Tithe-vs-Paying Your Bills

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by onefaith2

emotionally driven? See thats why discussing in person is better than a forum. Thats very far from the truth. I'm presenting to you principles. If you do not agree that is fine and is everyone's perogative but pray and see what the Holy Ghost would teach you regarding the "principles" I have laid out.

Maybe you're not realizing it. Take a step away and look at it from another perspective. You're illustrating that Abraham shows us a "principle". But he only tithed once and he only tithed of war spoils. You also say that Jacob's vow to tithe shows us a tithing "principle", but he only vowed to tithe IF God blessed him... and the vow illustrated that he'd tithe AFTER God blessed him, not before. You might not realize this but you're divorcing the "tithe" performed in each passage from it's context to establish your "principle". If the "principle" is kept in context we learn that we're only expected to tithe once, it's a personal choice not a requirement, we are to only tithe of increase not our entire living, and tithing should be performed only IF God blesses us after he has blessed us. That is what this principle shows if kept in context. You can't say that a "principle" is estasblished just because a word is found in a verse. You have to examine the "principle" active in it's context. That is what we're seeing you not do. I know you don't realize this. But that's what we're seeing.

And then there is this... Abraham was circumcised. Should Christians in the NT be circumcised? Paul addressed this already. In a very real sense, tithing and circumcision in the time of Abraham are very much alike. Un-required of the NT believer.

Suffice to say tithing is very biblical, both before the law and during it and the NT church is silent on the matter. So the burden of proof is on both sides as to when it ended.

Don't you think if the NT church taught tithing it would have to be addressed? Especially among those Gentiles who had never tithed nor had heard of the tithe. It would have been quite a question. Please understand, the tithe was a tenth of the land's harvest and a tenth of the herds raised on the land. The tithes went into the "storehouse". For 300 years Christians met in homes. The average "church gathering" was between 15 and 30 people depending on venue. They didn't have a bank and/or treasury. Where did they keep all this loot??? Historians and anthropoligists specializing in the first century have noted that it appears that Christians didn't "tithe". They gave generously to meet the needs of their local assembly as needs arose. They also raised money to relieve saints in famine, widows, and the poor. All on an as needed basis. It's established history and known fact that the historic Apostolic church didn't tithe.

The earliest Christian assemblies patterned themselves after the Jewish synagogues which were led by rabbis who, like Paul, refused to gain a profit from preaching and teaching God’s Word. There are many books on Jewish social life which explain this in great detail.
From Christ’s death until Christianity became a legally recognized religion almost 300 years later, the majority of great church leaders took self-imposed vows of poverty. This is historically documented. They took Jesus’ words to the rich young ruler in Luke 18:22 literally “sell all that you have, give it to the poor, and follow me.” Most church historians agree that these early church leaders for at least the first 200 years worked for a living and were self-supporting. A Christian leader could not tell a Roman census-taker that he was a full-time preacher of an outlaw religion.
Clement of Rome (c95), Justin Martyr (c150), Irenaeus (c150-200) and Tertullian (c150-220) all opposed tithing as a strictly Jewish tradition. The Didache (c150-200) condemns traveling apostles who stay longer than three days and ask for money. And travelers who decided to remain with them were required to learn a trade. These early opponents of tithing are not quoted by tithe-teachers.
Cyprian (200-258) tried unsuccessfully to impose tithing in Carthage, North Africa around A. D. 250. At his conversion Cyprian gave away great wealth to the poor and lived under a vow of poverty. His idea of tithing included equal re-distribution to the poor. And –we must remember—his ideas of tithing were not adopted.
According to the very best sources it took over 500 years before a local church Council of Macon in France, in the year 585, to try (unsuccessfully) to enforce tithing on its members. It was not until the year 777 that Charlemagne legally allowed the church to collect tithes.

That is the history of tithing found in the Encyclopedia Britannica, Encyclopedia Americana and the Roman Catholic Encyclopedia. History and facts all go far beyond the fuzzy emotional appeals to the notion that the church held these "principles". Face it, facts are facts.

We both agree that tithing is not a bad system as long as its not tithes or hell teaching. The pastor of that local assembly denotes whether a person that doesn't tithe and is able to do so should be involved. That no one can change.

Ahhh, if only that were true in most assemblies today. The best system is the NT system. But keep in mind... I'm an advocate of "House Churching" over traditional church. I believe we need to get back to the way the Apostles did church. The church spread like wildfire through the Roman empire without collecting tithes, without single bishop rule, without buildings, and without altars, sermons, altar calls, choirs, steeples, hymnals, blah, blah, blah. All it takes is a "biblical" concept of "church". Wheresoever two are more are gathered in his name, there he is in the midst of them. We can gather at your house, have food, break bread, partake in the wine, have prayer, study scripture together, share scriptures that God has been using to talk to us, share poetry, song, and spend all evening worshiping, fellowshiping, and building one another up. If a brother or sister in our group needs groceries... we give them money or buy them groceries. If they need their car repaired... we take up a collection to help pay for it. It's actually quite simple. That's why many call house church, "Simple Church". It's a return to the NT basics.

But that's just me.

The bottom line is the more we give to God, the more God will press down, shaken over, bring into his work. So essentially NT tithing then is giving but giving along the principle of Abraham and Jacob which are before the law.

LOL Again you missed it. I don't give according to the principle of Abraham and Jacob. First, I don't just give of interest earned or windfall profits as Abraham did. Also, I give more often than Abraham gave his tithe. Also, I don't vow to God that I'll give a tenth IF he blesses me. Nor do I wait until after I'm blessed to give what I do choose to give. You're ignoring the principles principles are actually found in the texts themselves. LOL

I know you don't see this. But you really have to realize you're appearing to those who DO know the history and HAVE studied the issue out in great detail.

God bless.

[Truthseeker]

When did God start dealing with principles? I thought he only deals with commands and obedience?????

[onefaith2]

If we want to quote history, first we need to get all facts straight Aquilla

from http://www.logon.org/english/s/p161.html

It is also asserted that Irenaeus (writing ca. 195, after the schism) preaches against the tithe in Book IV, but he does no such thing. In Book IV (ch. VIII, 3) he speaks of the Law and the Sabbath and that it did not forbid those who were hungry on the Sabbath days to take food lying ready at hand. He goes on to proclaim that David was appointed a priest by God although Saul persecuted him. “For all the righteous possess the sacerdotal rank and all the apostles of the Lord are priests” (ibid., cf. 1Pet. 2:5,9 quoting also Moses at Deut. 33:9). He says that God requires obedience rather than sacrifice and holocausts. Irenaeus quotes Paul and holds the ministry to be priests of the Lord who, when hungry, may lawfully eat of the ears of corn. He held that the priests in the Temple profaned the Sabbath and were blameless because they were not engaged in secular affairs. In this he upheld the Sabbath and the actions of the ministry as priests of the Lord who had a right to eat of the inheritance of Levi, which is the tithes and offerings of the Laws of God.



Irenaeus says in chapter XVIII, 1: “We are bound therefore to offer to God the first-fruits of His creation, as Moses also says, ‘Thou shalt not appear in the presence of the Lord thy God empty’ [i.e. empty handed; cf. Deut. 16:16]; so that man being accounted as grateful, by those things in which he has shown his gratitude, may receive that honour which flows from him.”



This text is a clear reference to the tithe and the three Feast seasons of the Bible. He goes on in XVIII, 2 to say:

“And the class of oblations in general has not been set aside for there were both oblations there [among the Jews], and there are oblations here [among the Christians]. Sacrifices there were among the people, sacrifices there are, too, in the Church: but the species alone has been changed inasmuch as the offering is now made, not by slaves but by freemen. For the Lord is [ever] one and the same; but the character of a servile oblation is peculiar [to itself], as is also that of freemen, in order that by the very oblations, the indication of liberty may be set forth. For with him there is nothing purposeless, nor without signification, nor without design. And for this reason they (the Jews) had indeed the tithes of their goods consecrated to Him, but those who have received liberty set aside all their possessions for the Lord’s purposes, bestowing joyfully and freely not the less valuable portions of their property, since they have the hope of better things [hereafter]; as that poor widow acted who cast all her living into the treasury of God” (cf. Lk. 21:4).



Irenaeus here is saying that the Jews tithed as required by the Law of God but we of Christ in the Church give all we have as oblations before God in the Church. How could anyone with any understanding construe this as eliminating the Laws of God regarding tithing? It is elevating the laws regarding the first-fruits and the tithe to one of total sacrifice for the Church.



Irenaeus is often quoted out of context from the text in Book. 4, ch. XIII in relation to tithing where he says:

“… and instead of the Law enjoining the giving of tithes, [He told us] to share all our possessions with the poor.”



This statement amplifies the rest of his views where the laws of the tithe were not eliminated but amplified. Most ignore that sentiment.



Irenaeus says in Book 4, ch. XIII, 1 that Christ “did not teach us things as being opposed to the law but as fulfilling the law, and implanting in us the varied righteousness of the law. That would have been contrary to the law, if he had commanded his disciples to do anything that the law had prohibited” (ibid., vol. 1, p. 477).



Thus we have the authority granted to us by Christ and the Apostles in the Church when it was transferred from Levi to the order of Melchisedek, of which order we are. We have appointed deacons and tested them in the Faith and they are measured by the Holy Spirit and judged. To whom much is given much is expected, and the danger of their position is great.



Be thankful that the Church in normal circumstances has not placed any burden on itself other than the tithes of God and whatever the individual chooses to offer. Give thanks that the Church is not as it was in Jerusalem and in dire need of holding all goods in common. In such a situation Ananias and his wife were killed, just as some of these who teach against the Laws of God have been spiritually killed.

[onefaith2]

Again the Didache didn't condemn tithing and even talked about a system of giving by "instruction" (not saying this is tithing)


from http://slaveoftheword.blogspot.com/2...od-second.html

The Didache (c.a. 100 A.D.), also called The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, contains numerous references to giving. In 1:5–6, the text discusses the sharing of resources among Christians. The only possible allusion to tithing could be the statement that giving should be done “according to the commandment.” However, since 1:6 says, “Let your charitable gift sweat in your hands until you know to whom you are giving it,” it appears that the Mosaic law of tithing is not the referent since responsibility is placed within the giver as to the worthiness of the recipient. The Didache exhorts Christians to be givers rather than takers (1:5; 4:5–8; 5:2; 15:4). It contains one statement similar to statements in Acts 2 and 4 about communalism (4:8). The text includes teaching similar to 1 Corinthians 9:14, that ministers of the gospel have a right to live from the gospel (11:6, 12; 13:1–2). 13:3–7 discusses how Christians are to give first fruits, stating that prophets are Christians’ high priest. However, it does not equate first fruits with a portion that is the (Divine) right of ministers of the gospel: “If, however, you have no prophet [minister of the gospel], give [the first fruits] to the poor” (13:4). Finally, 13:7 says to take the first fruits of “money and clothing and whatever [else] you own as you think best and give them according to the commandment.” A problem occurs when the text says both to give “as you think best” and to give “according to the commandment.” Some have said this is a contradiction. However, the phrase “as you think best” refers to the items that are considered liable to first fruits and “according to the commandment” probably refers to the instructions just given.
.

Here is one for you also

Justin Martyr (pictured left) (100–165 A.D.) provided an early, detailed, account of church services. He says that Christians met on Sundays and read the writings of the Apostles and prophets. After an exhortation to do good and pray, the love feast took place. They took the offering at the end of the service and those who were wealthy were free to give as they saw fit. The church used this offering to help the poor, widows, and others in need. There were two parts to the offering: (1) the first consisted of food: the congregation consumed part of the offering at the love feast and part of the offering was taken to those who were absent. The remainder of the offering was for the poor. After this meal, they partook of the Lord’s Supper. Finally, they took a second offering that included both money and food. This offering was for the clergy and the poor. Justin’s description of the offering neglects to mention tithing. Furthermore, his emphasis on personal responsibility in giving and that giving was mainly dependent upon the rich argues strongly against Justin advocating tithing. All of Justin’s explicit references to tithing were either incidental or quotes from Scriptures containing the word.
( Justin did not condemn tithing either, but his system was the rich helping the clergy and the poor, which is exactly what tithing should do today!)

Four extant writings from the second century are important for the history of tithing. Clement of Rome (pictured left) (c.a. 100 A.D.) urged Christians to give their offerings systematically, thus following God’s laws. Clement makes no direct mention of tithing. The only evidence deduced to conclude that Clement is inferring tithing is his use of “laws.” However, his discussion on Christian offerings are more than likely dependent upon Paul’s epistles (e.g. 1 Cor 16). There is not adequate evidence to support the supposition that Clement advocated tithing.
(yet we are to give according to laws.. you said there wasn't any rule to giving back then did you not? It was totally free will? What law is Clemeent talking about here and the site supposes Paul's epistles)

[onefaith2]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Maybe you're not realizing it. Take a step away and look at it from another perspective. You're illustrating that Abraham shows us a "principle". But he only tithed once and he only tithed of war spoils. You also say that Jacob's vow to tithe shows us a tithing "principle", but he only vowed to tithe IF God blessed him... and the vow illustrated that he'd tithe AFTER God blessed him, not before. You might not realize this but you're divorcing the "tithe" performed in each passage from it's context to establish your "principle". If the "principle" is kept in context we learn that we're only expected to tithe once, it's a personal choice not a requirement, we are to only tithe of increase not our entire living, and tithing should be performed only IF God blesses us after he has blessed us. That is what this principle shows if kept in context. You can't say that a "principle" is estasblished just because a word is found in a verse. You have to examine the "principle" active in it's context. That is what we're seeing you not do. I know you don't realize this. But that's what we're seeing.


LOL Again you missed it. I don't give according to the principle of Abraham and Jacob. First, I don't just give of interest earned or windfall profits as Abraham did. Also, I give more often than Abraham gave his tithe. Also, I don't vow to God that I'll give a tenth IF he blesses me. Nor do I wait until after I'm blessed to give what I do choose to give. You're ignoring the principles principles are actually found in the texts themselves. LOL

I know you don't see this. But you really have to realize you're appearing to those who DO know the history and HAVE studied the issue out in great detail.

God bless.

Funny because the entire chapter 11 of Hebrews takes events from the OT and mirrors them to what our faith should be (with action to all those who believe works = action) Thats a principle

The OT tabernacle, we don't burn animals on the altar, the principle now is that we offer ourselves

The cloud by day, fire by night (the principle NOW is we are lead of the Spirit of God, not visibly of course)

See Aquila principles equate in the NT based on the old.
Remember the early church had no NT BIBLE. The only scriptures they had were the OT. They lived by the commandments and the testimonies of Jesus Christ. The Gentile church of course did not know Moses' law and thats the reason the Jewish Christians were preaching that they needed to be circumcised, the only Book they had was the OT.
Paul of course straightened them out on circumcision (NT circumcision relates to baptism into christ' death) the principle still carried over.

Should we get on the principle of women and men's clothing? Thats another candystick for some in the church and is taught wrong, IMO, just like tithing or hell. The principle is there but it is TAUGHT wrong.

Abraham only offered his son once, but the principle is for us to offer everythign (Romans 12:1)

Noah only built an ark once (the principle for us is to stay in the ark)

I don't see your point about Jacob. I really don't see how it is any different than what we do now. Everything the Lord gives us (all our possessions are His) He decided whatever God WOULD give him, he would give God back the tenth. Your saying Jacob waited until he had gotten all that he had.

NLT

20 Then Jacob made this vow: “If God will indeed be with me and protect me on this journey, and if he will provide me with food and clothing, 21 and if I return safely to my father’s home, then the Lord will certainly be my God. 22 And this memorial pillar I have set up will become a place for worshiping God, and I will present to God a tenth of everything he gives me.”

How many times did Jacob return to this place where God gave him the vision?

See my post above regarding history. Apparently not all historians agree with your deductions of all the fathers being against an organized giving system such as tithing. although all would oppose the strict levitical priesthood law but they did carry the principle.

[Aquila]

Nothing in either text states that the early church required tithing. Yes, they gave offerings, generously to support the needy and the clergy. It's important to note that the teachings of Irenaeus also established single bishop rule in the church, something that wasn't the norm until his day. You'll find that Irenaeus suggested structuring the church in a fashion that immulated Roman authority... the beginning of Roman Catholicism.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by onefaith2

Funny because the entire chapter 11 of Hebrews takes events from the OT and mirrors them to what our faith should be (with action to all those who believe works = action) Thats a principle

The OT tabernacle, we don't burn animals on the altar, the principle now is that we offer ourselves

The cloud by day, fire by night (the principle NOW is we are lead of the Spirit of God, not visibly of course)

See Aquila principles equate in the NT based on the old.
Remember the early church had no NT BIBLE. The only scriptures they had were the OT. They lived by the commandments and the testimonies of Jesus Christ. The Gentile church of course did not know Moses' law and thats the reason the Jewish Christians were preaching that they needed to be circumcised, the only Book they had was the OT.
Paul of course straightened them out on circumcision (NT circumcision relates to baptism into christ' death) the principle still carried over.

Should we get on the principle of women and men's clothing? Thats another candystick for some in the church and is taught wrong, IMO, just like tithing or hell. The principle is there but it is TAUGHT wrong.

Abraham only offered his son once, but the principle is for us to offer everythign (Romans 12:1)

Noah only built an ark once (the principle for us is to stay in the ark)

I don't see your point about Jacob. I really don't see how it is any different than what we do now. Everything the Lord gives us (all our possessions are His) He decided whatever God WOULD give him, he would give God back the tenth. Your saying Jacob waited until he had gotten all that he had.

NLT

20 Then Jacob made this vow: “If God will indeed be with me and protect me on this journey, and if he will provide me with food and clothing, 21 and if I return safely to my father’s home, then the Lord will certainly be my God. 22 And this memorial pillar I have set up will become a place for worshiping God, and I will present to God a tenth of everything he gives me.”

How many times did Jacob return to this place where God gave him the vision?

See my post above regarding history. Apparently not all historians agree with your deductions of all the fathers being against an organized giving system such as tithing. although all would oppose the strict levitical priesthood law but they did carry the principle.

You'll find that historians that try to find evidence of tithing among the early church have to stretch it and admit that tithing isn't directly discussed. First fruits (which by the Bible's description) fit into a single hand carried basket. Firstfruits are an offering, not a tithe. Don't confuse the two.

You may wish to give 10% as you have determined in your heart. I don't think that's wrong. However, tithe or burn teaching is quite revalent and is extortion. We are not bound by the tithing laws even if some wish to impliment tithing in their giving according to believed principle.

[onefaith2]

Originally Posted by Aquila

You'll find that historians that try to find evidence of tithing among the early church have to stretch it and admit that tithing isn't directly discussed. First fruits (which by the Bible's description) fit into a single hand carried basket. Firstfruits are an offering, not a tithe. Don't confuse the two.

You may wish to give 10% as you have determined in your heart. I don't think that's wrong. However, tithe or burn teaching is quite revalent and is extortion. We are not bound by the tithing laws even if some wish to impliment tithing in their giving according to believed principle.

I just pointed out there was an advocated giving system in the early church. Your interpretation of that is irrevelant because neither of us were there. I do know what works today though based on my experience and you know what works based on yours.

I never advocated tithing or hell.. i advocate faithfulness in giving and a system based on the principle of tithing is not bad

[onefaith2]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Nothing in either text states that the early church required tithing. Yes, they gave offerings, generously to support the needy and the clergy. It's important to note that the teachings of Irenaeus also established single bishop rule in the church, something that wasn't the norm until his day. You'll find that Irenaeus suggested structuring the church in a fashion that immulated Roman authority... the beginning of Roman Catholicism.

But yet you used him to say he was against tithing??? I happen to enjoy most of what I have read of his writings. I used him in the texts to show there was a structured giving that the early fathers advocated. So if the early church had none, WHO did it start with would be the question I would ask??

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by onefaith2

I just pointed out there was an advocated giving system in the early church. Your interpretation of that is irrevelant because neither of us were there. I do know what works today though based on my experience and you know what works based on yours.

I never advocated tithing or hell.. i advocate faithfulness in giving and a system based on the principle of tithing is not bad

I don't think our positions are all that different. However, I'd also state that it's wrong for a church to teach "tithe or pew", because it creates a class system where those who can afford to tithe are the only ones allowed to use the gifts God gave them. Those too poor to tithe are stiffled and treated like "second class" Christians. That's so wrong on so many levels.