# Is The Tithe For Today?



## KMK

There are many who wish to debate whether the Tithe is for today.

Let's hear from both sides, but refrain from debate on the other tithing thread.

Thank you.


----------



## Rich Koster

Where is the temple and Levites to bring it to?????????????????

Stewardship of all God given resources and cheerful (not under compulsion) giving In my humble opinion.

I didn't read the other thread first.


----------



## Jon 316

No.

1) It was an old covenant requirement
2) The New Testament does not teach the Tithe
3) The New Testament teaches A) All of our lives belongs to the Lord B) Give unto the Lord generously (there is no 'fixed amount')
4) Those who try to keep the tithe today cannot because in the OT it was much more than 10% it also involved argicultural offerings (in othet words it does not transfer well culturally. 
5) Teaching the Tithe as 'law' is legalism and brings God's people under law. 

The following is Pauls instructions regarding giving. As we can see no mention of the tithe, instead there is liberty. N.T is not about hard and fast rules as the law was. N,T is about the spirit of the law and not the letter of the law. The spirit of the law is grace, mercy, compassion and kindness. 



> 2 Cor 9:7 *Each man should give what he has decided in his heart to give*, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.


----------



## DonP

Rich Koster said:


> Where is the temple and Levites to bring it to?????????????????
> 
> Stewardship of all God given resources and cheerful (not under compulsion) giving In my humble opinion.
> 
> I didn't read the other thread first.



No now days you wait for the theonomists to set up a city of refuge and take it there. 

General Equity. 

Wow this kind of Pharisaical thinking almost makes me want to go alllll the way to where many of my Bib Theol friends would say, all the 10 commandments as delivered to Israel the nation have been abrogated !

As long as we understand the moral law they described has always been and is still a rule of life for believers. 

And of course lawmakers today are free to adopt any of their laws if seen as best and nothing better or more applicatory to our nation would better suit. 

And they should be consistent with the General Equity or basic ideas and purposes of the OT laws. 

Weren't the laws to be instructive of God and His nature as well as just safeguards for a society. 

So 2 Cor 9:6 But this I say: He who *sows sparingly* will also reap sparingly, and he who sows bountifully will also reap bountifully. 7 So let each one *give as he purposes in his heart*, not grudgingly or of necessity; for God loves a cheerful giver. 8 And God is able to make all grace abound toward you, that you, always having all sufficiency in all things, may have an abundance for every good work. 9 As it is written:
"He has dispersed abroad, He has given to the poor; His righteousness endures forever." 

10 Now may He who supplies seed to the sower, and bread for food, supply and multiply the seed you have sown and increase the fruits of your righteousness, 11 while you are enriched in everything *for all liberality,* which causes thanksgiving through us to God. NKJV

Gal 4:9 But now after you have known God, or rather are known by God, how is it that you turn again to the weak and beggarly elements, to which you desire again to be in bondage? NKJV

Mark 12:42 Then one poor widow came and threw in two mites, which make a quadrans. 43 So He called His disciples to Himself and said to them, "Assuredly, I say to you that this poor widow has put in more than all those who have given to the treasury; 44 for they all put in out of their abundance, but she out of her poverty put in *all that she had,* her whole livelihood." NKJV

1 Cor 16:1 Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given orders to the churches of Galatia, so you must do also: 2 On the first day of the week let each one of you lay something aside, storing up *as he may prosper,* that there be no collections when I come.
NKJV 
But I don't see 10% mentioned.


----------



## matthew11v25

Here are some thoughts:

1.	The tithe in it’s OT form is not for today (wasn’t it part of the Ceremonial Laws?)
2.	Giving in various forms is a strong NT teaching, but no percent is given. All we own belongs to God and if furthering Christ’s Kingdom through the preaching of the gospel is a primary importance in our life than only 10% given to that purpose should only be a starting point (unless there are reasons otherwise…maybe huge debt, etc???)
3.	Discipline is a Biblical concept and can help in giving. Maybe using a percentage is helpful. My wife and I use a base percentage and then go from there….this helps with budgeting because we have school loans, etc.
4.	Gross/Net/first fruits distinctions are not the point of giving. We may live in a society someday that taxes universally 90%. If you tithed on gross at that point you would be broke and unable to feed your family.


----------



## ww

Jon 316 said:


> No.
> 
> 1) It was an old covenant requirement
> 2) The New Testament does not teach the Tithe
> 3) The New Testament teaches A) All of our lives belongs to the Lord B) Give unto the Lord generously (there is no 'fixed amount')
> 4) Those who try to keep the tithe today cannot because in the OT it was much more than 10% it also involved argicultural offerings (in othet words it does not transfer well culturally.
> 5) Teaching the Tithe as 'law' is legalism and brings God's people under law.
> 
> The following is Pauls instructions regarding giving. As we can see no mention of the tithe, instead there is liberty. N.T is not about hard and fast rules as the law was. N,T is about the spirit of the law and not the letter of the law. The spirit of the law is grace, mercy, compassion and kindness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2 Cor 9:7 *Each man should give what he has decided in his heart to give*, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.
Click to expand...


----------



## Jon 316

whitway said:


> Jon 316 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> 1) It was an old covenant requirement
> 2) The New Testament does not teach the Tithe
> 3) The New Testament teaches A) All of our lives belongs to the Lord B) Give unto the Lord generously (there is no 'fixed amount')
> 4) Those who try to keep the tithe today cannot because in the OT it was much more than 10% it also involved argicultural offerings (in othet words it does not transfer well culturally.
> 5) Teaching the Tithe as 'law' is legalism and brings God's people under law.
> 
> The following is Pauls instructions regarding giving. As we can see no mention of the tithe, instead there is liberty. N.T is not about hard and fast rules as the law was. N,T is about the spirit of the law and not the letter of the law. The spirit of the law is grace, mercy, compassion and kindness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2 Cor 9:7 *Each man should give what he has decided in his heart to give*, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...



wow! someone on PB agrees with me! Better watch out Whitway!


----------



## ww

Jon 316 said:


> whitway said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jon 316 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> 1) It was an old covenant requirement
> 2) The New Testament does not teach the Tithe
> 3) The New Testament teaches A) All of our lives belongs to the Lord B) Give unto the Lord generously (there is no 'fixed amount')
> 4) Those who try to keep the tithe today cannot because in the OT it was much more than 10% it also involved argicultural offerings (in othet words it does not transfer well culturally.
> 5) Teaching the Tithe as 'law' is legalism and brings God's people under law.
> 
> The following is Pauls instructions regarding giving. As we can see no mention of the tithe, instead there is liberty. N.T is not about hard and fast rules as the law was. N,T is about the spirit of the law and not the letter of the law. The spirit of the law is grace, mercy, compassion and kindness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> wow! someone on PB agrees with me! Better watch out Whitway!
Click to expand...


I know there was electricity eminating from my fingers when I hit the "Submit Reply" button.


----------



## DonP

What is that saying? Even a heretical clock is right twice a day?? 
Jus kiddin


----------



## Jon 316

I guess it is the law of avereges with now over 500 posts I've got to say something thats right


----------



## MW

The Gospel requires 100%.


----------



## Theognome

Give from the abundance that the Lord has bless you with- give with Joy, for all things are His. Give with humility, for Christ has bought you with a high price. Give with thanksgiving, for blessing comes from the Lord.

Theognome


----------



## matthew11v25

armourbearer said:


> The Gospel requires 100%.



Amen!


----------



## Whitefield

One of the problems I have with a quick dismissal of the tithe is that it means we are left without an objective expression from God on what we should bring back to Him. By dismissing an objective expression from God, we are returned to the realm of the subjective: "bring what you want" as opposed to "bring this."


----------



## Jon 316

Whitefield said:


> One of the problems I have with a quick dismissal of the tithe is that it means we are left without an objective expression from God on what we should bring back to Him. By dismissing an objective expression from God, we are returned to the realm of the subjective: "bring what you want" as opposed to "bring this."



Is that not the nature of Grace? The removal of 'fixed rules' makes it about the expression of the heart. *It removes the question 'what is the minimun which I need to do to please God'?* This in turn removes self satisfaction i.e 'I pary three times a day, I pay my tithes I am not like this tax collector'.


----------



## KMK

Jon 316 said:


> Whitefield said:
> 
> 
> 
> One of the problems I have with a quick dismissal of the tithe is that it means we are left without an objective expression from God on what we should bring back to Him. By dismissing an objective expression from God, we are returned to the realm of the subjective: "bring what you want" as opposed to "bring this."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that not the nature of Grace? The removal of 'fixed rules' makes it about the expression of the heart. *It removes the question 'what is the minimun which I need to do to please God'?* This in turn removes self satisfaction i.e 'I pary three times a day, I pay my tithes I am not like this tax collector'.
Click to expand...


Are you saying that the nature of Grace is the removal of fixed rules?


----------



## Jon 316

KMK said:


> Jon 316 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whitefield said:
> 
> 
> 
> One of the problems I have with a quick dismissal of the tithe is that it means we are left without an objective expression from God on what we should bring back to Him. By dismissing an objective expression from God, we are returned to the realm of the subjective: "bring what you want" as opposed to "bring this."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that not the nature of Grace? The removal of 'fixed rules' makes it about the expression of the heart. *It removes the question 'what is the minimun which I need to do to please God'?* This in turn removes self satisfaction i.e 'I pary three times a day, I pay my tithes I am not like this tax collector'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you saying that the nature of Grace is the removal of fixed rules?
Click to expand...


Not entirely. I was using the term, perhaps unhelpfully, to summarise the concept expressed by Paul when he compares 'the letter of the law' with the 'Spirit'. He sums up the Old Covenant as 'the letter of the law' which 'kills' and the New covenant as being of the Spirit. 'The letter kills but the Spirit gives life'. Likewise in ,Colosians, I think, he talks about ceremonial laws as 'beggarly elements'. In other words its not about ceremonial laws it is instead about the law being written on our herats by The Spirit. As we walk be the spirit, not be following rules, we walk in love towards God and man. As we walk in love towards God and man we fulfil the law Beacuse the law is summed up in love for God and love for man. 

Hope that clarifies.


----------



## Whitefield

Jon 316 said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jon 316 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is that not the nature of Grace? The removal of 'fixed rules' makes it about the expression of the heart. *It removes the question 'what is the minimun which I need to do to please God'?* This in turn removes self satisfaction i.e 'I pary three times a day, I pay my tithes I am not like this tax collector'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying that the nature of Grace is the removal of fixed rules?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not entirely. I was using the term, perhaps unhelpfully, to summarise the concept expressed by Paul when he compares 'the letter of the law' with the 'Spirit'. He sums up the Old Covenant as 'the letter of the law' which 'kills' and the New covenant as being of the Spirit. 'The letter kills but the Spirit gives life'. Likewise in ,Colosians, I think, he talks about ceremonial laws as 'beggarly elements'. In other words its not about ceremonial laws it is instead about the law being written on our herats by The Spirit. As we walk be the spirit, not be following rules, we walk in love towards God and man. As we walk in love towards God and man we fulfil the law Beacuse the law is summed up in love for God and love for man.
> 
> Hope that clarifies.
Click to expand...


This leaves us with no objective expression from God as to what He desires us to return to Him. It is all left up to our subjective feelings. He was clear before, but now He seems to be silent.


----------



## Glenn Ferrell

If tithing is still obligatory, we should be paying three tithes on the agricultural increase (seed, vines, trees, herds, and flocks) of the promised land, the first of these going to Levites. Do you live in Judea? Are your elders Jewish Christian Levites?

There was no provision for a tithe on wages or income from trade, or agricultural increase outside Palestine.

The New Testament principle is sacrificial, cheerful, proportionate giving for the support of the ministry of the word and relief of the destitute, proper stewardship of all the rest as belonging to God, and “an endeavor, by all just and lawful means, to procure, preserve, and further the wealth and outward estate of others, as well as our own.”

Yet, there are principles to be learned from the Old Testament tithes. If I didn’t give at least ten percent of my increase to God’s work, I’d question whether I was giving sacrificially, cheerfully, and proportionately; and set a goal toward which to strive. But, stewardship requires “me to procure, preserve” and further my outward estate. If I go into debt to give ten percent, I’m not giving what is mine; but what rightly belongs to another. Perhaps that’s why the tithe was on increase, not part and cause of a progressive diminishment in outward estate.


----------



## KMK

Jon 316 said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jon 316 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is that not the nature of Grace? The removal of 'fixed rules' makes it about the expression of the heart. *It removes the question 'what is the minimun which I need to do to please God'?* This in turn removes self satisfaction i.e 'I pary three times a day, I pay my tithes I am not like this tax collector'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying that the nature of Grace is the removal of fixed rules?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not entirely. I was using the term, perhaps unhelpfully, to summarise the concept expressed by Paul when he compares 'the letter of the law' with the 'Spirit'. He sums up the Old Covenant as 'the letter of the law' which 'kills' and the New covenant as being of the Spirit. 'The letter kills but the Spirit gives life'. Likewise in ,Colosians, I think, he talks about ceremonial laws as 'beggarly elements'. In other words its not about ceremonial laws it is instead about the law being written on our herats by The Spirit. As we walk be the spirit, not be following rules, we walk in love towards God and man. As we walk in love towards God and man we fulfil the law Beacuse the law is summed up in love for God and love for man.
> 
> Hope that clarifies.
Click to expand...


What Paul means in Rom 7:14 is not that we should not follow rules, but that doing so with the flesh only is missing the point.

John Calvin:



> By this he means that it *not only* demands obedience of soul, mind, and will, but requires an angelic purity, which, cleansed of every pollution of the flesh, savors of nothing but the spirit. Institutes 2.8.6



If Tithing were still a 'rule', it would need to be obeyed not only in the flesh, but in soul, mind and will with a 'savor for the spirit.' Your line of argumentation (by you and others) implies that if someone tithes, they are not doing so with 'angelic purity'. Isn't it _possible_ that those who tithe do so in spirit and not just the letter? Is it the case that every time a Christian writes a check for 10% that they are hypocritically following a 'beggarly element'? If so, y'all better do the math before you drop your check into the offering and make sure it doesn't add up to 10%! 



Whitefield said:


> This leaves us with no objective expression from God as to what He desires us to return to Him. It is all left up to our subjective feelings. He was clear before, but now He seems to be silent.



Exactly. When I used to follow the 'rule' of giving whatever the Lord laid on my heart, I was in bondage. I was never exactly sure what it was I was supposed to offer. It was very confusing. Then I was liberated by the Tithe. I tithe and am now free to 'give' above and beyond the tithe what the Lord lays on my heart.


----------



## Whitefield

Glenn Ferrell said:


> Perhaps that’s why the tithe was on increase, not part and cause of a progressive diminishment in outward estate.



In modern terms, the tithe was on income, not on savings. Or in economic jargon, the tithe was on "flows" and not on "stocks."


----------



## KMK

Glenn Ferrell said:


> If tithing is still obligatory, we should be paying three tithes on the agricultural increase (seed, vines, trees, herds, and flocks) of the promised land, the first of these going to Levites. Do you live in Judea? Are your elders Jewish Christian Levites?



??? The Levites tithed and it wasn't on agricultural increase. The tribe of Gad tithed and they did not live in Judea. The tithe may have been administered by the Levites but it was not reserved for 'Jewish Christian Levites', but for the poor and the fatherless as well. I don't think this is a good argument at all.



Glenn Ferrell said:


> The New Testament principle is sacrificial, cheerful, proportionate giving for the support of the ministry of the word and relief of the destitute, proper stewardship of all the rest as belonging to God, and “an endeavor, by all just and lawful means, to procure, preserve, and further the wealth and outward estate of others, as well as our own.”



The tither does not disagree.



Glenn Ferrell said:


> *Yet, there are principles to be learned from the Old Testament tithes*. If I didn’t give at least ten percent of my increase to God’s work, I’d question whether I was giving sacrificially, cheerfully, and proportionately; and set a goal toward which to strive. But, stewardship requires “me to procure, preserve” and further my outward estate. If I go into debt to give ten percent, I’m not giving what is mine; but what rightly belongs to another. Perhaps that’s why the tithe was on increase, not part and cause of a progressive diminishment in outward estate.



This is very good and gets to the heart of the matter. Remember that we are on Puritan Board and no one here is insisting on adhering to the Tithe as a ceremonial law. The question is more about the 'general equity' of Law of the Tithe. What are the principles to be learned from the OT? What is an 'increase'? Why give at all? Who should benefit from our offerings? These are all great questions that help lead us to be better stewards of what God has given us. Isn't that what is most important?


----------



## Whitefield

Glenn Ferrell said:


> If I didn’t give at least ten percent of my increase to God’s work, I’d question whether I was giving sacrificially, cheerfully, and proportionately; and set a goal toward which to strive.



Why should one _feel _this way if there is no objective standard? And is the "goal toward which to strive" an objective goal, or is it just some goal I have invented?


----------



## Rich Koster

PeaceMaker said:


> Rich Koster said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where is the temple and Levites to bring it to?????????????????
> 
> Stewardship of all God given resources and cheerful (not under compulsion) giving In my humble opinion.
> 
> I didn't read the other thread first.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No now days you wait for the theonomists to set up a city of refuge and take it there.
> 
> General Equity.
> 
> Wow this kind of Pharisaical thinking almost makes me want to go alllll the way to where many of my Bib Theol friends would say, all the 10 commandments as delivered to Israel the nation have been abrogated !
> 
> As long as we understand the moral law they described has always been and is still a rule of life for believers.
> 
> And of course lawmakers today are free to adopt any of their laws if seen as best and nothing better or more applicatory to our nation would better suit.
> 
> And they should be consistent with the General Equity or basic ideas and purposes of the OT laws.
> 
> Weren't the laws to be instructive of God and His nature as well as just safeguards for a society.
> 
> So 2 Cor 9:6 But this I say: He who *sows sparingly* will also reap sparingly, and he who sows bountifully will also reap bountifully. 7 So let each one *give as he purposes in his heart*, not grudgingly or of necessity; for God loves a cheerful giver. 8 And God is able to make all grace abound toward you, that you, always having all sufficiency in all things, may have an abundance for every good work. 9 As it is written:
> "He has dispersed abroad, He has given to the poor; His righteousness endures forever."
> 
> 10 Now may He who supplies seed to the sower, and bread for food, supply and multiply the seed you have sown and increase the fruits of your righteousness, 11 while you are enriched in everything *for all liberality,* which causes thanksgiving through us to God. NKJV
> 
> Gal 4:9 But now after you have known God, or rather are known by God, how is it that you turn again to the weak and beggarly elements, to which you desire again to be in bondage? NKJV
> 
> Mark 12:42 Then one poor widow came and threw in two mites, which make a quadrans. 43 So He called His disciples to Himself and said to them, "Assuredly, I say to you that this poor widow has put in more than all those who have given to the treasury; 44 for they all put in out of their abundance, but she out of her poverty put in *all that she had,* her whole livelihood." NKJV
> 
> 1 Cor 16:1 Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given orders to the churches of Galatia, so you must do also: 2 On the first day of the week let each one of you lay something aside, storing up *as he may prosper,* that there be no collections when I come.
> NKJV
> But I don't see 10% mentioned.
Click to expand...


My drift is that "temple worship" is abolished. We are to steward all God has given us. We are to share with those who instruct us in the word, with widows & orphans, and as you mentioned "seed for the sower" as God leads us. When we give it should be a "I want to be a part of this" action not a "here it is, I've fulfilled my obligation" action.

If I remember correctly, the 1 Cor 16 post is about setting aside money for famine relief in the Church in a systematic way.


----------



## puritanpilgrim

I don't think tithing is for today. But I was raised this way, since it is still taught in the SBC. I can not bring myself to do hermeneutical gymnastics with Malachi. But, still it's so engrained in my psyche that I do it anyway.


----------



## DonP

Glenn Ferrell said:


> If tithing is still obligatory, we should be paying three tithes on the agricultural increase (seed, vines, trees, herds, and flocks) of the promised land, the first of these going to Levites. Do you live in Judea? Are your elders Jewish Christian Levites?
> 
> There was no provision for a tithe on wages or income from trade, or agricultural increase outside Palestine.
> 
> The New Testament principle is sacrificial, cheerful, proportionate giving for the support of the ministry of the word and relief of the destitute, proper stewardship of all the rest as belonging to God, and “an endeavor, by all just and lawful means, to procure, preserve, and further the wealth and outward estate of others, as well as our own.”
> 
> Yet, there are principles to be learned from the Old Testament tithes. If I didn’t give at least ten percent of my increase to God’s work, I’d question whether I was giving sacrificially, cheerfully, and proportionately; and set a goal toward which to strive. But, stewardship requires “me to procure, preserve” and further my outward estate. If I go into debt to give ten percent, I’m not giving what is mine; but what rightly belongs to another. Perhaps that’s why the tithe was on increase, not part and cause of a progressive diminishment in outward estate.



Maybe I will move to Boise. Love this thinking. 

I do believe that one can give 10% cheerfully and willingly. 

"KMK 
Exactly. When I used to follow the 'rule' of giving whatever the Lord laid on my heart, I was in bondage. I was never exactly sure what it was I was supposed to offer. It was very confusing. Then I was liberated by the Tithe. I tithe and am now free to 'give' above and beyond the tithe what the Lord lays on my heart."

But KMK are you saying liberty caused you bondage? I have never heard such a thing. This sounds like the Phraisees who would say they had an unclear guilty conscience so they made a pharisaical law to appease it so they could feel they were obedient because they did not like walking by faith or were devoid of true faith. 
Not saying this was you. But couldn't you also feel good if you had decided it was actually fine with God to give as you pleased as the Spirit put it on your heart and according as He prospered you? Couldn't you have seen the tithe as General Equity guideline and what was minimal in the OT and so now give with that in mind. Maybe even do exactly as you do now, minimally give 10% and more sometimes? Seems like the same answer and less bondage. 

Paul said why do you desire to be put back under bondage laws instead of exercising freedom? 

I think I hear Paul saying, you who desire to be back under the law, if you weren't saved by the law why would your sanctification be by law? 

And why is it legal tithers don't obey all the tithes. Why do they pick one and not as Pastor Ferrel said pay all 3 tithes listed in the OT. 

Maybe do Jubillee too and give your house back to the original owner ever 50 years. 

Just asking that age old question, how theonimists pick which laws they should be obeying and ignore others.


----------



## MW

The obligation to give God 100% is an objective standard. It is clearly taught in the parables of the hid treasure and the pearl of great price, by the teaching of the Lord to the rich young ruler and to His disciples on the real cost of following Him, as well as by numerous NT epistles which emphasise that everything one does is to be for the glory of God and the good of our neighbour.


----------



## DonP

armourbearer said:


> The obligation to give God 100% is an objective standard. It is clearly taught in the parables of the hid treasure and the pearl of great price, by the teaching of the Lord to the rich young ruler and to His disciples on the real cost of following Him, as well as by numerous NT epistles which emphasise that everything one does is to be for the glory of God and the good of our neighbour.



Come back down to earth, I say this reverently Pastor. 

Of course it is all the Lord's and to be used with that in mind, but we do not actually give all of it to Him or the church directly. 

The thread is for advice on paying tithes or what we give to the church yes?

We give some to the church, maybe some to other ministries we providentialy come across and we give some to the grocery store as unto the Lord.


----------



## SolaScriptura

I often hear people say things like "the tithe isn't for today." 

Every now and then it will be wrapped within the admittedly pious language of "since the New Covenant is so much better than the Old, the percentage should be so much higher!" Ok, and there are a handful of folks I know who give well above 10%. Heck, one man I know lives on 25% of his pay... the rest is given. 

HOWEVER... Generally speaking...

I'm convinced that many of the folks who argue against the tithe as being obligatory do so because they want to justify their stinginess.


----------



## Rich Koster

I'm going to split a hair here......

As a Christian, don't we actually divide our giving between what I would classify as serving and honoring ???


----------



## MW

PeaceMaker said:


> Of course it is all the Lord's and to be used with that in mind, but we do not actually give all of it to Him or the church directly.



This only indicates that we fall short of God's perfect standard, not that God's standards are lessened to accommodate what we are able to do by way of obedience.


----------



## MW

SolaScriptura said:


> I'm convinced that many of the folks who argue against the tithe as being obligatory do so because they want to justify their stinginess.



It is just as easy for those who believe in the obligation of the tithe to feel like they have done their duty so that nothing more ought to be required of them.


----------



## ChristianTrader

armourbearer said:


> PeaceMaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it is all the Lord's and to be used with that in mind, but we do not actually give all of it to Him or the church directly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This only indicates that we fall short of God's perfect standard, not that God's standards are lessened to accommodate what we are able to do by way of obedience.
Click to expand...


Would this imply that any money given to something other than your local church is sinful?

CT


----------



## MW

ChristianTrader said:


> Would this imply that any money given to something other than your local church is sinful?



The unstated premise in this question, when understood as a response to the idea that everything is to be for God, is that the local church equals God -- a premise I must reject.


----------



## DonP

ChristianTrader said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PeaceMaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it is all the Lord's and to be used with that in mind, but we do not actually give all of it to Him or the church directly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This only indicates that we fall short of God's perfect standard, not that God's standards are lessened to accommodate what we are able to do by way of obedience.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Would this imply that any money given to something other than your local church is sinful?
> 
> CT
Click to expand...


I think he talks funny to. probably from hanging upside down all day down under. 

I think he might mean that even the buying of food and paying rent and all we do are equally spiritual works, there is no secular work to the Christian and all is to be done to the Lord with the same zeal and holiness. 

Am I close ArmourBearer?

so what do you trade? Stock?


----------



## MW

PeaceMaker said:


> I think he might mean that even the buying of food and paying rent and all we do are equally spiritual works, there is no secular work to the Christian and all is to be done to the Lord with the same zeal and holiness.
> 
> Am I close ArmourBearer?



That is a part of it. The main point is that our Father in heaven grants us an earthly allowance. The point of an allowance is not to give a child freedom to indulge himself, but to orientate him towards faithfully managing the things he is given in life. The whole of what God gives us is to be wisely invested in our eternal future. If we are faithful in these little things He will give us charge of greater things. The mindset we should be developing is one in which we spend all our money according to eternal values rather than present enjoyments.


----------



## DonP

armourbearer said:


> PeaceMaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think he might mean that even the buying of food and paying rent and all we do are equally spiritual works, there is no secular work to the Christian and all is to be done to the Lord with the same zeal and holiness.
> 
> Am I close ArmourBearer?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is a part of it. The main point is that our Father in heaven grants us an earthly allowance. The point of an allowance is not to give a child freedom to indulge himself, but to orientate him towards faithfully managing the things he is given in life. The whole of what God gives us is to be wisely invested in our eternal future. If we are faithful in these little things He will give us charge of greater things. The mindset we should be developing is one in which we spend all our money according to eternal values rather than present enjoyments.
Click to expand...


I like that !! So is the much things later the ruling or judging people on the new earth and angels ??1 Cor 6:3
3 Do you not know that we shall judge angels?
NKJV


----------



## SolaScriptura

armourbearer said:


> SolaScriptura said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm convinced that many of the folks who argue against the tithe as being obligatory do so because they want to justify their stinginess.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is just as easy for those who believe in the obligation of the tithe to feel like they have done their duty so that nothing more ought to be required of them.
Click to expand...


You are absolutely correct.


----------



## kalawine

With all due respect gentlemen... I'm reading this thread and anxiously awaiting some Scripture text... from either side.


----------



## DonP

*My scripture was all at the top in this post*

*Do you need more than this?*



PeaceMaker said:


> Rich Koster said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where is the temple and Levites to bring it to?????????????????
> 
> Stewardship of all God given resources and cheerful (not under compulsion) giving In my humble opinion.
> 
> I didn't read the other thread first.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No now days you wait for the theonomists to set up a city of refuge and take it there.
> 
> General Equity.
> 
> Wow this kind of Pharisaical thinking almost makes me want to go alllll the way to where many of my Bib Theol friends would say, all the 10 commandments as delivered to Israel the nation have been abrogated !
> 
> As long as we understand the moral law they described has always been and is still a rule of life for believers.
> 
> And of course lawmakers today are free to adopt any of their laws if seen as best and nothing better or more applicatory to our nation would better suit.
> 
> And they should be consistent with the General Equity or basic ideas and purposes of the OT laws.
> 
> Weren't the laws to be instructive of God and His nature as well as just safeguards for a society.
> 
> So 2 Cor 9:6 But this I say: He who *sows sparingly* will also reap sparingly, and he who sows bountifully will also reap bountifully. 7 So let each one *give as he purposes in his heart*, not grudgingly or of necessity; for God loves a cheerful giver. 8 And God is able to make all grace abound toward you, that you, always having all sufficiency in all things, may have an abundance for every good work. 9 As it is written:
> "He has dispersed abroad, He has given to the poor; His righteousness endures forever."
> 
> 10 Now may He who supplies seed to the sower, and bread for food, supply and multiply the seed you have sown and increase the fruits of your righteousness, 11 while you are enriched in everything *for all liberality,* which causes thanksgiving through us to God. NKJV
> 
> Gal 4:9 But now after you have known God, or rather are known by God, how is it that you turn again to the weak and beggarly elements, to which you desire again to be in bondage? NKJV
> 
> Mark 12:42 Then one poor widow came and threw in two mites, which make a quadrans. 43 So He called His disciples to Himself and said to them, "Assuredly, I say to you that this poor widow has put in more than all those who have given to the treasury; 44 for they all put in out of their abundance, but she out of her poverty put in *all that she had,* her whole livelihood." NKJV
> 
> 1 Cor 16:1 Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given orders to the churches of Galatia, so you must do also: 2 On the first day of the week let each one of you lay something aside, storing up *as he may prosper,* that there be no collections when I come.
> NKJV
> But I don't see 10% mentioned.
Click to expand...


----------



## kalawine

PeaceMaker said:


> *Do you need more than this?*
> 
> 
> 
> PeaceMaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rich Koster said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where is the temple and Levites to bring it to?????????????????
> 
> Stewardship of all God given resources and cheerful (not under compulsion) giving In my humble opinion.
> 
> I didn't read the other thread first.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No now days you wait for the theonomists to set up a city of refuge and take it there.
> 
> General Equity.
> 
> Wow this kind of Pharisaical thinking almost makes me want to go alllll the way to where many of my Bib Theol friends would say, all the 10 commandments as delivered to Israel the nation have been abrogated !
> 
> As long as we understand the moral law they described has always been and is still a rule of life for believers.
> 
> And of course lawmakers today are free to adopt any of their laws if seen as best and nothing better or more applicatory to our nation would better suit.
> 
> And they should be consistent with the General Equity or basic ideas and purposes of the OT laws.
> 
> Weren't the laws to be instructive of God and His nature as well as just safeguards for a society.
> 
> So 2 Cor 9:6 But this I say: He who *sows sparingly* will also reap sparingly, and he who sows bountifully will also reap bountifully. 7 So let each one *give as he purposes in his heart*, not grudgingly or of necessity; for God loves a cheerful giver. 8 And God is able to make all grace abound toward you, that you, always having all sufficiency in all things, may have an abundance for every good work. 9 As it is written:
> "He has dispersed abroad, He has given to the poor; His righteousness endures forever."
> 
> 10 Now may He who supplies seed to the sower, and bread for food, supply and multiply the seed you have sown and increase the fruits of your righteousness, 11 while you are enriched in everything *for all liberality,* which causes thanksgiving through us to God. NKJV
> 
> Gal 4:9 But now after you have known God, or rather are known by God, how is it that you turn again to the weak and beggarly elements, to which you desire again to be in bondage? NKJV
> 
> Mark 12:42 Then one poor widow came and threw in two mites, which make a quadrans. 43 So He called His disciples to Himself and said to them, "Assuredly, I say to you that this poor widow has put in more than all those who have given to the treasury; 44 for they all put in out of their abundance, but she out of her poverty put in *all that she had,* her whole livelihood." NKJV
> 
> 1 Cor 16:1 Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given orders to the churches of Galatia, so you must do also: 2 On the first day of the week let each one of you lay something aside, storing up *as he may prosper,* that there be no collections when I come.
> NKJV
> But I don't see 10% mentioned.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Thanks for correcting me. Please allow me to phrase my statement as I should have before. 

Can anyone produce any Scripture text which more directly pertains to how the tithe does or doesn't carry over from the Old to the New Testament? 

Personally, I've always considered the subject to be quite foggy. I see nothing clearly passing the tithe from the Old Testament to the "collection" in the New. But then, I'm not very well studied on this subject.


----------



## puritanpilgrim

> With all due respect gentlemen... I'm reading this thread and anxiously awaiting some Scripture text... from either side.





> Do you need more than this?
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by PeaceMaker View Post
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by Rich Koster View Post
> Where is the temple and Levites to bring it to?????????????????
> 
> Stewardship of all God given resources and cheerful (not under compulsion) giving In my humble opinion.
> 
> I didn't read the other thread first.
> No now days you wait for the theonomists to set up a city of refuge and take it there.
> 
> General Equity.
> 
> Wow this kind of Pharisaical thinking almost makes me want to go alllll the way to where many of my Bib Theol friends would say, all the 10 commandments as delivered to Israel the nation have been abrogated !
> 
> As long as we understand the moral law they described has always been and is still a rule of life for believers.
> 
> And of course lawmakers today are free to adopt any of their laws if seen as best and nothing better or more applicatory to our nation would better suit.
> 
> And they should be consistent with the General Equity or basic ideas and purposes of the OT laws.
> 
> Weren't the laws to be instructive of God and His nature as well as just safeguards for a society.
> 
> So 2 Cor 9:6 But this I say: He who sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and he who sows bountifully will also reap bountifully. 7 So let each one give as he purposes in his heart, not grudgingly or of necessity; for God loves a cheerful giver. 8 And God is able to make all grace abound toward you, that you, always having all sufficiency in all things, may have an abundance for every good work. 9 As it is written:
> "He has dispersed abroad, He has given to the poor; His righteousness endures forever."
> 
> 10 Now may He who supplies seed to the sower, and bread for food, supply and multiply the seed you have sown and increase the fruits of your righteousness, 11 while you are enriched in everything for all liberality, which causes thanksgiving through us to God. NKJV
> 
> Gal 4:9 But now after you have known God, or rather are known by God, how is it that you turn again to the weak and beggarly elements, to which you desire again to be in bondage? NKJV
> 
> Mark 12:42 Then one poor widow came and threw in two mites, which make a quadrans. 43 So He called His disciples to Himself and said to them, "Assuredly, I say to you that this poor widow has put in more than all those who have given to the treasury; 44 for they all put in out of their abundance, but she out of her poverty put in all that she had, her whole livelihood." NKJV
> 
> 1 Cor 16:1 Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given orders to the churches of Galatia, so you must do also: 2 On the first day of the week let each one of you lay something aside, storing up as he may prosper, that there be no collections when I come.
> NKJV
> But I don't see 10% mentioned.


----------



## DonP

Well I was hoping those showed it didn't. Or they would have said be sure to give your tithe and any extra offerings you want. or something. ??

Does anyone have texts that would show the tithe does continue?


----------



## kalawine

PeaceMaker said:


> Well I was hoping those showed it didn't. Or they would have said be sure to give your tithe and any extra offerings you want. or something. ??
> 
> Does anyone have texts that would show the tithe does continue?



I think you are correct in assuming that that is what is needed.


----------



## MW

If express Scriptural statement is required as to the Levitical nature of the tithe, Hebrews 7:5 suffices. If any are left in any doubt as to the meaning of this statement and the repercussions for New Testament worshippers, John Owen's exposition of this verse should make the matter clear.


----------



## TomVols

Some quick replies, not meant to be argumentative:


> 1) It was an old covenant requirement
> 2) The New Testament does not teach the Tithe


Lots of things were taught in the OT that are not necessarily taught in the NT. Where is the tithe abrogated? 


> 3) The New Testament teaches A) All of our lives belongs to the Lord B) Give unto the Lord generously (there is no 'fixed amount')


Does this by its nature exclude the tithe? How?


> 4) Those who try to keep the tithe today cannot because in the OT it was much more than 10% it also involved argicultural offerings (in othet words it does not transfer well culturally.


I think this is a problematic statement. You could dismiss a lot by saying things don't transfer well culturally just because of a dissonance here and there.


> 5) Teaching the Tithe as 'law' is legalism and brings God's people under law.


I've heard this used for teaching all sorts of things. Witnessing, preaching, RP, etc. It can be used as a crutch argument for whatever you want to oppose.

I provide these just for learning's sake. Again, I'm not endorsing any of these replies. I await further discussion and hope it is a growing tool for us all.


----------



## kalawine

I'm afraid you can't use this one...

2 Cor 9:6 But this I say: He who sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and he who sows bountifully will also reap bountifully. 7 So let each one give as he purposes in his heart, not grudgingly or of necessity; for God loves a cheerful giver. 8 And God is able to make all grace abound toward you, that you, always having all sufficiency in all things, may have an abundance for every good work. 9 As it is written:
"He has dispersed abroad, He has given to the poor; His righteousness endures forever." 

*Here's why I say that.* The 2 Corinthians 9 passage seems to be speaking of taking up a special offering from the Corinthians for the Jerusalem Church; not a tithe for the local Church. The heading in the online ESV version says, "The Collection for Christians in Jerusalem." Of course we know that headings aren't Divinely inspired. But to keep reading between the heading and verse six that you begin with, Paul calls it "the gift you have promised." 

5 So I thought it necessary to urge the brothers to go on ahead to you and arrange in advance *for the gift you have promised, so that it may be ready as a willing gift, not as an exaction.*

I'm not completely sold on the tithe for today myself. But I do believe that it is a tougher subject than some would have us believe.


----------



## DonP

kalawine said:


> *Here's why I say that.* The 2 Corinthians 9 passage seems to be speaking of taking up a special offering from the Corinthians for the Jerusalem Church; not a tithe for the local Church. The heading in the online ESV version says, "The Collection for Christians in Jerusalem." Of course we know that headings aren't Divinely inspired. But to keep reading between the heading and verse six that you begin with, Paul calls it "the gift you have promised."



I don't see any difference what they did with the collection. 

Do you think they normally used it to pay rent on their stained glass window cathedrals? 

This is one of the normal things offerings were used for.


----------



## kalawine

TomVols said:


> Some quick replies, not meant to be argumentative:
> 
> 
> 
> 1) It was an old covenant requirement
> 2) The New Testament does not teach the Tithe
> 
> 
> 
> Lots of things were taught in the OT that are not necessarily taught in the NT. Where is the tithe abrogated?
> 
> 
> 
> 3) The New Testament teaches A) All of our lives belongs to the Lord B) Give unto the Lord generously (there is no 'fixed amount')
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Does this by its nature exclude the tithe? How?
> 
> 
> 
> 4) Those who try to keep the tithe today cannot because in the OT it was much more than 10% it also involved argicultural offerings (in othet words it does not transfer well culturally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think this is a problematic statement. You could dismiss a lot by saying things don't transfer well culturally just because of a dissonance here and there.
> 
> 
> 
> 5) Teaching the Tithe as 'law' is legalism and brings God's people under law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've heard this used for teaching all sorts of things. Witnessing, preaching, RP, etc. It can be used as a crutch argument for whatever you want to oppose.
> 
> I provide these just for learning's sake. Again, I'm not endorsing any of these replies. I await further discussion and hope it is a growing tool for us all.
Click to expand...


I really appreciate this post. I think it helps me to see the real problem which is (as you said) "where is the tithe abrogated?"

-----Added 3/31/2009 at 11:48:34 EST-----



PeaceMaker said:


> kalawine said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Here's why I say that.* The 2 Corinthians 9 passage seems to be speaking of taking up a special offering from the Corinthians for the Jerusalem Church; not a tithe for the local Church. The heading in the online ESV version says, "The Collection for Christians in Jerusalem." Of course we know that headings aren't Divinely inspired. But to keep reading between the heading and verse six that you begin with, Paul calls it "the gift you have promised."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see any difference what they did with the collection.
> 
> Do you think they normally used it to pay rent on their stained glass window cathedrals?
> 
> This is one of the normal things offerings were used for.
Click to expand...


Well, at the Church I attend, we don't tithe to another Church in another city.


----------



## Whitefield

PeaceMaker said:


> Do you think they normally used it to pay rent on their stained glass window cathedrals?



This is a bit inflammatory isn't it. Maybe it was to pay the pastor.


----------



## puritanpilgrim

> 4) Those who try to keep the tithe today cannot because in the OT it was much more than 10% it also involved argicultural offerings (in othet words it does not transfer well culturally.
> I think this is a problematic statement. You could dismiss a lot by saying things don't transfer well culturally just because of a dissonance here and there.



Tom you ducking the question. The Old Testament tithe was way more complex than the giving of ten percent in the plate. How would you transfer eating some of you tithe before the Lord: Deu.12:17-19:

17 You must not eat in your own towns the tithe of your grain and new wine and oil, or the firstborn of your herds and flocks, or whatever you have vowed to give, or your freewill offerings or special gifts. 18 Instead, *you are to eat them in the presence of the LORD* *your God at the place the LORD your God will choose—you, your sons and daughters, your menservants and maidservants, and the Levites from your towns—*and you are to rejoice before the LORD your God in everything you put your hand to. 19 Be careful not to neglect the Levites as long as you live in your land. 

Deut 14:22-26

22 Be sure to set aside a tenth of all that your fields produce each year. 23 Eat the tithe of your grain, new wine and oil, and the firstborn of your herds and flocks in the presence of the LORD your God at the place he will choose as a dwelling for his Name, so that you may learn to revere the LORD your God always. 24 But if that place is too distant and you have been blessed by the LORD your God and cannot carry your tithe (because the place where the LORD will choose to put his Name is so far away), 25 t*hen exchange your tithe for silver, and take the silver with you and go to the place the LORD your God will choose. 26 Use the silver to buy whatever you like: cattle, sheep, wine or other fermented drink, or anything you wish. Then you and your household shall eat there in the presence of the LORD your God and rejoice. 27 And do not neglect the Levites living in your towns, for they have no allotment or inheritance of their own.*

28 At the end of every three years, bring all the tithes of that year's produce and store it in your towns, 29 so that the Levites (who have no allotment or inheritance of their own) and the aliens, the fatherless and the widows who live in your towns may come and eat and be satisfied, and so that the LORD your God may bless you in all the work of your hands.


----------



## KMK

armourbearer said:


> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would this imply that any money given to something other than your local church is sinful?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The unstated premise in this question, when understood as a response to the idea that everything is to be for God, is that the local church equals God -- a premise I must reject.
Click to expand...


I really don't think anyone is arguing that the church equals God. What is being debated is whether there is an objective standard for supporting the local gospel ministry.

As an aside, what was the objective standard for giving in the OT?


----------



## DonP

kalawine said:


> Well, at the Church I attend, we don't tithe to another Church in another city.



Your church doesn't take any money it receives to support missions, poor people in town, the presbytery, the presbytery missions, the GA or any other church or mission. 

How un presbyterian, and well I hope your church is a mission staion being supported by other churches then. 

We do support other new churches and the needy from our offerings and the scriptural quote shows us we should. 

I wouldn't care if it was a " Special " offering. That is the point, we no longer just tithe. We give offerings as there is a need. 

This is the NT example and the tithe was abrogated with all other OT laws and types.Feasts, etc. It was Judaism. 
Why would anyone assume it would hold over? It is not part of the 10 commands or moral law. Confessionaly we would say the general equity of the practice could be followed but not necessarily the letter


----------



## KMK

PeaceMaker said:


> But KMK are you saying liberty caused you bondage?



I don't accept your premise that, if indeed there is no requirement for tithing, there is 'liberty'. Liberty from what? Everyone on this thread who argues against the tithe has stated that, under the NT, we are obliged to bring _more_ than 10%.

Besides, that was true in the MC. As has been noted in other posts, there were Levitical tithes, poor tithes, festival tithes, firstfruits and the "don't forget the widow and the fatherless" commands. That is much more than 10%.

It seems to me nothing has changed between the MC and New. God's people are to direct _all_ of their blessings for godly purposes. The question at hand is how much is owed to the gospel ministry.

BTW, I am not a theonomist and I don't believe the tithe is necessarily required in the theonomic system. I could be wrong.


----------



## KMK

PeaceMaker said:


> Confessionaly we would say the general equity of the practice could be followed but not necessarily the letter



Is it possible that the general equity of 10% = 10%?


----------



## DonP

Whitefield said:


> PeaceMaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think they normally used it to pay rent on their stained glass window cathedrals?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a bit inflammatory isn't it. Maybe it was to pay the pastor.
Click to expand...


No, I was serious. What expenses did they have then? Yes maybe pay a pastor. So what would they have done with the rest of the money? 

Didn't the church already have deacons and understand the need to care for their poor? Why would they not care for the poor of a neighbor church just as much .

Wow this would seem the height of apostate independency to me. Maybe I am missing something here I don't mean to be rude or sarcastic but I just can't imagine a Christian church would not think it a normal part of their life to help other churches and Christians and missions and yes even Samaritans as Christ taught the Pharisees. I know this was for an individual but if we as a collective of individuals who are to give to Samaritans I would think the church would see it their mission too. 
Every church I have ever been in gives to strangers who come by in need. 
1 John 3:17-19
17 But whoever has this world's goods, and sees his brother in need, and shuts up his heart from him, how does the love of God abide in him? 

18 My little children, let us not love in word or in tongue, but in deed and in truth. 19 And by this we know that we are of the truth, and shall assure our hearts before Him.
NKJV

I am just thinking this is all normal part of the use of our gifts. 

I wonder if theonomic thinking and a focus on laws could give one a tendency to think one church would not normally support another and we should have a specific minimal guide we are to give now in the NT when Paul spent so much time trying to show the OT laws are gone. 

Someone asked was the tithe civil or ceremonial law. 
It was a part of worship ?? I would think ceremonial so even to most theonomists I would think they would see the tithe as a rule is gone and only the GE remains as an example to us. 

So would one seek to give 10% yes, but not as a law, as by love and grace and seek to give even more if they could. 

I wonder if the widow Christ praised gave 10%?? I am doubting she had 10% left over after eating. But she trusted God and gave all she had left trusting Him to provide tomorrow . 

This is NT giving. I am sorry guys but I am just shocked I have never heard such talk in all my life.


----------



## MW

KMK said:


> I really don't think anyone is arguing that the church equals God. What is being debated is whether there is an objective standard for supporting the local gospel ministry.
> 
> As an aside, what was the objective standard for giving in the OT?



Regrettably the church is put in the place of God simply by the terms in which the issue is discussed.

During the carnal ordinances of the OT one tenth was given to the Levites (not the church). I take it that the other tithes are not the subject of discussion.


----------



## DonP

KMK said:


> PeaceMaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> Confessionaly we would say the general equity of the practice could be followed but not necessarily the letter
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is it possible that the general equity of 10% = 10%?
Click to expand...


No that is not possible. 

The GE = General Equity. One may decide in his own heart and before God that in following GE he chooses to give 10% 5% 50% 
He does not give a tithe and then offerings. He gives offerings. 
He may choose to allot a specific amount to his church and then give extra elsewhere or to special offerings. 

A session or GA I suppose could decide the GE would suggest that its members give 10% or more as the Lord prospers them but I think they go too far if they did. They would do best to say, it is a GE matter, go to God with it, here is an example from the OT we will teach you, so we conclude it is wise to give 10% or more but we cannot legislate this. 

We walk by the Spirit, by faith, not as the pharisees and talmud would have us. Then we would not need a Holy Spirit and walk of faith if we had all the laws spelled out for us. 
We would not have to go to God for guidance. 

And most of all it is the heart in the actions god wants not just proper compliance to a rule. So god sets things so we have to seek Him and walk in faith not knowing the "Right" answer. 

Its getting late and I am being a bit short and matter of fact instead of more polite so I am going to bed. I doubt we can solve it all tonight.


----------



## KMK

armourbearer said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> I really don't think anyone is arguing that the church equals God. What is being debated is whether there is an objective standard for supporting the local gospel ministry.
> 
> As an aside, what was the objective standard for giving in the OT?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Regrettably the church is put in the place of God simply by the terms in which the issue is discussed.
> 
> During the carnal ordinances of the OT one tenth was given to the Levites (not the church).
Click to expand...


I see what you are saying. This is what tithers assume, I think, is that when you bring your tithe to the church it is for the purpose of supporting the gospel ministry, not 'the church'. Perhaps there are tithers who bring their tithe to the church and think their duty is done and expect mercy for the poor, fatherless and widows to come out of their tithe. That would not be agreeable with the OT or the NT.


----------



## KMK

PeaceMaker said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PeaceMaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> Confessionaly we would say the general equity of the practice could be followed but not necessarily the letter
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is it possible that the general equity of 10% = 10%?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No that is not possible.
> 
> The GE = General Equity. One may decide in his own heart and before God that in following GE he chooses to give 10%...
Click to expand...


?????? So is it possible or not? You contradict yourself. But, I understand. It is late.


----------



## Whitefield

armourbearer said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> I really don't think anyone is arguing that the church equals God. What is being debated is whether there is an objective standard for supporting the local gospel ministry.
> 
> As an aside, what was the objective standard for giving in the OT?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Regrettably the church is put in the place of God simply by the terms in which the issue is discussed.
> 
> During the carnal ordinances of the OT one tenth was given to the Levites (not the church). I take it that the other tithes are not the subject of discussion.
Click to expand...


Were the Levites considered to be God?

-----Added 4/1/2009 at 07:42:07 EST-----



PeaceMaker said:


> One may decide in his own heart and before God that in following GE he chooses to give 10% 5% 50% He does not give a tithe and then offerings. He gives offerings. He may choose to allot a specific amount to his church and then give extra elsewhere or to special offerings.



I guess I'll say it again, 

Whereas, before, God gave an objective expression of what He desires to be the minimum that we return to Him. Now He has become silent and leaves it up to our own subjective opinion. So if a person who makes $100,000 per year gives only $20 per week to the support of the church, since there is no standard, the church's leadership really can't say anything.

It seems a little odd to me that God has gone to great lengths to express to us how to order the church (when to worship, how to worship, who can lead the church, and the structure of the church itself) but He is silent on how to support the church.


----------



## puritanpilgrim

> Why would anyone assume it would hold over? It is not part of the 10 commands or moral law. Confessionaly we would say the general equity of the practice could be followed but not necessarily the letter



good point


----------



## Jon 316

SolaScriptura said:


> HOWEVER... Generally speaking...
> 
> I'm convinced that many of the folks who argue against the tithe as being obligatory do so because they want to justify their stinginess.



Very subjective accusation. I once held to the tithe. Its part and parcel with pentecostalism. I reject it because 1) It is not New Testament teaching 2) It is abused these days 3) Far from leaning to stinginess, the opposite is true. 10% is _nothing_ to those who have a reasonable income. But it is a burden for those with very little income. On the contrary, for those with a reasonably good income 10% tithe teaching can promote surface level giving and self satisfaction 'I have given my tithe' I have obeyed what God requires'.


----------



## KMK

Jon 316 said:


> 3) 10% is _nothing_ to those who have a reasonable income. But it is a burden for those with very little income.



??? How do you figure? The beauty of the tithe is that it places an equal burden on all. I make a reasonable income and it is not 'nothing' to give 10% for gospel ministry.


----------



## DonP

KMK said:


> PeaceMaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is it possible that the general equity of 10% = 10%?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No that is not possible.
> 
> The GE = General Equity. One may decide in his own heart and before God that in following GE he chooses to give 10%...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ?????? So is it possible or not? You contradict yourself. But, I understand. It is late.
Click to expand...


No contradiction. 
I mean it would be wrong to say it is possible the the GE = 10% 

Then one may think the GE is 10% or a specific % number
The GE itself can't be a specific #.
The GE is just a principle. 

We want to say more clearly; in following the GE of the tithe
I am free to choose to give 10% just as rightly as saying I think I will give 15% 
Now are we thinking on the same line? 

I do think ministers need to give some strong training on this and giving to their people if there is no rule; to warn them against stinginess and to be generous trusting the Lord, give sacrificially. The widow's 2 mites, is as much a part of the GE principle in giving too. 

I reeeeally love the rare book Riches Increased By Giving! by gouge. 

So did Owen and I think manton. They said it was done so well there was no need for them to write on this important subject and everyone should read the book. 

Pass the out in your congregations and you should have little trouble with giving. 

It is better than all the Get Rich Quick schemes they read and fall into and he is clear to make sure we do not see it a as a mechanism like the modern prosperity gospel


----------



## KMK

PeaceMaker said:


> We want to say more clearly; in following the GE of the tithe
> I am free to choose to give 10% just as rightly as saying I think I will give 15%
> Now are we thinking on the same line?



Probably.

Could the GE lead someone to give nothing to the gospel ministry?


----------



## MW

Whitefield said:


> Were the Levites considered to be God?



No, the ministers of God.


----------



## DonP

KMK said:


> Could the GE lead someone to give nothing to the gospel ministry?



I think the GE would imply we are to give something, 1st fruits, and as a token acknowledging it is all God's, and in trusting Him to supply all our need. 

So as a matter of conscience I would think a minister should suggest these and that giving noting would not fit. 

So if all you have is mites seems like Christ was happy with that. 

If I didn't have that I would go beg till I got it. 

But I have one for you. Can I hold back my offering and then give a bunch later. 

Even if I give god any interest I earned. If I have a special emergency expense and have none this week or month can I pay double next month?


----------



## KMK

PeaceMaker said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Could the GE lead someone to give nothing to the gospel ministry?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think the GE would imply we are to give something, 1st fruits, and as a token acknowledging it is all God's, and in trusting Him to supply all our need.
Click to expand...


Could the GE lead someone to give 100% to the gospel ministry?



PeaceMaker said:


> But I have one for you. Can I hold back my offering and then give a bunch later.
> 
> Even if I give god any interest I earned. If I have a special emergency expense and have none this week or month can I pay double next month?



This was allowable in the MC, but you had to pay 20% interest.



> Lev 29:17 And if a man will at all redeem ought of his tithes, he shall add thereto the fifth part thereof.


----------



## DonP

KMK said:


> Could the GE lead someone to give 100% to the gospel ministry?
> 
> 
> 
> PeaceMaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> But I have one for you. Can I hold back my offering and then give a bunch later.
> 
> Even if I give god any interest I earned. If I have a special emergency expense and have none this week or month can I pay double next month?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This was allowable in the MC, but you had to pay 20% interest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lev 29:17 And if a man will at all redeem ought of his tithes, he shall add thereto the fifth part thereof.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Oh I was thinking of that as getting cash back from the church or a ram back. But I see it could apply to delaying paying as well. Whew 20% 

That makes a 10% tithe look cheap. I bet we could get more out of people if we taught them they had to pay 20% for not paying up front or as they go. If they hold back its + 20%

As for 100%, well the GE to me would say it should be a significant PART not all. But how would I feed myself or family? So that would be irresponsible so , no other scripture would give me GE lessons on being responsible for my family so that would balance the GE of the tithe. 
Compare script with scrip

Was that a trick question to see if I am getting sleepy tonight yet?


----------



## KMK

PeaceMaker said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Could the GE lead someone to give 100% to the gospel ministry?
> 
> 
> 
> PeaceMaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> But I have one for you. Can I hold back my offering and then give a bunch later.
> 
> Even if I give god any interest I earned. If I have a special emergency expense and have none this week or month can I pay double next month?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This was allowable in the MC, but you had to pay 20% interest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lev 29:17 And if a man will at all redeem ought of his tithes, he shall add thereto the fifth part thereof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh I was thinking of that as getting cash back from the church or a ram back. But I see it could apply to delaying paying as well. Whew 20%
> 
> That makes a 10% tithe look cheap. I bet we could get more out of people if we taught them they had to pay 20% for not paying up front or as they go. If they hold back its + 20%
> 
> As for 100%, well the GE to me would say it should be a significant PART not all. But how would I feed myself or family? So that would be irresponsible so , no other scripture would give me GE lessons on being responsible for my family so that would balance the GE of the tithe.
> Compare script with scrip
> 
> Was that a trick question to see if I am getting sleepy tonight yet?
Click to expand...


It does appear that you and I are the only ones up tonight. But this is it for me for today. 

My point is that the GE of the tithe cannot be simply 'whatever the Lord lays on your heart' as many have said. We have demonstrated that 0% and 100% are not an option. The next question would be, "What about 1%?" No, that is still not enough. "What about 2%?" Still not enough. At some point we realize those who give 'whatever the Lord lays on your heart' have a standard. Where did this standard come from? And does it make them any more at liberty than the thither? Both are sticking to a standard. The difference is the standard for the tither is objective while theirs vague and subjective. That is why I say there is more liberty in the objective standard of the tithe than in the subjective standard of those who give 'whatever the Lord lays on their heart.'

It is really a moot point on this board, I think, because I am pretty confident that most here give more than 10% when it is all said and done.

Have a good night.


----------



## DonP

KMK said:


> My point is that the GE of the tithe cannot be simply 'whatever the Lord lays on your heart' as many have said. We have demonstrated that 0% and 100% are not an option. The next question would be, "What about 1%?" No, that is still not enough. "What about 2%?" Still not enough. At some point we realize those who give 'whatever the Lord lays on your heart' have a standard. Where did this standard come from? And does it make them any more at liberty than the thither? Both are sticking to a standard. The difference is the standard for the tither is objective while theirs vague and subjective. That is why I say there is more liberty in the objective standard of the tithe than in the subjective standard of those who give 'whatever the Lord lays on their heart.'



I agree it can not be whatever the Lord lays on your heart. 

But I do say because that would be irresponsible is no need to take the Pharisaical easy way out by making a rule or using an OT one. (Not calling you a pharisee, saying making rules not prescribed as I think this is not would be.) 

What we need is to teach people how to develop a conscience before the Lord. That they must study and interact with others, mark them which walk uprightly among you, wisdom in counsel w/ many, etc. Apply to means of grace and then through prayer and meditation with God and allowing the Spirit to convict them they come to a decision. 

So no man made rules, no lackadaisical whim the spirit led me to etc. But through serious applying the means they are free to come to a conclusion. 

If this is binding ... ?? 
Its not but it is work, it is a walk of faith not rules. And we do not let guilt affect us but we continue to check it out from time to time and it changes as we prosper. When I am making $10 / hour maybe I give 10% but if I am making $400 and hour to only give 10% would be wrong possibly so we do not say 10% minimum. We say as god prospers you. 

Sorry this is hard on someone and they have to think, study and interact. 
Might breed life into people instead of just saying you don't need to check with the Spirit or pray, just follow the rule. 

The rule would be fundamentalism leading to spiritual weakness. Teach them the hard way, the way of vital living faith and walk in the Spirit with God so they must continue to seek Him, not check off a rule.

And of course for the lazy and immature you can tell them if in doubt, until you can deal with this, probably consider 10% a minimum unless you absolutely can't live on it even at a meager lifestyle, and consider the GE of the 20% late fee. Pray God prospers you. 

Thanks for the sharpening!!


----------



## KMK

PeaceMaker said:


> I agree it can not be whatever the Lord lays on your heart.
> 
> But I do say because that would be irresponsible is no need to take the Pharisaical easy way out by making a *rule* or using an OT one.



My point is that both systems have 'rules'. It is possible, according to both systems, to give too much or too little. I object to the charge that tithers are burdening themselves with a rule. Both systems have rules but the objective rule of tithing is so much simpler and clearer. 

Thanks for the sharpening as well.


----------



## Glenn Ferrell

Whitefield said:


> Glenn Ferrell said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I didn’t give at least ten percent of my increase to God’s work, I’d question whether I was giving sacrificially, cheerfully, and proportionately; and set a goal toward which to strive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why should one _feel _this way if there is no objective standard? And is the "goal toward which to strive" an objective goal, or is it just some goal I have invented?
Click to expand...


We are to give proportionally; so a percentage is a predetermined minimal portion to be given to benevolent causes. 

We are to give intentionally, “Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give...” (2 Cor. 9:7). Thus, the portion should be predetermined by the giver as a goal beforehand. How much to give should not be an afterthought, depending upon what is left over.

As we are to give sacrificially, the portion given should take some bite out of our resources. However, this would be more for someone earning a great deal, and less for an individual trying to sustain himself, and perhaps going into debt doing so. One deeply in debt but giving ten percent, is perhaps robbing his creditors to give to God. While debt itself should be avoided, I’d encourage such a person to give a smaller percentage while they work through a plan to get out of debt, and periodically strive to increase the percentage.

As we are to give cheerfully, ten percent should not be the point where those who can afford more stop giving. If I find joy in giving ten percent, I’ll look forward to the opportunity to give more. 

Ten percent is a mere useful mile post to strive for if one can’t afford to give that much yet. It is a starting point for those not yet giving sacrificially. Even then, we need to ask, Ten percent of what- Net income? Gross Income? What about dividends and interest? Disposable income after necessities? Adjusted gross income? Increase in net worth? Wages plus retirement plus benefits? These can’t be defined with precision biblically; but principles may be applied.


----------



## JM

How many different tithes are there in scripture?


----------



## KMK

JM said:


> How many different tithes are there in scripture?



To my knowledge there are three or four.

The Levitical tithe was for the Levites
The Poor tithe was for the poor
The festival tithe was to be spent on yourself
Then there were firstfuits (not sure if they are classified as a separate tithe)


----------



## Glenn Ferrell

KMK said:


> Glenn Ferrell said:
> 
> 
> 
> If tithing is still obligatory, we should be paying three tithes on the agricultural increase (seed, vines, trees, herds, and flocks) of the promised land, the first of these going to Levites. Do you live in Judea? Are your elders Jewish Christian Levites?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ??? The Levites tithed and it wasn't on agricultural increase. The tribe of Gad tithed and they did not live in Judea. The tithe may have been administered by the Levites but it was not reserved for 'Jewish Christian Levites', but for the poor and the fatherless as well. I don't think this is a good argument at all.
Click to expand...


The Levite tithed on the tithe he received to the Aaronic priests. This was a pass on of the agricultural increase given to him. 

Judea was used as an example. As you don’t live in Judea, or any of the tribal inheritance, there is no biblical requirement to tithe on the increase of your land. The tribal region of Gad was part of their promised inheritance from God.

You find no biblical requirement to give on non agricultural increase, except for special regulations in regard to the plunder of war, which is what we find in Abraham’s tithe to Melchizedek.

Orthodox Jews, very meticulous in their application of the Mosaic law, find no requirement for tithing on wages or income from trade.

If you wanted to apply the principle of proportional giving found in the ceremonial law, it might look something like this. 

First tithe, ten percent on the increase of the land and herds, given to the Levites. This is increase. If a family killed a couple sheep during the year to sustain themselves, it would not be counted in the increase for the year. So, this is ten percent of adjusted gross income (after necessities), or ten percent of increase in net worth. And, if ministers are the New Testament Levites, all of this tithe should go to them, not to the building fund or deaconal fund.

Second tithe, only on the increase of the soil and not herds, to be used to visit and feast at the three required festivals in Jerusalem. So, this was for a family religious conference and feast, including the purchase of desired wine and beer. But, if we are not required to gather in Jerusalem, where are we to have this family conference and feast? Ok, set aside at least five percent for a family vacation and attendance at a good reformed conference, but only if wine and beer are allowed. 

Third tithe, only every third year and on the increase of the soil, not the herds, was for the relief of the poor. This would be more like one and two-thirds percent of our income given to the deaconal fund or other relief of the destitute.

Besides this, there are required and voluntary gifts. First fruits and first born livestock belong to God. Buildings (tabernacle and temple) were constructed from free will offerings, not tithes. If a church thinks a tithe is required, and uses part of that tithe for building construction, maintenance, heating, air conditioning, pews and carpeting, it is in violation of the principle behind the first tithe. Such should be used for paying ministers, evangelists, missionaries, and others who minister the word.

If we are going to make application of the Mosaic tithe and other laws regarding giving, let’s consider what was required in the original context.

And, let’s not forget God owns all our substance and we are answerable to him for the use of everything for sustaining our family, saving, investing, and giving.


----------



## puritanpilgrim

> 4) Those who try to keep the tithe today cannot because in the OT it was much more than 10% it also involved argicultural offerings (in othet words it does not transfer well culturally.
> I think this is a problematic statement. You could dismiss a lot by saying things don't transfer well culturally just because of a dissonance here and there.
> 
> Tom you ducking the question. The Old Testament tithe was way more complex than the giving of ten percent in the plate. How would you transfer eating some of you tithe before the Lord: Deu.12:17-19:
> 
> 17 You must not eat in your own towns the tithe of your grain and new wine and oil, or the firstborn of your herds and flocks, or whatever you have vowed to give, or your freewill offerings or special gifts. 18 Instead, you are to eat them in the presence of the LORD your God at the place the LORD your God will choose—you, your sons and daughters, your menservants and maidservants, and the Levites from your towns—and you are to rejoice before the LORD your God in everything you put your hand to. 19 Be careful not to neglect the Levites as long as you live in your land.
> 
> Deut 14:22-26
> 
> 22 Be sure to set aside a tenth of all that your fields produce each year. 23 Eat the tithe of your grain, new wine and oil, and the firstborn of your herds and flocks in the presence of the LORD your God at the place he will choose as a dwelling for his Name, so that you may learn to revere the LORD your God always. 24 But if that place is too distant and you have been blessed by the LORD your God and cannot carry your tithe (because the place where the LORD will choose to put his Name is so far away), 25 then exchange your tithe for silver, and take the silver with you and go to the place the LORD your God will choose. 26 Use the silver to buy whatever you like: cattle, sheep, wine or other fermented drink, or anything you wish. Then you and your household shall eat there in the presence of the LORD your God and rejoice. 27 And do not neglect the Levites living in your towns, for they have no allotment or inheritance of their own.
> 
> 28 At the end of every three years, bring all the tithes of that year's produce and store it in your towns, 29 so that the Levites (who have no allotment or inheritance of their own) and the aliens, the fatherless and the widows who live in your towns may come and eat and be satisfied, and so that the LORD your God may bless you in all the work of your hands.



I never got an answer to my question. I think it's a good question.


----------



## KMK

Glenn Ferrell said:


> Ten percent is a mere useful mile post to strive for if one can’t afford to give that much yet. It is a starting point for those not yet giving sacrificially. Even then, we need to ask, Ten percent of what- Net income? Gross Income? What about dividends and interest? Disposable income after necessities? Adjusted gross income? Increase in net worth? Wages plus retirement plus benefits? These can’t be defined with precision biblically; but principles may be applied.



This is one of the great things about tithing. You are forced to ask these important questions. A man who tithes knows exactly what his increase is.


----------



## DonP

Point here is though these rules look wise they don't change the flesh. You are just following a rule. What God wants is a change of heart and desire and to have the mind of Christ so we can decide how much e should give. e never get to do it right. We never know for sure if we have gone too much tot the left or right, we walk by faith being convicted by the Spirit unless we cross a clear line. Like not giving at all would clearly be wrong. Hear the word
Col 2:20-23

20 Therefore, if you died with Christ from the basic principles of the world, why, as though living in the world, do you subject yourselves to regulations — 21 "Do not touch, do not taste, do not handle," 22 which all concern things which perish with the using — according to the commandments and doctrines of men? 23 These things indeed have an appearance of wisdom in self-imposed religion, false humility, and neglect of the body, but are of no value against the indulgence of the flesh. NKJV

Gal 3:1-4

O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you that you should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed among you as crucified? 2 This only I want to learn from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? 3 Are you so foolish? Having begun in the Spirit, are you now being made perfect by the flesh?
NKJV

Gal 3:19

What purpose then does the law serve? It was added because of transgressions, till the Seed should come to whom the promise was made;
NKJV

Gal 4:9-11
how is it that you turn again to the weak and beggarly elements, to which you desire again to be in bondage? 10 You observe days and months and seasons and years. 11 I am afraid for you, lest I have labored for you in vain.
NKJV

Gal 5:18
18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law.
NKJV

The law was tutor until the the Spirit was working in then in a new way. The LAw written on their hearts etc.

Much of Gal is speaking to justification but it is the same with sanctification.
We don't need the laws to control us either.
We have the faith and Spirit of the risen Lord who has delivered us from the bondage of sin.

If you tell someone they have done their duty by tithing, you lie, you have replaced the Spirit. *Not saying anyone has lied. I am sure you don't tell them all they have to o is tithe. But if one did. But still saying tithe is the minimum could allow some to be misled and think this. *

Tell them to seek God and grow their conscience and convictions.

They may be supposed to give more and you tell then 10% is the rule and they are fine.

Tell them in the OT He required 10% what do you think now you should give?

Would it be any less?

Even to say its is a 10% minimum and you should see if you should do more. It is still wrong. It is going back under the tutor.

All you can do is ask

do you think your dress is modest?

do you think your hair is long enough?
Do you think that TV program is following the principles of think on things good pure lovely, think on these
Do you think any TV is?
Do you think your make up is in accord with, Let your adorning not be outward etc.?
Are you pursuing wealth in a good way or worldly?

We just can't legislate all of this. They are a matter of conscience.
So we drive them to Christ and the Spirit.

Why would you not do it in these areas but you will do it with giving??

** *What warrant have you to make a rule for some areas of the Christian life and let others be matters of conscience? *
How do we know which is which? 

Like all the questions coming up on PB, how far can I drive on the Lords day, etc. the Pharisees made simple rules so they did not have to teach their people to seek God on these things. We don't. We say it is a matter of conscience. Go to God, the word, fellowship with others and mark then which walk uprightly among you etc.


----------



## Glenn Ferrell

KMK said:


> JM said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many different tithes are there in scripture?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To my knowledge there are three or four.
> 
> The Levitical tithe was for the Levites
> The Poor tithe was for the poor
> The festival tithe was to be spent on yourself
> Then there were firstfuits (not sure if they are classified as a separate tithe)
Click to expand...


First fruits was not a tithe. 

If you want to apply the principle, give away the first paycheck of a new job, or the first increase after a raise, or pay a ransom of five silver shekles for a firstborn, if a son born vaginally (about $32.50 in today’s silver prices). But, can a minister receive the redemption of the firstborn? A rabbi cannot. It must be received by a Kohen, a direct male descendant of Aaron. Know any ministers named Cohen?

-----Added 4/2/2009 at 01:57:59 EST-----



PeaceMaker said:


> If you tell someone they have done their duty by tithing, you lie, you have replaced the Spirit.
> 
> .....
> 
> ** *What warrant have you to make a rule for some areas of the Christian life and let others be matters of conscience? *



My point too. We can’t preach anything authoritatively which is not explicitly found in scripture or by good and necessary consequences deduced from there.

Of course, we can preach on the passages regarding Old Testament tithing and New Testament giving and the principles to be derived therefrom. But, a mechanical and direct application of ten percent to net or gross wages can not be found there.


----------



## DonP

KMK said:


> This is one of the great things about tithing. You are forced to ask these important questions. A man who tithes knows exactly what his increase is.



What ??? Of course he doesn't if he believes he is to follow OT tithing laws., 

How did you determine you only had to follow one of them and not the every 3 year one? 

Your just making up a rule to simplify your life. 

As a business man with complex businesses that my accountant and lawyer can't even figure out my taxes right, how would I go through Glenn's list of tithes and apply that to my businesses? 

The tithe was set up for a simple agrarian society of 4000 years ago, not today's economy. 

Just give up. The tithe was complex not just 10% of all income weekly or annually. 

It is a matter of conscience. 
The OT tithes are and example to us of God's general equity at best and may have no relevance at all whatsoever other than
Abraham gave, God told the Jews to Give, we are to give according to the NT exhortations as God prospers us and when we see needs.

-----Added 4/2/2009 at 02:06:46 EST-----



> KMK
> "My point is that both systems have 'rules'. It is possible, according to both systems, to give too much or too little. I object to the charge that tithers are burdening themselves with a rule. Both systems have rules but the objective rule of tithing is so much simpler and clearer."


No both systems don't have rules 

We have a holy Spirit and a conscience and examples OT and current and we have the word and we are to use our liberty from the OT laws to seek to be conformed to Christ. 
to have our desires changed. 

We can ask questions and challenge people's convictions but we can't legislate until it crosses a clear line. 

How much can you talk to another man's wife? How much or what kind of touch is allowed? 
Here is one of mine maybe you can give me rule for this to help me not feel confused. How much food can you eat at a Buffet, to be a good steward of the money you paid and yet not be a glutton? 
Is gluttony a one time act like eating a lot at a feast or is it only if done on a regular basis; manifesting an attitude of self indulgence?



Not to follow a rule

-----Added 4/2/2009 at 02:17:41 EST-----

-----Added 4/2/2009 at 02:40:38 EST-----

-----Added 4/2/2009 at 02:11:13 EST-----



Glenn Ferrell said:


> First fruits was not a tithe.
> 
> If you want to apply the principle, give away the first paycheck of a new job, or the first increase after a raise, or pay a ransom of five silver shekles for a firstborn, if a son born vaginally (about $32.50 in today’s silver prices). But, can a minister receive the redemption of the firstborn? A rabbi cannot. It must be received by a Kohen, a direct male descendant of Aaron. Know any ministers named Cohen?
> 
> -----Added 4/2/2009 at 01:57:59 EST-----
> 
> 
> 
> PeaceMaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you tell someone they have done their duty by tithing, you lie, you have replaced the Spirit.
> 
> .....
> 
> ** *What warrant have you to make a rule for some areas of the Christian life and let others be matters of conscience? *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My point too. We can’t preach anything authoritatively which is not explicitly found in scripture or by good and necessary consequences deduced from there.
> 
> Of course, we can preach on the passages regarding Old Testament tithing and New Testament giving and the principles to be derived therefrom. But, a mechanical and direct application of ten percent to net or gross wages can not be found there.
Click to expand...



Glenn did you used to be a Rabbi or a Theonomist?? 

Awesome work, I am checking on housing prices in Boise. Tempting?

*Also for clarity, I was not saying anyone has lied. I am sure you don't say you only have to give 10% and that is it. But if one did. * 
But even saying 10% is the minimum and then seek to give more messes people up and may give the idea 10% is doing their duty.


----------



## kceaster

*Fair Warning... This is a long one.*

Some say that we should not teach the tithe because the NT does not explicitly teach it. But as with other things in Scripture, we cannot simply dismiss the tithe because we do not find explicit teachings in the NT. As much as with the Sabbath, the tithe predates the law of Moses, and even Abel brought the first fruits. It would seem, then, that tithing is what is known as a creation ordinance. It is a perpetual and lasting ordinance. It has not been abrogated by any teaching of the NT.

Now, I really do believe what I wrote above. But today's version of the tithe is not biblical. Today's version has been stretched too far in some cases and not far enough in others. There are indeed modern day principals we may glean from the tithe and it would seem that the modern version applies some principals but not others. For instance, there seemed to be different tithes for two different categories of agriculture. There was a principal for tithing of your flock, and a principal of tithing of your seed, or fruit bearing plants. If we are not all farmers, how do we apply these principals to the money we make? Let's look at them in turn, and see how we may apply this to our income.

Take the practice of tithing the increase of your flock. Unless I am mistaken, they were to count every 10th sheep under the staff (Lev 27:32). From year to year, you count your flock. Some of these same sheep you've counted before. You have Methuselah, a sheep who has outlived all of her family. You've already counted her a dozen times. She's never come under the staff. But how do we apply this to monetary gain? If a person makes $50K a year, he normally tithes $5K and calls it quits. But what about that money he has left over from what he did not spend? If we were literally following every dollar under the staff, we would count what we had left over from last year in the calculation of what we are to tithe, right? But how many of us do that? Let me give a scenario.

You're only going to count the money that comes under the staff. Let's say you are 20 now and plan to retire at age 65. Your company says they'll pay you $50K a year and increase it by $2K every year. If you made $50K last year and $52K this year, by modern tithing standards, you owe $10,200, $5K for last year, and $5.2K for this year. But if you apply the sheep principal and you have any money from last year's income, those dollars, too, come under the staff. So, say you saved $5K. How much tithe do you owe this year? $5.7K. If we extrapolate this out, each year you are going to do more than 10%. At year 20, you have an income of $88K, and you have $95K in the bank. Your combined "increase" would be $183K. You would then owe $18.3K, or about 21%. At year 45, your retirement year, you make $138K, have $220K in the bank for a total of $358K. You would owe $35.8K, or about 26%. And that is just talking about what you saved, not what you get in interest or what your retirement would pay out. 

Let's say your company matched every dollar and put in a dollar for your retirement. Your retirement fund is $460K. With the interest over the years gaining a mere 3%, you would have about $965K in the bank. Combining this with your last year's income, the final year you worked, you would owe about $100K, about 72% of your income. Upon retiring you live on social security and earn about $3000 a month, or $36K a year. If you lived to 80 and only spent what social security provides, you'd be paying $150K in tithe the year of your 80th birthday. That's almost $114K more than your annual social security income.

This is what tithing wealth means.

Abraham tithed, from what we can see in Scripture, once (Gen 14:20). It was an extravagant gift, but we can only assume he did it once in his life. But what did he tithe? Spoils of war, or his wealth. Jacob is another who tithed of his increase, and it seems he did so more than once (Gen 28:22). But what did he tithe? It would appear that he tithed his wealth, not his income. If we go back to the above scenario with Methuselah the sheep, she was part of wealth, not income. If you count all your sheep, and these are the same sheep you had last year, then you are tithing of your wealth, not your income.

This is clearly not the principal in the modern day version of the tithe. The modern day version more closely resembles the tithing of grain (Deut 14:22). After all, the tithing of sheep and tithing of grain are mixing two different commodities. Grain, because they didn't have really have a good place to store it, was more of a short term commodity. Livestock lives from year to year. So, in the accounting of the increase of grain, they wouldn't necessarily have any left over from last year. And what are you going to do with it even if you did? Are you going to put all your grain together and give 10%? Not likely. That is why the modern day version of the tithe is based on grain, not on livestock. Additionally, the passage above talks about turning your grain to money, which may be another reason to apply this principal to monetary income.

But from which of these two principals should we derive our monetary tithe? Should we tithe on our monetary wealth as if it were like livestock? Or, do we tithe on our monetary wealth as if it were like grain? Do we count all of our wealth in the tithe? Are we counting equity in our home (not that anyone has any now)? Are we counting our other assets of value? Jacob did (Gen 28:22). In the scenario above with you working 40 years, can you see the difference between tithing just your income and tithing your wealth? It's clear to see. Tithing your income in your 65th year is only $13.8K, tithing your wealth on just your retirement savings is about $100K. Huge difference.

What we are left with is a perception that the modern day tithe is like the tithing of grain. And for most, I would believe, this is where it ends. They tithe their income for the year and no more.

Now, where do we get the modern day concept of bringing our "grain" week by week, or perhaps every time we get a paycheck? This principal comes from Paul who says that we should set aside something every week... until he comes to collect (1 Cor 16:2). While it may not be a bad thing to do, modern day tithe doctrine says that this is what tithing is. They have applied the tithe of the OT with a partial principal (tithing of grain), and applied the instructions of Paul so that the "grain" is brought in week by week.

I have to admit, I don't understand and have not yet come to grips on how right or wrong this is. It is a modern day practice to be sure, but is it applied correctly, I am not so sure. It seems like a mixture of principals. And I haven't even fully developed all of the giving language from the OT! There is much more there that would shed light on what the principal really should be.

Further, lets not forget that when it came to building the tabernacle in the wilderness, they did not tithe!!! They gave much, much more than that. Moses had to turn people away, they were bringing so much. Where did they get that idea? 

Well, there is the key. It wasn't necessarily their idea. These same people who complained about their being no water and no food, gave extravagant gifts to the work of the Lord? The Holy Spirit obviously had a great deal to do with it. We should be able to admit that the Spirit has alot to do with our giving. Not only does it matter the spirit we have and with which we give (cheerfulness), but the Spirit factors greatly in how we are moved to give. I am not saying at all that we give as the Spirit moves us. But we can't very well pin all of this on to some synergistic work we do, because we don't believe in synergy. At least, we don't believe in synergy as it comes to most things touching redemption. But how can tithing not be an issue of progressive sanctification? How can tithing not be God working in us both to will and to do His good pleasure? We Reformed (hopefully most of us) do not believe in bootstrap theology. But how many people who hold to the modern day tithe doctrine, believe that tithing is a matter of the will, as if this is the one thing we can do in God's kingdom that does not require faith, grace, and mercy from God to do it? God says He desires mercy not sacrifice. Yet, how many in the church are compelled to do something they have not the faith to do? Is God pleased with any amount of money not given in faith? (That also begs the question if God is genuinely pleased by our offerings at all.)

I know that it seems I am arguing for both sides. I probably am because I don't believe the modern day version of the tithe has it all correct. The Bible teaches the tithe. It is not just a ceremonial law that was abrogated. That's the good news. The bad news is that I don't believe any church who teaches what I have described as the modern day version is teaching the matter correctly. Matthew Wanser stated that the gospel version of the tithe is 100%. I think that is closer to what we should be teaching. But where we must be careful is how, and to whom we should apply this teaching.

The two principals that should be separated in the modern day version of the tithe are making it required by everyone, regardless of their situation, and requiring it week by week, as if, if they don't pay it, they get behind.

I think people should tithe their wealth. But what is wealth? Wealth is that which someone possesses without any other having claim to it. If you have a $30K car and you owe $30K on it, that is not wealth. If you live in a $1.5M home, and you owe $1.8M on it (a real life scenario), that is not wealth. You may have the income to have both of these things, but you don't have wealth until both of these have no other claims on them. Think back to the sheep scenario. Do you think they would have counted the sheep they didn't own, but belonged to another? They would not have. Therefore, you should only be compelled to tithe on what no other has a claim to. And you should, by all means, not be constrained to stop at 10% on this wealth. The widow gave all she had. But what did she give? She did not give something that wasn't hers. She had no debts that we can speculate. She gave what she had to live on. I won't start talking about her now because I would go too far afoot from the current subject. Suffice it to say that she is used by modern day tithe doctrine proponents far beyond what her act really teaches.

Now who should do this? There are so many struggling today because of the current financial climate. Let's say we have a family with 4 small children. The guy is struggling to make ends meet. He is doing all he can to keep the house and the car and pay his debts. And now, along comes the modern day tithe doctrine and tells him he should be giving 10% of his already meager living to the church because that is what God requires. He has to choose between paying a payment late, or putting off repairs to his house, or any number of different things. Is that right? Should he pay what he owes to his creditors and not give to God? Or, should he sacrifice and barely make it so that he can say he has done what he is commanded to do. Is that what God requires of him? Because his conscience is pricked, he gives what he can, but it is no where near 10%. Perhaps his elders talk with him about it. Perhaps the people that know what he gives believe he is not giving enough. What is the solution for him?

The Bible is pretty clear that God does not expect the tithe from anyone who has nothing. But the assumption is, the children of Israel would always have possessions, so no one was to come before the Lord empty handed (Ex 23:15, 34:20; Deut 16:16). If there was a poor widow or an orphan who had nothing, did God expect them to bring a tithe? Absolutely not. Likewise, if a slave did not have anything, had no possessions, was at his master's table and under his roof, what was he to bring? He had nothing, he could bring nothing. 

Many in our day, including myself, are slaves to debt. We do not own most of the possessions we have. If we pay for anything by credit, it is not ours, but belongs to another. This is not to say that a person who is fully indebted has nothing to give. Everyone has something, because we do earn a wage. But that doesn't mean that we are to tithe based on what we make. That money is already spoken for because of the choices we've made (and the country in which we live who exacts a fair amount of taxes). Should we tithe on our gross or on our net? If we even have to ask that question, we've missed the biblical principals of tithing in the OT. Remember, they would never have counted a sheep that they didn't own. Part of our income, if not a good portion of it, is not ours, but belongs to someone else.

We all have different scenarios and we all struggle. But do I believe the man with 4 children should count out his income to the penny and tithe (according to the modern day version)? No, I believe the guiding principal should be that he gives as God enables him, knowing that he will give more as his situation improves. I don't see how anybody could call him stingy if he gives what he believes he can afford. Again, going back to wealth, he doesn't have any. He owes the bank on his house and his cars. But this will not always be the case. His children will grow up, move out of the house, and he will pay it off, and have wealth. Should he give 10% then, I believe he should. But the concept of giving 10% of his gross income now, I believe, is not required by God. And if a person doesn't have wealth, then they should be encouraged to give what they can, because that is biblical. In any case, they should be charged to examine their own conscience and give as the Lord leads them and to increase their giving as their situation improves. We should have enough faith that the church's needs will be provided for because God is working in them both to will and to do.

If a person does have wealth, they should be encouraged to give more, perhaps even more than 10%. To whom much is given, much is required. Why was the foolish rich man, foolish? Because he didn't even think about his soul or giving back to God who had given him everything. Why did the rich young ruler go away sad? Because he didn't have in his heart a willingness to give to God what he required. I think there is a principal about general equity in the modern day version of the tithe, but the Bible doesn't teach this. There is a sentiment that everyone should give their fair share, which according to the modern day version, everyone should give 10% of their gross income. The Lord, however, also says that since He has given much to the wealthy, He requires much from them. And, remember the widow. It doesn't say she gave a tithe, it says she gave all. Clearly this doesn't show general equity because she gave more than everyone even though it was only a very small amount. But even in the case of the wealthy, they should only do as the Lord leads them. He gives it to them to give to others, not to hoarde it. This is the principal of the rich young ruler. God isn't telling all the wealthy to go and sell all they have and give it to the poor, but He is telling all of them to be generous. And in most cases, they should be compelled to give at least 10%.

I guarantee that there isn't a wealthy person out there who truly tithes of their wealth. They will tithe their income gladly. But if you counted their net worth, they would only be giving a fraction. There are exceptions and extremely generous rich people. But by and large, they will rarely give more than 10% of their net worth. How many times have you heard of anyone giving the church 10% of their estate when they die. That is a rare occurance.

So, at the very minimum, we should encourage the tithe for those who have wealth enough to do it. For those who do not have wealth, we should encourage them to give what they can, when they can.

So, what of weekly giving? The principal of weekly giving was laid in order to collect a special offering for the Jerusalem church. That doesn't really apply to us. Remember that OT tithing was on a yearly, or in some cases, every three years, so that doesn't really jive with the modern day teaching. Though there is no prohibition not to give weekly, it should be as the person desires to give. That doesn't help when the church incurs monthly expenses, but again, God is faithful even if we believe His people aren't. A person should be free to tithe when they are compelled to do so. If it is weekly, then let them do it weekly. If it is monthly, yearly, every 5 years, etc., they should have the freedom.

That begs the question, should we pass the plate (or bag) every Lord's Day? I believe we should because it is a part of worship to collect for the needs. They brought their tithes during times of solemn assembly. We should bring ours every time we have a solemn assembly. And we do so, weekly, so we should collect, weekly.

I have thought about this subject over several years. I hope that my words do not offend. But whatever the concept of the tithe is today, it hasn't always been thus. We need to take a step back and try to see why that is. We shouldn't dogmatically hold to this modern day version as if it is something that does not bear further scrutiny. We should be able to talk about this in a reasonable manner and not be offended by it. Yet how much trouble has this subject caused the church? It should never be divisive, nor should it be ignored. We should talk of it openly and be willing to hear opposing sides.

I should also add, if you are currently following what I have described as the modern day version of the tithe, by all means, continue to do so unless you are convinced you should not. Let your conscience be your guide. But also realize that the Spirit has compelled you to do so up to now. So, why stop? As long as your conscience is clean, don't change anything. If you are following the modern day version and you believe 10% is all God requires of you, and you really could give more, I would challenge you to give more. If you are wealthy and sitting on a very comfortable sum, give as the Lord has given you. If you have nothing and struggle to give any meager amount, remember the widow and don't let anyone look down on you for what you give.

But with this, as with all other things, we need charity, mercy, grace, and patience. It will not do to fleece the sheep, and it will not do to let them go as they may. We have to have a constant steady hand to allow for latitude and freedom of conscience. Jesus taught us to give so that our left hand does not know what our right hand is doing. This clearly means that giving is our own personal domain. But we should encourage each to give as the Lord leads, gently instructing and guiding, but never placing the demand of the law or sacrifice above the act of giving itself, which is all of mercy and grace.

May we endeavor to seek these things with unity and the bond of peace.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## DonP

kceaster said:


> Some say that we should not teach the tithe because the NT does not explicitly teach it. But as with other things in Scripture, we cannot simply dismiss the tithe because we do not find explicit teachings in the NT. As much as with the Sabbath, the tithe predates the law of Moses, and even Abel brought the first fruits. It would seem, then, that tithing is what is known as a creation ordinance. It is a perpetual and lasting ordinance. It has not been abrogated by any teaching of the NT.
> 
> KC



There was no 10% requirement that we know of for Abel

We do not simply dismiss it because it is not in the NT, we dismiss it because we are told to dismiss it in the NT. It was part of the laws for Israel that were dismissed. Which other laws not specifically mentioned in the NT are still binding on us? Feast days, City of Refuge, No cutting the hair on the sides of the head? 

I don't see 10% as a creation ordinance. You have proven my point. 

Giving may be a creation ordinance but not specifically 10% 

I didn't bother to read past these obvious oversights, sorry. 

None of the money is ours. All we have belongs to the Lord, we are just given stewardship over it to distribute it as we feel God would want us to and is wise. 

I would add that to me it is wise that we show a faithful minister of the word who has had as much school as a lawyer or Dr that we value our spiritual body as much as our physical body. 

So it would be wise to give him a salary commensurate with his importance and value to us. Let your giving to him be as you value your souls. 

*Thenomist pastors not included, they should only get what is left after other church expenses of the 10% people give.


----------



## kceaster

PeaceMaker said:


> There was no 10% requirement that we know of for Abel
> 
> We do not simply dismiss it because it is not in the NT, we dismiss it because we are told to dismiss it in the NT. It was part of the laws for Israel that were dismissed. Which other laws not specifically mentioned in the NT are still binding on us? Feast days, City of Refuge, No cutting the hair on the sides of the head?
> 
> I don't see 10% as a creation ordinance. You have proven my point.



Abraham tithed, who was 400 years before the giving of the law. Hebrews 7 tells us that Levi, who receives tithes, also paid tithes through Abraham. That looks like it is outside the ceremonial law to me. 

In Christ,

KC


----------



## Glenn Ferrell

kceaster said:


> Take the practice of tithing the increase of your flock. Unless I am mistaken, they were to count every 10th sheep under the staff (Lev 27:32). From year to year, you count your flock. Some of these same sheep you've counted before.



As scripture says “increase” that obviously means surviving newborn, excluding first born males, which already have been given to the priests. It was obvious which sheep, goats, cows and bulls are less than a year old at the annual roundup or branding time.

If this was directly applicable to our wealth today (which I maintain it is not), one would do an annual audit to determine his net worth, including the value of durable goods, home equity, all real estate value, investments, retirement accounts, bank accounts, art and gun collection, gold and silver one owns, and piggy bank savings. Whatever increase in net worth one finds from one year to the next, one tenth of the increase goes to the support of the ministers of the word, about five percent (as the second tithe was on increase of the soil and not on livestock) to pay for a holy vacation, food, wine and beer, and one and two-thirds to the deaconal fund. Then, we can talk about required and fee will offerings.

-----Added 4/2/2009 at 03:57:47 EST-----



kceaster said:


> Abraham tithed, who was 400 years before the giving of the law. Hebrews 7 tells us that Levi, who receives tithes, also paid tithes through Abraham. That looks like it is outside the ceremonial law to me.



Abraham’s practice in Gen. 14 is not a model for tithing. Abraham here paid a tithe on the spoils of war, not on his increase of land or flocks (Heb. 7:4). Under Mosaic law, there were different rules for offerings from the spoils of war (Num. 31:25-30) amounting to 2.2 percent being given to the priests and Levites. 

In middle eastern practice, a tithe of the spoils of war was often given to the king. Here, Abraham is giving a free will offering of the spoils to the king of Salem and priest of God Most High.

This is not the Levitical tithe of the Mosaic law; nor a tithe on the increase of the land.


----------



## KMK

I am going to bow out of this thread lest anyone begin to think that I am preoccupied with this subject. The main thrust of my participation has been an attempt to tear down the caricature that tithers are pharisees (which has been implied). 

Through this discussion I have shown that both tithers as well as those who give 'whatever the Lord lays on their hearts' have a standard for giving. It is possible in both systems to give too little and to give too much. That is what I mean when I say there are rules involved for both systems. Both systems require one to look at his increase and ask, "How much is enough?" and "How much is too much?" The tither goes to the OT example for guidance and those who give 'whatever the Lord lays on their hearts' go to their own hearts for guidance. 

The argument that the tither is a Pharisee because he follows a rule does not fly because everyone follows a rule of some kind. The tither follows an objective rule and others follows a subjective rule. 

Is it possible that the tither is giving 10% because that is the amount that 'the Lord laid on his heart'? Does that make him a Pharisee?

Is it possible that those who give 'whatever the Lord lays on their hearts' sometimes give exactly 10%? Does that make them a Pharisee?

No doubt there are some who apply the law of the Tithe in a pharisaical manner. But just because one tithes does not mean he is a Pharisee.

----------

As to Glenn's statement that the tithe applied only to agricultural increase and that those involved in other trades were not required to tithe, I cannot believe that is correct. Blacksmiths, clothiers, and tent makers were not required to tithe? Only farmers and ranchers? I doubt it. I would be happy to be proved wrong.


----------



## KMK

Mr. Easterday, I loved your post. You might be interested to know that there are some out there who agree with a great deal of what you say. This is an interesting series of sermons on the subject by Pastor John Weaver:

SermonAudio.com - Sermons by John Weaver


----------



## DonP

KMK said:


> The argument that the tither is a Pharisee because he follows a rule does not fly because everyone follows a rule of some kind. The tither follows an objective rule and others follows a subjective rule.
> 
> *No the GE person does not follow a rule. What rule would that be. Give as you are prospered? *
> 
> Is it possible that the tither is giving 10% because that is the amount that 'the Lord laid on his heart'? Does that make him a Pharisee?
> 
> *No that is very improbable. It is most likely because some Judaizer by whatever name or no name, was misguided and told him he should, or he accidentally picked it up himself from scripture because he had no sound preacher to protect him and guide him to a spiritual walk of faith.
> The actual chances of his picking 10% would be 1 in 100, Or maybe 1 in 98 since we said 100% would violate other principles in scripture.
> *
> 
> Is it possible that those who give 'whatever the Lord lays on their hearts' sometimes give exactly 10%? Does that make them a Pharisee?
> 
> *yes but the chances would be 1 in 100 again pretty odd if a whole bunch show up with that amount. I would say someone has been running around binding other people's consciences.
> In fact maybe they should not even know or remember how much thy give and it should not be a set % each month or the same each month. Remember this one
> Matt 6:3 But when you do a charitable deed, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, 4 that your charitable deed may be in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will Himself reward you openly.
> NKJV
> *
> 
> No doubt there are some who apply the law of the Tithe in a pharisaical manner. But just because one tithes does not mean he is a Pharisee.



And some just innocently do it because that is what they have heard and have not considered it before the Lord. I would not count them a Pharisee. 

But don't you agree we do not need to give the same % every month. And certainly not for ever. 
Or We could give a specific amount, not a % at all. 
I do not give the same amount each month. I do not give a certain % I don't even check to see the %. Only due to taxes do I even total it up and give it to my accountant to use. But I could not tell you what I gave any month or any year. I give as I see a need and it is always so far over 10% that would not be an issue to me if I thought it mattered. As part of my giving to my church I seek to give a steady minimal amount at least since they have a budget and I don't want to foul them up.
Praise be to God for this. 
And praise be to God this year He has seen fit to take all of our money away for years to come by the IRS and I may not be able to give even 10%. 

Neither is better or more spiritual or holy or right.
And I won't owe a back % either. I will owe a love to God and zeal and diligence to pay off my debt and get out of debt so I can give again what He puts on my heart, through study and prayer, according as He prospers me and as He providentially brings needs before me should He allow me this. 
And if not I will humbly serve Him with a holy desire the best I can. by His grace and mercy. 

Phil 4:11 I have learned in whatever state I am, to be content: 12 I know how to be abased, and I know how to abound. Everywhere and in all things I have learned both to be full and to be hungry, both to abound and to suffer need. 13 I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me. NKJV


----------



## Grace Alone

Ugh, this subject always makes me weary, because I certainly desire to do what is right!

Let me give you a scenario. We always desired to give part of our offering/tithe for orphans and the poor. Fine. When given to a Christian organization, it is considered charitable giving for tax purposes and you can see it as a percentage of your income.

But...we decided to go a step further and simply adopt an orphan even though we had not planned to have more children. So the adoption costs and subsequent food, clothing, medical care, education, etc. becomes money given for an orphan (now part of a family) that cannot be deducted on taxes. I have actually had a pastor's wife tell me that she did not think this "counted" toward giving to God. Talk about legalism??? So it's better to just donate money to the orphanage than to take an orphan and provide for all of his needs and take him into your covenant family and teach him about Jesus???

So bottom line, we do try to give generously, but we consider that we give to the Lord in some ways that do not enter the total amount on our charitable giving line. I am hoping that this is more what the Lord had in mind than trying to find some percentage amount that pleases Him.


----------



## acsmith

PeaceMaker said:


> Point here is though these rules look wise they don't change the flesh. You are just following a rule. What God wants is a change of heart and desire and to have the mind of Christ so we can decide how much e should give. e never get to do it right. We never know for sure if we have gone too much tot the left or right, we walk by faith being convicted by the Spirit unless we cross a clear line. Like not giving at all would clearly be wrong. Hear the word
> Col 2:20-23
> 
> 20 Therefore, if you died with Christ from the basic principles of the world, why, as though living in the world, do you subject yourselves to regulations — 21 "Do not touch, do not taste, do not handle," 22 which all concern things which perish with the using — according to the commandments and doctrines of men? 23 These things indeed have an appearance of wisdom in self-imposed religion, false humility, and neglect of the body, but are of no value against the indulgence of the flesh. NKJV
> 
> Gal 3:1-4
> 
> O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you that you should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed among you as crucified? 2 This only I want to learn from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? 3 Are you so foolish? Having begun in the Spirit, are you now being made perfect by the flesh?
> NKJV
> 
> Gal 3:19
> 
> What purpose then does the law serve? It was added because of transgressions, till the Seed should come to whom the promise was made;
> NKJV
> 
> Gal 4:9-11
> how is it that you turn again to the weak and beggarly elements, to which you desire again to be in bondage? 10 You observe days and months and seasons and years. 11 I am afraid for you, lest I have labored for you in vain.
> NKJV
> 
> Gal 5:18
> 18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law.
> NKJV
> 
> The law was tutor until the the Spirit was working in then in a new way. The LAw written on their hearts etc.
> 
> Much of Gal is speaking to justification but it is the same with sanctification.
> We don't need the laws to control us either.
> We have the faith and Spirit of the risen Lord who has delivered us from the bondage of sin.
> 
> If you tell someone they have done their duty by tithing, you lie, you have replaced the Spirit. *Not saying anyone has lied. I am sure you don't tell them all they have to o is tithe. But if one did. But still saying tithe is the minimum could allow some to be misled and think this. *
> 
> Tell them to seek God and grow their conscience and convictions.
> 
> They may be supposed to give more and you tell then 10% is the rule and they are fine.
> 
> Tell them in the OT He required 10% what do you think now you should give?
> 
> Would it be any less?
> 
> Even to say its is a 10% minimum and you should see if you should do more. It is still wrong. It is going back under the tutor.
> 
> All you can do is ask
> 
> do you think your dress is modest?
> 
> do you think your hair is long enough?
> Do you think that TV program is following the principles of think on things good pure lovely, think on these
> Do you think any TV is?
> Do you think your make up is in accord with, Let your adorning not be outward etc.?
> Are you pursuing wealth in a good way or worldly?
> 
> We just can't legislate all of this. They are a matter of conscience.
> So we drive them to Christ and the Spirit.
> 
> Why would you not do it in these areas but you will do it with giving??
> 
> ** *What warrant have you to make a rule for some areas of the Christian life and let others be matters of conscience? *
> How do we know which is which?
> 
> Like all the questions coming up on PB, how far can I drive on the Lords day, etc. the Pharisees made simple rules so they did not have to teach their people to seek God on these things. We don't. We say it is a matter of conscience. Go to God, the word, fellowship with others and mark then which walk uprightly among you etc.



Following the scripture here...

Have I been in sin, teaching babes in the Word that the 10% idea is a minimum? 

This thread has been "sharpening" for me!


----------



## DonP

Grace Alone said:


> I have actually had a pastor's wife tell me that she did not think this "counted" toward giving to God. Talk about legalism???



How wonderful of you to serve the Lord this way. 
And how sad someone would be fundamental or moralistic, (I doubt they think legalistically, which would be that doing works will merit salvation). 

But it would depend why you adopted. Did you adopt because you wanted a child or did you decide it was a way to serve the Lord?

Hey giving to your own kids is giving. As Armourbearer so often reminds us all our money is Gods. All out time, even our bodies. 

So is there a difference in giving to the church, giving to a missionary, givng to an orphanage, giving to a hurt Samaritan on the road, giving to the king in obedience to him and God, etc ?

Rom 12:1 I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that you present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God, which is your reasonable service. NKJV

Matt 25:40 And the King will answer and say to them, 'Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me.' NKJV

So whether a glass of water, or food for a child, or clothes for a poor person, or taking in a stranger in need of a home, all of these are giving. 

The fact the govt allows a deduction for giving to certain organizations who have voluntarily (and in the case of churches, probably mistakenly) put themselves under the thumb of the govt, so you get a tax deduction, is irrelevant to what is giving to God. 

The tithe concept has put so much confusion into the issue that I think many are like you, frustrated or guilty or ... instead of freewill offering with joy and ease. 

Certainly we ought to give to support our pastor, deacons, missions and if necessary the building, etc. to make sure the needs and plans of the elders are met. 
But this is not all of our giving. I think it wise we primarily give to missions through the church so that we do not give to unworthy places out of our ignorance, at least until we have much discernment between doctrinally sound ministries. We could ask the elders to consider adding a ministry to their misc. designated gifts line item. This way it comes from and edifies the church and God rather than just you. And the elders can protect you from giving to a place unworthy.
But there are times we are providentially in a position to give directly in the Lord's name to show His kindness and our trust of Him. 

I think the freewill offering is more likely the example to us today of a thank offering than the tithe. 
But if you were to follow OT laws why only the tithe?
Along with peace offerings there are:
Deut 12: 6 There you shall take your burnt offerings, your sacrifices, your tithes, the heave offerings of your hand, your vowed offerings, your freewill offerings, and the firstborn of your herds and flocks. NKJV

So I say, have peace in this. Give yourself and all you have to the Lord's work as you are able. All we do is the Lord's work, kingdom work if done unto the Lord. 
But be sure to remember the widows and orphans in their affliction and of course the elders who serve well. 

So consider trying it out and see if you are more content and at peace in your conscience if you stop trying to keep track of all you give to be sure it is enough, as if we knew how much enough was, and just give, for the Glory of God. 
Trusting that He will convict you if you are not doing enough. 

If you want to keep track of money to 501c3 orgs to be a good steward of your money, fine, but for the rest, don't keep track, just obey God. 
How do you do anything else in life, how much TV to watch, which shows, or no shows at all, or how much to eat, how much junk food, what kind of job to take or not, how expensive of a house to buy, whether to buy or rent, where to live, which church to go to, which bible version to read, how much makeup to wear, if your dress is modest, or hair long enough.

All of these are matters of conscience and we will never know the right or wrong or purest way to live perfectly. They are not clearly defined and commanded. So we follow the principle or seek to find the General Equity in the matter.

I encourage you to be free, but free in the Lord, with guidance from His word, and principles and examples and with counsel of exemplary brothers and sisters and in submission to your elders etc. As Paul said to those who were made to feel judged by others pushing OT rules on them: 

Col 2:16 So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, 17 which are a shadow of things to come, NKJV

Matt 6:3 But when you do a charitable deed, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, 4 that your charitable deed may be in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will Himself reward you openly. NKJV


----------



## Grace Alone

PeaceMaker said:


> Grace Alone said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have actually had a pastor's wife tell me that she did not think this "counted" toward giving to God. Talk about legalism???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How wonderful of you to serve the Lord this way.
> And how sad someone would be fundamental or moralistic, (I doubt they think legalistically, which would be that doing works will merit salvation).
> 
> But it would depend why you adopted. Did you adopt because you wanted a child or did you decide it was a way to serve the Lord?
> 
> Hey giving to your own kids is giving. As Armourbearer so often reminds us all our money is Gods. All out time, even our bodies.
> 
> So is there a difference in giving to the church, giving to a missionary, givng to an orphanage, giving to a hurt Samaritan on the road, giving to the king in obedience to him and God, etc ?
> 
> Rom 12:1 I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that you present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God, which is your reasonable service. NKJV
> 
> Matt 25:40 And the King will answer and say to them, 'Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me.' NKJV
> 
> So whether a glass of water, or food for a child, or clothes for a poor person, or taking in a stranger in need of a home, all of these are giving.
> 
> The fact the govt allows a deduction for giving to certain organizations who have voluntarily (and in the case of churches, probably mistakenly) put themselves under the thumb of the govt, so you get a tax deduction, is irrelevant to what is giving to God.
> 
> The tithe concept has put so much confusion into the issue that I think many are like you, frustrated or guilty or ... instead of freewill offering with joy and ease.
> 
> Certainly we ought to give to support our pastor, deacons, missions and if necessary the building, etc. to make sure the needs and plans of the elders are met.
> But this is not all of our giving. I think it wise we primarily give to missions through the church so that we do not give to unworthy places out of our ignorance, at least until we have much discernment between doctrinally sound ministries. We could ask the elders to consider adding a ministry to their misc. designated gifts line item. This way it comes from and edifies the church and God rather than just you. And the elders can protect you from giving to a place unworthy.
> But there are times we are providentially in a position to give directly in the Lord's name to show His kindness and our trust of Him.
> 
> I think the freewill offering is more likely the example to us today of a thank offering than the tithe.
> But if you were to follow OT laws why only the tithe?
> Along with peace offerings there are:
> Deut 12: 6 There you shall take your burnt offerings, your sacrifices, your tithes, the heave offerings of your hand, your vowed offerings, your freewill offerings, and the firstborn of your herds and flocks. NKJV
> 
> So I say, have peace in this. Give yourself and all you have to the Lord's work as you are able. All we do is the Lord's work, kingdom work if done unto the Lord.
> But be sure to remember the widows and orphans in their affliction and of course the elders who serve well.
> 
> So consider trying it out and see if you are more content and at peace in your conscience if you stop trying to keep track of all you give to be sure it is enough, as if we knew how much enough was, and just give, for the Glory of God.
> Trusting that He will convict you if you are not doing enough.
> 
> If you want to keep track of money to 501c3 orgs to be a good steward of your money, fine, but for the rest, don't keep track, just obey God.
> How do you do anything else in life, how much TV to watch, which shows, or no shows at all, or how much to eat, how much junk food, what kind of job to take or not, how expensive of a house to buy, whether to buy or rent, where to live, which church to go to, which bible version to read, how much makeup to wear, if your dress is modest, or hair long enough.
> 
> All of these are matters of conscience and we will never know the right or wrong or purest way to live perfectly. They are not clearly defined and commanded. So we follow the principle or seek to find the General Equity in the matter.
> 
> I encourage you to be free, but free in the Lord, with guidance from His word, and principles and examples and with counsel of exemplary brothers and sisters and in submission to your elders etc. As Paul said to those who were made to feel judged by others pushing OT rules on them:
> 
> Col 2:16 So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, 17 which are a shadow of things to come, NKJV
> 
> Matt 6:3 But when you do a charitable deed, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, 4 that your charitable deed may be in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will Himself reward you openly. NKJV
Click to expand...


That was beautiful, Don! Thank you! I need to save that!

Part of me would love a rulebook so I could be sure I was doing everything right! And I was from a liberal church background, not a fundamental/legalistic one (and I'll seriously think more on how I may be wrongly using the term "legalistic"). You almost read my mind because I do struggle with how much is too much to spend on a new house, etc.

I hesitated to mention the adoption issue because I know we are to give in secret, but the subject of the thread caused me to mention it as one way to give that wasn't going to show up on a statement somewhere! But FYI, we did not plan on having any other children. Our kids were 10 and 13 at the time we adopted. I was drawn to the idea because before I was a real Christian, I used to say that I'd have more respect for abortion clinic protesters if they cared for orphans rather than picketing a clinic. So when I became an opponent of abortion for spiritual reasons, the Lord brought it to my mind that perhaps I shouldn't be a hypocrite, either. So, by a true leading of the Lord, my husband agreed to adopt, and we did. But even though the primary reason we adopted was not because we wanted another child, we were blessed beyond measure because we adore the child the Lord brought to us! We thought we were doing something for Him, yet in His immeasurable goodness, He gave us far more than we could have imagined! But He's like that, of course!


----------



## DonP

Grace Alone said:


> That was beautiful, Don! Thank you! I need to save that!
> 
> Part of me would love a rulebook so I could be sure I was doing everything right!



Well when you find the one God wrote let me at it too. I was the same. Thought I was being spiritual by wanting to do everything the "Right" way. Just tell me a rule and I will follow it.. When I saw a movie in college on the Hasidic Jews I wanted to be one, well a little. 
But God broke me of this and caused me to be humble and learn to walk by faith giving up most of my righteousness. 

Praise God, the holy Spirit is still at work. 
-----------------------------

-----Added 4/2/2009 at 09:07:30 EST-----



acsmith said:


> Following the scripture here...
> 
> Have I been in sin, teaching babes in the Word that the 10% idea is a minimum?
> 
> This thread has been "sharpening" for me!



Yes Pastor Ferrell is excellent. 

I don't know if this was directed to me or anyone. I think one of the pastors may answer better but I would say what is your conscience telling you?

I think it is great for you to consider this seriously. And since it is a disputed thing, you may want to change how you teach it. 

Maybe say, 
it is a controversial issue, here is what I have chosen to do and yet I am still open and studying, in the mean time until you come to a conviction on it, consider the examples in the OT and these NT verses on giving, and ask others what they do and give something that fits within these and continue studying and praying for God to guide you. And be open that it may not be a hard fast rule. It may vary as the church has needs. Or the members have need. 
One day we may give all we have into a pool as in Acts because of similar persecution. So it can vary. But it is wise to seek to give a minimum amount consistently to the church since the church tries to plan a budget based on avg giving. 

Or say, our elders teach this... as a definite rule, or as a suggested guideline or as a minimum or whatever your elders teach, if they do.

But I would not continue to tell them it absolutely should be 10%. 

Great struggling with you to walk by faith, not by laws!!


----------



## TomVols

PuritanPilgrim wrote:


> I never got an answer to my question. I think it's a good question.


I never got any answers to mine, which I have queried folks on for years. I think they're good, too 

Perhaps one explanation is the continuation of the equity or tithe principle. I have not examined it terribly closely and I'd love to do that as I explore this more.

I would love to have answers to my questions. I've never honestly had anyone answer them from Scripture.


----------



## DonP

TomVols said:


> PuritanPilgrim wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> I never got an answer to my question. I think it's a good question.
> 
> 
> 
> I never got any answers to mine, which I have queried folks on for years. I think they're good, too
> 
> Perhaps one explanation is the continuation of the equity or tithe principle. I have not examined it terribly closely and I'd love to do that as I explore this more.
> 
> I would love to have answers to my questions. I've never honestly had anyone answer them from Scripture.
Click to expand...


I did not find your post in this thread, but I am surprised after all this anyone has a question

Would you re-post it here?


----------



## kceaster

*Pastor,*



Glenn Ferrell said:


> As scripture says “increase” that obviously means surviving newborn, excluding first born males, which already have been given to the priests. It was obvious which sheep, goats, cows and bulls are less than a year old at the annual roundup or branding time.



Could you point me to where you're seeing increase in the text pertaining to the counting of livestock? I was assuming that the counting of livestock for the tithe would always include the old animals, the ones that were counted last time, along with the new animals. If it is only increase, then that changes a good bit of what I was saying.



Glenn Ferrell said:


> Abraham’s practice in Gen. 14 is not a model for tithing. Abraham here paid a tithe on the spoils of war, not on his increase of land or flocks (Heb. 7:4). Under Mosaic law, there were different rules for offerings from the spoils of war (Num. 31:25-30) amounting to 2.2 percent being given to the priests and Levites.
> 
> In middle eastern practice, a tithe of the spoils of war was often given to the king. Here, Abraham is giving a free will offering of the spoils to the king of Salem and priest of God Most High.
> 
> This is not the Levitical tithe of the Mosaic law; nor a tithe on the increase of the land.



I remember the part about the spoils of war. But in the case of Paul using this example in Hebrews 7, doesn't it seem there that he is equating the receiving and giving of tithes regardless of where it came from? Isn't he saying that Melchizedek received tithes from Abraham, just as the tribe of Levi receives them from the people? I realize he's not so much speaking of tithing as the main thrust of his argument, rather he's showing the greatness of Melchizedek and how Christ eclipses even him. But is he making a distinction of which tithe is which?

In Christ,

KC


----------



## kceaster

*Aaron,*



acsmith said:


> Following the scripture here...
> 
> Have I been in sin, teaching babes in the Word that the 10% idea is a minimum?
> 
> This thread has been "sharpening" for me!



I think you can teach what the Bible says. God did and still does require a 10th, just as He did and still does require the keeping of the Sabbath. God didn't change. Now the question is, did Christ in some way abrogate the tithe just as He abrogated other ceremonial laws of the OT with his death, resurrection, ascension, and intercession? I don't believe He did either implicitly or explicitly.

But here is the rub for me, at least. I believe the tithe presupposes wealth, not income. Obviously, the modern day version of the tithing principle presupposes income. If income, then even the poorest of the poor needs to give 10% to the church. I assume this is what is meant by the equity of the tithe. Everyone gives 10%. But a person barely making it on $2 a day is not required by God to give him $.20. That just doesn't make any sense (no pun intended.) This is why Christ marveled at the widow. She didn't have to give, but gave anyway. She should have been taken care of by the church, instead, it was the other way around. She was part of the benevolence of the church (widows and orphans) and was supposed to be the object of their giving. Instead, she was doing the work others should have done.

Another reason I believe this, which I did not include in my first post, is that we don't find anywhere in the OT where God is displeased with those who have nothing, as if they should be giving Him what little they have. Those with whom God is displeased are those who do not let the land have its Sabbath because they're too busy counting their increase. They didn't trust God even in their tithe. They gave sparingly and they reaped sparingly. They became greedy and complacent. This is why Jesus tested the rich young ruler because He knew that the man could not part with his wealth, even if it was to gain heaven.

Yet another thing I didn't mention in my previous post is the fact that the people in the year of the tithe (every three years), were supposed to bring the tithe to the place of worship and eat it there before the Lord. How exactly does the modern day teaching treat this? We don't save up our money in the third year and come to church and spend the money on whatever we wish. This is all part of the tithing principle of the OT, but it doesn't see the light of day in the modern teaching.

I honestly don't know what to do with that one. I don't see how it translates to modern times. Can anyone help with this? Clearly, this is an act of worship, so it doesn't mean that we spend the money on worldly things. But how does this work into the NT church? I guess those who believe the tithe has been abrogated would say this is one of the reasons why. But I'm not so sure.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## DonP

kceaster said:


> acsmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> Following the scripture here...
> 
> Have I been in sin, teaching babes in the Word that the 10% idea is a minimum?
> 
> This thread has been "sharpening" for me!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you can teach what the Bible says. *God did and still does require a 10th*, just as He did and still does require the keeping of the Sabbath. God didn't change. Now the question is, *did Christ in some way abrogate the tithe just as He abrogated other ceremonial laws *of the OT with his death, resurrection, ascension, and intercession? I don't believe He did either implicitly or explicitly.
> 
> But here is the rub for me, at least. I believe the tithe presupposes wealth, not income. Obviously, the modern day version of the tithing principle presupposes income. If income, then *even the poorest of the poor needs to give 10% to the church*. I assume this is what is meant by the equity of the tithe. Everyone gives 10%. But a person barely making it on $2 a day is not required by God to give him $.20. *That just doesn't make any sense *(no pun intended.)
> 
> Yet another thing I didn't mention in my previous post is the fact that the people in the *year of the tithe (every three years)*, were supposed to bring the tithe to the place of worship and eat it there before the Lord. How exactly does the modern day teaching treat this? We don't save up our money in the third year and come to church and spend the money on whatever we wish. *This is all part of the tithing principle of the OT*, but it doesn't see the light of day in the modern teaching.
> 
> *I honestly don't know what to do with that one. * I don't see how it translates to modern times. Can anyone help with this? Clearly, this is an act of worship, so it doesn't mean that we spend the money on worldly things. But how does this work into the NT church? I guess those who believe the tithe has been abrogated would say this is one of the reasons why. But I'm not so sure.
> 
> In Christ,
> 
> KC
Click to expand...


So if you are not confused about what you believe I am ? 

First you tell him to go ahead and teach that god says to give 10%, this is what the bible says. 

Then you say you are not sure if it was abrogated along with all of the other OT laws since 10% is not part of the moral law. 

And you conclude that if the OT tithing practices are not abrogated you would not even know how to apply this today? 

Boy, talk about putting people in bondage and confusion. 

Did you even Read Pastor Ferrell's extremely clear and accurate posts on ths subject? 
I think they would help you get clarity that all of the OT laws for Israel have been abrogated. 

As for what General Equity of the Confession means; that is we use the OT as examples of what things are good and make sense. What would have a sense of equity about it in dealing with others etc. to help, in areas of liberty, how we would decide whether to do it or not and what might be an equitable way to do it. But not a hard fast rule. 

Can you give me on reason or scripture to show why the OT laws of all the different tithes or some of them would still be binding on us like the moral law is as a rule of life, and why it would not have been abrogated along with all the other laws? 
Can you give me any other OT law you would say has been carried over and is still binding? 

I think the reason the other parts of the tithe law are tossed is because they were OT laws which are abrogated. 
The question is why do some hold on to one of the 10% on increase of livestock and agriculture that was paid to priests, and say we should continue to give this somewhere? 
I think it is because people are not taught to seek God for guidance, to live by faith not by rules, since so many do not know how to develop a conviction on areas of liberty and we all have some Pharisaical tendencies in us, the pastors have caved in and just said its a good rule, lets tell them to tithe as a minimum, (which it wasn't a minimum), and hopefully some will know they can give more, just to simplify the matter and make sure they give some. 

The Sabbath of course was moral law and not to be compared with civil and ceremonial laws. We now keep the Sabbath or we see it changed to the Lord's day so we with Calvin abrogated the Sabbath as it was a law to Israel and keep the 4th commandment as the Lord' day a day of rest from our work.


----------



## Glenn Ferrell

KMK said:


> ...The main thrust of my participation has been an attempt to tear down the caricature that tithers are pharisees (which has been implied).
> 
> ...
> 
> The argument that the tither is a Pharisee because he follows a rule does not fly because everyone follows a rule of some kind. The tither follows an objective rule and others follows a subjective rule.



Nowhere have I suggested one who teaches obedience to Old Testament moral law is a Pharisee. One is Pharisaical only if they teach that one earns God’s favor or salvation by their obedience. Teaching God’s standard for righteousness, which the redeemed, regenerated, justified and sanctified by grace will want to obey, though they do so imperfectly in this life, is a positive thing. 

Therefore, I do not hesitate to teach and preach about the continuing obligation of the Christian to keep the Sabbath, the restraints of God’s warrant on public worship, the obligation of civil magistrates to glorify God, advance the Christian religion and enforce outward obedience to the first table of the law. Some would call me a “Pharisee” because of such teaching, though it is consistent with the Reformed confessions.

I would not hesitate to teach tithing if I found it applicable to the New Testament economy of grace. Clear rules on what to give would be helpful. I have no problem with teaching with the Larger Catechism, the duty to adequately maintain the ministry of the word (WLC 108), and see that the gospel is “propagated throughout the world,” and “the church furnished with all gospel-officers and ordinances” (WLC 191).

Too little is taught in the church about work and wealth. If the theology of economics found in the Larger Catechism regarding the 8th Commandment was taught by the church, it could leaven the thought of our society and culture:

*Q. 141. What are the duties required in the eighth commandment?
A.* The duties required in the eighth commandment are, truth, faithfulness, and justice in contracts and commerce between man and man; rendering to every one his due; restitution of goods unlawfully detained from the right owners thereof; giving and lending freely, according to our abilities, and the necessities of others; moderation of our judgments, wills, and affections concerning worldly goods; a provident care and study to get, keep, use, and dispose these things which are necessary and convenient for the sustentation of our nature, and suitable to our condition; a lawful calling, and diligence in it; frugality; avoiding unnecessary lawsuits, and suretiship, or other like engagements; and an endeavor, by all just and lawful means, to procure, preserve, and further the wealth and outward estate of others, as well as our own.

*Q. 142. What are the sins forbidden in the eighth commandment?
A.* The sins forbidden in the eighth commandment, besides the neglect of the duties required, are, theft, robbery, man-stealing, and receiving anything that is stolen; fraudulent dealing, false weights and measures, removing landmarks, injustice and unfaithfulness in contracts between man and man, or in matters of trust; oppression, extortion, usury, bribery, vexatious lawsuits, unjust enclosures and depredation; engrossing commodities to enhance the price; unlawful callings, and all other unjust or sinful ways of taking or withholding from our neighbor what belongs to him, or of enriching ourselves; covetousness; inordinate prizing and affecting worldly goods; distrustful and distracting cares and studies in getting, keeping, and using them; envying at the prosperity of others; as likewise idleness, prodigality, wasteful gaming; and all other ways whereby we do unduly prejudice our own outward estate, and defrauding ourselves of the due use and comfort of that estate which God hath given us.​
If Christians are to give sacrificially, intentionally, proportionately, and cheerfully to the maintenance of the ministry of the word and relief of the destitute, ten percent would be too little for many. Certainly teach what those principles mean. Using Old Testament examples of giving- three tithes, first fruits, first born, from booty of war, free will offerings, and sacrifices, are valuable to understanding New Testament giving.

My problem is that merely teaching a New Testament obligation to give ten percent of one’s gross or net (Which is it?) paycheck misses much that one finds in scripture, and implies that the ceremonial law continues. There is no biblical warrant to teaching the continuation of the tithe as one will find warrant for teaching the continuation of the Sabbath, God’s strict regulation of worship, or the obligation of civil magistrates to covenant with God. The distinction of the three tithes is not pointed out. That it was paid to Levites, from the increase of the soil and livestock in the tribal inheritance is not taught. 

And, as the tithe was applicable to increase, not income, how would one apply that to wages, assuming it was directly applicable. Some of the produce of the land was consumed to maintain ones household during the year, or as a cost of production. Thus, at the end of the year, or at harvest, this was not counted in the increase.

Thus, the part of one’s income used to provide transportation to a job, is that increase? It is a cost of production? Health insurance for one’s family, whether provided as a benefit by an employer or paid from one’s wages, is it income on which one should tithe? Is it an increase or is it a cost of maintaining one’s household? A single person or a childless couple has less cost in maintaining their family than another family with ten children, perhaps with several adopted orphans as noted in a prior post. Is the increase of wealth the same for both families? Does the same ten percent on wages apply to both? And is tithing limited to one’s paycheck? Should not one calculate their dividends, interest, increase in equity from the sell of property? What about inheritance?

Such matters are far more complicated than merely telling people to give ten percent of their gross or net (whichever) pay check. And, for a minister to preach such a requirement, not in the pharisaical sense, but without a proper understanding of what scripture requires on the subject, is to go beyond the word of God and to place a burden on believers over and beyond what God’s word says. Thus, my objection.

What we should be teaching about work, wealth and stewardship is far more radical than merely suggesting believes give ten percent. All belongs to God; the support of the ministry and relief of the destitute is an essential obligation; we must take care to increase, preserve and make holy use of all God has give us, help others do the same, be content with God’s provision and not covet what he has given another.



> As to Glenn's statement that the tithe applied only to agricultural increase and that those involved in other trades were not required to tithe, I cannot believe that is correct. Blacksmiths, clothiers, and tent makers were not required to tithe? Only farmers and ranchers? I doubt it. I would be happy to be proved wrong.



I’ll gladly be corrected on this. However, as I’ve pointed out what scripture says on this, the obligation is now for others to show where scripture applies the tithe to something other than the agricultural produce of the promised land or the plunder of war. The most we can find there is principles which help flesh out the New Testament obligation for believers to give sacrificially, intentionally, proportionately, and cheerfully for the gospel and deaconal ministries of the church, and to be good stewards of all the rest as belonging to God.


----------



## puritanpilgrim

> I never got an answer to my question. I think it's a good question.
> 
> I never got any answers to mine, which I have queried folks on for years. I think they're good, too
> 
> Perhaps one explanation is the continuation of the equity or tithe principle. I have not examined it terribly closely and I'd love to do that as I explore this more.
> 
> I would love to have answers to my questions. I've never honestly had anyone answer them from Scripture.




Tom, I did answer you from scripture. My point is these don't transfer into today’s world or economy. And neither do they look anything like putting 10% in a plate. If we say the tithe transfers over, how would someone eat their tithe before the Lord with their family? How would they buy whatever their heart desires with their tithe. It's almost like there is a duel hermeneutic here. Simultaneously interpreting passages as liberals and conservatives. At one point being very dogmatic and asserting 10%, and then backing off a bit because it doesn't all fit into our economy, or even look like what we do today. Seriously, eating our tithe. This does not transfer. This is what Baptist normally do with elders and deacons. Claims at one point we must be strict and super conservative with the text and now anyone who has been divorced can't be a deacon, but they become very liberal with the same text and allow deacons be basically be elders. You can have. It must be consistent.





> 4) Those who try to keep the tithe today cannot because in the OT it was much more than 10% it also involved argicultural offerings (in othet words it does not transfer well culturally.
> I think this is a problematic statement. You could dismiss a lot by saying things don't transfer well culturally just because of a dissonance here and there.
> 
> Tom you ducking the question. The Old Testament tithe was way more complex than the giving of ten percent in the plate. How would you transfer eating some of you tithe before the Lord: Deu.12:17-19:
> 
> 17 You must not eat in your own towns the tithe of your grain and new wine and oil, or the firstborn of your herds and flocks, or whatever you have vowed to give, or your freewill offerings or special gifts. 18 Instead, you are to eat them in the presence of the LORD your God at the place the LORD your God will choose—you, your sons and daughters, your menservants and maidservants, and the Levites from your towns—and you are to rejoice before the LORD your God in everything you put your hand to. 19 Be careful not to neglect the Levites as long as you live in your land.
> 
> Deut 14:22-26
> 
> 22 Be sure to set aside a tenth of all that your fields produce each year. 23 Eat the tithe of your grain, new wine and oil, and the firstborn of your herds and flocks in the presence of the LORD your God at the place he will choose as a dwelling for his Name, so that you may learn to revere the LORD your God always. 24 But if that place is too distant and you have been blessed by the LORD your God and cannot carry your tithe (because the place where the LORD will choose to put his Name is so far away), 25 then exchange your tithe for silver, and take the silver with you and go to the place the LORD your God will choose. 26 Use the silver to buy whatever you like: cattle, sheep, wine or other fermented drink, or anything you wish. Then you and your household shall eat there in the presence of the LORD your God and rejoice. 27 And do not neglect the Levites living in your towns, for they have no allotment or inheritance of their own.
> 
> 28 At the end of every three years, bring all the tithes of that year's produce and store it in your towns, 29 so that the Levites (who have no allotment or inheritance of their own) and the aliens, the fatherless and the widows who live in your towns may come and eat and be satisfied, and so that the LORD your God may bless you in all the work of your hands.


----------



## Glenn Ferrell

kceaster said:


> Could you point me to where you're seeing increase in the text pertaining to the counting of livestock? I was assuming that the counting of livestock for the tithe would always include the old animals, the ones that were counted last time, along with the new animals. If it is only increase, then that changes a good bit of what I was saying.



You are correct to point out the commandment concerning a tithe of livestock in Lev. 27:30-33 does not specify “on the increase.” However, I believe it can be deduced from:

1) The increase of the seed and fruit is not specified here either, but is made clear later in Deut. 14. If it was the increase on the seed and fruit which was to be tithed, so also may be the case with the livestock.

2) If the tithe is not on the increase, it would be onerous for those with less productive herds. If one’s livestock reproduced a hundred fold (e.g. 100 sheep at the beginning of the year, 200 at the end of the year), and another’s reproduced only fifty fold (e.g. 100 sheep at the beginning of the year, 150 at the end of the year), the one with the greater increase would give 20 sheep, where the less productive one would give 15. The productive one ends up with 180 sheep, the less productive one ends up with 135. The poorer shepherd is giving more of his increase, 30%, while the richer one is giving less, 20%. This is contrary to the principle of giving proportionately as God has blessed (Deut. 15:14; 1 Cor. 16:2). 

3) Though we should read with caution rabbinic material, as certainly not having any authority as God’s word, it may be historically informative to read the traditional Jewish understanding of this passage. The Leviticus 27 practice of counting with the rod to determine the tithe is described by the rabbi Maimonides:

"He (the owner) gathers all the lambs and all the calves into a field, and makes a little door to it, so that two cannot go at once; and he places their dams without, and they bleat, so that the lambs hear their voice, and go out of the fold to meet them, as it is said, whatsoever passeth under the rod: for it must pass of itself, and not be brought out by his hand; and when they go out of the fold, one after another, he begins and counts them with the rod: one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, and the tenth that goes out, whether male or female, whether perfect or blemished, he marks it with a red mark, and says, 'This is the tithe" (Hilchet Becorot, c. 6, sect 1; from Gills Exposition, on Leviticus 27:32)]​
Thus, it is the newborn calves, kids and lambs thus marked as belonging to the Levites, not the older ones which were tithed in previous years.

-----Added 4/3/2009 at 01:23:19 EST-----



kceaster said:


> But in the case of Paul using this example in Hebrews 7, doesn't it seem there that he is equating the receiving and giving of tithes regardless of where it came from? Isn't he saying that Melchizedek received tithes from Abraham, just as the tribe of Levi receives them from the people? I realize he's not so much speaking of tithing as the main thrust of his argument, rather he's showing the greatness of Melchizedek and how Christ eclipses even him. But is he making a distinction of which tithe is which?



As already pointed out, Abraham’s tithe was not of the same sort. It was on the plunder of war, not on agricultural produce. 

Paul’s point was that in his federal head, Abraham, Levi gave tithes to a priest, Melchizedek, and received his priestly blessing, indicating his submission to a greater priesthood than the Aaronic priesthood of the ceremonial law of Moses. Thus, the Aaronic priesthood was inferior to that of Melchizedek and Christ. The Aaronic priesthood only pointed to Christ, and is now done away with. The Levitical tithe is not applicable to those falling under Christ’s priestly redemption.

Your desire to faithfully teach all God’s word commands is commendable. However, your application of the Levitical tithe to the post resurrection redeemed in Christ is faulty, and goes beyond God’s command. Much modern teaching on the tithe is man’s tradition.

BTW, the tithe in the centuries before the Reformation was an onerous and oppressive system of church taxation keeping the masses poor and under the tyranny of the papal whore. Find a Reformer, Puritan or Westminster divine who taught the continuation of the Levitical tithe, or some form of ten percent giving obligation.


----------



## kceaster

PeaceMaker said:


> First you tell him to go ahead and teach that god says to give 10%, this is what the bible says.



The Bible does teach it. And I don't know how to skirt this issue. God has His reasons and I'm just trying to find out HOW it should be applied, not WHETHER it should be applied.



PeaceMaker said:


> Then you say you are not sure if it was abrogated along with all of the other OT laws since 10% is not part of the moral law.



Reading it again, I can see why it is confusing. What I should have said was, "...did Christ in some way abrogate the tithe, which is not merely ceremonial, along with other laws which were ceremonial." That probably doesn't help you because you believe the tithe is ceremonial. But I would still suggest you look to Abraham and Jacob. They weren't under any compulsion regarding the law, but they did set a precedent in their actions. They gave a tithe before one was required. Why? Some arbitrary number? I really believe it has to be the Holy Spirit working in them, just as He does with us. And can the Holy Spirit not work in percentages?



PeaceMaker said:


> And you conclude that if the OT tithing practices are not abrogated you would not even know how to apply this today?



I know you wrote earlier that you didn't read my entire first post. I would encourage you to do that if you want to interact with me. You, of course, don't have to if you don't want to. 

What I am saying is that the tithe applies to us in some way. But, I'm also saying that the modern day teaching is flawed because it applies the principles of the tithe incorrectly. The tithe of today is 10% of gross income, given on a regular basis (so as not to fall behind in the payments to God). That is flawed from what we can see in the OT. It applies part of a principle, but the agrarian aspect of the tithe does not translate exactly into the dollars and cents of today.



PeaceMaker said:


> Boy, talk about putting people in bondage and confusion.



I am not mandating anything, except that we try to figure out what God requires of our stewardship. There is much confusion, and I'm sorry if I am causing even more. I just want to tell others how I understand it so that we can help each other. 



PeaceMaker said:


> Did you even Read Pastor Ferrell's extremely clear and accurate posts on ths subject? I think they would help you get clarity that all of the OT laws for Israel have been abrogated.



I agree with him on many points and I think we are all in agreement that today's teaching on this subject is flawed. The only place I disagree is that the law is abrogated. I find nothing to suggest that the tithe was merely national or theocratic in the OT, nor can I find anything in the NT saying that it is no longer required. Remember that the tithe had mainly to do with worship. Sure, the Jews turned it into all sorts of bonderous things, much like it is today. But when I read that the children were to save up for the third year so that they could go feast before the Lord, that is glorious, not bonderous. When I read that the gifts were brought so that the widow and the orphan could be taken care of, why does that translate to something beggarly? If we give a cup of cold water, we do it as unto Christ! That should make us more generous than less.

I agree with you, we need to stop the legalistic way we apply the tithe, but that isn't the tithe's fault. It is our heart that needs to change and understand the meaning of it all.



PeaceMaker said:


> As for what General Equity of the Confession means; that is we use the OT as examples of what things are good and make sense. What would have a sense of equity about it in dealing with others etc. to help, in areas of liberty, how we would decide whether to do it or not and what might be an equitable way to do it. But not a hard fast rule.



I was misapplying that. When I talk about the general equity of the tithe (modern day), I am talking about the sentiment that everyone should give 10% of their income regularly, even if they have nothing but a wage to speak of. I think that is wrong. I believe the tithe presupposed possessions and wealth, not merely wages. 



PeaceMaker said:


> Can you give me on reason or scripture to show why the OT laws of all the different tithes or some of them would still be binding on us like the moral law is as a rule of life, and why it would not have been abrogated along with all the other laws? Can you give me any other OT law you would say has been carried over and is still binding?



I'll answer the second question first. Not to be crass, but there were laws governing proper modesty among family that are not explicitly mentioned in the NT that certainly do apply today. We are not to uncover the nakedness of any person close to us. While we may consider that to be a no brainer, I think that is more cultural for us to be more modest than other people on the earth. But it is still prohibited and ought to be taught among all peoples.

As for the first question, Jesus specifically states towards the Pharisees that they should show mercy as well as continue to give their tithes to the Lord. I really don't see why Jesus would have said that if the tithe were not to continue. Obviously, too, there was great diaconal work going on in the early church that would obviously need to be provided for. There was a great amount of generosity going on. Generocity and benevolence is greatly needed in our day because we don't even come close to the type of giving in the early church. Paul also sets a precedent that teaching elders are worthy of double honor and that they should be taken care of. All of these are reasons why the tithe should continue. 

Now if you want to substitute giving for tithing, I don't necessarily have a problem with that. But we should realize that to whom much is given, much is required and I think the tithe set a precedent for that.

I would also add that we each come with baggage to this subject. Because of this, we ought always to remember that a 10% requirement in whatever shape or form is never to be approached in a legalistic manner. There are some in the church who believe they will get physically ill if they don't count out their tithe to the penny and give it every time they are supposed to. That's just nuts. I categorize tithing somewhat like our relationship to the civil magistrate. Let me explain.

We are to obey the powers over us. But if those powers are going to charge us to disobey God with a law they pass, we have every right to civil disobedience. In this way, one law or rule of God cannot make another law impossible to obey. With our stewardship, God is not requiring 10% of our income so that we cannot pay others to whom we owe money. Or, He cannot require the only thing we have to feed our family, so that they go hungry, because we are to take care of our families. Some in our day would say that you tithe no matter what, that God will make up the rest, "somehow," that we are to test God in this, like it says in Malachi. I really believe that is a misapplication of Scripture. The other thing is "sacrificial giving." That is not commanded by the OT tithe, either. 



PeaceMaker said:


> I think the reason the other parts of the tithe law are tossed is because they were OT laws which are abrogated. The question is why do some hold on to one of the 10% on increase of livestock and agriculture that was paid to priests, and say we should continue to give this somewhere? I think it is because people are not taught to seek God for guidance, to live by faith not by rules, since so many do not know how to develop a conviction on areas of liberty and we all have some Pharisaical tendencies in us, the pastors have caved in and just said its a good rule, lets tell them to tithe as a minimum, (which it wasn't a minimum), and hopefully some will know they can give more, just to simplify the matter and make sure they give some.



Again, I think you're applying all the ways the tithe may be abused and placing that fault on the tithe. People abuse the laws of God and twist them every which way. That isn't the law's fault. Our relationship to the law will always create tendencies of legalism or anti-nomianism, but that is our fault. We need to learn how to obey God without legalism. If we don't teach the tithe as a principle that is still a general rule for the believer, then, In my humble opinion, we aren't teaching the full counsel of God. 



PeaceMaker said:


> The Sabbath of course was moral law and not to be compared with civil and ceremonial laws. We now keep the Sabbath or we see it changed to the Lord's day so we with Calvin abrogated the Sabbath as it was a law to Israel and keep the 4th commandment as the Lord' day a day of rest from our work.



Okay, I agree with that. And I would add the following:

I assume you believe that the Sabbath was made for man. That is, after all, the teaching of Christ. What if the tithe was made for man. Look at how they were to celebrate because of it. It wasn't designed to be a burden. It was designed so that worship could be glorious. I don't see the harm in that. And I think we should investigate how we are to properly apply it.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## DonP

kceaster said:


> I'll answer the second question first. Not to be crass, but there were laws governing proper modesty among family that are not explicitly mentioned in the NT that certainly do apply today. We are not to uncover the nakedness of any person close to us. While we may consider that to be a no brainer, I think that is more cultural for us to be more modest than other people on the earth. But it is still prohibited and ought to be taught among all peoples.
> 
> *Wow???
> OK this would be wrong not because of an OT law but because it is a violation of the moral law, Adultery.
> As I said find one that is not part of the moral law.
> 
> *
> As for the first question, Jesus specifically states towards the Pharisees that they should show mercy as well as continue to give their tithes to the Lord. I really don't see why Jesus would have said that if the tithe were not to continue.
> 
> *Jesus was showing the Jews that they did not even follow their laws.
> They were more concerned with the OT laws and less with the moral law which was more important. In fact this is transitional teaching that the OT laws will pass and the moral law is supreme.
> Yes they were to tithe but that does not say we are now. *
> 
> . Paul also sets a precedent that teaching elders are worthy of double honor and that they should be taken care of. All of these are reasons why the tithe should continue.
> 
> *Double honor means they also get paid not just respect. no 10% mentioned here where it would be appropriate. Be sure to tithe to take care of minsters. *
> 
> In Christ,
> 
> KC



I hope you can go back and read your posts and see that your thinking is not clear or consistent. Therefore I suggest you keep studying the issue and praying. Study hermeneutics so you do not violate proper interpretive principles. We can't just pick and choose verses out of context and apply them to what we think. 
Pastor Ferrell made this abundantly clear that we cannot tithe. The tithes were many not one. Why pick one of them to say we should follow more than another. 

And he explained Abraham and Melchizedek as not on income. It was a special symbolic offering. And 
ALL laws for Israel were abolished for the new covenant. The word would have to tell us to keep one if it wasn't. 
Why would we keep the tithe if all others were abolished. And only one of the tithes? 

Do as you wish, but I encourage you not to teach people they should tithe. They should obey the clear teaching of the NT, give as God prospers you. 
Give as you see needs providentially put before you, to the household of faith first, then to the heathen. Seek the Holy Spirit to guide you in giving.

Have you read all of the Westminster Larger Catechism? I would encourage you to read this as a well accepted accurate explanation of God's word. Its free here or on Monergism.com

http://www.opc.org/lc.html


----------



## kceaster

*Pastor,*



Glenn Ferrell said:


> You are correct to point out the commandment concerning a tithe of livestock in Lev. 27:30-33 does not specify “on the increase.” However, I believe it can be deduced from:
> 
> 1) The increase of the seed and fruit is not specified here either, but is made clear later in Deut. 14. If it was the increase on the seed and fruit which was to be tithed, so also may be the case with the livestock.



I see why you would deduce that. But as I pointed out in my first post, it almost seems like a different accounting based on the difference in commodity. Perhaps you're right. I know the modern day version always talks about increase so that whatever income you've tithed on before is not counted in what you tithe now. It's funny that when we become accountants over our own possessions we always pay more attention to the details. We wouldn't want to give too much, as Maimonides points out below by not "pushing" a sheep under the staff. That's pretty funny when you think about it. "Hey all your sheep are running away from the staff! Oh, well, I guess they don't count."



Glenn Ferrell said:


> 2) If the tithe is not on the increase, it would be onerous for those with less productive herds. If one’s livestock reproduced a hundred fold (e.g. 100 sheep at the beginning of the year, 200 at the end of the year), and another’s reproduced only fifty fold (e.g. 100 sheep at the beginning of the year, 150 at the end of the year), the one with the greater increase would give 20 sheep, where the less productive one would give 15. The productive one ends up with 180 sheep, the less productive one ends up with 135. The poorer shepherd is giving more of his increase, 30%, while the richer one is giving less, 20%. This is contrary to the principle of giving proportionately as God has blessed (Deut. 15:14; 1 Cor. 16:2).



That was my point from my first post. If you actually consider your wealth and not your income, your percentage will be higher than 10%, because you will have counted your possessions more than once. From the rabbinical words below, it certainly looks as if they were not counting all their livestock, but only those who had not been counted before. That changes part of what I wrote, because it would seem that if only the new animals were counted since the last counting, then only your increase of wealth is required. This still shows a presuppostion of wealth, and not income, because you can't count sheep you don't have. That throws the idea of gross income out of the equation. 



Glenn Ferrell said:


> 3) Though we should read with caution rabbinic material, as certainly not having any authority as God’s word, it may be historically informative to read the traditional Jewish understanding of this passage. The Leviticus 27 practice of counting with the rod to determine the tithe is described by the rabbi Maimonides:
> 
> "He (the owner) gathers all the lambs and all the calves into a field, and makes a little door to it, so that two cannot go at once; and he places their dams without, and they bleat, so that the lambs hear their voice, and go out of the fold to meet them, as it is said, whatsoever passeth under the rod: for it must pass of itself, and not be brought out by his hand; and when they go out of the fold, one after another, he begins and counts them with the rod: one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, and the tenth that goes out, whether male or female, whether perfect or blemished, he marks it with a red mark, and says, 'This is the tithe" (Hilchet Becorot, c. 6, sect 1; from Gills Exposition, on Leviticus 27:32)]​
> Thus, it is the newborn calves, kids and lambs thus marked as belonging to the Levites, not the older ones which were tithed in previous years.



They must be applying the increase principle here. They certainly weren't counting all their flocks or herds, but only the new animals since the last counting.



Glenn Ferrell said:


> As already pointed out, Abraham’s tithe was not of the same sort. It was on the plunder of war, not on agricultural produce.
> 
> Paul’s point was that in his federal head, Abraham, Levi gave tithes to a priest, Melchizedek, and received his priestly blessing, indicating his submission to a greater priesthood than the Aaronic priesthood of the ceremonial law of Moses. Thus, the Aaronic priesthood was inferior to that of Melchizedek and Christ. The Aaronic priesthood only pointed to Christ, and is now done away with. The Levitical tithe is not applicable to those falling under Christ’s priestly redemption.



I can see this. I'm still not sure that I see abrogation, though.



Glenn Ferrell said:


> Your desire to faithfully teach all God’s word commands is commendable. However, your application of the Levitical tithe to the post resurrection redeemed in Christ is faulty, and goes beyond God’s command. Much modern teaching on the tithe is man’s tradition.



I agree with your last sentence. That is what I have been saying if it was unclear. However, how do we teach people to give generously? What are the principles we may glean from so few passages in the NT that apply? The early church didn't have the benefit of the abrogation language you speak of. How would they have approached this?

If there is abrogation, what does that do to worship? Do you think the tithe was an element or a circumstance of worship?



Glenn Ferrell said:


> BTW, the tithe in the centuries before the Reformation was an onerous and oppressive system of church taxation keeping the masses poor and under the tyranny of the papal whore. Find a Reformer, Puritan or Westminster divine who taught the continuation of the Levitical tithe, or some form of ten percent giving obligation.



I realize that. We certainly are due for an overhaul. How do we reform our giving? How do we cast off a teaching so prevelant?

In Christ,

KC


----------



## DonP

kceaster said:


> [ It's funny that when we become accountants over our own possessions we always pay more attention to the details. We wouldn't want to give too much, as Maimonides points out below by not "pushing" a sheep under the staff. That's pretty funny when you think about it.
> 
> *I think what the rabbis were warning against was that you would see a bad lamb so you push the good one through 1st to get to save it and leave a bad one to be #10. Or that you push 2 through at once and mis count, thus shorting the Lord. *
> 
> How do we reform our giving? How do we cast off a teaching so prevelant?



By doing it by faith not by the letter. 

good for you for studying the previous posts! 

I also recommend the book, The Life of God in the Soul of Man. 
Very Short, easy to read, and profound. 
Whitfield who was raised with rules said that he didn't know what true religion was until he read this book.


----------



## Glenn Ferrell

kceaster said:


> As for the first question, Jesus specifically states towards the Pharisees that they should show mercy as well as continue to give their tithes to the Lord. I really don't see why Jesus would have said that if the tithe were not to continue.



Consider the context. Jesus was speaking to Jews, growing a spice garden in the promised land, who owed a tithe to the Levites. Thus, the ceremonial law was in effect until the resurrection. 

In the same way, Christ commanded the healed lepers to go show themselves to the priests and offer the prescribed sacrifice. This was in the context of Old Testament ceremonial law also. 

Jesus’ command in neither of these circumstances warrants the continuation of an obligation to follow the ceremonial law in these matters.


----------



## kceaster

PeaceMaker said:


> Wow???
> OK this would be wrong not because of an OT law but because it is a violation of the moral law, Adultery.
> As I said find one that is not part of the moral law.



I can't very well find you a ceremonial law that was not abrogated, can I? You asked me to find you another OT law that has been carried over and is still binding. This is an example. And it is not adultery per se, although if you look at one of your family members in lust, then, as Jesus tells us, you have already committed adultery in your heart. 



PeaceMaker said:


> Jesus was showing the Jews that they did not even follow their laws.
> They were more concerned with the OT laws and less with the moral law which was more important. In fact this is transitional teaching that the OT laws will pass and the moral law is supreme.
> Yes they were to tithe but that does not say we are now.



I'll conceed that point. 




PeaceMaker said:


> Double honor means they also get paid not just respect. no 10% mentioned here where it would be appropriate. Be sure to tithe to take care of minsters.



Yet there should be a principle of giving, right? What should that be? I would be perfectly happy with give as the Lord has given you, but some people do not give at all. How should we address that?



PeaceMaker said:


> I hope you can go back and read your posts and see that your thinking is not clear or consistent. Therefore I suggest you keep studying the issue and praying. Study hermeneutics so you do not violate proper interpretive principles. We can't just pick and choose verses out of context and apply them to what we think.
> Pastor Ferrell made this abundantly clear that we cannot tithe. The tithes were many not one. Why pick one of them to say we should follow more than another.



To be fair, I don't know how you can suggest this if you haven't read them all. If you have, I beg your forgiveness. I really think you believe that I am saying that the modern day teaching of the tithe is what we should be putting forward. I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying we need to reexamine it and teach what the Bible says. 



PeaceMaker said:


> And he explained Abraham and Melchizedek as not on income. It was a special symbolic offering. And
> ALL laws for Israel were abolished for the new covenant. The word would have to tell us to keep one if it wasn't.
> Why would we keep the tithe if all others were abolished. And only one of the tithes?
> 
> Do as you wish, but I encourage you not to teach people they should tithe. They should obey the clear teaching of the NT, give as God prospers you.
> Give as you see needs providentially put before you, to the household of faith first, then to the heathen. Seek the Holy Spirit to guide you in giving.
> 
> Have you read all of the Westminster Larger Catechism? I would encourage you to read this as a well accepted accurate explanation of God's word. Its free here or on Monergism.com



All I'm saying is that we must be able to find principles in the OT that will guide us in this. The theology of the NT is based upon it, so we cannot simply dismiss this or that because of how it has been abused before. We have to come to an understanding of what the tithe was for and what it pointed to. I can't buy that it was simply theocratic or nationalistic. It was a part of worship, so it is important to understand why it was given and what happened to it at the cross.

Thanks for the encouragement to read the LC.

In Christ,

KC

-----Added 4/3/2009 at 03:12:06 EST-----



Glenn Ferrell said:


> Consider the context. Jesus was speaking to Jews, growing a spice garden in the promised land, who owed a tithe to the Levites. Thus, the ceremonial law was in effect until the resurrection.
> 
> In the same way, Christ commanded the healed lepers to go show themselves to the priests and offer the prescribed sacrifice. This was in the context of Old Testament ceremonial law also.
> 
> Jesus’ command in neither of these circumstances warrants the continuation of an obligation to follow the ceremonial law in these matters.



I thought of that as I was replying to Don. I can see that He may have been telling them to obey the law of Moses concerning the tithe. That's a good point.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## DonP

kceaster said:


> And it is not adultery per se, although if you look at one of your family members in lust, then, as Jesus tells us, you have already committed adultery in your heart.
> 
> *Yes now you are getting it.
> 
> *
> 
> Yet there should be a principle of giving, right? What should that be? I would be perfectly happy with give as the Lord has given you, but some people do not give at all. How should we address that?
> *
> Why should there be a principle for everything? We live by the law of liberty, to seek each others well being, to Love each other.
> We have the principle. Obey the commandments.
> As you read the LC you will find plenty of principles there to govern your life.
> and this is the principle, the General equity of the OT laws. ie we can't say I will not give at all because the example is to give something.
> 
> If I cause hard to my neighbor I should repay with something fair and equitable. To restore them. If one rapes a woman she has a child you cannot put the child back or make it as it was. So you do some equitable thing, not follow exactly the OT by giving some sheep or ...??? What in our society would be equitable.
> Pay for the child's medical and education or ???*
> 
> I'm saying we need to reexamine it and teach what the Bible says.
> 
> Thanks for the encouragement to read the LC.
> 
> In Christ,
> 
> KC



We who? I have been. I think many need to examine their belief and see if scripture support a tithe. And I am always open to be corrected from scripture. I have changed my opinions more than once.


----------



## kceaster

PeaceMaker said:


> kceaster said:
> 
> 
> 
> And it is not adultery per se, although if you look at one of your family members in lust, then, as Jesus tells us, you have already committed adultery in your heart.
> 
> *Yes now you are getting it.
> 
> *
> 
> Yet there should be a principle of giving, right? What should that be? I would be perfectly happy with give as the Lord has given you, but some people do not give at all. How should we address that?
> *
> Why should there be a principle for everything? We live by the law of liberty, to seek each others well being, to Love each other.
> We have the principle. Obey the commandments.
> As you read the LC you will find plenty of principles there to govern your life.
> and this is the principle, the General equity of the OT laws. ie we can't say I will not give at all because the example is to give something.
> 
> If I cause hard to my neighbor I should repay with something fair and equitable. To restore them. If one rapes a woman she has a child you cannot put the child back or make it as it was. So you do some equitable thing, not follow exactly the OT by giving some sheep or ...??? What in our society would be equitable.
> Pay for the child's medical and education or ???*
> 
> I'm saying we need to reexamine it and teach what the Bible says.
> 
> Thanks for the encouragement to read the LC.
> 
> In Christ,
> 
> KC
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We who? I have been. I think many need to examine their belief and see if scripture support a tithe. And I am always open to be corrected from scripture. I have changed my opinions more than once.
Click to expand...


The reason I think we must be careful with the tithe is because of what it meant to the worship of God. That is where principle comes in. We want people to grow; to worship God; to edify one another. We don't encourage that by saying, "Aww, it don't matter what you give, just as long as you give something." That doesn't encourage the man of God to excel in godliness. Every command of God needs to be taken seriously. Granted, some of these have been abrogated. But that should not make us say, "Whew! At least we don't have to obey that one anymore." This is God we're talking about it. He is the creator and we are the creature. We should always hold His commands in fear of Him who made them. They weren't arbitrary. And we need to remember that our Savior, who gave His precious life for us, obeyed every law perfectly on our behalf. We should never take that lightly.

I'm not saying you're doing this. All I am saying is that we need to be careful.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## DonP

Right we obey these clear statements of NT giving. 

2 Cor 9:6 But this I say: He who sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and he who sows bountifully will also reap bountifully. 7 So l*et each one give as he purposes in his heart, not grudgingly or of necessity; for God loves a cheerful giver.* 8 And God is able to make all grace abound toward you, that you, always having all sufficiency in all things, may have an abundance for every good work. 9 As it is written:
"He has dispersed abroad, He has given to the poor; His righteousness endures forever."

10 Now may He who supplies seed to the sower, and bread for food, supply and multiply the seed you have sown and increase the fruits of your righteousness, 11 while you are enriched in everything for all liberality, which causes thanksgiving through us to God. NKJV


Mark 12:42 Then one poor widow came and threw in two mites, which make a quadrans. 43 So He called His disciples to Himself and said to them, "Assuredly, I say to you that this poor widow has put in more than all those who have given to the treasury; 44 for they all put in out of their abundance, but she out of her poverty put in all that she had, her whole livelihood." NKJV

1 Cor 16:1 Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given orders to the churches of Galatia, so you must do also: 2 On the first day of the week let each one of you *lay something aside, storing up as he may prosper,* that there be no collections when I come.
NKJV 

But not the tithe 

Gal 4:9 But now after you have known God, or rather are known by God, how is it that you turn again to the weak and beggarly elements, to which you desire again to be in bondage? NKJV


----------



## Glenn Ferrell

kceaster said:


> The reason I think we must be careful with the tithe is because of what it meant to the worship of God. That is where principle comes in. We want people to grow; to worship God; to edify one another. We don't encourage that by saying, "Aww, it don't matter what you give, just as long as you give something." That doesn't encourage the man of God to excel in godliness.



We certainly should not discourage anyone from seeking godliness. Telling them to give intentionally, proportionately as God has blessed, sacrificially, cheerfully as God commands should be sufficient.

We learn principles from Old Testament ceremonial laws regarding giving and sacrifice. For example laws requiring giving of the firstborn, the first fruits, and sacrifices without blemish teach us our giving to God must be of our first, not our left overs, and our best, not what we don’t want ourselves. But, it would be a distortion of the gospel to teach any of these ceremonial laws continue.

We cannot preach and teach what scripture does not command, simply because we think it indicates a higher standard. We can’t require what God does not. To do so would distort the gospel, make void God's word, and lay on men burdens God does not. Such is not the way to godliness.


----------



## kceaster

Glenn Ferrell said:


> kceaster said:
> 
> 
> 
> The reason I think we must be careful with the tithe is because of what it meant to the worship of God. That is where principle comes in. We want people to grow; to worship God; to edify one another. We don't encourage that by saying, "Aww, it don't matter what you give, just as long as you give something." That doesn't encourage the man of God to excel in godliness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We certainly should not discourage anyone from seeking godliness. Telling them to give intentionally, proportionately as God has blessed, sacrificially, cheerfully as God commands should be sufficient.
> 
> We learn principles from Old Testament ceremonial laws regarding giving and sacrifice. For example laws requiring giving of the firstborn, the first fruits, and sacrifices without blemish teach us our giving to God must be of our first, not our left overs, and our best, not what we don’t want ourselves. But, it would be a distortion of the gospel to teach any of these ceremonial laws continue.
> 
> We cannot preach and teach what scripture does not command, simply because we think it indicates a higher standard. We can’t require what God does not. To do so would distort the gospel, make void God's word, and lay on men burdens God does not. Such is not the way to godliness.
Click to expand...


See, I like this. I think this is helpful. One question from above: What do you mean by sacrificially and what Scripture were you thinking about?

In Christ,

KC


----------



## DonP

kceaster said:


> Glenn Ferrell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kceaster said:
> 
> 
> 
> The reason I think we must be careful with the tithe is because of what it meant to the worship of God. That is where principle comes in. We want people to grow; to worship God; to edify one another. We don't encourage that by saying, "Aww, it don't matter what you give, just as long as you give something." That doesn't encourage the man of God to excel in godliness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We certainly should not discourage anyone from seeking godliness. Telling them to give intentionally, proportionately as God has blessed, sacrificially, cheerfully as God commands should be sufficient.
> 
> We learn principles from Old Testament ceremonial laws regarding giving and sacrifice. For example laws requiring giving of the firstborn, the first fruits, and sacrifices without blemish teach us our giving to God must be of our first, not our left overs, and our best, not what we don’t want ourselves. But, it would be a distortion of the gospel to teach any of these ceremonial laws continue.
> 
> We cannot preach and teach what scripture does not command, simply because we think it indicates a higher standard. We can’t require what God does not. To do so would distort the gospel, make void God's word, and lay on men burdens God does not. Such is not the way to godliness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See, I like this. I think this is helpful. One question from above: What do you mean by sacrificially and what Scripture were you thinking about?
> 
> In Christ,
> 
> KC
Click to expand...


A verse pointing to giving sacrificially would be the widows 2 mites,
Phil 4:18 I am full, having received from Epaphroditus the things sent from you, a sweet-smelling aroma, an acceptable sacrifice, well pleasing to God. NKJV

Rom 12:1 I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that you present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God, which is your reasonable service NKJV

Acts 4:34 Nor was there anyone among them who lacked; for all who were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the proceeds of the things that were sold, 35 and laid them at the apostles' feet; and they distributed to each as anyone had need. NKJV

Gal 4:15 For I bear you witness that, if possible, you would have plucked out your own eyes and given them to me. NKJV


----------



## TomVols

PeaceMaker said:


> I did not find your post in this thread, but I am surprised after all this anyone has a question
> 
> Would you re-post it here?



See post 46. I'm asking questions of statments made that are typical against the tithe practice. It might be space intensive to repost here. I'd love to hear a reaction to/response to them. Thanks!

-----Added 4/5/2009 at 08:25:14 EST-----



puritanpilgrim said:


> Tom, I did answer you from scripture. My point is these don't transfer into today’s world or economy. And neither do they look anything like putting 10% in a plate. If we say the tithe transfers over, how would someone eat their tithe before the Lord with their family? How would they buy whatever their heart desires with their tithe. It's almost like there is a duel hermeneutic here. Simultaneously interpreting passages as liberals and conservatives. At one point being very dogmatic and asserting 10%, and then backing off a bit because it doesn't all fit into our economy, or even look like what we do today. Seriously, eating our tithe. This does not transfer. This is what Baptist normally do with elders and deacons. Claims at one point we must be strict and super conservative with the text and now anyone who has been divorced can't be a deacon, but they become very liberal with the same text and allow deacons be basically be elders. You can have. It must be consistent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> that the LORD your God may bless you in all the work of your hands
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, my questions remain unanswered.
> 
> You get no argument from me that typical Baptists misinterpret Ecclesiology as to the nature, number and function of elders and deacons.
Click to expand...


----------



## Herald

*MODERATOR NOTE: Folks, let's be a bit more charitable in our discussion. I edited a comment that was purely inflammatory. You can oppose a view, even with passion, but avoid useless hyperbole and inflammatory rhetoric. *


----------



## Glenn Ferrell

kceaster said:


> One question from above: What do you mean by sacrificially and what Scripture were you thinking about?



*Sacrifice:* the surrender or destruction of something prized or desirable for the sake of something considered as having a higher or more pressing claim.

Giving something you'd like to keep for yourself; but giving anyway because of love.

Example: The widow who gave her two mites, "all that she had, even all her living."


----------



## DonP

TomVols said:


> Some quick replies, not meant to be argumentative:
> 
> 
> 
> 1) It was an old covenant requirement
> 2) The New Testament does not teach the Tithe
> 
> 
> 
> Lots of things were taught in the OT that are not necessarily taught in the NT. Where is the tithe abrogated?
> 
> *This one has been answered well and verses sited. But to reiterate, All of the OT laws were abrogated. Where does it say this one remained. Only the moral law is a rule of life to us. Can you site any OT laws still in force on the church?
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3) The New Testament teaches A) All of our lives belongs to the Lord B) Give unto the Lord generously (there is no 'fixed amount')
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Does this by its nature exclude the tithe? How?
> 
> *No, this by itself does not. The verses that teach the OT laws were shadows of the real which has come and therefore we are no longer under those laws abrogate the tithes. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 4) Those who try to keep the tithe today cannot because in the OT it was much more than 10% it also involved argicultural offerings (in othet words it does not transfer well culturally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think this is a problematic statement. You could dismiss a lot by saying things don't transfer well culturally just because of a dissonance here and there.
> 
> *Lets say then, it doesn't transfer at all. Those who support a tithe do not support all of the tithes that were part of the tithing laws. How do they decide which ones to keep and drop the others? What justification do they have? *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 5) Teaching the Tithe as 'law' is legalism and brings God's people under law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've heard this used for teaching all sorts of things. Witnessing, preaching, RP, etc. It can be used as a crutch argument for whatever you want to oppose.
> 
> *It brings them under fundamentalism if they do not see it as a means of salvation. It keeps them from seeking to walk in faith by the Spirit and to develop a conscience before go and have their desires conformed to the image of Christ. It substitutes a simple rule for a person seeking the Spirit and a walk of faith. *
Click to expand...



Matt 5:33 "Again you have heard that *it was said to those of old,'*You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform your oaths to the Lord.' 34 *But I say to you,* do not swear at all: neither by heaven, for it is God's throne; 
NKJV

Matt 5:38 "You have heard that *it was said,* 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' 39 *But I tell you* not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. 40 If anyone wants to sue you and take away your tunic, let him have your cloak also. NKJV

Matt 5:43 Ye have heard that* it hath been said,* Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
44 *But I say unto you,* Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; KJV

Col 2:20 Therefore, if you died with Christ from the basic principles of the world, why, as though living in the world, *do you subject yourselves to regulations* — 21 "Do not touch, do not taste, do not handle," 22 which all concern things which perish with the using — according to the commandments and doctrines of men? 23 These things indeed have an appearance of wisdom in self-imposed religion, false humility, and neglect of the body, but *are of no value against the indulgence of the flesh*. NKJV

God does nto want us just to follow rules, he wants our heart changed, a new creature. New desires. Not just obedience but from a heart desire. 

Col 2:16 So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, 17 *which are a shadow of things to come*, but the substance is of Christ. NKJV
*
Galatians not only tells us we are not saved by keeping the law but that the laws were just a tutor to bring us to Christ, shadows until Christ, so we drop them now and walk by the Spirit not the outward letter of the laws. It should be written on our hearts what to do. * This can't mean the moral law because we are still to obey it as a rule of life but not any of the rest. 

Gal 3:23 But *before faith came,* we were kept under guard by the law, kept for the faith which would afterward be revealed. 24 Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. 25 *But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor. 
*
Gal 4:1 Now I say that the heir, as long as he is a child, does not differ at all from a slave, though he is master of all, 2 but* is under guardians and stewards until the time appointed by the father*. 3 Even so we, when we were children, *were in *bondage under the elements of the world. 4 But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law, 5 to redeem those who were under the law, that we might receive the adoption as sons. 

6 And because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into your hearts, crying out, "Abba, Father!" 7 *Therefore you are no longer a slave* but a son, and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ. NKJV
Gal 4:9 But now after you have known God, or rather are known by God, *how is it that you turn again to the weak and beggarly elements, to which you desire again to be in bondage*? 10 You observe days and months and seasons and years. 11 I am afraid for you, lest I have labored for you in vain. 

Gal 4:24 Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not hear the law? 22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons: the one by a bondwoman, the other by a freewoman. 23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and he of the freewoman through promise, 24 which things are symbolic. For these are the two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar — 

Gal 4:30 Nevertheless what does the Scripture say? "*Cast out the bondwoman and her son,* for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman." 31 So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman but of the free. 5:1 *Stand fast therefore in the liberty* by which Christ has made us free, and *do not be entangled again with a yoke of bondage.* NKJV

The bondage is the OT laws. They with Israel the nation are gone forever! 

Hope I did this properly for you.


----------



## TomVols

I appreciate your response. While my purpose was not to advocate one side or another, I think the argument that the tithe is a moral/ceremonial law....these have been abrogated in total, thus the tithe is not for today - is compelling. I am not entirely convinced of its veracity, but I appreciate from whence it comes. I think this is a far better way to argue the anti-tithing case than to make a sweeping statement. Interestingly enough, the covenantal abrogation adherants tend to be dispensational in my experience.


> Lets say then, it doesn't transfer at all. Those who support a tithe do not support all of the tithes that were part of the tithing laws. How do they decide which ones to keep and drop the others? What justification do they have?


Those I know who hold the pro-tithe view argue that only one tithe was consistent throughout the OT. I would still maintain that saying "The OT were agricultural people, so we must dismiss a practice as culturally irrelevant" is a troublesome plank, no doubt aided in its trouble by cutlural relevance throngs who seek to dismess sexual mores, etc.


> It brings them under fundamentalism if they do not see it as a means of salvation. It keeps them from seeking to walk in faith by the Spirit and to develop a conscience before go and have their desires conformed to the image of Christ. It substitutes a simple rule for a person seeking the Spirit and a walk of faith.


Anyone who seeks tithing as a means of salvation is an idiot. I've never met anyone like that. There are two erroneous caricatures: one that portrays a tither as checking off a list's item that sanctifies him, and the anti-tither who gives a little and cries "grace" to justify it. Both are just that: caricatures. 

Thanks again for taking the time to respond.


----------



## Glenn Ferrell

TomVols said:


> I would still maintain that saying "The OT were agricultural people, so we must dismiss a practice as culturally irrelevant" is a troublesome plank, no doubt aided in its trouble by cutlural relevance throngs who seek to dismess sexual mores, etc.



My argument is not that the tithe is not relevant due to our not being agricultural people. Most people lived in agricultural economies until a hundred years or so ago.

My argument is the God prescribed terms of the tithe can not be applied today.

1) We do not live in the promised land.
2) We do not have a continuing Levitical tribe.
3) Most of us do not have agricultural increase from the promised land in Palestine.
4) Few who argue for the continuation of the tithe make anything of the second and third tithe.

This does not mean we can’t learn principles from Old Testament tithing. Give of your increase, proportionally, without delay, supporting the moral equivalent of the Levites, those preaching and teaching the word. We can call the obligation of Christians to adequately and generously support the ministry a moral principle. We can not call the tithe a moral law.


----------



## DonP

TomVols said:


> It brings them under fundamentalism if they do not see it as a means of salvation. It keeps them from seeking to walk in faith by the Spirit and to develop a conscience before go and have their desires conformed to the image of Christ. It substitutes a simple rule for a person seeking the Spirit and a walk of faith.
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who seeks tithing as a means of salvation is an idiot. I've never met anyone like that. There are two erroneous caricatures: one that portrays a tither as checking off a list's item that sanctifies him, and the anti-tither who gives a little and cries "grace" to justify it. Both are just that: caricatures.
Click to expand...


By saying fundamentalism it is not meant doing it for salvation, (legalism). Not even necessarily as a check off "to be" sanctified. 

But it is a rule substituted for an area of conscience that God has left under Christian liberty so that we would seek Him, seek to be convinced by the Spirit. It always seems so strange to me that this is such a foreign concept to so many Christians and yet I remember my earlier years where it was the same for me. I wanted to know exactly how to do each thing so I could feel like I was obedient and pleasing God doing everything right. But god has left us with areas of conscience or liberty where we are not to make a rule for us or for others. We each seek what God wants from us, and do through us. Giving is one of these, like what job to take, how much time to spend in service to others and how much at home etc. There is no right wrong on these. We must seek to be convinced by the Spirit. 

We must develop an ear from the still small voice of the Spirit. We must not quench the Spirit. We must learn to walk in and by the Spirit. 

We should all accept one another's differences of conscience and still have unity without needing to all follow the same rule or judge each other by how we do things or judge ourselves by comparing how we do to others. 
God works through people differently and sanctifies them differently and thorough different processes, and times. 

To make a rule where one does not exist gives and easy out for someone having to develop a conscience and learn to walk by faith not by rules. To be willing to seek God and change their convictions etc. 

As I have suggested many times Whitfield, who was raised in a system of, we do these things this way to follow Christ, said, I had not known what true religion was until I read this book, referring to Scougal's work, The Life of God in the Soul of Man. 
This tendency I think is common to most of us and we would do well to learn the same lesson.
We should not put ourselves back under rules where there is not one prescribed
Gal 5:1 Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which Christ has made us free, and do not be entangled again with a yoke of bondage. NKJV
meaning rules like were in the OT


----------



## JoeRe4mer

SolaScriptura said:


> I often hear people say things like "the tithe isn't for today."
> 
> Every now and then it will be wrapped within the admittedly pious language of "since the New Covenant is so much better than the Old, the percentage should be so much higher!" Ok, and there are a handful of folks I know who give well above 10%. Heck, one man I know lives on 25% of his pay... the rest is given.
> 
> HOWEVER... Generally speaking...
> 
> I'm convinced that many of the folks who argue against the tithe as being obligatory do so because they want to justify their stinginess.



Common brother, tell us what you really think! LOL In all seriousness I agree with you point.


----------



## OPC'n

We should tithe/give.....our money, time, gifts etc. Why place a number on it? Let's be free to give freely.


----------



## TomVols

PeaceMaker and Glenn make interesting points and are appreciated. I still think there are hermeneutical issues with both the anti-tithing crowd and the tithing proponents. I am still convinced that subjectivity, strawmen, caricatures, and sweeping generalizations are always dangerous. 

Thanks!


----------



## DonP

TomVols said:


> PeaceMaker and Glenn make interesting points and are appreciated. I still think there are hermeneutical issues with both the anti-tithing crowd and the tithing proponents. I am still convinced that subjectivity, strawmen, caricatures, and sweeping generalizations are always dangerous.
> 
> Thanks!



Could you point out where those were made, rather than making a sweeping generalization?


----------



## TomVols

Well, I could. But I already have to a large extent. Why would I want to sit here and rehash what has been rehashed? I have much to critique within both the pro-tithing and anti-tithing camps, and have done so. I really don't see why I should do it again. My statement above was meant as a summary, not an invitation to go in circles. But if you must....I suppose I will. 

I fear you misunderstood. I am genuine in my appreciation for your and Glenn's contributions from the anti crowd. Helpful as I evaulate my critique of both positions and establish my own.


----------



## DonP

TomVols said:


> Well, I could. But I already have to a large extent. Why would I want to sit here and rehash what has been rehashed? I have much to critique within both the pro-tithing and anti-tithing camps, and have done so. I really don't see why I should do it again. My statement above was meant as a summary, not an invitation to go in circles. But if you must....I suppose I will.
> 
> I fear you misunderstood. I am genuine in my appreciation for your and Glenn's contributions from the anti crowd. Helpful as I evaulate my critique of both positions and establish my own.



Maybe I did misunderstand. I only remembered you asking the question of how one could respond to objections of tithers, and I tried to give some possible responses that I thought would help one answer someone who raises those objections. 

So I was wondering what things in the post you thought were sweeping generalizations, if that was me or someone else. 

If I had done that I wanted to know so I could be aware of it and seek to correct it. 

I do tend to take this a bit more casually as conversation with friends than as a theological article or debate. 

Maybe I am to casual here? I just love learning, being challenged to explain better and get corrected and to share with others what I have learned.


----------



## TomVols

Glenn, PuritanPilgrim, and some others referred to Deut 14:22-23 as a lynchpin against tithing. So I ask this in all humility and eagerness to learn: how would you preach this today? What is the application for the Christian today? I'm very curious. 



> So I was wondering what things in the post you thought were sweeping generalizations, if that was me or someone else.


I think I've already pointed those out. Some say tithers are just legalists. Some tithers say the anti-tithers are stingy and just don't want to give anything. To be sure, I've met both. But to say _all_[/I]are like this is unfair.

If you want a specific from your quotes, I cringe whenever I hear "Just obey the Spirit's voice.." This often is used, especially in my appalachian context, to appeal to a revelatory subjectivity that is in opposition to absolute truth of Holy Scripture. I'm not saying you're doing that, I'm just saying it evokes a visceral red flag. 


> I do tend to take this a bit more casually as conversation with friends than as a theological article or debate.


At times I got the opposite impression 


> Maybe I am to casual here? I just love learning, being challenged to explain better and get corrected and to share with others what I have learned.


Me too. I also (in this area) am looking to fine tune my position. I legitimately have beefs with both sides. So I come with no agenda save for learning so I may grow in the grace and knowledge of Jesus, correctly handling the word of truth, so that this man of God may be complete and totally furnished for every good deed.


----------



## puritanpilgrim

> Glenn, PuritanPilgrim, and some others referred to Deut 14:22-23 as a lynchpin against tithing. So I ask this in all humility and eagerness to learn: how would you preach this today? What is the application for the Christian today? I'm very curious.



God is holy, and we are not. Do what he says.

It's the same way I would preach through Leviticus, with all of the measurements, jobs assigned to certain people, only to be done a certain way.

-----Added 5/8/2009 at 08:42:04 EST-----



> We should tithe/give.....our money, time, gifts etc. Why place a number on it? Let's be free to give freely.



Because we feel like we did it. We like a visible plumbline.


----------



## Glenn Ferrell

TomVols said:


> Glenn, PuritanPilgrim, and some others referred to Deut 14:22-23 as a lynchpin against tithing. So I ask this in all humility and eagerness to learn: how would you preach this today? What is the application for the Christian today? I'm very curious.



I'd preach on this passage by emphasizing "...that thou mayest learn to fear the LORD thy God always." The tithe of the passage is pointing out that the people of Israel are “sharecroppers” on the land God has given him. Part of the increase given to the Levites (who possessed none of the divided tribal land) was representative of God’s ownership of all, and their continued tenure on the land was by his gift and grace. Much here that can be said about grace, dependence upon God, his lordship, our stewardship, and provision for the ministry of the word.

But, one can’t go beyond what this passage requires, a tithe (one tenth) of the increase of soil and flocks in the promised land to be given to Levites. It says nothing about general income from wages or trade, the produce of land not part of the tribal land division, or a replacement ministry for the Levites. Then, other passages speak of at least two other tithes; and, tithes were for the support of the ministry, relief of the destitute, and celebration of the Jerusalem feasts, not buildings and programs.

Certainly, the principles behind tithing, sacrifices, and offerings in the Old Testament, and all the New Testament teaches about giving requires generous, sacrificial, intentional, prioritized, proportional, and cheerful giving for adequate provision for the ministry of the word (pastors, ministers, evangelists and missionaries) and relief of the destitute. God’s Holy Spirit filled people will display their gift of giving as fruit of God’s grace.



> So I was wondering what things in the post you thought were sweeping generalizations, if that was me or someone else.
> 
> 
> 
> I think I've already pointed those out. Some say tithers are just legalists. Some tithers say the anti-tithers are stingy and just don't want to give anything. To be sure, I've met both. But to say _all_[/I]are like this is unfair.
Click to expand...


I’ve certainly not said or implied those who tithe or teach tithing are “legalists.” They are just mistaken, probably sincerely so, in their application of the Old Testament tithing texts. My concerns are in regard to the hermeneutics and application; that we do not force God’s word to say more or less than it does. We may not require more than God does, in the way he commands it. 

It is interesting much of the evangelical church generally emphasizes the modern application of the tithe, which is clearly ceremonial law, but neglects the fourth commandment and the regulative principle of worship in general.

One post above seems to simply equate tithing with giving. Tithing is using ten percent of something for a special designated purpose. Giving of less than ten percent is not tithing. Saying the Old Testament tithing passages can’t be applied directly to situations outside of the promised land, is not to oppose generous giving to support the work of Christ’s church.



TomVols said:


> PeaceMaker and Glenn make interesting points and are appreciated. I still think there are hermeneutical issues with both the anti-tithing crowd and the tithing proponents. I am still convinced that subjectivity, strawmen, caricatures, and sweeping generalizations are always dangerous.



Certainly, "subjectivity, strawmen, caricatures, and sweeping generalizatiosn are always dangerous." So why use such here?

If any of these have been used above, point them out rather than making a subjective, unsupported, sweeping generalization about "hermeneutical issues." That is neither helpful nor meaningful.


----------



## Robert Truelove

The 'tithe' as under the Mosaic law is not binding as it was specific to the national state of Israel under the Old Covenant. However, the concept of giving a tithe to God predates the Mosaic Economy.

Abraham paid tithes to Melchizedek. The high priest according to whom Christ's priesthood is reckoned.

Also, Levi is said to have paid tithes through Abraham...

"One might even say that Levi himself, who receives tithes, paid tithes through Abraham, for he was still in the loins of his ancestor when Melchizedek met him." Hebrews 7:9&10

Jacob before this said...

"And of all that you give me I will give a full tenth to you." Genesis 28:22

What I see in the tithe as it applies to today is not the legal obligation of the Mosaic Covenant, but a principle. When people are looking for a good biblical minimum, the number that keeps coming up is 10%.


----------



## TheFleshProfitethNothing

I, personally would find it HYPOCRITICAL, for anyone on this Board, to think INSTRUMENTS cannot be used in worship, and then turn around and say the TITHE is for the Christian...

What sayest thou to this?


----------



## KMK

TheFleshProfitethNothing said:


> I, personally would find it HYPOCRITICAL, for anyone on this Board, to think INSTRUMENTS cannot be used in worship, and then turn around and say the TITHE is for the Christian...
> 
> What sayest thou to this?



What do you mean by "the tithe is _for_ the Christian?"


----------



## TheFleshProfitethNothing

KMK...I mean, that if one would NOT use Insturments in Temple Worship, because it was instituted as part of Temple Worship, then one should NOT insist on paying TITHES as part of a LEGAL Ordinance.

When Abraham gave a Tenth of the spoils, it was out of Thanks Giving and not because God Commanded it...and NO ONE will convince me otherwise.

Sincerely, I would say, that Under the Torah (Commandments and Oridinances one would give more like 28-32%)

That's all...


----------



## TheFleshProfitethNothing

I have read my last couple of posts, and would like to mention that the Tithe for the Christian statement DOES NOT mean, it is FOR the Christian (though it could not possibley be agaisnst them) because God has need of NOTHING.

What was meant is simpley "it is not for the Christian to pay a tenth"; though if the Christians conscience leads to that, it would not be sin...it would simpley be giving...would it not?

So, with that said, I would not stop ANY Christian for giving a tenth, but would certainly not stop one for giving MORE... for Grace gives more. 

Also, giving to the Lord under Christ's commanments, is as simple as giving food, drink, clothing, and love...visting those in prison and widows...

How much of that is preached on Sunday's? Not much I suspect, being so many fail to do those particular commands...even MYSELF. It seems it is very easy to reach into the wallet, or check book so others can do it, but is that actually ENOUGH? Is giving a tenth enough????!!! And what is a tenth? of spoils?? of income?? Or ALL that GOD has given you?


----------

