₦airaland Forum

Hi All,

Bro'TayoD, you said;

TayoD:
He called himself a fellow-elder and he was a member of the Church in Jerusalem where James was pastor over him.

James pastor over Peter? How on earth did you arrive at that conclusion?

I guess Catholics are not the only one's with questions to answer.

God bless

firdaus4us,

I must apologise on behalf of all the Christian posters thus far. No has posted a direct response to your initial request asking Christians "to confess". Please forgive this oversight on behalf of my brethren and allow me to rectify that wrong;

[size=16pt]Jesus is Lord!!!!!!![/size]

God (of the bible) bless

Hello TayoD,,

I have to give you one thing sir, you're tenacious (even if sorely misguided).

You are also right to point out references to the law in relation to the tithe as all are agreed that tithing on that basis is redundant.

So back to the point in question;

You posted
And he gave him tithes of all.  
My response
Yes he did, of all the spoil of battle. Please don't stretch scripture to fit your thesis.

You posted
You are yet to show me where the Bible says that Abraham only paid the tithe once.  
My response
Where in the scripture or any kind of literature are things narrated by what was not done or did not happen? It never showed Abraham, Isaac or Jacob tithing in response to a divine command, so I think common sense alone dictates that it's safe to infer that 1. They did not 2. There was no such ordinance.

You posted
And where is the command to stop tithing?
My response
Why would there be a command to stop what there was never a command to start?

TayoD:
If you agree that Jesus is your High Priest after the order of Melchizedek, and you agree that the job description of a Priest is to offer sacrifices and gifts, then you need to ask yourself what gift is Jesus offering up on your behalf?

Two things here
1. You talk about this "job description" like you would willingly admit that that's all a priest does. TayoD, can you truly say that that description is rigid? and that it does not encompass much more than that? I Spelt this out for you in an earlier post, but you failed to acknoledge or refute my assertions in your subsequent responses.

2. Please expalin how Jesus offers up the (in your words) "gift of the tithe" in this dispensation.  

TayoD:
The Bible says He offered the blood sacrifice once and for all.

Yes, because the only thing that prevents intimacy with God is unremitted sins.
Gifts have nothing to do with it. Your insistence on elevating the gift aspect to the same level oas the sin offering is faulty at best.

Please read the OT description of the "Day of Atonement" which is a very significan type. Please note that there is no mention of any gift element. God does not demand physical sacrifice , He demands righteoussness (Proverbs 21:3).

Your say sir,

God bless

Hi TayoD,

Reference your quote below;

TayoD:
The principle is that Abraham paid tithes of all his increase. Whether the increase comes by way of the spoils of war or the fruits of the ground is insignificant. If it is an increase and you have a High Priesthood, then the tength of the increase is paid to the High Priest.

It's a lie!

1.
The scriptures is not stinting in it's description of Abrahams wealth. His herds, his flocks, his male and female servants, but nowhere is he ever noted as tithing on his own possessions or increase.

2.
The tithe when it was in effect was given to the priest, who in turn passed a tithe of the tithe to the high priest. How many times must we repeat that there was no divine ordinance behind Abraham's one time act of tribute of the spoils of war to Melchizedek.

TayoD:
With respect to babiosisi's question,

I believe Babyosisi was referring to the fact that there where actually different kinds and amounts of tithe, given at differnt times over a three year cycle and approximated to around 23%.

TayoD:
TV01, you have labored and huffed, and puffed but still have not told me what the gift is. Is it so insignificant despite taking up at least 3 verses in the Book of Hebrews?

TayoD, in a sense I conceede your point, but only in as much as it's a mute one.

I believe over the course of our discussion o this particular point, we have extensively discussed on priesthood, with particular reference to the completenessof the one time offering of the Lord.We have also touched on the various aspects of the priests mediatory role.

Your position is founded on a totally baseless (scripturally or grammatically) assumption of gifts=tithe. I have repeatedly asked you to reference this, and to date you have failed/refused to do so. An erroneous doctrine, based on a groundless assumption, predicated on erroneous interpretation.

But I'm pleased you asked about the reality of the tithe in the NT.

My prayer is that one day you will realise that a NT Christian should understand the "everything you have you recieved" the impoverished thinking that harps on about a tithe, is at best regressive. We are but stewards of what is God's anyway. It's both religious and miserly to boast about giving "the best 10%" to God, it's all His. Even true lovers of God subject to the law knew this. That sir, is the reality.

God bless

ps. Yes sir, you are imagining things .

Bro' TayoD,

TayoD:
I pay tithes on all my income.  My income from my shares, professional endeavor, real estate etc,   The tithe is paid on all my increases.

Mmmmm, the statement above sounds familiar;

Luke 18:12 ,  I give tithes of all that I possess.'

Sounds more like a religious that a faith based response to me  .

Plus,I don't actually think you properly answered BabyOsisi's question.

TayoD:
Was Abraham a farmer?

With the amount of livestock he possessed, one would have to say "not only but also" of course he was a farmer! No oil bunkering back then mate   .

TayoD:
He paid tithe of all his increase.

Who? when?? where Absolutely not true. There is no record in scripture of Abraham ever giving anything other than that a off tithe to Melchizedek. To whom did Abraham give this tithe of his increase? When did he do it? Where in the scriptures can I find an account of Him doing it

TayoD:
And why do you keep neglecting the job description of a priest to offer gifts? Is it that you have no answers for it?

If it's been answered once it's been answered a hundred times. 101 follows;

Are you really going to hinge a whole doctrine on a totally erroneous (and quite obviously so) interpretation of gift = tithe, and an obsessively fixation with "priest offering gifts"? Time and again I have asked you to show the link in scripture or language for this interpretation and you have not been able to do so.

If you considered further the ministry of priesthood, you would realize that the main function of a priest is always mediatory. Mediation for sin is the prime role, whilst there are others, including prayer requests, prophesy, gifts etc are all these secondary. There is no longer a mediatory priesthood within Christianity. One mediator - The Lord, and we all mediate in prayer, thanksgiving and praise as a royal priesthood.

The Lord is now seated at the right hand of the Majesty on High and lives forever to interceed for those who come to God through Him. Intercession was never mentioned in "the job description". But so what? If you have a half decent understanding of priesthood, grace the NT dispensation, and the whole working of God, this would make perfect sense.

I must say, I feel your fixation with "gifts & Sacrifice" is making you see things in a very limited way, but lets press on. The ironic thing is exploring this issue end-to-end would show beyond all shadow of a doubt how wrong the doctrine of a mandatory tithe is.

God bless

Hi,

A much deeper question then some may suppose.

The Kingdom Of God is not solely a future state. It's within us, it's here and now.
It's wherever Gods will, rules, precepts and commandments are loved and adhered to.

In a future sense, the essence of the gospel, the whole point of our walk with Christ is so that we may enter the Kingdom of God.

Anyone can "go to church" or affect religion, but the Bible clearly shows that not everyone will enter the Kingdom of God.

Straight & narrow is the way,

God bless

TayoD,

Even a cursory review of your position reveals it's inconsistency and weakness.

TayoD:
My stand is stated briefly here again.

1. A Priest must necessarily have to offer both gifts and sacrifices.
2. The sacrifice must be blood because it has to do with atonement
3. The gift must be money or the fruits of one's labour.
4. Jesus' High-priesthood is after the order of Melchizedek's. He must therefore carry out the duties that Melchizedek carried out.
5. Melchizedek never offered the sacrifice of blood. He however received a gift from Abraham - the tithe.
6. If the gift that Melchizedek received was the tithe, why should Jesus receive something different?

My response on a number by number basis;

1.
That was always in reference to an earthly priesthood.

2.
True. "Without the shedding of blood, etc. etc. "

3.
TayoD, are you really that misguided or are you simply being mischievous? Your statement     here is a nonsense! Of course a gift will come out of what you earned, worked for, or your time or energy. Why on this occasion have you conveniently omitted to call this tithe? You have also consistently failed to show any basis from scripture or language for making this immutable (in your own mind) connection between gift and tithe.    

4.
Your point here contradicts your next point, why? because it's wrong. "The order after",  refers to it's eternality and nothing else.

5.
If your point in 4. was right then your premise (based on exactness) falls down. Melchizedek did not offer blood, therefore Jesus should not have. Again your point here is in conflict with your premise in 1. If Melchizedek did not offer a sacrifice, that disqualifies him as a priest. TayoD do you realise that in your blind insistence on tithing, your interpretation of scripture renders whole swathes of the Bible (and most of your own statements) contradictory. Are you for real?

6.
I have repeatedly explained, it was an act of thanksgiving/tribute. A practice widely documented as extant in antiquity. Tithing the spoils of war to the priest or warlord of a  region was common practice. The scriptural significance is to show that the order of Melchizedek is superior to the Levitical. May I also add that Abraham did not take a plugged nickel for himself. Just upkeep for those who rode shotgun, and the rest was appropriated by the King of Sodom. 10% t God and 90% to Mammon! Mmmmmmm, Could that be why you are so keen to serve the state with the same or greater vigour than you serve God? May I additionally add that there is nothing to suggest that that one time act was in response to divine mandate or to be a ongoing commandment. Both circumcision and the sabbath pre-date the law, but by divine commandment. And both are now done away with, aren't they? Tithing never having been divinely enacted, requires no abrogation.

I have taken the time to scrutinise your position, would you be so kind as to answer my questions as follows;

Please explain from any part of the Bible the following

1. Where a high priest ever offered tithes to God, and for what?
2. How Jesus our High Priest offers tithe to God in this dispensation
3. Where a pre-law command, ordinance or practice of tithing was ever enacted?


I await your response

God bless

Hi TayoD,

TayoD:
How did you come about your opinion that I shifted position?

Your silence.
You stated a position (see below). Some posters (myself included) responded to the contrary, and then you kind of went quiet. So I thought maybe you had shifted position. Apologies if I mis-read you.

TayoD:
And by the way, what is my position?

You earlier wrote this;

TayoD:
Jesus wasn't offering us a suggestion when He made that statement, it was actually a command. To make matters more serious, He actually asked us to give unto Ceasar as much as we will give unto God. Our dedication to Ceasar must be total as much as our dedication to God is total.

Which I consider at best to be sorely misguided and at worst? well let's not go there.
The point is do you still maintain this stance?

God bless

Hi TayoD,

TayoD:
OK, since you do not agree that the tithe is the gift, can you please tell us what the gift is?

I'll tell you what a gift is not, it's not a tithe.
As I believe I have shown, The Lords sacrifice was once for all time, nothing else required. And yes, the blood sacrifice covers all.

Gifts in this dispensation are the sacrifice of praise, worship and thanksgiving. Freewill offerings by the Saints (Priests all) to God through Christ Jesus (High Priest).

Your doggedly clinging to the "gift & sacrifice" notion as being extant and in exact detail in this dispensation is like I said earlier, the same mistake you made in interpreting Abrahams response to victory in battle with a tithe. Interprete spiritual things spiritually sir.

You claim to have answered my questions. Really? where? I can neither recall, nor locate.
For loves sake, may I ask that you please repost.

Please explain from any part of the Bible the following

1. Where a high priest ever offered tithes to God, and for what?
2. How Jesus our High Priest offers tithe to God in this dispensation
3. Where a pre-law command, ordinance or practice of tithing was ever enacted?

God says this;

Acts 17:24 God, who made the world and everything in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands. 25 Nor is He worshiped with men's hands, as though He needed anything, since He gives to all life, breath, and all things.

(I hope that disabuses you of your love for temples at the same time as freeing you from the bondage of a mandatory tithe! )

The "Gifts & Sacrifice" where acts of worship and atonement.
Atonement was made by the High Priest once a year a type of reality fulfilled by the Lord. Freewill gifts where also offered to the Lord, as I've repeatedly explained, the tithe was not, it had other purposes and was not a freewill offering (i.e gift), it was tribute or tax.

God doesn't need your tithe. The merchandisers do. It builds temples, funds programs, pays salaries and establishes empires. The law is abolished, the concept is redundant. It enslaves the religious and binds those without understanding. My brother, avail yourself of the Liberty that is in Christ. You were brought at a price, do not become a slave to men!

God bless

TayoD,
…………, Okay, let’s go back to the beginning of my last post.

Hebrews 5:1
For every high priest taken from among men is appointed for men in things pertaining to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins.

Hebrews 8:3
For every high priest is appointed to offer both gifts and sacrifices. Therefore it is necessary that this One also have something to offer.

Your argument essentially replaces the word “gifts” with “tithe”, I won’t go so far as to add/change the Word of God, but for the sake of discussion, lets read it as such.

Please explain from any part of the Bible the following

1. Where a high priest ever offered tithes to God, and for what?
2. How Jesus our High Priest offers tithe to God in this dispensation
3. Where a pre-law command, ordinance or practice of tithing was ever enacted?

Abraham gave a “tithe”.
As a one time thanksgiving offering, in response to victory in battle.
Spiritually significant only in as much as it depicts the superiority of the Melchizededk type over the Levitical/Aaronic type of High Priesthood.

There is no requirement to source an offering that satisfies the gift as opposed to the sacrifice. I believe “One time offering” satisfies both.

Tithing pre-dates the law as a practice. Not as a divine commandment. It became mandated under the law and subsequently abolished with grace. If you wish to tithe as a worship response, then no problem. It is not divinely commanded.

You continually insist that “tithe” means “gift”, how and why I don’t see. Please show very clearly (from scripture, how this connection was made).

Finally, please reference the meaning of the word “gift”, save us all some time.

God bless

Gentlemen,

Good to see we can have our difference and make up. And more importantly not lose sight of the issue at hand.

Hi TayoD,

As promised, here is a response to your “tithe as gift” premise.

Your starting point for this particular subtext has been that the Bible detailing priestly duties as offering “Gifts & Sacrifices”. Two such instances appended;

Hebrews 5:1
For every high priest taken from among men is appointed for men in things pertaining to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins.

Hebrews 8:3
For every high priest is appointed to offer both gifts and sacrifices. Therefore it is necessary that this One also have something to offer.


I think the book of Hebrews (most excellent huh!) is sufficient for us to answer the question, and all chapter and verse references will be from there (NKJV) unless otherwise noted.

Firstly, the bible makes it very clear that gifts are offered according to the law;

Hebrews 8:4
For if He were on earth, He would not be a priest, since there are priests who offer the gifts according to the law

Secondly, the gifts offered according to the law are only copies and shadows (types) of the heavenly things.

Hebrews 8:5
who serve the copy and shadow of the heavenly things, as Moses was divinely instructed when he was about to make the tabernacle. For He said, "See that you make all things according to the pattern shown you on the mountain."

Thirdly, said law has now been done away with

Hebrews 7:18
For on the one hand there is an annulling of the former commandment because of its weakness and unprofitableness,

The gift aspect is redundant as gifts are offered according to the law ON EARTH.

As a High Priest who is seated at the right Hand of The Majesty on High and not an earth-based, law-bound, flesh-driven one, he is free from the limits and obligations of any earthly rituals.

Please refer to 8:3 again
…………. Therefore it is necessary that this One also have something to offer.

Indeed, the “something to offer” which satisfies and more than satisfies any earthly type, was offered once for all (eternally) and not daily, as it would be here on earth.

Hebrews 7:27
who does not need daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins and then for the people's, for this He did once for all when He offered up Himself.

No where, at no time to no one in any place in scripture are tithes made synonymous with or equated to gifts. Your insistence on the “gift” aspect of high priestly duty (which in any event was for high priest taken from among men, who served the copy and shadow of the heavenly) being necessary of our Current High Priest is a stumbling block in itself. Further insisting that the “gift” is equal to or can only be satisfied by “the tithe” (not even remotely suggested by Scripture, where?), is nothing more than a lame attempt to justify what is a thoroughly misguided practice, based on poor exegesis and faulty understanding.

If you have in any way been consistent, it’s in your parallel attempt to enforce an act of tribute (tithe), by a pre-covenant worshipper (Abraham), as mandatory for covenant (post-law) worshippers.

Equating “gifts” with “tithes” is further exposed as plain wrong when one notes that the tithe was never offered to God. It was for, 1 Priestly upkeep 2 Welfare, and 3 Feasting.

Freewill gifts where always noted as freewill, heave or the like. I see this as nothing more than “shrink to fit theology”. What is wrong with letting scripture speak for itself? Instead, men insist on building traditions and then retrospectively justifying them through a warped twisting of scripture.

Like I have repeatedly asked, please expound on the practical outworking of the “tithe/gift” that our High Priest offers to God.

But don't take my word for it, let’s go back to The Word.

Hebrews 9:9
It was symbolic for the present time in which both gifts and sacrifices are offered which cannot make him who performed the service perfect in regard to the conscience—

Gifts and sacrifices as offered by the earthly high priest where symbolic and only for a time. They could never perfect you or enable you to approach God, which is the whole point, God desires fellowship. Not religion. Religion is epitomised by tithing, temples and a mediatory priesthood, redundant concepts that the flesh won’t relinquish. Enough already, I don’t think it could be any clearer.

10 concerned only with foods and drinks, various washings, and fleshly ordinances imposed until the time of reformation. 11 But Christ came as High Priest of the good things to come, with the greater and more perfect tabernacle not made with hands, that is, not of this creation.

In fact, the gifts and sacrifices were not desired by or pleasing to God.

Hebrews 10
5 Therefore, when He came into the world, He said: "Sacrifice and offering You did not desire, But a body You have prepared for Me. 6 In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin You had no pleasure. 7 Then I said, 'Behold, I have come-- In the volume of the book it is written of Me-- To do Your will, O God.' 8 Previously saying, "Sacrifice and offering, burnt offerings, and offerings for sin You did not desire, nor had pleasure in them" (which are offered according to the law), 9 then He said, "Behold, I have come to do Your will, O God." He takes away the first that He may establish the second. [color=#990000][/color]

My reading (which is of course in no way binding on anyone) is this;

Gifts ~ are an act of freewill offering, acts of worship if you will
Sacrifices ~ (not ignoring that gifts can be sacrificed) are a means of atonement.
Tithes ~ are a form of tax or tribute

Please sir, explain, what is this affectation with tithe equalling gifts? And from whence does it come? On what is it based? And where exactly does it lead?

As always, it’s been a pleasure.

I await your response.

God bless

TayoD,

How are you? I trust all is well.
You seemed very keen to initiate this discussion and now you have become somewhat scarce?
Does that mean you have realised the unsustainability of you (previous) postion?

There apppear to be a few people arguing for a sort of dual citizenship. no way Jose!
I don't believe the plain reading of scripture in anyway supports this.

God bless

Hi TayoD,

Personally I think your insistence on equating the "tithe" with the "gift" that priests always have to offer to be somewhat tenuous.

In the preceding 23 odd pages we have looked at this subject exhaustively.

The "tithe is synonymous with gift" argument is all that lefts to those on the side of mandatory tithing for NT Christians (and when I say "those", I think it's pretty much you sir!).

But because I quite enjoy our discourse, have huge respect (and much love) for you as  person and truly believe you are quite sincere, lets stay with it.

I appreciate your insistence on magnifying God's Word over personal testimony or anecdotal evidence (although I believe BabyOsisi's testimony aligns with the Word).

So please show from scripture, the basis and support for your thesis, and lets take it from there.

God bless.

Hi Bari_Kade,

How succinct, letting scripture speak (resoundingly) for itself.

Much appreciated.


Hi Everyone,

It may help to distinguish true church work from the multitude of man-made organisational business that masquerades as service to God.


God bless

Hi Hrvesthrt,

hrvesthrt:
Tithing is an honor.

If you think so.
But it is not however, a command, law or obligation for a disciple of Christ.

hrvesthrt:
As a church treasurer I see the inside of what tithes do.

I was also a church treasurer, and what tithes do is underpin a wholesale departure from core Christian doctrine, support heresies such as the clergy/laity split, focus on temples salaried service, celebrity ministry and emphasis on programs; in  a nutshell the wholesale incorporation of mammon and a rejection of the power of The Holy Spirit as the way to effect Gods will.

hrvesthrt:
If no one tithed there would be no church.

The above statement displays a singularly lack of understanding of what "the Church" truly is and means.

Overall your posts mostly draws from your personal experience and observations. Whilst I don't seek to belittle this, there are as many personal experiences and observations as there are believers. Let us prayerfully search the scriptures for insight and direction, and may The Holy Spirit lead us into all Truth.

God bless

Drusilla, Bobbyaf, Davidylan, TayoD,

Hi all and good work. I just revisited this, as at the first it did'nt seem like it was picking up speed. I appreciate all (although I can't say I agree with all) your contributions. Very interesting reading.

In this as in a lot of threads, people tend to fall (give or take a little) into certain schools of thought.

I would entreat us all to subject our positions to God and the leading of the Holy Spirit. Let's be careful not to make idols of our doctrine or be puffed up with knowledge.

I trust that if we engage in this with the desire to truly Know Him and His will, He will certainly open our eyes.

God bless you all.

Hi TayoD,

TayoD:
I wouldn't want to disagree with you two (Drusilla and TV01), just for the sake of keeping this conversation going, but I want to point out one important fact that I think you both missed in your write-ups. Jesus wasn't offering us a suggestion when He made that statement, it was actually a command. To make matters more serious, He actually asked us to give unto Caesar as much as we will give unto God. Our dedication to Caesar must be total as much as our dedication to God is total. This is actually something that was difficult for me to swallow until God revealed to me from the scriptures that the secular Government is actually an extension of God's authority on earth, and you all know how much God frowns at violation of constituted authority.

I had to read (and re-read) the above statement a couple of times  .

Particularly this bit;

TayoD:
Jesus wasn't offering us a suggestion when He made that statement, it was actually a command. To make matters more serious, He actually asked us to give unto Caesar as much as we will give unto God. Our dedication to Caesar must be total as much as our dedication to God is total.

My disagreement with you on this point is unequivocal.

Matthew 22:21
They said to Him, "Caesar's." And He said to them, "Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's."
Mark 12:17 
And Jesus answered and said to them, "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's." And they marveled at Him.
Luke 20:25
And He said to them, "Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's."

For completeness, I've copied your previously referenced scripture and the parallel ones.
Pray tell, where does this demand equal dedication to Caesar (and the things of) or God (and the things of).
It quite clearly demands we render to Caesar the things that are his.

I know we have points of doctrinal difference, and to be honest, I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing or even a problem. It's a walk, it's growth, it's a maturing. We are all, by the grace of God growing into The Head.
But on this one I think we are poles apart.

For starters, your reading of this contradicts other passages of scripture.
How about not being able to serve two masters for a start?
Have you considered the scale of the conflict of interest that equal devotion to state and God would create for any devout Christian believer?

We are to be "subject" to authorities.
That is obedient to the laws of the land, not agitators against civil government (even if despotic or tyrannical) or even where there is a culture of civil disobedience (i.e strikes, protest marches etc. etc are not for Christians). But not in any way that compromises our adhering to the clear leading of scripture.

The answer the Lord gave was in response to a question specifically about taxation.
Whilst I agree it can be applied more broadly (say voting etc), I do not see how it can be construed to mean dedication or devotion to the state.

I'd be interested to know how one applies this practically (which is where many of the unsound doctrines being preached these days hit the rocks).

A quick aside at this point:
The narrative speaks specifically to rendering taxes to Caesar, as they are his due.
Please explain why so many churches (in countries where it is provided for) take advantage of tax breaks or reclaims on tithes or offerings from members. Do Christians not use the infrastructure and facilities provided for by taxes just like every other law abiding citizen? It's particularly puzzling when these breaks make participating churches legally subject to the state. My stance is that taking Caesar denarius is to "unequally yoke" the church to the state.

So to this point at least, I don't think either Drusilla or myself where wrong, quite the reverse.

Allow me to briefly comment about Daniel.

1. He was not a politician, he was commandeered into service. He was a servant.
2. He served with a Christian conscience, diligently and faithfully.
3. He did not allow his service to compromise his devotion to God.
4. It was the refusal to obey a state ordinance that led him to being cast to the lions.

(please note, I would apply this equally to a civil servant or a career politician).

I'll stop for now so we don't digress or tackle too many points at once.

I'm interested to hear you expound further.

God bless

Hi TayoD,

Apologies for the delay. I actually posted something earlier, but I've no idea what might have happened to it?

To set the ball rolling may I say this;

"All things are lawful, but not all things are expedient, all things are lawful, but not all edify".

Would I say point blank that a Christian cannot seek political office or be active politically?
No, I would'nt, but I would definitely say, "only if you can do it without compromising your faith and more than that, do it in a way that glorifies God", then by all means.

Truth is, I don't see it. He Himself said "My kingdom is not of this world". The Jews were anticipating a political/warrior messiah. That is, salvation throught the commomnly accepted worldly norms. No! no!! and thrice no!!! The whole message of the gospel is about entering the kingdom of God, not grabbing political power in this one (either through the ballot box, or by "holy wars" ~ the spiritual oxymoron of the 21st century!) and making it over for The Lords return. The current system lies under the sway of the wicked one. It's not meant for recreation or re-engineering (thats for individuals, who will then inherit the new kingdom of God/heaven).

I do believe we are to be subject to civil authorities (even tyrannical or despotic ones)and obey the law, in as much as the do not contravene the holy law (or royal commandment) given to us by the Lord.

A quick post to start. Lots more, but I'm keen to hear what others have to say. And TayoD sir, what sayest thou?

God bless

Hi TayoD,

TayoD:
@TV01,

Indeed we are all 'Called' in the NT, however, the call to the five-fold ministry is what I believe we are talking about here. In this regard, there are special callings by Jesus into these ministries. Not all believers are pastors, prophets, evangelists, teachers or apostles. The call into any of these ministries does not make the believer more equal than the others, it only places him in a special position of authority and responsibility. And by the way, these callings have nothing to do with ability or how self-righteous the believer is, it is all by God's choosing and will.

There are various schoos of thought about the "five fold" ministry. I essentially see NT Christian service as primarily "teaching and pastoral". Everyone 's an evangelist. I am yet to be persuaded that the Prophet and Apostle as present in the OT and early church are still relevent. Although that is a thread in itself and one that's been simmering for a while now. Maybe someone, maybe someday!

TayoD:
In the case of Samson, you will notice that he never lost his strength all the while he was in fornication until his hair was cut off from him. His hair was like our bodies today where the Holy Spirit dwells. The only reason he lost his strength was because His access to the Holy Spirit was cut off, and not because he sinned. He had been in sin even before this fornication incident and he still had his power for as long has the vessel where the Spirit of God dwells was still present with him.

Well articulated point about Samson. Point taken. Thanks.

TayoD:
The Bible encourages us to regard with double honour those that labour in the Word. This is not to bring about a pulpit-pew dichotomy, but it is just in keeping with the spiritual law of giving honor to whom honor is due. The issue of maturity and consecration you talked about can also be utilized to divide the brethren. All we need is some balance and love to walk it right.

Indeed it does, but again readings of that verse may differ. Again something that merits more in-depth discussion, but my stance is that honour is given, because such elders take on the additional labour of studying and feeding others, as well as all the other things (family, children, work etc etc) that men have to engage in (and already serving as elders).

In a sense I think this ties in with my maturity/consecration point, as it will increase the former and demand more of the latter to take on this burden of " labouring in doctrine". It is not to divide, as studying to be approved and labouring in doctrine is open to all. But the scripture recognises that not all do so, and enjoins us to honour those who do.

Maturity is a consequence of one's walk and experience and like all children that will always differ between individuals. Consecration is also a very individual thing, possibly related too and impacted by one's maturity, but again, that will differ from person to person. I think it's way too personal to be divisive, but it's not to be confused with outward shows of piety, religiousity or spirituality.

Regards

God bless

Hi TayoD,

TayoD:
In my honest opinion, only one thing makes you a Man of God: God's Calling. The principle is exactly what is said of Aaron: "No one takes this honor unto himself, except he that is called, like Aaron".

In a sense I absolutely agree, although my position is that in NT Christianity all believers are called.

TayoD:
TV01 made a valid point when he said the character we expect to be found in a MOG is what is expected to be cultivated by each Christian. And from what has been pointed out before now, the appelation was addressed to someone like Elijah whom I believe lacked the fruit of the Spirit in his life (you can tell if you follow his ministry closely).

Again, I agree to a great extent, except to note that Elijah was under a different dispensation. Technically, no one at that time had the fruit of the Spirit, which is the outworking of the "indwelling Spirit of God". It was under the dispensation of the law and at a time when anointing external and with was with oil (although I fail to see the captivation by many with "anointing" in this dispensation).

TayoD:
The issue of miracles and the likes are all gifts from God which is irrevocable even if the MOG wallows in sin (the gifts and callings of God are without repentance). To illustrate, remember how Elisha called wild animals to devour little children because they were making fun of his bald head? That was God's power put to wrong use. Likewise Elijah devouring those soldiers with fire even though they had done him no wrong. These are people, like the devil using God's gifts wrongly. God still never took those gifts away despite the wrong use. They needed those gifts to fulfill their callings as MOGs.

I can't say I agree here. If this holds true, pray tell why did Samson lose his strength?

I am still of the opinion that the whole "MOG" concept is just another mis-appropriated, mis-understood mis-construed and mis-applied concept/term. It's the outworking of a desire to differentiate, but in a carnal way. I believe the only difference between Christians is maturity and consecration.

I stand to be corrected.
God bless

Hi TayoD,

As promised, a quick update on this as yet concluded discussion.
To be honest, I was waiting for Syrup & Allonym to update as promised.
I trust they'll be back and figure other considerations may at this time be more pressing.
Syrup, in your own time, you know we love to hear your thoughts. Allonym, how is/was the thesis? Hope all went well.

TayoD:
@TV01,I have been immensely blessed by your scholarship on this forum.  However, I must say that I am a little dissapointed by the argument you put forth above.  How does tithing take away from the grace and glory of God?  Mind you, God only deals with every man on the medium of grace.  Even Abraham, paid his tithe through grace and I believe the same applies to the Believer today.  Your statement also suggests that it is always convenient to serve God, and anything that brings some suffering and sacrifice can't be of God.  I believe you know better than this, and you probably didn't weigh the full import of your statement when you wrote it.  So, I will not labour to refute that argument unless you insist that you are absolutely right.
As to Dru, I have mentioned that I didn't mean to offend her and I thank you for bringing my attention to that piece.  Thanks Bro.

The above was your response to my post below;

TV01:
Hi TayoD,

When one views the outworking of a "divinely mandated" tithe as detracting from the grace of our Lord and sullying the Glory of God, not to mention the bondage and suffering being caused to untold numbers of God fearing people, anyone with an ounce of reverence and compassion would be emotional. At the very least lets admit the issue is emotive. I think for the most part contributors have been judicious in their choice of words and at the same time accomodating of the "literary style" of others. Please go easy on Dru'.  Kindest regards.

That is not an arguement. That essentially summarises what I believe to be the outworking of preaching a divinely mandated tithe. Like I said earlier, I am more than happy to discuss it from both ends, the scriptural basis or the practical outworking.

Now back to the issues I believe you are awaiting responses too, posed here;

TayoD:
Syrup, TV01,

May I say that I have been immensely blessed by the knowledge and insights you two have brought to this discussion.  I have passively followed your discussions before now because I have been extremely busy.  However, I feel I need to respond to a common 'gray area' with respect to the codification of tithes into the New Testament, which seems open to so many interpretations.   

As a background, permit me to bring to your attention something which I believe you all know, and that is the fact that the Old Testament is a shadow and an adumbration of the New.  Every thing we see in the Old Testament (which is a shadow), must have it's reality in the New Testament.  With this in mind, the functions which the Priests carried out in the Old Testament (that is offering of gifts and sacrifices) must necessarily have its fulfillment in the New Testament.

We see a progressive revelation of the job of the Priest when Melchizedek stepped into the scene.  We see him receiving a 'tithe' of all the increase which Abram had.  The blood sacrifice was introduced in the levitical priesthood without the neglect of the tithe.  Both these Priesthood were shadows of the reality - the High priesthood of Jesus Christ which the Bible says is fashioned after the order of Melchizedek.

At this point, I feel I need to clarify TV01's concern about the fact that the emphasis in the new Testament is on the eternal nature of both priesthood (Jesus' and melchizedek's).  Please note that when the Bible talks about the "eternal"  aspect of both Priests, it is a reference to the nature of the priests (in Hebrews, the Bible talks about an endless life).  This has nothing to do with the functions of the Priests.

Jesus being a priest, must  necessarily offer 'gifts' and 'sacifices'.  The sacrifice was offered once and for all with, by and through His blood and this is fore-shadowed in the Old Testament by the blood of bulls and rams.  If the gift offered in the Old Testament was the tithe (and please note that this is consistent in both the levitical and melchizedek's priesthood), why would it be any diferent with the Priesthood of Jesus?

Now there are at least a few things you will need to clarify if you maintain a stand that the tithe is not the 'gift' that should be offered in the New Testament.

1.  The New Testament must reveal what the tithe foreshadows. 
2.  What exactly is the gift that Jesus offers today (and please, this is not to minimise the efficacy of His blood.  The sacrifice and the gifts are two different things altogether).
3.  If we see only the gift offered with melchizedek, and both gift and sacrifice offered in Levi, then why should Jesus offer only the blood and neglect the tithe which is the first revelation of the Priestly duties?  Logic and revelation dictates otherwise.

The above list is not by any means exhaustive, but I will like to get a feedback on them.

My best regards.

I'll come back to you as time permits, but for now let me say this;

The basis of your arguement is that "A priest must offer gifts and sacrifices".
The sacrifice element having being satisfied by the "once for all time" offering of the Lord, that leaves ythe "gift" element. You then make the gift element synonymous with (and insist it forshadows) the tithe.

Like I said earlier, I was waiting for the others to post. But to be honest, I neither see nor agree with the connections you made between gifts and tithing.

I'll explore a bit further in my next post, hopefully soon.

God bless

Hi Drusilla,

Drusilla:
No women should not be ordained to head churches.

But that is just my personal preference.

Following on from your quote above, may I ask why?

God bless

Hi Mlks-baby,

In response to your question (A Christian perspective).

My I start by stating that I unreservedly believe that women are of equal worth, value and significance in the sight of God. However, I also believe that God in His infinite wisdom has designed Man (Male & female) with gender specific roles and areas of influence in mind.

I believe this is borne out by creation order (contained within the biblical narrative & instruction), genetic makeup, behavioral traits and inclination and historical experience.

Ancillary to this I believe that it is important to
1. Delineate between the different spheres
2. Take a scriptural view in assigning merit/value to the different spheres.

For simplicity lets call the basic spheres are home, church and work (commerce & government).

I hold to the view that the home (and not the church) is God’s basic building block. Neither do I believe that church authority supersedes or has a mandate to usurp that established in the home. The home is to be headed by the husband. This order is to be carried over into the church, albeit on a slightly larger scale and with the functions (offices) of elders and deacons open to suitably qualified males. (no unscriptural “sole Pastor” leadership in my thinking). Indeed, a home even comprising of just a husband and wife is in a sense “church”.

With a husbands agreement a married woman should be free to aspire to any level of
achievement, be that academic, commercial or governmental as long as the pursuit it no way compromises God’s will and purposes.

As too the relative value of the spheres, I believe the home, the church and then work are the relative order of importance. Pursuit of agreed marital goals, family needs, fostering spousal harmony and raising godly children is always more important than a high-flying career (or endless church based activity), for both men and women. However, as I believe men should have prime responsibility for providing and women for caring, it’s a sacrifice that women may have to suffer more. Obviously there is room for agreement and manuvoure within these parameters.

Personally, while I am not yet married, I hope to be, and understand that “our” experience will be unique to us. Yet I am firmly convinced that with shared faith and beliefs, mutual love and understanding, a shared dependence on God and trust in His Word, all will be well (even is wifey earns more than me!).

May I close by saying that it was Christianity that emancipated women, not women’s lib, not feminism, nor any other civil rights movement. At a time in history when women were considered little more than chattel, God through the Apostle Paul commanded men to “love” their wives.

While I am not ignorant of the fact, that in the name of "Christianity" women have been oppressed (and in some places still are) by men men for centuries, I don't believe a swing to the opposite extreme is the answer. Gender equality is a misguided man-made concept. As for gender neutrality, that’s both inane and perverse,  the less said about that the better.

A reversion to biblically prescribed mores in the relationships between men and women would solve a lot of the ills that affect society. Restore harmony between the sexes and believe it or not really empower women.


God bless

ps
~ Daughters are subject to daddy’s authority until such time as they marry. At her
   husbands behest, a wife may refer to her new spouse as “Daddee”
~ The successful applicants for the vacant “wife” position will be required to supply
    own chain and sink.  And remember, there’s only one pastor in my house, me!
~ Presumably, I shall henceforth be known as “TV01 no mates” on this forum.

Hi Albion,

Hear, hear, Thanks.

Hi Drusilla,

Hope all is well with you. Say on.

Hi TayoD,

When one views the outworking of a "divinely mandated" tithe as detracting from the grace of our Lord and sullying the Glory of God, not to mention the bondage and suffering being caused to untold numbers of God fearing people, anyone with an ounce of reverence and compassion would be emotional. At the very least lets admit the issue is emotive. I think for the most part contributors have been judicious in their choice of words and at the same time accomodating of the "literary style" of others. Please go easy on Dru'.  Kindest regards.

Hi Allonym,

Thank you. Please, if you have time and the inclination, kindly show that not only are "Pastors" not like OT Priests, neither are they like the Apostle Paul (or Moses or David, etc, etc, ), or any of the other figures that some use to validate their claim to what is a totally man made mandate.

God bless us all.

Hi Syrup,

I trust all is well.

When contributing, I think it important not to drag the conversation away from the issue in question or allow it to morph into a totally different discussion. I realise that sometimes that cannot be helped and may even be essential for a more robust discussion and deeper understanding. It's also worth noting that individual participation can vary a great deal in regards to frequency, consistency, impact and other ways, most especially on long threads such as this one.

With that in mind, allow me to say a few things.

~ Tithing
The question at the heart of this thread being “Is it mandatory for NT Christians to tithe”? The discussion has raised many questions and touched on many aspects of the faith.

The arguments for the continuation of the practice has so far been based on two things
1. The codification of tithing within the Mosaic Law
2. Abraham’s tithe to Melchizedek

To me, point 1 above is a simple Law vs. Grace issue. The basis for point 2 is that As the High Priesthood of Jesus is fashioned after that of Melchizedek, our worship response should be fashioned after Abrahams.

~ Priesthood
When you joined/rejoined (although I realise you may have been an interested observer up until that point) the thread, TayoD had postulated point 2 as the basis for continuing the practice. This of course brought the priesthood in to focus.

TayoD said this – (664)
"There is no change of the Priesthood in this case.  The Priesthood we have today is fashioned after the order of Melchizedek.  So everything we see in the Priesthood of Melchizedek must necessarily be present today.

And I said this – (663)
The Lords Priesthood is “after the order of Melchizedek”  => Eternal.

And this – (665)
The main thrust of the symbolism of Melchizedek’s priesthood is it’s eternal nature. In almost all the references to Melchizedek’s priesthood, the qualifier is “Forever” speaking of the eternal (unchanging) nature, and/or “after the order of”, denoting it as a type, in the same way that the Aaronic priesthood was also a type.

So while I wholeheartedly agree that The High Priesthood of The Lord is patterned/based/fashioned/akin/in the likeness of Melchizedek’s, I don’t agree with TayoD’s point, which to my reading is claiming it to be identical, and in all ways the same, to the extent that a believers worship response must be identical to Abrahams to be valid. (Which under-girds point 2 of the argument for).

Our difference was a question of exactitude. I am in no way denying the typology or symbolism of Melchizedek’s priesthood.

Example ~ Man is made in the Similitude of God. That does not make us in all respects the same. Jesus is “in the form of God”, “the brightness of His glory”, “the express image of His Person” and “in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily”. An altogether different kind of likeness wouldn’t you agree?

Now, is tithing a bad practice? Not of itself, no. The basis is what we are discussing here. Voluntarily deciding to levy, contribute or tithe, be that collectively or individually is personal. However, preaching it as divinely mandated, robbing God and engendering a curse if one fails to do it religiously, is what I disagree with.

Neither do I subscribe to the arrogation of the “storehouse principle” or the introduction of the “set-man concept” into NT Christianity as a way to enforce what I believe to be a thoroughly unscriptural practice.

So I am not legislating against it, merely advancing my views as to the proper basis for it. 

As for “reasons to” as opposed to “types of” in regards to giving, viewed neutrally, it’s a matter of individual liberty. So re-reading that, but not as an argument for enforced tithing, means it’s a mute point.

Maybe we’ve been discussing at slightly odd-purposes, or with different qualifiers.
Yours being “tithing is allowed” mine being “tithing is not divinely mandated”, being the reason for my saying “nothing enacted means nothing to abrogate” in response to your saying “God nowhere mentioned tithes to Abraham as a law handed down to him”

Shall we at least clarify this before we proceed? Anyway, you know I enjoy and am always edified by your posts.

God bless

Hi Syrup,

Greetings. Apologies, I was hoping to respond earlier, as ever it was a question of finding the time. Believe me, I missed all the footie on Monday and Tuesday.

I’ll start at the end.
Where in the NT is tithing abrogated?
Nowhere specifically. Why? Because nowhere in the OT is tithing given as a perpetual ordinance.

So let’s move on to some of your other points.

You wrote
First, my allusion to the meaninglessness of "simple giving" is in reference to your earlier quote that "Christians give, nothing more and nothing less." That sounds like divesting NT giving of its divine significance and almost makes no meaning of a matter of great import. Glad to read also that you recognise that giving is an act of worship; so then the talk of giving as merely nothing more and nothing is less is to sound like even that act of worship is meaningless. It were better to have recognised the significance of NT giving in its connection to worship and not to have sounded like it was just an empty exercise.

My response
I have repeatedly stated that Christians (simply) give. No more and no less. That is to emphasis the simplicity of it, not to deny it’s the response to a need, motivated by love and an act of worship.

You wrote
Second, to now refer to giving in the NT in terms of "degrees" and "attitude" is to confirm my point as that there are different "types" of NT giving. In fact, in this connection of the various types and contexts of giving, 4get_me has done a very good job earlier in his outline on this (preview by clicking here and scroll down to the 600th entry), and I agree with him on that. This is not to "ritualise" NT giving; and if anything at all, to see "degrees" of giving in the NT is to ritualise a simple act of worship in this connection as well. As surely as there are 'degrees' of giving, there are 'types' as well; and if the latter is a tendency to ritualise it, then the former is equally guilty of ritualising it as well.

My response
Degrees => Marked by the sacrifice required
Attitude => Marked by cheerfulness & liberality
Both referenced previously and clearly outlined in 2 Corinthians 8 & 9.

So, in stating my point regards degrees of and attitude too giving, I was not by design or default confirming your point about “types”. Personally, the closest I come to “types” is “reasons”.  To grade or categorise giving and then ascribe benefits to the various types is to my mind ritualising. I hope you see my distinction, although I appreciate you may not share it.

For the sake of completeness I re-visited 4get-Me’ “types of giving” outline. 
I don’t see how give/share/communicate/minister/sacrifice and other such terms can be read to imply categorisation. Only my simple reading,  but it seemed to be a play on nuance. In the “Benevolence to Poorer Folk” category,4get_me goes on to state “We are to give to everyone who has need, both collectively or individually”, which effectively remerges his previously made “type” distinctions.

In the forth category “tithes & Special Offerings” He opens by declaring them “personal”. How? Surely something that you insist is a non-negotiable divinely mandated imperative is not personal. If the law of circumcision had not been abrogated, would we consider this a personal matter? While the law was in force, was it? The Lord Himself born under the law, subjected himself to this ordinance.

After claiming that some term tithe “evil” or are “averse” to it, 4get_me goes on to say that he “takes it upon himself”. Anyone is free to do this, as Jacob also did. Which of course begs the question “Why did Jacob take a vow to tithe, if it was already a divine ordinance?

This may also be a good point to re-visit my reason for posting to this thread. Voluntarily deciding to give a tithe (10%), or a portion (any percentage) and refer to it as tithe, I have no issue with and is not my point of entry into this discussion. The issue under discussion is whether a tithe (10%) is divinely mandated?

Reading 1 Corinthians 16 clearly shows that the referred to collection was a collective response (Corinth) to a particular corporate need (Jerusalem). If an individual or assembly wish to adopt this practice, fine, who is to quibble?  4get_Me goes on to say “he does so at designated times, based on how God has prospered him”. That is not tithing as under discussion by any stretch of the imagination. And at best it’s more in the style of Jacob than Abraham.


Which brings me to this;

You wrote
If you'd carefully read your response in those lines it would be apparent to you that you didn't take anything away from my point. Tithes preceded and was later incorporated into the Law. My point: you cannot therefore use the Law as the prism for scrutinizing and nullifying what preceded it especially in regards to tithes. God nowhere mentioned tithes to Abraham as a law handed down to him; the patriarch spontaneously gave tithes of all to the priest of the Most High God after the latter pronounced the blessings and ascribed praise to God. Abraham's response to Melchizedek's pronouncements is an act of devotion by faith and love - yes?

Point taken about circumcision and the Sabbath. Divinely mandated ordinances, later incorporated into the law. Fulfilled in Christ and dispensed with by grace. Nothing of any real essence that I disagree with here.

So, as for tithing, you make the point for me by stating “God nowhere mentioned tithes to Abraham as a law handed down to him”. Simply put, nothing enacted means nothing to abrogate. doesn't that bring us full circle?

Briefly revisiting the point about priesthood, shadows, types and the like. Suffice to say, my point was that the High Priesthood of the Lord is akin to Melchizedek’s, in it’s being eternal. That I believe is the Bibles emphasis, along with distinguishing the superiority of this type over the Aaronic type. Attempting to read Abrahams one time act of thanksgiving/worship of tithing the spoils of victory (which was customary at the time), as a divine ordinance and incorporate it as an essential part of the Melchizedek type (albeit incumbent upon believers) is to me going beyond what is written. The significance of that act was to denote the superiority of Melchizedek’s priesthood over the Levitical one.

God bless

Hi All,

I have a few question and I'm hoping that if we can come to an agreement/concensus, we can progress this discussion and narrow the area of focus.

Question 1 ~ Are we all agreed that recourse to the Mosaic law can in no way be used to justify tithing in this present age?

Question 2 ~ If we are agreed on 1. above, would it be fair to say we are discussing the current validity of tithing based on it's being mentioned in the scriptural references to Melchizedek's Priesthood?

Thanks.

God bless