LuftWaffle

Grace to you too dear brother, You've made a very creative interpretation of my position regarding this issue in your statement above. You're always welcome to try and paint me with a black brush, I deserve it, but know that what you've said a) doesn't address the issue at all and b) isn't what I believe. I generally advise that Christians follow the lead of the Holy Spirit and if the Holy spirit says, "The pastor needs your help" then you give all you can, and if the Holy Spirit says, "The poor need your help" then you give to them no matter how much the pastor threatens that you'll be robbing God if you don't give the church her 10%. And if the Holy Spirit says, "Give to such and such missionary" then don't be afraid to give to them, no curse will fall upon you as the pastor says. No, supporting a worthy cause doesn't 'rub me the wrong way' dear brother. This line of argument, while it may prove effective in villifying me, doesn't speak to the issues that I've raised. What I'm arguing against is the church teaching something that they cannot biblically defend, for the sake of expedience. Christianity is not an 'ends justify the means' religion. Robbing banks to feed the poor is wrong. Manipulating congregations into paying modern tithing, when God never authorised this is equally wrong. Modernising an old testament law and teaching it as 'God sayeth' is wrong. Let me ask you something, how did Paul ever start a church? Did he demand tithes? Did he lie awake at night wondering how he's supposed to spread the word of God without startup capital? Do you not believe that God will provide for the church, without the need to collect a form of church-tax (which is essentially what modern tithing is)? As I said before, there are many churches that are aware of what the bible teaches regarding tithing and they do not teach tithing and they prosper. There is no evidence whatsoever that the early Christian church collected tithes. In fact, when Paul emplored the Corinthians to assist the poor of another congregation, it was a perfect opportunity to invoke the law of modern tithing, yet he doesn't. He appeals to their love and to grace, but never threatens them with robbing God if they don't pay 10%. See for yourself: 2Co 8:10 And herein I give my advice: for this is expedient for you, who have begun before, not only to do, but also to be forward a year ago. 2Co 8:11 Now therefore perform the doing of it; that as there was a readiness to will, so there may be a performance also out of that which ye have. 2Co 8:12 For if there be first a willing mind, it is accepted according to that a man hath, and not according to that he hath not. 2Co 8:13 For I mean not that other men be eased, and ye burdened: 2Co 8:14 But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality Then we can look at what Jesus taught, what does He say to His disciples? That they should, "Go forth and collect tithes, and with those tithes build buildings, hire a band, get chairs lights and multimedia and preach"? Or did he say? Mat 10:7 And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand. Mat 10:8 Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils: freely ye have received, freely give. Mat 10:9 Provide neither gold, nor silver, nor brass in your purses, Mat 10:10 Nor scrip for your journey, neither two coats, neither shoes, nor yet staves: for the workman is worthy of his meat. Dear brother, I cannot stress this any more than I already have. I don't have a problem with giving and a Christian isn't bound by any wooden rule as to how much. Give as you purposeth. I am speaking of the modern doctrine of tithing and it's validity. I am speaking about what is being taught, yet you insist on caricaturising my position into an argument against giving? Why do you do this? Where did God authorise gentile churches to claim a minimum of ten percent of congregation member's salaries? Where did God say that those not paying 10% of their salaries to their local church will be guilty of robbing God? Where did God declare that modern tithing is an act of worship? Where did God authorise churches to demand tithes (a law given to Israel for a specific purpose) to cover their running costs? These are the things that are being taight today. Where is it authorised? What value is there in avoiding these questions? Let me ask you this question. You don't have to answer it here, just think about it. Why is it that one of the most prolific doctrines in modern day churches have no real scriptural basis? Afterall if there was a scriptural basis you'd have given it by now, right? Instead tithing teaching must rely on anecdotal evidence, equivocation with charity and caricaturisation of the opposition, threats, emotional appeals, etc.. Is a doctrine that requires that sort of defense worthy of defending? Think about it dear brother and peace to you too.

Dear Steven, I'm still new here so it's with respect and humily that I appeal to you to address the topic and abandon the idea that tithing is interchangeable with devotion or giving. The verses above as well as the idea that Christians should be generous and not materialistic I agree with. That is not the contention here. I'd be willing to bet that your very church makes a distinction between tithes and offerings, because the common way that it is taught is that tithes (a minimum of 10%) must go to the church, thereafter one can give to the needy. Right there a distinction is made. Let me also appeal to you to look at the opening post of this thread. anitarose expressed her shock at the late J.Vernon McGee for teaching that tithing is no longer required. Now if tithing is interchangeable with giving, then we must assume that J. Vernon McGee is teaching that the church isn't required to give to the needy. Is anitarose expressing her shock that this is the case? Not at all. Giving is not what we're talking about. Likewise if tithing is interchangeable with the idea that all belongs to God then is J. Vernon McGee really contending that it isn't the case that all things belong to God? Again I doubt that is the case. Tithing is a rule that is very specific when it is applied, but very vague when it is defended. What do I mean by that? When it is taught from the pulpit it is said that a minimum of 10% of one's salary must be paid to the local church, whether your rich or poor, own land or not, jew or gentile and those who don't are implied as being robbers of God or that they lack faith or devotion. These are very specific instructions and accusations, wouldn't you say? But when the doctrine of modern tithing is defended, suddenly the concept becomes vague. Any generosity or act of devotion now becomes tithing. If any giving is tithing then go and ask your pastor whether you can give your tithes to a missionary? See what the response will be. Tell your pastor that instead of hard cash, you'll give the church 10% of your time, instead. What do you think the general response will be? Also, you're using verses dealing with materialism and the love of worldly things, which aside from caricaturising my position: implying that *need* to hear Jesus speaking against materialism, don't actually speak to the specific rules of tithing. I also find it odd that non-tithers are often accused of- or implied to be focused on the material, but the commonly used anecdotal incentive for tithing is something along the lines of, "ever since I started tithing my financial problems went away and God blessed me richly...therefore tithing is good." I'm not trying to start a fight, please, dear brother, I ask again: Where did God authorise that gentile Christians should be giving a minimum of 10% of their salaries to their local church. Where is this modern practise defined in scripture. I totally agree that all things belong to God, but where does scripture authorise churches to be the custodians of the first 10% of what Christians give back to God? In other words, I'm not against giving to God or any other giving, I'm against the church claiming the bulk of that which is given to God. Where does the church get the authority to do this. Please, if you have the answer give it, instead of posting verses on materialism or giving with which nobody here disagrees. God bless

Perhaps I am mistaken, but in my opinion this is a false dilemma. 'Good' is what God's nature is. As such it isn't ontologically God (in a sense that God's existence equates to the existence of good), and neither is it an arbitrary decision and neither is it something that God is subject to. In other words it's a property of God, not God Himself neither is it a decision that God made. Perhaps this analogy is too simple, but think about a simple fire. Heat is a property of fire. Fire doesn't adhere to heat, heat is a part of it. There isn't a prescriptive law that fire obeys in being hot. Likewise fire didn't arbitrarily decide to be hot. In a sense it comes down to determinism or freewill. The hidden assumption in your question is: "All things are either determined or willed". Can you prove this metaphysical assertion? I assume you're an atheist or agnostic, and if so I can offer the cosmos as one example of something that I'm sure you'll believe is neither determined nor arbitraly willed, for if it is either, then it begs the question who or what determines the cosmos to exist (and what determines that and what determines that etc.) or alternatively who willed the cosmos into existence.

What do you mean? If I may Dave... He means that it is given for God's people to give... if they do not God will cause things around them to consume their monies and things- Deut 28:38-42 38 "You shall carry much seed out to the field but gather little in, for the locust shall consume it. 39 You shall plant vineyards and tend them, but you shall neither drink of the wine nor gather the grapes; for the worms shall eat them. 40 You shall have olive trees throughout all your territory, but you shall not anoint yourself with the oil; for your olives shall drop off. 41 You shall beget sons and daughters, but they shall not be yours; for they shall go into captivity. 42 Locusts shall consume all your trees and the produce of your land. NKJV When the church was first seen starting to form people sold all their possessions and put into one pot so that all might have enough. The story of Ananias and Sapphira. Here is the New Testament tithe- Luke 18:22 22 So when Jesus heard these things, He said to him, "You still lack one thing. Sell all that you have and distribute to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me." NKJV It is not the give to get... it is the privilege to engage the imitation of God's actions from within ourselves as offerings of worship to Him who has given us all things! Love Steven The reason I asked what was meant by the ATM machine analogy is because the definitions of tithing change constantly. I pay a mandatory fee to the bank for services rendered. I don't give that service fee as an act of awe and devotion. It's not a gift at all but a payment. I pay service charges, I don't *give* or *offer* service charges. But then in another post tithing is defined as an act of devotion where we should be giving our all not just money not just time 100%. But that totally contradicts the ATM analogy. Then in another sense tithing is equated to giving whatever you can, joyfully to charity. To be absolutely frank, I believe this vague and shifting definition of tithing is necessary to increase amount of availble prooftexts for modern tithing. In one sense tithing is presented as law where people are under a curse when they don't obey. But when valid questions are raised regarding the Law, then tithing suddenly becomes a free act of devotion or 'giving' and then all New Testament verses about charity can be evoked in order to prove tithing teaching. This very fact, I believe further illustrates that modern tithing really isn't a biblical concept at all.

Indeed, I am convinced in my heart, but having a conviction in itself isn't wrong, is it? Do you not have convictions in your own heart too? Convictions are only wrong if they contradict scripture, so lets look at what the Bible says regarding tithing and whether what is taught nowadays is inline with scripture and most importantly, lets stop changing the definition of tithing to mean things it does not. I agree that our lives should be a living sacrifice devoted to God, but that's not a tithe and nowhere in scripture is it defined as a tithe. Likewise charitable giving isn't a tithe nor is it defined as such in scripture. Ananias and Saffira weren't killed for not tithing, tithing has nothing do to with what happened to them, their offense was lying to the Holy Spirit. In fact Peter says that their possessions were theirs to keep, so non-payment isn't the issue. Act 5:4 Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God. None of the above attempts to substantiate modern tithing actually references modern tithing. I fully agree that all things we own belong to God, but you haven't answered my question. Who authorised churches to be the custodians of what Christians give back to God? Who declared that churches should get the first 10% of gentile Christians monthly salaries? This is what is being taught, is it unreasonable to ask where the scriptural authority for this teaching comes from? Does that make me wordly, stingy, greedy, disobedient or unfaithful? Does that mean I have some dark agenda that I want to force onto others?

Hi D-9, I agree fully with what you wrote. Christians should be generous and charitable and should give joyfully. However, then it ought to be called 'giving' and not 'tithing'. Tithing is a completely different thing to giving and the major problem with referring to donations (mandatory or not) as tithes is that it opens a door for manipulation. For instance, many people are called by the Holy Spirit to donate to missionaries or certain charities, however many churches teach that tithes should go to the church first, thereafter one can make offerings to missions or charity. Another thing, that's been mentioned before is people who may not be able to afford it, but are scared of 'robbing God' or being accused of 'not having faith' etc. because of the way modern tithing is equivocated with biblical tithing. So even though I agree with you in terms of giving, I think it's important that a distinction be made between plain old charity and tithing.

Hi Dave....could you please demonstrate tithing in action in the Body of Messiah....or quote some of Paul's teaching on its relevance for Believers today....or just anything that is in context, as I struggle with what is often taught, and am mostly in agreement with the new kid on the block....welcome to Worthy by the way LW. Thank you for the welcome, Bots.

I am glad that your financial troubles have been resolved, however how do we determine the will of God, by scripture or by our experiences? The problem with anecdotal evidence is that in many intances it is indistinguishable from superstition. Suppose I say that ever since I started wearing blue suede shoes, my financial troubles disappeared. One can rightly say that I'm being superstitious. I can produce a list of people that struggle inspite of tithing. In fact most online discussions on tithing are started by someone who can't afford to pay tithes anymore because they've lost their job or have serious medical bills to pay. Conversely there are many congregations that are aware of what the Bible teaches regarding tithing and thus do not require tithes but instead relies on offerings by the congregation. These churches prosper. So really you have: a) Poor people who tithe b) Poor people who don't tithe c) Successful people who tithe d) Successful people who don't tithe Is there really a connection between tithing and financial security?

What do you mean?

I don't think the scriptural account of Jacob can be used to justify modern tithing, though. Here are some reasons. a) Just because Jacob did something doesn't mean it's a commandment that gentile Christians under the new covenant should be following so as to not rob God. As an example Jacob also wrestled with God and tricked Isaac into giving Esau's birthright to him. Jacob also had more than one wife. b) Jacob bargained with God, saying if you will be my God, I will give you a tenth of what I own. This is not a good example for Christians to follow c) The Bible doesn't state who Jacob gave this to, or whether he did this yearly, monthly or weekly. For all intents and purposes this was a once-off event. d) Also according to what would be customary for the time, Jacob's offering would most likely have been a burnt offering (i.e. agricultural produce) to God or giving the tenth to the poor with whom God normally associates ("I was hungry and you didn't feed me...") Most churches teach that the tithe should go to the church and that once tithes have been paid, offerings can be given to whomever. Is there any part of scripture where God has authorised gentile churches to be the recipients of tithed money? In other words how did the churches become the legal custodians of the tithes that congregations wish to give to God as an act of worship and gratitude? Importantly though, Jacob's account doesn't negate the clear instructions regarding tithing given in Deut 14 which, I sincerely believe, is being violated by modern teaching. How does one square modern tithing with biblical tithing?

Hi Everybody, I'm very strongly against teaching tithing as I believe that it a) is unbiblical b) tends to turn God's house into a house of merchandise c) places the yoke of the law around the necks of the liberated in Christ d) often works against the Holy Spirit Perhaps these may be strong terms, but allow me to expand the first issue. The term "tithing", I believe is a bait-and-switch, which means it's an expression that has multiple meanings and the meanings are subtly shifted to benefit a certain view point. If one distinguishes between biblical tithing and modern tithing one can clearly see the switch. Tithing as referenced by Matthew 23, Malachi 3 etc. are defined in Deut 14. It is defined as follows: a) The primary beneficiary of the tithes was the tither themselves. b) Tithes were eaten c) Tithes consisted of the increase of the land, not manufactured or trade goods. In other words carpenters didn't tithe. Potters didn't tithe. Only farmers who got their products from the land itself. Deut 14 specifically states money wasn't tithed but changed for agricultural products before being tithed. d) Secondary beneficiaries of the tithes are the poor, the widows and the levites for they had no land. e) The place where tithes were to be taken was the temple, nowhere else. f) The purpose of the tithe was a sort of thanksgiving feast, where tithers honoured God for His providence. g) This happened yearly h) It was only the Israelites who were meant to tithe. Compare this to Modern tithing as taught in churches today a) The primary beneficiary of tithes are the church. b) Tithes are paid c) Tithes are specifically monetary. d) The poor, the windows and the homeless are to tithe as well in contract to the Biblical 'tithe'. e) Tithes are taken to the local church f) The purpose of the tithe is for the running costs of the church primarily g) Tithes are paid weekly or monthly according to the tithers salary h) Gentile Christian under the new covenant are told to tithe. Nowhere in scripture has God commanded the modern tithing system or that the Bibilical tithe should change to the Modern tithing system as taught in many churches today. Verses such as Malachi 3 are instruction not to violate biblical tithes, and not instructions to tithe in the modern fashion. Mal 3:10 Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house, and prove me now herewith, saith the LORD of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it. Even though the context is literal this particular verse is modernised and reinterpreted as follows: "storehouse" is seen as "church" "meat" is seen as "money" "windows of heaven" (meaning rain) is seen as "blessings" (often financial) The only similarity between Biblical tithing and what is often taught today is the name "tithing". It is a classic bait-and-switch using the verses that refer to Biblical tithing (such as Mal 3) to prompt congregations to tithe in the modern sense. Not only that but modern tithing violates proper tithing as defined in Deut 14, which means that those thinking they're abiding by the Law by tithing are actually placing themselves within the very curse of the Law that they believe non-tithers are under. God bless