crhoades
Puritan Board Graduate
Not endorsing 100% but if you want to undertake a serious study of the tithe, I'd include Gary North's Tithing and the Church in the reading list.
Not tithing is unlawful
- Thread starter OPC'n
- Start date
- Status
Glenn Ferrell
Puritan Board Junior
Gary North would advocate the tithe as a requirement and something for which a church might discipline a member. Both of these assumptions are wrong.
crhoades
Puritan Board Graduate
Those would be his conclusions not his assumptions. Reason I posted the link is if someone wants to see the reasoning of how someone gets to his conclusions, it would be a fair representation. He argues biblically. Now he may get his exegesis and his conclusions wrong but he is trying to honor the whole of Scripture in the process. Not telling anyone to swallow him hook line and sinker but also don't think it should be dismissed out of hand either. (not saying you're doing any of this.)
Glenn Ferrell
Puritan Board Junior
God’s law is perfect and must be rightly interpreted and applied. One cannot apply the OT law of tithing except on agricultural produce of the promised land given to Levites. So, how can one speak of tithing in the OT meaning of the term.
The NT advocates generous, cheerful and proportional giving for the support of the ministry, spread of the gospel, and relief of the destitute. This may well involve giving a tenth part or more of your income (before or after taxes), which is a form of “tithing,” but is not Old Testament tithing. If one want to speak of “biblical tithing” they must specify what they mean.
I have been in difficult straights financially, given ten percent or more of my income, and found God supplied my needs in ways I could not anticipate in his own time. We should give trusting in God’s provision. However, to go into debt for necessities of life in order to give ten percent is not giving your own substance but that of your debtors.
Getting out and staying out of debt is important to supporting God’s work and enabling oneself to be generous. If one has the means and doesn’t give at least ten percent, he should examine his priorities.
-----Added 1/13/2009 at 07:41:46 EST-----
Using his exegesis and arguments, why don't you respond to mine above?
Interesting the Puritans, who were serious about God’s word, and didn’t compromise on issues like the Sabbath and worship, never found a requirement for tithing in scripture.
crhoades
Puritan Board Graduate
Don't have the time to get into discussions. Just tossing a resource out there on the topic. As far as the Puritans go, I'm guessing you wouldn't side with them on the State funding the church's ministry. I'm all for their views on the Sabbath and worship. Not studied enough on the tithing issue to be dogmatic.
Glenn Ferrell
Puritan Board Junior
I’d side with them on the Establishment Principle, in agreement with the original text of WCF XXIII:3. Though voluntary support of the church seems most effective; I find no biblical prohibition of a civil magistrate, as a nursing father concerned with the spiritual welfare of his children, insuring there is a faithful church in a given community, even to the extent of his providing funds for such, as David and Solomon did.
crhoades
Puritan Board Graduate
I'm much more of an original XXIII guy myself.
Glenn Ferrell
Puritan Board Junior
When received into my current presbytery, I took exception to the 1789 amended version of XXIII:3 and affirmed the original instead.
Thanks for your posts, brother.
Could you please elaborate on the above bolded statement? When you say the Puritans "never found a requirement for tithing in scripture" do you mean to say ALL the Puritans, many of them, most of them, or many of the most notable of them--or some variant?
I know of some Puritans who did not see the OT tithe carry over to the NT but I am looking for a more exhaustive list of sorts (am I correct to understand they, in large part, took Paul's instructions in 1Cor. as a model?).
Excellent! Were any surprised?
Glenn Ferrell
Puritan Board Junior
I think first of Owen; but wouldn't claim to be an authority on all Puritans. I’m sorry if I overstated my case. But, an obligation to tithe did not end up in any of the Reformed confessions.
Regarding Establishment and my exception declared to presbytery: There were a couple questions, but nothing major. I think there was a concern to find if I was a Steelite. I’m not.
One presbyter asked, “If a member of your congregation was on a governmental board tasked with approving the building of a Mormon chapel, how would you advise him?"
I replied, “I assume such a person in civil authority took an oath to uphold the US Constitution and the Constitution and laws of the state of Idaho. I’d tell him he needed to obey his oath; and if he couldn’t do so, resign.”
Another presbyter advised me to read Warfield on the matter.
They couldn’t very well call me a "heretic" as we have fraternal relations with denominations which also hold the original form of the confession- RPCNA, RPCI, FcoS, FcoS-C. And, who could call the Westminster Assembly heretical? I know at least two other OP ministers, both Scots, who have taken the same exception.
kceaster
Puritan Board Junior
Lev 27:30-33
Of the herds and flocks, it was commanded that every tenth animal that passed under the herdsman's staff was holy to the LORD. If that principal is in the tithe, could we not assume that animals were accounted for more than once? When the yearly tithe time rolled around, wouldn't they count the same animals again, plus the new ones?
If so, does that not imply that the current understanding of 10% of gross income is not far enough? Wouldn't that mean, principially, that 10% of wealth is holy to the LORD. Wouldn't that mean that the tithe, applied to monetary income and taken literally, would not just be gross income, but gross wealth. Equity in houses, lands, possessions, stocks, ownership of companies, etc?
I get a bit nervous when I hear people say that they tithe according to the scriptures. Because I don't believe anyone does given what has already been said in this thread, especially if the tithe is really a yearly 10% of wealth. 10% of wealth is what Jacob vowed before the LORD. I don't think that most people view the tithe that way, who say they tithe.
But then, some people give more than a tithe of their wealth, so maybe there are those who do.
Most perplexing.
In Christ,
KC
Of the herds and flocks, it was commanded that every tenth animal that passed under the herdsman's staff was holy to the LORD. If that principal is in the tithe, could we not assume that animals were accounted for more than once? When the yearly tithe time rolled around, wouldn't they count the same animals again, plus the new ones?
If so, does that not imply that the current understanding of 10% of gross income is not far enough? Wouldn't that mean, principially, that 10% of wealth is holy to the LORD. Wouldn't that mean that the tithe, applied to monetary income and taken literally, would not just be gross income, but gross wealth. Equity in houses, lands, possessions, stocks, ownership of companies, etc?
I get a bit nervous when I hear people say that they tithe according to the scriptures. Because I don't believe anyone does given what has already been said in this thread, especially if the tithe is really a yearly 10% of wealth. 10% of wealth is what Jacob vowed before the LORD. I don't think that most people view the tithe that way, who say they tithe.
But then, some people give more than a tithe of their wealth, so maybe there are those who do.
Most perplexing.
In Christ,
KC
- Status
