tithes

• Messages sorted by:[ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

On Thu, 24 Sep 1998 09:49:54 -0600 Cal <Calvin@zianet.com> writes:

Bottom line: (This makes it VERY easy to prove me wrong if you had any
real evidence to support your claims)

1) There is NO NT scripture that speaks of the continuation of tithes in
the Early NT Church.  (To the CONTRARY: The Apostles and Elders, when
considering what points of the Law to have the new Gentile Believers
retain mentioned very specifically what they wanted to retain from the
Law and they did NOT mention tithing...see below)

2) There is no HISTORICAL records of the Pre-Nicene NT Church continuing
the tithe. (The earliest I could find was the FIFTH Century!)

>I did not say the OT tithe is mandatory. 

Why not?  Again, you have refused to answer my four questions.  I have
reposted them below.  Please attempt to answer them.  I have asked them
with an honest spirit, why shouldn't you be able to honestly answer them?

>The whole of Scripture maintains the finacial plan of God to be tithe. 
Not just the Old Testament.

Since on that scale there are only TWO sections in the Bible, (Old
Testament and New Testament) you are implying that the NT maintains the
financial plan of God is the tithe.  

So where is it?

I see GIVING in the NT, but no tithe.  There are SEVEN NT scriptures that
mention all variations of the word "tithe", including "tithes", although
"tithing" is not even mentioned in the NT.

Three of these occur in the first four Gospels and LITERALLY take place
in the OT (including your quote below) the other four ALL occur in
Hebrews 7 and believe me, if there WAS a continuation of tithes in the
NT, this would have been an EXCELLENT place for Paul to say so...but he
doesn't!

>to conclude that tithing was not a practice in the NT based upon a 
>misunderstanding of the composition of scripture is indeed a serious
>departure from God's word.  

Can we stop the personal criticism of people when the criticism is based
solely on the fact that someone disagrees with you?  I'm seeing this a
lot lately, and no, I'm not a moderator. It's just a suggestion.

There is no purpose to make a statement that declares that you have this
topic right and that anyone else is misunderstanding the scripture to the
point of departing from God's Word.

>An example of this kind of reasoning is found amoung the "Disciples 
>of Christ" movement.  They teach that because there are no equivalent NT
>scriptures concerning musical instruments we are not authorized to use 
>such in worship.  Well niether is there any NT passage that authorizes 
>electric lights, carpeting, pews etc.  I am sure you understand my
point, it is 
>grim indeed to draw any kind of a conclusion based upon this kind of 
>reasoning.

There is a BIG difference in their reasoning and mine.  The flaw in THEIR
reasoning is that if something is not specifically mentioned that such
things are somehow prohibited.  I don't believe that at all.  

For the record, it is unfair to attempt to tag someone as believing like
some other group, especially if you don't know what that person believes.
 And if you think that I believe like the DoC, then you are
misunderstanding what I am saying.

What  I  am saying is that if it's not there, you can't assume that it's
there.  That is NOT the same as saying that if it's not there it is an
automatic prohibition.

>>The Early Church did not tithe, plain and simple.  They gave
>>what we would call "love offerings", but there is no proof of the
>>continuation of the OT tithe.
>
>I disagree wholeheartedly.  

You of course have the right to disagree, but you need to have some kind
of proof in order to convince me.

I have not heard on piece of evidence that states the Early Church
continued the tithe.

>Jesus said in Matthew 23:23 Woe unto you,
>scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise
and
>cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, 
>mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the
other 
>undone.  

Jesus lived in the Old Testament.  Also, He was showing the Pharisees how
hypocritical they were to tithe even their own little gardens but they
ignored the weightier matters of the Law.  

Show me some PROOF that the Early NT Church tithed and I will concede my
point.  I >>>KNOW<<< that people tithed before the Day of Pentecost;
after all, it was THE LAW to do so.

I have not done a detailed study on this topic, but what I HAVE studied
shows me that tithing was not instituted in the NT Church until the Fifth
Century at the earliest.

>What other conclusion could be drawn by Matthew but that judgement, 
>mercy and faith were the aim of the law but not to the exclusion of
Tithe 
>nor was tithe to be to the exclusion of judgement mercy and faith?  

How about just accepting what Jesus said?  Why is it so difficult to see
that He was showing how hypocritical they were by showing how over the
line they followed one part of the Law which was probably convenient and
easy for them to follow but ignored the real reasons the Law existed.  

Let me show you where your weakness is in interpreting it this way:  If
the Pharisees had, for instance, followed another part of the Law to the
extreme that they did the tithe, He could just as well as listed that,
but you would no doubt come to a different conclusion because you would
use a different form of reasoning.

Example:  

What if Jesus had said:

"Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye have followed
Leviticus 22:1 to the point that you don't even touch the dead leaves
that fall from the trees, yet you have omitted the weightier matters of
the law, judgment, 
mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other
undone."  

Would you have continued to use your same logic?  Would you then be
saying that the NT Church was to follow that part of the Law as well and
the that we would be prohibited in the NT from touching any dead thing?

And since JESUS said it, using that type of reasoning would mean that we
couldn't touch dead leaves.

See the flaw?  

>I believe that Matthew would have discourse with your statement!

Why?  Because I take it at face value?  Why can't the supporters of
mandatory NT tithes just find two or three scriptures that say that the
tithe is continued?  

>You have promoted the idea there is no proof of the continuation of
tithe,

Because it is true.

FACT: I have not seen ONE New Testament scripture that states that
tithing was continued in the NT.  Matter of fact, when Paul refers to
tithing in Hebrews 7, he refers to it IN THE PAST TENSE

The first four gospels, I am assuming you already know, take place in the
OLD TESTAMENT.

The New Testament began on the day of Pentecost in Acts.

>Matthew supplies such in the statement of Jesus.  

That is stretching it at best.  It is clear by the context of the
scripture that Matthew is showing Jesus telling the Pharisees how
hypocritical they are by using contrasting examples.  

>To deny that Jesus promoted tithe in the NT is a false premise at best. 

To deny that Jesus promoted tithe in the >>> OT <<< would be a false
premise, since He was living in the Old Testament.

>To suppose that Jesus is referring to an OT mandate to tithe as being
>inconsistant with His teaching concerning the NT is to void the very 
>heart of His argument.  He was arguing that the Pharasee's had misssed
the 
>spirit of the law.  

Correct and I would say that He could also have said that they should
continue to make their yearly sacrifices since they were in the
dispensation of the OT.

>They had rules but not the spirit of that law and so He said
>"these ought ye to have done and not to leave the other undone."  What 
>is the other that is not to be left undone?  The honest and appropriate 
>answer is that tithe without judgement, mercy, and faith is to leave the

>spirit of the law and therefore is to leave the law undone, but it is
equally 
>as inconsistant to have judgement mercy and faith without tithe.    

Again, look at the context and when this was spoken.  Jesus could have
stated ANY OT law and been equally correct, however that does not mean
that we in the NT should have to continue that OT Law. 

>Romans 3:31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: 
>yea, we establish the law.  

Are you suggesting that the Law is to be continued in the NT?  If not,
you cannot "pick and choose" what aspects of the Law to continue.  The
Early Church already went through this in Acts 10:9-28 and Acts 15:5-20.

Note verses 19 & 20, Peter speaking of the question of what if any parts
of the law that Gentile believers should follow:

19) "Where my sentence is THAT WE TROUBLE NOT THEM, which from among the
Gentiles are turned to God"

20) "But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of
idols and from fornication and from things strangled and blood" 

The Apostles and Elders of the Early Church were PLEASED with this
statement on not attempting to enjoin the Law on Gentile believers (vs
22) and they wrote letters referring to this and sent them to the
Brethren Gentiles in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia.

Why didn't they also tell the Gentiles to tithe?

Were they WRONG in not including your proposed "principle of tithing"?

>Paul quotes a law that has to do with God's law of animal rights but 
>in the application of that law he shows the spirit of the passage is in 
>reference to maintaining the ministry.  The OT passage is not in
reference to 
>ministry but animal rights

I hardly think Paul was any kind of animal rights activist.  And there
ARE parts of the Law that can be helpful to us even today, but we cannot
MANDATE them to believers, as per Acts 15:20.

>>If we are really going to continue the OT tithing, we are in
>>serious trouble.  
>
>You have a misconception.  If we are not going to continue the 
>principle of tithing (i.e. returning that which belongs to God) then we
are in 
>serious trouble with God.

I am not condemning GIVING at all.  There is a big difference.  We have
CLEAR scripture on giving with a cheerful heart (2 Corinthians 9:7). What
 I am condemning is the suggestion that we are still under the Law as to
the matter of tithes, yet we SOMEHOW don't have to exactly follow the Law
because we can use your proposed "principle of tithing" which CLEARLY
ignores the principal of scriptural OT tithing.  If you say that we are
supposed to continue the PRINCIPLE of tithing, then Sis Yohnk has listed
two tithes that we are deliberately ignoring: the tithes of Feasts and
the Tithes of the Poor.

The same Preachers that demand that the Levitical Tithe should be
retained refer to giving to the Poor as an "offering" and I have not
heard ONE Pastor preach about having a mandatory "Tithe of Feasts" or
tithing to the Poor.  Have you heard of such a thing?

Why not?

Here are my questions.  PLEASE try to answer them.

>>1) WHEN did such a change occur?
>>2) WHO made such a change
>>3) WHAT were the limits or additions of the change?
>>4) DID this person have SCRIPTURAL AUTHORITY to make such a change?
>
>I ask you these same questions concerning your misunderstanding of 
>the discontinuance of the principle of tithe.    

There is no misconception; if you can adequately answer my questions then
you can prove your point.

You have acknowledged in a round about way that there WAS a change in the
method of tithing, from the specific Law of the OT to your claim of a
scripturally universal principle of tithing.

I again ask you to PLEASE answer my questions that were honestly posted
for you or anyone else to answer.

I have not heard even ONE reply to them.

And you have made a bold claim: 

>The whole of Scripture maintains the finacial plan of God to be tithe. 
Not just the Old Testament.

* Did Adam tithe?
* Did Seth tithe?
* Did Noah tithe?

We first hear about tithing later, with Abram on the spoils of victory
from ONE war.

>As to the continuance of the tithe principle I find in 2 Cor 3:6  Who 
>also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the
letter, 
>but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life. 
But 
>if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was
glorious, 
>so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of
Moses 
>for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away:  How
shall 
>not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious?  For if the 
>ministration of condemnation be glory, much more doth the ministration
of 
>righteousness exceed in glory.  For even that which was made glorious
had no glory 
>in this respect, by reason of the glory that excelleth.  For if that
which is 
>done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious.
>
>What remains?  

You can make generic assumptions, but it is not safe to construct them as
BIBLICAL Doctrine to the point that it would be mandatory for all saints
to follow as either a test of fellowship, as somekind of "Holy Meter" or
even worse, to decide that saint's salvation is in question.

>I think returning what belongs to God is a principle 
>that has not been done away with.  Your misconception of "giving of an 
>offering" as equal to tithe misses this point altogether.

Really?  I am only quoting what the Early NT Church DID, not what I
"theorize" they MIGHT have done, or what they MIGHT have thought.  I am
basing my beliefs on what the Bible SAYS they did.

SPECIFICALLY, Chapter and Verse:  Where does it say that they
re-instituted tithes in the NT?

> I think returning what belongs to God still remains. I repeat my first
conclusion.  You cannot be 
>called a thief unless you take something that belongs to another.  Do
you 
>suppose that the tithe belonged to God in the OT but does not belong to
God in 
>the NT?  I think not.   

Then it is your misconception to believe that I don't think that giving
is RIGHT.  But I don't believe that the NT teaches a tithe like has been
attempted to be forced on people (first by the Catholic Church in the
Fifth Century, btw, according to the Grollier's Encyclopeadia).  If it is
your belief that refusing to TITHE is a sin or even wrong, then you are
stating that the entire NT Church was sinning and that the Apostles and
Elders deliberately sinned when they did not emphasize this to the new
Gentile Believers in Acts 15.

>>>If the disciples sold everything and had all things in common (Acts 
>2) 
>
>>When it says "the disciples" it doesn't mean the entire Church at 
>that >time.  
>
>I am sure that you were "shooting from the hip" here, so I'll qoute 
>the scripture to clarify the issue.  The entire church is what the 
>scriptures teach.

Perhaps for a SHORT time, but this was not mandated, either.

Was the Church at Corinth, for example such a community?

What about Ephesus?

> Armed with the OT scriptures and the understanding that the law is not
made void through faith, but 
>established, I can only conclude that the NT church did not do away with
the 
>principle of tithe but understood the pattern of the OT and the teaching
of Jesus 
>that said not to leave either justice mercy and faith nor tithe undone. 


Another grand claim, one that is SPECIFICALLY negated by Acts 15.  Show
me ANY supporting scripture or historical evidence to back this statement
up.

You have none.

>I do not understand why anyone would want to leave either undone?  If 
>you are so inclined to leave either/or undone, what more can be said,
eh?

That I am not living under the Law and you wanna hear a secret? 

You're not either.

HERE is a great principle that I have learned from the Bible:

We are not SUPPOSED to blindly believe what someone says, but search the
scriptures.

Acts 17:11

"There were more NOBLE than those in Thessalonica, IN THAT THEY RECEIVED
THE >>WORD<< (they didn't take Paul's word, but GOD'S Word) with ALL
readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether these
things were so"

It is NOBLE to not blindly obey, but to search the scriptures to see if
your claim is so.

Be noble.

Jerry Welch
ICQ: 18489712
www.geocities.com/Athens/Aegean/2810/
___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]