₦airaland Forum

garyarnold:
Since I personally know Dr. Kelly, and have spoken to him, I know that he does NOT agree with Dr. Kennedy.

What then does Russell Kelly mean by "agreeing" with this -

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

Please simply explain what he meant in quoting that statement to the effect that it places Dr. Kennedy in agreement with himself ("make him in much more agreement with myself".

Please explain - let's start from there.

Would you like me to have Dr. Kelly comes to this blog and straighten you out?

Please do - invite Thomas Aquinas also.

Zikkyy:

Tithes and [other] offerings need to be separated in Numbers 18 because the tithe went to the Levites and the [other] offerings went to the priests. The tithes did NOT go to the Temple except for a tenth of the tithe from the Levites.

Thank you gary, i thought it was that obvious

How are they separated in the statement that the tithes were offered as heave offering in Numbers 18:24?

The problem with the kind of arguments you espouse is that you simple refuse to consider what is said. If 'A' is offered as 'B' in context of a verse, does it not imply that 'A' is considered as 'B' in context of that verse? Is that any different in the statement: "the tithes of the children of Israel, which they offer as an heave offering unto the LORD"??

It is okay to draw a conclusion as you wish, and I can respect that - but to do so in total rejection of what you do read in the verse being discussed makes me wonder if you want to discuss in the first place. If you don't, I won't bother.

i thought i understood what you meant by heave offering. i am begining to think i don't. educate me please

You claimed you did understand, and so I ask kindly that you share your understanding with me. Since I first asked the question, I noted that after you guys have reflected on its basic meaning in that verse, we can compare notes. You jumped quickly to say you understood, so please share.

garyarnold:
Wordtalk totally misrepresents Dr. Kelly's position on Dr. Kennedy.

Dr. Kelly does NOT agree with Dr. Kennedy, but rather say that Dr. Kennedy is in more agreement with him than most tithing teachers.

Read it for yourself at:  http://www.tithing-russkelly.com/id71.html

Then you will see how wordtalk totally lied about Dr. Kelly.

Trying to force a lie into my posts? Try harder.

I already posted part of what appears on Russell's page: https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-724424.320.html#msg8875313

From Russell Kelly:

IMPORTANT: This document was requested and received by mail from myself in 2000. Dr. Kennedy’s position may have changed since then. It is my conclusion that, although he appears to teach tithing, his allowances and other statements make him in much more agreement with myself than with the majority of tithe-teachers today. Dr. Kennedy reveals more “heart” in the entire discussion than is usually revealed by others.

- then I made this comment:

What is this "agreement" that Kelly is claiming from Dr. James D. Kennedy on tithing? In other words, what can we know about Dr. Kennedy's view on tithing for Christians? This is what appears on Russell Kelly's page -

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? This is it -

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

You may argue to the contrary that "Kelly does NOT agree with Dr. Kennedy" - and that is only if you want to live in denial as you often do. Why then was Russell quoting Kennedy ("I encourage believers to tithe" and claiming that such a statement was "in much more agreement with myself"?? Has Russell been encouraging any believer in Christ to tithe while at the same time arguing against tithing for Christians?

If you look further, this is what Russell says:

Kennedy, James [p63], tithing pamphlet, Presbyterian TV preacher. Note: He takes a middle position [size=14pt]that tithes should be paid on whatever remains after all essential bills have been paid[/size].

- so, while Russell quotes Kennedy as saying that "tithes should be paid" (after tax and bills), the same Russell appears on your "list of tithing opponents". Go down to the bottom of your list and this is what you will read:

Many of the above theologians says there is NO PLACE for tithing in the Christian Church, and agree that you can't tithe Biblically now even if you wanted to

So, "you can't tithe Biblically now even if you wanted to", and yet Russell who opposes tithes is the same fellow who finds that "tithes should be paid" is in much more agreement with himself?

Your inconsistencies shine stronger by the hour.  

Zikkyy:
you mis-interpret my post. Let me summarize:

Numbers 18 does not deal with tithing alone. Other stuffs gets to the altar.

I don't think I misread or mis-interpreted your post. But it could be possible, except that you probably are missing something essential and repeating the same mistake.

to interpret 1 Corinthians as referring to tithe alone (ignoring other types of offering that were eaten by the priest) will be wrong.

The mistake is that you're still separating between the 'tithes' and 'heave offering' in that chapter. Indeed, I noted there were other types of offerings mentioned in Numbers 18; but I also pointed out something you probably missed. This is what I said -

True, there were various offerings (such as the heave and wave offerings in Numbers 18:8 & 11); yet, whatever they offered were in principle found in verse 21, where the Levites are in view - "I have given the children of Levi all the tenth in Israel for an inheritance, for their service which they serve, even the service of the tabernacle of the congregation" (KJV).

It is therefore not difficult to see what Paul was pointing to in 1 Corinthians 9:13 in reference to those who served particularly in the Temple and the Altar.

Then I went on to point out in verse 24 that the "tithes" were offered as "heave offering". Your mistake is trying to set them apart, whereas that verse says clearly - "the tithes of the children of Israel, which they offer as an heave offering unto the LORD, I have given to the Levites to inherit". Note -

- it is "the tithes" which they offered as "heave offering"

So, I really don't get why you would be asking 'what about other types' apart from the tithes. Please consider that verse carefully again.

Then I asked: what does "heave offering" mean to you in context of that verse? I feel that as soon as we endeavour to seek out answers to that question, the difficulty will clear up.

My position: Corinthians passage was referring to the principle supporting people primarily working for God, and not to tithing as a principle.

Then there would absolutely have been no reason for Paul to be specific when he mentioned those who served at the Temple and the Altar. But because he did, you probably would need to ask why.

I understand what you meant by heave offering, but it does not change anything.

Oh, if you actually did, then please share your understanding bout it. I bet you would see things differently and come to see why Paul said "[On the same principle] the Lord directed that those who publish the good news (the Gospel) should live (get their maintenance) by the Gospel.".

garyarnold:
Any anti-tithing theologian that agrees with tithing Pastors that Christians should tithe have just contradicted themselves.

Thank you. That says it all - you guys are never consistent, and thanks again for acknowledging the fact! Brilliant.

I know of none myself.

So, what happened to the one I pointed out about Russell Kelly who was in "agreement" with Dr. James D. Kennedy who was "encouraging believers in Christ to tithe"? I anticipated you would return to feign you never saw the fact, that was why I posted just a sample here: https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-724424.320.html#msg8875313

Dr. James D. Kennedy is quoted as having said, among other things:

- "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."

To these, we find Russell Kelly in "agreement" with Dr. Kennedy - and oh, it was in light of "these biblical principles", the same "principles" you never read in the list of your "tithing opponents".

If you read more broadly, you'll find a plethora of anti-tithing theologians both "agreeing" with pastors that teach tithing, as well as using the same "Biblical principles" that you're worrying about. Reason you're acting in denial is perhaps that you never take the time to check things for yourself but only recycle by rote whatever suits your fancy.

Notice how wordtalk avoids answering questions about the principle of tithing.

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"?  

I don't care what some theologians come up with.

Oh, but you care enough to be posting the list of the same theologians which you find saying surprising things that contradict you and themselves? This is quite fanciful of you!!  You only don't care when you can't defend what you harvested from them - but you cared enough while you were hugely ignorant of what they have been saying!

Until one realizes that the Biblical tithe always came from ASSETS and NEVER from income, one will not understand the Biblical tithe at all.

Go and tell Russell Kelly he does not understand your own 'Biblical tithes', afterall he is the one whose name you posted in capital letters (RUSSELL EARL KELLY 2001 Baptist) in your "list". Remind him of his lack of understanding for even attempting to be "in agreement with" Dr. James D. Kennedy who 'encouraged believers in Christ to tithe'.

The so-called "tithing principle" is a farce.

Good - I'll chalk that up for Russell Kelly (remember his own view was "in light of these biblical principles"?).

It comes from church leaders, and possibly even from some theologians, who didn't understand the difference between assets and income.

You don't have to feel threatened that your Accounting degree hasn't helped you much in these things.

JeSoul:
No problem dear. It seems you attach a bit of a negative connotation to the word "religion" which is why I had asked earlier if you could lend us your definition of it.

Not necessarily. I wasn't thinking negatively about 'religion', in view of the fact that James already told us that God the Father accepts a type of 'religion'.

The question ultimately that I'm grappling with is whether 'religion' in whatever defined idea is what procures the 'born again' issue.

Abraham and co were never 'born again' but yet we will meet them in glory.

Okay, although you highlighted the fact that Abraham was "accepted", it yet appears in your comment that he was never 'born again'. That we shall meet in glory is not the issue (as that is not contested, not at all). The one thing here I've been wondering about is -

[whether "accepted" = "born again"]

If it does not (at least, that's what I'm getting from your comments), I think there's no real issues pending.

Thanks for patiently considering my queries.

Pastor AIO:
How do you make a distinction between righteousness, and 'our righteousness'?  What exactly is the distinction that is being made here?

'Righteousness' is unqualified if it stands alone - meaning, that we do not know its bearing until it is qualified in reference to people or to God. Hence, we find reference to "our righteousness", "your righteousness", as well as "my righteousness".

Even so, righteousness is used in various connections - whether in terms of obtaining some favour or victory, or otherwise being the basis of a temporal blessing, etc. Ultimately, beyond temporal blessings, it is God's righteousness which He gives to people in order that they might obtain His salvation.

garyarnold:
"Tithe" or "tenth" is not a principle.  It is an absolute.

In other words you're tired of the "LIST OF TITHING OPPONENTS" you posted earlier? I guess you only throw things around without having checked them out for yourself. If you did, you would have noticed how shoddy that list is; besides the fact that -

(a) there are more than a dozen couple names that appear there that actually did not oppose tithing for Christians;
(b) some of the anti-tithing theologians on that list actually are in "agreement" with pastors that teach tithing;
and (c) many of the names listed there have talked about tithing as a PRINCIPLE.

I'll give you just one example which I have already highlighted several times (for ease of reference) - Thomas Aquinas:

I answer that, In judging about a thing we should look to its principle. Now the principle of the payment of tithes is the debt whereby carnal things are due to those who sow spiritual things, according to the saying of the Apostle (1 Cor. 9:11), "If we have sown unto you spiritual things, is it a great matter if we reap your carnal things?" [thus implying that on the contrary "it is no great matter if we reap your carnal things"] [*The phrase in the brackets is omitted in the Leonine edition]. For this debt is the principle on which is based the commandment of the Church about the payment of tithes. Now whatever man possesses comes under the designation of carnal things. Therefore tithes must be paid on whatever one possesses.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/aquinas/summa/sum343.htm

So, while anti-tithers are busy recycling that shoddy "list of tithing opponents", they should realise first that most of the names actually were inclined to tithing; and secondly that a bunch of them have spoken about tithing as a principle in so many places - I am amazed how your lot could ever have missed this in the abundance of materials scattered all over the place!

Just go and dump that "list" - it was a wasted effort.

A tenth of one's income is not a principle that can be derived from the Bible since nowhere in the Bible is a tenth of one's income used as a tithe.

Good. Excellent. So, why are your own anti-tithing theologians yet in "agreement" with pastors who 'encourage believers in Christ to tithe'??

Look, Mr. . . you're not consistent at all. If you cannot find a Biblical basis for encouraging tithing, then from where do your own anti-tithing theologians "agree" with tithing pastors that believers in Christ should tithe? Please share this with us and let's know the real meaning of your posting your "list of tithing opponents".

Zikkyy:
i don't think so

If you read it, you would see I already answered your question. I could just repost it for you below -

If you are arguing that this passage is an indication of a principle of tithing, does it also indicate a principle of 'wave offerings' too? Because this was also used to provide for those who served in the temple.

My answer -

Specifically, the parallel passage in Numbers 18 was about the tithes in the Levitical system - and that is the same thing concerning the Levitical system in Hebrews 7 which mentions tithing rather than other types of resources for support.

True, there were various offerings (such as the heave and wave offerings in Numbers 18:8 & 11); yet, whatever they offered were in principle found in verse 21, where the Levites are in view - "I have given the children of Levi all the tenth in Israel for an inheritance, for their service which they serve, even the service of the tabernacle of the congregation" (KJV).

It is therefore not difficult to see what Paul was pointing to in 1 Corinthians 9:13 in reference to those who served particularly in the Temple and the Altar.

And this -

Further, the tithes of Israel bore the character of a heave offering according to Numbers 18:24 - "the tithes of the children of Israel, which they offer as an heave offering unto the LORD, I have given to the Levites to inherit, " etc. It shows that Israel's tithes were offered as a heave offering in this verse. The question rather would be to seek out the basic meaning of a 'heave offering'. Do this and let's compare our notes.

So, rather than yap on and on to separate between tithes and heave offerings, please read that verse again: Israel's tithes were offered as __________?? Yes, they were offered as a HEAVE OFFERING.

I then asked a simple question: find the meaning of 'HEAVE OFFERING' in context of that verse as regards the tithes in the LEVITICAL SYSTEM, and let's compare notes. It does not appear anyone had done so - perhaps you guys are still seeing them separately, whereas that verse says the tithes were offered as heave offering.

This is why your question and reaction was quite unnecessary in the first instance.

Pastor AIO:
What does being 'born again' actually mean to you? What is the relationship between being born again and being acceptable to God, and what is the relation between being born again and being 'saved'. I'm starting to get the feeling that these words are actually meaningless when used in religious conversations.

I apologise to have missed that post earlier.

I don't think they are actually meaningless in religious conversations. The one thing I've been seeking is context. If we take any one of the terms we've been considering on their own without due reference to the contexts in which they appear, then indeed everything breaks down into meaningless lighted-hearted conversations.

For instance, the word 'saved' is used in the Bible in various connections. Jesus in Luke 18:42 said - "thy faith hath saved thee", and only in the context of the event is that 'saved' made clear - the blind man receiving his sight.

That above is a radically different thing from the same word ('saved') used in another context, such as in John 10:9 - "I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture."

Jesus spoke about being "born again" in John 3:3-5; and is perhaps expounded by Paul in Titus 3:5-7 --

Not by works of righteousness which we have done,
but according to his mercy he saved us,
by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;
Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour;
That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according
to the hope of eternal life.

This is why I wonder if 'religion' procures these things for any man ('these things', meaning "the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost" through Jesus Christ).

Pastor AIO:
So how do you understand that verse.  That righteousness is filthy?  Or that our attempts at righteousness are filthy?

But isn't it clear enough? How could anyone assume that verse supposes that 'righteousness is filthy'? It is not even "our attempt" at it that is filthy, but "our righteousness" - as clear as the verse says.

If righteousness is filthy to God, and at the same time we hear that Sacrifice is hated by God then what are our options?

It does not say that 'righteousness is filthy' - there is a qualifier there: "our righteousness".

And please, I need to know what you understand as 'born again'.

John 3:5.

Oh yes, and please, I forgot . . .
How do you read the previous verse to the verse you quoted.

A contrast is made between 2 people. One who rejoices in doing righteousness and God meets him. And those whose righteous deeds are as filthy garments and God hides his face from him.

Lol, I saw the previous verse - Isaiah 64:5. But whatever the contrasts, verse 6 is clear enough that EVERYONE is involved -

6[b]For all of us have become like one who is unclean[/b],
And all our righteous deeds are like a filthy garment;
And all of us wither like a leaf,
And our iniquities, like the wind, take us away.

ALL - not a contrast, but ALL.

Perhaps, the point that man's righteousness is insufficient to save him is yet highlighted by the same prophet - "I will declare your righteousness and your deeds, but they will not profit you" (Isaiah 57:12).

JeSoul:
Hmmm  . . .

  I think I (and others) have reiterated several times over the course of this thread that works by themselves are worthless - so I'm not sure how you continue to attribute that pov to me.

Okay, sorry for the further misreading - it was unintentional. The one thing that got me quizzed was your statement that "It is his religion" - and I wanted to know if you were saying that Cornelius' religion procured his being "born again". It seemed that while you were saying 'No' on the one hand, you were implying "it is his religion" that did it. I apologise, but that is just where I'm at cross-roads in reading yours.

I think the main stumbling block here is the seperation of faith from works.

Well, I'm not sure that 'separation' is the issue. If anything, works follow salvation - or salvation comes before works: they are intricately connected in that manner, and I think that is what James 2 highlights for us.

Whereas I'm trying to show Cornelius' faith by his works. Yes I agree with Enigma that Cornelius was already accepted by God prior to his audience with Peter - I mean see the flowing colorful language the bible describes him in, and even Peter declaring he now understands "God accepts from every nation people who fear Him" - how could we say any different?

Okay, let's be clear - colourful or poetic language aside: does "accepted" imply "born again"? Is that what you were saying? If yes, how so? If no, then I'm missing something.

To be accepted before God is the ultimate goal and is that any different from being 'born again'? isn't that what its all about?

I think there's a distinction, when it comes to implications thereto. This is why the next query is important:

God accepting or approving of us?

Lol, it was his 'works' (or, his 'deeds') - a different thing from the person himself. This is explained in answer to your next question -

Can God accept a person's deeds & faith but stop them at heaven's gates because they were not 'born again' as we modernists require it?

It is not a modernist enquiry. What if I ask the question another way: can God reject someone's works and yet regard them as "saved"? My answer? Absolutely YES. Take a look again at 1 Corinthians 3:15 - "If anyone's work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire."

However, the question of whether God could accept a person's deeds and faith and yet stop them at heaven's gates is somewhat preposterous. The implication in that question already supposes that it is their works that saved them - whereas that is the one thing that the NT counters.

What happens to generations of God-fearing men and women who loved God and their fellow men - who never heard of Jesus?

The answer is given in Romans 2:6-11.

Or do we think that the reach of the Holy Spirit to transform a man is limited to after he has been preached to? The sacrifice of Jesus Christ not only affected every man that was born since Calvary - but rather stretched both forward and backward in time - justifing as many who believed in God - and believed enough that it manifested in good works.

As in Romans 3:25-26.

Jesus said He has sheep from other pen that also listen to His voice and that He would gather and make us all one. God reminded Elijah, I still have faithful followers who haven't bowed down to baal - you're not my only 'people'. God has followers all around the globe - in every tribe and nation. The arm of God is not restricted to touch and move and yes save - by our human conceptions of tribe, nation and especially religion.

This is not the issue, Jesoul. Perhaps I should rather ask: what then is the reason why the Gospel must be preached at all?
[quote][/quote]

Zikkyy:
I find this bit interesting. When you read Numbers 18, is it just tithe you see? 1 Corinthians 9:13-14 talks about ministers living off the holy things of the temple and being partakers with the altar, i like to ask what offerings actually get to the altar? what are the holy things of the temple? Is the tithe taken to the altar? the answer to that is NO. reading numbers, we see that offerings that gets to the altar includes Cereal offering, sin offering, holocaust and guilt offering. So why do you believe Paul was referring to tithe and not cereal, sin or guilt offering? I have to agree with Debosky that the Corinthians passage was referring to the principle supporting people primarily working for God, and not to tithing as a principle. I think that was a desperate attempt to make peeps believe Paul was in support of tithing.

I think your comments would have been somewhat different if you had carefully read my response here: https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-724424.288.html#msg8873252

Pastor AIO:
A clear distinction is made between seeking God and going to the ritual centers to deliver tithes and sacrifices.  These are all futile without something called Tsedeq, which is translated as righteousness.  It includes Justice for the poor and the widows and orphans.

While '(J)ustice for the poor and the widows and orphans' are included in the Jewish concept of Tsedeq, this is what another prophet (Isaiah) proclaimed -

But we are all as an unclean thing,
and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags;
and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities,
like the wind, have taken us away.
(Isaiah 64:6)

Zikkyy:
On this thread, i know of two people referring to tithe as a principle; wordtalk and Joagbaje

You should have a broader thinking. If this is the first time you ever heard that tithe could be a principle in Christian giving, please read broadly. This is why I have mentioned a few examples of names which appear on a "list" and noted that even some anti-tithing theologians are in "agreement" with pastors who teach tithing.

i don't know of any anti-tithing theologians referring to tithe as a principle. If there are, i think they also don't know what they are talking about

Okay, that's nice. I should chalk this up for garyarnold who gave a "list of tithing opponents in history" - surely, those anti-tithers who oppose tithing don't know what they are talking about.

JeSoul:
Actually no. The scope of what we're discussing stretches far beyond the NT in both directions of time and circumstance - which is why I brought in the amazonian man who has had no contact with the outside world.

Well, that is where the problem stands. I've been asking about the implications of the view seemingly being upheld by yourself and Enigma, which was one that rests on the question of being "born again" - as in this quote from Enigma:

I ask you and others to consider the possibility that Cornelius was ALREADY "born again" before Peter came to his house to preach.

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-720610.96.html#msg8868344

So, as regards all ideas considered with words such as 'accepted', 'saved', 'works', etc, I wanted to know their implications in your views with reference to Cornelius. It seems to me that the view was that Cornelius religious works procured his being "born again" before Peter even arrived at his house.

Indeed you have misread me and Enigma - it was just my last post in which I said this:

I apologise. However, I don't seem to get your point. Could I ask if your implication was that Cornelius was "already born again" because of his religious works (he 'gave much alms to the people, and prayed to God alway')? I'm asking this in view of what Enigma said earlier - "that Cornelius was ALREADY born again before Peter came to his house to preach"?

If that is another misreading of your view, please oblige me.

Aha! You would first have to define what you mean by 'religion'.

Religion means a lot of different things to different people. But whatever or however defined, I was clear in saying: "Cornelius' works (however good they were) did not procure his being born again - no matter how religious he might have been": the words highlighted qualifies whatever definition of religion one might have in mind.

You know I cannot let you off the hook by simply saying James was already addressing a crowd that was 'saved' .

No; rather I said that he was addressing people who were already saved, and not that he was already addressing them. (Not a big deal, other than that I want to be clear: the 'already' qualifies the people whom he addressed, and not his addressing any crowd).

. . . and no one on this thread is saying that either!!!!! do you not see this my dear brother?

No, I still don't get you; because, while you're saying this -

Cornelius works is not what is saving him - it is his faith that has resulted in works!!! It is his religion - which God has accepted - that is rooted in a love for God and his fellow man.

- it comes back to the point that is of concern to me: that your view is that Cornelius' religion saved him! That is where I'm quizzed, and was asking: Does religion save any man?

kodewrita:
I attended a Baptist Private university and I believe there's no need to add theology into the curriculum. That is just useless.

Why would theology in a Baptist university be useless? Would theology be useful in a 'public' university?

You wake up 6 and spend 30 good minutes on praise and worship with ministration. That is also the last thing you do every day.

Church services and/or other types of denominational ministrations on any campus are a totally different package from 'theology', which is a specified branch of study with research fields in its own right.

We are not attending Covenant or Bowen or Babcock so we can turn into pastors. We are attending there to become computer scientists, chemists and economists with a Christian outlook on life.

That is quite strange, considering the fact that part of Redeemer's University (RUN) Vision Statement is to raise "God fearing and faithful pastors". I don't think there is any excuse for the failure of these universities (RUN and CU) to have theology as a veritable research field of study in their curriculum - it is like trying to cook a meal by merely painting a colouring book.

mabell:
Yesterday a young boy asked a question . .

I'm curious, but what answers were given to him after he asked the question?

Joagbaje:
The Muslims are religious too . What do you say about their salvation?.

Very good thinking there! And that was why I asked: Does RELIGION save any man?
Which brings up another question: Are Muslims 'born again' because they are religious?

John 3:5 - Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

Zikkyy:
What is the principle in a tenth My brother, it's obvious these guys will not be able to explain this theory. Tithe is only seen as a principle when tithing advocate are desperately trying to justify their position.

It all depends on how you approach the issue, and who exactly you may mean by "these guys" and "tithing advocates" - if that includes the same anti-tithing "guys" who at the same time are in "agreement" with pastors who teach tithing. Whatever label you may come up with, "these guys" most definitely include anti-tithing theologians.

Jesoul,

Thanks for the point you raised. Although I'm not quick to hold to any cemented or particular view, I believe that the issue here is one of being 'saved' or 'born again' in context of the NT - that which we find as foundational in the doctrine of the apostles.

To that end, while we are all making basic statements to reject salvation by works (cf. Eph. 2:9 - "not of works", what I find particularly worrisome is the view that you're pressing - which is, that works (as in Cornelius' case) brings about the said 'saved' or being 'born again'. I may have misread you on that; but if that is exactly what you're summing up, I find that idea indefensible in light of the apostles' meaning of salvation in Christ.

Here is why -

JeSoul:
Now Image & 5Star & Wordtalk, you all hold that Cornelius' life of good works and fearing God was insufficient for him to be "saved".

True (at least, I speak for myself).

I would like to ask how you can reconcile that point of view with this:

James 1:27
Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.

One quick question: Does RELIGION save any man?!?

I would not think that James would promote the idea that 'religion' was sufficient to 'save' any man - not at all. In that same James 1, we find in verse 18 that he already acknowledged the basis of our salvation in Christ - "Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures".

God begat us of His own will - not by our own will or efforts or works of righteousness: that is the tenor of the New Testament on the question of being born again. Compare that with the following (verses cited from the ESV, English Standard Version)-

1. - "not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man" (John 1:13)
2. - "not a result of works, so that no one may boast" (Eph. 2:9)
3. - "[God] who saved us and called us to a holy calling, not because of our works. . ." (2 Tim. 1:9)
4. - "he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness," (Titus 3:5)
- - - etc., etc., etc.

I'm sure we all know those verses in point already.

However, coming to James 1:27, we cannot grasp the gist of that verse until we ask a basic question: who was James addressing in particular? The answer is in verse 26 - "If any man among you seem to be religious. . ." He was addressing people who were already saved! The verse 27 is not another path to obtaining salvation as separate from verse 18.

So, how do we reconcile these verses? Simple: verse 18 tells us how we are saved; while verse 27 stresses the nature of our works. The nature of our works follows after our having been saved, even as Paul shows in Ephesians 2:9-10 -

(a) Ephesians 2:9 - our salvation is "not of works, lest any man should boast"
(b) Ephesians 2:10 - after we are saved, then "we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works"

Bottom line is that, I do not find anywhere in the apostles' teaching and doctrine that salvation (on the basis of being born again) is ever obtained by any works of man. NONE. Cornelius' works (however good they were) did not procure his being born again - no matter how religious he might have been.

garyarnold:
wordtalk - you are a joke.  You keep picking verses out of context and want me to explain them to you.

I'm used to your lame excuses, so what's new? If you can be man enough to show clear answers to simple questions for your assertions, do so. Other than that, you draw on such excuses as your first-aid!

You obviously have NO training as to what a "principle" even is, so I am not going to continue wasting my time on this nonsense.

Your national anthem!

You keep asking questions rather than answer the questions that others and myself have asked you.

You make silly assertions which you can't substantiate; I point out why they are dead wrong and post clear references which you excuse away or never return to comment on, and now you're flapping for jingoistic self-pity?

You have very good debate skills,

Thanks - but . . . yawn!

but your Biblical understanding is lacking.

Okay, that's another song you often sing. I lack Biblical understanding well enough to show that your total of 1.1% is a fallacy - and you could not answer the questions I asked around verses 50-54 of Numbers 31? And you did Accounting in school?

I lack this 'Biblical understanding' to point out how you were trying to cheat on the KJV not using 'tithe' for Abraham in Hebrews 7:6, whereas it does?

I totally lack this 'Biblical understanding' of yours to point out how your doctorate anti-tithing theologians are feeding you with shoddy scholarship of a "list of opponents" where several of those names actually did NOT oppose tithing? What have you said on just one example I posted on Thomas Aquinas? Doesn't that "list" need a revising or rather being retired instead of seeking to play fast and loose with it on a public forum?

I also lack your 'Biblical understanding' enough to have shown that spoils of war belonged to victors by rights of conquest as per Deut. 20:14; Num. 31:53; 1 Sam. 30:20; etc.? - and for all that you could not show even ONE VERSE for your denial?

Sir, I'm quite happy to lack that your 'unbiblical understanding' which you parade for your fallacies - the score board shows exactly what it is.

And being able to come up with valid principles from what you read is non-existent.

That's another way of saying you have not read beyond your small view. I would not have to wonder anymore as to why you have forever said nothing about the external scholarly references I showed you for your denials - what's keeping you, hmm?

Therefore, I will debate with those who have some common sense, and will answer my questions, but not with you any more.

Have you heard of "jingoism" and/or "demagoguery" in debates? That's what you're simply advertising in that last line.

garyarnold:
You are wrong, wordtalk.

And I showed you plain as can be that the victor did not own ALL of the spoils in Numbers 31.  Rather than admit your error, you try to put the emphasis on something else.  You need to grow up.

I am asking you once more:

wordtalk:
What again does Numbers 31:53 mean by "the men of war had taken spoil, every man for himself"?? Were they violating Deuteronomy 20:14? Please tell me, I'm curious: what does "ALL its spoil" mean to you in Deut. 20:14?

Have you also checked with external references I shared elsewhere with you concerning the fact that it is a UNIVERSAL truth that spoils of war belonged to victors by rights of conquest? Have you? What did those external references say? Please share your findings with me.

Rather than making unfounded allegations in self-pity, please be man enough to show me ONE VERSE where God said that spoils of war did not belong to the victors; and when you do, then reconcile that verse with Deuteronomy 20:14. Plain enough, isn't it?

garyarnold:
wordtalk - and with your math, did the victors in Numbers 31 own ALL of the spoils?

I asked you earlier:

wordtalk:
Please tell me: what does Deuteronomy 20:14 mean to you?

This is what Deuteronomy 20:14 says -

- but the women and the little ones, the livestock, and everything else in the city, ALL its spoil, you shall take as plunder for yourselves. And you shall enjoy the spoil of your enemies, which the LORD your God has given you.

What does "ALL the spoil" in that verse mean to you, garyarnold? What did God mean by "you shall take as plunder for yourselves"??

What again does Numbers 31:53 mean by "the men of war had taken spoil, every man for himself"?? Were they violating Deuteronomy 20:14? Please tell me, I'm curious: what does "ALL its spoil" mean to you in Deut. 20:14?

Have you also checked with external references I shared elsewhere with you concerning the fact that it is a UNIVERSAL truth that spoils of war belonged to victors by rights of conquest? Have you? What did those external references say? Please share your findings with me.

garyarnold:
When wordtalk speaks of the victor owning the spoils and refers to Deut, that has to do with God giving the Children of Israel the promised land.  Nothing else.

You are sounding very frantic now. Please read Deuteronomy 20:14 in any version of English translation of your choice - start from verse 1 -- "When you go out to war against your enemies". So, this "going out to war" is all about 'God giving the Children of Israel the promised land'? You really need to read the reference rather than ignoring and excusing what it says.

Again, wordtalk takes something out of context.

No, I didn't. You only make these lame accusations when you clearly ignore the reference for what I have pointed out already: that is, Scripture shows us that spoils of war always belong to the victors by rights of conquest - as Deuteronomy 20:14; Numbers 31:53; 1 Samuel 30:20, etc. show. If you have ANY VERSE to show for your denial, please quote it! It is that simple.

Wordtalk ignores Abrams OWN STATEMENT that he wasn't going to keep anything that DIDN'T BELONG TO HIM.  In other words, Wordtalk must think that Abram was a liar.

Putting words in my mouth is not helping, garyarnold. When you cried that piece on my blog, my reply was this -

Gary: “If Abram isn’t saying that the goods belongs to the King of Sodom, just what is he saying?”

(my reply) :

(1) The spoils of war belong to the victor – we all know that, don’t we? There is a difference between “goods” and “spoils of war” – and what the king of Sodom proposed was the former – “goods” (verse 21).

(2) The word “goods” in that verse is ‘rekûsh‘ and is often used in Scripture to indicate ‘substance’ or ‘riches’. What this means is that the king of Sodom was slyly proposing that Abraham ‘enriches’ himself through Sodom’s “goods” – which was failure on the part of the former to recognize those things as “spoils” (shâlâl in Hebrew – cf. Gen. 49:27).

(3) Abraham responded that he would not give the king of Sodom any grounds for the latter to boast that he had made Abraham “rich”. In effect, there was nothing that the king of Sodom could claim back since his city was soundly defeated in the war!

(4) The key here is seeing the meaning between “goods” (‘rekûsh‘) and “spoils” (‘(shâlâl‘) – if Abraham did not recognize his claim over the spoils (which is what Hebrews 7:1 calls it), then he would be in no position at all to have taken anything from the spoils to give as tithes to the priest of the most high God! To have done so would simply be theft, not tithes!

Gary, I do hope that this sorts things out for you. However, if you are somewhat still unclear, I would be glad to share more. Besides, you could consult a good scholarly work that sets things out with these distinctions (I recommended Grotius earlier). I do not know of any source that shows an Arab custom where “spoils of war” do not belong to the victors in warfare – and I would appreciate it if you could recommend any good source.

http://givingtithes.com/what-moved-abraham-to-tithe/

From Abram's tithe, why not use the principle of KEEPING NOTHING for yourself.

If you understand the meaning of a Biblical principle in hermeneutics, this would not be hard for you.

Wordtalk INVENTS principles.

Yea, I lived before Thomas Aquinas who used the same Biblical Principle that your anti-tithing theologians were busy quoting up and down the corridors, not so? Sorry, I didn't invent "Biblical principles" in hermeneutics and Biblical exegesis - this is why I asked you to consult good scholarly works, and the reason why you never do so is perhaps indicative that such an exercise is beyond your horizon.

Again, since wordtalk says a tithe simply means a tenth, I can take ten dollars to church with me.  If I give one dollar of that ten, I have tithed.  Therefore, I would be a "tither."  Wordtalk makes the word tithe meaningless for religious purposes.  It means nothing if we can give a tenth of whatever we decide to give.

I didn't make the definition of 'tithe' meaningless. Have you not quoted Bible dictionaries and reference work defining that term elsewhere? Have their definitions channged as well? Do you know what it means to DEFINE a word?

garyarnold:
wordtalk - and with your math, did the victors in Numbers 31 own ALL of the spoils?

Please grow up. Your fallacy of a "total" which you pegged at 1.1% is just that - a fallacy! This is not new, as I have shown you in other places the huge mistake you're making in maintaining that shoddy idea. As long as you keep ignoring verses 50-54 of Numbers 31, you will be stuck on that fallacy of 1.1% in complete denial of what the whole chapter clearly shows.

Did the spoils belong to the victors? Please tell me: what does Deuteronomy 20:14 mean to you?

nlMediator:
You make some solid points and your effort is commendable. But the essential weakness of your argument that you've not been able to overcome is that you've not identified what the tithing principle is or the principle behind tithing. You mention passover, human sacrifice, circumcision and talk about how christians observe them today - in principle. However, when it comes to tithing, you state that christians should observe it - as it was in the Old Testament, that is, a tenth.

The highlighted words are the answer you seek concerning my identifying the said principle.

So, while you preach against literalism, you embrace it wholeheartedly - only when it comes to the tithe. I'm sorry, but that doesn't sound consistent with your position on passover, circumcison, etc where you accept that substitutes are fine and the way to go today. What's the substitute for the tithe, so that the christian would be seen to be observing the principle without giving or paying a tenth?

What does the word "tithe" mean to you in basic definition? I'm sure you saw where I defined other terms such as circumcision (ie., consecration), etc? When you see the basic meaning behind the term, it would not be difficult to see the difference between a legalistic application and an application in principle.

Finally, some people say that tithe is not a law but a principle. Others say, it is based upon principle. Which is it?  And if it is a principle, what is that principle? If it is based on principles, what are those principles? These questions are at the core of the debate.

The reason why some keep asking this question repeatedly is because they ignore the explanations and references cited already in order to maintain a legalistic argument.

dare2think:
@ Wordtalk

Thanks for your reply,

I do see that the main contention in your argument is between "Legalism" and "Principle". Whilst I understand to an extent your analogy drawn from the "passover" in reference to adherence in form of principle, I can't help but notice a Flaw.

Thanks for considering my reply to yours. I would have liked to see the flaw you detected though.

Pls, who determines the procedures and blueprint of these principle? Is it dependant upon individuality or do we have an elite group that dictate the process of this "Principle"

I have used the simple principles of Biblical hermeneutics - the very same exegetical principles that theologians (both tithing and anti-tithing) are well conversant with.

Pls bear in mind the nature of Tithing as it involves money and it's submission towards those very Elite that may dictate the way in which this principle may be conducted. I am sure you are aware of the"Evil" capabilities Money possesess in the mind of Men. Hence the increased chances of collusion and corruption.

I am aware of the corruption - it's not new, rather should we spend all our days pretending that this is taking us by surprise. We have numerous verses warning of such things; but besides the warnings, we have exhortations to help us as well. This is why I don't deviate into adventurous distractions of name-callings and slander, as long as we focus on the subject. There is nothing in Christianity that can escape being corrupted - should we therefore throw everything out simply because of that?

This brings me to the conclusion to ask  what might have changed. Definately no God, or does he change?

No, God in Himself does not change - but He definitely shows us that there is a change in His dealings with His people. An example: the covenants - these have changed from the old covenant to the new covenant.

He has stated what should be done when "Tithing" and how it shoud be done. Whe then is behind this change that has to be followed in the manner iof Principles and not in the exact nature.

When people mention "exact nature", that is simply the legalism I have tried to highlight. When Paul, for instance, talked about the "Passover" in 1 Corinthians 5:7-8, was he asking Christians to 'keep the festival' in the "exact nature" as found in Exodus 12:11? I would like to read your answer, and why.

If God stated how something should be done, I feel it is Only God that should state if there is a change in the set of instructions that he set himself. Afterall, the very 10 commandents he gave in the OT has not been euphemized to the nature of Principles?

Really? Okay, perhaps you might help me here by thinking on a simple question: do the 10 Commandments apply to you as a Christian? Any part of it? No? If they do not, I then would gladly point you to other verses in the NT.

(Pls forgive me If you might have mentioned anything already in relation to what I asked, I want to to indulge with me freshly if you have the time, Thanks)

Thanks for the dialogue, I'll oblige.

garyarnold:
Total war spoils given = 1.1%
2% to the Levites – taken from the people of Israel’s share
.2% to the Lord – taken from the Army’s share
equals 1.1% of the total went to The Lord

I'm sure you still haven't read that passage carefully, even though I've shown that the "total" of the spoils given to the Lord was far more than 1.1%. You can maintain the "1.1%" fallacy if you continue to ignore the verses at the end of Numbers 31. Let me show you again - Numberse 31:50-54

We have therefore brought an oblation for the LORD, what every man hath gotten, of jewels of gold, chains, and bracelets, rings, earrings, and tablets, to make an atonement for our souls before the LORD. And Moses and Eleazar the priest took the gold of them, even all wrought jewels. And all the gold of the offering that they offered up to the LORD, of the captains of thousands, and of the captains of hundreds, was sixteen thousand seven hundred and fifty shekels. (For the men of war had taken spoil, every man for himself.) And Moses and Eleazar the priest took the gold of the captains of thousands and of hundreds, and brought it into the tabernacle of the congregation, for a memorial for the children of Israel before the LORD.

Let me ask you (as I have asked you in other places) -

1. were the "jewels of gold, chains, and bracelets, rings, earrings, and tablets" not part of the spoils?

2. were the "sixteen thousand seven hundred and fifty shekels" which they offered not part of the spoils?

3. if these also were part of the spoils which they offered to the Lord, how do you keep maintaining the fallacy that only "1.1% of the total went to The Lord"??

4. from where did they get the "sixteen thousand seven hundred and fifty shekels" which they offered to the Lord? are these also not part of the spoils?

If you are going to calculate any so-called "Total war spoils given", you cannot ignore the "sixteen thousand seven hundred and fifty shekels" in verse 52 - therefore, your 1.1% is inaccurate.

dare2think:
@  wordtalk

Pls, am waiting for your reply to my earlier question.

I apologise. To be honest, I passed it over simply because I've answered such a question in the body of my previous comments. I have said repeatedly that Christians are not called to legalism; rather, we are to seek principles from the OT Scriptures for our application today.

But let me oblige you -

dare2think:
Pls why are we not tithing as God instructed in Deuteronomy 14 vs 22-29?

What has changed?

Among others, the operative covenant has changed - from the old covenant to the new covenant.

What implications does this have? Here are a few for your consideration -

1.  While we are not bound to the Mosaic Law in a legalistic manner, we as Christians cannot make it void of its substance or principles - "Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law." (Romans 3:31, ESV).

2.  When we find references to the Law as used by the apostles to teach Christian doctrines, it is not a matter of legalistic applications, but of principles - please see my comment above where I tried to distinguish between the 'letter of the law' and "the spirit of the law".

3.  To ask questions like, 'why are we not tithing as God instructed in Deuteronomy 14 vs 22-29' depends on what you're driving at - that is, are you asking that we should adhere to a legalistic application or rather seek out the principles that the Law provides us with? If you're asking for a legalistic application, then perhaps you should understand that is not my view - rather, I propose that we look for the principles instead.

4.  Let me give you another example apart from tithing (I have used the example of circumcision before, so I won't repeat that here). What if I read a passage in the Law regarding the Passover in Exodus 12:11? And then I ask you: do you as a Christian keep a "passover" feast? If you say 'No', then I point you to 1 Cor. 5:8 where Paul says "Let us therefore celebrate the festival" (from verse 7 it is clear he was talking about a "passover". So you agree that Christians do celebrate a passover, right - since "Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed"?

5. So far so good. The Passover is part of the Mosaic Law. But in the NT, Paul also teaches that Christians should celebrate "this festival". The problem here is this: a legalist would ask the same question in the manner you asked: "why do we not celebrate the passover as God directed in Exodus 12:11? What has changed?"

However, any reader who is acquainted with the OT knows that the idea of the Passover is intrinsically imbedded in the Mosaic law. But for us as Christians, when we celebrate our "Passover", it is in principle and not in the literal manner as stipulated in the Law. What this means is that the basic meaning of this feast is what we are pointed to, rather than outward "letter" in the Law.

6.  This is why we find in many other things that the apostles used the law of Moses to teach Christian doctrines without seeking a literal application, but rather seeking out the principles. Circumcision is not denounced; rather it is the "outward" circumcision that people tend to read in "the letter" that is the problem (Romans 2:29). The "passover" is not denounced; rather it is not a matter of "the letter" (1 Cor. 5:7-. The Sabbath is not denounced; rather, it is the legalism in application that becomes a problem (Heb. 4:9). Etc. etc.


So, when you ask: "what has changed", I ask: "what has changed" in the passover or circumcision or sabbath, etc, etc. Look for the principles, not "the letter".

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).

garyarnold:
LIST OF TITHING OPPONENTS IN HISTORY

Tithing opponents throughout the years as compiled by Dr. David Croteau, Liberty University, You Mean I Don’t Have to Tithe?, p271-292.

. . .
Thomas Aquinas 1275
. . .
. . .

My initial response was that several of the names listed did not "oppose" tithes (e.g., the Didache; Thomas Aquinas; Mark Driscoll, etc.). Just one example: Thomas Aquinas. He outlined some of the common objections to tithing in his day in his work 'Summa Theologica'; but most people often read the initial paragraph and stop there! They fail to see that Aquinas' reply to the objections come below the outlines, where among other things he clearly stated over and over again that -

There is this difference between the ceremonial and judicial precepts of the Law, as we stated above (FS, Q[104], A[3]), that it is unlawful to observe the ceremonial precepts at the time of the New Law, whereas there is no sin in keeping the judicial precepts during the time of grace although they are not binding.
. . .

For this debt is the principle on which is based the commandment of the Church about the payment of tithes. Now whatever man possesses comes under the designation of carnal things. Therefore tithes must be paid on whatever one possesses.
. . .

Hence it is not right to deduct one's taxes and the wages paid to workmen, before paying tithes: but tithes must be paid before anything else on one's entire produce.
. . .

http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/aquinas/summa/sum343.htm

I could over through many other names that appear in Dr. Croteau's "list" to show that they cannot be on that list because they did not "oppose" tithing. The one thing to note here is that you often recycle that list, little aware that it is a shoddy script making unjustified claims.

In consonance, I noted that some anti-tithing theologians (from whose materials most of your arguments are harvested) only come round to agree with tithing pastors. I give you just one example - Russell Kelly, whose name appears on your "list" in capital letters. Although he may argue long and hard entirely against any form or appearance of tithing for Christians, does it not amaze you that he found ways of agreeing with some pastors that teach tithes? I give you one example:

From Russell Kelly:

IMPORTANT: This document was requested and received by mail from myself in 2000. Dr. Kennedy’s position may have changed since then. It is my conclusion that, although he appears to teach tithing, his allowances and other statements make him in much more agreement with myself than with the majority of tithe-teachers today. Dr. Kennedy reveals more “heart” in the entire discussion than is usually revealed by others.

What is this "agreement" that Kelly is claiming from Dr. James D. Kennedy on tithing? In other words, what can we know about Dr. Kennedy's view on tithing for Christians? This is what appears on Russell Kelly's page -

Kennedy, James [p63], tithing pamphlet, Presbyterian TV preacher. Note: He takes a middle position that tithes should be paid on whatever remains after all essential bills have been paid. See full discussion on this web site.

[THE FOLLOWING IS NOT IN THE BOOK]

Here is the key to understanding Kennedy’s position. He first wants his audience to read the previous statements which, very honestly, do NOT place him in the tithe-teaching camp at all! He says “In light of these Biblical principles I encourage believers in Christ to tithe.”

1. The tithe was only from profit (no profit means no tithe). #1

2. The poor do not pay tithes. #2)

3. The poor receive tithes. #2

4. Those who have no increase are not required to tithe. #2

5. Welfare recipients and those living off savings should not tithe. #2

6. Our FIRST economic duty is to pay family essentials. #3

7. Tithe-payers can give it directly to the poor if they choose. #4

8. Tithe-payers should only give SOME of it to the local church. #4

9. Situation ethics determine whether or not tithes should be paid (2)

10.“God wants you to assign a high priority to taking care of family needs.)

11. Churches should allow tithes to be paid in the form of work performed

12.Tithes are only on what is left after necessary expenses and after taxes.

13.“In light of these biblical principles, I encourage believers to tithe.”

http://www.tithing-russkelly.com/id2.html

Something is wrong here. We know that if you asked Russell Kelly today whether he "encourages believers to tithe", his flat answer would be NO. That is the strain of his anti-tithing theology. So where does he get off from his bus to paint an "agreement" with Dr. James Kennedy who "encourages believers to tithe"?

You guys should try and be consistent in your arguments. Those who label tithing pastors as 'false teachers' can rest assured that the same label might apply to the anti-tithing theologians who are agreeing to "encourage believers to tithe". But I anticipate anti-tithers here would not be so daring. . . this all seems 'strange', doesn't it?

Joagbaje:
@wordtalk
You have said more than enough. There is no place where tithing was condemned or nullified . You don't need to respond to malicious questions that dont make sense.  It's waste of time . Some just keep going in circles trying to wear you out or trap you.

2 Timothy 2:23
23 But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes.

Luke 11:53-54
53 And as he said these things unto them, the scribes and the Pharisees began to urge him vehemently, and to provoke him to speak of many things: 54 Laying wait for him, and seeking to catch something out of his mouth, that they might accuse him.

I have only come to realise that of late. And your advice is well noted with thanks.