I'm going to quote that post again for reference:

felifeli:

. . . . . If you don't pay your tithe it DOES NOT hinder you from getting to heaven. It only hinder you from living under God's prosperity insurance plan while you are on earth. The truth is that you will pay the tithe one way or the other  either to the use of God or you find yourself using the money to pay medical expenses , armed robbers (and police and omo oniles) ,  booze, expensive affairs etc etc . Examine your life and see if this is not true. If you have been paying your tithe before, just neglect to pay it once (even on time) and you will be amazed at how much troubles suddenly come your way.

Yes , tithing or not has nothing with being a good Christian. It only makes your Christian life more enjoyable.

1. Is it possible that the majority of "tithe" payers do it because of concerns as in the post?

2. If majority of "tithe" payers do it because of such concern, is it a worthwhile exercise to open their eyes to the possibility that they are misinformed and in bondage --- whereas Christ came to set them free?

3. Is it possible that some "pastors" use this kind of fear that many people have to manipulate them and get rich (buying private jets etc) from the "tithes" that people pay out of fear?

Traugott:

@Enigma: I counter felifeli's statement, and I say this, sir

Psa 112:1  Hallelujah! Blessed man, blessed woman, who fear GOD, Who cherish and relish his commandments,
Psa 112:2  Their children robust on the earth, And the homes of the upright--how blessed!
Psa 112:3  Their houses brim with wealth And a generosity that never runs dry.
Psa 112:4  Sunrise breaks through the darkness for good people-- God's grace and mercy and justice!
Psa 112:5  The good person is generous and lends lavishly;
Psa 112:6  No shuffling or stumbling around for this one, But a sterling and solid and lasting reputation.
Psa 112:7  Unfazed by rumor and gossip, Heart ready, trusting in GOD,
Psa 112:8  Spirit firm, unperturbed, Ever blessed, relaxed among enemies,
Psa 112:9  They lavish gifts on the poor-- A generosity that goes on, and on, and on. An honored life! A beautiful life!
Psa 112:10  Someone wicked takes one look and rages, Blusters away but ends up speechless. There's nothing to the dreams of the wicked. Nothing.

We should never blur the distinction between tithes and generosity. Jesus kept on preaching about generosity of material things, generosity of heart (selflessness), generosity of spirit (a craving for things of God, above physical things). What felifeli said in the quote above applies to generosity, and not to tithes.

One may not pay tithes and yet be generous, and be established in peace. The MOTIVE counts very much with God.

Your idea is good but it has several problems:

1. It does not take account of the fact that people like felifeli will tell you that "tithing" is not the same as generosity

2. It does not take account that they will tell you that you should not give your "tithes" to the poor ---- contrary to what the Bible says very clearly!

3. It does not take account that Christian giving (or generosity if you like) is not done out of fear that if you are not "generous" or do not pay "tithes", the money will be taken away by armed robbers, medical bills etc . . . .

I can go on and on about these kind of problems with your statement - but I think there is already enough food for thought.

PS if you search the forum, you can find gazillions of posts by me, by Kunle and by many others that: if a Christian knows that there is no obligation to "tithe" but chooses to do so, we have no problem with that ----- in fact, Kunle just said so in one of his last posts on this very thread.

@Enigma: As to your first set of questions,

1. Yes, it is not only "possible", but I believe that is the case.

2. Yes, it is a worthwhile exercise, but in the procedure of the exercise it is necessary not to generate strife in the body of Christ, arguing over whether tithes are to paid or not; because tithes or no tithes, its our hearts that God ultimately judges. I sincerely believe that this thread has provided a lot of information for those who really want to know what to go with.

3. It is unfortunate that many so-called Christians do not have a heart to give, and so some pastors have to MAKE them give by instituting tithes and declaring it compulsory, driving fear into their hearts if they do not pay the tithe. It is very unfortunate, and it makes me really sad. If the people would independently have a heart to give, pastors wouldn't need to resort to such things. They would tell them the truth.

See how this applies to giving out of love, and to paying tithes out of fear.

1Jn 4:18  There is no room in love for fear. Well-formed love banishes fear. Since fear is crippling, a fearful life--fear of death, fear of judgment--is one not yet fully formed in love.
1Jn 4:19 We, though, are going to love--love and be loved. First we were loved, now we love. He loved us first.
1Jn 4:20  If anyone boasts, "I love God," and goes right on hating his brother or sister, thinking nothing of it, he is a liar. If he won't love the person he can see, how can he love the God he can't see?
1Jn 4:21  The command we have from Christ is blunt: Loving God includes loving people. You've got to love both.

You cannot be truly generous without loving people and God. But, driven by fear, you can "pay" tithes without loving people, and without any wholesome regard for God.

Enigma:

Your idea is good but it has several problems:

1. It does not take account of the fact that people like felifeli will tell you that "tithing" is not the same as generosity

2. It does not take account that they will tell you that you should not give your "tithes" to the poor ---- contrary to what the Bible says very clearly!

3. It does not take account that Christian giving (or generosity if you like) is not done out of fear that if you are not "generous" or do not pay "tithes", the money will be taken away by armed robbers, medical bills etc . . . .

I can go on and on about these kind of problems with your statement - but I think there is already enough food for thought.

PS if you search the forum, you can find gazillions of posts by me, by Kunle and by many others that: if a Christian knows that there is no obligation to "tithe" but chooses to do so, we have no problem with that ----- in fact, Kunle just said so in one of his last posts on this very thread.

Enigma, the thing is that I do not believe in forcing spiritual principles down people's throat. That is the way of the mule. Or in telling them what to do without any explanation: the way of the horse.

Psa 32:8 I will instruct thee and teach thee in the way which thou shalt go: I will guide thee with mine eye.
Psa 32:9 Be ye not as the horse, or as the mule, which have no understanding: whose mouth must be held in with bit and bridle, lest they come near unto thee.

Rather, I believe in laying down precepts step by step and clarifying any step for those who dont understand.

The "facts" that a pastor has drummed into someone's ears for decades cannot be simply unearthed by using arguments. One must open their eyes and see for themselves: precept upon precept.

KunleOshob:

Now you of all people should know that what we have continuosly condenmed is the compulsary nature with which most pastors preach tithing using Malachi 3:10 based on on the obsolete and anulled jewish law which was never directed at christians, if all pastors were honest enough to admitt that tithing is not compulsary as pastor Bakare stated then we won't be having this discussion and all the controversy sorrounding the tithing scam would not exist. Pastors are by nature of their calling expected to stand for the truth at all times, unfortunately when it comes to money the story is different which makes one to questionj if they are really called in the first instance.

How many times have many people (pilgrim.1, myself, and several others I have discussed with - like ttalks, Zikky, etc) made clear that it is not about compulsory this and that about tithing that informs the giving of tithes from many Christians? The one thing that has continued to stand out is the total condemnation of tithes by you guys without giving equal weight to the other fact that Christians can tithe with understanding? If you don't mention and give equal weight to the subject, something is wrong somewhere - and you can't keep making excuses after excuses to cover up the issue while repeating the anti-tithing lies and accusing others who still believe in tithing.

PS; No matter how much you want to twsit and mis-interprete hebrews 7, it clearly anulls tithing based on the law.

There - I've not twisted a word, and I shall quickly answer yours. When you read through, point out from Scripture what you don't agree with, and let's discuss if you may. If you can't don't bother to make further excuses - nothing you have said is fresh insight on the same old tales you have been recycling.

Traugott:

@Enigma: As to your first set of questions,


3. It is unfortunate that many so-called Christians do not have a heart to give, and so some pastors have to MAKE them give by instituting tithes and declaring it compulsory, driving fear into their hearts if they do not pay the tithe. It is very unfortunate, and it makes me really sad. If the people would independently have a heart to give, pastors wouldn't need to resort to such things. They would tell them the truth. {Edit: emphasised by Enigma}

See how this applies to giving out of love, and to paying tithes out of fear.

1Jn 4:18  There is no room in love for fear. Well-formed love banishes fear. Since fear is crippling, a fearful life--fear of death, fear of judgment--is one not yet fully formed in love.
1Jn 4:19  We, though, are going to love--love and be loved. First we were loved, now we love. He loved us first.
1Jn 4:20  If anyone boasts, "I love God," and goes right on hating his brother or sister, thinking nothing of it, he is a liar. If he won't love the person he can see, how can he love the God he can't see?
1Jn 4:21  The command we have from Christ is blunt: Loving God includes loving people. You've got to love both.

You cannot be truly generous without loving people and God. But, driven by fear, you can "pay" tithes without loving people, and without any wholesome regard for God.

In relation to the bit that I have emphasised:

1. Have you heard of a statement that goes something like: "you shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free"?

2. Should the pastors trust (or not trust) the person who made that statement --- instead of preaching a lie (i.e. compulsory "tithing"

3. Do the pastors preaching the lie not believe, "my God will supply all your needs"?


Now, I want to make some statements (instead of questions). Believe me this: Christianity is about renewal of the mind; if a person becomes a Christian whose mind is renewed (and keeps being renewed), he will not have problems with being generous whether to the poor or in giving for the advancement of the universal church which, I emphasise does not necessarily mean a building or a building project or such nonsense.  The very reason people are "tithing" or even "giving" out of fear is that they don't know the truth --- either because of their own intellectual inadequacy (which might not even be a fault), intellectual laziness (which is a fault) or being deceived by "pastors" preaching a lie (which is worse of all).

Thus the first thing is that pastors should preach the truth and leave it to God the Holy Spirit to renew people's minds and challenge them to give generously as they purpose in their own heart.  Do you know that the preaching of the lie of tithing actually hinders the gospel rather than advancing it?  This is what saddens some of us and motivates us to keep challenging the false teachings!

(Further Edit to clarify: some people are stingy and do not tithe/give because they do not know the truth).

KunleOshob:

The bible is very clear that tithing as been anulled for believers and it states so explicitly however most pro tithers choose to ignore this message to christians in the book of hebrew and rather dwell on the what was written to non believers[ jews] in the book of malachi which is now twisted to favour the greedy lusts of the tithing proponents >

Jews are not "non believers" - without them, there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING you as a "Christian" would be able to claim for your own 'belief'. Ever read John 4:22 - 'salvation is of the Jews'?  I guess not.

The bible in the book of hebrews makes it clear that tithing is not relevant to the priesthood of christ and it clearly anulls it i would reproduce the whole passage here so people can read it in ti's proper context and judge for themselves. I would also put some analysis in parenthis to help put things in clearer perspective.

In the first place, none of the verses in that whole chapter that you reproduced mentions that tithing has been annulled - please stop spreading this illiterate lies to justify your anti-tithing misadventures! Analysis are welcome - but not when you twist the words in that chapter to say what they do not say.

Hebrews 7:5-19:

5And 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:

[The above highlighted makes it crystal clear that it is the tithing aspect of the law that is being dicussed in this passage]

Nope - it is PRIESTHOOD that is being emphasised there. That is what the whole book of Hebrews deals with, and that is why that same chapter seeks to establish the superiority of the Priesthood of melchizedek over any other type of priesthood.

Those who receive the office of the priesthood have a commandment to take tithes of their own brethren - but verse 6 shows that even where someone (Melchizedek) was not counted from their pedigree, he also received tithes from the Levites! He would not have been able to do so if and only if (iff) the PRIESTHOOD was a less important issue in the faith of God's people - and it is the priesthood that makes all the difference.

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

I wonder why anti-tithers have always fallen face-flat on this verse. If men that die receive tithes, what happens to the other part - that the one who lives also receives them?

11If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?

12For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.

[The verses above makes it clear that the law of tithing has been changed becos the priest hood as changed]

I dealt with this confusion earlier in post # 140, and will reproduce my answer from there.

But first, there is no such thing as "the law of tithing". There are other types of laws to which one could make the refetrence with "the law of. ." this and that, such as -

     *   the law of the burnt offering - Leviticus 6:9

     *   the law of the meat offering  - Leviticus 6:14

     *   the law of the sin offering  - Leviticus 6:25

     *   the law of the trespass offering  - Leviticus 7:1

     *   the law of the sacrifice of peace offerings  - Leviticus 7:11

     *   the law of the plague of leprosy - Leviticus 13:59

     *   the law of jealousies  - Numbers 5:29

     *   the law of the Nazarite  - Numbers 6:13

. .  and several such.  BUT there is no such thing as "the law of tithing" - that is another lie from the camp of anti-tithers who are so driven with half-tutelage to justify why they can't give tithes and want to bend everyone else to abolish tithing! If you ever find the term "the law of tithing" in Scripture, please post it. .  or just stop spreading this neat lie to cover your faces!

Hebrews 7:11-12 does not mention any such thing as "the law of tithing", but rather says that there is a commandment to take tithes accoding to the Law. You want to make a commandment to be bigger than the Law, no?

But as regards the fact that Hebrews 7:11-12 does not abolish tithes, let me repeat my reply from post #140:

---

[list]Let me share two very important matters about the Law that anti-tithers often miss (please understand that I am not grouping you among 'anti-tithers'):

[list](a)    the spirit of the old covenant Law
(b)    the power of the old covenant[/list]

As to the spirit of the Law, the whole principle is driven by Hosea 6:6 - "For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings." This is the essential thing that the Jews had missed (and which many people continue to miss today) and thereby basing their whole understanding of the covenants (both old and new) on literalism!

As regards the power of the old covenant, we know that it was ratified by blood (Heb. 9:18ff) - and a covenant is useless UNLESS it is first ratified. However, what gives the old covenant its power consequently is its foundation - and we know that it was NOT UPON TITHES that the old covenant was founded!

We should understand this, without which many people would never understand Heb. 7:11-12. Go on to Hebrews 9 which says "when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law" (v. 19) - and here we might ask: was TITHE part of the "precepts" when Moses ratified the old covenant?? From Exodus 24:8-11, we find that the ratification was done at a time much earlier than any mention of tithes! What does this say? It shows us that TITHES was not the foundation of the Levitical priesthood, and Hebrews 7 CANNOT be used to argue the idea of tithes having been "abolished". Infact, when you carefully go through every single verse of the Bible, you will not find any single verse where God ever abolsihed tithes - NOT ONCE in the entire Bible! This again was why Levi's tithes was subsumed within the Abrahamic tithes in Hebrews 7:9!

Hence, it was not on the basis of tithes that the Levites "enforced" (or enacted, or implemented) the old covenant or Law. Infact, in Hebrews 7, verse 6 shows that verse 5 is not superior to (but subsumed within) what precedes it - showing that even when Melchizedek was not descended from the Levites, he yet received tithes from them! How does he do so? That is where verse 9 comes in - "And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes in Abraham."

[size=14pt]But more to the point is verse 11-12, not arguing for the Levitical tithes, but more about  PRIESTHOOD. It was a change in the Levitical priesthood that warranted a change of the Law upon which that priesthood was founded. But what was the foundation of the Levitical covenant? We have seen that when Moses ratified that covenant, the tithe was NOT MENTIONED by then (see Exodus 24:8-11). It was long after that ratification that the tithes came in, its mention within Judaism first appearing in Leviticus 27 (whereas the ratification of the priesthood had taken place much earlier as well in Leviticus 8:30)[/size].[/list]

Can you please address those and show where the tithes were mentioned BEFORE the Law was ratified?

KunleOshob:

13For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar.

14For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood.

[Anyone familiar with the tithing law would know it was meant for the levites who were the ones who served at the alter. Verse 14 further states that Jesus was from Judea and not a levitical priest thus implying even Jesus was not qualified to recieve tithes how much less the impostors that claim to be collecting it on his behalf]

Hebrews 7 verse 6 shows that even when someone (Melchizedek) was NOT from the lineage of Judah, he actually collected tithes from them! "But he whose descent is not counted from them received tithes of Abraham, and blessed him that had the promises". How did he receive tithes from them? verse 9 tells us - "And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes in Abraham". When we see this, we understand that tithes were not restricted to a particular lineage, and especially with regards to the PRIESTHOOD, it is received by one who is not counted from their own lineage - which is what Hebrews 7:8 reminds us about - "And here men that die receive tithes; but there he receiveth them, of whom it is witnessed that he liveth".

18For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof.

19For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God.

This final verse completes it all it makes it clear that the commandment to tithe earlier mentioned in the passage as been anulled becos it is a weak and unprofitable commandment.

Even anti-tithing theologians know for a fact that verse 18 does NOT annul tithes - because there are three basic points in those verses:

   (a)  it was not upon tithes that the Levitical priesthood was established,

   (b)  nor did Scripture say anywhere that tithes perfected anything

   (c)  and there is no place where Scripture suggests that tithe brought anyone to God

This is why the "weakness" there is NOT a matter of tithes, but one that has already been explained by the apostle Paul in Romans 7 and 8!  In Romans 8:3, Paul tells us that -

[list]For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh[/list]

That was the weakness of the Law - it could not condemn sin in the flesh, and it could not make anyone perfect! Tithes were not given so that anyone could overcome sin, or therevy be perfected by any means - that was what the Law was pointing to!

Reading this passage in proper context, it is clear to any right thinking person that it clearly anulls tithes.

Any right thinking person does not interpret any verse on its own without first comparinbg with other verses of the Bible. To interpret any verse on its own is the hallmark of a cultist - that is precisely what the apostle Peter warns against when he said  "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation" 2 Peter 1:20. To just rest on those verses and interpret it on their own by your 'analysis' is to present the very hallmark of cultists, because they know that when asked to look at other verses, they will absolutely refuse to do so!

However some smart alecs try to twist it to mean something else,

Yes, that's you. You have forever been twisting the texts by breaking the rule of Biblical exegesis and taking verses any which way to suit your illiterate adventures. I want to see how you will ignore what Peter warns against in 2 Peter 1:20. . . just ignore it and let's see how you possess a 'right mind' for your analysis.

Pilgrim.1 once argued it was refering to the law as a whole and not to tithing i was amazed that she did not see the contradiction and hypocrisy in that poorly conceived and illiterate like statement as it is glaring from that pasage that and many others that tithing is part of the jewish laws and it was specifically mentioned in the anullment.

When I first went through her arguments, I also disagreed. But I had a change of mind and totally agreed especially where the antithesis of the verses are plainly agreed upon by anti-tithing theologians, several of whom she quoted (Russell Kelly and John MacArthur). There are also very many other theologians who make the same note - that verse 18 and 19 are not abolishing tithes, because tithes are not the basis upon which the Levitical law and priesthood were established (see Exodus 24:8-11).

After exposing their folly and showing the contradictions in their position they run to the abrahamic one off example to the King of Salem[jerusalem] and claim that tithing was before the law.

Is it not folly from you to ignore the fact that Hebrews makes the ABRAHAMIC tithe far more superior to the levitical? Verse 6 and 9 show this fact strongly, not to mention the short-term outlook of the Levitical tithes in verse 8. Scripture does not place the Levitical priesthood or tithes above what preceded it, that is why we read that the less is blessed of the better - and the better was pictured before the less.

Whilst we know that the babylonians [were abraham was from] practised tithing before the law it was not based on a commandment from God but on traditions of men.

Yes, the hallmark of literalism here displayed!   You are looking for a commandment from God before you see the significance of Abraham's tithes, no? That is why you always have problems with his tithes and string yourself up forever against it on a law you have very little understanding of, no?

How ever 99% of scammers who preach tithing preach it form the obsolete and anulled laws to deceive christians that it is a compulsary practise and that is what is really dissapointing that a man who claims to be serving God would willfully twist his word for the sake of filthy lucre.

That's certainly not why Christians tithe or choose not to do so. Those who tithe know that it was never at anytime annulled - otherwise everything else in the Law would have been annulled as well. Why is Christian marriage still based on the Law? Why is the woman's place still a throwback upon the Law? Why is love in the New Testament based upon the declarations of the Law? There are many things that should have gone with the annulled law as well - but we know that is not so, and that is why no hasty abolishing of the tithes makes for intelligent reading.

This is why some who know their Scriptures still give tithes without singing a 'compulsory' tune, or mandated this and that - which good example we have seen in Pastor Tunde Bakare, no?  It is not so much that tithes are abolished - so using the excuse of 99% scammers to justify your anti-tither argument is most illiterate indeed, because often is the case that these same anti-tithers who are never consistent would come back arguing that it is alright if Christians want to tithe! It is like arguing that something that is abolished is yet okay for Christians to practise - which again is the hallmark of a cultist!

Traugott:

@KunleOshob / Viaro: We may disagree that tithing was abolished in the New Covenant or it was not, but we have one common point: we agree that it is not compulsory or perforce. If then tithing is not compulsory or perforce, I personally don't see why those who want to go ahead and give it (not compulsorily) should not!

That is just the point - the common agreement: it is NOT compulsory. Anyone who feels one way or another may look for Scripture to justify whatever they want; but what I find most of concern is for anyone to try to force their own anti-tithing down anyone's throat. Compulsory tithing and anti-tithing are both unspiritual adventures for the Christian, and people who try to force the one or the other seldom realise the seriousness of what they do.

@Viaro: hehehe. What leaves off from you and goes around, sits in your closet and waits for the day you will open it!

Hahaha. . I didn't realise how true such words are. .  until recently.

BTW, check out anselm.com today and you will be surprised.

What?!? I shall try and do so pronto.

Traugott:

Enigma, the thing is that I do not believe in forcing spiritual principles down people's throat. That is the way of the mule. Or in telling them what to do without any explanation: the way of the horse.


Rather, I believe in laying down precepts step by step and clarifying any step for those who dont understand.

The "facts" that a pastor has drummed into someone's ears for decades cannot be simply unearthed by using arguments. One must open their eyes and see for themselves: precept upon precept.

Yep "precept by precept" indeed. But ask yourself this: which side is forcing something down the other's throat? Is it not the overwhelming majority that insist that "tithing" is compulsory? Are we the minority opponents of compulsory "tithing" not simply challenging that which is being forced down people's throat repeatedly?

Also, how do you do it "precept by precept" - especially on a forum as this as opposed to face- to-face or one on one discussion - without challenging misuse and abuse of scripture?

Enigma:


In relation to the bit that I have emphasised:

1. Have you heard of a statement that goes something like: "you shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free"?

2. Should the pastors trust (or not trust) the person who made that statement --- instead of preaching a lie (i.e. compulsory "tithing"

3. Do the pastors preaching the lie not believe, "my God will supply all your needs"?


Now, I want to make some statements (instead of questions). Believe me this: Christianity is about renewal of the mind; if a person becomes a Christian whose mind is renewed (and keeps being renewed), he will not have problems with being generous whether to the poor or in giving for the advancement of the universal church which, I emphasise does not mean a building or a building project or such nonsense.  The very reason people are "tithing" or even "giving" out of fear is that they don't know the truth --- either because of their own intellectual inadequacy (which might not even be a fault), intellectual laziness (which is a fault) or being deceived by "pastors" preaching a lie (which is worse of all).

Thus the first thing is that pastors should preach the truth and leave it to God the Holy Spirit to renew people's minds and challenge them to give generously as they purpose in their own heart.  Do you know that the preaching of the lie of tithing actually hinders the gospel rather than advancing it?  This is what saddens some of us and motivates us to keep challenging the false teachings!

(Further Edit to clarify: some people are stingy and do not tithe/give because they do not know the truth).

1. Of course!
Joh 8:32  Then you will experience for yourselves the truth, and the truth will free you."
Joh 8:33  Surprised, they said, "But we're descendants of Abraham. We've never been slaves to anyone. How can you say, 'The truth will free you'?"
But the question is, how is truth expressed, when one, like the Jews who claimed they believe in Jesus, believe they are not "slaves"? Is it by forceful arguments?

2. I never said pastors ought to preach lies, take note. I said it is unfortunate that some pastors do so. Some, also preach compulsory tithing out of ignorance, what they have come to believe themselves by rote memorization.

3. Well. . . what can I say? That is an eye-sore of the heart!

See, Enigma, we should not confuse one thing here. Tithing is not wrong, and it is not a lie. Saying that pastors should never preach about tithing is wrong. It is more correct to say that pastors should, if at all, preach about tithing the right way: so that those who have hearts to tithe would do so and not out of compulsive fear. Tithing is not a false truth, but forcing money out of people's hands in the name of fear is what is wrong. There are still pastors, like mine, and like Pastor Tunde Bakare, who have accurate knowledge of tithing and they live by it.

I hope you understand me now.

Edit: See what viaro just said. It expresses my mind accurately. Thanks, viaro!

viaro:

Compulsory tithing and anti-tithing are both unspiritual adventures for the Christian, and people who try to force the one or the other seldom realise the seriousness of what they do.

Enigma:
. . .

PS if you search the forum, you can find gazillions of posts by me, by Kunle and by many others that: if a Christian knows that there is no obligation to "tithe" but chooses to do so, we have no problem with that ----- in fact, Kunle just said so in one of his last posts on this very thread.

Did you see this posted earlier?

Enigma:

Yep "precept by precept" indeed. But ask yourself this: which side is forcing something down the other's throat? Is it not the overwhelming majority that insist that "tithing" is compulsory? Are we the minority opponents of compulsory "tithing" not simply challenging that which is being forced down people's throat repeatedly?

Also, how do you do it "precept by precept" - especially on a forum as this as opposed to face- to-face or one on one discussion - without challenging misuse and abuse of scripture?

Precept by precept? Tell me, Enigma. Do you not understand that whatever you give attention to, in the spiritual, multiplies in effect? The more you decry tithing, the more people will tithe out of fear. THAT IS HOW FEAR WORKS, MY BROTHER! And I'm surprised that you don't know that. Preaching anti-tithing will just increase the number of those implementing compulsory tithing. Rather, let them see the truth as well.

Truth? There are two lies running around:

1. Tithing is EVIL and wrong. (Ministry of anti-tithing, will prevent those who seek to tithe genuinely)
2. Tithing is a must, otherwise you will suffer (Ministry of fear)

I will not support either lie, but rather I will endeavour to use Scriptures to clarify my position to either party without generating strife.

Edit:

Enigma:

Did you see this posted earlier?

The way you go about your views on tithes, you make it appear like you have no regard for those who tithe out of understanding, like I do sometimes. And trust me, I have good understanding of how tithes work for me.

Enigma:

Yep "precept by precept" indeed. But ask yourself this: which side is forcing something down the other's throat? Is it not the overwhelming majority that insist that "tithing" is compulsory? Are we the minority opponents of compulsory "tithing" not simply challenging that which is being forced down people's throat repeatedly?

Also, how do you do it "precept by precept" - especially on a forum as this as opposed to face- to-face or one on one discussion - without challenging misuse and abuse of scripture?

I think I have been doing that on this thread so far. I have told a story, made numerous references, etc. But then, maybe that's just my opinion, thinking its precept by precept.

It is not simple to take down a house whose foundation is deeper than its height above ground. Some of these people have been fed with untruths from both camps of forceful-tithing and anti-tithing.

you would need to get your brain examined if you pay the tithe and not house rent.

Traugott:

Precept by precept? Tell me, Enigma. Do you not understand that whatever you give attention to, in the spiritual, multiplies in effect? The more you decry tithing, the more people will tithe out of fear. THAT IS HOW FEAR WORKS, MY BROTHER! And I'm surprised that you don't know that. Preaching anti-tithing will just increase the number of those implementing compulsory tithing. Rather, let them see the truth as well.

Nah, all I do and all we ask of "pastors" is very simple ------ preach the truth! How fear works is someone saying (and people believing) that if you don't "tithe", the money will go to armed robbers or medical bills etc. Naturally, you are welcome to believe differently; no qualms.

Traugott:
Truth? There are two lies running around:

1. Tithing is EVIL and wrong. (Ministry of anti-tithing, will prevent those who seek to tithe genuinely)
2. Tithing is a must, otherwise you will suffer (Ministry of fear)

I will not support either lie, but rather I will endeavour to use Scriptures to clarify my position to either party without generating strife.

Can you accuse us of saying "tithing is evil" when: I just said:

PS if you search the forum, you can find gazillions of posts by me, by Kunle and by many others that: if a Christian knows that there is no obligation to "tithe" but chooses to do so, we have no problem with that ----- in fact, Kunle just said so in one of his last posts on this very thread.

?

Traugott:
[b]Edit:[/b]The way you go about your views on tithes, you make it appear like you have no regard for those who tithe out of understanding, like I do sometimes. And trust me, I have good understanding of how tithes work for me.

Can you sustain that statement when I just said:

PS if you search the forum, you can find gazillions of posts by me, by Kunle and by many others that: if a Christian knows that there is no obligation to "tithe" but chooses to do so, we have no problem with that ----- in fact, Kunle just said so in one of his last posts on this very thread.

?

I will give you one example of the posts I've been referring to:

See here: https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-307798.1024.html#msg5327617

Finally, I want to use the example of debosky to demonstrate one of the things that we who oppose compulsory tithing have been saying. debosky said he does not believe that tithing is a compulsory requirement for the Christian but, personally, he has made a decision to tithe. Two things gladden my heart about this: the first is the personal example of debosky himself (i.e. informed choice); the second is the reaction of my fellow opponents of compulsory tithing who praised debosky for his stance. I want to join in that praise.

Enigma:

Can you sustain that statement when I just said: ?

Yes I can sustain it with the fact that you insist that "tithing has been ABOLISHED", rather than saying that tithing is no longer compulsory, but done out of an act of love.

That's my point.

Traugott:

BTW, check out anselm.com today and you will be surprised.

Lol, I now understand why several guys have called my attention to that - it was supposed to have been 'askelm' rather than 'anselm'. I also found some surprising things, though.

Traugott:

Edit:[/b]The way you go about your views on tithes, you make it appear like you have no regard for those who tithe out of understanding, like I do sometimes. And trust me, I have good understanding of how tithes work for me.

That is one of the issues with anti-tithers. It is not that they do not have problems with anyone who tithes - they clearly do! If they did not, they would give equal weight to both sides of the subject, viz: (a) [b]anti-tithing is unspiritual; and (b) compulsory tithing is equally unspiritual. This is why I very much agree with you in this recent one:

Traugott:

Yes I can sustain it with the fact that you insist that "tithing has been ABOLISHED", rather than saying that tithing is no longer compulsory, but done out of an act of love.

That's my point.

I agree. For people to be arguing that they are only against "compulsory" tithing is dubious when they clearly have been arguing an end to tithing. The argument that tithing has been 'abolished' does not suggest that the declarant encourages any other form of tithing - he is categorically arguing for an end to what he perceives as 'abolished'. Otherwise such an argument does not make any sense where they still have no problem with people practising what has been abolished.

Let's use other examples in Scripture - 2 Cor. 3:13 mentions "the end of that which is abolished". The tone of that verse and its ancillary verses show what is indicated there - the "that" which is "abolished" should not be part of the Christian testimony in any form. That being so, it does not make any sense for the author and his readers to come back saying that there's 'no problem' if some 'Christian' practise what has been 'abolished' because they do so with 'understanding'. What substance is there to the argument that we should have "no problem" with that which is abolished? If it is abolished, then it should not be something of indifference - otherwise that is just making all sorts of noise and being neither here nor there.

In the same way, if people truly believe that tithing has been "abolished", they are arguing for an end to tithing and nothing other than that. It is not just an issue of 'compulsory' or 'mandated' tithe - otherwise the whole strain of their argument would have been to point out from Scripture that tithing is not compulsory rather than harping that it is abolished. There is a difference between what is compulsory and what is abolished - we all know that; so the excuse that anti-tithers are only arguing against 'compulsory' tithing is a huge lie.

If anti-tithers are more concerned about 'coerced' giving or 'compulsory', tithing (as we all are), they would not be looking for every excuse to "abolish" what Scripture never once abolished. To argue the latter (tithes are abolished) is to wish an end to tithing; but a concern for the former ('tithes are compulsory') is to seek a balance that does not discourage people from tithing but rather seeking to help them do so with a better understanding. One should not confuse the one for the other and then come back making all sorts of excuses about the false arguments they have been recycling about "abolished" tithes.

This was why I said earlier:

viaro:

That is just the point - the common agreement: it is NOT compulsory. Anyone who feels one way or another may look for Scripture to justify whatever they want; but what I find most of concern is for anyone to try to force their own anti-tithing down anyone's throat. Compulsory tithing and anti-tithing are both unspiritual adventures for the Christian, and people who try to force the one or the other seldom realise the seriousness of what they do.

The term "anti-tither" is a very strong one for me - I don't know how others use it, but it connotes that such a person would never see reason nor is prepared to allow anyone else tithe. As an 'anti-tither', such a person is against tithes in all its forms - and anytime the word is mentioned, they are never at peace with themselves.

However, there are other people who have chosen to not tithe - these I refer to as "non-tithers" instead of 'anti-tithers'. Non-tithers are not people who are polarised to see an end of tithing, and they don't have issues with tithing or anyone who preaches tithing - and where they can, they sometimes tithe regardless the anti-tithing arguments people make. There are far more non-tithers than 'anti-tithers', that is what we can established by careful study.

Besides all these, there are many tithing churches around the world that are not given to the arguments of 'compulsory' or 'mandatory' tithes - these tithing churches know what they are doing, and it is not intelligent for people on Nairaland to try and misrepresent them by either ignoring this fact or otherwise boxing tithers in one lump with scammers, or even yet narrowing the subject of tithing to a few unfortunate cases that suits the anti-tithers' campaigns.

There is no verse arguing for the abolishment of tithes in the Bible. NONE. People who argue a compulsory tithe may be missing the point by many miles; but people who take an anti-tithing position are far more unspiritual in their exercises than even helping themselves. Anti-tithing arguments do not result in more giving - rather, the opposite is what has been reported. This is why on many occasions, anti-tithers very rarely talk positively about giving in Church as part of their calling.

Traugott:

Yes I can sustain it with the fact that you insist that "tithing has been ABOLISHED", rather than saying that tithing is no longer compulsory, but done out of an act of love.

That's my point.

Then your argument is not with me but with the author of Hebrews 7 --- because that is what that author stated very clearly.

Of course even though it has been abolished you can still choose to do it. The same is true of circumcision --- it has been abolished but many still do it!

Enigma:

Of course even though it has been abolished you can still choose to do it. The same is true of circumcision --- it has been abolished but many still do it!

That is not true. Christians do not go out to start practising circumcision after reading the clear texts that on the subject. At least we read in the NT several places where circumcision is categorically spoken about -

[list][li]Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. - Galatians 5:2[/li][/list]

[list][li]Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God. - 1 Corinthians 7:19[/li][/list]

These are clear Scriptures, one being so strong as that no Christian would be confused. But where does it say anything that if a Christian tithes, Christ shall profit him nothing? Where indeed does Hebrews 7 mention the word "tithes" as being "abolished"? If there is no such verse that directly mentions 'tithes' as being 'abolished', why are you still pushing this unspiritual argument and pretending you're pointing to Scripture?

Scripture mentions circumcision in several ways - and people (whether Christian or not) also circumcise their male children without reference to Scripture, but on medical grounds. An example is on the net from BUPA and has absolutely nothing to do with religion! If a Christian, therefore, takes his or her son to the hospital for circumcision on medical grounds, does that mean that Christ shall profit such a person/family nothing? Why are you confusing issues on very immature insinuations? If you're male and uncircumcised, you can keep your foreskin on religious grounds - you're old enough to know that such decisions have nothing to do with other Christians circumcising their boys on medical grounds.

@segz follow your mind man.

Traugott:

Yes I can sustain it with the fact that you insist that "tithing has been ABOLISHED", rather than saying that tithing is no longer compulsory, but done out of an act of love.

That's my point.

Trauggot what we are saying is that tithing based on the law as been abolished and not tithing as an act act out of choice. However what is being preached in most churches is compulsary tithing based on the law which is contrary to the teachings in the gospels and the epistles which is more relevant to christians than the obsolete mosaic laws. That aside what is even being practised today is not even biblical but a manipulation of biblical tithing as we all know that biblical tithing was tithes of agricultural produce and it was done once a year contrary to the twisted version being preached and practised today. For emphasis i would state again that what we are rallying against is the twisting of the word of God for filthy gain by those that have been entrusted to teach people the truth about God's word. Its very wrong and smirks of high hypocrisy and totally anti ethical to the teachings of God in the bible.

KunleOshob:

For emphasis i would state again that what we are rallying against is the twisting of the word of God for filthy gain by those that have been entrusted to teach people the truth about God's word. Its very wrong and smirks of high hypocrisy and totally anti ethical to the teachings of God in the bible.

That is not a big deal - in many ways than one, any twisting of Scripture for whatever purpose should be discouraged. But it is not by accusing people and putting everyone in a box that you can do so in a healthy manner. It is equally hypocritical for anti-tithers to make unjustifiable claims that are not taught in Scripture and then turn round to accuse others who have something else to share that does not hurt you directly.

The evidence supplied by OP kind of paints his "Pastor" as a hustler, that being the case, he is better off paying his rent since that kind of pastor would probably tell him to pray if he faced eviction after paying tithe ( if that was the case)

Most Nigerian and American "Churches" are guilty of this false preaching and I would love to see the number of tithers that actually pay it out of knowledge as opposed to paying out of coercion, guilt, shame, etc.

I see attempts to educate the masses that tithe is not mandatory as a public/Christian service and not to box those who pay into a corner of condemnation, the argument that folks hold on tight to their wallets and as such, the Pastor needs "creative" ways to generate Church revenue as lame at best.

Matt.5:5 Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.

PS: I blame this blizzard for not adding more to this

@Enigma: Abuse is the result of unbeknown purpose. Did you ever ask WHY God asked the Jews to be circumcised? It was not only for spiritual value, it was for medical reasons, to keep them healthy and sanctified.

The circumcision that was "abolished" is the removal of the notion that a full grown man has to be circumcised before he can be considered Holy before God. If it is easier to circumcise a baby, and it will be good for his health then it is entirely foolish not to circumcise the child because "circumcision has been abolished". Circumcision was not abolished, I repeat. Rather, it is no longer compulsory to be circumcised before you are holy unto God.

Do you see this in light of your argument on tithes being abolished? To see it, you need to ask: WHY did they tithe to God in the first place? If you cannot answer that question then the same fallacy of "circumcision being abolished" that you made above, will be made again.

@KunleOshob: It would be better next time to say it in full "Tithing compulsorily is abolished", and not "Tithing based on the law is abolished" or "Tithing is abolished" because the last two statements are wrong. And when you say what is preached in MOST churches, how are we to believe you? What is your statistical finding on this point? When you rally against the twisting of the scriptures, you should not also twist the scriptures to support your own points, saying tithing has been abolished.

@Viaro: Na so, my brother. That was why I googled anselm.com tithes cos I wondered when I got to anselm.com

Traugott:

@Enigma: Abuse is the result of unbeknown purpose. Did you ever ask WHY God asked the Jews to be circumcised? It was not only for spiritual value, it was for medical reasons, to keep them healthy and sanctified.

The circumcision that was "abolished" is the removal of the notion that a full grown man has to be circumcised before he can be considered Holy before God. If it is easier to circumcise a baby, and it will be good for his health then it is entirely foolish not to circumcise the child because "circumcision has been abolished". Circumcision was not abolished, I repeat. Rather, it is no longer compulsory to be circumcised before you are holy unto God.

Do you see this in light of your argument on tithes being abolished? To see it, you need to ask: WHY did they tithe to God in the first place? If you cannot answer that question then the same fallacy of "circumcision being abolished" that you made above, will be made again.

@KunleOshob: It would be better next time to say it in full "Tithing compulsorily is abolished", and not "Tithing based on the law is abolished" or "Tithing is abolished" because the last two statements are wrong. And when you say what is preached in MOST churches, how are we to believe you? What is your statistical finding on this point? When you rally against the twisting of the scriptures, you should not also twist the scriptures to support your own points, saying tithing has been abolished.

@Viaro: Na so, my brother. That was why I googled anselm.com tithes cos I wondered when I got to anselm.com 

Look, I am going to say that you can hold onto what you believe; and it may be a case of semantic differences, anyway.

You believe that neither "tithing" nor circumcision is abolished for the Christian; you are entitled to that opinion; you are entitled to express it.

At least, you cannot now say I'm forcing anything down your throat.

My opinion is this: the New Testament clearly abolishes both "tithing" and circumcision. Do you think I'm entitled to that opinion? Do you think I'm entitled to express that opinion on this Board?

(Do you notice that I mostly put the word "tithing" and similar in quotes; you might ask yourself why)

@Enigma: What was abolished in the Old Covenant is the compulsion of tithes and circumcision, and not the acts or the ideas themselves! But we are entitled to our opinions, as long as we don't mislead others thereby. Have a great week ahead!

Traugott:

@Enigma: What was abolished in the Old Covenant is the compulsion of tithes and circumcision, and not the acts or the ideas themselves! But we are entitled to our opinions, as long as we don't mislead others thereby. Have a great week ahead!

The way I see it -- the distinction you are drawing pays more attention to semantics than substance ----- whereas it is the abuse of the substance (heavily all around us and especially in Nigeria) that causes people to "mislead others thereby".

Hope you have a great week too.

Traugott:

@Viaro: Na so, my brother. That was why I googled anselm.com tithes cos I wondered when I got to anselm.com

Hehe. .  poor me! It just reminds me of how the saying goes - that, one twist or change of a letter in a word could create far reaching consequences! Fortunately, this one happened where we all share ideas anonymously.

________________________

(a)

Enigma:

The way I see it -- the distinction you are drawing pays more attention to semantics than substance ----- whereas it is the abuse of the substance (heavily all around us and especially in Nigeria) that causes people to "mislead others thereby".

(b)

Traugott:
The circumcision that was "abolished" is the removal of the notion that a full grown man has to be circumcised before he can be considered Holy before God. If it is easier to circumcise a baby, and it will be good for his health then it is entirely foolish not to circumcise the child because "circumcision has been abolished". Circumcision was not abolished, I repeat. Rather, it is no longer compulsory to be circumcised before you are holy unto God.

Although you have hit it on the nail and explanations may not be necessary as such, let me add a cautionary note for other readers who might wonder whether your statement borders on 'blasphemy'!

Actually, I believe with you that circumcision is not "abolished" as such - rather, the circumcision done with hands is no longer the basis of a covenant relationship that we have with God. I hope I have managed to put it in simple terms? Let me expatiate.

Some Jews went about preaching that "Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved" (Acts 15:1). Thereupon, the apostles made clear that it was not on the basis of a Mosaic circumcision that men are saved, because when God visited the Gentiles to save them, outward circumcision was not the basis for such a visitation (verse 14-18).

In the epistles, it is clear that circumcision is a very vital issue in the faith of Christian believers - but there is a difference between outward circumcision and inward circumcision:

[list][li]For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh. - Php. 3:3[/li][/list]

[list][li]In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ - Col. 2:11[/li][/list]

The fact that circumcision is not abolished has already been noted in Romans 2:25 on one basis - if you keep the Law. "For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision." It is not so much an argument that circumcision is "abolished" than it is one about the intrinsic meaning of circumcision in the first place. Right from the Law, Moses testified that the real circumcision that God was looking for was one that affects the heart - (Deut. 10:16 and 30:6), and that is the very same thing Paul declares in Romans 2:28-29 >>

[list][li]For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God[/li][/list]

If circumcision was "abolished", there would be no semblance of it anywhere in the teachings of the apostles. They did not condemn circumcision, but were careful to note certain things:

[list][li]circumcision are of two types: outward circumcision (done by hands) and inward circumcision (that which is of the heart)[/li][/list]

[list][li]the 'outward circumcision' tends to literalism - and it is not what God is looking for (Deut. 30:6)[/li][/list]

[list][li]yet, for those who pursue an outward circumcision on religious grounds, it is "profitable" indeed (not 'abolished') - but on the condition that they keep the Law[/li][/list]

[list][li]the inward circumcision (of the heart and of the spirit) does not suggest that 'circumcision' is abolished - but rather that the true meaning that God was seeking right from the OT Law (Deut. 10:16 & 30:6) has been realised in those who have trusted in Christ[/li][/list]

[list][li]therefore, those who are seeking an outward circumcision on religious grounds as the basis of drawing near to God are wasting their time - which was what Paul might have meant when he said: "Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing" (Galatians 5:2)[/li][/list]

[list][li]yet, he also notes that neither circumcision nor uncircumcision is of so much significance in the Christian life; which is why he makes statements like: "Is any man called being circumcised? let him not become uncircumcised. Is any called in uncircumcision? let him not be circumcised - Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God" (1 Cor. 7:18-19)[/li][/list]

I don't find where the NT argues that "circumcision" has been abolished - nope, for the apostles were clear about what they taught by contrasting between outward and inward circumcision, as well making clear that circumcising someone does not affect his faith in Christ if they do so on other grounds and not on religious grounds as the basis of drawing near to God. I wonder why Paul would be "abolishing" circumcision (if that was his intent) and then yet circumcising Timothy because of the Jews when the latter's father was a Greek (Acts 16:1-3).

Let us not be quick to shout "abolish" on everything that does not suit our preferences. Scripture does not use the word 'abolish' carelessly as many of us tend to use that word on either circumcision or tithes. But, of course, our friends (Enigma and KunleOshob) have their perfect rights to argue to the contrary by believing whatever they want to.

@Viaro: Once again, we're on the same page It's like we always think alike?

You summarized my point here:

Actually, I believe with you that circumcision is not "abolished" as such - rather, the circumcision done with hands is no longer the basis of a covenant relationship that we have with God. I hope I have managed to put it in simple terms? Let me expatiate.

And then went on to explain it in clear details.

Let me shock you now: but you no try o, my guy. See your name in Full caps: VIARO. Why didn't you reply my email? Na fight?

Traugott:

@Viaro: Once again, we're on the same page It's like we always think alike?

Sure thing - and I should acquiesce to your far more intelligent and succinct way of putting things.

Let me also quickly make this note:

I apologised to all readers and especially the owner/starter of this thread that the discussion has swung more to tithes than dealing with the request of the OP. Such is the nature of discussions sometimes in this motherboard of Nairaland, I guess.

However, just a note here about tithing: I sense that we all have a common agreement around these things - which is this: "Tithing is NOT compulsory". If we understand the import of that succinct statement and keep it healthily in view, it is my humble opinion that a lot of space would be saved rather than sharp contentions dividing the body of Christ.

Yet, there are other arguments that are clearly unhealthy to maintain -

    (a)  'tithing is abolished'

    (b)  'tithing is compulsory'

    (c)   'tithing is unbiblical'

    (d)  'tithing is a fraudulent teaching'

    (e)  'tithing in contrary to the priesthood of Christ'

    (f)   'tithing is mandatory'

The above are very, very unhealthy and serve to further very carnal arguments between Christians. Just as it is unspiritual to argue that "tithes are abolished", so also it is unspiritual to argue that "tithes are compulsory" -  and equally true it is to argue any of the other points listed above. If, on the other hand we have this common agreement before us that 'tithes are NOT compulsory', whatever else we may agree and/or disagree on may not matter that much - for we shall have happy occasions to educate ourselves further and share fresh insight where we might be missing certain vital points.

Let me shock you now: but you no try o, my guy. See your name in Full caps: VIARO. Why didn't you reply my email? Na fight?

Oh-oh-oh my goodness! Now I fully accept viaro can run but can't hide! I won't say anything but will brace up and respond soon. I must thank you for not e-slapping me! _{where is my e-jailor nuclearboy??}