₦airaland Forum

Bro' TayoD,

Point taken. The EFCC should not go willy nilly (or for dubious political reasons) into investigating churches. But if the evidence leads them there (as per your example), they should investigate to the full extent of their powers.

Above and beyond EFCC activity, what I am saying is, given the structure and set-up of many church institutions, they should be subject to well defined government imposed laws regarding how they collect and disburse money from the public. And any true Church of the Lord Jesus Christ will have nothing to fear, as transparency should be evident in all our dealings. Will we not have a good report amongst those who are without the church?

Your point about Paul and "judging in the church" is I think a slightly different issue. A dispute between Christians (individually or collectively), is best subject to the Word and discernment of other mature Christians. But mis-application of funds within Churches is of state as well as religious concern.

Take for example the ongoing allegations against the CPA MOG, "Rev King". Should those charges be dealt with by the church? If the Church where to judge and return a guilty verdict, what punishment would they impose? Just like the Jews under the Romans had no right to put anyone to death (I love the Bible, it always aligns perfectly), neither is the Church, charged with imposing sanctions for crimes that are punishable under criminal law. Maybe civil law cases in some instances. Please don't lets creep towards a Christian form of Sharia.

Say on sir,

God bless

Mmmmmmmmm, let me think,

lafile:
What do you think about christians participating in politics.

Bad idea, we have a divine mandate to fulfil and enough to keep us occupied. Politics, commerce and culture (the world) are effectively under the sway of the evil one.

lafile:
And what about Rev. Chris Okotie? What happens to his church while he is serving as president?

I don't know what will happen to his church while he is serving as President, but the "Church of Jesus Christ" will be just fine. Not that I think he will make President, or even care.

lafile:
don't you think the calling of a pastor is higher than that of a king?

If you mean a secular king, no. If you mean a spiritual king, no. So that's a no then.

TayoD started a similar thread, but turned tail when he realised how misguided and contra scriptural the whole idea is. Let's end this real quick.

God bless

Hi TayoD,

Why should anything have to be defined? In any ordered society, there are laws subjecting institution that take money from the public to full accountability to the rule of law. And yes, money laundering and corruption are obvious concerns. Money collected by church institutions effectively disappears into a "black hole".

May I remind you that the Bible asks Christians and hence Church to be subject to the rule of law. If churches are collecting and using money according to Biblically mandated principles, how can they fall short of mans laws? What could they possibly have to fear?

Hi Crazykid,

Could you please educate me about how the work the Church was asked to do involves collecting money?


Hi Akintos_o,

Presumably you are aware that "Divine Obligation" subjects Christians/The Church to the secular rule of law. Additionally, God uses the secular state to punish wrongdoers. I find both your reasoning and theology somewhat puzzling


My particular fellowship welcomes any level, degree or number of probes from the authorities under whose jurisdiction we reside  !


"The Law is not for the righteous"

God bless

In my best Naija accent ~ Yes O!

, so we are all agreed then?

Hi All,

Akintos_o ~ Firstly, a proper reading of the Bible clearly shows that the role/position/office of "Pastor" as currently used in many Nigerian churches does not exist.

Listen carefully, God does not assign a pastor to anyone, or anyone to a pastor.

With that in mind I'll share a little of what I believe the Bible instructs on this delicate issue.
Parents are responsible for raising their children to adulthood/maturity. Giving their offspring away in marriage is the final step in releasing them into full adulthood.

Prior to marrying children are under their parents authority. The choice of who to marry is ultimately the childs, but it should be done with the utmost regard to the judgement and in consultation with the parents. In fact I would go as far as to say that if good Christian parents object for solid reasons thy can show scriptural backing and discernment for, the marriage should at least be put on hold. It's the parents who are charged with preparing and readying their children for marriage (knowing God's will, understanding the roles, responsibilities, the personal and societal import, the characteristics of a suitable spouse etc. etc).

"For this reason a man shall leave his father & mother"

Pastor who? for what?? what for

notes:

1. Quite a few of us are first generation or "immigrant" Christians. As such the well developed christian family structure, that arises from generations of Christianity may not be in place. Many become Christians late in life. They may be orphans or the children of unbelievers with different values and marriage traditions. There is obviously need for remedial action to ensure that Christians marry in a Christian manner. This is to some degree captured by marriage/ singles forums. But the truth is these should not be the norm.

2. It makes absolute sense to broaden consultations and incorporate a wider body of knowledge/experience into the process. Mature Christians, elders and long married couples should be consulted to help prepare the couple in the aspects of and changes wrought by marriage. But again the best model is always upright Christian parents. The Lord knew that Abraham would command his family after him. In the absence of these, see point 1 above.

I hope this helps. But please feel free to diasgree or otherwise comment.

God bless

Hi Missy,

Thanks for the response.
Again quite lengthy, and again I took my time to read through it all.

Let me reverse quote some of the post to you;

Study 1
From this information, researchers concluded that if in fact there was a "homosexual gene", it appeared to be passed down from mother to son. This means that heterosexual females are carriers of this gene, and when it is passed down to a male child, there is a chance that the child will be a homosexual. While this study did not come up with any hard core facts about the genetics of homosexuality, it showed that a connection very well could exist.

Study 2
Keep in mind though, that this is just a region of the X chromosome, not a specific gene. Although researchers are hopeful, a single gene has not yet been identified

Hamer's study also acknowledges the fact that while it does suggest that there is a gene that influences homosexuality, it has not yet been determined how greatly the gene influences whether or not a person will be homosexual (4). In addition, Hamer attempted to locate a similar gene in female homosexuals, but was unsuccessful

Study 3
Another study took place in 1993 by Macke et al. This study examined the same gene locus as the Hamer study, but found that it had no influence on homosexuality. As you can see, the results on this topic are still extremely varied and reasonably new, so it is difficult to come to any lasting conclusion.

And so on and so forth. Blind me with science and dizzy me with words, but your sources themselves admit that there is as yet nothing conclusive.

So as you can see its at best conjecture, supposition and hypothesis, nothing concrete, nothing absolute. If there is a gene, a sequence of genes or even a readily identifiable gene locus, it would be clamoured from the rooftops.

Did I say conjecture? supposition, and hypothesis? That's just diplomatic me. The Holy Bible calls it vain imaginations, the profane and idle babblings and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge.

Man is a fallen creature, body and soul/spirit. The fall has caused physical (genetic) as well as spiritually corruption. Even if such a gene could be identified, it would change nothing. Man in his original God created estate did not have homosexuality in his make-up.

Doubtless the search will go on for this elusive gene. And doubtless the homosexual lobby will deploy all the "scientific", sociological and any other kind of evidence they can muster to force their case for normalising what the bible calls a perverse lifestyle.

The Lord Jesus Christ died to free us from the power of sin. Homosexuality is sin, The Lord can and will free those who believe from the power of sin.

God bless.

Hi Missy,

MIZIEYA:
tv01,
If you're too lazy to read the whole post, and yet expect me to qualify a query, think again Missy.

I did read the whole post. As I thought I made clear, I did'nt have the time to research and answer everything point, but in order to kick off the discussion, I started with my first point of difference.

Do I detect evasive action?

God bless

Yes you most certainly did, now repent kia kia! 

Hi MIZIEYA,

Lengthy post and I don't have the time to respond to it all just at the moment.

MIZIEYA:

Modern genetic science has shown that homosexuality is the natural state of being for some human beings. If that is truly the case, and I believe that it is, based upon the scientific studies posted upon the Internet by actual genetic scientists connected with prestigious Universities, then it is God who is responsible for the condition of homosexuality just as it is God who is responsible for the condition of heterosexuality. To say that homosexuality is deviant behavior is to say that God made a mistake.

But with reference to the portion quoted above, "Modern Genetic Science" has done no such thing. Nor has it made and substantiated any such claim. Unless of course you can show differently.

God (in Chrst) bless

Hired. Oops, deepest apologies my Lord, that should read enthroned. Forever!

Hi 4get_me,

Perhaps it’s perspectives that differ.

I think to some degree we are in agreement. I don’t subscribe to the notion of Christians being freelancers. Nor of enslavement, nor of “rule = control”.

I often hear Hebrew 13 v7 & 17 wheeled out when the question of obedience, rule, and submission are brought up. However, I think I see Drusilla’s point particular in reference to her earlier post speaking about the “Nicolaitan” issue in the church.

As ever it is good to seek the whole counsel of God.

Mark 10:42 But Jesus called them to Himself and said to them, "You know that those who are considered rulers over the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. 43 Yet it shall not be so among you; but whoever desires to become great among you shall be your servant. 44 And whoever of you desires to be first shall be slave of all.

Or

Matthew 20:25 But Jesus called them to Himself and said, "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and those who are great exercise authority over them. 26 Yet it shall not be so among you; but whoever desires to become great among you, let him be your servant.

Or

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


I see God’s house as a family, with the only difference between believers being essentially the degree of maturity. Some of the more mature believers (provided they fulfil certain criteria) are charged with certain functions and it’s in everyone’s best interest that they are obeyed and submitted to in exercising their duties.

The bible outlines 3 areas of authority, the home, the church and the state. Just like the branches of government, these are not to be subsumed or otherwise compromised by each other.

So any control or rule is in a church setting. It is also pertinent to note that the phrase translated “rule over you” is used only 3 times in the NT and all in Hebrews 13 (7,17 & 24).

The word actually means “to go before, and thus to lead or guide”, which is entirely consistent with a sense of maturity (being led by an elder brother, I guess its why they are called elders!).

Agreed, the word can also be used to convey a sense of ruling and governing. But to my mind, this translation is wrong for 2 reasons.
1. It would contradict the opening scriptures I quoted and
2. It would actually mean that rule did mean control.

I believe that interpreting it as rule/control is what leads to the heretical doctrine of the Nicolaitans.

Further, the whole point of our coming together as believers is for two reasons
1. To care for one another
2. For edification and maturing of all (Ephesians 4)

So again, while we will probably always need and should take counsel. And maturity in absolute terms and certain areas will always vary, I don’t see a pupil/tutor relationship, rather a fellowship of maturing siblings.

Again, maybe it’s perspective. Does God set particular people as leaders? Or is leadership a function of maturity and say gifting. Now all are gifted and all should grow in maturity. Do I eschew preaching/teaching? No, but I believe that it is primarily a work of the Word and the Spirit. So we are all taught, can be taught and can teach.

I don’t see a clergy/laity or leader/follower split, which I see as part and parcel of the Nicolaitan error.

Lot's of common ground I think.

God bless

Hi All,

It's renegade me, posting off topic again. My defence is wherever the discussion leads.

Hi 4get_me, long time. I noticed (and dare I say it missed your absence), presumably you where on vacation/sabbatical/caught up etc. etc. Whatever sir, welcome back. Now to business;

Drusilla said;

Drusilla:
No preacher or church should have control over you and your life.

And in response 4get_me said;
[quote author=4get_me link=topic=23948.msg618322#msg618322 date=1158818958]Again, the Bible you believe in says:

"Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you" (Heb. 13:17).

"Likewise, ye younger, submit yourselves unto the elder. Yea, all of you be subject one to another, and be clothed with humility: for God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble" (I Pet. 5:5).[/quote]So 4get_me, please forgive me if I've misread you, but are you saying that a preacher or "church organisation" should have control over a born again believers life? And further insisting that that is what the Bible teaches?

I await and appreciate your response.

God bless

Ha!

BabyOsisi, you too?

Milks_Baby & BabyOsisi, you are two of the three girls (along with Syrup) I like to listen to on this forum. Yet you both seem to be diametrically opposed to me on this one!

babyosisi:
And have you all noticed how "God always seems to lead" the not too fine bros to the very cute sisters from a rich home and hardly the other way round.

If you feel no butterflies when you think of or see the person,he ain't the one. Period.

I am not legislating against physical attraction, but please, can that really be the basis of a lasting relationship? I see physically attractive girls every day!

So once again, BabyOsisi, may I ask, are you married? (and no, I am not being led, I am just curious. Unless of course you are really cute from a wealthy family, then I'm serious   !).

Sis' Syrup where are you? and what are you saying??

God bless

Hi mlks_baby,

Why do I always feel I'm being over familiar when I use your name? anyway!

As ever I like listening to your views, likwise this time around. But I must say, in this instance I beg to differ somewhat.

[quote author=mlks_baby link=topic=8963.msg256573#msg256573 date=1143471895]Don't let anyone 'mumu' you trowey. If you're not in love with someone, God can't lead you to spend the rest of your life with him. The chemistry has to be established between the both of you. I've had friends - many of them real gentlemen; even though some of them have asked the 64 million dollar question, it didn't go anywhere - and some of them are still friends with me today in more ways than I could ever have discovered in them. What is called 'God's leading' has today been abused by many to apply to just about anything - 'God is leading you to smile for me, God is leading you to come to my house, God is leading you to touch my shoulder, God is . . .' Haba!

My dear, if you can't feel your knees buckle for him when you look into his eyes, don't leap into his arms. Any adventure you take outside a conviction in yourself that God is actually leading YOU will be signed 'O-Y-O'. . on your own.[/quote]Forgive me if I'm wrong, but you appear to be rendering love primarily as a feeling?
I thought that mature Christian thought considered love more as an act or a gift?

Your emphasis seems to be mostly on "chemistry", surely that should be "character"?

Whist I agree that strong physical attraction is good, whether as a starting point or as a development, that should never be the primary basis for a comittment to marriage. Feelings blow hot and cold, are subject to changing circumstances and in all probability will never be equally matched at all times by both parties.

I won't touch on your personal experience, but even the references to "God leading" seem to suggest that plays little or no part for you? I realise that some take this to extremes or flagrantly abuse it, but being led by "The Spirit" is the prerogative of the sons of God. Surely any God fearing Christian (is there any other kind?) would at least subject potential spouses to scrutiny, by the Word and heartfelt prayer? and not just physical indications?

I believe that marriage is something Christians can be proactive about, but to make that choice (or any other) based primarily on physical indicators? Surely not?

Love is what you do after you are married, love can be built, grown, developed. Prior to marriage it's lot's of things, but it's not yet love, love becomes an imperative once married.

If "knee-buckling" chemistry was the pre-requisite, we'd all be lusting after Halle Berry or Taye Diggs (who would probably be married to each other, leaving the rest of us to burn in unrequited lust). I don't see it like that. Love based solely on looks and physical attraction is always at best temporary.

As for the original question. Can God lead you to someone? Yes!, but will you necessarily love them at first glance? No. The choice to marry and love them remains yours. God sees not as we see. The key is to "Have the mind of Christ" apply Godly wisdom and discernment and judge rightly whether the person in question is spouse material. If you decide they are, then marry and work at Lurve (a lot !),

Mlks-baby, may I ask if you are married?

God bless

Hi All,

My tuppence worth.

Christianity is a complete lifestyle (culture), and a holistic faith. To preach that one should, “respect God by dressing modestly in church”, but dress according to “personal desire” (and that desire is obviously carnal no matter how you dress it ~ or UnCloth it ~ pun intended  ) out of church, is too demonstrate fundamental misunderstandings about the faith and to reduce it too a religious exercise, which is ultimately futile.

The Bible is unambiguous about this. Revealing or form hugging clothes and outré bling-bling effects, are simply not Christian and totally unbecoming of the Saints of Christ - male or female. Not only should attire not be revealing, neither should it be “flashy”.

1 Timothy 2:9 ~  in like manner also, that the women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with propriety and moderation, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly clothing, 10 but, which is proper for women professing godliness, with good works.

1 Peter 3 ~  1 Wives, likewise, be submissive to your own husbands, that even if some do not obey the word, they, without a word, may be won by the conduct of their wives, 2 when they observe your chaste conduct accompanied by fear. 3 Do not let your adornment be merely outward--arranging the hair, wearing gold, or putting on fine apparel-- 4 rather let it be the hidden person of the heart, with the incorruptible beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is very precious in the sight of God. 5 For in this manner, in former times, the holy women who trusted in God also adorned themselves, being submissive to their own husbands, 6 as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord, whose daughters you are if you do good and are not afraid with any terror.

We are further enjoined too (paraphrased)
~ Let our moderation be made known to all
~ Do nothing to make our brothers stumble
~ Put the needs of others before ourselves
~ Do nothing to cause offence (to God, the brethren or even gentiles)
And one could go on and on. There is nothing in scripture to support indecent dressing or the notion of “a personal choice” if it engenders behaviour contrary to the Word. True Christianity is death to self, a life lived for Christ (or indeed, where Christ lives through you), as your life is not your own or lived by your own strength.

Deep down that kind of attire is all about self. True an exception can be made for the newly saved, but to elevate a doctrine of “personal choice” to being the rule (rather than an exception for anything other than newborn Christians) is simply not supported by the Bible.

A Christians wardrobe should be an outward reflection of the work of the Spirit in them. Self-Control as a fruit of the Spirit comes to mind. Someone said something about “dictating decency”. Christians don’t dictate or need to be dictated too, they are led by the Spirit. Indecent dressing is unmistakeably a dictate of one's flesh.

Why would a mature Christian have different dressing standards, at least in term of decency? Activity or function, maybe, but regards decency no, and it should be universal not just at church. Modesty and self-control is always flattering, whatever your natural endowments.

Be not deceived, if you dress no differently from the world, you are of the world.  I must say, I am becoming increasingly convinced that most of the “deceived” are at best self-deluded and at worst love being deceived. The Word of God is simple.

God bless

Hi @ Dearie,

Please do not worry yourself unduly about any monetary significance of "firstfruits", there isn't one, especially not in the NT dispensation.

Firstly, it has a deeper spiritual significance and refers more properly to the harvest of the people of God.

Secondly, along with the mis-interpretation and mis-application of the modern day "tithing" doctrine, is another instance of merchandisers twisting scripture to suit thier ill founded purposes.

God loves a cheerful giver. Give to the needy, not the greedy, and to your hearts content.

Hi @Dennylove,

In the first month, one would have to pay all the salary & a tithe. Totalling 110%
Please explain this apparent conundrum. Thanks.

God bless

TayoD,

Regards the "gift aspect" of the priestly duties ~ I have to say, you throw out a premise with no biblical basis, i.e. gift = tithe. You then take something that is nowhere shown in scripture and refuse to budge until we disprove it. If I did'nt no you better, I'd say you were just being willfully obstructive, or perhaps sensing the futility of your position, trying to force a technical draw.

But lets go back to scripture to see if we can resolve this conundrum.

Maybe Hebrews 9:9 and the surrounding verses may help;

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 where only ever symbolic. The cost of total atonement, a perfect conscience and access to God (that's the whole point sir), was the blood of the Lamb. It speaks better things my brother. The one time offering,

And how about this;

Matthew 5
23 Therefore if you bring your gift to the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, 24 leave your gift there before the altar, and go your way. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift. 25

Would you equate the gift referenced here with the tithe? Surely the correct place for the tithe is the storehouse?

Or indeed this;

Matthew 18
18 And, 'Whoever swears by the altar, it is nothing; but whoever swears by the gift that is on it, he is obliged to perform it.'

Since when did the gift (or tithe by your definition) become something placed on the altar, or sworn on?


God bless

Bro’ TayoD,

Thanks for your response, I almost missed it under the avalanche of posts on the main topic.

I must say I appreciate your backing up your position with reference to scripture. It means the discussion can be focused.

You wrote:
It is obvious from the letters that Timothy was Pastor over the church at Ephesus.

My response:
Actually it is not. Although without looking at the bigger picture, it is easy to see how one could draw that conclusion.

First a little background. Paul and most of those who laboured with him where very early Christians and the work they undertook pioneering in nature (quite often in places where the “Church” had not previously existed). They were responsible for setting up the church structure. So what we are talking about here is the apostolic, not the pastoral. 

The church was in its nascent stage and the instruction was how to set up and structure the church, not how he should run it as pastor. If there are only a few people who understand how church should be structured, ordered and run, the first task will be to raise up suitably qualified men to perform the necessary functions, hence the outline for eldership/bishoprics laid out in the epistles to Timothy & Titus.

Once a church was up and running the apostolic element is no longer required, which underlines why Peter referred to himself as an “Elder” (and a fellow one at that, not qualified by a term denoting seniority of any kind). The church was established, and as he was not in the business of advancing the church into new territory (say like Paul), his role would have been as one of a number of elders. Likewise James, whose obvious maturity and insight marked him out as such. If he was a “Pastor”, it would have been in the sense that bishop, shepherd, pastor and elder are all synonymous, not in the current day (mis)interpretation of a pastor having authority over elders. As mentioned in my previous post, nowhere does the bible suggest this. Not directly, not indirectly or by an explicitly outlined mandate that aligns with the current day (mis)interpretation of the so called pastoral role.

That is why elders is almost always referred to in the plural. A plurality of co-equal (although possibly varying in areas of activity or expertise), would be a great guard against the excessive celebrity cults and demi-god status of some modern day pastors.

You said:
It is obvious from these scriptures that the elders were well under Timothy's authority, and that is the way the church is set up.

My response:
Correct in the sense that it was Apostolic and not pastoral authority. And in the sense that is not the way the church "is set up", it’s the way the church "was set-up". Once established the only two church functionaries are elders and deacons (plural and male).

And yes, I agree all chains of authority peak into one person. “All authority is from God, and the sole head of the Church is the Lord Jesus Christ.

God bless

TayoD:
Historically, James is known to be the Pastor of the church in Jerusalem of which Peter was a member. Peter was obviously an elder in that church, and since an elder is still subject to a pastor, then we can safely deduce that Peter was subject to the authority of James within that local assembly.

TayoD,

Since we have discussed quite extensively and I am sure you know I hold you in high regard, let me be upfront with you.

Your inferences as stated above are simply not scriptural, nor indeed are they historic fact.

Granted James was of note amongst the saints, a mature and respected Christian and a voice that was often heard. But your calling him Pastor exposes what is nothing more than recieved tradition.

Firstly, James was not Peters Pastor, or for that matter anybody's pastor.
A Pastor is simply a variation on the word (and function of) Elder (likewise, Bishop, Presbyter, Shepherd etc, etc). So whilst your tradition/denomination may effect a hierarchy with elders subject to pastors, there is no biblical warrant for such an imposition

Secondly nowhere in scripture is a local assembly headed by the one man, it is always plurality or elders.

Thirdly, the word "pastor" is scarcely to be found in scripture, and neither is there contained therin the kind of remit or function ascribed to pastors in certain denominations these days. What I am hearing is the "traditions of men" and I'm sure you know where that leads. But if you can show otherwise from scripture, please enlighten me.

God bless.

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