A thought on tithing

[DaveC519]

Originally Posted by seekerman

There wasn't a single so-called 'church' (i.e, a building) built in the New Testament. There wasn't a building-based 'church' system taught or seen in the New Testament. There wasn't a 'church' (building-based) economy in the New Testament.

The religious system of which you're a part isn't found in the New Testament.

Open your eyes. You're still embracing Rome, brother.

Hello seekerman,

Right now I'm understanding your comments as a form of "arguing from silence", so please help me out!

Have you found any specific NT injunctions against building a structure dedicated as a meeting place for Christians? If you have, I'd certainly be interested in reading them.

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by DaveC519

Hello seekerman,

Right now I'm understanding your comments as a form of "arguing from silence", so please help me out!

Have you found any specific NT injunctions against building a structure dedicated as a meeting place for Christians? If you have, I'd certainly be interested in reading them.

It is the dead sea scrolls that the angels delivered to his door every Sunday morning.

[seekerman]

Originally Posted by DaveC519

Hello seekerman,

Right now I'm understanding your comments as a form of "arguing from silence", so please help me out!

Have you found any specific NT injunctions against building a structure dedicated as a meeting place for Christians? If you have, I'd certainly be interested in reading them.

Nope, not a form of arguing from silence. The pattern of meeting New Testament church was from home to home per scripture, the bible isn't silent at all about that. Never was it taught to build some building, call it a 'church' or 'tabernacle' or 'house of God' or 'bro so-and so's church' and replacing that with the bible based teaching of house to house.

The Romanists introduced the building-based system with all it's trappings and the oneness pentecostals are following it very well. It's not according the teachings of the bible though.

So no, it's not arguing from a position of silence. It's arguing between following the Roman system or the New Testament system.

[DaveC519]

Originally Posted by seekerman

Nope, not a form of arguing from silence. The pattern of meeting New Testament church was from home to home per scripture, the bible isn't silent at all about that. Never was it taught to build some building, call it a 'church' or 'tabernacle' or 'house of God' or 'bro so-and so's church' and replacing that with the bible based teaching of house to house.

The Romanists introduced the building-based system with all it's trappings and the oneness pentecostals are following it very well. It's not according the teachings of the bible though.

So no, it's not arguing from a position of silence. It's arguing between following the Roman system or the New Testament system.

Hello seekerman,

While I agree that "ekklēsia" applies to the body of believers, it appears that the location/building where they actually congregated was inconsequential. Nowhere do we see in the NT a prescription against a particular meeting place and/or building. In fact, nowhere do we see a prescription in favor of such. It simply isn't discussed, therefore, it was inconsequential. This is why I said that to argue for or against a building is to argue from silence.

[seekerman]

Originally Posted by DaveC519

Hello seekerman,

While I agree that "ekklēsia" applies to the body of believers, it appears that the location/building where they actually congregated was inconsequential. Nowhere do we see in the NT a prescription against a particular meeting place and/or building. In fact, nowhere do we see a prescription in favor of such. It simply isn't discussed, therefore, it was inconsequential. This is why I said that to argue for or against a building is to argue from silence.

I have to disagree. The pattern was to keep the gathering of the church in a house to house venue, not evolving the meeting of the church into a revised modernist Old Testament temple/priesthood system. God instructed a place for his dwelling within the people in the Old Testament system with a priesthood hierarchy within that system, but just the opposite is taught in the New Testament system. There is no 'house of God' in which to meet any more. No 'house of God' to build, maintain and support and no priesthood system to receive tithes and offer sacrifices for the people.

Yet we see that the church has evolved into such a system, mainly because of the Romanist influence which still permiates the protestant religious system. There's instruction on the church meeting, ongiving, on christian life, on prayer, on the five fold ministry, on the operating of the gifts of the spirit.....all within the body of Christ. We have a fairly clear understanding of how the church which immediately followed Jesus operated and to attempt to add to that a form of the Old Testament system has no scriptural support.

If one were interested, I suggest doing a study on the early church. What you'll find is there was no clergy/laity building-based, 'house of God' religious or economic system until the Romanists introduced it a couple of hundred years after Christ.

The thread was on tithing and the question arose concerning if a person were to tithe, where does one pay the tithe since the Old Testament system is dead and gone to live no more. The common answer is to pay it into the 'church', but the 'church' which is receiving the tithe isn't the church of the New Testament. It's a system, introduced by the Romanists, which has attempted, very successfully I might say, to reintroduce a Old Testament religious system within the body of Christ. The tithe is used to support a building-based system where much of the financial giving is to support a building which many demand to be the biggest and best because it's falsely referred to as 'the house of God' and is used two or three times a week at best. The rest of the time this 'house of God' sits dark and unused. Along with this building-based 'house of God' system there is introduced to the real church, the assembly, a modified Old Testament priesthood system. Depending on the christian religious sect, this modified Old Testament priesthood system is presented to the real church, the body of believers, the assembly, as having the power to control them, as being a priest over them and to also receive the tithe.

Again, this isn't about not tithing or giving, this is about where to give. It's not support a man made building-based 'house of God' religious system, it's to do as is instructed in scripture. Support the ministry. Give to the widows and orphans. Feed the hungry, clothe the naked. But don't give to support a type of religious system which God destroyed 2000 years ago.

[DaveC519]

Originally Posted by seekerman

I have to disagree. The pattern was to keep the gathering of the church in a house to house venue, not evolving the meeting of the church into a revised modernist Old Testament temple/priesthood system. God instructed a place for his dwelling within the people in the Old Testament system with a priesthood hierarchy within that system, but just the opposite is taught in the New Testament system. There is no 'house of God' in which to meet any more. No 'house of God' to build, maintain and support and no priesthood system to receive tithes and offer sacrifices for the people.

Yet we see that the church has evolved into such a system, mainly because of the Romanist influence which still permiates the protestant religious system. There's instruction on the church meeting, ongiving, on christian life, on prayer, on the five fold ministry, on the operating of the gifts of the spirit.....all within the body of Christ. We have a fairly clear understanding of how the church which immediately followed Jesus operated and to attempt to add to that a form of the Old Testament system has no scriptural support.

If one were interested, I suggest doing a study on the early church. What you'll find is there was no clergy/laity building-based, 'house of God' religious or economic system until the Romanists introduced it a couple of hundred years after Christ.

The thread was on tithing and the question arose concerning if a person were to tithe, where does one pay the tithe since the Old Testament system is dead and gone to live no more. The common answer is to pay it into the 'church', but the 'church' which is receiving the tithe isn't the church of the New Testament. It's a system, introduced by the Romanists, which has attempted, very successfully I might say, to reintroduce a Old Testament religious system within the body of Christ. The tithe is used to support a building-based system where much of the financial giving is to support a building which many demand to be the biggest and best because it's falsely referred to as 'the house of God' and is used two or three times a week at best. The rest of the time this 'house of God' sits dark and unused. Along with this building-based 'house of God' system there is introduced to the real church, the assembly, a modified Old Testament priesthood system. Depending on the christian religious sect, this modified Old Testament priesthood system is presented to the real church, the body of believers, the assembly, as having the power to control them, as being a priest over them and to also receive the tithe.

Again, this isn't about not tithing or giving, this is about where to give. It's not support a man made building-based 'house of God' religious system, it's to do as is instructed in scripture. Support the ministry. Give to the widows and orphans. Feed the hungry, clothe the naked. But don't give to support a type of religious system which God destroyed 2000 years ago.

I agree that there is no NT Christian religious system based upon a particular building or type of building. I have yet to find a verse which prohibits meeting outside of a house, or which prescribes the necessity of meeting within a house. On the rest of your comments, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

[Steve Epley]

Again the NT church was birthed in the upper room of the Temple.
The first motable miracle and evidently the hour of prayer took place at the temple.
The apostles and early church met at the temple.
All this is found in the Book of Acts.
Did they also meet in homes? Yes.
There is no scripture forbidding a local meeting house and there are scriptures as I have given that shows the early church did meeting in the Temple.(evidently in the court of the women).

[seekerman]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

Again the NT church was birthed in the upper room of the Temple.
The first motable miracle and evidently the hour of prayer took place at the temple.
The apostles and early church met at the temple.
All this is found in the Book of Acts.
Did they also meet in homes? Yes.
There is no scripture forbidding a local meeting house and there are scriptures as I have given that shows the early church did meeting in the Temple.(evidently in the court of the women).

The temple made with hands was destroyed for it was not needed. Building 'temples' made with hands isn't part of the New Testament church system. There is no New Testament 'house of God', 'temple', 'church building', or any religious structure in which to meet God as it was under the Old Testament system.

Building structures and having the people serve them within a man made priesthood system is simply man attempting to return to the Old Testament system, placing burdens on them that God eliminated. You wish for people to come to your building which you identify as a 'church', pay you tithe and operate according to a modified Old Testament religious system introduced by the Romanists.

Nothing in the New Testament church suggests such a system.

[Lafon]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

Again the NT church was birthed in the upper room of the Temple.
The first motable miracle and evidently the hour of prayer took place at the temple.
The apostles and early church met at the temple.
All this is found in the Book of Acts.
Did they also meet in homes? Yes.
There is no scripture forbidding a local meeting house and there are scriptures as I have given that shows the early church did meeting in the Temple.(evidently in the court of the women).

Bro Epley, I know you don't want to hear this, however, if we forsake all of the fancy buildings in which we assemble to worship, and "do church" in the homes of the saints instead; as well as rid ourselves of a paid clergy and his/her staff, perhaps we can begin to use the "giving" of the saints as did the saints of the First Century.

Instead of using the financial resources which the saints "give" in the assemblies today n this manner, as well as the "tithes" they are commanded to provide the clergy, we find that it is often those to whom we should be assisting financially that are required to give of their limited financial resources to maintain a building and a paid glergy instead.

We have it all backwards, or so it seems to me!

[AreYouReady?]

Originally Posted by seekerman

I have to disagree. The pattern was to keep the gathering of the church in a house to house venue, not evolving the meeting of the church into a revised modernist Old Testament temple/priesthood system. God instructed a place for his dwelling within the people in the Old Testament system with a priesthood hierarchy within that system, but just the opposite is taught in the New Testament system. There is no 'house of God' in which to meet any more. No 'house of God' to build, maintain and support and no priesthood system to receive tithes and offer sacrifices for the people.

Yet we see that the church has evolved into such a system, mainly because of the Romanist influence which still permiates the protestant religious system. There's instruction on the church meeting, ongiving, on christian life, on prayer, on the five fold ministry, on the operating of the gifts of the spirit.....all within the body of Christ. We have a fairly clear understanding of how the church which immediately followed Jesus operated and to attempt to add to that a form of the Old Testament system has no scriptural support.

If one were interested, I suggest doing a study on the early church. What you'll find is there was no clergy/laity building-based, 'house of God' religious or economic system until the Romanists introduced it a couple of hundred years after Christ.

The thread was on tithing and the question arose concerning if a person were to tithe, where does one pay the tithe since the Old Testament system is dead and gone to live no more. The common answer is to pay it into the 'church', but the 'church' which is receiving the tithe isn't the church of the New Testament. It's a system, introduced by the Romanists, which has attempted, very successfully I might say, to reintroduce a Old Testament religious system within the body of Christ. The tithe is used to support a building-based system where much of the financial giving is to support a building which many demand to be the biggest and best because it's falsely referred to as 'the house of God' and is used two or three times a week at best. The rest of the time this 'house of God' sits dark and unused. Along with this building-based 'house of God' system there is introduced to the real church, the assembly, a modified Old Testament priesthood system. Depending on the christian religious sect, this modified Old Testament priesthood system is presented to the real church, the body of believers, the assembly, as having the power to control them, as being a priest over them and to also receive the tithe.

Again, this isn't about not tithing or giving, this is about where to give. It's not support a man made building-based 'house of God' religious system, it's to do as is instructed in scripture. Support the ministry. Give to the widows and orphans. Feed the hungry, clothe the naked. But don't give to support a type of religious system which God destroyed 2000 years ago.