To Tithe or Not to Tithe? - Religion (51) - Nairaland
Nairaland Forum / Nairaland / General / Religion / To Tithe or Not to Tithe? (63460 Views)
To Tithe Or Not To Tithe: The Whole Truth From The Bible. / Ten (10) Reasons To Tithe / Jesus Is The Fulfillment Of The Law (tithing), Do I Still Need To Tithe? (2) (3) (4)
(1) (2) (3) ... (48) (49) (50) (51) (52) (53) (54) ... (64) (Reply) (Go Down)
| Re: To Tithe or Not to Tithe? by pilgrim1(f): 3:17pm On Oct 16, 2008 |
3. Jehovah Witnesses From an authorized site of the JW: How are you funded? Primarily by voluntary donations from Jehovah's Witnesses. No collections are taken at our meetings, and members are not required to tithe. Clearly marked contribution boxes are provided in all meeting places for voluntary donations, which remain anonymous. Expenses are manageable, as there are no paid clergy and the meeting places are modest. Donations forwarded to the nearest branch office of Jehovah's Witnesses are used for disaster relief, support for missionaries and traveling ministers, construction of houses of worship, and the printing and shipping of Bibles and Christian publications. It is a personal decision to donate, whether toward local expenses, worldwide expenses, or both. Financial reports are regularly given for the information of the entire congregation. 4. Lutheran Church From The Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod: Q. What is the LCMS position concerning tithing? Is it required? Is there anything wrong with teaching the concept of tithing? A. In the New Testament, tithing is not mentioned nearly as much, but such expressions as cheerful, firstfruit, and proportionate are used repeatedly. This leads us to conclude that while tithing may be a good spiritual discipline and a good starting point for a mature Christian, it may not be the best way to present biblical giving since it can easily become a legalistic requirement of the law rather than a cheerful offering motivated by the love of God shown toward us in Christ. Therefore, in the second of the eight Biblical Stewardship Principles, we maintain that God's stewards are managers, not owners. This means that God's stewards have been entrusted with life and life's resources and given the privilege of responsibly and joyfully managing them for Him. Thus, as children of God through faith in Jesus Christ, and with the Holy Spirit's help, we will encourage cheerful, firstfruit, proportionate (including but not limited to tithing) living and giving in all areas of life by Christian stewards. From Lutheran Church of the Resurrection: God's Word and the sacraments. Together, we share in ministry through prayer, tithes and offerings, and all that God gives to us through the community of the church. _______________________________________ 5. Assemblies of God Church From Bethel Assembly of God Tithing Statement The Assemblies of God has always been a proponent of tithing (or giving one-tenth of one’s personal income to support the work of God). We believe tithing is a recognition that everything we have comes from God. The practice checks our greed, promotes personal discipline and thrift, testifies to our faith, promotes God’s work in the world, and alleviates human need. While we do not believe tithing to be a condition for salvation, we do believe it is a very important biblical model, one which should set the minimal standard for Christian giving for people in all income ranges.Though some people believe tithing was an Old Testament practice not intended for New Testament Christians, we believe and teach that tithing is still God’s design for supporting the ministry and reaching the world with the gospel. It is true there is no direct commandment in the New Testament saying, “You must tithe to God one-tenth of your income”; but there is also no statement declaring the Old Testament plan as no longer valid. (also found on this site) As we can see from all the examples above, most of the people we assume to be non-tithers are infact tithers. But what would this indicate? Are these all peddling ‘false doctrines’ and heading down the road to HELL as some opposers of tithe believe? These matters will be considered in ernest after my repost to your penultimate entry. |
| Re: To Tithe or Not to Tithe? by pilgrim1(f): 3:22pm On Oct 16, 2008 |
@TV01, While appreciating your summary yet again, it is not in my place to judge anything you’ve posted, although you earlier gave the same rundown of your persuasions about tithes; other than that, a few comments thereto that might be helpful, and then my discussions will follow by contrast. The one reason why I would do so is not to put you on spot, but rather to help you take care of your huge mistake of endlessly repeating and harping on what nobody is assuming – and then using those same *fausse patte to address the position of those who tithe. TV01: I wonder if you’ve helped yourself and others here by making something that is “redundant” to be “permissible” at the same time. It seems to be both disavowing something and at the same time admitting to it! The reason why many people hold this idea of tithing being redundant and yet claim it to be Christian liberty is because they often see only ‘the Law’, and nothing else – inspite of the fact that some tithers have demonstrated that their persuasion to tithe is not predicated upon the Law. If it helps, it is just about time to drop that mentality and be more at liberty to listen to what others are saying. If not, it is predictable that the Law is the only thing that occupies the minds of those opposed to tithing – which is why you would have predicatably made this subsequent insinuation: TV01: Any wonder why I said above that you see nothing else apart from the Law? It so happens that it does not appear you have been really reading what we are saying – despite the many times it has been said that: (a) we do not base our discussion of tithe on the Law of the old covenant; and (b) I have also shared the reasons why we even quote the OT in seeking the meaning of tithes. Our persuasion about tithes is not based on the old covenant, but rather on the basis of the new covenant – and it does not help for people to just assume that we have been trying to “enforce” anything under the Law, whereas no one has been enforcing anything on you or others. This is actually a poor attitude to reasoning with people – although I respect the fact that they are just your musings, they go a long way to help us to see just what you think regardless of how many times people point these things out to you. TV01: Good, then let others who are persuaded to tithe simply follow the same pointer of faith as Abraham showed in tithing. You cannot be claiming a “Christian liberty” for the same thing you are disavowing as “redundant”. Who made it redundant, if all you have to show for this is a mere humanistic assertion? To be honest with you, there is not a single verse in the NT that says tithes have been made redundant, or even condemned in the manner that most opposers are wont to condemn it! If Abraham’s faith is “the only pointer”, why is it such a difficult thing to please leave Christians who tithe to follow that same pointer? It is not even as if Abraham offered any type of “Christian giving” we scream endlessly on this thread, other than his tithes to Melchizedek. So, why not simply appreciate Christian tithers who follow TV01: No worries – those are your persuasions: appreciated only as such, and they have no bearing on what we have shared so many times. TV01: If you’re proposing a new thread for #10, no worries – here or there, we shall share all the same and even offer pointers to #8 & #9 if need be. _____________________________________ *fausse patte – french cliché for ‘false leg’. |
| Re: To Tithe or Not to Tithe? by pilgrim1(f): 3:24pm On Oct 16, 2008 |
@TV01, TV01: How is it that you’re applauding what you just stated above in #9 that you see no examples for? Are we now to take it that it is okay for you to embrace what you see no examples for, while it is not okay for others to tithe because you don’t see the same thing in the NT? I don’t mean to put you on spot; but it seems that there’s a strabismus here for the predilection given to the one case over against the other. TV01: Okay, at least now you’ve come home so close to admitting what you once disenfranchised! Well done, bro.  I shall not be tedious to you any further – until later as needs be.But just one more thing: TV01: You are only assuming it so, rather than making a concrete statement of fact. There is a mystery to giving, and the attitude to pretend otherwise is what makes people treat this matter with blithe carelessness and nonchalance. Cheers and many blessings. |
| Re: To Tithe or Not to Tithe? by pilgrim1(f): 3:27pm On Oct 16, 2008 |
Let me now share a few reasons as to my persuasions for tithing. (1) My persuasions for Tithing are not predicated on the Law ● Many people sadly cannot see anything other than the Law when “tithes” are mentioned. We have discussed the example of Abraham many times over to show that he was not under the Law when he tithed to Melchizedek – and the question that is still unanswered is: ‘what moved Abraham to give tithes to Melchizedek?’ Rather than proffer a simple answer, all we have read are excuses from those who see no reason at all to tithe. I have also given reasons why references to the Law are made in seeking to understand the meaning of tithes: simply as a matter of “principles” and not a legalistic application of the old covenant. (2) My persuasions for Tithing are based on the priesthood of Melchizedek ● Another point to note is that those Christians who tithe are not predicating their tithes on the Levitical priesthood, but rather on the priesthood of Melchizedek. We have seen that inspite of the excuses people make for Hebrews 7:8, the simple declaration there is that our tithes are received by Him of whom it is witnessed that He lives (see the AMP version that highlights the case lucidly – “while there [in the case of Melchizedek], they are received by one of whom it is testified that he lives[b] [[b]perpetually]”). Also, I earlier made the case clear enough as to what the implications of the Melchizedek priesthood are in this regard; and when I tithe, I’m demonstrating my recognition of the priesthood of our Saviour after the order of Melchizedek (Heb. 5:6; 6:20 &7:17). This is where the mystery of tithing comes in – for without any Law, commandments or ordinances, Abraham saw something in his day that we often take for granted today. People need to carefully consider this: what made the patriarch offer tithes to the priest of the Most High God? How is it that his “one-off” tithes affected even his progeny (Levi) who were not even yet born at the time? I shall come back to expound on this later. (3) My persuasions for Tithing derive from what the Lord Jesus ordained ● Having discussed this point earlier, I had hoped that anyone opposed thereto would have gone back to the Word and shown what infact the apostle was quoting when he referred to ‘the temple’ and ‘the altar’ in 1 Cor. 9:13, and then drew the inference in verse 14 with these words: “EVEN SO. .” One may ask: “Even so”. . what? Was it not that he was showing the precise principle from the OT scripture he had referred to in verse 13? At least, no one has come back to argue that the Lord never ordained anything in that verse – for verse 14 categorically says: “Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel.” Even though He ordained it, He did not make it mandatory for any Christian (see verse 15). (4) My persuasions for Tithing are derived from Abraham’s example ● There’s hardly anyone who would be confused as to the principle of Abraham’s life being faith – and that is the precedence set for us in the Word (see Galatians 3:7 – “Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham”). Further, it is interesting that the Lord Jesus made an arresting statement in John 8:39 – “If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham”. Rather than keep arguing and making excuses for why one cannot follow the “one-off” tithes of Abraham. . blah-blah, my premise is to simply follow the patriarch’s example and willingly give my tithes – not under the Law, not under the old covenant, not under any compulsion, and definitely not under any excuses. Rather, my tithing is simply by Abraham’s example of faith that moved him to tithe. It is remarkable that even those who oppose the principle of tithing cannot deny this matter, but even as TV01 said: “Abrahams faith is the only pointer for NT Christians”. If they gladly acknowledge that, what is the quarrelling about Christians who tithe by faith? |
| Re: To Tithe or Not to Tithe? by pilgrim1(f): 3:31pm On Oct 16, 2008 |
(5) My persuasions for Tithing derive from its relevance in the NT ● Many people who are opposed to tithing are too quick to assume that it has been made “redundant” in the NT. Truth is, there is not a single place in the NT where it is stated so – and these brethren only make these assertions based on personal disaffection thereto. For me, in all references to tithes in the NT, not a single one of them leads to the idea that it was either made redundant or condemned by the Lord Jesus Christ or the apostles. Not one. Such references as Matt. 23:23 and Luke 11:42 & 18:12 are not condemning tithes, but rather the hypocrisies of the Pharisees that the Lord addressed. Others are persauded that since He was speaking to them under the old covenant at that time, His statement there is no longer applicable to us as Christians. My simple question to that attitude is this: Are these folks saying that “judgment, mercy, and faith” in that verse are also redundant? If not, why make the other part of the Lord’s statement “redundant”? The word of the Lord is clear and lucid: ‘These ought ye to have done, and not to leave the others undone’ – and to make one redundant while embracing the others is to fall into the same hypocrisy that was discountenanced by the Lord in those texts. (6) My persuasions for Tithing are based on the test of Stewardship ● It is an undeniable truth that everything we own belongs to God Himself. “The silver is mine, and the gold is mine, saith the LORD of hosts” (Haggai 2:8 ); and how I handle what belongs to Him will show just how faithful a steward I am in what He gives me. If it is required in stewards that a man be found faithful (1 Cor. 4:2), how much more in matters that test my heart and faith thereto (Luke 16:10-12)? Regularly setting aside my tithes (“in proportion to” what God gives me – 1 Cor. 16:2, AMP) is the test of my stewardship that recognizes that God truly is Owner of all the ‘silver and gold’ committed to my trust. This is radically different from the idea of “just give”, because that in no way suggests commitment, regularity, stewardship and faithfulness; rather, it often projects the idea that one may give niggardly without any commitment thereto. (7) My persuasions for Tithing express my freedom Contrary to what many people argue for disavowing tithes, it has been my personal choice to tithe in as much as I understand that no one is forcing, manipulating, cajoling, compelling, wheedling, inveigling, or swaggering me to do so. I would not tithe if I did not understand or be persauded about what it means to me as a Christian to do so by – recognizing the priesthood of Melchizedek following Abraham’s example acknowledging God’s divine ownership over all obeying what the Lord ordained acknowledging that it was never once condemned in the NT. Most of the arguments against tithes have been beased merely on fausse patte sentiments of those opposing this ministry; they assume that tithing “binds” Christians with a very “dangerous” yoke, and those preaching tithes in the Church are “enforcing” a rigid law upon us. On the contrary, I chose to tithe happily in the freedom of my faith and stewardship to the Lordship of Christ over my life. Indeed, my tithes express what I have “purposed in my heart” (2 Corinthians 9 .7), and not what any arguments project to my head. (8) Tithes – Not Condemned in the New Testament For many people who assume that there is not one verse in the NT commanding tithes specifically, that is no reason for them to condemn this ministry: in just the same way, there is not a single verse condemning tithes in the entire NT – NOT ONE! I would urge these lovely folks to go back and see that the NT apostles did not condemn the principles enunciated in the LAW on this matter when teaching in the NT. There is a difference between living by the Old Covenant Law (OCL) and learning from the Old Testament Scriptures (OTS). The apostle Paul noted that ”whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope” (Rom. 15:4). The same apostle uses the divine principles of the Law of Moses in teaching about NT giving – “For it is written in the law of Moses, . . . Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written. . .” (1 Cor. 9:9 & 10). The point here is that the NT uses divine principles in the OT to speak to us on so many matters – and people who are often in a haste to overthrow the Law should be careful what they propose. I shall take up this very issue consequently. From the above few reasons (by no means the only ones) for my persuasions about tithing, one thing is clear: the arguments against tithing have made up from a sort of fausse-braie (‘false pitch’) sentimentality, by which opposers to tithes assume that every tither is living “dangerously” on the old covenant of the Levitical priesthood – whereas they have not given just enough attention to reason along what tithers are saying. I shall be gald to enunciate further why I’m persuaded that there is a case for NT Christians to tithe voluntarily, and the revelations concerning this wonderful ministry in the new covenant. Cheers all. |
| Re: To Tithe or Not to Tithe? by KunleOshob(m): 4:00pm On Oct 16, 2008 |
pilgrim.1: Hebrews 7: 12 makes it crystal clear that the tithing is not only redundant, it goes further to describe it as a weak and uselesss practise in verse 18 |
| Re: To Tithe or Not to Tithe? by pilgrim1(f): 4:11pm On Oct 16, 2008 |
@KunleOshob, KunleOshob: Dear Kunle, you are only assuming that Hebrews 7:12 is making tithing redundant - whereas it does not say so. What Hebrews 7:12 says is this: For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law. It does not say that TITHES have been made redundant - and you can see that it was the Law of the Levitical priesthood that is changed, and not the priesthood of Melchizedek. I have often said that my persuasion to tithe is not based on the Levitical priesthood. You need to understand what you argue and not force your presumption into the text. The Levitical priesthood being changed, there also is a need for the Law thereto to be changed (Heb. 7:12) - why? Because it was under the Levitical priesthood that the people received that Law (verse 11). You cannot use verse 12 to force your redundancy into Hebrews where it is clear that is not what is stated there. This is why after severally noting that NT tithers are not living by the old covenant of the Levitical priesthood, I went on to state that my persuasion for tithing is based on the priesthood of MELCHIZEDEK! What Heb. 7:12 states is that the Levitical priesthood being changed will also affect the Law that came along with it (v. 11). YET, that does not mean that the Levitical priesthood originated the precept of tithing. |
| Re: To Tithe or Not to Tithe? by KunleOshob(m): 4:53pm On Oct 16, 2008 |
The law being refered to in verse 12 was obviously the law of tithes, if you read back to verse 5 you would observe that the law of tithes was mentioned before going to verse 12 to anull it. |
| Re: To Tithe or Not to Tithe? by pilgrim1(f): 5:05pm On Oct 16, 2008 |
@Kunle, KunleOshob: I'm sorry to observe that as far as I know, there is no such thing in that chapter as "the law of tithes". Rather, tithes were including in the commandments of the Law received under the Levitical priesthood (verse 5), but the Law itself does not mean that it was particularly made for "tithes". That is why verse 5 reads that the Levites "have a commandment to take tithes of the people according to the law"; and the difference to note is that we cannot make the whole Law a matter of tithes, whereas there is "a commandment" within the Law for the levites to take tithes of their brethren. A second thing I've often offered is that my convictions for tithing are not predicated upon the Levitical priesthood, but rather upon the priesthood of Melchizedek - by which Hebrews 7:8 makes clearly that: “[in the case of Melchizedek], they are received by one of whom it is testified that he lives [perpetually]” (AMP). If the Melchizedek priesthood is no longer effective or has also been changed like the Levitical priesthood, then there would be no basis at all for Hebrews 7:8, would there? |
| Re: To Tithe or Not to Tithe? by pilgrim1(f): 5:13pm On Oct 16, 2008 |
Let me share just a little point that may help in this matter of understanding the Law, and then I would like to ask you a simple question following that. Now, if the apostles were categorical in wanting to let us know that something in the Law is no longer effective for the Christian, I'm sure they stated that in no uncertain terms. Take circumcision, for instance: where the apostles wanted us to know for definite that its ceremonial rites are not to be observed by the Christian, they said so plainly: 1 Corinthians 7:19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God. Nowhere would anyone find the same thing said about tithes! It is very important that we make our inferences based on what Scripture says plainly, even when we may make exegetical conclusions, and not be forcing any text to say what they did not say. Where indeed do we find any apostle making statements about the tithes as they did for circumcision? Do you know why you will not find them attacking tithes the way many people have done so? Simple: because they do not teach that the Law was all about tithes or circumcision - they kept each matter in their rightful context; and if they meant to let us know that tithes, like circumcision, were "nothing", they would have said so plainly. But is that what they taught? We know that is not so. Now, my question: dear Kunle, what do you think: did the apostles overthrow the whole law or they taught certain doctrines for the Christian life directly from the LAW? |
| Re: To Tithe or Not to Tithe? by KunleOshob(m): 5:41pm On Oct 16, 2008 |
pilgrim.1:My dear i believe apostle Paul already answered your question in the book of Galatians Galatians 5:4-6: 4 For if you are trying to make yourselves right with God by keeping the law, you have been cut off from Christ! You have fallen away from God’s grace. 5 But we who live by the Spirit eagerly wait to receive by faith the righteousness God has promised to us. 6 For when we place our faith in Christ Jesus, there is no benefit in being circumcised or being uncircumcised. What is important is faith expressing itself in love. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Galatians 3 The Law and Faith in Christ 1 Oh, foolish Galatians! Who has cast an evil spell on you? For the meaning of Jesus Christ’s death was made as clear to you as if you had seen a picture of his death on the cross. 2 Let me ask you this one question: Did you receive the Holy Spirit by obeying the law of Moses? Of course not! You received the Spirit because you believed the message you heard about Christ. 3 How foolish can you be? After starting your Christian lives in the Spirit, why are you now trying to become perfect by your own human effort? 4 Have you experienced[a] so much for nothing? Surely it was not in vain, was it? 5 I ask you again, does God give you the Holy Spirit and work miracles among you because you obey the law? Of course not! It is because you believe the message you heard about Christ. 6 In the same way, “Abraham believed God, and God counted him as righteous because of his faith.” 7 The real children of Abraham, then, are those who put their faith in God. 8 What’s more, the Scriptures looked forward to this time when God would declare the Gentiles to be righteous because of their faith. God proclaimed this good news to Abraham long ago when he said, “All nations will be blessed through you.”[c] 9 [b]So all who put their faith in Christ share the same blessing Abraham received because of his faith. 10 But those who depend on the law to make them right with God are under his curse, for the Scriptures say, “Cursed is everyone who does not observe and obey all the commands that are written in God’s Book of the Law.”[d] 11 So it is clear that no one can be made right with God by trying to keep the law. For the Scriptures say, “It is through faith that a righteous person has life.”[e] 12 This way of faith is very different from the way of law, which says, “It is through obeying the law that a person has life.”[f] 13 But Christ has rescued us from the curse pronounced by the law. When he was hung on the cross, he took upon himself the curse for our wrongdoing. For it is written in the Scriptures, “Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree.”[g] 14 Through Christ Jesus, God has blessed the Gentiles with the same blessing he promised to Abraham, so that we who are believers might receive the promised[h] Holy Spirit through faith. The Law and God’s Promise 15 Dear brothers and sisters,[i] here’s an example from everyday life. Just as no one can set aside or amend an irrevocable agreement, so it is in this case. 16 God gave the promises to Abraham and his child.[j] And notice that the Scripture doesn’t say “to his children,[k]” as if it meant many descendants. Rather, it says “to his child”—and that, of course, means Christ. 17 This is what I am trying to say: The agreement God made with Abraham could not be canceled 430 years later when God gave the law to Moses. God would be breaking his promise. 18 For if the inheritance could be received by keeping the law, then it would not be the result of accepting God’s promise. But God graciously gave it to Abraham as a promise. 19 Why, then, was the law given? It was given alongside the promise to show people their sins. But the law was designed to last only until the coming of the child who was promised. God gave his law through angels to Moses, who was the mediator between God and the people. 20 Now a mediator is helpful if more than one party must reach an agreement. But God, who is one, did not use a mediator when he gave his promise to Abraham. 21 Is there a conflict, then, between God’s law and God’s promises?[l] Absolutely not! If the law could give us new life, we could be made right with God by obeying it. 22 But the Scriptures declare that we are all prisoners of sin, so we receive God’s promise of freedom only by believing in Jesus Christ.[/b]God’s Children through Faith 23 Before the way of faith in Christ was available to us, we were placed under guard by the law. We were kept in protective custody, so to speak, until the way of faith was revealed. 24 Let me put it another way. The law was our guardian until Christ came; it protected us until we could be made right with God through faith. 25 And now that the way of faith has come, we no longer need the law as our guardian. 26 For you are all children[m] of God through faith in Christ Jesus. 27 And all who have been united with Christ in baptism have put on Christ, like putting on new clothes.[n] 28 There is no longer Jew or Gentile,[o] slave or free, male and female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 [b]And now that you belong to Christ, you are the true children[p] of Abraham. You are his heirs, and God’s promise to Abraham belongs to you. |
| Re: To Tithe or Not to Tithe? by pilgrim1(f): 6:00pm On Oct 16, 2008 |
@KunleOshob, KunleOshob: Lol, I didn't ask for the apostle Paul's answer - I know what he said. I addressed that question directly to you, and I'm still waiting for an answer. If you don't know, I would be glad to help. Again: pilgrim.1: A simple, straight forward answer stating what exactly you believe is the case, would be appreciated. Many thanks. |
| Re: To Tithe or Not to Tithe? by TV01(m): 10:01pm On Oct 16, 2008 |
pilgrim.1: Go on then  !pilgrim.1: Are you sure on that point? pilgrim.1: Oh, I see you reasoning here. pilgrim.1: Ok 0! So your aguements goes something like this. ; ~ You preach tithe not based on the law, but on the fact that it was before the law and done by Abraham in faith? ~ You are here stating that circumcision was categorically stated as ineffective under the law by the apostles, yes? But Abraham by faith entered into a covenant of circumcision before the law. So your reasoning calls for this to be spiritualised and practised by NT Chrtistians as the "mystery of circumcision" not based on the law, but on the "principles" of the law" I am also very saddened by the fact that I spent an age describing the difference between the "spirit" and the "letter" of the law, and how one could act in the spirit, not keep the letter and yet not violate the law. You resisted me with all your might, yet you now have recourse to "principles" of the law for Christians which has to be distinguished from the letter or else you are at once denying and enforcing the mosaic law. Duh?  !pilgrim.1: Neither will you find it for most of the 600 or so other laws. Circumcision is a metaphor for the whole law! Clearly enunciated by apostle Paul in Galations and posted earlier by KunOsh, for you reading pleasure. pilgrim.1: Wrong question. And let me counter with this, Dear Pilly, Did The Lord Jesus Christ "fulfill" the whole law or teach certain elements remained, or give leave for the apostles to mix certain elements of law with grace? Pilly, as ever I applaud your efforts, but you are so wrong on this. God bless TV |
| Re: To Tithe or Not to Tithe? by pilgrim1(f): 10:30pm On Oct 16, 2008 |
Dear TV01, TV01: I don't think there's anything too hard to be understood in the outlines of my persuasions for tithing; and your teasings are hardly worth wasting time on here. If you simply go back and not read your sentiments into my repostes, then you would see indeed that your musings are not what you find in my repostes. TV01: Dear sir, I clearly reminded us about the case of circumcision because I knew the case as well in the life of faith of Abraham - and that is why I sounded this issue: [list][list] pilgrim.1:[/list][/list] Now, dear sir, rather than wear yourself out with excuses, simply show me anywhere the apostles made the same case for TITHES as they did for circumcision. Until I see that verse from you, I take the rest of your complaints as mere jokes. I'm sorry, but I would like to see something more cogent than your excuses so far. Anyway, how are you doing?  |
| Re: To Tithe or Not to Tithe? by pilgrim1(f): 10:51pm On Oct 16, 2008 |
Hmmm, dem no go let me rest. I hear - I go say something on the other parts! TV01: Reminder: [list][list] pilgrim.1:[/list][/list] I hope you can easily see these matters? If you're still having such difficulty seeing the difference, please let me know soonest. TV01: Do you want me to take you right back to what exactly happened? Did I not clearly distinguish between the principles of the LAW and a legalistic application of the OT rites? If you're calling for a reminder, it's no bother pointing these matters out again to you - because as clear as daylight, I asked you a particular question in references thereto and you forever ducked it! I don't see why this complaint here, unless you're deliberately trying so hard not to remember. It's still there - and in a very short moment I could help you to a refresher. TV01: Lol, stop being reactive with this joke! There was not a single time that the apostles used circumcision as a metaphor for the Law - and I knew that tithe opposers who don't see anything else than the Law are dyed hard with that sentiment. That was why I asked KunleOshob a direct question - and I'm not in a rush to see his answers. Quoting the whole chapter of Galatians 3 is not an answer to my question - and I could as well quote him a blank verse such as Romans 3:31 - "Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law." I asked KunleOshob a direct question, and a direct simple response would be appreciated. I could as well offer you the very same question - and as well a simple honest response without decorative fausse patte sentiments. Could you do me the kindness of profering an honest answer to that? Thank you. TV01: I asked a simple question - when I see your honest and intelligent answer, you will read my direct response to yours. If you want me to rephrase the question, let me know - this is not a Cambridge thesis. TV01: Thanks - I just want you to stop fidgeting with bland statements. Be man enough to go through and show precisely where, how and why you may think I am mistaken on this. Many blessings. |
| Re: To Tithe or Not to Tithe? by TV01(m): 11:01pm On Oct 16, 2008 |
I'm well thanks sis' . How far?Let me now share a few reasons as to my persuasions for tithing. (1) My persuasions for Tithing are not predicated on the Law No points here, not even you can spin scripture that much (2) My persuasions for Tithing are based on the priesthood of Melchizedek My persuasions against are based on the High Priesthood of Jesus Christ. Melchizedeks priesthood was a shadow, a type. Demonstrated as superior to the Aaronic by the symbolic paying of a tithe by Abraham to Melchizedek. (3) My persuasions for Tithing derive from what the Lord Jesus ordained The Lord never – as a commandment or an institution – ordained tithing for His disciples or followers. ~ No more physical temples or altars that require maintenance ~ The only ones who can claim to preach the gospel and be supported by that are those who are solely given to just that. That is itinerant ministers or full time missionaries, and they are supposed to be ministered to by those and amongst those they minister to, and to the extent of their needs. As was the Lords example. Jesus was ministered too by those He ministered too. No tithe was ordained. And that is the point Paul was making, not an organisational hierarchy funded by tithing which has always been at the core of your thinking and insinuated not so subtly though out your submissions. (4) My persuasions for Tithing are derived from Abraham’s example Abraham married His sister Abraham circumcised his male children (5) My persuasions for Tithing derive from its relevance in the NT Scribes and Pharisees! And The Lord said it was under the law, which He went on to fulfil. Redundant with a capital “R”. Judgment, mercy and faith are the principles underpinning the law and are eternal. Paying tithe and neglecting those is like keeping the sabbath and not helping someone in need, claiming that you are keeping the Sabbath. Letter not the spirit/principle. (6) My persuasions for Tithing are based on the test of Stewardship A weak argument. If you cannot avail yourself of the Liberty we have in Christ and give as you are able based on “ability” (2cor8:12) and feel the need to demonstrate you faithfulness and commitment by “regularly setting aside”, then do so. Don’t cramp or constrain others, by trying to appear hyper-spiritual and thereby introducing “mystery” where there is none. All you are demonstrating is strained religiosity. (7) My persuasions for Tithing express my freedom Au contraire, it expresses you lack of liberty and your desire to suffer others likewise. Or else you would simply choose to tithe and not spiritualise it and claim it’s a mystery. (8.) Tithes – Not Condemned in the New Testament And as ever you use the old to justify it. There is no NT verse commending it. Was written for our learning meant to mean introduce wholesale into Christian life? Weaker and weaker. Any more for any more? God bless TV |
| Re: To Tithe or Not to Tithe? by pilgrim1(f): 11:17pm On Oct 16, 2008 |
@TV01, TV01: My dear, I wasn't spining scripture - I purposely stated it as the first principle here because chaps like you keep harping on the law as the only thing you see for the tithes. To blandly put it here as you did is quite a lazy way of thinking, and I'm not surprised you would have come back ducking under that excuse once again. TV01: You're such a funny chap. Is the priesthood of Christ different from the Melchizedek priesthood - or you just want to show how very far inbetween you want to show in public? I don't see the meaning of what you're forcing yourself to say here, as if you're making a different priesthood for Christ from the priesthood of Melchizedek! TV01: You're sounding so frantic here, bro. Cool down and go take another peep at 1 Corinthians 9:14 - and then tell us where Paul was referring to when he spoke about verse 13. TV01: More frantic displays and fluttering - marrying his sister is all about tithing, ba? TV01: Good one - did your capital "R" include making "judgment, mercy, and faith" in that same verse redundant? If not, why the hypocrisy? I want a direct answer from you, please: who made "judgement, mercy and faith" to be redundant with your capital "R"? TV01: How does your slogan of "just give" depict stewardship? How does your "just give" speak to the point of setting aside "in proportion" on a weekly basis (AMP) in that verse I quoted? Do you mind to set aside your frantic air and smart up on this matter? TV01: Lol, you see how very sad you fellows can be. If my Christian liberty does not harm you, why are you forcing your restlessness to assert what you obviously have no clue of? How could you be so presumptious about someone else when you don't know about them? This is the classic attitude of fellows like you who have no clue what you argue - not one time have tithers been as presumptious as you are showing yourself to be - and then you have the nerve to come back with this sanctimonious "Christian Liberty" that is hardly evident in your attitude. TV01: Please stop acting like a child - show where tithes in the NT has ever been condemned. Just ONE verse will do. if you have none, I take your noise so far as a joke. . . a serious joke. TV01, we've been through this before - and I observe that you have the knack to always make a sorry case for yourself. You don't come across as though you would like to discuss, and dear sir. . . this lazy attitude is easy for anyone to practise: but that is not my approach. I would like to see more ducking around questions from you: a few are waiting which I have offered you. if you're going to discuss, please do so, and play down this lazy attitude, I beg you. Bless. |
| Re: To Tithe or Not to Tithe? by TV01(m): 11:58pm On Oct 16, 2008 |
Pilgrim.1 asked this; Now, my question: dear Kunle, what do you think: did the apostles overthrow the whole law or they taught certain doctrines for the Christian life directly from the LAW? My response; Acts 15:5 - But some of the sect of the Pharisees who believed rose up, saying, "It is necessary to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses." Acts 15:24 - Since we have heard that some who went out from us have troubled you with words, unsettling your souls, saying, "You must be circumcised and keep the law" to whom we gave no such commandment-- Did they reference the law when the “principles were essentially the same? Certainly, it made sense and afforded easier understanding, especially when preaching Jews. Did they seek to incorporate the law or the letter of the law into NT life? No they did not. Further the apostles had no notions of it being their place to “overthrow anything”. The saving work of the Lord was completed. "The law fulfilled". They merely leant insight and understanding to that work and structure for practical day to day Christian living. Now please answer mine. In a post that will fit into a standard screen without scrolling. Please refrain from wuruwuru, circular reasoning, cut and paste theology or your favourite, endless droning .Much obliged. Pilly, Did The Lord Jesus Christ "fulfill" the whole law or part? Or anywhere teach that certain elements remained, or give leave for the apostles to mix certain elements of law with grace? Best TV |
| Re: To Tithe or Not to Tithe? by pilgrim1(f): 12:50am On Oct 17, 2008 |
Dear TV01, TV01: Thank you for your answer, although it did not quite address what I had hoped it would. It was a direct and asimple question I asked, though - which again could be rephrased if need be. But I would like you to note here one reason it was incorrect to keep repeating your idea that "circumcision" was a metaphor for the Law - as seen in those verses above, they do not establish that idea. Notice how the statement distinguishes them - "(a) to circumcise them, and (b) to command them to keep the law of Moses". In other words, if we are saying that "circumcision = the Mosaic Law", then we would as well be reading that statement as "(a) to circumcise them, and (b) to command them to keep the circumcision" - which hardly makes any sense. There are other examples where it is clear that the apostles did not use circumcision as a metaphor for the Law, and to keep assuming it so it to confuse matters for ourselves and our readers. "The Law" is a much bigger entity than "circumcision"; and circumcision is only one of the matters contained in the Law. TV01: I used the term "overthrow" deliberately - which was another of calling the attention of those who are often given to the idea that because we are not under Law but under grace, therefore nothing in the Law could be found in the NT for our blessing and edification. When people keep using that idea as the basis for rejecting what they have not carefully studied, one is left with no alternatives than to ask these folks to address that issue once and for all. That is why I hinted that the question could be rephrased in so many ways - but all referring to the same thing. The fact that the Lord had fulfilled the Law for us does not mean that we should ignore it wholesale - and precisely for this reason has been why I have called out several times endlessly that we pay some attention to these matters and not force our traditionally held fancies into the text and make them say they are making something redundant that they never did! TV01: Gladly - I always try to keep my word. TV01: If you're inviting a discussion, please do so. The moment someone presents their approach with such attitude, I already see a closed door. Until I see a genuine interest in you to discuss, there would be no need for me to entertain this attitude from you. I apologise to disappoint you until such a time when you are more open. TV01: I never gave the idea that the apostles mixed certain elements of the Law with grace - if I did, it would be helpful and interesting for you to quote it directly and refer for our attention. Secondly, I have been consistent since we (ie., you and I) started discussing the matters about the Law - which was the reason I opened a thread to that end (here) and invited you to share your views there. If there's something anyone would notice at all, they would see that I had asked you pointedly if the Lord broke any Law, because you had categorically inferred that "the law was clearly broken"; even after asking several times what you meant by such an idea (especially as to WHO broke that Law), you didn't offer clear pointers - and I had to subsequently demonstrate my persuasion that the Lord never broke any Law but fulfilled them (beginning from here). I have asked you to clarify what you meant by alleging that "He even broke the written code" (ie., referring to the Lord Jesus) - but I don't remember where you ever addressed that issue, despite several times I appealled to you to clarify between two opposite statements! An example was where I pointed out your inconsitencies - here. Certainly, I have always consistently maintained the issue between divine principles in the Law as distinct from a legalistic application of the Law - and that is not something that I started speaking about recently; because since last year 2007, I have shared on these same matters, and repeated myself endlessly over and over again! You can see from there that not in one instance did I assert that the Lord broke the Law at any point - and not only so, I went on to defend my position from Scripture rather than dismiss anything lazily out of hand! Consequently, I think it does not make any sens for you to come up yet again asking me if the Lord fulfilled "the whole law or part" - that does not make any sense in light of the fact that I already defended my position on that matter since last year 2007! A few reminders: A. John 5 - Did the Lord BREAK The LAW? B. my question is "clearly broken by who?" C. But here is the interesting thing - that those who accuse the Lord of having broken the sabbath in John 5 are the same people who are unable to defend their accusation against Him by implication of what He said in verse 17! D. Not only so, there were other things E. The whole point of the foregoing is that the Lord did NOT break the Law Dear TV01, I don't mean to make you feel uncomfy with these issues - I'm quite open to dialogue; and where I don't have answers, I clearly say so. If I have anything to share, it woulnd't be my desire to be lazy in doing so. As you can see from the above, if I make any ststements, I often make sure that I hold my grounds strongly enough to defend them from the Word of God. You will not find me anywhere just dismissing others' inputs out of hand if I cannot show where, why or how I disagree with them. I hope you will find those links quite helpful as reminders of my consistent position ever since. . as well as understand now that I have never rested my persuasions for the tithes as a Christian upon the old covenant. Many blessings. |
| Re: To Tithe or Not to Tithe? by JJYOU: 1:02am On Oct 17, 2008 |
Luke 12:15 And He said to them, "Take heed and beware of covetousness, for one's life does not consist in the abundance of the things he possesses." |
| Re: To Tithe or Not to Tithe? by TV01(m): 8:30am On Oct 17, 2008 |
Morning Pilly, I trust you are well. Please answer the question. Live and direct. Like you promised too. Don't use the excuse of my "not inviting discussion" to derail the thread. On the basis of a trite aside, of which you are undisputed champion. @ All, I understand if you are loathe to backtrack and re-read previous posts. For discussion is always best if progressed linearly and I for one am happy to repeat and clarify as necessary. However, I've re-read some of the links Pilgrim.1 attached. If you have the time and the inclination, please do so. It will be an eye-opener. Thanks. TV |
| Re: To Tithe or Not to Tithe? by pilgrim1(f): 8:39am On Oct 17, 2008 |
@TV01, Good morning. TV01: Have I not answered the question already? What is your problem, please let me know. |
| Re: To Tithe or Not to Tithe? by JJYOU: 10:21am On Oct 17, 2008 |
lack of fear of God and pure stinginess. do they still use that word? some of these no tithing people here go into church buildings people they are richer than built and continue to fund. the question i asked the other time is if you say you dont like tithing pls tell us how you want the churches to be funded and pls pls dont tell me that crap of free will offering. you know you never have freewill towards any course other than you. |
| Re: To Tithe or Not to Tithe? by pilgrim1(f): 10:30am On Oct 17, 2008 |
JJYOU: I was waiting to get there at some point, but patience. . it won't be long before we see the so-called "liberty" they have been preaching manifest itself for what it actually is! "Just give" - talk is cheap: let these same fellows tell us how they hope to sustain the idea of "Christian liberty" while parodying their lazy sanctimonius confusion that they themselves cannot digest. |
| Re: To Tithe or Not to Tithe? by pilgrim1(f): 10:41am On Oct 17, 2008 |
Dear KunleOshob, I was hoping you would have a simple direct answer to the question I asked earlier, viz: pilgrim.1: Yes, they overthrew the whole Law - ∆ No, they did not overthrow the Law - ∆ You could make a choice between those two. However, you are not obliged to offer an answer to that question - so that you don't get unduely disturbed about what you have no clues. It was just simply to help you reason through the same inference that you guys keep harping on, when nobody is saying what you guys are yelling about every single time. |
| Re: To Tithe or Not to Tithe? by TV01(m): 11:12am On Oct 17, 2008 |
JJYOU: That is at best conjecture, but I dare say, you'D probably find a few such cases. And I take your point, that if one decides that a physical building is integral to their worship, then they should by all means contribute to it's upkeep as they are able. JJYOU: How should churches be funded? As I mentioned above. I wouldn't necessarily do it myself, but I have no problem with people coming together and deciding to build a place of worship, of whatever cost. As long as they don't preach buildings as "doctrine, as "ordained" and the required contributions as mandatory, or otherwise spiritualise the building and/or the giving to it. But let me ask you this; ~ Are church buildings - temples - required? ~ Does God dwell in them? ~ Did God mandate them or ordain such? ~ Is there a pattern or example in the NT narrative for "church building" or "temple construction"? ~ Per the above, is there an example of collection or offering - voluntary or mandatory - for such? ~ Was any collection or offering employed or given on anything other than physical need of the brethren? ~ Indeed, does Acts not clearly recount that land and buildings were actually sold to minister to need. ~ Why did they not use the land or convert the buildings for churches? ~ When the brethren had all things in common, was there any record of use of the common purse to build or acquire temples or churches? pilgrim.1: Pilgrim.1 feel free to answer as requested, you know I love to hear your thoughts. However my expectation is of a "mystery religious jig" albeit a highly spiritualised one . And please don't use that as an excuse for avoidance. Go on dear, make me swallow !God bless TV |
| Re: To Tithe or Not to Tithe? by pilgrim1(f): 11:33am On Oct 17, 2008 |
@TV01, Thanks again for your inputs. TV01: Sorry, it is not a conjecture - I have seen actually cases where those who are loudest against offering and tithes are the most stingy in their churches, whereas the few who believe in tithing are the ones who funded and continued to pay the expenses for the maintenance of the buildings where they gather for worship! It doesn't stop there - in one such incident when I visited Texas two years ago, I was surprised that the offering collected (it was their custom to inform the congregation) amounted to less than my wage for that month, and you could get lost at the car park where 'members' claimed the latest rides. However, in the afternoon when there was a social gathering for church members, the same group of people flocked to the largest eatery in that place that could contain as many as came - and out of curiosity, I asked the cashier how much "we" had spent. Guess her answer? It came to more than 11 times what was announced as church offering that morning. If you want other cases to read online, just call and we shall serve you pronto. My dear TV01, these matters are not conjectures - they are real and worrisome. TV01: Let's get real. If it doesn't matter that churches have places (physical buildings) where they can gather for worship on a weekly basis, where would the Church be today especially with the commission to reach the world? TV01: We just might be too glad to see it. Churches are not funded by your "conjecture", sir! TV01: Good questions, and we shall get there. In your opinion, in today's world and your rigid legalistic grip on "scripture", it is wrong to have places where the saints gather for worship, yes? I'm just not wanting to run the risk of misreading you, that's why I would rather seek your position with simple questions first. TV01: Good one - just keep up the trend. Shé bi I told you earlier that I don't feel inclined to put up with an attitude from you guys this morning? We have spent so many pages making excuses back and forth, agreeing and yet disgareeing with our agreements. No wahala - to simply dismiss issues out of hand is not the same thing as actually offering anything of substance, though. TV01: Lol, but dear sir. . . I have answered your question as simply and directly as I could manage. You wield the prerogative to "feel free" to answer, even though your answer is scuttling around my questions. Why is it that you guess who argue so much like this can never face up to offer simple and honest answers that may benefit both yourselves and everyone else? What is so "Cambridge" in the simple questions I asked? I could offer to rephrase them - as I said earlier - but then if you are not going to answer any questions (even though I have always sought to address yours), then what is it really that you hope to achieve with all these exculpations? Anyhow, I'm open to dialogue and proffer answers to queries - I have never ducked any such questions. Cheers. |
| Re: To Tithe or Not to Tithe? by JJYOU: 12:00pm On Oct 17, 2008 |
TV01: they say truth is the first casualty of war. why do you live in a house my brother? you expect the brethren to gather under the sun or rain. is that how they do it where you fellowship? are you saying every land was sold to minister. it is obvious you have problem with the understanding of the interpretation and application of scriptures. the bible the letter killeth but the Spirit giveth life once again remember the scripture i quoted earlier, a man's life does not constitute of the abundance of things he posses. it is always a priviledge to be entusted with money with which you can serve God. never make God regret blessing you with anything. travel lightly read this Haggai 1:1-15. “This is what the Lord of Heaven’s Armies says: The people are saying, ‘The time has not yet come to rebuild the house of the Lord. 3 Then the Lord sent this message through the prophet Haggai: 4 “Why are you living in luxurious houses while my house lies in ruins? 5 This is what the Lord of Heaven’s Armies says: Look at what’s happening to you! 6 You have planted much but harvest little. You eat but are not satisfied. You drink but are still thirsty. You put on clothes but cannot keep warm. Your wages disappear as though you were putting them in pockets filled with holes! 7 “This is what the Lord of Heaven’s Armies says: Look at what’s happening to you! 8 Now go up into the hills, bring down timber, and rebuild my house. Then I will take pleasure in it and be honored, says the Lord. 9 You hoped for rich harvests, but they were poor. And when you brought your harvest home, I blew it away. Why? Because my house lies in ruins, says the Lord of Heaven’s Armies, while all of you are busy building your own fine houses. 10 It’s because of you that the heavens withhold the dew and the earth produces no crops. 11 I have called for a drought on your fields and hills—a drought to wither the grain and grapes and olive trees and all your other crops, a drought to starve you and your livestock and to ruin everything you have worked so hard to get.” |
| Re: To Tithe or Not to Tithe? by sarmy(m): 12:16pm On Oct 17, 2008 |
Dear Pilgrim, Thanks for sharing with us the reasons why christians may tithe, I agree with some of your points and hope to make use of them as soon as I join a church that preaches this concept of tithing But beg to disagree with your point number 3 above quoting 1 cor 9:13-15, that our Lord Jesus ordained TITHE in that passage, what Jesus ordained was for those preaching the gospel to be taken care of from what comes in through the gospel e.g offering, our Lord Jesus or any of the apostles did not categorically ordain or command or receive TITHE from the early Church 1 Cor 9:13-15 AMP version 13Do you not know that those men who are employed in the services of the temple get their food from the temple? And that those who tend the altar share with the altar [in the offerings brought]?(A) 14[On the same principle] the Lord directed that those who publish the good news (the Gospel) should live (get their maintenance) by the Gospel. 15But I have not made use of any of these privileges, nor am I writing this [to suggest] that any such provision be made for me [now]. For it would be better for me to die than to have anyone make void and deprive me of my [ground for] glorifying [in this matter]. We need to ask ourselves why the Apostles seems deliberately refused to use the name TITHE to qalify any of the early church form of giving, there is no any example where any of the early church (Gentiles or Jews) gave Tithe to any of the Apostles or named their giving tithe I'm sure they could not have requested for Tithe, because early Christian Jews knew tithe was meant for the levites and also Christian Gentiles have not practiced tithing before, then the Apostles had the duty of specifically teaching tithe as a subject or doctine if to be observed so Christian Gentiles could understand the mystery behind it. Bible confirmed that the early christians gave freely, willinglly and cheerfully and the church lacked nothing (they could not have given tithe as stated above) It's on record that Tithe was instroduced hundred of years later as a doctine by the Bishops. Apostles did not teach, ordain or received tithe from the early christian Jews/Gentiles Dear sister, even though I disagree with this point #3, this does not mean Tithe is a sin (NO), the way I see tithe from your concept, it's more or less like any other giving from any devoted child of God, except that TITHE as a name is used here to qualify such, a true child of God may decide to give a proportion of income to support God's work on regular basis without calling it tithe which the Apostles and the early church practiced. pilgrim.1: This, I think is the main reason why most churches will prefer to use the term TITHE is so as to ensure that more can be given to sustain the church which in itself is lack of faith, early church did not practice this and yet they lacked nothing. Remain blessed and many thanks |
| Re: To Tithe or Not to Tithe? by KunleOshob(m): 12:19pm On Oct 17, 2008 |
pilgrim.1: My dear pilgrim.1 i have decided to answer this your question from the teachings of the master himself (undiluted) this was were the apostles drew their inspiration from. Matthew 22:35-40: 35 One of them, an expert in religious law, tried to trap him with this question: 36 “Teacher, which is the most important commandment in the law of Moses?” 37 Jesus replied, “‘You must love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your mind.’[a] 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 A second is equally important: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 [b]The [b]entire law and all the demands of the prophets are based on these two commandments.”[/b] Galatians 5:14: 14 For the whole law can be summed up in this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”[a] 2 Corinthians 3:6: 6 He has enabled us to be ministers of his new covenant. This is a covenant not of written[b] laws[/b], but of the Spirit. The old written covenant ends in death; but under the new covenant, the Spirit gives life. Now the above scriptures is very central to my christian life and i try and use it as a guide in determining how to live my life as a christian. as far as i am concerned christianity is based on love, love to God, and love to man. To answer your question more precisely elements of the law exist in the islamic religion and several other belief systems all over the world the fact that there is an overlap does not mean the apostles are preserving part of the law. As you rightly noted in a previous post it is the principles of the law and the spirit of it that matters and not the words. So to answer your question the law is dead and buried shikena. even though certain principles from it might still be relevant likewise certain principles which are similar to christianity in other belief systems. |
| Re: To Tithe or Not to Tithe? by KunleOshob(m): 12:28pm On Oct 17, 2008 |
sarmy: GBAM You hit the nail precisely on the head here. |
| Re: To Tithe or Not to Tithe? by pilgrim1(f): 12:41pm On Oct 17, 2008 |
@KunleOshob, KunleOshob: Thank you for attempting to answer - I deeply appreciate that even though you may not have actually offered the simple point I ofefered you. Anyhow. . . KunleOshob: Appreciated. First, I did not ask you about other belief systems or even about the islamic religion - so many such belief systems have nothing to do with tithes (I have examined so many of them myself). However, should I take your answers as saying: ● there are overlaps? ● the apostles preserved nothing about the Law? ● all that matters is "love" and even other issues are zero? KunleOshob: Principles, yes. But I don't remember ever saying that the words don't matter. KunleOshob: Okay, lovable bros. . there are just a few things that I can't figure from what you're saying: ● if the Law is dead and buried, is that not the same thing as saying no part of the Law is to concern us at all? ● if the Law is dead and buried, are you now agreeing with me that it still has applicable principles to the Christian? ● if the Law is dead and buried, are you now understanding why pilgrim.1 has been saying that she does not base her persuasions for tithing upon the Law? ● if you are agreeing with the above, then why have you guys kept on arguing what nobody else is saying and then using that same fausse braie to dismiss tithers? I think it helps if we can all endeavour to listen to what tithers are saying rather than assuming a presupposition that they never mentioned to be attacking and dismissing them. It is this constant unnecessary harping that has dragged us to this point without advancing further. Tithers are not arguing to make tithes compulsory for anyone, nor have we been saying that we are "Levitical Christians". Can we move on now to more important issues that will benefit all? If you're still not clear, I'll be glad to offer simple pointers yet again. Be richly blessed. |
Tithes – Not Condemned in the New Testament(1) (2) (3) ... (48) (49) (50) (51) (52) (53) (54) ... (64) (Reply)
What Comes To Your Mind When You Hear The Word 'AMORC'? / Mammy Water: Myth Or Reality? / Jimmy Odukoya Succeeds Father As Senior Pastor Of Fountain Of Life Church
(Go Up)
| Sections: politics (1) business autos (1) jobs (1) career education (1) romance computers phones travel sports fashion health religion celebs tv-movies music-radio literature webmasters programming techmarket Links: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2024 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See How To Advertise. 263 |