all our giving.[/quote]You may well have attempted to make a point about the "hallowed part", firstly there is no such scriptural notion. And secondly, you have singularly failed to make it. Please think on the application of "hallowed".

Giving - without classification - as a Christian notion is a response to a need predicated on a heartfelt compassion for man, bourne out of a love for God. What hallows it, is the attitude (heart/spiritual sincerity). Perhaps unintentionally, by focusing on the gift, you do no more than ritualise it. Just as a supplicants focus on the Giver, not the gift. Likewise, God's focus is on the giver not the gift.

[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=272.msg2932280#msg2932280 date=1223832492](2) Complusory: My point has always been that nothing has been made compulsory to the Christian as regards this issue. Absolutely nothing. Yes, I have noted that in my opinion this ministry has been ordained by the Lord Himself; but even so, He did not force it upon any believer at all.

Bearing these issues in mind, it then becomes apparent why those who are vehemently ooposed to tithes may have serious issues as not to be able to see these points. In which case, they argue again and again that ~~

(a) it has always been compulsory
(b) it is based every single time on 10%
(c ) it is only given to meet needs
(d) it is always a matter of the LAW[/quote]So, it's not compulsory, yet it is ordained by the Lord? Is it an ordinance, a command, a sacrement, a law? Like communion perhaps? Could you kindly draw scriptural parallels or lend further insight to clarify what appears to be a contradictory statement.

No one - at least not myself, is "vehemently opposed" - in the way you are suggesting, and I clearly outlined my premise and riders in my last post.

a. as part of the mosaic/levitical law, and any arguments for a tithe drawing on the law must acknowledge this.
b. whatever the %age, if stipulated as law, then a. comes into play.
c. NT giving is only on the basis of need (lets leave out worship offering as I requested in my last post) 
d. it is if you use the law and the prophets to establish tithing as a NT notion

[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=272.msg2932280#msg2932280 date=1223832492]Now dear TV01, I have serious problems digesting those assertions as based on Scripture. Why? For the simple reasons already shared that:

(a) it has not always been compulsory - citing Abraham's case

(b) it has not always been 10% every single time (citing a few other examples)

(c) it was not Melchizedek's need that made Abraham give tithes

(d) it was not always a matter of the LAW (again, Abraham's example)

Now, some are also opposed to the above because they counter that __

(1) Abraham tithed only once

(2) Abraham did not give of his own income

(3) we cannot repeat anything that Abraham did

(4) there was nothing said about tithing in the NT

Again, I counter that indeed ~~

(1) Abraham indeed tithed once; but how many times did Melchizedek meet him?

(2) if Abraham's tithes were unacceptable as "tithes", God would say so

(3) the basic current in Abraham's life was faith (see Galatians 3:7)

(4) there are indeed so many texts in the NT where tithes were mentioned[/quote]I'll respond briefly point by point;

a. Abrahams case was to demonstrate the superiority of the Melchizedical priesthood over the Aaronic/Levitical. Once. Never before or after, repeated.
b. please cite examples outside the law
c. worship offering, please don't muddy the waters.
d. outside of Abrahams one of tithe for a specific reason please see a. - it was.

1. true, but that bolsters the position of those against
2. likewise
3. we are only to have the faith of Abraham, not to marry close relatives -are you Ijebu ? - or lie to the king.
4. nothing said to Christians as an ordinance or law or ritual or to suggest that it's a NT imperative

1. We are informed of the once, which was for the reason outlined above. It was not a law or ritual, it was symbolic to contrast types.
2. unacceptable? your point here being? No one has denied the right of believers to tithe, but it's not Christian doctrine. It's Christian  liberty.
3. true, please see 3. above.  We are not to ritualise his actions. I know, lets go to war and plunder some heathen potentate !
4. 3 times, 2 are the same - the gospels - and are addressed to those under the law, but not understanding or living it, and once per 1. above.

[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=272.msg2932280#msg2932280 date=1223832492]You see, we keep going round in circles like this until. . .

But my points are that: (a) people should look away from a calculation of percentage (%) and rather look at the basic issue involved in the meaning of tithes - God alone specifically pronounced what it meant: Leviticus 27:30. . . . and, (b) they should be willing to look beyond the LAW and understand what tithe meant outside of it - which was why I have been calling attention to Abraham's case.

Maybe some day we might have the happy occasion to expound on the various types of offerings in the NT. But I think somewhere along this discussions I made reference to the various kinds of giving in the NT (which I "stole" from another poster). In anycase, I shall come back and outline them again.

However, suffice to say that we make a mistake (IMHO) when we assume that all giving in the NT was in refernece to need. I don't think so; and both in the OT and NT, there are examples where they were given in response to worship even though the receiver had no need. Two examples: Abraham to melchizedek (the latter had no need); and the widow mites in the NT (she was the one in need, but were the treasurers in need?). I think we should look into these issues and see the point.

I'm humble to see where it is so, if you could help me see it. However, even when people have questioned my position, I have always tried to share with them the consistency in my position.

I agree; we are not to force anything on anybody - and as annimi noted, it is important to note the details so that nobody is confused about issues. If we did not attempt to clarify the details, people would still be making huge mistakes and running with the default idea that tithes were not mentioned at all in the NT; or that tithes = LAW, whereas it is not so.[/quote]Beyond the law are grace and truth, John 1:17. Giving is a grace 2 Corinthians 8

I recall the taxonomy of giving severally outlined earlier in the. It simply misses the point, the only drivers are need (and worship). The requirement is not to give, but too have the right spiritual posture when doing so.

You are only agreeing with me citing giving in response to need and worship. Finito. I leave out worship offering too 1. keep things simple, however, 2. I believe the bible shows giving to the needy is actually considered worship, 3. if one wishes to make the distinction and then give for either reason the introduction and use of the word tithe or employing notions like "hallowed" are essentially pointless at best and potentially dangerous.

That sis' is the whole problem with your position. Its not only inconsistent, but also contradictory. It's not by law, but you defend it using the law. It's not compulsory, but it is an ordinance. It's not a set%age, but it is hallowed. Forcing a deeper meaning into it is just an attempt to justify it. Can't honestly be sold using the law, attaching blessing or curses is the flip side of the same coin and just wrong. Abrahams example was clearly symbolic and shown to be such in the only other NT reference in Hebrews. So finally, painted into a corner and running out of options, we spiritualise it? Enough already.

Your only plank - short and shaky - is that it's a level one gets to. In that case why pursue it? Let folks get there. And please, acknowledging that anecdotal evidence and personal experience do not constitute doctrine whilst citing lots of both is disingenious. That wasn't so much Pilgrim.

[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=272.msg2932280#msg2932280 date=1223832492]Cheers and thanks again for pointing out these issues.

Blessings.[/quote]Kindest regards Miss, it's my pleasure. Apologies if I come across a bit terse, you know I flinch at - but admire - how much you can slap down in one post. Where's mein feisty Pilly? I'm not so sure about this new "humble" person !!!

Peace

God bless
TV

Hi Pilgrim,

How far? Hope you are well.

I wonder, if a tithe is not a fixed %age and is not compulsory, exactly how does it differ from simple giving? And exactly what is your premise or point?

Also, when you say "types of giving", could you kindly classify these types from NT scripture. My premise is that NT giving is predicated solely on need (I will not ignore, but distinguish it from "offering,even though I don't see that that takes a physical form in the NT. I wil leave that out for the purpose of this discussion, although I'm happy to discuss elsewhere).

Pilly you must realise that you are on a hiding to nothing and have gradually blurred your position. I'm actually see no reason to force this, trusting true seekers and seekers of truth will be led. I just miss you some, and thought I'd engage .

@ All,

Although my walk has led me away from deep discussion of doctrinal/sectarian issues, I would still love to share more. One thing that deters me is the lack of "end-to-end"discussion around topics. Point in question, what is the practical outworking and fit with real Christian living of a tithe?

Note: I have no issue with tithe as a personal thing between a believer and their God, my issue is with a mandatory, fixed rate, benefit or curse accruing faith wide diktat. Neither do I see any basis for suppoting NT tithe from OT scripture or Abrahams one off example.

I note with interest the "Slain in the spirit/Falling under the anointing" thread. How come no one has asked the obvious question; What then? I believe it would make the discussions -or debates as they often are - much more robust and ultimately edifying.

God bless
TV

[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=144982.msg2782491#msg2782491 date=1221074705]Here's a well-deserved and huge one. . . [size=14pt]mwuuuaaahh![/size] I sooooo missed you and several others who have taught me a lesson or two that have been very helpful in my walk. God bless you plenty!

Well, d tory plenty, but I'm happy to be alive and well. . . much blessed by the many prayers on my behalf.[/quote]Hi Pilly, Sorry for the overly delayed response, so much going on with me, hard to keep up. Appreciate your kind thoughts and good wishes, but most of all I covet your prayers. Please do remember me in your supplications. Hopefully things are a little more settled with me now, so I'll try and stop by more.

God bless
TV

[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=144982.msg2782232#msg2782232 date=1221071662]@TV01,

I saw your icon flashing light, so I say make I hail you! How body? Trust you're doing okay. Grace to you.[/quote]Hailing in return Sis'Pilly - TV chances a quick "Holy Kiss" - How far?
Good to hear from you. I'm just wrapping up from a retreat, home soon. Peace.

So what's up? How's your journey? Was that what kept you away, or more mundane stuff?

donnie:
By d way, why did your topic go . . . even donnie?

I am soooooooo tempted,  !