₦airaland Forum

Hi Syrup,

Good to hear from you. As ever your posts demand serious thought. In fact, there has been a part of this I've been grappling with which your post speaks to.

I'll respond to the first part immediately and hopefully others as time allows.

You said
To state that "Christians give, nothing more and nothing less" makes even the giving as meaningless as a blank paper. The Bible takes seriously any type of "giving" by God's people, whether in the OT or NT, and there are lots of texts showing that there is a divine significance to whatever passes from our hands and hearts for the Lord's cause.

My response (2 Corinthians 8:5-6, appended below)
Christians give. First themselves to God, and then by the will and grace of God, they give themselves (and of their substance) to others. Giving is a devotional act motivated by love, first for God and then as an outworking of this, love for others. What would prompt you to call "simple giving" meaningless? The only question I see is one of degrees (and attitude chapter 9:6-7, appended below), not types? To assign types to giving is to ritualise it. Do I read you correctly as implying “giving is an end in itself”? I fail to see why this would be necessary. Neither was I be implying that God does not take it seriously, just how simple and uncluttered the outworking of faith and love are.

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 sure you are familiar with the scriptures that make it very clear that God’s primary concern is how we treat the poor, the needy and the oppressed. Unchanging in its emphasis though both the OT & NT. (So numerous, I won’t append any verses here unless you insist).

You further said
It is not a concern for people's needs that primarily forms the basis of our giving - it is rather an act of worship springing from the heart that is the foundation of every type of giving expressed in the Bible. The needs of people are only secondary and do not take precedence over the act of worship.

My response
Giving to the needy is the act of worship. I don’t see a distinction. And forgive me if I’m reading you incorrectly, but the way you’ve termed it makes it sound like a ritual sacrifice?

You said
Tithing preceded "the Law of a fleshly commandment", and if it is disavowed by those who read it only in connection with the Mosaic Law, then even the NT "giving" is not a spiritual grace at all but also a work-based theology cloaked in the lingo of grace.

My response
Both the Sabbath and circumcision predate the Law and where to be everlasting covenants. They where also incorporated into Mosaic law. But the NT makes it clear that such rituals avail nothing (Colossians 2:16, Galatians 5:6 & 6:15) as all these former practises prefigure (and are fulfilled in) Christ and are types/shadows of spiritual realities. I think I amply showed (or should I say that 2 Corinthians 8/9 does), that giving is a grace.

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

2 Corinthians 9:6 But this I say: He who sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and he who sows bountifully will also reap bountifully. 7 So let each one give as he purposes in his heart, not grudgingly or of necessity; for God loves a cheerful giver. 8 And God is able to make all grace abound toward you, that you, always having all sufficiency in all things, may have an abundance for every good work. 9 As it is written: "He has dispersed abroad, He has given to the poor; His righteousness endures forever."* 10 Now may* He who supplies seed to the sower, and bread for food, supply and multiply the seed you have sown and increase the fruits of your righteousness, 11 while you are enriched in everything for all liberality, which causes thanksgiving through us to God. 12 For the administration of this service not only supplies the needs of the saints, but also is abounding through many thanksgivings to God, 13 while, through the proof of this ministry, they glorify God for the obedience of your confession to the gospel of Christ, and for your liberal sharing with them and all men,

Please read this in conjunction with John 1:16-17

John 1:16 And of His fullness we have all received, and grace for grace. 17 For the law was given through Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.

I was hoping that at some stage we would move on to discussing the outworking of Christian giving and tithing in this age. But one thing apparent, is that some see the tithe as a spiritual thing transcending the covenants, and it such it stands alone and is still in force. I for one find that hard to marry with what I see as NT practise. Maybe it would help is someone could show some other precept/principle which is similarly applicable/treated.

God bless

Hi Otokx, Thanks, I am encouraged. Hope all is well. God bless.

Hi TayoD,

Thanks for the response. Mine follows.

Quote.
"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.  You will notice Melchizedek didn't offer any sacrifice in the Genesis account.  I believe this could be the Spirit of God's intention to make us see that the sacrifice in the New Testament will be something done at one time and not a daily sacrament has practised in the Levitical Priesthood".

Response
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. The typology inherent in the Levitical priesthood is at least equally relevant. The Pentateauch takes great care to detail the rituals and sacrements of the Levitical priesthood. At the very least, the space devoted to it in scripture would beg this consideration.

Please note Melchizedek was “made like the son of God” not vice versa. Melchizedek was a man and not divine. Melchizedek was/is not seated at the right hand of the Majesty on high. What covenant did Melchizedek ratify? With what blood? The type denoted by Melchizedek fails to speak of access to God or purification of the conscience.

Even in Hebrews, more space is devoted to the shadow pattern of the Aaronic priesthood.  Both Aaron & Melchizedek’s priesthoods are symbolic. So we differ from your opening sentence, the High Priesthood of The Lord is not fashioned after Melchizedek’s. Rather both Aarons & Melchizedek’s are types of priesthood whose fullness is in Christ. To my mind, an insistence that tithing has to continue in order to fulfil the “gift” aspect is tantamount to saying that the Lords sacrifice was in some way incomplete. Even the gift offerings you mention where always livestock or produce, covered in the Lords once for all sacrifice. The gifts where never monetary.

And of course there was no sacrifice, the sacrifice is for atonement (for sin), of which there is not mention in Melchizedek’s priesthood as it was but a type. This aspect is prefigured in the Aaronic priesthood.

Abraham gave Melchizedek “a tenth of the spoils” on one occassion. There is nothing to suggest this was a recurring devotional practice. No mention of it in the life of the heirs with him (Isaac & Jacob) of the promise.

Quote
"Within the Mosaic law, the tithe was meant primarily for the levites.  The tithe is offered to God now through the local assembly which represents God's house (remember where the tithe should be brought according to Malachi).   Do you realise we have no direct access to God even in this dispensation?  Our access is Jesus Christ and that is why we pray in His name.  Likewise, our gifts are offered to God through Him.  Though the gifts are given to the local assembly, we have a messenger of God within that Assembly who receives it and disburses it as required by the New Testament for the administration of the church and to meet the needs of the poor".

Response
The command to bring the tithe into the storehouse was given to Jews, under the OC, and related to a physical temple. We are Christians, under a new dispensation and there are no physical buildings. God does not need or require physical sacrifices or gifts.

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 maintain my position that there are no “Messengers” of God within (running) the local assembly. The NT nowhere requires funds for the running of a church organisation. In scripture, money only ever moved  in response to physical need of the brethren. Nothing else.

Quote
"The fact that the tithe is a 'legal' requirement does not make it less a gift.  It is morally required of me to take care of my household, but at the same time, the recipients of my God-given duties consider my gesture as a gift.  Even though we are to pay our tithes, we are supposed to do it with a willing and gracious heart.  God will not force anyone to pay it".

Response
Do you consider your taxes a gift? Or your duty to your household as moral only? 1Timothy 5:8 says otherwise. It is at once a divine obligation, cultural imperative and a legal requirement. And I don’t think that anyone thinks that parents providing for their offspring (or Husband for his wife) is a gift gesture.

Quote
Tithing is still a work of grace.  Abraham was not under the law, but he paid his tithe.  There is work through grace.  Paul said he worked harder than others because of the grace of God.  Grace prompts you to do good works, though you are not justified by the works.  I agree with you that we are meant to give to the poor and needy.  However, I see in the New Testament that this giving is done through the church.  That is why the Seven were appointed in the Book of Acts to administer the church finances to serve the poor.  We are meant to give to the church with the church administering these gifts as required.

Response
Tithing is not grace it’s law or at best custom. Abraham paid a tithe once. I’m not quibbling about how offerings are administered within the local assembly, but even here, individuals have leeway to give as they see fit outside the body. And according to 1 timothy 5:8, and my reading of scripture, the family needs are prioritised over church and public giving.  The NT church is to have all things in common. (I suppose the notion of a tithe allows people to neglect this by claiming to have fulfilled their obligation of 10%).

Quote
"The scriptural basis for the set-man is there in the New Testament.  In the Book of Revelation, Jesus made a dinstinct separation between the Chruches and the Pastors/Messengers.  This sghows that He has appointed one person (the Pastor) as the overseer of the local assembly.   In the Book of Acts, we saw a deliberatiion of the church in chapter 15, that the final say was by the pastor of the church in Jerusalem - James.  The elders may have had something to say, but the final decision was with James.  By the way, all the five-fold ministries are subject to the Pastor.  Every action of any christian must be done via a local assembly.  That's the revelation of the New Testament".

Response
TayoD, how can you skip the clear reading of the epistles to Timothy and Titus, the whole narrative of Pauls work in establishing assemblies and declare that because the Lord sent an angel or messenger (not a Pastor in any possible interpretation) to the churches, that that messenger was the leader of the congregation. You also claim this as evidence for a clergy/laity (leader/follower) split, which is  nowhere to be found in scripture. James was an elder. He may well have been wiser, more mature or experienced, but had no more authority and no higher position than any of the other elders.  And no, the Apostles where not subject to him or to any other pastor. “Apostle” was a foundational role (now defunct along with Prophet) used to establish the church (after which they would have been elders in their local assemblies as Peter described himself. After all could James possibly have been senior to Peter?). The letter you referenced was from the Apostles, Elders and brethren. No “singular pastor” authority was mentioned. The church today has Elders (in plurality) and deacons.  The church's job is to witness (evangelise) and teach. And by the way, pastor/shepherd/elder/bishop/overseer are all different renderings of the same role. No hierarchies. Whilst I agree that there is to be order and authority in the local assembly, this does not have pre-eminence over or the right to usurp the order God has established in the home.

Thanks for the discourse, I really appreciate it. It's really challenged me.

But my position remains ~ No tithe, no set-man.

God bless.

Hi TayoD,

Thanks for the post and the kind words. I'll try and state my position a little more fully. Responding first to paragraphs 1-3 of your last post.

Hebrews 7:12 – For the priesthood being changed, of necessity there is also a change of the law

Tithing was introduced 1. for the Hebrews/Jews.  2. As part of the Mosaic law and 3. specifically for the Levitical priesthood (in absence of a physical inheritance along with the other 11 tribes).  Said law and priesthood have now being changed. I fail to see how one can  conclude that tithing must as a rule always accompany priesthood? We are agreed that tithing predates the law. Historical records show that it even predates Abra(ha)m’s time. Does this and the fact that it was incorporated into the Mosaic law mean that it has to be retained under the covenant of grace? NT reference to tithing is always on the basis of 1-3 above.

The Lords Priesthood is “after the order of Melchizedek”  => Eternal.
The Lord is a High Priest (typified by Aaron in the OT), but priesthood is universal to all believers in this age. And please note Levites where not priests, they did not minister to God. Only the house of Aaron (taken from the tribe of Levi ministered to God as priests).

The tithe was primarily for the Levites (for the sake of simplicity lets ignore the orphan, widow, stranger and feasting aspects for now), of which a further tithe was given to the High Priest. How do you conclude that the tithe was a gift to God? The High  Priest only ever received 10% of the 10%?

Kindly explain how the tithe is offered to God as a gift by The Lord in the current dispensation?

In His role as High Priest, The Lord is at the right hand of God making intercession for the saints. Your stance seems to suggest He is also offering physical gifts in the form of tithes?

Your argument (at least in part) is based on your opinion that “tithes equate to gifts”? The tithe was a legal requirement. Gift would more aptly describe, offerings termed “heave”, “freewill”, “thanksgiving” and the like. Gifts are always freely given.

Please offer additions/corrections/alternatives if you will, but as a NT Christian I see only two gifts I can offer to God (apart from my self).

1. Hebrews 13:15 - Therefore by Him let us continually offer the sacrifice of praise to God, that is, the fruit of our lips, giving thanks to His name. ~Thanks & praise!

2.The only other way to give to God is to give to the poor and needy. The orphans, the widows and the strangers mentioned earlier.

NT Christians give, nothing more and nothing less. It is always according to one’s hearts desire and expected as a normal part of the Christian life, particularly as one grows in grace. Giving is actually a spiritual grace in direct contradistinction to tithing, which is a work, based on the law of a fleshly commandment. 2 Corinthians 8-9 expounds this beautifully.

As for paragraphs 5-7 of your post, it sounds plausible, but is mostly conjecture and supposition. Scripture always bears itself out. If you care to support this with scripture, we can talk more.

Paragraph 8. No, Abram did not inquire, you then link that to a “set-man” and the local assembly concept of ask no question? There is no scriptural mandate for this “set-man” idea. An assembly of believers is never accountable to or led by one person. It is always a plurality of elders, except in Gods basic unit, which is the family, led by the husband.

Like I said in response to your first post, interesting reading. But I am yet to be persuaded.

God bless

Drusilla/Gwaine,

I've enjoyed listening in on your discussion.

"Another Jesus"?

In fact quite a few of them. While we all fall short, but it's hard not to see that there are wholesale attempts to "re-invent" The Lord and "re-engineer" the faith, so the gospel no longer challenges or confronts, so there's no longer a cross. Whatever your state, you can find a church that will comfort and not challenge you.

The Bible is littered with examples of those (usually the very people one would consider custodians of the oracles of God) who insist on worshipping God on their own terms.

The modern day outworking seen in half truths and heresies like the "prosperity gospel" previously mentioned.

And yes, I witness that a Holy Spirit led reading of the scriptures definitely helps one discern, but even a literal reading of scripture must make one wonder at some of the excesses?

With another Jesus, comes another gospel and another spirit.

Thought provoking. Please, if you have more insight to share, I'd like to hear it.

God bless.

Hi TayoD,

Saw your post. I thought it made interesting reading, but I can't say I agree with your conclusions.

Are you saying that tithes are the "gift" part of the priestly ministry? and/or, that tithing is for the priesthood? and/or, that tithing is a reflection of what we think of ourselves as His work and our place in His creation?

You also seem to be saying that there is a mystery to the tithe, which goes something like this;
~ God spoke ten creation commands
~ one of which pertains to mankind
~ to "identify" with the creation (God as Creator?) we must "identify" with this particular command
~ We do this by giving a "tenth" (the best tenth)
~ The fact that a "tenth" was stipulated in the Levitical law "suggests" this is correct
~ It is expected of "each one of His creation"

I haven't read the book you referenced, but this explanation is totally new to me.
In fact, maybe I don't disagree, maybe I just don't get it?

I'd appreciate if you could elucidate some more.

God bless.

Elampiro, well said.
Gwaine, I read your reply to Elampiro's post (forgive me if I'm wrong) as you essentially agreeing?

Just like in the world many in "church" are very keen to remove gender distinctions.
The Bible while not ajudging men to be superior to women, clearly outlines different roles, areas of influence and expectations of men and women. Attested to by the complimentary differences in our make-up.

The whole "Reverend/Pastor Mrs" phenomenon (and I fall about laughing whenever I hear the "Prophetess to the nations" tag) is a shame. Subverting God's ordained order to the will worship of weak men and manipulative women.

The Lord knows those who are His.

God bless

Hi Gwaine,

Gwaine:
That was all I was after - to clarify from you how the OT precepts had
become redundant. And after all, we've come back to ground zero to
note that the "precepts" have not been redundant - as you proffered
with the examples of circumcision and Love of God. They may have
different forms of application in both covenants, but the precept as
such holds true.

Do I understand your point as being;
The law has not been made redundant, rather it has changed (Hebrews 7:12)?

So for example, Atonement still has to be made for sin, but I don't have to kill anything (Due to the once for all time sacrifice of the Lord) ? And things are more spiritual (i.e. circumcision) than physical?

If so, point taken. And I'm more than happy to concede that you are right.

In the context of the discussion, I was making the point about mis- (interpretation, application, use) of the OT precepts in the NT dispensation. So is atonement redundant? No. But sacrifice of livestock certainly is. Is anointing done away with ? No, but is it solely for one or a few? No!

I hope I've made myself clear.

As for the references to Judaic practice, I was being equally facetious.

God bless

Hi Gwaine,

Let me try and clarify my position.

The essence of the OT was Love of God and your neighbour. I don't see that as having changed in the NT. But we have moved from a works based/appeasement/ritual/lawkeeping way of doing so.

Circumcision is always a good metaphor. It was of "the flesh" now it's of "the heart".

So does the precept on physical circumcision still apply? No (that's my position anyway).
And does that in any way detract from Love of God or man? Again no.

As a general rule I find that anything from the OT that is relevant in the NT is usually mentioned in the NT.

I hope I've made myself clearer.

God bless

ps, If you do choose the "Jewish Priest" option, presumably you get to keep some of the offering?
However, I won't be seeing you at the synagogue. It'll have to be a proper temple or at least
a transportable Tabernacle.

Hi Gwaine,

Thanks for your rejoinder. In response to your post.

Gwaine:
So, how has the OT precepts become redundant?

As concisely stated by mrmayor, the whole of the OT is summed up in the Royal law of Christ. Love, for God and one another.

Am I saying that the OT is irrelevant in it's entirety? No, I am not. But clearly somethings do not apply. Not to mention that some things are being blatantly missapplied to the detriment of the faith and the brethren in this dispensation.

Point in question ~ "Touch not my anointed"

In the OT only Kings, Prophets & Priests were anointed. Now all who put their faith in Christ are. In the NT the word is used twice, once to assure us that we all have the anointing and once in relation to the sick. Not to mention that the three OT roles mentioned are in a sense inherent in all believers in this dispensation.

The use of TNMA to silence legitimate questions or testing amongst brethren is not biblical. As is it's use to elevate certain people beyond accountability, regardless of their actions or utterances.

Gwaine:
Are you quarrelling with some people or what?  

Nothing personal sir, but having experienced liberty in Christ, the thought of becoming a "slave to men" is anathema to me. I also realise it's my duty to contend earnestly for the faith once and for all delivered to the saints (i.e. me!). Am I always right? No. Do I get it wrong? Often. I am more than happy to be corrected when in error and assured when in doubt. I am subject to rebuke, chastening and scourging like everyone else.

Gwaine:
"No one"? Your statements are so broad yet sadly narrow in the sense that
there are lots of Christians actually sacrificing, suffering, enduring privation,
rejection and abasement in witnessing for the Lord Jesus.

Apologies for the broadness of my statement. "No one" was a bit sweeping, and not meant to be taken strictly as read. Apologies also to those who are truly witnessing for Christ. I trust they will not take offence, knowing it was not directed at them.

God bless

ps, What do you reckon? will 2 turtledoves adequately atone for my misuse of words? or maybe I could get away with a simple grain offering?

Hi Otokx,

otokx:
there is an erroneous doctrine which some lazy Christians have taking to, they are taught that giving to the church, pastors is the best form of investment

Well said. And so true.
1. First they reinvented the meaning and essence of the term "Pastor".
2. Then they re-engineered his mandate, and
3. reinforced this error by missaplying OT precepts like "Touch not my annointed", they
4. then bolstered this with "bless the man of God and God will bless you" teaching, and
5. nailed it with warped interpretations of authority and submission.

otokx:
They don't understand that the gospel is about things of eternal value.

No, because they are too busy plugging/being suckered by  the "give to get" teaching (and always in the here and now).

Having re-introduced redundant OT precepts, they couldn't help but bring the promises along with them. All material. All temporal.

One of the big differences in the NT is "Eternal Life in Christ Jesus"
No one want to so much as contemplate the sacrifice, suffering, privation, rejection and abasement that one may well have to go through to truly witnes for Him and lay hold of that.

It's religion for the greedy, venal and downright rapacious.
The cross has no meaning for such.

It's church Lord, but not as we know it!  .

God bless

Hi mlks_baby, syrup, goodguy,

Thanks for taking the time to post responses and apologies for not replying earlier, I've been away and offline.

I'll try and answer as many rejoinders as I can. Maybe It'll help if I state a few positions. Please don't take offence at my failure to append chapter and verse, I'm writing ad hoc.

CHURCH
~ I don't subscribe to the notion that church is something one goes to. I am more of the mind that church is something one is a part of. Presumably some people at least understand (if not agree) what I mean, when they themselves state that church is the "body of Christ". I don't see it as location or destination. "When you come together as a church" 1 Corinthians 11. To me wherever Christians gather is church. Choosing not to attend a place/institution called church, does not mean one is forsaking fellowship or assembling.

~ As yet, nobody has been able to give numbers. As I said where two or three are gathered and glorifying Him. It is church. I also maintain that real intimacy/relationship between believers is simply impossible if the relationships/numbers are too numerous. It is simply not practical/possible.

~ And I am not saying that a Christian is a church. John Smith is a Smith individually and a member of the Smith family collectively. And if John meets with one or more other Smiths then it's the Smith family assembling. Smith is what John is, not somewhere John goes. I feel my simple analogy is more consistent than saying John is only a Smith when he goes to a certain place or in a certain location which is what I am hearing? Maybe it's our fundamental perspectives that differ?

TEMPLES
~ In Acts 7 and again in 17, the Bible clearly states that God is not interested in physical temples (It's why Stephen was martyred). In John 4, The Lord disabuses the "lady by the well" of the notion that worship of God is mandated to a place or location.

~ As for the point about Solomons temple, surely no one is arguing that as a basis for the obsession with physical buildings (by some) in this dispensation?

~ The Temple that the early Christians gathered in was a relic of Judaism. I don't believe it was the place, so much as the gathering. The physical temple was simply convenient. Please check the layout of the temple and the location of Solomons porch. From "House to House" appears to me to have been the norm for the early church. From the Tabernacle in the Wilderness all the way to the Temple rebuilt by Ezra, the intent was a physical dwelling place for the Lords Glory. Now we are that Temple, Christ in us is that Glory. There are two words translated Temple in the NT one refers back to the physical temple of the OT and the other to the Body of Christ of the NT.

~ So yes, maybe my use of the phrase "God hates" may not rest well with some, I apologise to anyone who is offended by my use of it or my appearing to legislate for God (pray have mercy Lord!). But again, is anyone arguing that physical temples in this day and age are somehow core/essential to Christianity and a delight to God?

RELIGION
~ Oft times we use this term differently. And yes, I tend to use the term pejoratively. But even where it is used in James, it is qualified with "pure & undefiled". So even the Bible recognises that there is religion that is not pure (works/appeasement based). When I say religion in the pejorative sense, I mean temples, mediatory priesthoods, rituals, sacrifices and the like. To my mind, when it comes to Christianity such things are simply needless. I read the posts in Religion vs Relationship and the difference was really in use of words. I saw that, essentially agreed and so so didn't bother posting.

If I've failed to state anything clearly or if anything remains unanswered, please let me know.

Good to be back.

God bless

TayoD:
I think the issue of wealth management should lie on the shoulders of the Pastor.

mlks_baby:
Wisdom there, and I agree.

TayoD & Mlks_baby,

As noted in my previous post, I take fundamental issue with the whole "pastor" concept. But laying that difference aside, I personally still don't consider that statement about wealth management to be wise.

1. We are all stewards of whatever God entrusts to our care (1 Corinthians 4:1-2, 1 Peter 4:10)
2. We shall all individually give account for said resources Luke 16, Romans 13:12, Hebrews 4:13)

Personally (i.e just me!), I don't think equating pastors to Paul a foundational Apostle or Eli an OT Priest, is correct, or validates that kind of practice. NT Christians share each others burdens and minister to each others needs. By all means honour elders who labour, but I don't think that stretches to intimidatory and coercive appeals in order to shake down the flock. Why do people feel the need to be apologists for what is plainly unscriptural practice?


God bless

TV01

Hi Peeps,

I've been in Nigeria for a little while.
I purposely stayed offline and away from telly and the papers.
I felt blessed to fellowship with a few people, who where starting to lift up their heads
and question some of the practices and outworkings of "Christianity" as currently practised.

Otokx dude,

That kind of practice is to be expected where precepts like "bless the man of God and God will bless you" are callously rammed down peoples throats. Combined with distorted teaching on authority and submission, a lot of what is called "church" these days is nothing short of "cultic" in the nastiest sense of the word.

Personally my position is this - Money moves in the body of Christ in response to need (that is personal physical or material need, not temples, programs or other pointless religious activity).

The last few verses of Matthew 25 speak powerfully to this. Help the needy not the greedy.

Hope this helps.


God bless

TV01


ps.
As for the term/office/function "pastor", no one has yet been able to show me a pastors mandate (as widely practiced in the "church" today) from the bible. I can't find the pastor as head/leader anywhere in scripture. The word itself is a transliteration and appears once in the NKJV. Men make it what they like and they use it as they please! How sad. Pastor is like a first name nowadays. I ask peoples names and they say "pastor" this or that, just appending their surnames. A man-made functional approach to Christianity. Relationship anyone?

Hi mlks_baby,

Sorry you think I'm being needlessly semantic? let me clarify.

Is a good Christian a Church? No, that's not what I am saying.
A good Christian is church waiting to happen. Once gathered with fellow believers to/or in worship and glorification church is happening.

So please educate me,
when does the "whole" become church? How many? What exactly constitutes a collective in your view?

If you yourself say "Church is the body of Christ"
How does it become something you go to? instead of something you are a part of?

As for being semantic, you took the last five words of my post and (to my mind anyway) pointlessly quibbled over them, ignoring the body of the post which clearly outlines my position. Ultimately leaving me non the wiser as to what your think of my position, or indeed what yours is.

Please, if you disagree with or misunderstand anything I post, please say so. And if you have an alternative viewpoint I'd love to hear it. Presumably that why we call it a discussion?

God bless

Hi Syrup,

A huge effort. Well done, much appreciated.
I have copied to take away, study and come back with my comments and questions.

You may not make a tither of me, but you might just make make me a bit of an academic .

God bless

Good afternoon,

I suppose someday, people will come to the realisation that

"not forsaking our own assembling together" is not synonymous with "going to church"
Kind of like "going to church" is not synonymous with "being a Christian"

The "assembling" in the above verse is always married with "exhorting/encouraging"
Assembling is not an end in itself.

Deep relational type fellowship is the intent. I personally find that very rare in the "Institutionalised Church" that predominates in this day and age.

The kind of fellowship, where peoples burdens are shared, needs are met and growth fostered like in the book of Acts is virtually non existent.

Ask yourself, how many of the people in the church you attend really know your deep concerns? your pressing issues? and your infirmities and actually minister to you right there? (And likewise yourself to others?) In fact, most people go to great lengths to keep what really ails them well hidden, and put on a happy face along with their best outfits.

Only where that happens is there true fellowship and the whole point of assembling satisfied. Otherwise all you've done is gather a crowd.

How long before the simple truth of church not being "something you go" to but "something you are" truly hits home?

It's why people always trot out the assembling (in it's loosest sense) argument to support religious church attendance, and completely miss the fact that where two or three are gathered in His name, he is there.

Pray tell, if the Lord is truly in the midst of a gathering, what is missing? "and truly our fellowship is with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ".

Assembling/Fellowship/Church is never mandated to a particular place or building. Infact, God hates physical temples (but that's another thread  )

A good Christian is church.

God bless

Hi Lunafish,

lunafish:
I am a theist (someone who believes in God)
I pray
I adopt a lot of Chrirstian values and characteristics into my life
I have a relationship with God

The basic essentials of Christianity (without writing a book  )
Repentance towards God, faith in Jesus Christ and rebirth by the Holy Spirit.

Think about it! Adopting Christian values is in a sense only something a non Christian can do?
(So for example an Indian boy adopting African values, remains an Indian. But an Indian boy cannot adopt Indian values, he is Indian. I hope I am making myself clear).

Christian (Christlike) characteristics don't come by adoption, they come by enduement.

For the relationship with God you mention to be the "God" of the Bible, please see my first point.

lunafish:
I am a theist (someone who believes in God)
How can I not be identified as a Christian?

Re  my point above, You haven't actually succeeded in identifying yourself as one.

lunafish:
Or does your spiritual superiority complex make you feel that I'm not?

No, my spiritual superiority complex (blast, is it that obvious?  ) is not what stops me from identifying you as a Christian. Your statements about yourself do that entirely on their own.

May the God & Father of my Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ bless you.

Hi Syrup,

I appreciate how busy you must be. The Lord is your strength.

I thought I'd made my position pretty clear on the whole "----cracy" question?
Is there something in particular you wish to bring my attention too?

You still haven't given me much idea as to what informs your position, both on the "----cracy" question, and regards tithe as a whole.

As time permits.

Hope all is well

God bless.

Why has it gone quiet all of a sudden? 

Is churchgoing necessary to be a good Christian?

No it is not.

lunafish:
I'm a theist because I believe in God.
I'm also a humanist. (Google it people-we all are)
Call me a Humanist believer.
I pray but do not do any other form of worship such as churchgoing.

I find that my God gives me strength, comfort and the motivation to go on- I feel these things without being in church.
I try to live my life being who I am trying to do right-I'm no angel but I have good intentions.
I am not judgemental and try to understand others.
These happen to be quite Christian values-therefore
If one is living a positive lifestyle with a relationship wth God, is church really necessary?

However, your statement above does not necessarily identify you as a Christian.

God bless.

lioness:
you mean this evolution crap is still going on?

Let's just say it's evolving .

To be honest, I'm quite enjoying the cut and thrust. Keep up the good work guys.

I'll remain non-participatory, keeping my obviously biased, yet totally unschooled opinion to myself.

God bless

Hi Syrup,

Back again,

1 Samuel 8:11 And he said, "This will be the behavior of the king who will reign over you: He will take your sons and appoint them for his own chariots and to be his horsemen, and some will run before his chariots. 12 He will appoint captains over his thousands and captains over his fifties, will set some to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and some to make his weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. 13 He will take your daughters to be perfumers, cooks, and bakers. 14 And he will take the best of your fields, your vineyards, and your olive groves, and give them to his servants. 15 He will take a tenth of your grain and your vintage, and give it to his officers and servants. 16 And he will take your male servants, your female servants, your finest young men, F21 and your donkeys, and put them to his work. 17 He will take a tenth of your sheep. And you will be his servants. 18 And you will cry out in that day because of your king whom you have chosen for yourselves, and the Lord will not hear you in that day." 19 Nevertheless the people refused to obey the voice of Samuel; and they said, "No, but we will have a king over us, 20 that we also may be like all the nations, and that our king may judge us and go out before us and fight our battles."

Please not verses 15 & 17, they both say a tenth. That is what a tithe is. But what was it called? Tax, tribute, levy or custom.

Verse 19 "But we will have a king over us" A clear rejection of Theocracy, and for that matter ecclessiocracy (they refused to obey the voice of Samuel).

God bless

Hi Virozuru,

virozuru:
Why do you separate the New Testamnet from the Old?

I'm not quite sure how you mean, but it's more a distinction between the Old and the New Covenant.

God bless

Hi Syrup,

Good morning and thanks for your response. I quite appreciate how your views are forcing me to think mine through. So to business (I may answer in parts as time allows).

syrup:
Theocracy did not end in I Samuel 8 - else would David have been something other than God's gracious purposes for His people Israel (I Samuel 16:1 & 13). The people didn't ask for a king in David's case, but God Himself chose a king after His own heart.

Theocracy was God's way. I'm currently reading through the OT and I'm at Exodus right now. It's quite clear that God did not even desire a mediatory priesthood. That was introduced because the people refused to meet with Him as He desired. Please read Exodus 19/20 to clarify this. The people refused Gods offer of a universal priesthood. So God gave them a mediatory one. That was the introduction of the ecclessiocracy.

Likewise the monarchy. It was never Gods intention. His plan has always to be amongst His people as their King. A monarchy was never God's desire. And as I mentioned, the consequences of monarchical rule were clearly spelt out in 1 Sam chapter 8. The people demanded a monarchy, so God gave them one. It was indeed Gods graciousness that raised up king David, but again, please read the history of the monarchical lineages in both Judah and Israel. Are we to conclude that the almost universally line of evil kings (especially in Israel, which was not the true throne) was Gods will?

That is why there always had to be a new covenant.

Hebrew 8:6 But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, inasmuch as He is also Mediator of a better covenant, which was established on better promises. 7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second. 8 Because finding fault with them, He says: "Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah-- 9 not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they did not continue in My covenant, and I disregarded them, says the Lord. 10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My laws in their mind and write them on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 11 None of them shall teach his neighbor, and none his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,' for all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them.

Please tell me, was the fault Gods? No! It was the demands of men.
That is always the problem. Men insisting on worshipping God in a way they deem fit.
It's outworking is so prevalent today, that few can actually discern the difference. God does not mandate (and true worshipers do not require) mediators

The religion of temples, mediatory priests, sacrifice and the like was given to men because they demanded it. Does anyone think religion is God's idea?  God hates religion. In Christ Jesus, all those things are done away with. No more temples, no more mediators , no more rituals. But men won't have it. The Lord cries for and offers relationship. Many Christian tradions pay it lip service, but the hierarchies, cathedrals, traditions and the like always give the game away.

In a very real sense, the NC is God doing things the way they always should have been the way they were always meant to be. His way. His will is perfect.

Exodus 19:3 And Moses went up to God, and the Lord called to him from the mountain, saying, "Thus you shall say to the house of Jacob, and tell the children of Israel: 4 'You have seen what I did to the Egyptians, and how I bore you on eagles' wings and brought you to Myself. 5 Now therefore, if you will indeed obey My voice and keep My covenant, then you shall be a special treasure to Me above all people; for all the earth is Mine. 6 And you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.'

So your references to taxes by the Kings of Israel/Judah are a consequence of the people demanding a monarchy. which I mentioned in my post prior.

TV01:
I am aware of the temple tax and of course that the Israelites would have had to pay taxes when subject to foreign rule. One last point, the kings of Israel/Judah would have demanded taxes, but that was a consequence of them asking for a king (at that point I suppose they ceased to be a theocracy and God did warn them in 1 Samuel ch8). If there is evidence of another relevant tax, I'll have to 'fess up to poor scholarship on this point.

So I disagree. True Theocracy ended in Exodus, with the advent of the ecclesiocracy. The introduction of the monarchy in 1 Samuel 8 just worsened matters. Before the monarchy, there was no other significant form of tax (minor levies maybe), just the tithe.

I'm looking forward to your reply and I trust all is well.

God bless

Hi Syrup,

As I said earlier, where faith/culture/government all merge, I don't see how the tithe could be seen as anything other than tax? The tithe was imposed by God. I am not aware of;

~ any other levy posed by God,
~ if any other person (in the priesthood?), would have been able to ask for a tax or   
   tithe or
~ what the reason for it would have been?

I am aware of the temple tax and of course that the Israelites would have had to pay taxes when subject to foreign rule. One last point, the kings of Israel/Judah would have demanded taxes, but that was a consequence of them asking for a king (at that point I suppose they ceased to be a theocracy and God did warn them in 1 Samuel ch8). If there is evidence of another relevant tax, I'll have to 'fess up to poor scholarship on this point.

I am not saying that tithes = tax.
I am saying that tithe in the OT dispensation equated to tax.
I am not saying Christians should'nt pay taxes.
I am saying Christians don't pay tithes

I am also hoping my position/reasoning are a little clearer now.

Thanks very much.

Maybe you be so kind as to share your insight. On tax as tithe, and tithe generally.

God bless

Hi Syrup,

Thanks for taking the time.

If I stressed that we are talking about two kingdoms here (as opposed to two dispensations),
would that help?

~ As citizens we live in the World, another kingdom - We render to Caesar his due.
~ As the Family of God our King, we are not of this world, and Kings do not demand taxes from
their sons, hence the reference to Matthew 17:25

Dispensationally, tithes were the tax of the OC. There are non in the new. Christians give from the heart, in response to need in the Body. God responds to that.

Hope this makes my position a little clearer, even if no more agreeable.

God bless

Hi Allonym,

allonym:
Ahh, here is an interesting question. The problem here is that you are assuming that all churches are supposed to survive. I don't think that God mandated that once any person decided to start a church, it MUST be kept alive through tithe and offering, or kept alive at all. Not all churches survive beyond a few years - this should not be a bad thing, and certainly, cannot just be attributed to tithing or a lack thereof.

Here I personally have a different viewpoint.

Yes, all churches are supposed to survive, simply because there is only One. One of the planets in our solar system, has I believe 11 moons? (Please don't stone me if I'm wrong here, I am simply making a point). All of them have names. The earth has only one moon. So why bother naming it? So no one ever did. Likewise the Church.

Again, a man starting a church? No need, the Lord accomplished that work (with His Apostles and Prophets). Church is something you are. You simply join fellowship with other believers in your locale. Wherever there are believers, there is church.

If a man decides to start an organisation and call it church, fine. If he decides to fund it with tithes, again fine. But I see no Biblical mandate for that. If such an organisation "fails" due to cash flow problems (like many other organisations do), that should not surprise. If "God" is indeed in an endeavor, how can it fail?

The bride of Christ will be here until her Lord comes for her.

God bless.

Hi Syrup,

I see now, you don't agree that tithing by religious diktat is in any way related to taxes?

My point being that the Israelites under Theocracy where commanded to pay tithes.
At that point, the Jewish/Culture/Faith/Government all merged, so my stance is that tithing was essentially taxation to them. (Used to run/care for the government; the priesthood. Used for social welfare; the needy. And as a form of worship; the feasting).

Christians are not governed by those same laws, all such laws being fulfilled by the birth, sinless life, death and resurrection of The Lord.

NT Christians simply give. God does not demand taxes or tithes (if you prefer) from His people.
Christians pay taxes as demanded by the nations in which they live.

I raised this particular point in response to Allonyms post.

I appreciate you may not agree that one can make a connection between tithing and taxation, but that in no way changes my stance on the fact that tithing is simply not a Christian imperative.

If you have anything to show to the contrary, please say on.

God bless.

Hi Syrup,

You are right, "Theocracy" it is. I'd never actually come across the derivation "Ecclessiocracy", and I took the first to mean the last.

Thank you for that and apologies for my improper word use  .

Now, about my error.

God bless

Hi Krysty,

The Christian walk is oft times hard and can sometimes be lonely.
But remember,  The Lord promises to be always with you.

I find it helps (and is important) to fellowship (and I mean true, close and  personal relationship) with other Christians (some who should be quite mature). The closeness of the relationship should mean they always have you in mind (intercede for you), will be available to give you sound biblical counsel (based on actually knowing you and caring about you), and will of course pray with you.

I hope this helps.

May the Good Lord lift up His countenance upon you.

God bless

Hi Syrup,

I don't want to get to far off topic, but I am happy to take the time to answer your questions.

When the Israelites came out of Egypt, through the time the law was given up until the time they demanded a king, God (through various prophets/judges etc) personally ruled the Israelite nation. That's what I mean by "Godocracy". True "Lordship" if you please. Whilst we have "Theocracies", I don't think that we have any nation in this age that has ceded rule back to God. I trust this makes my position a little clearer? If not please do say. However, if it makes better reading to you to use the word "theocracy", please feel free to do so.

I think it important to be precise so as to correctly convey my position. I do at times use words with my own distinctions in mind, neglecting to note that others may not make the same distinction. Apologies if I've done that here.

Now, can we please return to my error. I'm interested to hear how I have erred, so that like a true gentleman I can proffer an apology .

God bless