₦airaland Forum

Febup:
No it is men that die that receive the tithes and not Christ:

In EVERY type of offering, it is men that die who receive them. God did not personally come down to receive your own offering in any way - unless you are bent on proving that YOU do not give at all! Please show me WHEN and WHERE you have ever given anything directly into the hand of God - did He ever come down to your address to receive it physically by Himself?

Men receive things from other men - there is no argument against that. Show me when God came down to receive yours in a different way!

Hebrews 7: 8
8 And here men that die receive tithes; but there he receiveth them, of whom it is witnessed that he liveth.

- "but there he receiveth them, of whom it is witnessed that he liveth". Please tell me: of whom is it witnessed that HE LIVETH?

If you pastors believe that Christ is alive you won't be collecting tithes for Christians today.

Again I ask: of whom is it witnessed that "HE LIVETH"? It's easy to see your doubts about the witness of Christ who LIVES.

@garyarnold,

^^ Mere excuses.

garyarnold:
Abram gave a tenth of the spoils to Melchizekek LONG BEFORE God changed his name to Abraham,

Nothing changes the fact that Abram is the very same person as Abraham ("Abram; the same is Abraham", 1 Chron. 1:27). When Hebrews speaks of his tithes to Melchizedek, the name used was Abraham, not Abram - showing that whether 'Abram' or 'Abraham' is used, it does not make any difference at all from the fact that the same person is being referred to.

and LONG BEFORE God made his covenant with Abraham which, by the way, said nothing about tithing.

You talk as if his tithes was a great sin the life of a man called to covenant blessings. Well, wake up! God had ALREADY called Abraham with a view to blessing him with the same covenant before and after he met Melchizedek. The terms of the covenant that he would be a father of nations are found in Gen. 12 before he met the priest of God, and also in Gen. 17 after he met the priest -

Gen. 12:2 - And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing;

Gen. 17:4 - As for me, behold, my covenant is with thee, and thou shalt be a father of many nations.

Even so, Scripture does not ignore the fact that Melchizedek who received tithes also blessed the same Abraham in recognition of the promises of God (Heb. 7:6).

Some tithers say they don't want to be legalistic, yet they keep the MOST LEGALISTIC part of the tithing commands - THE TENTH.

You simply don't have a clue of what legalism is. The simple meaning or definition of the word 'tithe' is 'tenth' - even you cannot deny this, no matter how hard you tried. However, to insist that tithe is ALWAYS and ONLY 'food' or 'farm produce' is legalism, since that is not what Scripture teaches - unless you try even harder to ignore Abraham's tithes to Melchizedek. Only anti-tithing legalists argue that people today who want to tithe must adhere to food and farm produce - they cannot see beyond their legalism, and that's why they make every effort to contradict themselves.

Then some claim they are following Abram's example when in fact they are not. They are in fact following NO PART of Abram's example.  They are not giving a tenth of spoils. They are not giving to a King-Priest.  They are not limiting their giving to a one-time event on something out-of-the-ordinary.  They are not giving away the rest of it.  They are fooling no one but themselves and the gullible.

Do you know the meaning of 'example' as used in Scripture? An 'example' is not the repetition or replication of every detail in a contemporary situation. For instance, when Peter said in 1 Pet. 2:21 that, 'Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps', was he using the word 'example' in a literal sense? Was he asking us to go and be whipped by Romans soldiers and then get nailed on the cross between two thieves in Jerusalem just because we should follow in Christ's steps?

So, according to your argument, if we are not whipped 40 lashes by Roman soldiers, and if we are not condemned by the Jewish council and then be crucified or nailed between two thieves, and if also our getting nailed does not happen in Jerusalem, then we cannot follow the 'example' of Christ in our present Christian living, not so?

The problem with many anti-tithers is that their arguments are bereft of sound theology. They are not able to distinguish between their legalism and the use of 'example' in Scripture. They must insist on a replication of every detail in the OT or the Mosaic law, otherwise you cannot find any basis to draw from them for 'examples' of present applications. Such legalism would strain at a gnat and swallow a camel.

That makes as much sense as taking the word sabbath out of the Bible and applying it to any time, any day that they don't feel like doing anything.  Just take a rest and call it a sabbath.  Gee, I guess I can keep a sabbath every afternoon for an hour or two.

Exactly my point about your legalism. I don't know of anybody who has taken the sabbath to apply to any time or any day. Even in the Law, the word 'sabbath' is not restricted to a certain day or month in the Jewish calendar - it applies to different days, seasons and occasions. That is why you find it in the plural as 'sabbaths' (Lev. 19:30). Yet, when it is being spoken of in the NT for Christians, it affirms that "sabbatism" remains for the people of God and yet applies it to 'another day' (see Heb. 4). The basic meaning of 'sabbath' is 'rest' as pertaining to the things of God.

What this is called is MANIPULATION of God's Word.  Take any word out of context and apply it the way YOU want to apply it.

What you're doing is making your own legalistic manipulation to be the harbinger of Biblical interpretation.

If anyone can claim they tithe because they give a tenth of their income to the church, I can claim I tithe if I give a tenth of anything I have to the church.

Like your 'trash' from your trash can?

Snowwy:
I just had to comment on this statement and another you made. It seems like you are trying your best to show you tithe, I really do not get you. You claim you are against tithe on one hand then on another you say you can 'claim I tithe'.
What really are you trying to claim? In another post you said you can go tell people or your pastor that you tithe.
It seems you think you want to tithe cos you want to prove a point.

He does not tithe. You should probably try and see how they argue - when they've exhausted themselves in their unfounded arguments, they then turn round and make a mockery of their position and end up displaying gapping inconsistencies.

Meanwhile, as I once said, it's you guys who do not tithe that are making a big deal about tithing and straining so much to justify your actions. God gave us all freewill, it is not by force.

Exactly.

^^ what is the atheistic argument for the universe?

mazaje:
Which atheistic argument states that everything came from nothing?. . .

Please tell me: what is the atheistic argument?

Zodiac61:
Unfortunately, when you reduce the arguments of the theists to their bare minimum, this seems to be what they are saying - God did it.

When the typical atheistic argument is to begin with nothing and magically bring about everything 'tentatively', does that begin to make any sense to you? It probably does - because there are far more gaps to fill in atheistic arguments than they can explain to themselves.

garyarnold:
Consider the following:

When the children of Israel reached the promised land, with their animals, etc., every "family" had a farm.  But every "family member" was not a farmer.  They had all kinds of occupations.  But the "family" had a farm, and the tithe was on the crops and animals in herds and flocks, NOT on the wages or other types of income from the "family members."  The command to tithe wasn't on each individual, but rather on the "children of Israel" as a nation, or as a whole.  Church leaders put the tithe down to the individual level which is wrong. Putting the tithe down to the individual level creates all kinds of problems; i.e. some tithed, some did not.  It creates the problem of understanding that ALL attended the yearly feast, but not all tithed.  When you see the big picture that the tithe was on the nation as a whole, and not the individual, everything starts to fall into place.

Consider this: when Genesis first treated the subject of tithes, it was down to the individual. An individual (Abraham) gave tithes to Melchizedek, the priest of the Most High God. It was not down to the 'nation', but rather an individual was in view. And in that same individual is found God's promise to bless 'nations'. Whoever was to curse that individual was to also bring a curse upon himself or herself.

Those who choose to tithe with understanding have no problems doing so. Even where the NT speaks about proportional giving, it has everyone in view - "let every one of you lay by him in store," (1 Cor. 16:2), but anti-tithers will always have problems seeing very simple things for what they are!

I was beginning to wonder if and when someone would make sense of all this, but that up there by justcool is just . . . cool.

And this -

I see that you do not like the tentative language of science.

- is confusing the soup altogether! While 'tentative' is indeed used in in scientific hypothesis, the way you have used it is neither scientific nor hypothetical! Scientific conclusions are tentative in the sense that all ideas are inconclusive and therefore encourage further, rigorously tested axioms to be formulated. That which is 'tentative' in science does not pass as 'science' - it is rather just a tool for speculating about things.

It is therefore not the language of science that is tentative, for in doing so the 'scientist' would quite simply be cheating and thrashing about with words!

You may be interested in perusing this paper: http://physics.weber.edu/johnston/research/!TheMultipleMeaningsOfTentativeScience_IHPSTfi.PDF (it is a PDF file).

I can understand where the writer of that article is coming from; but this line -

MAYOWAAK:
The whole aim of our new birth is to live a very prosperous life; to prosper in our health, in our finances, in our career, in our family life and in everything that we do.

- No. That is not the 'whole aim' of our new birth. Romans 8:29 perhaps provides us with an answer: God wants to conform us to the image of His Son, Jesus Christ. It does not matter whether believers are rich or poor, whether we enjoy poor or good health, whether or not people have a 'career', etc. True, Jesus did not glorify poverty; but He certainly did not set material riches as evidence of a good relationship with God.

At best, these things (prosperous life, health, finances, career, family life, etc.) are a means, and not an end in themselves. 'Seek ye first the kingdom of God, and ____ shall be ADDED.' The addition is is not the "whole aim".

That said, there's quite a lot to commend in the OP.

Febup:
^^^^
My principle on tithing is to give 10% of my time on forums like this to set people free from the bondage of these false pastors we have today. God willing these people giving tithes to these false pastors will one day be set free from these 10% income thieves claiming they are collecting tithes for God.

People who talk like this remind me of Judas' pretense of 'care' - John 12:5-6. Are anti-tithing theologians who agree with tithing pastors not in the same category of your labelling?

kodewrita:
Theology may come later. NOT NOW.

That's fine; at least, it's not 'useless' to have Theology in their curricula as you said earlier.

@kodewrita,

I understand how you feel in your response to react the way you did. But not everyone who's concerned about this topic should be viewed as a nitwit.

kodewrita:
No sensible business man would do that. Religious sentiments aside. Given a choice between funding a new course in a new faculty of engineering or a new course in theology, tell me which sensible person will start with theology when the funds from the new flood of engineers will be more useful to the university long-term.

This seems to convince us that you agree to the sentiments already expressed - that the named universities (RUN and CU) are nothing other than profit-making ventures. Such profiteering should not be the driving force of their vision, as it completely undermines the value of their mission statements.

What really makes these universities (RUN and CU) different or stand out from any other university? Please don't even mention 'standards' or 'excellence' - a quick look at the Vision statement of the RUN, for example, tells you so much about their "standards", with typo-errors littering that page. But seriously, what is behind the setting up of these universities - other than . . . profit?

Obasanjo is clear evidence that training in theology does not remove your baser drives, so your argument is completely baseless.

There's no discipline in any establishment that was meant to remove anyone's baser drives. NONE. Obasanjo or any other person is not sufficient excuse for the lack of Theology in these universities set up for profit.

Funny enough, your comment there shows you really don't have a clue about what Theology is as a discipline since you assume it's all about being a 'theology lecturer' -

If you are a jobless theology lecturer, then find one of the many bible colleges around and get a job.

A Bible College or Seminary is a different thing from a 'University' - let's not kid ourselves here. Some of the institutions set up as Universities by Christian initiatives are not just about throwing 'jobless theology lecturers' into the street - take a look and see what they offer (e.g., California Baptist University; Southwest Baptist University; Vanguard University [by Assemblies of God],, etc).

Christian Private universities are for a totally different purpose: Profit for funding the ministry while providing a societal service in a christian atmosphere not creating pastors as you nitwits think.

You just confirmed you don't know what you talking about. The 'private universities' you're defending (such as RUN and CU) may aptly fit those descriptors - spelt simply as "Profit", and qualified by "funding".

But there are a plethora of other Christian private universities who offer research disciplines PLUS theological pursuits. Biola University and Abilene Christian University are just a few among many others.

Zikkyy:
com'on your anger should be directed at pastors, not zikkyy the above is a misquotation of zikkyy's post

Lol, that's also a "misquote-unquote-quotation" of my comment, since I was not expressing anger but merely making an enquiry.

Pastor AIO:

6Thus says the LORD,
“For three transgressions of Israel and for four
I will not revoke its punishment,
Because[b] they sell the righteous[/b] for money
And the needy for a pair of sandals.

Amos 3

*Amos 2:6

Let me risk saying that I understand a bit (just a little bit) of your concerns. Yet, I think it's fair to saying that we're on the same wavelength.

I noted that 'righteousness is used in various connections' - and tried to explain briefly. In Amos 2:6 (quoted in yours above) "the righteous" is qualified in its reference to people - and that qualification is based on certain premises or terms which make them "the righteous". An example of such a premise is in Moses declaration to the Jews in Deut. 6:25 - "And it shall be our righteousness, if we observe to do all these commandments before the LORD our God, as he hath commanded us. ". Hence, one would be addressed as 'the righteous' based on some defined premise, as in that verse.

Conversely, although there may be some who would boast of their righteousness, Moses again makes the same point in setting a distinction in Deut. 9:4-6 (ESV) --

"Do not say in your heart, after the LORD your God has thrust them out before you, 'It is because of my righteousness that the LORD has brought me in to possess this land,' whereas it is because of the wickedness of these nations that the LORD is driving them out before you. Not because of your righteousness or the uprightness of your heart are you going in to possess their land, but because of the wickedness of these nations the LORD your God is driving them out from before you, and that he may confirm the word that the LORD swore to your fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob. Know, therefore, that the LORD your God is not giving you this good land to possess because of your righteousness, for you are a stubborn people.

The point in saying that righteousness is used in various connections could be highlighted in its application - among which are rightness rectitude, justice, virtue, or prosperity. In such connections, there are varied applications often tending to temporal blessings. However, when it comes to justification with God, it is His righteousness that He gives to people for their salvation.

JeSoul:
I guess query dey then abi? You're delightful to spar with wordtalk. It is great to have a solid representation for the other side so we can hash out these issues properly and better ourselves in the process. Thanks for hanging around . . . oya query on!

Query on? Lol, I'm sailing at half mast just now.
I've enjoyed the discussions so far; although I can't help but wonder at our handling of the core issue (being "born again". Yes, I acknowledge your spectrum was more than that when you said: 'The scope of what we're discussing stretches far beyond the NT in both directions of time and circumstance . . '; even so, I reckon that the subject of being 'born again' is at the center of this thread. (Again, I may be wrong).

JeSoul:
The glorious gospel of Jesus Christ is the ultimate revelation of truth. Men have lived and died without having this truth - but yet as the bible tells us they are still without excuse. Why must the gospel be preached? Because it is life and by it men can be saved.

I'm trying to connect the dots here. Men must be saved by the Gospel, yes; but what happens to those who are religious, hear the Gospel and yet reject it?

That question was not to stump the discussion or put anyone on spot. I'd be first to say I don't have all the answers or even the only correct one. But I'm just wondering where this leaves the Christian who is commissioned with the preaching of the Gospel (1 Cor. 9:16) - is he to be satisfied that one who rejects the Gospel will be 'saved' by that person's "religion"?

We should all do our part to make disciples of all nations and spread the gospel of Jesus Christ that is based on faith - by the forgiveness of sins. And while doing this must also understand that God is more than able to save those who are not as fortunate as us to have had known in glorious detail the sacrifice of Christ.

I don't doubt for one minute that God is able to do so; but I'm very hesitant indeed to assume that "acceptance" through the doors of "religion" would be just as effective as being saved through the Gospel.

staggerman:
Malachi 3:9
9 Ye are cursed with a curse: for ye have robbed me, even this whole nation.

Does this apply to new covenant believers?

Galatians 3:13
13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree.

Galatians 4:5
5 To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.

1. Galatians is essentially about the grounds of our justification in Christ rather than by the Mosaic Law

2. Tithing in Scripture has nothing to do with salvation or justification:
(a) Abraham was not giving tithes to Melchizedek in order to be justified
(b) Abraham was not under the Mosaic Law when he gave tithes to Melchizedek
(c) Jacob was not trying to seek justification with God through tithing
(e) the Jews under the Mosaic Law were not trying to be justified through tithing
----- in all the occurrences in Scripture, tithing is not treated as a matter of salvation or justification

3. Galatians is not an argument against tithing

4. Not all occurrences of tithes in Scripture were a matter of the Law

5. The curses of the Law may not apply to Christians, but the blessings do.

staggerman:
Malachi 3:10
10 , and prove me now herewith, saith the LORD of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing,

Does this refer to money or financial blessing, or does it mean something else according to scriptures?

Genesis 7:11-12
11 , The same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.
12 And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights.

Genesis 8:2
2 The fountains also of the deep and the windows of heaven were stopped, and the rain from heaven was restrained

Let me get this: are you saying that the 'windows of heaven' in Malachi 3 would mean the 'windows of heaven' in Genesis 7 & 8?

Zikkyy:
Stop deceiving yourself. How many people pay tithe out of love for God?

Are you saying that NOBODY gives tithes out of love for God? Why do anti-tithers get so reactive in this manner?

nlMediator:
One need not read a lot of what Kennedy wrote before his passing to understand his position. If he says – as it is clear he did – that one can deduct his family expenses and give a tenth of  what’s left, he’s not talking about the tithe as is being discussed, regardless of whether he bases his messages on Malachi or not. When you hear statements such as “tithe is a payment, not giving”,  you can’t square that with taking the liberty to make all those deductions and effectively “pay” 1% instead of 10%. That view is also in alignment with non-tithers, who believe that Christians should give generously whenever they can, including after taking care of family needs.

The point I was making is that Kennedy believed in tithing, which is the one thing anti-tithers are struggling to deny. How Dr. Kennedy saw tithing is an altogether different thing from saying flatly that he did not believe in tithing. How he counseled his congregation on tithing does not lead to making flat statements that he did not believe in tithing. This is why I implored you to first try and access his material on tithing before drawing any conclusion.

garyarnold:
"It does not matter, but you have Aquinas and others who have explained their meaning in your list? Are you for real? WHY do you have them claiming what they never claimed as "opponents" in the first place?"

Not MY list.

Who has posted that list on this blog? When I said "your list", it should be clear to you that was in reference to the fact it was you who posted it here, not anyone else. I didn't say that garyarnold compiled that list, did I?

I gave proper credit as to where that list came from.

Oh silly! I forgot it was "compiled by" Dr. David Croteau, even though I don't remember having credited the said list to 'garyarnold' as the 'compiler'. You're really a funny and desperate character!

Go back and see what I said:

I was going to comment on your "list of tithing opponents" to show why it was a shoddy work (no disrespect for the person of Dr. Croteau himself, I'm just pointing out why we should not swallow everything an anti-tithing theologian says).

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-724424.320.html#msg8875313

Please make me laugh some more: is there anywhere I said that the list was "compiled by" garyarnold?

You lost this debate without a doubt.  But you will try to redeem yourself by keep bringing up other issues and ignore the issue of a tithing principle.  We understand.  You don't have an answer.  We  know that.

My comments have been in response to the things you have asserted. What are the things I have brought up that were not in reference with what you have argued?

And as per 'debate'. . . just leave that. Go and learn the use of English and stop acting like a mexican immigrant struggling to perfect his ESOL. Those who wallow in self-pity are first and loudest to declare they 'won' - you always do this.

garyarnold:
Wordtalk said, "But since those asking are denying categorically that no theologian has ever spoken about tithing as a principle, "

Really? Where has anyone said that NO theologian has EVER spoken about tithing as a principle?" MISQUOTING AGAIN, AND AGAIN, AND AGAIN. Will it ever stop?

Lol, I knew you would jump at that one - seeing that I was merely being facetious. I was not quoting you, - if I said there that i was QUOTING you, please show me.

garyarnold:
It is obvious that wordtalk doesn't have an answer as to what the principle of tithing is.  It is also obvious that wordtalk misquoted Dr. Kelly.

It is obvious you're simply a propagandist. If you feel I misquoted Dr. Kelly, the simple thing for you to have done would be to quote where I misquoted him, then align the misquote with the original. End of. To keep playing the typical demagoguery of an anti-tithing propagandist is below you - please grow up.

Dr. Kelly says that Dr. Kennedy somewhat agrees with him because Dr. Kennedy agrees that you support your family and pay your bills before you give to the church.  That is one example.

Then you don't know Russell. He is fond of claiming agreement from others as if those he is quoting or listing have said anything in statement that they agreed with him. This is why you blatantly said that it was Kennedy who agreed with Kelly, and I asked you to provide me with a statement from Kennedy making such an "agreement". Where do you find Kennedy saying so? The best you offered was a lame excuse that 'Kennedy' was agreeing with "SOME".

Those following this blog must have seen that once wordtalk said the principle of tithing is "tenth," and then some of us asked questions about giving a tenth of just anything, he no longer discusses that topic.  I think he saw, at that time, how flawed his principle is.

So you already saw that, and yet pretend I never made any allusion to that. Yes, I stop paying you guys any attention, because when I asked you for a simple DEFINITION of 'tithe', you turned your comments into a circus parade. That is why I left you with quotes from others - names which you yourself have posted on your "LIST". The best you have done is acknowledge you inconsistency.

It doesn't matter how many theologians or anyone else claims that they are following a Biblical principle when they tithe, no one is able to say exactly what that principle is.

It does not matter, but you have Aquinas and others who have explained their meaning in your list? Are you for real? WHY do you have them claiming what they never claimed as "opponents" in the first place?

Fact is, since tithing was always on assets and never on income, you can't come up with a tithing principle on one's income that would be supported by the scriptures.

Oh, boy! And you have Kennedy "agreeing with" Russell that "In light of these biblical principles, I encourage believers to tithe"?? Yes, I remember - Russell, according to you, does not agree with Kennedy; but "either way", you must bend Kennedy to agree with Russell?!?

Some will just never get it.  But they will continue to debate to the end.

In case you haven't noticed, you're not fit for a 'debate' - you don't know what it means. I've been asking you to stand up for what you claim, I won't even scare you with the word "debate".

nlMediator:
Reading through the discussion about what James Kennedy said, it's obvious that he does not believe in tithing.

Not if you have read Kennedy. If you can access some of his material on the subject, you'll find he was using the word 'tithe' and 'tithing' in clear and deliberate manner. Those who probably have read his material have issues with him because they know what he was talking about - and he made himself clear enough.

However, although I don't have direct access to link to in this post, you might like to consider an extract of a review -

Ending Financial Worries
D. James Kennedy. Fort Lauderdale, Fla.: Coral Ridge Ministries, n.d.
Pastor and author D. James Kennedy begins this sermon with Malachi 3:10: “ ‘Bring the whole tithe into the storehouse, that there may be food in my house. Test me in this [, ] and see if I will not throw open the floodgates of heaven and pour out so much blessing that you will not have room enough for it.’ ” God says that if we obey his command to tithe, he will bless us abundantly. Do we believe him? Kennedy states that the key to life is trusting God. If we would only open our clenched fists and trust God with our money and lives, he will be faithful to his promise and bless us richly.

http://library.generousgiving.org/page.asp?sec=8&page=556

The highlighted is a quote of Dr. Kennedy's in reference to Malachi 3. Nobody should feel his or her intelligence insulted if they would only do a simple check

nlMediator:
I think it's easier to state in one sentence what the tithing principle is than making reference to Aquinas or such big words as hermeneutics and exegesis. Those ones can come to support your position after you have stated in simple terms what the principle is. And while at it, you can also clarify on the issue of whether tithing is a principle, as opposed to being based on a principle and what the difference is.

Perhaps it's easier to see I've said it plainly many times over. But since those asking are denying categorically that no theologian has ever spoken about tithing as a principle, that was why I made reference to Thomas Aquinas who appears on the same list that the denier had posted. There are other theologians (tithing and anti-tithing) who have also done the same; since those who are vehemently opposed to any mention of tithing can't read beyond their cubicles, I thought they should leave their arm-chairs and look over such references - it's not difficult.

garyarnold:
Now, can wordtalk give us THE tithing principle that he insists is there, and tell us where it came from?

Obviously not or wordtalk would have given it to us long ago.

Since I outlined what I meant by my use of "Biblical principle" in consonance with Biblical hermeneutics and exegesis (and even gave you a quote from Thomas Aquinas' use of it), you guys felt it was way beyond your horizon and never tried to discuss it. So, I'll just let you wallow in your self-pity by asking you again to explain for me what Russell Kelly was claiming "in agreement" of the "biblical principles" in his quote of Dr. James D. Kennedy - have you even attempted a dot on that?

Tell me, after all I have said and explained and reposted about what I meant by Biblical principle in hermeneutics and exegesis, which one of them did you ever try to discuss? You flat out just kept repeating the same slogan in denial, only to come forward affirming that anti-tithing theologians are contradicting themselves.

Since you were happy to post your "list of tithing opponents", please tell us in plain terms what sort of "biblical principles" your Russell Kelly was "in agreement" with Dr. James D. Kennedy? Where can we find their own "biblical principles"?

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-724424.352.html#msg8882657

garyarnold:
Why then was Russell Kelly saying that such a statement(s) would make Dr. Kennedy to be 'in much more agreement with myself'?

He didn’t say that particular statement would make Dr. Kennedy to be in much more agreement with himself.

Please note the 's' in bracket - "statement(s)".

Where did Dr. Kennedy ever say that he was "agreeing" with Russell Kelly?

He didn’t.  I NEVER said that Dr. Kennedy said he was agreeing with Dr. Kelly

Oh? But you did say that 'Either way, it is Dr. Kennedy that agrees with SOME of what Dr. Kelly teaches', didn't you? That would be different from saying that Dr. Kennedy's pamphlet would agree with Kelly's teaching. The difference is that Kelly was claiming agreement from Dr. Kennedy whereas Kennedy himself did not state anywhere that he expressed such an "agreement". Not even when you try cheating with the non-existent 'SOME'!

Rather than come back and say he made a mistake, wordtalk just goes on as though he never makes a mistake.  A very self-righteous person who can never admit doing wrong.

The mistake was not mine - I'm asking you to explain the fiction you've been hawking on this blog.

Wordtalk - you MISQUOTED Dr. Kelly.  Fess up to it like a man.

No, I didn't - this is why I leave quotes in quotation marks. Quote the mis-quotes and then align them with the original quotes.

Your reaction is convincing me even more strongly that you don't know Kelly's style of argument at all. If you didn't, you would be even more worried on his behalf for his half-quotes and mis-quotes of others who material appear on his website. Should I serve you examples, garyarnold?

garyarnold:
It's so simple. When Dr. Kelly is giving his comments, they are in italics. When the info is coming from Dr. Kennedy, it is not in italics.

So, again I ask: Even if you want to cheat and make Dr. Kennedy to agree with Russell Kelly, did Russell ever teach anywhere that "in light of these Biblical principles, I encourage believers in Christ to tithe?" If no, how come you are so bent on making your fiction more real than reality itself? Where did Dr. Kennedy ever say that he was "agreeing" with Russell Kelly?

This is not the first time I have read Kelly claiming agreement from others. Anti-tithing propagandists often use that jingoist style of argument. The funny thing is that those who are unaware and can't think for themselves just recycle such jingoism from these guys and end up confusing themselves even more.

This is why I've noted that where you may be too strongly pushing a view that you haven't grasped, you would only end up making a bad case for what you're peddling. I watched in amazement how you often posted that "list of tithing opponents" anytime people ask you questions about your claims. Rather than be reasonable with them, you become reactive and try to overwhelm them with name-calling and accusations of falsehood. I tried to warn you, but you didn't seem to care at all - even though it was obvious that many of the names on your "list" actually DID NOT oppose tithing.

Try not make people say what they argued against tithing when in very fact they did not - as in Dr. James D. Kennedy or Thomas Aquinas or Didache or Mark Drisco or Clement . . . (just go and do more research and you will get my drift).

garyarnold:
Dr, Kelly wrote:  "He says “In light of these Biblical principles I encourage believers in Christ to tithe.”

Yes, Russell Kelly was quoting Dr. James D. Kennedy.

Then he quotes that statement a few more times on that page, but each time he is quoting Dr. Kennedy.

Yes, yes - we know who was quoting who. Part of what Dr. Kennedy was quoted as saying in his tithing pamphlet included -

- "Churches should allow tithes to be paid in the form of work performed"
- "Tithes are only on what is left after necessary expenses and after taxes"
- "In light of these biblical principles, I encourage believers to tithe."

DR. KELLY NEVER AGREED TO THAT STATEMENT.

Why then was Russell Kelly saying that such a statement(s) would make Dr. Kennedy to be 'in much more agreement with myself'? You have already said:

garyarnold:
Either way, it is Dr. Kennedy that agrees with SOME of what Dr. Kelly teaches.

"Either way", you make Dr. Kennedy to agree with Russell; whereas it was Russell himself who was claiming that "agreement" from Dr. James Kennedy's 'tithing pamphlet (p63)'. Dr. Kennedy did not indicate ANYWHERE that he was agreeing with Russell, as you're making out here; nor is there anything from Dr. James D. Kennedy that said anything about agreeing with "SOME" of what Russell was teaching. It was Russell who was claiming "agreement" from Kennedy, not the other way round, so please don't try to cheat on that!

Even if you want to cheat and make Dr. Kennedy to agree with Russell Kelly, did Russell ever teach anywhere that "in light of these Biblical principles, I encourage believers in Christ to tithe?" If no, how come you are so bent on making your fiction more real than reality itself? Where did Dr. Kennedy ever say that he was "agreeing" with Russell Kelly?

garyarnold:
Either way, it is Dr. Kennedy that agrees with SOME of what Dr. Kelly teaches.

Nice; which has already been observed -

wordtalk:
I already recognized that Kelly was "claiming agreement from" Dr. Kennedy - which is the implication in Russell's statement that Kennedy was "in much more agreement with myself".

So, please tell me: whether Russell agrees with Kennedy or rather that Kennedy agrees with Russell, or even that both of them were "in agreement", the essential thing is that Russell and Kennedy agreed on something. What then is the issue of "agreement" here?

Can you tell me what is the statement that Kelly was claiming an "agreement" on? Is it different from this -

[size=14pt]“In light of these biblical principles, I encourage believers to tithe.”
[/size]??

garyarnold:
Dr. Kelly has said time and time again that there is no place in the Christian Church for tithing.

- and yet he claimed an agreement on the statement:

[size=14pt]“In light of these biblical principles, I encourage believers to tithe.”
[/size]??


Since others lack your "understanding", why is it so difficult for you to calmly explain in the "agreement" and 'counter agreement'?

garyarnold:
By now, most of you should see how wordtalk is NOTHING but talk.  He continually misquotes others.  No wonder he is so confused on this topic.

This is why I find it so frustrating to debate with him.  He ignores the questions he can't or doesn't want to answer, misquotes others, twist what I say, etc. etc.  He is a sad example of a teacher.

Please stop acting like a kid - it betrays the desperation of a jingoist. I have not misquoted anything, so please man up or shut up if you can't explain.

garyarnold:
Dr. Kelly did NOT agree with Dr. Kennedy's statement:  “In light of these biblical principles, I encourage believers to tithe.”

What you are showing me is that you have absolutely NO UNDERSTANDING of what you read.

No problem, please try and explain two things for me - since I lack your pretentious "understanding" -

(a) "In light of these BIBLICAL PRINCIPLES" - what "Biblical principles"?

(b)  "I encourage believers to TITHE" - what was he encouraging?

Please throw your panic aside and calmly explain them.

garyarnold:
Quote from Dr. Kelly regarding Dr. Kennedy:

"I agree with Kennedy that most of us should give more than 10% to either the poor or to mission work.  I only disagree when he calls it “tithing” when it is not."

Kelly's statement as quoted by Russell is this -

“[size=14pt]In light of these biblical principles, I encourage believers to tithe.[/size]”

Russell's agreement was expressed by the same Russell. In that quote, the word "tithe" appears, and that was what Kennedy was quoting as using, and that is what Russell claimed agreement thereto. Please do explain "I encourage believers to TITHE" so we can move on beyond your excuses.