₦airaland Forum

No real difference, but it essentially boils down to who is doing the defining.

Seun post at #6 gives a good idea of the general usage of the term these days.

No, because it's wrong on many levels.

1. A church is never "led" by a single person (or in truth led by people).
2. Christian women are not permitted to take authority over men. It inverts divine order.

Hi Bari_Kade,

I've outlined my position on this severally. It's very simple and not based on any MOG or denominational teaching, just the clear leading of scripture and based on my (admitted not as much as I'd like) knowing Christ.

I won't bother restating what I've summed up several times, or even outlining the broad areas of concensus I think we've all reached.

In fact, this post is not actually about the topic at hand. It's really about your recent attitude on it. I've often had cause to admire the scholarly way you go about stating your position on issues, and the order and conciseness, even in your oft quite lengthy posts. Who could have failed to note your admirable attitude in not really digressing from the topic at hand and keeping firmly away from ad-hominem remarks.

However, over the past week or so on this thread, you've demonstrated personality traits and characteristics that I would never have ascribed to you, and which, if I'd been told about, I don't think I'd have believed or wanted too. I won't bother levelling any accusations or charges, as I think anyone who cares to back-read some of the recent posts will see it for themselves, plus I'm looking beyond this to the growth edification which is the whole point, right?

You have promised to reveal some overlooked, misunderstood or unknown truths around the issue of tithing (and I note your insistance on classifying it, and as a type of giving). No problem, I for one am quite eager to hear and keen for you to do so.

I don't see that the continous back and forthing, denying the claims and decrying the positions of those who have at least been straightforward enough to air them, without proffering alternative readings for discursive comparision and critique avails anyone even a smidgin of edification. Indeed, quite the opposite.

So, could I once again ask you too please share with us. I sure Holy Spirit inspired truth will put an end to all gainsaying. If some of us have been walking in error, it can only be all round beneficial and edifying for us to be corrected in love.

As ever, I look forward to sharing.

Thank you & God bless
TV

ricadelide:
I don't think the issue of the soul coming into existence when the spirit entered the body is of any consequence as to predicting either its nature or its future. what matters is that it exists.

Well I personally do think it's of consequence. I am not denying the fact of ensoulment.

ricadelide:
Everything outside of God has a beginning; the spirit of man has a beginning, likewise the body. the soul has a different beginning from the other two, that does not disqualify it from either being an entity on its own or being able to survive after seperation from the body.

Please show from scripture that the soul survives death.

ricadelide:
the emphasis the bible places on the salvation of the soul (IPet1;9, Heb.10;31, ), and the dividing of soul and spirit (Heb. 4;12) as well as direct references to distinct soulish entities or functions especially as regards the (renewing of) the mind (rom 12;2, Eph. 4;23, Phil. 4;8, Rom. 8;5-7, Col. 3;2,10) should show us how important the subject of the soul is and act as a pointer to us that the soul does not 'dissolve' after death.

That depends on your take on the root of the word translated soul in every case. If the soul survives death, as above  please show it. Upon death, I believe the scriptures show that sleep follows. No more consciousness.

ricadelide:
however later on i'd go into much more detail
in my opinion, the car analogy isnt apt. cheers.

I'd love to hear you expound when you have the time. And a more apt anolgy if you have one.

God bless
TV

bari_kade:
I think the same argument could be adduced for any other type of giving you read of in the Bible - OT or NT. It is just as pointed to ask: to give or not give? And then the same roundabout argument all over again.

Au contraire, I'm not sure how one could ever reach this conclusion in light of what both the OT & NT detail about tithing and giving  .

bari_kade:
The thing is this: if anyone can argue against tithing, they should be prepared to argue also against any other type of giving. So far, I haven't read a sound persuasion on the real essence of NT giving from those arguing merely against tithing.

I expected more from you sir. The thread has been about whether NT Christians should tithe or not. We've done a very good job of reaching a broad consesus on some major points. To try and swing the discussion round to one about "giving" is at best a backward step. Nobody has suggested that giving is to be considered anything other than standard Christian lifestyle/practice, afforded by grace. To claim that to argue against tithing is to argue against giving is disingenuous at best .

Once more, attempting to use the "stick or carrot" approaches to validate tithing - i.e. it's mandatory with a curse for non-compliance, or voluntary with blessings for conforming - are the flip side of the same coin of religious deception (or ignorance). I totally concur with HND-holders "stealing by method" tag. I'll go further add emphatically state that anyone who preaches that is either decieved or a deciever.

Unless someone can introduce some hitherto unpresented truth, insight or revelation that clearly accords with scripture, there is nothing to make me rethink. You promised to bring some unseen truth to the discussion, which we eagerly await.

God bless
TV

Do tithing proponents have anything to add?

bari_kade:
I don't remember arguing against the survival of the soul beyond death. Infact, in quoting Rev. 6:9, that was the case I wanted to point out.

I think in keeping with my current position of no ensoulment prior to the body/spirit union, I can't say I believe in the existence of a soul after the dissolution of same.

The body decays, the spirit returns to God who gave it. Surely at best the soul sleeps, until such tiome as there is a ressurection?

God bless
TV

Analytical:
Nope!  Guess she was on a different plane -mine was the spiritual realm, while hers I guess was soulish (Sorry Trini_Girl!)  Cool place, though.  

I knew this wouldn't end well  !

trini_girl:
and what's that suppose to mean?  

Oh, oh.

Analytical, you've roused a sleeping lioness. I hope your backside is kelvar reinforced.

I beg 0, Trini, only maul am small  ! Or even better, temper justice with mercy.

How are you girl? I trust you are well. The Nairaland religion board has been a bit dry during your absence. I must say I am pleased now that all my girl them, are back  !

God bless
TV

Well said Dru'. Girl, sometimes you just cut. I've missed some of your insights , welcome back!

Now wheres Trini ?

bari_kade:
May I ask this question: what do you understand by the distinct mention of all three entities of man in I Thes. 5:23 - "And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ"?

I said this.

TV01:
I don't actually think a "Soul" exists seperate from the union of Body & Spirit.

The soul comes into being when there is a union of body and spirit. I did'nt say it was not distinct from them, just that it did not exist on its own separately and apart from them.

The scriptural narrative (as far as I've read - although I stand to be corrected -  only speaks of the creation of the body and the giving of the spirit).

Maybe this analogy (ad-hoc) will help. A car conssts of an engine and a chassis. Seperately nothing happens, bring them together and you have a motor vehicle.

I hope that to some degree answers this also.

Analytical:
@ Bari_kade, to add to your poser above, why will the Holy Ghost inspire this verse as well, if they are not distinct?

Hebrews 4: 12 (KJV)

For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

To me the dividing asunder connotes a distinction while the joints and marrow speak of the body.

Analytical:
Hi TV01, long time.  I have been in stealth mode for a while 

Welcome Sir.

Did you see Trini-Girl whilst in stealth-mode? (don't know where it is, but it sure sounds like a cool place ).

God bless
TV

Aproko:
man has spirit. this spirit is covered by a cloak called flesh. soul is just an expression coined by the english language to represent the human entity or being i.e both flesh and spirit.

Tha'ts pretty much where I am on this. I don't actually think a "Soul" exists seperate from the union of Body & Spirit.

God bless
TV

I know, I know, totally off-point and off-topic, but surely you meant "Shift"? 

stimulus:
I noticed one of the 'ogas' began to shit in his chair and was stylishly gesticulating to him as if to say, 'Cut it short!'

bari_kade:
It was a simple question. Whether he tithed every month or just once is not the issue here.

I disagree, I think it is a key point. Or are you suggesting it has no bearing on the discussion or is in no way germaine? I'll outline my understanding of the why & how of "Abrahams tithe" below.

bari_kade:
Did Abraham give tithe? Yes - Gen. 14:20. Even Levi who was not yet born was said to have also paid tithes in Abraham - Heb. 7:9.

This is also pivotal in understanding the whole narrative around Melchizedek, Abraham and the "one off tithe"

Possibly the greatest import of Abrahams one-off tithe was to establish the superiority of the Melchizedek - and hence the Lords - priesthood over the Levitical/Aaronic type. That is why the reference to Levi is made. That is, Levi - via Abrahmam - also paid tithes to a priest. As the "Blessor" is always greater than the "blessee" (verse 7 to your 9), this is a sure indication of said superiority.  I don't believe it has anything to do with worship protocol or practice for NT believers.

I repeat, and my position remains, a tithe for NT Christians cannot be infered from, or is in any way alluded to in the scriptural narrative, OT or NT.

I will go as far as to say, that those who try and work back from a NT tithe to Abrahams symbolic action in the OT, cannot seriously be doing so out of theological integrity, but more as a way to enforce tradition, that if done away with would cripple the financing of their religious structures.

I will further go on to say that whether you say it is mandatory, with a curse attached for non-compliance, or voluntary, with blessing associated with adherence, it's the flip side of the same coin. A toss-up between spiritual untruth and religious deception.

A tithe for a NT believer can only be an individual, voluntary, non-enforced and non-binding (universally)response, that in no way marks them out as more mature or spiritual, or engenders blessings denied those who don't tithe or simply give.

bari_kade:
I just wanted to know if in Abraham's case, your general rule of thumb applied as that his tithes were agricultural products.

Abrahams one-off tithe was symbolic, as outlined above. The tithe introduced at the advent of the levitical priesthood was practical. To cater for the "Clergy", the needy and the stranger (not to mention summer barbies  ).

Hnd-holder:
Thanks you are right.I love your person. I have written alot on this tithe issue. Even the history of tithe it was a bloody issue in IRELAND at a point in time.

Yes 0, it was on the UK statute books as late as 1953 (although by then totally ignored until it's repeal). And on the statutes of quite a few European nations up until the 19th/20th centuries.

bari_kade:
I've stated that I would make my inputs soon; and I think you can forgive the fact that I'm not quite 3 years old on Nairaland. If you ask TV01, I'm not one to derail topics on threads.

True

bari_kade:
I've been busy all day even though this thread is moving so fast! But I just needed to say here that you guys are making it difficult for me to share anything because it is fast becoming a quarrel and hilarity than a thirst to examine truth.

I disagree, it may be getting heated, even a bit niggley (evidence of the passion posters are bringing to the discussion methinks), but focus is definitely being maintained.

bari_kade:
The first time that tithes were mentioned in the Bible is in Gen. 14:20 -- "And blessed be the most high God, which hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand. And he gave him tithes of all. "

That verse is loaded with deep truth; but quite so often, those who argue against tithing from the LAW that came centuries later will find it difficult to see the implication of that verse.

I think everyone is agreed that a NT tithe cannot be inferred from the law. I for one would be extremely grateful if you would share some hitherto unknown or misunderstood truth contained in the scriptural narrative, most especially from the verse you referenced above.

Thanks

God bless
TV

_{I would agree with bari-kade in that maybe we should ask and respond to specific questions (one each at a time) in order to keep it tight. Unless of course someone introduces some insight that blows all previous submissions clean out of the water.}

Bro' Stimulus,

Okay, lets leave the law based grounds (redundant) out of it (indeed, we nailed that quite early on in this thread).

I have asked questions around Abrahams tithing and recorded life. Please answer those particilar posers. Thanks.

The question one should ask here is this: where in the NT is any Christian mandated or obligated to give ANYTHING?

I hope this isn't an attempt to slip away?

The NT exhorts giving, clearly details it as a grace, (grace in action II Cor IIX), and comes with Christian maturity and love. Evidenced by the "had all things in common" approach of the early Chrisitnas (Acts), the sacrificial offering of the Macedonians (II Cor IIX). Never as an obligation, but as a hearts response. The very term "give", means it is not mandatory.

There is nothing about a mandatory tithe and a voluntary one cannot be distinguished from giving, unless you ascribe some benefits from doing so, thus ascribing it some sort of difference from normal giving? Now, pray tell, does the NT do that?

The only way out, is a voluntary tithe as an individual response, which does not in itself accrue benefits denied to one who does not do same, or mark the tither out as any more spiritual or mature. If that's your call no qualms.


Can we finish this before home time please ? I don't get paid O/T.

God bless
TV

And could someone please tell me, what was Abrahams reward/blessing for making that one off tithe (of the spoils of war, of which 90% less expenses went to the king of Sodom) actually was?

In claiming a direct relationship b/w giving and blessing, where in Abrahams lifetime was it ever recorded that God blessed him as a result of his offering, giving or tithing? Yet God blessed him richly and multiplied him abundantly. Likewise Isaac.

Abeg y'all, leave this tithing fallacy once and for all. Experience true Liberty in Christ, not the bondage of the law or the slavery of man-made religion.

God bless
TV

Ey Yah, the converstion is moving at a pace I'm finding hard to keep up with. Anyway, I'll try to respond  .

stimulus:
but His blessing in finances is certainly a matter of how man responds in his giving to Him.

As best I try, I cannot reconcile your position with scripture or practice. Maybe I should ask that you show mathematically how this relationship might work ? Anyway looking at it from the any side of the equation, you are saying God is bound to respond in kind to a financial offering, making Him less than sovereign. It also smacks of a "cost of everything value of nothing" (aka give-to-get) mindset.

May I further ask, is that in relative or absolute terms? So the widow at the treasury, would her reward have been based on her giving all she had (absolute) , or the relative value of what she put in (a pittance)?

stimulus:
The idea that "you don't have to give in order to be blessed" is, unfortunately, not what Scripture teaches (at least, not what I read in Scripture, rather). Now, so that I don't act presumptously, may I ask that you help me offer biblcal texts for your persuasion as highlighted in the quote above.

I would ask that you do likewise.

TayoD:
For instance, despite the fact that by His stripes we are healed, many Christians still fall sick because they fail to take hold of this promise through the action of faith!

Whilst I don't mean to cause offence, could you kindly say (without obsfucating or skirting), what that says about the faith of a number of well known "Pastors" who have taken ill and died recently?

Quite simply put, Faith engenders works, not the other way round.

judemetieh:
Tithing is a biblical injuction, it was made when the Levites who where still doing the work of God where available, but remember that they at a point abandoned their duty post and as such who do you pay the tithe for now when the Levites have left their duty.  Secondly, tithing is 10% of total earnings.  How many people really pay it accordingly.  I as a person find it amusing when people say they pay tithe.  As they pay just from the salary they earn and forgeting about other incomes they make along side.  That is not tithing.  10% of all total income must be given to God.  anything short of that is robbing God.

I beseech you brethren by the sure mercies of God, refuse to be bound or subject to the law.

stimulus:
I'm glad for your sake that you remembered to quote Luke 11:42. Now, read it again as well in Matt. 23:23 --

"Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone."

I hope you can see what the Lord pointed out in those verses?

"These ye ought to have done" and also "do not leave the other undone!"

Do these - do the others as well.

Tithing should not take precedence over the weigtier matters of the Law.

Likewise you brother Stimulus. Listen carefully, the law was still in effect while the Lord was alive. He lived and satisfied it completely. To advocate breaking the law would have literally aborted his whole mission. He was talking to Jews/Pharisees, who were yet under the law, not Xtians who are liberated from it by His fulfilling it.

I would further exhort you to understand that He went beyond the letter (tithe), to the intent (love).

stimulus:
Em, D.baddie, I read somewhere that TV01 doesn't think so. The preaching of the Gospel doesn't require money; or something to that effect, he has said before - and I may partly agree with both of you. . . until you explicate what you both and either mean.

Money is not required to spread the gospel.
Money is not required to spread the gospel, but may be spent incidentally.

Sorry mate, I can't really stretch further than that  . As ever, I invite you to show from the scriptural narrative where money is spent primarily to spread the gospel. Indeed, where money moved in the body for anything other than a physical need.

(although I must confess dressing it up as a worship response - spiri, spiri - morphing it into  tithing, and then saying it's not mandatory, but afterall Papa Abraham did it - once to Melchizedek, with what was not his personal wealth or income - is so convoluted, it takes real genius to attempt it )

Finally Bro' Stimulus, could you please show how a tithe (volutary) differs from simple giving? And why there is a need for any distinction? And since you insist that there is a direct relationship between tithing/giving and blessing, please supply an acturial table detailing input and return so's to enable me to plan my retirement (as a worship reasponse of course  ).

Please humour my bout of jolly japes, afterall it is Friday. TGIF.

God bless
TV

Hi Stimulus,

I am not linking giving to salvation. But as I have repeatedly said God blessing, like God saving is not predicated on anything man does.

Yes, I believe God can and does bless when believers give, but you don't have to give in order to be blessed, and if you are blessed because you give, it doesn't have to be in kind, multiples or here and now.

I think that simply outlines my position, and I trust answers your concern.

God bless
TV

stimulus:
Then what exactly are you saying? I've noticed your inclination to disavow the point; but pardon me if I misread you.

Could I refer you to the post immediatey after yours (by D.baddie). That gives what I feel is a very true, quite concise picture of "God in Christ-centric" giving.

God's blessing is not predicated on anything man does, neither does it require man to do anything. That is not to say that God cannot or does not bless giving. But even this is not necessarily in kind, in multiples and on demand, It is in a manner, time and place of God's choosing.

I am in no way disavowing God's blessing givers, my point is to highlight what I see as an unscriptural and unhealthy error (man-centric) preached in some circles, that God is somehow bound to bless in kind in multiples and in this age to mans giving. That notion reduces giving to a ritual or a work. It's why religionists love the notion of a tithe (be that mandatory or more subtlely by ascribing benefits to the act).

God bless
TV

stimulus:
Hi TV01,

Just curious. Let me ask you this question: are you saying that any and all 'giving' has nothing to do with God blessing the giver in return for his giving?

No I am not.

bari_kade:
@TV01,

I just wish that we should come back and tidy this thread; because I'm a bit concerned now that the main characters are being pushed further to the background. Could we just rather do as Heb. 7:4 says: "Now consider how great this man was", and help other readers to not lose the gist about Melchizedek?

No probs dude, see you there.

I have revived the original tithing thread, so as suggested, lets meet there. Apologies for any disruption or inconvenience caused to anyone by my digression.

God bless
TV

Hi Tayo,

Whats up? Trust all is well. I also appreciate Bari-Kade's, input here and on other threads. But can't say that anything we did not discuss before or a new perspective has been raised. And I am no more persuaded that tithing mandatory or voluntary is edifying to a mature Christian walk.

Quote from: TayoD on Today at 03:37:02 PM
I just want to respond to an issue you raised which bari_kade already dealt with as well. Phillipians 4:5 - Now ye Philippians know also, that in the beginning of the gospel, when I departed from Macedonia, no church communicated with me as concerning giving and receiving, but ye only. It is obvious that Paul and the Phillipians expect God's response each time they give. Giving can not be separated from receiving except one is not interested in going through the entire cycle. When you sow, you will reap, when you give you will receive, when you lend to God, He will repay you and when you cast your bread on the waters, you will find it after many days. These are biblical principles that bear eloquent testimony that expecting God to respond to our giving is just doing what the Bible says.

This I believe was a big motivation for the early Christians who sold their lands for the benefit of the church. Jesus already promised them multiple of that in return here in this lifetime! Matthew 10:29 And Jesus answered and said, Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my sake, and the gospel's, 30 But he shall receive an hundredfold now in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions; and in the world to come eternal life. These disciples knew that you can't beat God at giving. The more they gave, the more they received.

You are reading "giving & recieving" as between the giver and God. That is at best debatable. It makes at least as much sense to read it as between giver and receiver. That is standard Pentecostal thinking, to always believe that giving engenders a multiplied return in kind. It is simply not bourne out by scripture or practice.

I think the above speaks to your second paragraph as well. Additionallty, please lets be careful in our approach to interpreting scripture. Did the Lord promise physical blessings with persecution? Then what happens to the "Lord makes rich and adds no sorrow".  I see that exegesis as flawed on so many levels, not to mention that I think you've done the early Christians  an injustice by ascribing a "give to get"  motivation to them.

God bless
TV

Hi Tayo,

Whats up? Trust all is well. I also appreciate Bari-Kade's, input here and on other threads. But can't say that anything we did not discuss before or a new perspective has been raised. And I am no more persuaded that tithing mandatory or voluntary is edifying to a mature Christian walk.

TayoD:
I just want to respond to an issue you raised which bari_kade already dealt with as well. Phillipians 4:5 - Now ye Philippians know also, that in the beginning of the gospel, when I departed from Macedonia, no church communicated with me as concerning giving and receiving, but ye only. It is obvious that Paul and the Phillipians expect God's response each time they give. Giving can not be separated from receiving except one is not interested in going through the entire cycle. When you sow, you will reap, when you give you will receive, when you lend to God, He will repay you and when you cast your bread on the waters, you will find it after many days. These are biblical principles that bear eloquent testimony that expecting God to respond to our giving is just doing what the Bible says.

This I believe was a big motivation for the early Christians who sold their lands for the benefit of the church. Jesus already promised them multiple of that in return here in this lifetime! Matthew 10:29 And Jesus answered and said, Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my sake, and the gospel's, 30 But he shall receive an hundredfold now in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions; and in the world to come eternal life. These disciples knew that you can't beat God at giving. The more they gave, the more they received.

You are reading "giving & recieving" as between the giver and God. That is at best debatable. It makes at least as much sense to read it as between giver and receiver. That is standard Pentecostal thinking, to always believe that giving engenders a multiplied return in kind. It is simply not bourne out by scripture or practice.

I think the above speaks to your second paragraph as well. Additionallty, please lets be careful in our approach to interpreting scripture. Did the Lord promise physical blessings with persecution? Then what happens to the "Lord makes rich and adds no sorrow". I see that exegesis as flawed on so many levels, not to mention that I think you've done the early Christians an injustice by ascribing a "give to get" motivation to them.

God bless
TV

Not just tithes/tithing. Infact, nothing in this regard is mandatory! The question is as nebulous as asking: should Christains give at all? And then the answers equally come back in form and spirit to say, "Well, just simply give without a mandate!"

You miss my point, giving as I said is a grace. Tithing (mandatory) is an obligation. If you wish to make it incumbent on yourself and ritualise it, that's your choice, but there is nothing to suggest this in itself is something that demonstrates a increasing walk of faith.

Beyond what anybody "feels", I'm looking for a concrete recourse to the divine prerogative for any type of giving. Is there any blessing connected to giving - any type of giving at all? Well, this is what Jesus said:

Luke 6:38 - "Give, and it shall be given unto you; good measure, pressed down, and shaken together, and running over, shall men give into your bosom. For with the same measure that ye mete withal it shall be measured to you again."

For those who simply give and do not see the blessing in that connection, good for them. However, that is not to say that they inability to see it applies to other givers.

And God loves a cheerful giver. Nothing about income streams or classifications. Simply give. Be it as a worship response, a need or to bless, just give. There is no need to be overly scholarly or spiritual.

Ol' boy, you make me laugh!    The "grace" you're campaigning for is not a question of setting "priorities". Abraham was not mindful of priorities for family before giving tithes to Melchizedek. Paul commended the Macedonians for giving even beyond their power - and that at a time of great affliction (II Cor. 8:1-4). Remember the widow's mite - of whom it was said by the Lord that she gave all of her living?

A "grace" that is first self-satisfying (human priorities) is not a NT response in worship, sorry. And arguing in this strain is yet another weakness, rather than a strenghth, to your point.

First Abraham did not tithe out of anything God gave him.

Second the NT makes it clear that one's first priority is to provide for their family. Subscribing to some tithing or blessing the man of God notion while your family go without is a clear sign of self-enforced religious obligation.

The question is quite straightforward: is any type of giving mandatory? No. If anyone is looking for a "rigid code" anytime tithing is mentioned, they're taking their eyes off the example of Abraham in Genesis and looking for a non-existent stringent fire-brigade approach for tithing.

Giving is a grace. An outworking of a walk of faith and maturing Christianity.

I hate to say this, but the main emphasis of Abrahams life was his faith. There is nothing to suggest that we are to live by his every action. How about marrying one's sister? Or lying about it? Why not insist on concubinage for NT Xtians?

For the umpteenth time, Christians simply give, as the Lords exhortation clearly stated. The attempts to classify giving (and then calling tithing giving), assign different types and levels of rewards is at best over-scholarly and over spiritual (religious & ritualistic). At worst it's a sly way to keep the tithing bondage going by claiming it's not mandatory, but there are benefits if you do so. Sorry mate, it simply doesn't wash.

My dear sir, even though I'm not holding God to ransom when I give tithes, He of Himself chooses so to predicate a blessing on any type of my giving - as long as I do so willingly, and cheerfully.

You may argue that tithing is an act, a work; rather than a response. Cough. Please go back and see that Abraham gave tithes - both as a response; and by which act, he demonstrated his faith by what he did (works)! Lol.

The heart of the believer who understands Abraham's actions and response does not read a "work" that is limp. Show me your faith by what you do is often my watch word.

Not on any type, just on any instance or simply the fact that you do. The taxonomy of giving is of the fertile imagination of those who insist on it. The only things are relevence are how cheerful and the degree (how sacrificially). No income streams!

It was a demonstration of faith, but more pertinent an acknowledgement of the superiority of Melchisedeks priesthood.

No one said what Abraham did was a work, you are trying to make it one. And it's a lack of faith that leads one to ritual.

I'm not asking that a tithe be "introduced" - Melchizedek did not ask Abraham shi-shi! The blessed patriarch spontaneously responded by what he did. Now, if believers give tithes, they are used in just the same way that we find in principle in the NT.

If you don't know what to do with any type of your giving; send it to me - and I'll make sure that your talent is not buried!  

Okay, seriously. . . what you give is used in the wisdom offered us in the NT about giving. I don't think that Abraham was quite bothered with HOW Melchizedek would use his tithes.

All I asked was how are tithes to be used? Could you outline or direct me to this NT principle of tithe use.

Your idea that I give to you whilst humerous, does suggest that you - maybe unwittingly - subscribe to the notion that giving is primarily to benefit, rather than a worship response

Again, please outline what the NT says about tithing. Giving is distinct. If voluntary then the distinction is pointless if mandatory your are back on tax/tribute territory. And whatever, I 'd still appreciate your showing NT direction for the use of tithes.

Beats me. I don't even understand why others would spend even more resources and time legislating against it!

Not against it per se, but against those who would try and sell it as across-board beneficial or required NT Christian practice.

Add this to that understanding: if Ananias did not even wish to give in the first place, he was not bound to do so. What was more in focus there was not a question of tithes; rather, Peter challenged Ananias bare-faced lie in the matter (Acts 5:3).

Nice attempt to skirt the main question. How does tithing dove-tail with an "all things in common" attitude?

Incidentally, I was not bound either way - it was just a matter of ignorance on my part. Today, I understand a bit more and have left the childish stuff that once characterized my walk. II Cor. 8 & 9 do not legislate for or against tithes or any other type of giving.

The pointer I'd like to leave for readers is simply this: is your giving a matter of a response in worship; or human priorities and exigencies prevail over that  response?

If you do not legislate, perhaps you'd care to explain the difference between tithing and other types of giving, and the need for a distinction if tithing is giving and not mandatory. Upfront I'd say the only reason to distinguish tithes is because you ascribe something to the act (although you keep trying to pass it off as a response).

God as love is all about people and their need. It's the whole point. Disdaining human need and responsibility in an effort to sound super-spiritual leads nicely to the point about pharisees tithing herbs, but overlooking love, justice and mercy. Responding to human need is a worship response. The Macedonians fully well realised that.

Christianity is not about doctrinal excellence, academic rigour or scholarly depth, its about practial day to day Christian living, loving the Lord and your neighbour as yourself. It's not about knowledge, it's about love.


God bless
TV

The discussion continues,

bari_kade:
It's a simple response of the believer's heart as part of his/her worship to God (Heb. 13:16). How it is done is not a rigid code in the NT; but the apostle offers a principle in I Cor. 16:1.

I'll start at the end, and probably won't need to go any further  .

First ~ The discussion on tithing was always based around whether it was mandatory, that is an obligation for NT Christians. In as much as you obviously don't subscribe to that, we are agreed up to that point.

Second ~ If one chooses to tithe (pay a tenth - or to use it more loosely, a fixed percentage), that is between them & God, and does not engender some kind of blessing over and above one who simply gives. Not to mention that another believer could easily give more than this tithe (or the others combined giving types   ), without feeling the need to label it.

Third ~ Do I need to add that giving is a grace, a choice and should be mindful of circumstances, especially noting that there are priorities for NT Christians in applying their means, and giving (outside the immediate family) is not first.

Fourth ~ Yes a worship response aptly titles all our actions as Christians to do the glory of God, by His grace working through us. But the whole basis of your submission is made mute by saying NT Christians tithe but there is no rigid code? which just takes us back to my second point above.

Fifth ~ Also adopting the "types of giving and associated blessings" approach shows clearly that you believe that the act of tithing engenders some sort of reward. Sir, that is not a response, that is an act, a work. You turn the chain on it's head, You actually want God to respond to you.

Sixth ~  You did'nt actually respond to my "Practical outworking & application" poser. For discussions sake, I say "okay lets introduce a tithe", what does the assembly do with it? How is it utilised?

Seventh ~ I often wonder why people would spend time and resource trying to justify or legislate the tithe. I'd refer them to the "all things in common" approach of primitive Christianity and ask how you'd fit the notion of tithing in there? I'd go on to ask why Peter clearly told Ananias that his possessions where his to do with as he pleased, if Ananias was either obligated or better served by a voluntary tithe.

I also have recourse to scripture. II Corinthians 8 & 9, should nail it for most.

And an anecdote. The first thing I became bound by as a believer was the notion of the tithe. The first religious thing God loosed me from was that same notion. The scripture above was pivotal.

God bless
TV

bari_kade:
Hi @Dammey,

Do you attend a church?

When one understands that "church" is not something one attends, but something that one is a part of or belongs too, "attendance" (or not) ceases to be the question.

bari_kade:
Who founded that church you attend?

He said "I will build my Church". His Apostle said "No other foundation".  

Quite a few of the planets in our solar system have moons. All these moons have given names. As we all know, the Earth also has a moon - just the one - but it has no name. Why? because there is just the one, no one ever named it*. I see Demmey' point.


God bless
TV

_{*Please, no smart-alec rejoinders about the various names, such as Luna,  ascribed to the Earths Moon at different times .}

Hi Bari-Kade,

I know you are chewing on this particular issue at the moment and I know that we are all still learning, but a few more points.

Yet, I've taken the time to go through your points as well on the subject; and my one problem in most of your arguments is the idea of reducing the various types of giving to a mere "simply give". Pardon me, but even when 4get_me outlined some of them and gave texts upon texts for them, several arguments (besides yours) were made in opposition to his points; and yet, it's amazing that not much substance could be gleaned from those counter arguments (IMHO).

I appreciate the stance on "various types of giving", But I see it from another perspective. Giving is in response, primarily to need or a desire to bless. I see no need to classify or categorise giving, but neither do I don't deny others the right to do so. In any event, I don't see this as core to a discussion on mandatory tithing for NT Christians. I also fail to see how over 27 pages of discussion boils down to this 1 point? If I recall, TayoD likewise refused to budge from a point of "priests offer gifts and tithe = gift, therefore NT Xtians must tithe". If you want to equate the tithe with a type of giving, my personal opinion is that connection is at best tenuous, as a tax, tribute or madatory tithe is not the same as giving.

Then again, I recall syrup's didactic outline in reference to the debate with you on theocracy and similar terms. Following through that thread, I well appreciate her comprehensive outline and debunking of the idea that the tithes could be played down to mean other than what they meant, so that taxes were being introduced to make it sound like tithing/tithes were simply a matter of high-handed theocratic governnance (although, I was quite concerned by how you had loosely used the term 'theocracy'). Link:

I also (and quite fondly) remember my discussion with Syrup about "theocracy". I appreciate that the discussion cleared up the difference b/w ecclessiocracy and theocracy, which I failed to distinguish when posting. Again this was not pivotal to the discussion and Syrup agreed that there is no mandatory tithe for NT Xtians. We also concurred that a NT Christian choosing to tithe is another matter entirely. To make a tithe mandatory makes it no difference to a tax or tribute. And as we know, Kings only take tribute from strangers, not their sons.

Like I opined earlier, I'm still studying the subject, However, as far as being practical goes, I have experienced the blessings of tithing for myself, which only strengthens my persuasions on the subject.

I trust we all are, but there are only 3 positions really. Yes, no or undecided. Most proponents of tithing can wheel out anecdotal evidence to suggest it "works". And at best that's just what an enforced tithe is, a work. I humbly submit that there is nothing scriptural to attest to this. I could similarly testify that tithing made no difference to my walk (except in a negative sense). To which I'd expect the well worn rejoinders of "not doing it right", "heart not right", "sin" or some other of the type I've heard severally, which only point it back to being a work

This is precisely one of the issues that weaken your arguments. Tithing is not the same thing as a "tribute" - and the idea that it was a common practice back by communities does not mean that I take my theology outside God's covenant blessings.

Feel free to presume that a amndatory tithe =/= tribute, but can it really be anything else?
It's not an idea that it was common practice, it's a fact. My introducing this was not to argue against it, merely for background knowledge and for a full discussion.

Granted, we may gain help in trying to understand what exactly a subject points by examining what other communities had practised and how they did so. However, the big issue is what God's Word teaches, rather than a common practise among communities.

Accepted. WhatI believe God's word teaches is that NT Christians give in response to need (or to bless). But as ever, I am happy to hear other submissions, attested to by scripture of course.

The point I'm trying to make here is this: there is a fundamental issue here in connection with Melchizedek --

       (a) he stands in connection with the first mention of priesthood and tithes in the Bible

       (b) the patriarch Abraham gave him tithes of all, without so much as Melchizedek asking

       (c) the pristehood of our Lord Jesus is patterned after Melchizedek's priesthood.

Please try and see the point I'm raising here. We do not read that Melchizedek was a warlord (so where does the inference come in as to Abraham's tithes possibly being a type of "tribute"?). Abraham was not paying "tribute" to a warlord; and that argument should not even come in at all in the ambit of this discussion.

Your interplay from a to c is at best debatable. Abrahams response is no where testified as something incumbent on NT believers or integral to the priesthood. He voluntarily/by freewill GAVE! Nothing divinely ordained or mandated, and as you clearly stated demanded or requested.

I stated clearly that tribute in the form of a tithe (tenth) was paid to the warlord or PRIEST. I don't think it's hard or would be considered tenuous for anyone to make the leap from warlord to king. Niether did I infer that Abraham was paying tribute. That would be counter-intuitive to my point above.

As ever I appreciate your contributions. I was hoping to advance the discussion in that main thread, to considering the practical application and outworking of a "mandatory tithe" for NT Christians.
Given the universal priesthood of all believers (with The Lord as High Priest), would you have any suggestions as to what it represents it's significance, and  how it should be correctly/scripturally done?

Thanks for your time.

God bless
TV

bari_kade:
I have no worries with anyone who argues against tithing, as far as that is their persuasion; but from what I've read of them, I'm more inclined to the persuasion that most of the arguments against it are weak.

Hi Bari-Kade,

Whilst I wouldn't want to ascribe anything to you, if as you claim, you are persuaded that the arguments against a mandatory tithe for NT Chritians are weak, does that mean you are more in favour at this point? And would you be so kind as to outline your thoughts vis-a-viz the following;

~ Whether you followed or have read the main discussion on this forum?
~ Your thoughts on the weaknesses against and the strengths for.
~ And possibly more interesting to me, your thoughts on the outworking and practicality of a
tithe for NT Christians with of course reference to your linking tithing to priesthood.

In response to the "simplicity" of Abraham's act in offering tithe, I'd like to point out (and you may well be aware) that tithing was extant long before Abraham, and is recorded as being practised by communities in the region both before, and up to the time of Abraham. It was common practice and a form of tribute to the most senior warlord and/or priest in a region.

Hope your study of the subject shed's light. Be sure to share with your peeps on NL.


Hi Dru,

Not right your taking off without so much as a "by your leave". Good to hear your voice again. I trust you are well.

Now where's Trini?

God bless
TV

thesilent1:
i wonder what the bible says about that? would be funny to have your money rejected lol

Would that be what the Bible says about the tithe or the lottery?

God bless

Hi Telly B,

I'll elucidate my position (from scripture as I read it).

First, man-made religion is money-driven (and a devourer of widows homes).

Second, there is no where in the NT narrative where a collection was evert taken for anything other than a personal/physical need of a member of the flock, be that a missionary, teacher or lay member with no functional remit. Needless to say, the Bible makes no distinction between members ( no clergy/laity split).

Physical need of missionaries:
An itinerant preacher of the word should look for his upkeep (bed and board) from those he ministers to or those he come out from, or indeed any part/member of the body who is willing/able to supply his needs (in a s much as he cannot do so himself). That was Pauls example.

One who teaches/pastors amongst the local congregation should have a full time job/business to meet his needs and the needs of his family. There is no notion of paid eldership. Everyone provides for his own family. Also pertinent to note is that eldership is always in the plural and the burden of pastoring/teaching shared amongst elders accordsing to gifting and maturity.

Freewill gifts to one who ministers is fine, although that should not take precedence over a real physical need, should not be cooerced or in any way taught as required by God or necessary to recieve a blessing.

Donduke,

While I appreciate your understanding of the ills of enforced tithing, I feel your teaching will have essentially the same effect, by making saints feel somehow compelled to give, which is only slightly removed from being enforced to give. I see this as an outworking of what I percieve to be flaws in your teaching on church structure and the relation between those who minister and those who don't. No offence, just my position.

Regards

TV

Telly B,

I understand if you can't or don't want to answer the core question as severally posed. No problem.

Regards

Telly B:
@TV01,

What you ask for has been offered by several others, most recently by donduke. You may interprete it however so flavours your outlook on money issues; but the point is that the verses offered speak to the same point, that the financial support of Missions and missionaries is a Biblical precedence.

Not so sir.

I repeat, money only moves in response to physical need. Money is not a pre-requisite for the propagation of the gospel.

I would appreciate your quoting chapter and verse or detailing it from the scriptural narrative. All the scriptures posted thus far, have only shown money moving in response to a physical/personal need, not in order to spread the gospel.

If it's money driven, it's almost certainly man-birthed.

Telly B:
NB edited:

I observe also that donduke was not referring to your stretched assumptions of "expensive programmes and crusades"; and I wonder why you would have to draw that inference outside the ambit of his points.

I never made any "stretched assumptions" about "expensive programmes and crusades", as I have re-iterated above.

God bless