For those who did not get to see the tithing debate with Russ Kelly in action on Revelation TV, here are the videos. There are Six total videos that are a total of 1.5 hours, so the next video will continue playing at the end.
What are your thoughts on how the debate went?
The debate was interesting. But I feel the main point of Jesus ending the old law and bringing in a new and better way, which was far more glorious than the old, should have been emphasized much more. Also I wish the point that in the New Cov. it is a matter of walking in the Spirit and letting Him guide us in all things, even our giving, would have been established. We cannot start a believer on the road of walking in the Spirit by giving him law as a foundation.
Rebecca,
I agree with you. I have found that many times i am more successful in certain debates if i focus on defending New Covenant (NC) giving rather than trying to argue about the difference between principle and law, and whether nor not tithing came before Moses.
99% of those who oppose my view on tithing would initially agree that our giving should be led by the Spirit, under grace, and should be cheerfully and sacrificially given. This is a great role to play in a debate because it flips my position from the one attacking the tithe to the one who is defending Spirit led giving. What pro-tither would be comfortable in a position to attack sacrificial, Spirit led giving in order to defend tithing?
Russ did a VERY good job, but I think Russ (as well as myself) are more prepared in debating with people who are more scripturally apt than this guy was. The guy Russ was debating wasn’t concerned about facts, scripture, or hermeneutical arguments. The guy does not have his beliefs rooted in scripture and is obviously misleading others through his charisma.
– jared
I watched the debate, and I think your summary is playing to the usual anti-tithing gimmick. It would have been better to let others make informed opinions of their own (even though you’re entitled to yours); but saying that Rev. Mike Kola Ewuosho was not concerned about “facts, scripture, or hermeneutical arguments” is factually wrong and deliberately misleading!
In his opening presentation, he made all three points that you summarily denied – facts, scripture, and hermeneutics! How you turned round deny that he did so is quite amazing!
But this line in yours: ‘What pro-tither would be comfortable in a position to attack sacrificial, Spirit led giving in order to defend tithing?’ is another very misleading generalization. For starters, pro-tithers are not out to attack sacrificial giving; nor do they try to defend tithing from a position of attacking any type of giving for that matter! On the contrary, it’s obvious that many anti-tithers hide behind the cliches of ‘Spirit led’ giving and other buzz words in order to defend their own eisegesis – eisegesis which have been many times queried and found completely untenable in hermeneutics!
I don’t think it was fair of you to misrepresent Rev. Mike Kola’s position – but we’re not surprised by such ineptitude.
Thanks for providing these…I think the videos are labeled wrong…Part 3 is actually Part 2…
Tymon,
Mike kept on reverberating the tithe as a principle that transcends the old and new testament. But if the tithe was truly a principle that has been applicable and always will be, then we should be able to see this pattern in scripture. Let’s see how it passes the test.
Sorry Tymon, there is no way that tithing passes the test of being a principle that applies to our lives. There aren’t that many passages that mention tithing and you can’t even get the few that there are to be cohesive.
– jared
Excellent points, Steward. I never thought about this. Thank you very much.
Steward,
First, you are again demonstrating you don’t know the meaning of a PRINCIPLE! It is not an argument by the letter – we have been through this before, no?
1. Israel was not “required” to obey any part of the Law that was not given BEFORE they LEFT Egypt, for Exodus 25 only came after they had left Egypt! A Principle and a Law are not the same thing, and your first point is on the latter!
2. A PRINCIPLE is not a throwback on any Law that was given as a covenant to Israel only afterwards, which is why the Law did not originate the tithes!
3. Leviticus 27 is not about tithing and has nothing to do with selective occupation, lawyer or otherwise! Appealing to that passage for your assumptions is again misleading!
4. How would Israel have been able to obey the principles of giving or tithing while in CAPTIVITY? This dribble is even far a laugh!! How do you connect the captivity with the covenant that God gave Israel?
5. Tithing was not enacted on the basis of how rich or poor a person was – the Levites who received tithes were not poor, were they? Melchizedek was not poor when he received tithes, was he? The spiritual significance of giving is not weighted on how rich or poor a person was – otherwise, what would be the essence of the poor widow gave MORE than the rich in Luke 21?
6. Tithing is not about what is “allowed” – this is why Abraham’s tithes are not about what was “allowed”. He gave of his own freewill in response to the priesthood of Melchizedek, and not on any stipulations of what was “allowed”.
7. Your point about <I>giving from increase</I> on the basis of Numbers 31 only confuses matters. Why would that chapter be read as “increase” while anti-tithers shrink from applying the same “increase” in Abraham’s case in genesis 14?
8. Meanwhile, Genesis 14 has nothing to do with what was “REQUIRED” – Abraham’s tithes was not “required” by Melchizedek, nor by any other king or custom for that matter. Please don’t even appeal to the fallacy of the ‘Arab custom’ theory there – I’ve already deat with that to show it’s simply that: a fallacy!
9. I’m with you on tithing being voluntary, as in Jacob’s case. That is one of the points Rev. Mike Kola raised in his opening presentation, but anti-tithers quite hastily forgot all abot that in order to muddy the waters and then turn round to misrepresnt him!
Please go back and find out the meaning of the word PRINCIPLE. The apostle Paul used the same Law of Moses that has been the dilemma for anti-tithers, did he not? And if he did, where then is the basis of denying the principle that is all so obvious in the application of the apostles’ teaching?
Tymon,
Most people, including Mike base their premise that the tithe is a principle on the fact that it was practiced before Moses and during Moses. With that being said, many of the ceremonial practices in the Mosaic law can be called a principle based on that categorization.
From what i am reading by you, any number of practices in the bible can be considered a principle based on the fact that it appeared as a common practice. Israel was required to give a fifth for an atonement offering. I would assume that giving a fifth can by considered a principle according to your definitions.
Since Abel gave of his herd, who is to say that what he gave is not the principle? It’s funny how we’re just concerned with the price not really the product. We find ways to say that a 10% benchmark is the principle. or that giving the best is the principle. But when it comes to integrating Old Testament examples of what they gave, who they gave it to, how they gave it, when they gave it, and where they gave it, we nonchalantly throw the baby out with the bath water. We just care about how much can the Church integrate into the New Covenant model of giving and how valuable can the donations be. And the easiest way to do this is to just simply find only one of many methods of giving in the entire bible and pin that up as the banner for the Church and call it a “principle”.
You can’t point the finger at me for arguing the letter of the law, when you are defending a calculated form of distribution based on the practice of a man who lived before Moses. I defend sacrificial, spirit led giving that is cheerful and under grace, so i’m not sure how i can be accused of focusing on the letter. You are the one focused on the percentage, wait. . . i forgot . . .(sarcasm) 10.000% is not a meticulous letter of the law, it is actually some grace empowered principle that is set as an example and guide for us to follow today. Good thing we don’t need to be meticulous about every herb in our garden. Good thing i don’t need a calculator to figure out my giving. Good thing i don’t have to worry about a starting place for giving.
You are in complete denial about the tithe Standard. Paul said, “give as you purpose in your heart”. There was nothing about principles, or standards, or laws. The early church gave as the Holy Spirit has placed on their hearts. That is the REAL principle.
I can pray 3 times a day as Daniel did, but that is not a principle, that is a standard. I can serve 2 weeks out of the year in a house of worship just as the priests did, but that is not a principle, that is a standard. I can give away 90% of my salary towards the needy but these are standards. I’m sure you call them principles, which makes me question why i even discuss the semantics with you.
– jared
My dear Jared,
One of the things I try to avoid is prejudice, and that is what I read in yours.
1. I have nowhere made ‘any number of practices’ to be considered a principle – I only asked you to go and carefully consider what the term PRINCIPLE means, and why it is not the same thing as a Law! To read your assumptions into my comments is quite out of joint, sorry.
2. I have nowhere asked for a ‘benchmark’, and I find it rather hilarious that you have hastily assumed that into the gist of my comments. Nor am I in complete denial of any ‘standard’ you have set by your arguments of the letter of the Law.
3. Since you don’t know what a principle is, I can allow you to deny it all you want for your own convenience – anti-tithers who see only the letter of the Law have always done so. I asked you a simple question about Paul’s reference to the Law in his teaching on giving, and I notice how cleverly you evaded that issue. Anti-tithers always act in that manner – my observation.
4. My comments are not about semantics, and thanks for another hasty presumption. If you don’t know the meaning of words and they don’t matter to you, why should that become my problem?
The initial concerns I raised have again been ignored, and it would be unfruitful for either of us to keep up this back and forth. You’re not obligated to deal with the simple observations I made; but you acted in a rather ungodly manner in your assertions to deliberately misrepresent someone else.
why don’t you enlighten me what your definition of a principle is. Also give me examples of other principles besides tithing. I gave you my explanation of a principle already.
Thanks, if we can begin to get somewhere.
I was looking for the page where I asked you that question recently (can’t find it at the moment); but this is what I wrote about what a Biblical principle is –
I also gave a few examples, which would be tedious to repeat here. The basic gist is that a principle is not an argument by the letter where everything in an event has to be replicated pedantically. It is simply a general truth with a set of essential qualities that characterises any outcome.
An example: Moses in Deut. 30:12-14 was clearly referring to the Law given to Israel; but when Paul quoted the same passage in Romans 10:6-8, he did not seek to repeat every detail of the Law in a legalistic or literal manner. Rather, the apostle drew from the Law of Moses in Deut. 30 in order to apply the principle of faith in the NT (Rom. 10).
If we are to argue by the letter, then in this particular instance it immediately becomes obvious that Moses was not talking about faith in the Gospel; and a literal argument would make Paul’s argument meaningless. BUT since the apostles did not seek to argue by the letter (2 Cor. 3:6), we can see that they were more concerned with principles, and that is why they still used the same Law of Moses to establish Christian doctrines.
A few other examples: Paul who made the argument that we are not under the Law (Rom. 6:14) is the same apostle who used the Law in establishing doctrines about Christian marriage (1 Cor. 7:39) and the role of women in Church (1 Cor. 14:34). There are so many other examples where the apostles used the Law of Moses to establish Christian doctrines (see 1 Cor. 9:8-10), and nobody today is dismissing Paul on these obvious cases.
I hope my reply answers your requests – (i) to give a definition of principle as I understand it; (ii) to give examples of other principles besides tithing.
_____
This is not directed at you, jared; but in reference to joel’s comments, I think we all as Christians can, and should seek to, dialogue in a healthy manner. That is what I have tried to maintain by focusing on the concerns you raised instead of ignoring or evading them.
Huh? this defines absolutely nothing. I guess in a way it includes almost everything.
There is no precedent to claim that anything below 100% is a principle. You have stated that you are not to be concerned with “every detail of the Law” and what blows my mind is you have exalted 10.000% giving as if it isn’t a detail?
Paul used principles extracted from Old Testaments laws to establish doctrines in the Church. Thou shalt not muzzle an ox while it treads out the grain is not about an ox, it is not about the grain, and it is not about making sure the ox is only eating what is treading. The point was clearly stated – “(NKJV) he who threshes in hope should be partaker of his hope. If we have sown spiritual things for you, is it a great thing if we reap your material things?” I have stated many many times, eternal principles are found in the lessons – not the exercises.
In the same sense, giving in the New Testament is not about giving of the fruit of the tree, nor is it about giving your firstborn, nor is it about unblemished animals, nor is about calculating 10.000%. Nor is it about giving an ephah, omer, or spotless lamb on 12 stones and storing your grain in a silo. Giving in the New Testament is about providing for the needs of others because we are partakers together with one another. It is not about making sure your ox received 10% of the grain he plows.
The point I tried to raise initially seems to have been ignored. It’s no use trying to misrepresent Rev. Mike Kola in your asserting that he was not concerned about “facts, scripture, or hermeneutical arguments” – that assertion is patently WRONG! You may not like how he presented his persuasion, and that’s okay; but going the length of misrepresenting his position with false statements is quite simply ungodly!
The second point I raised is that your assumptions about pro-tithers is also untenable. Pro-tithers do not try to “attack” any type of giving in order to defend tithing! That kind of sleight of hand from you is unhealthy, if not altogether false and mythological!
These were my concerns – I had thought you’d focus on them, rather than your assumptions about the Law.
Hi Tymon, I assume you are well versed in this tithing debate and from reading your comments you sound like an intelligent person. Let me ask you a simple question ,did Jesus say in Mathew 23:23 to pay the tithe with food according to the law or did he say to pay tithes with money ? Because Jesus said arnise, mint and cummin which are clearly food, I just want to understand why you are arguing that he meant money.
Are you saying Jesus made a mistake or maybe you know better ? No one is against giving to God, thats stupid but please Jesus saw a poor widow gave 2 mites to the treasury and commented on her offering that clearly confirms that money was allowed to be given to the temples treasury but not in exchange for the food tithes that Jesus mentioned in Mathew 23:23.
Thou shall not covet your neighbours income or 10% of his income to pay for your bills or the church bills. God does not want us to lie and misinterpret scripture just to pay for the church or pastors salary. I support sacraficial giving for the work of the Lord but please stop lying about scriptue its dangerous and misleading .
Hi joel,
Thanks for your question; but I think you started off on a wrong footing to have accused me of lying. Where have I lied to YOU? I made a very simple observation which no one here has made any reference to; and all of a sudden you jump in to make an unfounded and unfair accusation?
Why is it that those who oppose tithing have a penchant for deliberately misrepresenting people, making false accusations and evading simple issues instead of calmly reasoning out what others are saying?
You have made some points which I could quite easily address. But if you’re going off on a tangent the way you have done, I’d rather not discuss anything with you. I’m not inclined to bellicose engagements, sorry.
Tymons,
what I meant was anyone misinterpreting scripture to get others to pay them money tithes wether its a pastor or a christian does not matter. I belive thats what we call a fraud or some may call it a thief . I do not understand why you are offended unless you are endorsing tithing to rip people off .
This debate is not about you or any of those wolves stealing from the body of Christ to line their pockets and call it building the kingdom.
Robert Shuller taught about tithing more than 25yrs ago, so I have been tithing since then until I started studying the bible for myself and thats where I discovered that this is an abomination and a sin commited by so call pastors and teachers because of their lack of faith in God to provide for them .
By the way Robert Shullers church ,Crystal Cathederal already filed for bankruptsy because they owe more than 60 million dollars in 2009
Jesus warned his followers to be careful not to covet riches or material possesions but these days many christians use threats of curses and promises of great wealth to get christians to pay them money tithes .
I fully support giving what christians can afford to support the work of the Lord but please call it financial support ,sacraficial giving or even honouring God with our finances NOT TITHING .
A widow who gave two mites that Jesus commented on her giving ,gave to the Temple treasury. Money was not used for tithing in the time of Jesus but was received outside the Temple for the treasury. Go give 50% or more if you can to support the work of the Lord but do not call it tithing give it to the CHURCH TREASURER. God is not a waiter that we tip with 10% thats rude .
I’m not offended, so please stop evading the simple issue I pointed out. Starting out to accuse someone of LYING when they have not lied to YOU is ungodly and unethical if you claim to be a Christian. If you can show me where I lied to you, please do so – or continue with the false accusations.
Tymons, if you are promoting money tithing then you are one . Or maybe your bible is diffrent then mine. 1 Timothy 6:5AMP says it very clearly .We are not even allowed to make a living or profit from the gospel.
I hope that doesnt OFFEND YOU being a supporter of money tithing .I think you need to define what a liar is because these days con artist and liars argue that its their own interpretation of scripture.
If we take this to Court they will throw many in jail for fraud with the overwhelming evidence in the bible against money tithing
I think you’re getting a mixture of thoughts and blowing things out of proportion, jared. You asked for a definition, and I summarised what a principle basically means – leaving a link for a more detailed treatment of the subject. If you checked it out, you will find I did not make any pointers to your assumptions of “anything below 100% is a principle”. What are you on about? Where’s your hermeneutics, if you’re reacting with such unnecessary insinuations?
The word ‘tithe’ is simply a tenth, and the principle in that is simply the setting aside of a portion from the whole. What anti-tithers often do is arguing legalistically for every detail of farm produce, grains, etc. as if that is what a DEFINITION is!
I’m quite amused and surprised to read your statement in agreement that ‘Paul used principles extracted from Old Testament laws to establish doctrines in the Church.’ Is that not essentially what I’d been pointing out all along? Again and again you’ll find many anti-tithers who hastily deny this fact without checking it out for themselves. This is why I noted somewhere else that every single principle anti-tithers claim for NT giving are ALREADY found in the OT and there’s nothing “new” about those principles!
You see, what you started off with was your assertion in misrepresenting Rev. Mike Kola, and the untrue generalizations you made about pro-tithers “attacking” Spirit-led giving – such misrepresentations are hardly befitting of one who seeks fairness in dialogue. You will only find down the road that anti-tithers tend to agree with the gist of what pro-tithers are saying; but whether they are sincere in this agreement or not is quite another world entirely.
i read two articles written by you – “How is tithing a New Testament Principle” and “What is a Biblical Principle”. You have made a statement in your last comment that is enlightening. You stated, “The word ‘tithe’ is simply a tenth, and the principle in that is simply the setting aside of a portion from the whole.” From how i understand your statement, you said the principle “in that” (the tithe) is setting aside a portion from the whole. Notice that you did not say the tithe was the principle. You said that the principle was found within the tithe. That is a HUGE difference.
I agree that the tithe contains the principle. But 10% is not a principle. I agree that a principle of giving is to set aside a portion of our increase for the word of God. Just like the muzzling an ox that is treading the grain is not the principle, nor is it the lesson Paul was trying to teach. The lesson that we should learn about the tithe is that God’s work should be funded through the resources that God has given us. God isn’t trying to teach us how to give 10%, nor 11%. Once again, i cannot say it enough – PRINCIPLES ARE TAUGHT IN THE LESSONS, NOT IN THE ASSIGNMENTS. In the OT, God wasn’t trying to teach people not to murder, he was teaching them a lesson on hatred.
My thanks – it took this long to come to a common ground, and I’m happy with that. This is why I noted earlier that down the road anti-tithers tend to agree with the gist of what pro-tithers are saying, if only we are slow to jump to conclusions that might misrepresent what others are saying.
Thats funny, Deuteronomy 12:32 says to make sure not to add or take away from what God commanded Moses but Tymons and his fellow tithers can change it to money and say its the “principle” that God was intrested in promoting…..lol
Tell us then what “Principle” was God trying to teach when he commanded Moses that anyone caught in adultry or breaking the sabbath should be killed ?….lol
Hi, I just want to remaind Tymons that God instructed Moses in Deuteronomy 12:32NKJ to make sure they followed his instructions carefully and to make sure they do not add or take away from it . When God said food and animals from within the gates of Israel for the tithes He meant “food” not dollars or euros .
Its amazing how christians think they can change the law God gave Moses just because they give money or go to church. Numbers 18:1-3NKJ reveals how God dealt with disobedience .
When God commanded Moses to bring animals for sin offerings and cleansing ceremonies it would have been very foolish if you turn up there with $20.00, then again you are very spiritual Tymons. Maybe you and God are very good friends that He said He will kill Aaron but spare you .
@Al Sydney,
Yeah, thanks for reminding me – and no thanks for the last part about God killing anybody. I sometimes wonder where people who talk the way you do have put all sense of reason!
Add not, take nothing away. Good – let’s apply that to some examples, shall we? Where did God instruct anyone that the Passover should be changed from an animal in the Law of Moses to a human being in the NT? But as Christians we have no problem in drawing from the Law of Moses to make the Passover other than it was prescribed in the Law – is this the same thing as your ‘add not’ and to ‘to make sure they followed his instructions carefully’?
You see, if one wants to hold fast to the letter of the Law in its literal rendering, we would have to go all the way in doing so in precisely the way you argued! You can’t change nothing in one part and then have a problem when other parts are brought to your attention – otherwise, you are not being consistent in your argument.
And oh, while I’m not a Seventh Day Adventist, the NT actually says ‘So then, there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God’ (Heb. 4:9, ESV). But we Christians do not find any kind of Sabbath in our practice today, do we? I understand why – you can try to excuse all that so we can accommodate the changes you are willing to embrace for convenience sake in these matters, no?
If in these cases you want to accommodate the changes you decry, on what basis would you affirm any consistency in what you’re reminding me about?
I don’t know if you seek fairness in dialogue so you can understand where the other person is coming from. But if you don’t care about that, no worries – I won’t make the mistake to assume any fairness about you next time.
Tymon , I did not write Deuteronomy or any other book in the bible, you take your complaints to God. I thought for a person like you who support money tithing should understand Christ and his rest but I guess you have no idea.
The bible reveals in Hebrews 4:9NKJ says those who do not believe will not enter His rest. Its about Christ who is our rest. Jesus is the Lord of the sabbath to make it easy for tithe supporters , Jesus said He and the Father are One. You cant tell Jesus to keep the sabbath because He is our Saviour, God Almighty, Jehovah.
Tymon your argument is with God and the scriptures not anyone here, I think you should tell him he made a mistake and you found some inconsistencies in the bible .And dont forget to ask him why He killed Aarons sons …lol
Tymon did God make a mistake ? He sholud say “money” is Holy on to God not food and animals raised within the gates of Israel…..lol
@Al Sydney,
I didn’t write any part of the OT or NT, so you can as well argue the same way with God if you so choose. All I asked was that you guys try to be consistent and reasonable. Unless you’re tacitly admitting that your exegesis does not hold a shred of consistency, I don’t see what all this hooha is all about.
Earlier in one of my comments I made the observation that down the road anti-tithers agree with the gist of what pro-tithers are saying. If by trying to point out a few issues along such lines here, it suddenly bothers you guys, what would be your reaction if I showed that some anti-tithing theologians actually AGREE with some pastors who teach tithing for Christians? Would you also have problems with those anti-tithing theologians?
If you don’t have a clue about what someone else is trying to say, at the very least you could show some decorum.
Tymon, Christ is our REST, PEACE, SHERPERD, SAVIOUR, OUR GOD..etc
Please dont tell me you dont know He is our Sabbath, Thats what He meant when He said He is the Lord of the sabbath. That is whats wrong with christians who promote lies about money tithes it makes them foolish and simple.
@Sam,
Please don’t sound desperate. All I asked was that you applied the very same type of argument throughout and be consistent. I nowhere argued against Christ being saviour, etc. – so where are you driving up to?
Tymon, Please study the bible with much prayer before you debate with anyone or you will make a fool of yourself. You are arguing against the Word of God Deuteronomy 12:32 was written by Moses who talked face to face with God. Please try humility it will help free you from so much junk. God gave strict instructions to Moses not “principles”.
Tymon, I applied your argument about “Principle” to what Christ said about not coveting riches, I found it very funny.
Thou shall not covet mint, arnise and cummin but its ok to covet 10% of your neighbours gross income including non christians….lol
The love of arnise,mint and cummin is the root of all evil…lol
Apostle Paul said I covet your “Gold and Silver”…lol
And the last one is , Make sure you twist and manipulate scripture to get your christian brothers and sisters to pay for your house, Bently and Citation X because “YOU” deserve it and its all for the kingdom….lol
Hi Tymon, I thought long and hard about your comments and I have to admit that I was wrong .You are one of the most brain washed individual that I have come across for a long time,I think even your arguments are not your own maybe some prosperity preacher really messed with your head .
You are prepared to argue with God to defend your position on money tithing .Very sad for a christian brother to be deceived this much it makes you angry with the wolves responsible for this false teaching .
I pray that you find Gods Grace and Love for you, that you do not have to bribe God to reveal his provision and abundant blessing on your life . Jesus came to “GIVE” us LIFE not “SELL US LIFE
Greetings Tithers and Nontithers, I want to ask a question on Deteronomy 14:24-26 NKJ ,AMP,NLT .Please pro tithers could you explain what selling the tithe and buying whatever your heart desire means in the scripture above ? . It also say that the poor and the levite did not have to pay tithe but all ate the tithe before the Lord. I cant see them eating cash ,gold or silver .
Sorry I meant Deuteronomy 14:24-26, NKJ ,AMP ,and NLT
Principle (Webster’s Intermediate Dictionary) 1: a general or basic
truth on which other truths or theories can be based [scientific
principles] 2: a rule of conduct [a person of principles]
I do not see the need for all of this talk about principles, as has
been used in the previous dialog. God tells us His will for us and
obedience is what matters.
Rom. 12:1 I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God,
that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto
God, which is your reasonable service.
1 Cor. 6:20 For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in
your body, and in your spirit, which are God’s.
These scriptures are plain and in them is no room for argument. We are
to present ourselves totally to the Lord. He has bought us with a
great price and we are no longer our own, but his. If then, all that I
am is God’s, so is everything I ever have is HIS as well. Not a
portion but all – 100%.
Gal. 5:16 This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not
fulfill the lusts of the flesh.
Here is the ‘principle’ or basic truth that ALL who have given
themselves to God and been born again, are to live by. But this is
something that could not have been the ‘principle’ of the Old
Testament, because the Holy Spirit had not been shed abroad in their
hearts. That is why they needed a law; their heart had not been
changed and they had not been restored to the Father. Now if you want
anyone to give as he ought and not be selfish or inconsiderate of the
heart of God, tell him, that the way to not fulfill his own will; the
will of the flesh, is to present himself a living sacrifice, give
himself completely to God and walk in the Spirit.
Matt. 16:24 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come
after me. let him deny himself, and take up his cross. and follow me.
Jesus’ instructions are enough. We don’t need anything added by man.
Die to self and follow Him. Be 100% His. Walk in (live in) His Spirit.
In other words, let him lead and guide you and you will do what is
right in His sight. Why didn’t Jesus or any of the disciples set forth
a tithing principle? Because it was worthless in comparison to the
heart and will of God, for His people to settle once and for all, in
their commitment to him, that all they are and all that pertains to
them is His; then let him guide you moment by moment.
2Cor. 9:7 Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him
give; not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful
giver. (Thayer’s-Greek-English-
Lexicon – necessity = necessity,
imposed either by the external conditions of things, or by the law of
duty …of necessity, compelled.) Do not give of necessity, or that
is, by a law of duty or because anyone (other than God0 has compelled
you to do so. Give as you purpose in your own heart! Why could the
writer say this and not put forth a ‘principle’ of tithing? Because he
was putting forth the New Test. principle! If your heart is set on the
will of God, if you are walking in the Spirit, you will be able to
give out of the abundance of a heart that is united to God. He would
not set forth an inferior principle than this. You do not get saved by
surrendering a percent of yourself, less than 100% and you do not need
a carnal guideline, to keep you on the right track. You need to walk
in the Spirit.
I am not an anti-tither. I do not care if you give 10% of your
earnings or not. I do care if anyone is telling anyone else, they need
to live by any principle other than what God set forth himself in the
new and better way,.
@Rebecca,
While your comments are appreciated, they’re not quite balanced. At first you made out that you don’t see a need for all the talk about ‘principles’, and yet you’re coming back to use it in your own submission?
You see, I’ve always observed that after all said and done, anti-tithers (and those who deny they are such) will come down to agree with what pro-tithers are saying.
However, here’s something I find a bit misleading in yours:
<blockquote>Here is the ‘principle’ or basic truth that ALL who have given
themselves to God and been born again, are to live by. But this is
something that could not have been the ‘principle’ of the Old
Testament, because the Holy Spirit had not been shed abroad in their
hearts. That is why they needed a law; their heart had not been
changed and they had not been restored to the Father.</blockquote>
Several issues here, but let me give just one.
1. If your ‘principle’ only applies to ALL who have been born again such that it could not have been the principle in the OT, are you by that claiming that the OT saints did not know the said principle in their lives back then?
I don’t know what your answers might be (and I don’t want to assume anything, please). However, I totally disagree with your view for several reasons:
(a) the ‘principle’ you hold out also applied to those who had given themselves to God in the OT – both Jews and Gentiles. Peter affirms this in Acts 10:34-35.
(b) the principles you are talking about (whether you give yourself totally 100% to God) was ALREADY known in the OT, and that is why they are not “new”. What is new is the covenant, not the principles.
(c) in this regard, there’s nothing “new” in the principles of giving set out in the NT, because they were already know in the OT. This is why Paul repeatedly drew from the OT in teaching Christians about giving.
You’re not obliged to task yourself with them – they’re only my observations, because a lot of people often make these sorts of statements out of hand without having checked the foundation of the OT for themselves.
@Joel,
I asked a simple question about your accusation, and I won’t push hard for your answer since you’re evading it – people who talk as you do will always behave in such manner. To go about with false accusations that you cannot prove only shows what kind of spirit you carry – no offence, but I certainly know that it is quite contrary to God (Rev. 12:10). So I won’t enter into any dialogue with you, sorry.