# Poll: The Christian is required to give at least 10% of income



## ClayPot (Nov 18, 2009)

Given the debate here: http://www.puritanboard.com/f117/tithing-55525/, I figured it would be useful to do a more formal poll. Is the Christian MORALLY OBLIGATED to give AT LEAST 10% of his income to the local church? In other words, is a Christian if he doesn't give 10% or more of his income.


----------



## Peairtach (Nov 18, 2009)

Depends. It's not so simple. But tithing is a principle that continues in the New Covenant.

Without tithing continuing as a guide in some sense, what guide do our carnal and partially sanctified wills have regarding weekly regular, normal, giving?


----------



## Ivan (Nov 18, 2009)

No, more.


----------



## Sarah (Nov 18, 2009)

I think we_ should _give at least 10% to the local church, but it's not _required_.


----------



## Damon Rambo (Nov 18, 2009)

Richard Tallach said:


> Depends. It's not so simple. But tithing is a principle that continues in the New Covenant.



Not tithing. Giving "whatever you want" is part of the New Covenant.



> Without tithing continuing as a guide in some sense, what guide do our carnal and partially sanctified wills have regarding weekly regular, normal, giving?



Gee I don't know, the Holy Spirit?

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

I thought we of the reformed variety, believed in an all powerful, sovereign God, who sanctifies his true believers, and *caused them* to walk in His way.

Imposing tithing does nothing; it is just a way to try to get the goats to act like sheep.


----------



## baron (Nov 18, 2009)

I voted no but as stated it's not that simple to me. I think a christian should give cheerfully, as God has prospered him to meet the need of the church. At this time in my life I can not afford 10% but in the future I may be able to give 30% or more. 

Example Our churh is small and we do not meet our budget every week, but I believe that if other's who can pick up the slack would, then we would be ok. I know some who think I gave my 10% leave me alone, knowing others in the church have no jobs, or income to meet their basic needs. So the Church suffers.

But to tell the truth I'm still having a problem with Romans 12:1-2.


----------



## KaphLamedh (Nov 18, 2009)

I have to confess that I´m unsure. Both sides have gave good points for their view. Everything I own is gift from God and He has right to take away everything, so if I give back to God 10% what He has gave to me...


----------



## Romans922 (Nov 18, 2009)

In the New Covenant, we should give a lot more than 10%.


----------



## Damon Rambo (Nov 18, 2009)

Romans922 said:


> In the New Covenant, we should give a lot more than 10%.



If we want to. If not, we shouldn't.


----------



## Tripel (Nov 18, 2009)

Damon Rambo said:


> Imposing tithing does nothing; it is just a way to try to get the goats to act like sheep.



Really? Is that all the tithe is?


----------



## au5t1n (Nov 18, 2009)

I chose unsure, but in practice I think lower than 10% is a really bad sign, and I think there is a reason the principle of 10% is established in the OT, from Abraham to Jacob and on into the Mosaic Covenant.


----------



## he beholds (Nov 18, 2009)

I don't think it is required, but it is a good number to start with.


----------



## Damon Rambo (Nov 18, 2009)

Tripel said:


> Damon Rambo said:
> 
> 
> > Imposing tithing does nothing; it is just a way to try to get the goats to act like sheep.
> ...



In the New Testament, yeah. Since Christians are nowhere told to tithe, but rather "give whatever" you want.

-----Added 11/18/2009 at 09:37:41 EST-----



he beholds said:


> I don't think it is required, but it is a good number to start with.



I have no problem with an individual saying " I have made 1000 dollars this month, and I want to give 100"


I do have a problem, when preachers go farther than the Bible, farther than Paul himself, and tell people "You should be giving a 'tithe' (tenth) of your income, minimum." This is nowhere stated in the New Testament, and is actually refuted, since people are simply told to give what they want.

Rather than trying to place the requirements of the law on their flock, Pastors should preach the whole counsel of God, practice church discipline etc. That way, the local Church will be filled with primarily sheep, who will "want" to give more. Then there will be no need to wring money out of goats.


----------



## Romans922 (Nov 18, 2009)

Damon Rambo said:


> Richard Tallach said:
> 
> 
> > Depends. It's not so simple. But tithing is a principle that continues in the New Covenant.
> ...



There seems to be a great disconnect here between the OT and NT, like what we find in Dispensationalism. You should be looking over the whole counsel of God. Is the NT the sole authority? No. What does the OT say? Did tithing and giving end in the OT? No. What about in the NT?

-----Added 11/18/2009 at 10:12:27 EST-----

This should be looking at the heart, but what state is the heart in if you are questioning whether or not to give to God? What state is your heart in if you rebel and say I don't have to give to God, not if I don't want to?

The whole principle throughout Scripture is that you give your firstfruits, you give your tithe, you give your offering.

And since we have Christ in our hearts through His Spirit, we should want to give so much more than just a tithe. Like the woman who gave all she had with her two coins.


----------



## MMasztal (Nov 18, 2009)

All we have belongs to the Lord. Whether it is our money, time or talent. Those who are led by the Spirit will give to the Lord's work from all they have.

And the Lord's work comprises more than just the local church.


----------



## A.J. (Nov 18, 2009)

I voted unsure. But I think that the argument for tithing as a principle that continues in the New Covenant from Genesis 14:17-24 (Hebrews 7:1-2) seems strong In my humble opinion. Abraham's story with Melchizedek happened long before the time of Moses.


----------



## ChariotsofFire (Nov 18, 2009)

Cain and Abel gave their first fruits to God. We have this example from the very beginning. Tithing is giving our first fruits to God. It was required of Abraham, and it is required of us. It is a moral law and binding. 

The purpose of tithing is to put our trust in God and to realize that He is the one who gives us everything. It's not a matter of being able to afford it. In fact tithing is best for our spiritual growth when we think that we can't afford it.


----------



## ClayPot (Nov 18, 2009)

Ivan said:


> No, more.



Clarified the poll. If you think that a Christian should give more than 10%, the answer should be yes since that is at least 10% by definition.


----------



## Damon Rambo (Nov 18, 2009)

Romans922 said:


> Damon Rambo said:
> 
> 
> > Richard Tallach said:
> ...


I know you didn't. Thems fighting words!



> You should be looking over the whole counsel of God. Is the NT the sole authority? No. What does the OT say? Did tithing and giving end in the OT? No. What about in the NT?



I am firmly Covenantal. However, that does not mean that the OT is applied in the same way in the context of the new. We must draw timeless principles from the Old Testament, and apply them in the light of the New. Tell me, do you still obey ALL of the Law?

The timeless principle, as Paul clearly shows us, is that we should WANT to give; not that their is some kind of minimum to give. Tell me, why do you not give 10 percent to the levitical priesthood? Do you still take 10 percent of your income every year, and have a big party with it? Do you give 3 1/3 percent to the poor?

The "whole counsel" of God, is that He has given us a new heart, so that we WANT to give; not that we are given some kind of minimum amount, that we can tick off like a laundry list.


> -----Added 11/18/2009 at 10:12:27 EST-----
> 
> This should be looking at the heart, but what state is the heart in if you are questioning whether or not to give to God? What state is your heart in if you rebel and say I don't have to give to God, not if I don't want to?



Right: which means we should stop preaching tithing, which is not for Christians, and start preaching a change of heart, which will automatically lead to giving.

Preach that a "heart should WANT to give", rather than "We are required TO give."



> The whole principle throughout Scripture is that you give your firstfruits, you give your tithe, you give your offering.



Not at all, at least in the threefold way you have presented. The OT principle is simply that we should want to give to God. Paul tells us the way to apply that, is to "give whatever you (with your new heart) want"



> And since we have Christ in our hearts through His Spirit, we should want to give so much more than just a tithe. Like the woman who gave all she had with her two coins.


Yes we should want it. But if we do not want it, then it is a heart problem, not a problem of not applying the "tithe." We are commanded to give whatever we want. Not to tithe.


----------



## Pergamum (Nov 18, 2009)

If one gives 10% does the 10% have to be towards one "local church'? 

It seems like generosity is a command all throughout Scriptures, but many of the Proverbs seem to indicate outside-of-the church-building generosity being the norm as well.


----------



## rbcbob (Nov 18, 2009)

Joshua said:


> Damon Rambo said:
> 
> 
> > Gal 5:18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law.
> ...


----------



## Christusregnat (Nov 18, 2009)

Pergamum said:


> If one gives 10% does the 10% have to be towards one "local church'?



The examples in Scripture are:

1. To the local Levite (in Moses)
2. To the temple (in the Gospels)
3. To the local church (in Paul)
4. To other churches within the catholic church, through the local church
5. Abraham to God's priest/king


What else would you say there is? Did I miss any?

Cheers,


----------



## Damon Rambo (Nov 18, 2009)

Joshua said:


> And what if they never _want_ to give?


Then I suggest that they have not been regenerated by the Holy Spirit, and they need to worry about the state of their souls, rather than the state of the Church's bank account.

There is a vital distinction between something that is required (giving is not), and something that is an automatic result of a change of heart, that WILL be done by a believer.


----------



## rbcbob (Nov 18, 2009)

Damon Rambo said:


> Joshua said:
> 
> 
> > And what if they never _want_ to give?
> ...




Actually, I believe it is. The Reformed doctrine of Analogy of Faith would support the doctrine of required giving.

*2 Corinthians 9:6 But this I say: He who sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and he who sows bountifully will also reap bountifully.
2 Corinthians 9:7 So let each one give as he purposes in his heart, not grudgingly or of necessity; for God loves a cheerful giver.
*


2Co 9:7 - He hath purposed (proêirêtai). Perfect middle indicative of proaireomai, to choose beforehand, old verb, here only in N.T. *Permanent purpose also*. Not grudgingly (mê ek lupês). The use of mê rather than ou shows that the imperative poieitô (do) or didotô (give) is to be supplied. Not give as out of sorrow. Or of necessity (ê ex anagkês). As if it were like pulling eye-teeth. For God loveth a cheerful giver (hilaron gar dotên agapâi ho theos). Our word "hilarious" comes from hilaron which is from hilaos (propitious), an old and common adjective, only here in N.T. __ *Robertson’s Word Pictures
*


----------



## Romans922 (Nov 18, 2009)

> Preach that a "heart should WANT to give", rather than "We are required TO give."


Why? Why should a heart want to give? The only reason would be because it is a righteous thing to do, a godly thing to do, a holy thing to do? Otherwise, you yourself wouldn't have said a heart should want to give. But if that is the case, we are required to give. Because we are required to be holy, righteous, godly. In which case we should preach that all are required to give, and that our hearts should want to give. 

It seems like you do not like 'duty', but you like the heart. Commendable but not entirely right. God commands us to love Him. We should love him (duty), but we should love Him with our hearts. Most definitely he wants our hearts, that's why He says He loves a cheerful giver. BUT that very statement declares that He wants a giver. There is a requirement, a duty, and it should be accompanied by the heart.

Like what I said before you are making a distinguishing the two, when they should be both/and. DUTY and HEART.


What I am saying is this: it is impossible to say that a changed heart will want to give, and yet giving is not a requirement. If a regenerated heart should want to give, than it is a requirement!


----------



## Pergamum (Nov 18, 2009)

Christusregnat said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> > If one gives 10% does the 10% have to be towards one "local church'?
> ...



Luke 16, the rich man and Lazarus. The rich man's evil character is chiefly portrayed as being uncaring to the poor outside of his gate.



Also,
Matthew 5:42 “Give to everyone who asks of you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.”



Also,


He who mocks the poor shows contempt for their Maker." Proverbs 17:5 

"He who is kind to the poor lends to the LORD, and he will reward him for what he has done." Proverbs 19:17 

"If a man shuts his ears to the cry of the poor, he too will cry out and not be answered." Proverbs 21:13 

"A generous man will himself be blessed, for he shares his food with the poor." Proverbs 22:9 

"Do not exploit the poor because they are poor and do not crush the needy in court." Proverbs 22:22 

"A ruler who oppresses the poor is like a driving rain that leaves no crops." Proverbs 28:3 

"He who gives to the poor will lack nothing, but he who closes his eyes to them receives many curses." Proverbs 28:27 

"The righteous care about justice for the poor, but the wicked have no such concern." Proverbs 29:7

"Speak up and judge fairly; defend the rights of the poor and needy." Proverbs 31:9 

"She opens her arms to the poor and extends her hands to the needy." Proverbs 31:20 


These above examples do not require temple giving, but seem more naturally to mean to be generous on all occasions and in all locations. Not a religious act, but a disposition of character expressed in daily activity, which would not negate temple giving but would go far, far, far, far beyond it.


----------



## au5t1n (Nov 18, 2009)

Good examples. You left out Jacob, though.


----------



## Mushroom (Nov 18, 2009)

Wow. Such complication.

Do we or do we not believe that the preaching of the Gospel will have the effect upon the hearts of God's people that will move them to cheerfully give all that they can?

Sounds very much like we're wanting to trust in a regulation, a rule, a percentage, rather than the power of Holy Spirit to transform His own people. I would think that as long as we do that in this area of Christian life, giving is going to be a problem. It is assuming the worst about God's holy nation, and using compulsion rather than love to get them to do what we evidently believe they don't want to do. Hogwash. God is able. If it ain't happening in your Church, it ain't because there's not enough guilt-tripping, it's because there's not enough faith and Gospel.

What believer doesn't love the Bride of Christ enough to want to give all he can to her welfare? Tithing is paltry. God is able to provide for us, even when we give sacrificially, is He not?


----------



## ChariotsofFire (Nov 18, 2009)

At the very least, can we say that 10% is a good example from Scripture to follow?


----------



## Mushroom (Nov 18, 2009)

ChariotsofFire said:


> At the very least, can we say that 10% is a good example from Scripture to follow?


Or maybe somewhere between there and the widow's mite?


----------



## MarieP (Nov 18, 2009)

rbcbob said:


> Damon Rambo said:
> 
> 
> > Joshua said:
> ...





Just because I am required to give does not mean I can't do so freely and cheerfully! It's like saying a Christian is not obligated to pray or give thanks. I mean, husbands are COMMANDED to love their wives...

I love this hymn by William Cowper:

No strength of nature can suffice
To serve the Lord aright:
And what she has she misapplies,
For want of clearer light.

How long beneath the law I lay
In bondage and distress;
I toll'd the precept to obey,
But toil'd without success.

Then, to abstain from outward sin
Was more than I could do;
Now, if I feel its power within,
I feel I hate it too.

Then all my servile works were done
A righteousness to raise;
Now, freely chosen in the Son,
I freely choose His ways.

"What shall I do," was then the word,
"That I may worthier grow?"
"What shall I render to the Lord?"
Is my inquiry now.

To see the law by Christ fulfilled
And hear His pardoning voice,
Changes a slave into a child,
And duty into choice.


----------



## Brian Withnell (Nov 18, 2009)

The question is somewhat slanted. A Christian is required to be a steward of all he has -- time, talents, materials -- to the glory of God. Giving anything of what he has is not required, but then using all of what he has for God's glory is required. His entire life is to be a living sacrifice ... the money he has stewardship of is not his own.

The "giving" to the local church is saying is there a moral obligation to a local ministry different from the rest that he must use as he believes God would intend. Another way of posing the questions, is "Should a Christian use all of what God provides as he believes, through Biblical principle, God would intend?" That one is very easy to answer ... of course we should use everything we have as we believe God would intend.


----------



## Thomas2007 (Nov 19, 2009)

I voted no, not because I don't believe in the tithe - but because the way the question was worded I couldn't answer in agreement.

Since there is substantive disagreement over the application of the tithe in our present time, I believe that 1 Cor 9:12-14 teaches that it is still applicable, carrying forward the equity of Num 18:21-28. The argument that a tithe is somehow directed by the Holy Spirit, but is not directed by God's law, is weird to me. In essence, then, there is no way to rob God as Mal 3 teaches. I was quite amazed that one person claimed there is no law governing tithing in the New Testament, but if one doesn't have the "feeling" to tithe when there is no requirement, he presumes them unregenerate. Wow! I'd rather be under the Old Covenant than that type of arbitrary thinking.

Where I disagreed with the question is that Scripture teaches a tithe of one's increase (Deut 14:22), not income - whatever the latter actually is, I'm not sure. I suppose the concept is derived from modern taxation ideas where it is conceived that wages from one's labor is 100% profit, but if you had a business you'd never argue that all one's revenue is 100% increase. I don't agree that wages are necessarily increase in the Biblical model, and I also don't agree with the concept that tithing is merely monetary in nature. If it is, or one wants to convert their tithe to monetary giving, then it is not 10% but 12% according to Lev 27:31. In the Biblical model if you had 16 calves, you gave the tenth as you numbered them, not 1.6 calves. If he converted it to money, then he had to add 1/5 or 2%. Does that mean if you make $ 1000 you owe $ 120? I'm not so sure.

Then, of course, there are more than one tithe, but three tithes. One of them was based upon giving as one was able, in Deut 16:17, and the principle seems to be carried forward in the New - but to carry that out and argue that the Lord's Tithe has been negated entirely cannot be sustained. The tithe is only called a free will offering when it exceeds the prescribed amount. Another aspect is that the tithe went to the Levites, but the priests only got 1/10th of the tithe for the maintainence of worship, I have a real problem with the idea that the whole tithe belongs to the local Church so it can build basketball gymnasiums and the like, as they do today.

The tithe should provide schools, hospitals, charity to orphans and widows and much more - but it certainly seems when the Church gets its hands on money then delusions of grandeur become normative and suddenly big mega-churches with laser light shows and entertainment facilities &c spring up around the country. Restrict that to 1/10th of the tithe, then all of a sudden there isn't enough funding for all of these programs - then the Church has to spend its time directing 9/10ths of the tithe to accomplish the purposes for which God required it, not merely worship and maintaining pastor incomes and real estate, or even missionaries.

I think the reality is today that most Churches really don't have much of a diaconate - we've turned the majority of these responsibilities over to the State. In turn there is no accountability and we end up with massive taxation, unrestrained fraud, and complete wasting of capital by the creation of a parasitic State.

Well, anyway, that is some of my thinking on this.


----------



## William Price (Nov 19, 2009)

To state that a believer MUST tithe is unscriptural, and here are some reasons why.

1. The tithe under the Old Testament was never money. It was always agricultural.
2. Not everyone tithed. Only those who had land and were cultivating crops tithed.
3. When the travel to the Temple was too far, the tithe was converted to money. Then, at Jerusalem, the money was used to buy whatsoever a person desired, and it ate and shared with the Levites.
4. No mention of Gentiles ever paying tithes under the New Covenant.
5. The tithe is contrary to 2Corinthians 9:6-7.

The modern tithe doctrine is in fact a product of Roman Catholicism, and has no part of the true Church of the Living God.


----------



## carlgobelman (Nov 19, 2009)

Damon Rambo said:


> I have no problem with an individual saying " I have made 1000 dollars this month, and I want to give 100"
> 
> I do have a problem, when preachers go farther than the Bible, farther than Paul himself, and tell people "You should be giving a 'tithe' (tenth) of your income, minimum." This is nowhere stated in the New Testament, and is actually refuted, since people are simply told to give what they want.
> 
> Rather than trying to place the requirements of the law on their flock, Pastors should preach the whole counsel of God, practice church discipline etc. That way, the local Church will be filled with primarily sheep, who will "want" to give more. Then there will be no need to wring money out of goats.



I think there is good wisdom here. If you preach tithing, then you will probably get tithers; however, if you preach the gospel, you will get people who want to give from their hearts.


----------



## Romans922 (Nov 19, 2009)

I would hope Rambo and some others here who are disagreeing about preaching on tithing would read this: http://www.puritanboard.com/f15/poll-christian-required-give-least-10-income-55585/#post718778


----------



## JBaldwin (Nov 19, 2009)

Under the New Covenant, everything belongs to God (actually, I think it always did), if a person is trying to determine how much to give, giving a tenth is a good guideline. What a person gives to the church is a matter of conscience. However, a person should support his local church in some way, either through time or finances. How much he gives is between him and the Lord.


----------



## kceaster (Nov 19, 2009)

Perhaps a good principle is that we are more Abel than Cain...

Giving 10% of gross income regularly is never a fulfillment of the law. I think for some, it is a slam dunk based upon their own circumstances. Some people find it easy. And when people tell me that they tithe, it makes me cringe because I hope that they do not consider that they have been obedient to God's command just because they gave. Even if someone gave 10% of every dime they've ever gotten (including their milk money) they have not obeyed the law perfectly.

That doesn't mean that the tithe should not be paid. But what it does mean gets to the heart of what Jesus said. Don't consider your tithe to be the end of the law. Do justly, love mercy, and walk humbly, because in the end you are an unprofitable servant.

So, it is better to be Abel with a heart towards God and give what He enables you to give. May God never look at us like Cain!

In Christ,

KC


----------



## Damon Rambo (Nov 19, 2009)

Romans922 said:


> > Preach that a "heart should WANT to give", rather than "We are required TO give."
> 
> 
> Why? Why should a heart want to give? The only reason would be because it is a righteous thing to do, a godly thing to do, a holy thing to do? Otherwise, you yourself wouldn't have said a heart should want to give. But if that is the case, we are required to give. Because we are required to be holy, righteous, godly. In which case we should preach that all are required to give, and that our hearts should want to give.



Not so. Just because something is good and righteous, does not mean it is required. You can desire to go on a mission trip to Africa: that is a good and righteous thing, yet that does not mean that all Christians have to go to Africa.


Same thing here: You can desire to give 100 dollars to your local church: that does not mean that all Christians have to give 100 dollars.



> It seems like you do not like 'duty', but you like the heart. Commendable but not entirely right. God commands us to love Him. We should love him (duty), but we should love Him with our hearts. Most definitely he wants our hearts, that's why He says He loves a cheerful giver. BUT that very statement declares that He wants a giver. There is a requirement, a duty, and it should be accompanied by the heart.
> 
> Like what I said before you are making a distinguishing the two, when they should be both/and. DUTY and HEART.



Not so. You are getting the order of things all mixed up and turned around. I love God, and want to participate in sharing the Gospel: therefore, I give money to the Church (not to mention other things). 

Giving money is not a requirement. You could not give a single penny, but serve the church through your actions (perhaps you are a carpenter, and you utilize your time and effort to fix things in the church, repair the homes of poor people, etc.), and you would be being fully obedient to the word of God, since NOWHERE are we "required" to give.




> What I am saying is this: it is impossible to say that a changed heart will want to give, and yet giving is not a requirement. If a regenerated heart should want to give, than it is a requirement!



No, it is not, as I have clearly shown above. You can want something righteous, without it being a requirement. 

BTW, Your reasoning is the same kind of reasoning that got the Pharisees and scribes in trouble. One instance went something like this:

Scribe #1 : We are forbidden to work on the Sabbath. That includes making mortar. So write down that making mortar on the sabbath is breaking the law.

Scribe #2 : O.k. I agree. Now, since making mortar on the Sabbath is breaking the law, what about spitting on the ground. Aren't we making mortar that way?

Scribe #1: You're right! O.k., then in order to not break the Sabbath, you must spit on rocks, so you don't make mortar.

This kind of reasoning ALWAYS leads to trouble. Scripture, nowhere, requires the Christian to give money. It simply says give what you want. So if you make it a requirement, you are adding to scripture.


----------



## Damon Rambo (Nov 19, 2009)

Joshua said:


> Damon Rambo said:
> 
> 
> > Scripture, nowhere, requires the Christian to give money. It simply says give what you want.
> ...



On their desire to give: not necessarily money.

Please note: "Required" means:

re·quired (r-kwrd)
adj.
1. Needed; essential: missing several required parts.
2. Obligatory: required reading.

If it is POSSIBLE to be a Christian, and NOT give money, then it is NOT a requirement. Do we "have to" do it? No. Therefore, it is not required.


----------



## Romans922 (Nov 19, 2009)

Damon Rambo said:


> Joshua said:
> 
> 
> > Damon Rambo said:
> ...



Why would they have a desire to give?


----------



## jwithnell (Nov 19, 2009)

Tithing and the Sabbath have some similarities: both recognize the faith that God will provide for all our needs: the Sabbath, because God provides what we need for 7 days in 6 days worth of work, and the tithe (plus offering) because God provides enough both for His church and for our day-to-day needs.

I am rather surprised, both by the poll and by some of the responses. Yes, all that we do should flow from a grateful, gospel-changed heart. But that doesn't give us a bye just because our heart isn't in it. I may not _feel[/I very respectful to my husband sometimes (sorry Brian!), but that doesn't absolve me of the requirement to show him respect. Also, I've only encountered the idea of the tithe somehow going away amongst dispensationalists._


----------



## Damon Rambo (Nov 19, 2009)

Romans922 said:


> Damon Rambo said:
> 
> 
> > Joshua said:
> ...



Cause they love God?

Why do I buy my wife flowers? Because I have to? No, if I have to, it loses the meaning for which it is meant. The New Testament idea of giving, rather than equating to the "tithe", would better be compared to the "free will offering." The free will offering was not required; it was a form of showing love, appreciation, etc.


----------



## Damon Rambo (Nov 19, 2009)

Joshua said:


> Damon Rambo said:
> 
> 
> > Why do I buy my wife flowers? Because I have to?
> ...



I did not say that. I said didn't WANT to give. Their is a big difference.

For instance, say there is a "little old lady" on a fixed income of 1200 dollars a month. Her bills, counting food, use all of that up. So she has no money to give, but does serve God by teaching Sunday school, and helping with the day care.

Another man is a member of a church. The church is pulling in lots of money. It has a large surplus. But he notices things around the church that need doing: there is a light switch that is broken, a wheelchair rail that needs repaired, and there is some poison ivy at the playground that needs to be rooted up. Rather than putting money in the plate, he decides he will come to the church the next couple of Saturdays, and take care of these problems.

Another man, wants to support a particular missionary. His church Vetoes the idea, because they are saving up for a new church building. The man decides that rather than giving the church the money, he will redirect it to the African missionary.

All of these ways are "giving" without "tithing", and in NONE of the examples above, are they being disobedient, or not doing something that is "required."

However, another example would be ...


A man makes 200k a year. He has a large house, several cars, and a surplus of money. When the plate comes around at his church, he thinks to himself "That's my money: I earned it. Why should I give any up?"

That man, while not breaking any "tithing" commandment (since no such commandment has been given), has broken the 1st and greatest commandment, to "love the Lord your God" with all your heart, mind and soul.


----------



## Scottish Lass (Nov 19, 2009)

Damon Rambo said:


> Another man is a member of a church. The church is pulling in lots of money. It has a large surplus. But he notices things around the church that need doing: there is a light switch that is broken, a wheelchair rail that needs repaired, and there is some poison ivy at the playground that needs to be rooted up. Rather than putting money in the plate, he decides he will come to the church the next couple of Saturdays, and take care of these problems.
> 
> Another man, wants to support a particular missionary. His church Vetoes the idea, because they are saving up for a new church building. The man decides that rather than giving the church the money, he will redirect it to the African missionary.
> 
> All of these ways are "giving" without "tithing", and in NONE of the examples above, are they being disobedient, or not doing something that is "required."



I would argue that these are better examples of offerings rather than tithes.


----------



## Romans922 (Nov 19, 2009)

Damon Rambo said:


> Joshua said:
> 
> 
> > Damon Rambo said:
> ...



There is your problem. Giving to you is backwards. God wants your first fruits, you are looking at it as whatever you have left over. She has plenty to give BEFORE bills, food, etc.


----------



## Damon Rambo (Nov 19, 2009)

Romans922 said:


> Damon Rambo said:
> 
> 
> > Joshua said:
> ...



That's funny. Can't find anywhere in the Bible where it talks about giving God MONEY before paying the people you owe. I would call that "Theft". Your not really giving God anything: the light company, mortgage company, etc., did.

You cannot apply the Old Testament TITHE to the New Testament OFFERING.


----------



## ericfromcowtown (Nov 19, 2009)

I voted "unsure," but we use 10% as a guideline. If left up to me, it would be less then 10%, and I am glad that scripture has provided us with the tithe as a guideline if not as a requirement.


----------



## Damon Rambo (Nov 19, 2009)

Scottish Lass said:


> I would argue that these are better examples of offerings rather than tithes.



Exactly. Tithes do not apply to Christians. We give offerings.


----------



## Scottish Lass (Nov 19, 2009)

Damon Rambo said:


> Scottish Lass said:
> 
> 
> > I would argue that these are better examples of offerings rather than tithes.
> ...



None of your examples pay the light bill, either. If everyone adopted your examples, how would the church function?


----------



## Damon Rambo (Nov 19, 2009)

Scottish Lass said:


> None of your examples pay the light bill, either. If everyone adopted your examples, how would the church function?



They wouldn't. God is sovereign, and will put it into peoples hearts to give, in the way that He wants them to give. Everyone has different gifts and positions, which God assigns.

Tell me, did Peter preach a sermon on "tithing" in Acts 1?

Act 2:45 And they were selling their possessions and belongings and distributing the proceeds to all, as any had need.


----------



## Romans922 (Nov 19, 2009)

Well, God is sovereign, we shouldn't use contraception (oh, that's another thread...)


----------



## Damon Rambo (Nov 19, 2009)

romans922 said:


> well, god is sovereign, we shouldn't use contraception (oh, that's another thread...)



lol.


----------



## Michael (Nov 19, 2009)

Simple question: Does anyone in the New Covenant feel that they have a sense of favor with God by tithing their income?

Please answer yes or no.

Lest anyone feels I am leading them on, I will share my own thoughts. I personally believe tithing was a type and shadow of a far greater reality. I believe Christ wants much much more than our first 10%. And by this I mean that the scope is far greater than money (not that it doesn't include money). I think if anyone feels that they find favor with God by giving a simple 10% of firstfruits, they would seem to be clinging to the type and shadow. 

Example:

A person lives with abundant income. The practice of 10% is no problem whatsoever. In all reality, they could give much more but choose not to. 

Ok, I am going to presume that many will pause here and some may perhaps respond that tithing is a _minimum_. God indeed knows their heart and they should be able to give more but for some reason they do not.

Keep in mind we are dealing with the New Covenant.

So then does it begin with money and end with the heart? Does God in effect say give me 10% to qualify for your heart to be measured?

I think not.

2Cor 9:6-7


----------



## Michael (Nov 19, 2009)

Joshua said:


> Yes or no. There ya go, Friend.


Finally someone who gives a straight answer!


----------



## Christusregnat (Nov 19, 2009)

Damon Rambo said:


> Because I have to? No, if I have to, it loses the meaning for which it is meant.



Damon,

This sounds like an antinomian view of love. Do you believe that obeying the 10 commandments of God is not a requirement? Or were you just referring to the command to tithe?

Cheers,


----------



## Damon Rambo (Nov 19, 2009)

Christusregnat said:


> Damon Rambo said:
> 
> 
> > Because I have to? No, if I have to, it loses the meaning for which it is meant.
> ...



"Antinomian" would mean that I am condoning "running naked in the streets." Obviously I am not.

Could you please point out somewhere in the Bible where we are COMMANDED to give 10 percent of our _money_?


----------



## Christusregnat (Nov 19, 2009)

Damon Rambo said:


> Christusregnat said:
> 
> 
> > Damon Rambo said:
> ...



Damon,

Before I answer your question, can you tell me whether Christians are required to obey the 10 Commandments?

Cheers,

Adam


----------



## Damon Rambo (Nov 19, 2009)

Christusregnat said:


> Damon Rambo said:
> 
> 
> > Christusregnat said:
> ...



Define "required."

"Required" means something that is intrinsic, without which that certain thing ceases to be that thing.

In other words, to say that the 10 commandments are "required" of a Christian, would mean that if the Christian lies, they would cease being a Christian. Since I believe in Perseverance of the Saints, and salvation by Grace through faith apart from works, I have no choice but to say "no." 

However, if you wish to reword your statement, with a word besides "required," then perhaps I can better answer your question.


----------



## Christusregnat (Nov 19, 2009)

Damon Rambo said:


> However, if you wish to reword your statement, with a word besides "required," then perhaps I can better answer your question.



You already defined "required" yourself:



Damon Rambo said:


> Please note: "Required" means:
> 
> re·quired (r-kwrd)
> adj.
> ...


 (emphasis mine)


Do you believe that obeying the 10 Commandments is required of Christians? I did not say "required to remain justified" or "to become a Christian". Does God require Christians to obey the 10 Commandments?

Cheers,

Adam


----------



## Damon Rambo (Nov 19, 2009)

Christusregnat said:


> Damon Rambo said:
> 
> 
> > However, if you wish to reword your statement, with a word besides "required," then perhaps I can better answer your question.
> ...



Again, notice the definition above. "Obligatory" means something necessary. Notice the quote "required reading". If something is required reading in a course, and you do not do it, you fail the course.

If a "required part" is missing out of an engine (such as a crankshaft and pistons) it ceases to be an engine.

So, no, the Ten Commandments are not required to be saved. A Christian can lie, and they will still be a Christian (saved by Grace). 
If you would like to choose a different word....


----------



## Christusregnat (Nov 19, 2009)

Damon Rambo said:


> So, no, the Ten Commandments are not required to be saved. A Christian can lie, and they will still be a Christian (saved by Grace).
> If you would like to choose a different word....



So you believe that you are not obliged to keep the 10 Commandments. Are you bound to keep the 10 Commandments?

By the way, keeping God's commandments is the way God has appointed us to salvation.

Cheers,

Adam


----------



## Michael (Nov 19, 2009)

Damon Rambo said:


> So, no, the Ten Commandments are not required to be saved.


I would argue that they are indeed required for salvation, as is the perfection that Joshua asked about. However, the difference for the Christian is that Jesus kept the commandments perfectly and we are clothed in his righteousness.


----------



## Damon Rambo (Nov 19, 2009)

Christusregnat said:


> Damon Rambo said:
> 
> 
> > So, no, the Ten Commandments are not required to be saved. A Christian can lie, and they will still be a Christian (saved by Grace).
> ...



I do not believe a Christian loses their salvation if they lie, no.



> By the way, keeping God's commandments is the way God has appointed us to salvation.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Adam



If you are speaking of positional justification, I would agree with you. However, if you are saying by this that God saves us by making us literally, physically, and perfectly keep the ten commandments, then "the truth is not in you" : for scripture is clear that Christians still sin.

-----Added 11/19/2009 at 03:42:59 EST-----



Michael Turner said:


> Damon Rambo said:
> 
> 
> > So, no, the Ten Commandments are not required to be saved.
> ...



That is why I stated, that I agree in the sense of "positional Justification."


----------



## Prufrock (Nov 19, 2009)

Damon Rambo said:


> Christusregnat said:
> 
> 
> > Damon Rambo said:
> ...



*All right, let's back this one up a bit. Required or "obligatory" is exactly how our confession describes obedience to the law for Christians:



V. The moral law doth forever bind all, as well justified persons as others, to the obedience thereof; and that not only in regard of the matter contained in it, but also in respect of the authority of God the Creator who gave it. Neither doth Christ in the gospel any way dissolve, but much strengthen, this obligation.

Click to expand...

While we are not justified by our obedience, nor do we lose our salvation for our sins, we are indeed required to obey God's laws. The very covenant of Grace tells us, "Walk before me and be thou perfect [or upright, sincere]." We are to "strive after holiness, without which no man shall see the LORD."*


----------



## Christusregnat (Nov 19, 2009)

Damon Rambo said:


> Christusregnat said:
> 
> 
> > So you believe that you are not obliged to keep the 10 Commandments. Are you bound to keep the 10 Commandments?
> ...



_Male audis_. Being bound to keep the 10 Commandments is what your confession (LBCF 1689) teaches. _Tolle lege_.





Damon Rambo said:


> However, if you are saying by this that God saves us by making us literally, physically, and perfectly keep the ten commandments, then "the truth is not in you" : for scripture is clear that Christians still sin.



I am saying that sancification is a process by which we are more and more enable to put to death the deeds of the body, and live to righteousness, keeping God's law. This is part of our salvation.

Cheers,

Adam


----------



## Mushroom (Nov 19, 2009)

Keeping of the whole law is required to be saved. We, being incapable of keeping said law, have our salvation through an alien righteousness, that of Christ's keeping of the whole law for us and in our place, just as He took upon Himself the required punishment for our sin, for us and in our place.

The only use of the term 'firstfruits' in the NT is in reference to the saints, which is indicative of the fact that not any mere portion of who we are, what we possess, and by what measure we prosper, is the Lord's, but every whit. He that sows sparingly shall reap sparingly, and God loves a cheerful giver. Unless your righteousness exceeds that of the Pharisees, you shall in no case enter into the kingdom of Heaven. Praise God that He provided for us that righteousness.

Remember what the Lord said to some meticulous tithers:


> Mat 23:23 "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness. These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others.
> Mat 23:24 You blind guides, straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel!


Leaving aside the issue of whether NT Israel (the Church) is under compulsion to tithe, it makes sense that by the preaching of those neglected things, which is the Gospel of Christ, the first would not be left undone by God's people, and far beyond. 10% is paltry.

Which of you would not rejoice at being able to give more than you do? Sometimes you folks freak me out. When I write that check, I'm always torn between the joy over being able to give and the sorrow over it not being more. I always figured we all went through that.

I've lived in a Christian commune where all I earned went to the Church, and to be honest, I LIKED that better. Guess I'm just weird, but this whole mammon thing has never been my cup of tea.


----------



## JML (Nov 19, 2009)

Christusregnat said:


> _Male audis_. Being bound to keep the 10 Commandments is what your confession (LBCF 1689) teaches. _Tolle lege_.




It is also in the Particular Baptist Benjamin Keach's catechism.

Q. 50. What does the preface to the Ten Commandments teach us?

A. The preface to the Ten Commandments teaches us, that because God is the Lord, and our God and Redeemer, therefore we are *bound* to keep all His commandments.

(Deut 11:1)


----------



## Sgt Grit (Nov 19, 2009)

We should give generously, liberally and even sacrificially, but I don’t believe tithing is for the Church. However, with so many of our brothers and sisters on hard times because of the poor economy we should be giving to those in need, since there is absolutely no ambiguity in the NT or OT about that.


----------



## Bern (Nov 19, 2009)

What about folks who are always in the red on their bank account? Should they still give, since technically it is not their money to give.. its borrowed money.


----------



## jwithnell (Nov 20, 2009)

Like the Sabbath, tithing helps an overall order in your life: you must plan your finances (and time) well enough to set aside tithes and offerings for God. Folks, God doesn't _need_ our measly money or goods. He owns everything! Our tithe is an acknowledgment of that! He blesses us through the order this brings to our lives.


----------



## Turtle (Nov 20, 2009)

*Cain and Abel both gave but..*

_By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous. _ Heb 11:4


----------



## WarrenInSC (Nov 20, 2009)

Brad said:


> ChariotsofFire said:
> 
> 
> > At the very least, can we say that 10% is a good example from Scripture to follow?
> ...



The widow's mite was probably a lot higher than 10% for her


----------



## Andres (Nov 20, 2009)

Bern said:


> What about folks who are always in the red on their bank account? Should they still give, since technically it is not their money to give.. its borrowed money.



The person who always has red in their bank account has other issues besides giving to their church. I fully believe that God calls us to be faithful and good stewards over the things He has entrusted to us, including finances. To be always in the red would be an example of poor stewardship and self-discipline would certainly be in order.


----------



## historyb (Nov 20, 2009)

Does Grace blot out God's Law? Because of Christ has God changed? Should we tithe? Is it part of God's Law? Questions are all I have, answers not so much


----------



## Skyler (Nov 20, 2009)

My impression is that it's looked favorably upon, but I'm not aware of a command to give 10%. It's more along the lines of a freewill offering, if I'm not mistaken.


----------



## Peairtach (Nov 20, 2009)

I think if we are not to learn from tithing, we are left in confusion about normal, regular giving to Christ's cause and kingdom.

The example of our father in the faith, Abraham, is pointedly repeated in the Book of Hebrews, which is a New Testament document.

Many of the arguments against tithing could be employed against the Confessional view of the Sabbath, with equal lack of cogency. 

Pitting law against grace in relation to the Sabbath or tithing is a false dichotomy.

I agree that if the church and state were organised properly, a portion of the tithe would be used by the church in respect of health, welfare and education. 

The amount of money given to health, welfare and education, in taxes/insurance could be deducted from the tithe.

Tithing is just _basic_ giving to the church. There are also offerings on top of that. Some weeks you could give your whole week's salary _if you feel filled with love to God_, like the Widow.

You also have alms i.e. giving to the poor, chaities, the poor loan at 0% interest; e.g. if you see someone rattling a box, or a charity takes your interest, you cannot close your fist _just because_ you tithe.

Obviously you have to care for yourself and your family in a reasonable manner first.

The evidence that there were multiple tithes under Moses seems inconclusive. If there were, there are no doubt lessons that can be learned, but different ones from those learned from Abraham who preceded the Law of Moses, and established the principle of the tithe for all time. Remember that many things were added at the time of Moses for the peculiar needs of an underage church.


----------



## Knight (Nov 21, 2009)

William Price said:


> To state that a believer MUST tithe is unscriptural, and here are some reasons why.
> 
> 1. The tithe under the Old Testament was never money. It was always agricultural.
> 2. Not everyone tithed. Only those who had land and were cultivating crops tithed.
> ...



I've seen this posted elsewhere and have yet to see a refutation.


----------



## Michael (Jan 24, 2010)

Hey Josh,

Can you please unpack that message a little for those who don't have audio?

I too would like to see someone directly address William Price's above post. That and also the issue of the believer who is buried in debt, since income in that situation is not necessarily theirs to give.


----------



## Scott1 (Jan 24, 2010)

Almost every post here is right and has insight in its context.

The "tithe" was part of the civil law given Israel which expired with the nation and is not binding on us today except that equitable principles related to it do apply to us.



> Westminster Confession of Faith
> 
> Chapter XIX
> Of the Law of God
> ...



Even the Old Testament civil law, given in places like Leviticus was very specific as to what was to be tithed. Though "tithe" means "tenth" there were several kinds of tithes and the overall amount for the Israelite was much more than ten percent (because there were several tithes).

(E.g.)


> Leviticus 27:31
> 
> 31And if a man will at all redeem ought of his tithes, he shall add thereto the fifth part thereof.





> Leviticus 27:32
> 
> 32And concerning the tithe of the herd, or of the flock, even of whatsoever passeth under the rod, the tenth shall be holy unto the LORD.



But the principle of tithing as a testimony of God's ownership of everything we possess continues and 10% could only possibly be looked at as a beginning.

Accordingly, without clearer statement of the poll question assumptions, the choices are not acceptable so can't vote on this one.


----------



## etexas (Jan 25, 2010)

jpfrench81 said:


> Given the debate here: http://www.puritanboard.com/f117/tithing-55525/, I figured it would be useful to do a more formal poll. Is the Christian MORALLY OBLIGATED to give AT LEAST 10% of his income to the local church? In other words, is a Christian if he doesn't give 10% or more of his income.


 A Christian is a Christian through the Finished Work of Jesus Christ Our Blessed Lord. Period End Of Story. That is GRACE. You cannot "add" merit to Grace. If you wish and can give 10,15,20% this is well, keep it between you and the LORD. Pax.


----------

