You are quating out of context

4get_me, good morning to you sir,

I greatly appreciate you scholarship, but I usually end up questioning one of two things,
1. the premise or
2. the conclusion.

Let me explain;

Re: Alcohol ~ your conclusion was
Wine, permissible
Strong drink not encouraged

Are we encouraged to drink wine? No. Are we permitted to drink strong drink? Yes. There is very little distinction between the two. So too sum up, one can do one, both or none (obviously with moderation in mind). You have essentially agreed with me.

Re: Tithing ~ you opened thus (on 21/04/06);
"Tithe or no tithe, even giving is NOT an obligation in the NT to Christians".
(seemingly agreeing with me)

You then go on to say that, there is a difference, you do both and that there are different benefits accruing as a result of doing so.

So as to the question “to tithe or not?” you seemingly agree and then in a convoluted way disagree? If the question had been “to pray or not?” We all know that it’s not a law, but it would be madness not to do so, which is essentially what you are saying about tithing. And that sir, is at best misguided (my view of course, please don’t take umbrage at my choice of words).

(Why do I still think there is a hint of trying to "fit scripture to tradition" here?)

As for the notion of “give to get”, you are not the first I have had this discussion with (I have previously discussed this with Welborn and Baby4u2). I don’t see this as NT Christian motivation. God blesses His own. Simple. Christians give/bless as a consequence of Christ’s love flowing through them, it’s a response to need, a form of “Christian witness”. “Giving to get” smacks, of an investment strategy. Gods promise is to “supply need”. Even your breakdown of “types of giving” sounds questionable. Giving to ministry, giving to the poor, giving to orphans etc, etc, and claiming that there are blessing associated with each “type”. Sir you appear to be talking income streams. In 2Corinthians 8 the Macedonians gave beyond their abilities (sacrificially). Is that to be taken as some sort of risk free gamble on their part? Knowing that God would sooooo bless them as a result? And yes I know that “fruit abounds” to one’s account, but the drawings are not just material and not solely in the here and now. Am I hearing a more “user friendly” version of the “prosperity Gospel” (which is unquestionably “another”)?

Does God bless when we give? Do talebearers cause strife?
Do we give with an eye on a return? Do grizzlies fish for tinned salmon?

Maybe I’ll get round to developing my Letter vs. Intent theme one day, but for now let me say this. Material blessings where the promise of obedience under the OT Law.  There is a deeper meaning under the New Covenant.

And no I am not championing poverty.

“Though He were rich, yet for our sakes He became poor”

May grace & peace be multiplied to all.

God bless

sorryy

i love dese tins, it brings knowledge to dose dat desire it

i dont happen to no much of scriptural facts as regards tithing.
but i feel that givin one out of ten to God who gave you the 10 is not too much, most especially wen you have the rest 9 to your pockets.

no one is forcing it, not even the priest should.
nothing in life is compulsory, but some are necessary.

i feel its necessary to tithe, you'll be perplexed ow much God treasures and rewards it.

goodluck as you tithe,
me.

*

Hi virozuru,

virozuru:

you are supposed to tithe.

No you are not supposed to tithe (not as a Christian anyway).

virozuru:

I don't understand why people feel that you aren't supposed to.

Simply because the Bible does not anywhere, at anytime demand it of NT Christians.

I appreciate your stance on this, but I do not share it as I believe it is quite wrong and in a sense very dangerous.

God bless

TV01,

I've seen your replies earlier but had little time to address them. Later in the day I'll attempt to deal with a few of the issues you raised and see if you can understand what you're missing in these matters. TY.

otolorin:

i love dese tins, it brings knowledge to dose that desire it

i don't happen to no much of scriptural facts as regards tithing.
but i feel that givin one out of ten to God who gave you the 10 is not too much, most especially when you have the rest 9 to your pockets.

no one is forcing it, not even the priest should.
nothing in life is compulsory, but some are necessary.

i feel its necessary to tithe, you'll be perplexed ow much God treasures and rewards it.

goodluck as you tithe,
me.

For a single person, at least 30% of your money goes to the government, 20% of your money goes to paying your housing and utility costs, 10% goes to food and transporation. This leaves you with about 40% of your money remainiing. Assuming you (wisely) decide to save (at least) 10% (for YOUR future retirement when you will earn $0), that leaves 30%. For people without college loans whose cost of living does not compare to their income, this may be enough to pay out 10% of your income in tithes.

However, depending on your job, you may have to pay 30-40% of your income going towards paying for housing and utility, and 15% for transportation and food. Again, if you mangae to save 10%, you'd only have 5% of your income left.

Throw in having children or debt, even if you have a great job, you could still have little left at the end of the day.

If people claimed that you only pay tithes from the amount you have LEFT after taking care of the NEEDS of yourself and your family, I may not rail so hard against the idea, even though I fundamentally disagree with the actual argument, we are NOT required to pay tithes, it is just a nice habit.

Hi Allonym,

Lots of pertinent points.

God does not demand tithe from NT Christians.

The OT law of tithing was introduced in what was a essentially a "Godocracy", and there were various types of "tithe" payable. Essentially it was two annual 10% and one tri-annual 10%. Comes to about 23.33% a year. A pretty bang on figure for income tax wouldn't you say?

NT Christians are living in a Kingdom that they are not of. So we pay taxes to it's rulers. The body of Christ has it's own economics. Money moves in response to need and the vehicle is heartfelt, voluntary giving.

God knows this.
Matthew 17:25 - He said, "Yes." And when he had come into the house, Jesus anticipated him, saying, "What do you think, Simon? From whom do the kings of the earth take customs or taxes, from their sons or from strangers?" 26 Peter said to Him, "From strangers." Jesus said to him, "Then the sons are free.

There's a certain legalistic way of reading the scriptures, which is no better than a first step. Sure, it'll enable you to deal with some issues, but when it comes to the intent of the Word you can so easily get it wrong. That's why to some the above scripture has nothing to do with tithe,

Just like Allonym, appears to be asking, doesn't God know that we have family to provide for?
Yes He does, and He insists that they are provided for first.

1Timothy 5:8 - But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.

You see, God's building block is the family not the Church (whatever your mode of worship), and certainly not the church as organisation which tends to churn out "technocrats", whose hearts are set in defense and preservation of the organisation they serve. That in turn leads to the the legalistic interpretation of scripture I mentioned above.

And Allonym's obvious "common sense" reading of the situation is totally supported by scripture. Pity some can't see that.

God doesn't tax His son's, whose son are you?

God bless

Still on this topic? Now that I have he time, Can some one let us know if the electronic/ muchroom churches survive without tithe?

TV01,

You're sounding like you've been badly hit sometime ago. A gentleman should be willing to take corrections where he's been shown to err. So, your arguments here tells more about your reaction to something other than the topic.

Anyways, there doesn't seem to be a dictionary meaning of the word you used: "Godocracy" (you probably meant "Theocracy". And 23.33% is not "a pretty bang on figure for income tax" (care to see an example of why this is so - click on this link for the case of England in a current review, or do a search on other countries yourself).

If God doesn't tax His sons, then pretty well don't pay your taxes - no quarrels about that warranting that line in bold fonts. And by the way, you're not obliged to tithes in just the same way that you're not obliged to a "heartfelt, voluntary giving."

Hi Syrup,

syrup:

You're sounding like you've been badly hit sometime ago.

I do? Whatever gave you that idea? And why do you feel it was some time ago?

syrup:

A gentleman should be willing to take corrections where he's been shown to err.

I agree. Please point out my error and if I respond taking correction, you'll know if I'm a gentleman or not.

"Godocracy" - Used to describe when God was not just de facto ruler but really Lord of the nation. I know it's not a dictionary word, it was to emphasis my point. I believe Afghanistan would pretty much serve as an example of "Theocracy" today, I wouldn't equate that with Israel at the time the law was given.

I reviewed the link you so kindly supplied, thank you for that.
The link shows that basic income tax for an average wage earner is 22%. I'd say that was pretty "bang on".

"God does not tax His sons" ~ We don't live in God's Kingdom, so I pay taxes like the Bible instructs. The outreach of God's kingdom on the earth is the Body of Christ. I don't pay taxes there. I practice freewill giving.

I do apologise if my use of bold font distressed you.

syrup:

And by the way, you're not obliged to tithes

I know I'm not obliged to tithe. Tithing is not a NT Christian notion.

syrup:

in just the same way that you're not obliged to a "heartfelt, voluntary giving."

If something is hearfelt & voluntary, would you be so kind as to explain how it can be obliged?.

You can tell a lady by the graciousness of her speech and the warmth in her tone.

Thank you for taking the time to share.

God bless

Hello TV01,

Oh yeah, I'm really gracious, but that shouldn't make me credulous to just about anything said. I'm not one to go into long debates that lead nowhere with you, but for the record: "Godocracy" is not a word at all, nor does it decsribe what you've tried to explain. "De facto ruler" and "really Lord of the nation" say just about the same thing; and then when was it that 'Theocracy' was not a more appropriate word? When did "Godocracy" begin and when did it end? Pretty 'bang on' between 22% and 23.33% is a misnomer; but if the simple arithmetic doesn't click with you, rest your heart.

I would like to share views but not when you want to be read slyly. Apologies if my warmth and tone distressed you.

God bless.

Hi Syrup,

syrup:

"Godocracy" is not a word at all, nor does it decsribe what you've tried to explain. "De facto ruler" and "really Lord of the nation" say just about the same thing;

God is the ruler of all the nations.
When a nation responds to God and honours Him as such , He is Lord of that nation.
I see a theocracy is just a state with is governed by the rules of a religion.
I hope that makes the distinction clear.

Apologies if my mathematical ineptitude appalled you. The point I was making was not arithmetical. Suffice to say, given lower, standard and higher rates of tax (and I'd say pretty much everywhere today as well) 23.33% would be about typical for your average earning, basic rate tax payer.

I would also like to share views, which is what I did.

Please don't apologise, I never accused you of warmth or graciousness.

Will you be kind enough to point out my error?

God bless

TV01,

You might find it such a pleasure to be very finicky with words, especially where they're unnnecessary. "Theocracy" is what you see in Afghanistan, but when it comes to Godocracy, it's hanging in the air? Pardon me, but where have you actually seen "Godocracy" in practice, and why is "theocracy" a bastardised word in OT Israel's case? When did Godocracy begin and when did it end? Perhaps you could be more specific by enunciating how Godocracy was practised in the OT and how that differs from theocracy.

Thanks.

Hi Syrup,

I don't want to get to far off topic, but I am happy to take the time to answer your questions.

When the Israelites came out of Egypt, through the time the law was given up until the time they demanded a king, God (through various prophets/judges etc) personally ruled the Israelite nation. That's what I mean by "Godocracy". True "Lordship" if you please. Whilst we have "Theocracies", I don't think that we have any nation in this age that has ceded rule back to God. I trust this makes my position a little clearer? If not please do say. However, if it makes better reading to you to use the word "theocracy", please feel free to do so.

I think it important to be precise so as to correctly convey my position. I do at times use words with my own distinctions in mind, neglecting to note that others may not make the same distinction. Apologies if I've done that here.

Now, can we please return to my error. I'm interested to hear how I have erred, so that like a true gentleman I can proffer an apology .

God bless

TV01,

TV01:

When the Israelites came out of Egypt, through the time the law was given up until the time they demanded a king, God (through various prophets/judges etc) personally ruled the Israelite nation. That's what I mean by "Godocracy". True "Lordship" if you please.

"God (through various prophets/judges etc) personally ruled the Israelite nation" - Is that not clearly theocracy? Have you checked out the meaning of the word before advancing 'Godocracy'? I'll not be tedious to you any further if you can't see the difference. But let me share in a nutshell:

          Godocracy  -   [underived word and thus meaningless]

          theocracy   -   rule by God [from Theos (God) and kratein (-cracy; that is, "rule"]

          ecclesiocracy/
          hierocracy  -   rule by priests or religious ministers not claiming direct God-rule as in theocracy.

TV01:

I think it important to be precise so as to correctly convey my position. I do at times use words with my own distinctions in mind, neglecting to note that others may not make the same distinction. Apologies if I've done that here.

So, there goes your precision. We want to understood you, but speak the lingo we can understand and save everyone the needless pun.

Hi Syrup,

You are right, "Theocracy" it is. I'd never actually come across the derivation "Ecclessiocracy", and I took the first to mean the last.

Thank you for that and apologies for my improper word use  .

Now, about my error.

God bless

objibb:

Still on this topic? Now that I have he time, Can some one let us know if the electronic/ muchroom churches survive without tithe?

Ahh, here is an interesting question. The problem here is that you are assuming that all churches are supposed to survive. I don't think that God mandated that once any person decided to start a church, it MUST be kept alive through tithe and offering, or kept alive at all. Not all churches survive beyond a few years - this should not be a bad thing, and certainly, cannot just be attributed to tithing or a lack thereof.

TV01,

Are you really so fastidious about issues?  

You really are hard to please, aren't you? What have I been pointing out all this while - something other than your error(s)? I thought we've put that to rest; but if you have a penchant for non-essentials, then you have a go. My apologies that I've wasted a discussion with you pointing these things out. But no matter.

If you have the time and interest, do you care to point this out for me -

TV01:

God knows this.
Matthew 17:25 - He said, "Yes." And when he had come into the house, Jesus anticipated him, saying, "What do you think, Simon? From whom do the kings of the earth take customs or taxes, from their sons or from strangers?" 26 Peter said to Him, "From strangers." Jesus said to him, "Then the sons are free.

There's a certain legalistic way of reading the scriptures, which is no better than a first step. Sure, it'll enable you to deal with some issues, but when it comes to the intent of the Word you can so easily get it wrong. That's why to some the above scripture has nothing to do with tithe,

How does Matt. 17:25 have to do with tithes?

Thank you.

Hi Syrup,

I see now, you don't agree that tithing by religious diktat is in any way related to taxes?

My point being that the Israelites under Theocracy where commanded to pay tithes.
At that point, the Jewish/Culture/Faith/Government all merged, so my stance is that tithing was essentially taxation to them. (Used to run/care for the government; the priesthood. Used for social welfare; the needy. And as a form of worship; the feasting).

Christians are not governed by those same laws, all such laws being fulfilled by the birth, sinless life, death and resurrection of The Lord.

NT Christians simply give. God does not demand taxes or tithes (if you prefer) from His people.
Christians pay taxes as demanded by the nations in which they live.

I raised this particular point in response to Allonyms post.

I appreciate you may not agree that one can make a connection between tithing and taxation, but that in no way changes my stance on the fact that tithing is simply not a Christian imperative.

If you have anything to show to the contrary, please say on.

God bless.

TV01,

I appreciate your stance and interpretation of what you suppose tithing was/is. But you somewhat mixed issues up (at least for me) in stating:

Christians are not governed by those same laws, all such laws being fulfilled by the birth,
sinless life, death and resurrection of The Lord.

. . .and then seemingly again convoluting this thought with:

Christians pay taxes as demanded by the nations in which they live.

Tithing thus translates into taxation - was that what you meant in explicating Matt. 17:25 (". . .my stance tithing was essentially taxation to them"? Well, it's your stance and I can't go into any quarrels about that. But I wonder if really the Bible teaches that tithes and taxes are essentially the same things.

Notice this: if tithing is essentially the same thing as taxation, and as Christians we are not under the Law of tithes, why then should we pay taxes at all, according to your surmising?

It's really not going anywhere, is it? But I'll leave it to you to clear the air for me.

Hi Allonym,

allonym:

Ahh, here is an interesting question. The problem here is that you are assuming that all churches are supposed to survive. I don't think that God mandated that once any person decided to start a church, it MUST be kept alive through tithe and offering, or kept alive at all. Not all churches survive beyond a few years - this should not be a bad thing, and certainly, cannot just be attributed to tithing or a lack thereof.

Here I personally have a different viewpoint.

Yes, all churches are supposed to survive, simply because there is only One. One of the planets in our solar system, has I believe 11 moons? (Please don't stone me if I'm wrong here, I am simply making a point). All of them have names. The earth has only one moon. So why bother naming it? So no one ever did. Likewise the Church.

Again, a man starting a church? No need, the Lord accomplished that work (with His Apostles and Prophets). Church is something you are. You simply join fellowship with other believers in your locale. Wherever there are believers, there is church.

If a man decides to start an organisation and call it church, fine. If he decides to fund it with tithes, again fine. But I see no Biblical mandate for that. If such an organisation "fails" due to cash flow problems (like many other organisations do), that should not surprise. If "God" is indeed in an endeavor, how can it fail?

The bride of Christ will be here until her Lord comes for her.

God bless.

Hi Syrup,

Thanks for taking the time.

If I stressed that we are talking about two kingdoms here (as opposed to two dispensations),
would that help?

~ As citizens we live in the World, another kingdom - We render to Caesar his due.
~ As the Family of God our King, we are not of this world, and Kings do not demand taxes from
their sons, hence the reference to Matthew 17:25

Dispensationally, tithes were the tax of the OC. There are non in the new. Christians give from the heart, in response to need in the Body. God responds to that.

Hope this makes my position a little clearer, even if no more agreeable.

God bless

@TV01, that's how you read the OT, and no qualms about that. I wouldn't read that tithes were the same thing as taxes in the Old Testament. Earlier you alluded to this inference of the two meaning essentially the same, which you have repeated just above. Would I then take it that you're inferring that no other form(s) of taxes were imposed on the Israelites than tithes (if they are the same at all)?

Hi Syrup,

As I said earlier, where faith/culture/government all merge, I don't see how the tithe could be seen as anything other than tax? The tithe was imposed by God. I am not aware of;

~ any other levy posed by God,
~ if any other person (in the priesthood?), would have been able to ask for a tax or   
   tithe or
~ what the reason for it would have been?

I am aware of the temple tax and of course that the Israelites would have had to pay taxes when subject to foreign rule. One last point, the kings of Israel/Judah would have demanded taxes, but that was a consequence of them asking for a king (at that point I suppose they ceased to be a theocracy and God did warn them in 1 Samuel ch8). If there is evidence of another relevant tax, I'll have to 'fess up to poor scholarship on this point.

I am not saying that tithes = tax.
I am saying that tithe in the OT dispensation equated to tax.
I am not saying Christians should'nt pay taxes.
I am saying Christians don't pay tithes

I am also hoping my position/reasoning are a little clearer now.

Thanks very much.

Maybe you be so kind as to share your insight. On tax as tithe, and tithe generally.

God bless

TV01:

As I said earlier, where faith/culture/government all merge, I don't see how the tithe could be seen as anything other than tax?

@TV01, The idea of tithe was not to be read as taxation - OT and NT - because both were in operation among the Israelites at some time in their history. Interpretations do have a funny way of driving things beyond their contexts and arriving at other than their intended meanings. Theocracy did not end in I Samuel 8 - else would David have been something other than God's gracious purposes for His people Israel (I Samuel 16:1 & 13). The people didn't ask for a king in David's case, but God Himself chose a king after His own heart.

For a few references on forms of taxes being payed other than tithes, see the following:

# And Solomon reigned over all kingdoms from the river unto the land of the Philistines, and unto
the border of Egypt: they brought presents, and served Solomon all the days of his life.
- I Kings 4:21. (the word "presents" is actually "tribute" in Hebrew).

# There have been mighty kings also over Jerusalem, which have ruled over all countries beyond
the river; and toll, tribute, and custom, was paid unto them. - Ezra 4:20.

Notice that the mighty kings were actually the Jewish kings, not foreign overlords. And these kings actually taxed the people they ruled over - which would include their own people, the Jews. However you read I Samuel 8, it still does not negate the fact that taxes (in form of toll, tribute, and custom) were different from tithes and both operated at the same period. It may be true that God did not impose the taxes on the Israelites - which distinguished that from the tithes that He did. Do you read me well at this point?


So again,

TV01:

My point being that the Israelites under Theocracy where commanded to pay tithes.
At that point, the Jewish/Culture/Faith/Government all merged, so my stance is that tithing was essentially taxation to them. (Used to run/care for the government; the priesthood. Used for social welfare; the needy. And as a form of worship; the feasting).

. . . that's what I couldn't get in your piece, because you seemed to have supposed that tithes were essentially taxes; but that would not hold true as the verses I quoted just above point out.

In all, I appreciate where you're coming from and thus respect your views thereto.

Blessings.

*

*

Hi virozuru,

I didn't get you. . . what really were those texts for? Perhaps it would be more helpful sometime in the future to write them out as we usually try to do.

*

Hi Syrup,

Good morning and thanks for your response. I quite appreciate how your views are forcing me to think mine through. So to business (I may answer in parts as time allows).

syrup:

Theocracy did not end in I Samuel 8 - else would David have been something other than God's gracious purposes for His people Israel (I Samuel 16:1 & 13). The people didn't ask for a king in David's case, but God Himself chose a king after His own heart.

Theocracy was God's way. I'm currently reading through the OT and I'm at Exodus right now. It's quite clear that God did not even desire a mediatory priesthood. That was introduced because the people refused to meet with Him as He desired. Please read Exodus 19/20 to clarify this. The people refused Gods offer of a universal priesthood. So God gave them a mediatory one. That was the introduction of the ecclessiocracy.

Likewise the monarchy. It was never Gods intention. His plan has always to be amongst His people as their King. A monarchy was never God's desire. And as I mentioned, the consequences of monarchical rule were clearly spelt out in 1 Sam chapter 8. The people demanded a monarchy, so God gave them one. It was indeed Gods graciousness that raised up king David, but again, please read the history of the monarchical lineages in both Judah and Israel. Are we to conclude that the almost universally line of evil kings (especially in Israel, which was not the true throne) was Gods will?

That is why there always had to be a new covenant.

Hebrew 8:6 But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, inasmuch as He is also Mediator of a better covenant, which was established on better promises. 7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second. 8 Because finding fault with them, He says: "Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah-- 9 not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they did not continue in My covenant, and I disregarded them, says the Lord. 10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My laws in their mind and write them on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 11 None of them shall teach his neighbor, and none his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,' for all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them.

Please tell me, was the fault Gods? No! It was the demands of men.
That is always the problem. Men insisting on worshipping God in a way they deem fit.
It's outworking is so prevalent today, that few can actually discern the difference. God does not mandate (and true worshipers do not require) mediators

The religion of temples, mediatory priests, sacrifice and the like was given to men because they demanded it. Does anyone think religion is God's idea?  God hates religion. In Christ Jesus, all those things are done away with. No more temples, no more mediators , no more rituals. But men won't have it. The Lord cries for and offers relationship. Many Christian tradions pay it lip service, but the hierarchies, cathedrals, traditions and the like always give the game away.

In a very real sense, the NC is God doing things the way they always should have been the way they were always meant to be. His way. His will is perfect.

Exodus 19:3 And Moses went up to God, and the Lord called to him from the mountain, saying, "Thus you shall say to the house of Jacob, and tell the children of Israel: 4 'You have seen what I did to the Egyptians, and how I bore you on eagles' wings and brought you to Myself. 5 Now therefore, if you will indeed obey My voice and keep My covenant, then you shall be a special treasure to Me above all people; for all the earth is Mine. 6 And you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.'

So your references to taxes by the Kings of Israel/Judah are a consequence of the people demanding a monarchy. which I mentioned in my post prior.

TV01:

I am aware of the temple tax and of course that the Israelites would have had to pay taxes when subject to foreign rule. One last point, the kings of Israel/Judah would have demanded taxes, but that was a consequence of them asking for a king (at that point I suppose they ceased to be a theocracy and God did warn them in 1 Samuel ch8). If there is evidence of another relevant tax, I'll have to 'fess up to poor scholarship on this point.

So I disagree. True Theocracy ended in Exodus, with the advent of the ecclesiocracy. The introduction of the monarchy in 1 Samuel 8 just worsened matters. Before the monarchy, there was no other significant form of tax (minor levies maybe), just the tithe.

I'm looking forward to your reply and I trust all is well.

God bless