The Tithe- All to the Local Church?

Should the complete tithe of our income be designated to the local church?

  • Yes. All 10% must go to the local church.

    Votes: 20 60.6%
  • No. The tithe can be split between the local church and various Christian ministries.

    Votes: 5 15.2%
  • I don't believe the Christian is obligated to tithe today.

    Votes: 8 24.2%

  • Total voters
    33

Brian R.

Puritan Board Freshman
Sorry, I know there are already many posts on tithing. Surprisingly, there seems to be a wide range of views among Reformed folks. I'm curious specifically about the breakdown of the tithe. From my limited reading of Rushdoony it appears he believed the Christian has flexibility (and the obligation) to spread his tithe around between the local church and worthy ministries. I'd be grateful for your input.
 

Scottish Presbyterian

Puritan Board Freshman
By "local church" do you just mean one's own church, regardless of whether you give all to your local congregation or part to central church funds?
 

MChase

Puritan Board Freshman
I don't necessarily believe in 10% being a moral requirement, but that may not be pertinent to this thread (it is a great place to start, but I stop short of saying someone is necessarily sinning if they are not able to). I am inclined make our regular giving within the bounds of our church - congregation, presbytery, etc. in concentric circles as it were. If extra funds are left over after those obligations are fulfilled then that is great!

In my own context, where the majority of the ministers in our presbytery are bivocational, I to try to help more within our bounds since the need is quite large.

I don't think any of this is necessarily a hard requirement, but just as our duties and loyalty ought to be towards those we have the closest contact with I also think that we should strive to give to those causes of Christ closest to home.
 

iainduguid

Puritan Board Junior
The annual tithe in the OT is properly only levied on agricultural produce, as a reflection of the Lord's ownership of the Promised land (Lev. 27:30). Its use is a complex subject but essentially it was used to support the priests and Levites (Num 18:21-24), to have an annual feast in Jerusalem (including alcoholic beverages!) and to provide for the poor and needy (Deut. 14:22-29). Other collections were made to support the costs of the temple building.

It does not bind believers today directly since we are not farming the Promised Land, though there are certainly general equity principles that can legitimately be derived from it (in other words, it is civil law, not moral law). Rather than paying a set amount, Christians are to "excel in the grace of giving" (2 Cor. 8:7), which is the antithesis of tithing: you can't excel in paying a fixed amount.

For more, see my booklet "Should Christians Tithe? Excelling in the Grace of Giving"

The short answer is that if you are excelling in the grace of giving, you won't short-change your local church but will be able to support other worthy causes as well.
 

Scottish Presbyterian

Puritan Board Freshman
Yes, the local church of which you're a member or regular attender.
I should have been more clear. I see 3 classes of recipients for Christian giving:
1. The specific congregation of which I am a member
2. The denomination of which I am a member
3. Other worthy causes

I think core giving should be to 1 and 2, but not in any specific proportion, just as most needed. Giving to 3 should be as and when there is a particular need corresponding with your particular ability, but never to the prejudice of 1 and 2.

There is clearly a duty on Christians to give generously to the cause of Christ. Whether that means at least 10% or not is up for debate. Personally I think it's best to err on the side of at least 10%, provided one is able.

All this to say, I don't really know which of the first 2 options to vote for in the poll, because I'm not sure whether what I describe as "2" above is what you would consider my local church, or other Christian ministries.
 

SolaScriptura

Puritanboard Brimstone
I don’t like your options. For example, even if I might grant that the specific requirement of 10% is no longer in force, the Bible’s teaching that someone who makes his living from the word is entitled to financial renumeration from that ministry implies that those who sit under that ministry have a definite obligation to give sufficiently to enable that man to make said living. Likewise the church’s work (specifically benevolence) implies that the church has sufficient revenue to meet those needs. The New Testament also definitely teaches that it is a requirement that I be generous… including but not limited to being financially generous. And that required spirit of financial generosity is in place even if a 10% requirement is likewise in place (and yes, it is possible to view paying a tithe as mere duty like paying a tax, but we should mortify that kind of mindset).

So judging by the evidence I would suggest that the normative practice should be that one’s primary place of giving is to one’s local church, and as one has means and opportunity to be generous beyond that, then one should… and then we can talk about what percentage or proportion of one’s family income one should give.
 

Brian R.

Puritan Board Freshman
I guess I'm looking for "permission" to slightly reduce my monthly giving to my local church in order to be able to give more to para church ministries. As a man with a modest income and blessed with a large family, there's just no other way I can give more to seminaries, ministries, etc. I feel guilty about contemplating this, even though I'd still be giving at least 10% of my income.
 

Brian R.

Puritan Board Freshman
The annual tithe in the OT is properly only levied on agricultural produce, as a reflection of the Lord's ownership of the Promised land (Lev. 27:30). Its use is a complex subject but essentially it was used to support the priests and Levites (Num 18:21-24), to have an annual feast in Jerusalem (including alcoholic beverages!) and to provide for the poor and needy (Deut. 14:22-29). Other collections were made to support the costs of the temple building.

It does not bind believers today directly since we are not farming the Promised Land, though there are certainly general equity principles that can legitimately be derived from it (in other words, it is civil law, not moral law). Rather than paying a set amount, Christians are to "excel in the grace of giving" (2 Cor. 8:7), which is the antithesis of tithing: you can't excel in paying a fixed amount.

For more, see my booklet "Should Christians Tithe? Excelling in the Grace of Giving"

The short answer is that if you are excelling in the grace of giving, you won't short-change your local church but will be able to support other worthy causes as well.
Thanks for this! I'll check out your booklet.
 

Smeagol

Puritan Board Graduate
Just keep giving the 10% to your church, but split it by designating each .5% to your preferred ministry :stirpot:.

Joking of course, but this is what tends to happen.

To the point: Support your church as generously as you can. Chiefly being generous of heart. Then if you have seasons of extra……no foul in giving to other ministries.

My 2 cents would be to keep your giving the same at your local church. If the Lord blesses you with a season of increase (tax return, property selling, etc.), then use that blessing to give to other ministries you feel lead to support. Support your God given family. Support your local minister. If extra, you have some freedom.

Also consider asking your local session member their thoughts or even the Pastor for guidance.

P.S. I do not believe the OT Tithe is morally binding. However supporting your church generously with money and a giving heart would be still morally binding today.
 
Last edited:

lynnie

Puritan Board Graduate
On a few occasions we asked a pastor how the church finances were doing and would he mind if we gave some tithes for a while to a Romanian Orphan ministry or something of the sort. We gave a lot to Latvian Orphans too. With five kids and one income there just wasn't enough extra to send big wads to very needy missions.

The Pastors always said the church was fine and go ahead and give all we wanted to the ministry on our hearts. One of them said to ask the missionary to come speak if he was back in the USA as it sounded interesting.

I would just ask. If the church is in the red ( real easy with this inflation) I am sure the pastor will be honest.
 

lynnie

Puritan Board Graduate
The annual tithe in the OT is properly only levied on agricultural produce, as a reflection of the Lord's ownership of the Promised land (Lev. 27:30). Its use is a complex subject but essentially it was used to support the priests and Levites (Num 18:21-24), to have an annual feast in Jerusalem (including alcoholic beverages!) and to provide for the poor and needy (Deut. 14:22-29). Other collections were made to support the costs of the temple building.

It does not bind believers today directly since we are not farming the Promised Land, though there are certainly general equity principles that can legitimately be derived from it (in other words, it is civil law, not moral law). Rather than paying a set amount, Christians are to "excel in the grace of giving" (2 Cor. 8:7), which is the antithesis of tithing: you can't excel in paying a fixed amount.

For more, see my booklet "Should Christians Tithe? Excelling in the Grace of Giving"

The short answer is that if you are excelling in the grace of giving, you won't short-change your local church but will be able to support other worthy causes as well.
Do you have a PDF link if I don't have a kindle? Thanks.
 

beloved7

Puritan Board Freshman
All of our tithes go to our local church. If we someday are in a position to give more, we will increase our tithe above the 10% mark while still doing it through our church exclusively. I have confidence in the ministries we support and see no reason to go outside the local visible church that God has placed us in.

What others do is their prerogative, but this is how I view matters.
 

Mr. Great-Heart

Puritan Board Freshman
I am commanded to give slightly over 14% of my time to God (the Lord's Day), giving 10% of my resources (gross income) to my church seems, at minimum, a reasonable starting point.

Being a member of a local church that uses its funds to support our pastors, international missionaries, pastoral training, some local and national non profits, other benevolence, etc. also means I feel no urgency to give my funds to parachurch organizations that do some of the same activities. I do on occasion, but it certainly does not come out of the first 10%. Basically I agree with what beloved7 said, above.
 
Last edited:

Edward

Puritanboard Commissioner
I should have been more clear. I see 3 classes of recipients for Christian giving:
1. The specific congregation of which I am a member
2. The denomination of which I am a member
3. Other worthy causes
I give to the local church. What they want to share with the denomination is up to the elders. After I've given what I think is appropriate to the church I'll give to other causes as I see fit.

And on a poll like this, terms need to be defined. A strict 10%? If so, net or gross? If the giving is enough to trigger a tax deduction, should the giving be grossed up to include the percentage of the tax benefit??

Or is tithe just a shorthand for faithful, regular, cheerful, and generous giving?
 

Smeagol

Puritan Board Graduate
I think I have shared this before. I took the below photo at a church in the Mississippi Delta.

So for all those who still need to give the OT Tithe, I think this Church is still accepting:
ADDD5D4C-8C36-41BD-84AD-3E0D8E63C942.jpeg
 

therussellhome

Puritan Board Freshman
My 2c as wiser gentlemen than I have already posted as to what is Biblical and what is freedom of conscience.

I took the opportunity afforded by moving a couple of years ago to shift the majority of my (beyond tithe) offering to my church's missions committee. I reason that if I am to submit to the leadership of my elders for myself and my family can I not also submit to their leadership for missions? A side effect of entrusting it to my church is a lifted burden of balancing a dozen or more ".5%s" and the frequent guilt of feeling like I'm never doing enough.
 

Edward

Puritanboard Commissioner
designating each .5% to your preferred ministry
That's going to be like taping a brick to a postage return enevelope.

.5% of each $1000.00 is going to be $5.00. After the cost of tracking the accounting, it's probably not really worth their effort. At scale, it might work.
 

chothomas

Puritan Board Freshman
The annual tithe in the OT is properly only levied on agricultural produce, as a reflection of the Lord's ownership of the Promised land (Lev. 27:30). Its use is a complex subject but essentially it was used to support the priests and Levites (Num 18:21-24), to have an annual feast in Jerusalem (including alcoholic beverages!) and to provide for the poor and needy (Deut. 14:22-29). Other collections were made to support the costs of the temple building.

It does not bind believers today directly since we are not farming the Promised Land, though there are certainly general equity principles that can legitimately be derived from it (in other words, it is civil law, not moral law). Rather than paying a set amount, Christians are to "excel in the grace of giving" (2 Cor. 8:7), which is the antithesis of tithing: you can't excel in paying a fixed amount.

For more, see my booklet "Should Christians Tithe? Excelling in the Grace of Giving"

The short answer is that if you are excelling in the grace of giving, you won't short-change your local church but will be able to support other worthy causes as well.
I am curious as to why you expressed in terms "short-change your local church". It sounds like a contradiction to your earlier points. The "short-change" indicates "give less than the correct amount". If you call it "short-change", it presupposes that there had to be a "correct amount".
 

iainduguid

Puritan Board Junior
I am curious as to why you expressed in terms "short-change your local church". It sounds like a contradiction to your earlier points. The "short-change" indicates "give less than the correct amount". If you call it "short-change", it presupposes that there had to be a "correct amount".
I'm not sure that "short change" implies a specific number. I'm not arguing that Christians have no obligation to support their local churches, nor that the OT tithe (and other required offerings) are irrelevant to that obligation. I'm merely saying that the tithe law is civil law, not moral law (as it must be, given that it is instituted at Sinal and tightly tied to the gift of the land). It therefore has general equity applications rather than direct application. Since we are called to "excel in the grace of giving" any failure to do so is in general "short changing" our Christian calling. But I won't quibble if you prefer a different word.
 

chothomas

Puritan Board Freshman
Sorry, I know there are already many posts on tithing. Surprisingly, there seems to be a wide range of views among Reformed folks. I'm curious specifically about the breakdown of the tithe. From my limited reading of Rushdoony it appears he believed the Christian has flexibility (and the obligation) to spread his tithe around between the local church and worthy ministries. I'd be grateful for your input.
Do you believe that Christians are obligated to observe "tithing" as in 10%(personally, I don't)? If so, then shouldn't it go to the Church. If we are following the tithe, then we should inherit other commands included with the tithe. Since the recipients were Levites, then shouldn't it be just the local church with the assumption that local Levites were replaced by the local church? And the offering should be just once a year too.

I am always a bit confused as to why people who believe in "tithing" also do not follow the commands/conditions that are included with the tithing.
 

DavidL

Puritan Board Freshman
I started out giving 10% to the local church. Over the years as the Lord has greatly blessed our family, we have added things including our church's Mercy fund (separate from our general offerings), Reformed University Fellowship, our local crisis pregnancy center, a family member who is a doctor & missionary in Burundi, etc. When I came within 3 days of losing my job in 2020, we cut much of our other giving for a time, but I was 100% committed to maintaining our 10% giving to the local church regardless of what might happen. This was hard, but I was trying to train myself to trust in God's faithfulness when my industry (and therefore my livelihood) seemed to be collapsing. Not everyone would or even should make the same decisions that we did, but what I came away with is a much higher view of and love for Christ's church. My advice is to maintain your giving to the church without diluting it elsewhere, but during times of plenty that you indeed look for ways to generously give to the other para-church ministries and seminaries.
 

Northern Crofter

Puritan Board Freshman
I'm not sure that "short change" implies a specific number. I'm not arguing that Christians have no obligation to support their local churches, nor that the OT tithe (and other required offerings) are irrelevant to that obligation. I'm merely saying that the tithe law is civil law, not moral law (as it must be, given that it is instituted at Sinal and tightly tied to the gift of the land). It therefore has general equity applications rather than direct application. Since we are called to "excel in the grace of giving" any failure to do so is in general "short changing" our Christian calling. But I won't quibble if you prefer a different word.
How does the tithe Abraham paid to Melchizedek in Genesis 14 (which obviously predates Sinai) fit this distinction between moral and civil law with regard to tithing? (It is the same Hebrew word ( מַעֲשֵׂר ) in Genesis 14 as it is throughout Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy).

Isn't all of the moral law available in creation (Romans 1.19-20)? For example, the Sabbath went from a day of physical rest (from Creation) to a day with greater meaning when renewed at Sinai (rest, but also remember your deliverance from Egyptian bondage - Deuteronomy 5), to a day with even greater meaning, the Christian Sabbath (rest, and also remember your spiritual deliverance - Hebrews 4, for example).

In the same way, the tithe/tenth of man's time (the waking hours of the Sabbath = 10% of the time in a week) can be seen in the Sabbath ordinance originally required after the creation of man. The tithe then would have also been renewed at Sinai (becoming largely agrarian-based and Temple-oriented in the Promised Land) but would then also still be with us (Hebrews 7.8, 12, 22, etc.?). Maybe I have been reading this wrong, but when Christ said "Woe be to you, Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites: for ye tithe mint, and anise, and cumin, and leave the weightier matters of the law, as judgment, and mercy and fidelity. These ought ye to have done, and not to have left the other" (Matthew 23.23). Given the apparent ABBA parallelism, I have always taken the last phrase that to mean they were to keep tithing but match their external obedience with inward obedience.

This progression of tithing would seem to fit the progression in most of Scripture from the covenant of works, to the first dispensation of the covenant to grace (the "Old Testament"), to the present dispensation (the "New Testament").
 
Last edited:

iainduguid

Puritan Board Junior
How does the tithe Abraham paid to Melchizedek in Genesis 14 (which obviously predates Sinai) fit this distinction between moral and civil law with regard to tithing? (It is the same Hebrew word ( מַעֲשֵׂר ) in Genesis 14 as it is throughout Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy).

Isn't all of the moral law available in creation (Romans 1.19-20)? For example, the Sabbath went from a day of physical rest (from Creation) to a day with greater meaning when renewed at Sinai (rest, but also remember your deliverance from Egyptian bondage - Deuteronomy 5), to a day with even greater meaning, the Christian Sabbath (rest, and also remember your spiritual deliverance - Hebrews 4, for example).

In the same way, the tithe/tenth of man's time (the waking hours of the Sabbath = 10% of the time in a week) can be seen in the Sabbath ordinance originally required after the creation of man. The tithe then would have also been renewed at Sinai (becoming largely agrarian-based and Temple-oriented in the Promised Land) but would then also still be with us (Hebrews 7.8, 12, 22, etc.?). Maybe I have been reading this wrong, but when Christ said "Woe be to you, Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites: for ye tithe mint, and anise, and cumin, and leave the weightier matters of the law, as judgment, and mercy and fidelity. These ought ye to have done, and not to have left the other" (Matthew 23.23). Given the apparent ABBA parallelism, I have always taken the last phrase that to mean they were to keep tithing but match their external obedience with inward obedience.

This progression of tithing would seem to fit the progression in most of Scripture from the covenant of works, to the first dispensation of the covenant to grace (the "Old Testament"), to the present dispensation (the "New Testament").
These are fair questions which I answer in detail in the booklet referenced earlier. Briefly, neither Abraham's tithe in Genesis 14 nor Jacob's in Gen 28 is an annual obligation to give 10%. Both are vows to give 10% of a specific undertaking - in Abraham's case a military expedition, and in Jacob's case, his trip to Paddan Aram. In fact, if the tithe obligation existed at that time, Jacob's vow would be meaningless, since he would already be obligated to give God 10% of his produce anyway.

The Sabbath is not a "tithe" on our time in any other than a very loose sense: 1/7 = 14% not 10%. It is a requirement to set aside a "proportionate" amount, to be sure, but the proportion is different. And by the way, while we are on the topic, the OT obligation was precisely not 10%. It was 10% plus first fruits plus poll tax plus first dough, etc. Are we obligated, every time we make bread, to bring the first loaf to the pastor (see Num. 15:18-21)? Does that extend to brownies?

The Scribes and the Pharisees were right to tithe in Jesus' time, as they were right to bring sacrifices and eat kosher. Before Christ's death and resurrection, the OT laws were still in full force. That doesn't bind us today.

Finally, the obvious place for Paul to mention tithing, if it were still in force, is where he is instructing Christians about supporting their pastors (the closest equivalent of OT priests and Levites) in 1 Cor. 9:9 and 1 Tim 5:18; instead, in both instances, he appeals to the OT law about not muzzling an ox as it is grinding grain (Deut. 25:4).

By the way, I don't think any of this lets Christians off the hook in terms of their giving. "Excelling in the grace of giving" can hardly be less than meeting our legal obligations was under the law, but it is based on a different set of questions. Instead of "What is the minimum I have to give?" (which then leads to "Is that gross or is that net?"), we are asking "What would it look like for me to be really good at giving joyfully to God's kingdom?" (which makes the "gross vs net" question look rather silly).
 

Jerrod Hess

Puritan Board Freshman
I think the gross vs. net discussion is somewhat relevant, considering God's portion comes before Caesar's.
 

Jerrod Hess

Puritan Board Freshman
Really? I think the concept of giving generously out of thankfulness in accordance with one’s personal means makes this discussion irrelevant.
I'm not sure how that logically follows. What I am saying is one ought to tithe from their gross and not their net, because God requires of us the firstfruits, and he deserves the best portion regardless of what the magistrate gets. Obviously, my position presumes the equity/continuity of the 10% principle, which you can give generously out of thankfulness.
 

Northern Crofter

Puritan Board Freshman
These are fair questions which I answer in detail in the booklet referenced earlier. Briefly, neither Abraham's tithe in Genesis 14 nor Jacob's in Gen 28 is an annual obligation to give 10%. Both are vows to give 10% of a specific undertaking - in Abraham's case a military expedition, and in Jacob's case, his trip to Paddan Aram. In fact, if the tithe obligation existed at that time, Jacob's vow would be meaningless, since he would already be obligated to give God 10% of his produce anyway.
I have not read your booklet as I do not have a Kindle device. I have never heard of a tithe in Genesis 28 - I don't see any form of the Hebrew word מַעֲשֵׂר in that passage.

The Sabbath is not a "tithe" on our time in any other than a very loose sense: 1/7 = 14% not 10%. It is a requirement to set aside a "proportionate" amount, to be sure, but the proportion is different. And by the way, while we are on the topic, the OT obligation was precisely not 10%. It was 10% plus first fruits plus poll tax plus first dough, etc. Are we obligated, every time we make bread, to bring the first loaf to the pastor (see Num. 15:18-21)? Does that extend to brownies?
Ture, 1/7 =/= 10%. But in my reply I stated "the waking hours of the Sabbath = 10% of the time in a week" which I believe is also true. I believe the OT tithing obligation was precisely 10% - "tenth" is the literal meaning of the Hebrew מַעֲשֵׂר that we translate "tithe." The annual tithe was clearly established for the sustenance of the tribe of Levi (the end of Nehemiah 10 provides a concise commentary on this). The other obligations (first fruits, first born, heave offerings, etc.) were additional, not necessarily annual, and not necessarily devoted to the Levitical progeny. Christ's father, being a carpenter, would have never paid the tithe, but he would have still been obligated to give at other times. I would think this is the modern distinction we often make when we refer to "tithes and offerings" - we may not be conscience of the distinction when we use those words, but there is a reason we use both words and not one or the other. We also speak in modern times of "alms," and this, too, compares with much (gleaning, for example) in the previous and largely agrarian dispensation of the covenant of grace.
The Scribes and the Pharisees were right to tithe in Jesus' time, as they were right to bring sacrifices and eat kosher. Before Christ's death and resurrection, the OT laws were still in full force. That doesn't bind us today.
Agreed, but general equity applications do not always completely abandon direct application of all specifics of past law.
Finally, the obvious place for Paul to mention tithing, if it were still in force, is where he is instructing Christians about supporting their pastors (the closest equivalent of OT priests and Levites) in 1 Cor. 9:9 and 1 Tim 5:18; instead, in both instances, he appeals to the OT law about not muzzling an ox as it is grinding grain (Deut. 25:4).
I would regard this, respectfully, as an argument from silence. It in some ways reminds me of the "household baptism" discussions as the silence can be reversed - nothing needed to be mentioned if it is obvious to the contemporary reader that it still existed. As for Paul's appeal to the OT law about not muzzling an ox as it is grinding grain - is this not part of the moral law? If so, then it would seem Paul is making the case that those devoted to public ministry should still be maintained financially by those they serve.
By the way, I don't think any of this lets Christians off the hook in terms of their giving. "Excelling in the grace of giving" can hardly be less than meeting our legal obligations was under the law, but it is based on a different set of questions. Instead of "What is the minimum I have to give?" (which then leads to "Is that gross or is that net?"), we are asking "What would it look like for me to be really good at giving joyfully to God's kingdom?" (which makes the "gross vs net" question look rather silly).
I entirely agree with this sentiment. The "gross vs net" question appears to be little different in spirit than the spirit Christ condemned in the Scribes and Pharisees for appearing to tithe to the letter of the law while abandoning the intent of the law. I personally find that the answer to "What would it look like for me to be really good at giving joyfully to God's kingdom?" begins with 10%. I would maintain - though I recognize that few support this - that the tithe is creational (time is more valuable than mammon and thus arguing from the greater to the lesser) though it looks different in different dispensations. For example, I believe 10% of gross income for non-agrarians is a good way to offer up the tithe and firstfruits in the current dispensation of grace, but this begets many questions such as: Should one only give once a year based on what you report to the government as income? (if so, few of us who are farmers would not be offering much - most years I do not show a profit after lawful deductions).

It is interesting that the "Old Testament" law provided many examples of ways to substituting money for some obligations, including the tithe (see for example, Leviticus 27 which contains such verses as "But if a man will redeem any of his tithe, he shall add the fifth part thereto." v.31). Was not this not given for us to draw upon later when the agrarian-based economy passes? Consider, too, that the agrarian-based economy has not passed in all parts of the world and some of our brethren in other cultures still look to the Mosaic agrarian laws regarding tithes for guidance. The laws of the previous dispensation do not bind us to the letter today, but they remain to guide us with the grace we have been given.

But if giving in a non-agrarian society today ends at 10% of gross, it is usually due to the spirit of the Scribes and Pharisee who were really only concerned with meeting the letter of the law so they could feel free to spend the 90% on themselves. It still seems to me that the agrarian-based tithing system being replaced with a tithe of money would be a progression that follows with the God-ordained unfolding of history (which includes economic evolution), just as much of early Scripture was largely written with repetitive literary devices to aid the largely illiterate world in knowing God's Word whereas much of the later Scripture is written without these devices.
 

MChase

Puritan Board Freshman
I'm not sure how that logically follows. What I am saying is one ought to tithe from their gross and not their net, because God requires of us the firstfruits, and he deserves the best portion regardless of what the magistrate gets. Obviously, my position presumes the equity/continuity of the 10% principle, which you can give generously out of thankfulness.

I do believe 10% is a good starting point and has some merit for being a goal, but you have to be a bit careful with this. Say the gubment decides to raise the taxes to north of 50%. What’s one to do? What if one is in the lower 50% of America financially and is a net gainer from our semi-socialist economy. What about retirement contributions? None of this is to wholly obliterate the 10% as a starting point, but just to show that things often get messy in practice.

I think one often knows if he’s being frivolous and ought to be giving more. If one is justifying the BMW lease and also his negligence in giving them something is off. On the other hand, if one is giving 8% but that’s all they can do while still putting food on the table they are to be commended.
 
Top