₦airaland Forum

Enigma: For insight, permit me to copy from two old threads of mine.

A. "Who is a tither"? https://www.nairaland.com/744234/please-vote-tither#msg9003450

B. "Who is robbing God?" https://www.nairaland.com/747403/another-poll-robbing-god

Bros you still dey market this ya threads. You go need to hire a marketing agency o!

Ihedinobi: @Zikkyy, you should probably take a breather, bro. Take a step back and read everything I wrote as a whole document, then we'll see if we have something real to discuss.

I did not plan on turning the thread to one where people end up fighting (the reason am not saying much) and i am not expecting response to my questions. just something for you to think about.

Overall, i think it was still a good write-up.

Bidam: The point he is trying to make is that not everyone is quick to respond to the voice of the Spirit. It's takes a learning process actually.

We are saying he same thing. my understanding of his post is that people still need the law written on stone as guide. i.e. they need it to understand how to listen to their heart. My question is how long does it take before they start listening to their heart?

Bidam: Have you ever given your whole salary to the church?

They did not ask for it. i respond to needs, i don't drop just like that. besides i get plenty responsibilities, so i need to share.

Ihedinobi: It is in Christian nature to do so. It is not merely some law that Christians need to follow to prove their worthiness in some way to God. It is just normal to Christ to ensure that those who have given their lives to the Ministry of the Word and to Prayer do not lack and that the poor in our midst do not go hungry.

If to that end we choose to give 65% of our income or 10% or 2% or 99%, that's entirely our problem. Everyone must give according to what they have and cheerfully. Any giver like Ananias and Sapphira is already under judgment.

Grace be with all God's children.

THE END

Thank you.

Ihedinobi: The spiritual principle of the tithe is this: nobody who serves spiritually may lack and no poor among the brethren must be neglected.

Don't quite agree here. Like i stated earlier, it goes beyond serving spiritually. If you consider the fact that OT prophets did not benefit from tithe. Benefit accrue only to a particular tribe.

Ihedinobi: The apostles and our Lord Himself all taught out of the books written under the Old Covenant.

True. but they did not "teach" what was written in the old covenant.

Ihedinobi: We have indeed been given a new Nature that is biased to righteousness, but we ourselves have a lot of learning to do to grow up into its instincts and reflexes. Scriptures make no bones about the fact that we must grow after we have been born anew, that we must learn to become like Christ. It is not automatic, it takes diligent schooling to get to the point where our first instinct is to do good and not evil. That is why Christianity was first called "the Way" - before ever we were called Christians, we were called followers of the Way.

This learning process, how long does it take? one month? one year? or a life time? i know some tithers will tithe till they hit the grave meaning they will never truly become like Christ.

Ihedinobi: I think that any intensive research on the history of the tenth will find that the effort of Moses's Law was to show that it was Yah'weh that was deserving of that portion and that the other gods and the humans who demanded it were pretenders.

Not sure you got this from scriptures. Probably your opinion.

Ihedinobi: This levy takes various forms but the principle is always the same. The one who benefits from another's generosity shows their gratitude by giving that other a share in the new wealth that resulted from that generosity. That is wherr the tithe comes from. Moses simply took a very old tradition that derived from basic human nature and the relationship between a Sovereign and their subject and made a law out of it with specific percentages.

You give the impression it was all Moses idea. It's possible you are right o!

My brother Ihedinobi abeg no vex, i like to respond to some of ya comments. I'll be very brief.

Ihedinobi: A specific levy was laid upon all those who worshipped the God of Israel to maintain His Ministry. That levy was the tenth of one's wealth also called the tithe.

The tithe goes beyond just maintaining the ministry. It was their inheritance.

Slight disagreement with the term "wealth", the levy was calculated based on a special formula (see Leviticus 27). Therefore not applicable to some form of earnings.

kunlejazz: My brother, i've gone through your post above more than once and i cant find anything i said in all you've quoted.
I neither said nor meant any of those things you imply i did; from your first statement to your very last question.
Cheers!

No wahala.

Bidam: Tithing is more or less a covenant,God included in the mosaic law.The book of Malachi buttressed the fact.

The Mosaic law is gone.....for good so the tithe included in the law went with it (the same law Jesus referred to in Matthew 23:23). that's why you really need to take a second look at ya motive for tithing. your tithing practice is useless if it is based on an obsolete law.

Bidam: Moreso the change of law doesn't necessary mean the moral laws in the tablet of stone is completely abolished, we can see the principles of this in the NT and so is tithing.

The principle is not the actions but the underlying motive, and that's what you really need to understand. The moral laws on the tablet of stone is completely abolished but the moral laws itself remain. BTW tithing is not one of moral laws.

Bidam: You don't get the point do you. He is the same God that instituted the covenants. Why should tithing stand out among many others.

He is the same God, we know. But what has the covenants got to do with ya tithing

Bidam: Because it predates the Law.

jesus was not referring to tithe that predates the law. He was talking about the tithe commandment delivered by Moses. if you say your tithing is because it predates the law, then Matthew 23:23 becomes irrelevant.

It appears you are confused. you need to make up your mind on why you tithe.

Image123: @Zikky, is the tithe a tenth or no?

Don't ask me jor the merriam webster definition says "tithe is a tenth part of.." abi you want to deny you are not the one that provided the MW reference

Anyways, now that you are willing to learn i can tell you tithe is not a tenth and it is not 10%. "it is a tenth part of.." or "the tenth item" (according to scriptures o! i no dey use dictionary to define tithe )

Image123: The name is just tithe, it doesn't need any qualifiers. A tithe is a tenth.

@image123, you told us "a tithe is a tenth", but to justify ya statement, you provided a tithing definition that says tithe is a tenth of something. see ya post from Merriam Webster below..... (observe the bit in blue)

Image123: merriam webster's
2

tithe \ˈtīth\

transitive verb 1 : to pay or give a tenth part of especially for the support of THE CHURCH 2 : to levy a tithe on intransitive verb : to give a tenth of one's income as a tithe Other forms: tithed; tith·ing Origin: Middle English, from Old English teogothian, from teogotha tenth. First use: before 12th century


tithe

noun 1 : a tenth part of something paid as a voluntary contribution or as a tax especially for the support of a religious establishment 2 : the obligation represented by individual tithes 3 : tenth; broadly : a small part 4 : a small tax or levy

Origin: Middle English, from Old English teogotha tenth; akin to Middle Low German tegede tenth, Old English tīen ten — more at ten. First use: before 12th century

You see ya self even the reference you provided states that tithe is not just a tenth; it is a tenth of something. why you continue to deceive yaself, I don't know.

Image123: merriam webster's
2

tithe \ˈtīth\

transitive verb 1 : to pay or give a tenth part of especially for the support of THE CHURCH 2 : to levy a tithe on intransitive verb : to give a tenth of one's income as a tithe Other forms: tithed; tith·ing Origin: Middle English, from Old English teogothian, from teogotha tenth. First use: before 12th century


tithe

noun 1 : a tenth part of something paid as a voluntary contribution or as a tax especially for the support of a religious establishment 2 : the obligation represented by individual tithes 3 : tenth; broadly : a small part 4 : a small tax or levy

Origin: Middle English, from Old English teogotha tenth; akin to Middle Low German tegede tenth, Old English tīen ten — more at ten. First use: before 12th century

Hmmmm.....

Image123 defining tithe using the dictionary.....

@image123, is your tithing activities defined by scriptures or by merriam Webster's?

kunlejazz: *smiles* thot I was done for the day
Joses and Ananias
Acts 4:34-36; 5:1-
And it also says 'as many as had...' in chap 4 vs 34

So you saying the giving was done by Joseph (the levite) and Ananias. So all the sharing and feeding were proceeds from disposal of Joseph and Ananias property. Na wa for you o!

Acts 4:32-34 (NIV)
32 All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had. 33 With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And God’s grace was so powerfully at work in them all 34 that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales

kunlejazz: Who says they weren't taught? The bible didn't say that. They could have and even if they weren't, seeing others give was enough- that is leading by example.

Well if they were performing less than a day after they believed, i wonder if they had time to receive teachings on giving. at the time, the focus of the apostles was preaching the resurrected Christ than teachings on Christian practices. Pastors today runs out of saliva teaching giving and yet no result Instead you are looking for ways to enforce standard.

kunlejazz: and even if they weren't, seeing others give was enough- that is leading by example.

Thought you said the giving was the one time transactions done by Joseph and Ananias

kunlejazz: So many of them were matured Christians too. And the bible never said they all gave. Only some did and their names were even mentioned. They were probably the more matured ones

Read Acts 2 below:

Acts 2:41 (NIV)
41 Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day.

Acts 2:42-47 (NIV)
42 They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. 43 Everyone was filled with awe at the many wonders and signs performed by the apostles. 44 All the believers were together and had everything in common. 45 They sold property and possessions to give to anyone who had need. 46 Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, 47 praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved.

Notice the blue highlight (v.46), "ate together with glad and sincere hearts". Every they did was from the heart.

Reading verse 44-45, i don't see any name mentioned o! verse 47 says day old believers were involved as well. They did not have the NT yet they performed so beautifully. You can see you don't need standard.

kunlejazz: Of course i don't agree with forcing people to give. Or threatening them with curses etc. I can't be a member of any church that does that. Yet, giving must be taught and taught well.

The day old believers in Acts 2 were not taught giving and yet they were performers. They make the modern day pastors/teachers (of giving) look like the devil himself. imagine the pastors that refuses to share, instead continues to acquire luxurious items (e.g. PJs). just enjoying alone ehn?

Bidam: Where? could you please refer me to the answers.It's been bugging me for sometimes now.

abeg search the thread jor

kunlejazz: And if no standard should be imposed, what will guide baby christians/young believers with much less knowledge of scriptures than you have to give?

You are talking about baby christians/young believers, some of the believers in Acts 4 were day old/week old believers and they gave their all. I repeat, you don't need standards, you need (true) Christians.

Bidam: I guess no soul here is willing to respond to my questions.

Maybe its because your question been answered

kunlejazz: The monthly tithing thing is then by far a very reasonable yardstick for giving for today's church, just like any other church doctrine, not necessarily given as a direct command in scriptures.
Here's what beats

kunlejazz: Now, I challenge anyone on this thread to propose a standard of giving for the NT believer, close enough to what we have in Acts 4:34 (selling your possessions and distributing among believers) that will allow us give less than a tenth of our income!

This is the problem we have with many 'christians'. standard or yardstick for giving is not meant for true christians. It's for those that are stingy and unwilling to give. focus should be on changing stubborn and unwilling heart to one willing to share. Setting standard amounts to forcing some people to give.

debosky: Firstly, those in the NT were not 'instructed' to sell all their possessions - they did so because that is what they decided in their hearts to do, not because they were trying to 'meet' any standard.

In terms of giving as much as we 'ought to', I believe this is a personal thing between the individual and God. If God is leading you to give more, by all means do so, but don't enforce that on others - let them give as they are led.

I'm not a big fan of 'yardsticks' when it comes to giving, but I do hear what you are saying. Used as a guide, and clearly explained as not mandated/commanded in scripture, tithing is a valid practice. It is when tithing is taught as compulsory and 'robbing God' that issues arise.



But it is stated Genesis 2:24, and repeated by Jesus in Matthew 19:5.

Good talk.

Ihedinobi: The Laws in the Old Covenant are the same Laws that have been written on our hearts. But not quite in the same form, we all know.

If you are referring to the moral aspect of the mosaic law i would agree with you.

I think where we differ is my view that the law has not been (completely) written on the heart of one that continues to refer to the external/physical law for guidance. it is in process (at best).

Enigma: Guys, permit me a little levity here --- just for a brief moment. I have read Zikky's traffic light analogy again and it brings this up in my mind.

In Britain --- traffic lights are to be obeyed.

In France traffic lights are mere suggestions

In Italy (and Lagos?) traffic lights are merely [Christmas] decorations!

I'll get me coat!

Lol

Ihedinobi: Again, it is true that when you live by a list you continue to examine it to see if you are contravening it in some way. But that only seems to agree with Paul's instruction that we examine ourselves to see if we're in the Faith. There must be some moral yardstick to measure ourselves against to be able to tell when we're in the Faith and when we're not, not so? And it cannot be vague or else its purpose is only defeated, don't you agree?

don't usually talk about myself, but let me share an experience.

There was this day (a very long time ago) i found myself intervening in a fight between a friend and a third party. The other guy was chasing my friend with a piece of wood with the intention of 'planking' my friend (Rivers SHA style ). I got in the way in an attempt to stop the other guy from committing murder, i got 'planked' instead (cracked a bone). The wood fell in the process and i picked it up. The other guy decided it was time to retreat unfortunately it was at a corner, with no-where to run. I was in pain and contemplating the next line of action. Would hitting back ease my pain? Looking at the guy's face (he already surrendered himself for some 'planking' ), i decided it was not the best thing to do (i know some posters will dis-agree ), but i found myself advising him instead. Now did i consider any listing/law in making that decision? No i did not. It all comes down to who i am (my nature), and it just wasn't me to hit back in such a situation.

Ihedinobi: Per the bolded, if indeed it is the source of that list as you say then the list does not contradict it, does it?

I agree the list does not contradict it source, but consider the fact that the list will not change what or who i am. i.e. it can make me do things the issuer wants but it will not change me. Again that was why Paul said the law is good and applicable to criminals (those without the heart to do good but are made to comply due to possible sanctions). Just like the traffic light will not change the nature of road users; when there is no light, camera or traffic policeman, the average road user will not comply with the rules.

To change, i need to look away from the list and go to the very source of that list.

Ihedinobi: ..... However, there is nothing vague about the nature of a thing. The nature of a thing dictates how it must behave. In other words, we can tell that a thing is going contrary to its nature when it disobeys some dictate of said nature, do you agree?

This means that it is possible to articulate with clear statements the Laws of a thing's Nature. If so, can you give me one example of the Laws of a Christian's Nature? I need it to see exactly what you intended to convey by your answer.

I will not say love is vague.

1 Corinthians 13:4-7 (NIV)
4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

debosky: If we accept that the law is like a traffic light/speed camera it means even as Christians, we 'naturally' (not due to fear of punishment) comply with the lights and cameras no? That is only correct to an extent (I guess all analogies will fall short in some respect).

The difference is the bit highlighted red. you are seen to be complying with the rule. same thing you will do if there was no light/camera. the fact that a christian will not kill is not because the law says that shall not kill, but at the same time he is seen to have complied with the law that says "thou shall not kill".

debosky: What I am trying to bring out here is that some of those laws don't even apply anymore -i.e. there is no punishment associated with a lack of compliance with some 'laws' e.g. tithing, wave offering, sacrifice, etc.

I agree with you. maybe i did not indicate this in my post, but my focus was mainly on the moral aspect of the law.

^^^ you are always the first to comment on thread of this nature. i want to believe you are not Joagbaje maybe you are using Joagbaje's lap-top

Candour: God bless you Zikky.

This is the shortest straight to the point explanation i have seen on this subject. Christ said all the law hangs on LOVE. He that loveth another hath fulfilled the law. I don't think there's anything more to add.

God bless you again brother

God bless you too