# Historical Confessions/Catechisms and Tithing



## Michael (Nov 19, 2009)

There has been a lot of discussion on the board about tithing recently. Can someone please illuminate as to why tithing had not been dealt with directly in our confessions/catechisms?


----------



## Christusregnat (Nov 19, 2009)

Michael Turner said:


> There has been a lot of discussion on the board about tithing recently. Can someone please illuminate as to why tithing had not been dealt with directly in our confessions/catechisms?



It was universally recognized within Christendom and required by the strong arm of the civil magistrate.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Nov 19, 2009)

Reason 1) In those days, people were taxed by the State (generally) for the maintenance and support of the State church (even in the Protestant regions). So the Takings were in accord with the Askings of the Church.

Reason 2) It is probable that this issue is not one where the church is WISE to declare a common Confessional commitment. There is simply not enough agreement about the extent or limits of what the church may say explicitly. We are still bound by conscience to what the Bible teaches (including competent maintenance of religion and pure worship by some means), but to confess a duty to "tithe", or "offer" some specific thing--the church appears unwilling to promulgate a stance, "This is what we-together believe the Bible teaches."

Of course, some churches HAVE and DO confess this very thing.


----------



## carlgobelman (Nov 19, 2009)

Michael Turner said:


> There has been a lot of discussion on the board about tithing recently. Can someone please illuminate as to why tithing had not been dealt with directly in our confessions/catechisms?



That's an interesting question. My first reaction is to say that the authors of the confessions probably didn't see the issue of tithing as an issue of prime importance.

With that said, I did find this part of the WCF (19.6) that might apply:



> Although true believers be not under the law, as a covenant of works, to be thereby justified, or condemned;[11] *yet is it of great use to them, as well as to others; in that, as a rule of life informing them of the will of God, and their duty, it directs and binds them to walk accordingly*;[12] discovering also the sinful pollutions of their nature, hearts and lives;[13] so as, examining themselves thereby, they may come to further conviction of, humiliation for, and hatred against sin,[14] together with a clearer sight of the need they have of Christ, and the perfection of His obedience.[15] It is likewise of use to the regenerate, to restrain their corruptions, in that it forbids sin:[16] and the threatenings of it serve to show what even their sins deserve; and what afflictions, in this life, they may expect for them, although freed from the curse thereof threatened in the law.[17] The promises of it, in like manner, show them God's approbation of obedience,and what blessings they may expect upon the performance thereof:[18] although not as due to them by the law as a covenant of works.[19] So as, a man's doing good, and refraining from evil, because the law encourages to the one and deters from the other, is no evidence of his being under the law: and not under grace.



Note the bold portion. While the tithe isn't binding to us as under the new covenant, it still may have a use as a guide to righteous living. The WCF only sees the moral aspect of the law as still binding on Christians and the tithe is apparently not part of the moral aspect of the law.

That's the best I can come up with. It is interesting that those who are arguing so vociferously for the tithe are not able to support it confessionally (at least from the WCF, I'm not familiar with the BC).


----------



## Christusregnat (Nov 19, 2009)

carlgobelman said:


> That's the best I can come up with. It is interesting that those who are arguing so vociferously for the tithe are not able to support it confessionally (at least from the WCF, I'm not familiar with the BC).



Carl,

The Divines refer to robbing God by not tithing as sacrilege:



> Q. 109. What are the sins forbidden in the second commandment?
> 
> A. The sins forbidden in the second commandment are... simony; sacrilege;[***] all neglect, contempt, hindering, and opposing the worship and ordinances which God hath appointed..
> 
> [***] Romans 2:22. Thou that sayest a man should not commit adultery, dost thou commit adultery? thou that abhorrest idols, dost thou commit sacrilege? Malachi 3:8. Will a man rob God? Yet ye have robbed me. But ye say, Wherein have we robbed thee? In tithes and offerings.



So, it is a violation of the 2d Cmd if we do not tithe.

Cheers,

Adam


----------



## MW (Nov 19, 2009)

Michael Turner said:


> There has been a lot of discussion on the board about tithing recently. Can someone please illuminate as to why tithing had not been dealt with directly in our confessions/catechisms?



The Puritans generally rejected the ecclesiastical tithe as ceremonial. Yet they would also generally allow it as a civil ordinance as a part of established religion. See commentaries by William Gouge and John Owen on Hebrews 7 for more information.


----------



## carlgobelman (Nov 19, 2009)

Christusregnat said:


> So, it is a violation of the 2d Cmd if we do not tithe.



Hmmm, interesting. So the person who doesn't give exactly 10% is guilty of sacrilege. One wonders if the reference to sacrilege is to not giving the tithe or the robbing of God (i.e., refusing to give in general cheerfully and from the heart not under compulsion)?

In other words, I'm OK 2nd commandment-wise if I give 10%, even though I may feel as if I'm giving under compulsion (contra 2 Cor. 9:7). I just can't help but thinking that the letter is giving way to the spirit.


----------



## Pergamum (Nov 19, 2009)

Christusregnat said:


> Michael Turner said:
> 
> 
> > There has been a lot of discussion on the board about tithing recently. Can someone please illuminate as to why tithing had not been dealt with directly in our confessions/catechisms?
> ...



Wow, I would love to hear more about this. Thanks for posting this.


----------



## JML (Nov 19, 2009)

carlgobelman said:


> In other words, I'm OK 2nd commandment-wise if I give 10%, even though I may feel as if I'm giving under compulsion (contra 2 Cor. 9:7). I just can't help but thinking that the letter is giving way to the spirit.



2 Corinthians 9:7 had nothing to do with a tithe. It was dealing with the offering to the saints in Jerusalem.


----------



## carlgobelman (Nov 19, 2009)

John Lanier said:


> carlgobelman said:
> 
> 
> > In other words, I'm OK 2nd commandment-wise if I give 10%, even though I may feel as if I'm giving under compulsion (contra 2 Cor. 9:7). I just can't help but thinking that the letter is giving way to the spirit.
> ...



The specifics maybe, but the principle "God loves a cheerful giver" has a wider application, does it not -- i.e., Christian giving and stewardship in general? In fact, the whole passage on the offering in 2 Cor 8-9 provides, in my opinion, principles for NT stewardship and giving.


----------



## MW (Nov 19, 2009)

carlgobelman said:


> I just can't help but thinking that the letter is giving way to the spirit.



There is no "letter" to begin with. The Catechism does not speak about tithing.


----------



## Christusregnat (Nov 19, 2009)

armourbearer said:


> carlgobelman said:
> 
> 
> > I just can't help but thinking that the letter is giving way to the spirit.
> ...




Rev. Winzer,

Do you take the specific sins condemned in the passages cited to be something outside of what the Catechism "speaks about"? I'm not sure I understand this.

Adam


----------



## carlgobelman (Nov 19, 2009)

armourbearer said:


> carlgobelman said:
> 
> 
> > I just can't help but thinking that the letter is giving way to the spirit.
> ...



It seems Adam (Christusregnat) disagrees. Me, I'm just a humble learner in all of this.


----------



## MW (Nov 19, 2009)

Christusregnat said:


> Do you take the specific sins condemned in the passages cited to be something outside of what the Catechism "speaks about"? I'm not sure I understand this.



I have answered this in the appropriate thread.


----------

