₦airaland Forum

garyarnold:
I stand corrected as far as the KJV not using the word tithe with Abraham in Hebrews.

That's fine. None of us know it all, and I certainly do not know everything. The one concern I have is the ease with which many people accuse others of being "false teachers" simply because the accusers do not like tithing - that is not helping at all.

However, I stand by my comments that Abram's tithe had nothing to do with God.  Biblical historians agree that during the days of Abraham, it was custom to give a tenth of war spoils to the king.

It is one thing to be a Biblical historian and quite another to be a Theologian with a Biblical worldview. I don't know how many sound 'Biblical historians' conclude that Abraham's tithes had nothing to do with God; but I know a handful of scholarly references that affirm indeed that Abraham's tithes were essentially a response of worship to God.

So when we read that 'Biblical historians agree' this and that, it is essential to know exactly what they are agreeing to; rather than just repeat assertions that are skewed and baseless. What theologians would ask in Abraham's case is this: WHY MELCHIZEDEK? If Genesis 14:20 had nothing to do with God, then Melchizedek would be the least qualified of all kings to have received tithes from Abraham. When you seek answers to that question on sound principles of Biblical hermeneutics, you'll see why your conclusions are unjustified.

In any case, Abraham didn't give a tenth of his income or his wealth.  Abraham give us NO example to follow as far as giving a tenth of our income to the church.  That is pure nonsense.  There is no principle of giving a tenth of one's income here, and there is no principle of giving a tenth of one's income in any of the tithing commands given by God.  That nonsense is made up by wolves in sheep's clothing.

Relax, the heat of 'pure nonsense' is unnecessary and betrays some desperation on your part. If there was no principle of giving a tenth of what someone possesses, then where did the Levites get the idea of tithes and tithing from? Only someone who ignores Genesis would assume that Biblical tithing began in Leviticus - what a laugh that would be both for historians and theologians!

Because the Bible authors are not blind to the subject, that is why both Abraham's and the Levitical tithes are mentioned in Hebrews 7. The author there does not ignore or rubbish Abraham's tithes at all; rather he affirms that before the question of the Levitical tithes arose, Abraham's tithes should be highlighted. This is why you need to go back and study the meaning of a Biblical principle in hermenuetics.

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.

Two things are deeply wrong with this list:

(a) First, Croteau's list is not scholarly - for someone with a doctorate! I'm not quite sure he carefully considered the names in the list; for several of them did not "oppose" tithes (e.g., the Didache; Thomas Aquinas; Mark Driscoll, etc.). In another consideration, not all the names in that list actually "oppose" tithing in the way anti-tithers would try to make us believe. Russell Kelly, for example, may argue long and hard against tithing, but what would you do if someone was to show you that the same Russell Kelly agreed that Christians can pay tithes?!?

(b) Second, the list is unbalanced as it says nothing of numerous other theologians in history that encouraged tithing among Christians. I'm sure that if Croteau did a bit of philosophy in earning his doctorate, it would have been obvious to him that listing only those who agree with you is considered shoddy thinking in academia! That is what is loosely called an argument by demagoguery, and you can ask how seriously real scholars take any such work!

Anyone can make a list - at the end of the day, we can either consider it seriously or simply laugh at its shoddy appeal to scholarship.

@Omenuko,

I can understand where you're coming from, and it's nice to read your calm response to the issue at hand. However, I don't agree with your explanations and analogies for Catholic veneration of saints - it goes deeper than what you're saying. A small example, quite often when the question is asked: "do Catholics pray to dead saints?", many adherents of the Catholic faith would vehemently deny that they do. Yet, we know that it is Catholic tenet to pray to dead saints, whether Catholics know this or explain it away. To honour the dead is a radically different thing from praying to them - both of which are bedrock beliefs in Catholicism.

This is not to put you or your beliefs on spotlight; rather, I think your answers are quite different from reality.

Febup:
The tithe collected today is false, the one in the Bible was for teachers of the law, Pharisees and hypocrites! See the verse below:

Matthew 23:23 is not the only verse that shows us the receivers of tithes in the Bible, unless you're saying that is the only verse you see in the Bible.

However, if the one in the Bible was for "teachers of the law, Pharisees and hypocrites", are you then saying that Melchizedek who received tithes from Abraham was any of those? Was Melchizedek a teacher of the Law? Was he a Pharisee or a hypocrite? If you believe he was, I'd like to see verses that say so.

Febup:
Men who die receives tithes, simply means you don't get any reward for doing so today if you give them your tithes, this is equal to putting money into a bank that is going to close down.

In all cases of tithes in the Bible, they are received by men. God never once came down to take tithes from anybody with His own hands. So, your initial argument was just uncalled for.

@garyarnold,

Please don't try to mislead people, as you're making a very poor case for your arguments.

garyarnold:
The KJV uses the word "tithe" with Abram in Genesis, but in Hebrews 7, the KJV uses tenth instead of tithe when speaking of Abraham, yet uses the word tithe when referring to the Levites.

The KJV uses the word "tithes" for Abraham's gifts both in Genesis 14 and Hebrews 7. I quote them for you to see --

Genesis 14:20
And blessed be the most high God, which hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand. And he gave him tithes of all.

Hebrews 7:6
But he whose descent is not counted from them received tithes of Abraham, and blessed him that had the promises.

Anyone who has a KJV Bible immediately sees your error, garyarnold. What happens if anyone would easily call you a false teacher for such erratic assertions in just the same way you accuse others of being false teachers?

The word "tithe" means a tenth UNTIL God gave His definition of His tithe. From that point on, the KJV no longer uses the word "tithe" to just mean a tenth.

Throughout the Bible, the word translated as tithe has always had only one definition - TENTH. If there is any other definition given to that simple word, please show us.

Most later versions of the Bible do NOT use the word "tithe" in Genesis, but rather the word tenth.

That is simply because the word "tithe" is defined as a "tenth" - pick whatever suits you, either term is fine.

In Genesis the word "tithe" is a mathematical term that has NOTHING to do with giving to God.

In Genesis, the word tithe has everything to do with God. You deny what you simply don't see.

To say that Abram "tithed" is not correct. Abram gave a tenth.

So, are you saying that your copy of the KJV Bible you read could be "INCORRECT" when it says indeed that Abraham gave tithes in both the OT (Gen. 14:20) and the NT (Heb. 7:6)? That's a new one on me. Please quote those verses from your copy of the KJV and let's compare notes.

Taking a word from the Bible and ignoring its context leads to false teaching.

What is context? When you define it, then we might give you a few examples from the New Testament to compare.

Pastor Kun:
@wordtalk
Assuming you are right (which you are not) that tithing is a principle, why do so many false teachers teach it as a mandatory commandment to christians?

Assumptions and presumptions do not help you, Kun. If you already conclude something before you listen to what others have to say, you're not helping matters for yourself, and this is why: "He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him" (Prov. 18:13).

There are false teachers as there are false teachings. I have not argued a case to make tithing a "mandatory commandment" anywhere; and just because many teach unsound things does not negate the meaning of a Biblical principle. Popularity of opinion is not what establishes a matter - if you disagree, you will be surprised to find what the majority of Evangelical leaders say about Jesus Christ.

It is evident from scriptures that tithing has no part in true christianity.

Really? I'm not aware of any anti-tithing theologian who does not agree with tithing for Christians. You simply would not know this, probably because you haven't checked it out.

garyarnold:
Tithing is not a principle. Only false teachers say it is.

Tithing is a principle, and sound theologians have well noted that. It is easy to deride others as false teachers when you don't understand the meaning of simple words.

Hebrews 7:5 (KJV) - And verily they that are of the sons of Levi, who receive the office of the priesthood, have a commandment to take tithes of the people according to the law, that is, of their brethren, though they come out of the loins of Abraham:

Did Abraham give tithes to Melchizedek by any "commandments" or "according to the Law"? At least, you acknowledge Abraham's tithes was being referred to in the second part of Hebrews 7:8, so by what commandment or law did he do so?

Matthew 23:23 (KJV) - Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.

People who argue against the Law are the same people who recommend the Law - that's doesn't come as a surprise. The least you can argue in Matthew 23:23 is that Jesus recommended both things to be done - to disqualify one and keep the other is to twist that verse. Try it out.

Instead of referring to a website written by a false teacher, search out a website from a reputable theologian.

Nice - maybe you should delete your own URL and let people search things out for themselves. That way we know you're not a false teacher.

Enigma:
Acts 19
Here we have people who were believers and disciples i.e. already "born again" according to your line of reasoning. Yet they had not even heard of the Holy Ghost let alone "received" Him! They "received" the Holy Ghost much much later after they were "born again".

I'm not quite sure that the terms describing each case all mean the same thing, though.

It is true that people could be 'believers' and 'disciples' without being 'born again' in context of new covenant as found in the apostles' preaching. The example in John 9:28 where some Jews affirmed that they were Moses' disciples but not disciples of Jesus is a case in point.

As for Acts 19, I think we should be careful. The context is not that they had not heard anything about the existence of the Holy Spirit, since John the Baptist made clear that Jesus would baptize believers in the Holy Spirit (Matt. 3:11). Rather, it is clear that they had not heard of the fulfilment of the outpouring of the Spirit - compare John 7:39. If there was any promise that a Jew could not be oblivious of, it was that about the Holy Spirit, as Joel 2 recorded.

Following this, it is not difficult to understand why Paul asked them to believe in Jesus, after which they were baptized and received the promised Holy Spirit.

In Cornelius' case, I'm not sure one can easily assume that Cornelius was "born again" already before Peter met him. If it was just a matter of pouring out the Holy Spirit on Cornelius' household in Acts 10, it begs the question why Peter should have been sent to him. I'm thinking about how Peter himself understood the reason for his meeting up with Cornelius - let Peter explain it himself in Acts 11:13-14 --

And he shewed us how he had seen an angel in his house, which stood and said unto him, Send men to Joppa, and call for Simon, whose surname is Peter; Who shall tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved.

Peter there was saying that his mission to Cornelius was to tell him words - words by which Cornelius and his family should be saved.

The question then is, if Cornelius was already saved (in context of being "born again", what sense would it make for Peter to have been sent yet to the same Cornelius to preach salvation to him? I'm not saying this is an easy question or that I have a more cogent answer - no. I'm just curious as to how someone who was already saved would still need to be preached unto, that is: to be told words by which he should be saved?

Thanks, Enigma. This was what I was curious about:

Enigma:
In the meantime, following your request, my point has been very simple: I ask you and others to consider the possibility that Cornelius was ALREADY "born again" before Peter came to his house to preach.

Your point is noted, and perhaps I'll look out for your views on Cornelius.

Enigma:
^^ First, at what point during Peter's preaching did Cornelius (and his household) get "born again"?

Let me claim ignorance and request you to tell me, please.

The one thing I'm curious about is the gist of your comments. Remember, "curious" - that's how I feel in reading the points you were trying to make, even though it may not be clear to me (thus, my use of "if".

I read earlier where you said:
"Meanwhile food for thought: if a person constantly displays the fruit that Jesus Christ desires in His disciples because the person wishes to please "God" but the person is not a "Christian" formally, is it not possible that the person is born again anyway?"

That is why I'm curious, because that sounds like someone being born again on the basis of his own lifestyle, efforts, behaviour, etc - in short, a 'gospel' of works salvation.

Now, if Cornelius was already born again (following the same line of reasoning as in your quote above), why would Peter need to still go and preach to Cornelius if the latter as already 'born again anyway'?

Enigma:
It's incredible how prosperity "gospel" people have tunnel vision and tend to only focus on things touching on "giving" and in particular to kick against giving to the poor!

In so far as my comments did not kick against giving to the poor or claim tunnel vision, I don't think that part of your remark was necessary.

Did my post not start with saying Cornelius was God-fearing? Should it not be obvious that a person who is "God-fearing" believes and has faith in God? Is it not the same faith that was credited to Abraham and that is credited to the followers of Jesus (as the final passages of that Roman 4 shows) that was recognised by God of (and, ergo, credited to) Cornelius even BEFORE Peter went to preach to him?

And your conclusion in all this was , ?

Try and reconsider my prior comments - I said "if" the conclusions being reached was thus and thus: that does not say that I had cemented what you were driving at. I was curious about this whole rap on 'God fearing', 'gifts' and 'acceptance', etc. which seemed to be leading to the Cornelius' case.

What I'm wondering about is this: did Cornelius 'gifts' and all the arguments around him mean that he was born again before Peter went to him? If yes, then why did Peter still need to preach the Gospel of salvation to him?

Enigma:
So, how did his prayers and offerings come up as a memorial before God, if he was not already acceptable and accepted in God's sight? In other words, even in his "unsaved" and "not born again" state, God found his actions acceptable!

I'm not sure what conclusions are being drawn in this consideration between someone's gifts being accepted and his being born again. But this should not escape our notice:

- a gift offering to the poor does not equate being born again
- if Cornelius was already "saved" by his offering, why did Peter yet have to go preach to him?
- if gifts to the poor translates as being born again, isn't that salvation by works?
- being devout and God-fearing does not mean being saved: see Nicodemus in John 3.

So, if the conclusions being reached by some is that gifts to the poor translates into being saved or born again, how then does that idea square with the thrust of the New Testament that salvation is not by any man's work? Just curious.

garyarnold:
Isn't it odd that even though Abram gave a tenth directly to Melchizedek, the king/priest, that some Christians think they can give directly to God by giving it to their pastor?

It is not odd, and only those who do not understand Genesis 14 would make arguments like you do.

I find it quite offensive that pastors have appointed themselves to be the receiver of what belongs to God.

In every case of offerings belonging to God, those who received them were men. God did not come down directly to receive anything from their hand to His hand; His offerings have always passed from the hands of men to the hands of other men. Why should that be offensive to you? When has God ever come down to receive anything directly from your hands?

Febup:
And who receives the tithes these false pastors are collecting is it men or God The answer is men that die and not God see below:

In every single case of tithes and other types of offerings, it is men that receive them. To condemn tithes because men receive them is to condemn all other types of offerings as well, since it is also men that also receive them.

Have you ever given offerings directly to the hand of God? Did He come down directly to receive yours? Is it not true that every single offering you have ever given in your life was received by men?

@Azibalua: "Tithing is nit a law, it is a principle"

That should summarise it. The problem is that not many people understand the difference between a law and a principle - much less their meanings in Scripture. Interesting articles at givingtithes.com on Biblical tithing for Christians.