What are Your Feelings on Tithes

[amadeus]

This is rather specious reasoning and shows that you are not prepared to obey the NT directives to Christians.

Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine. (1 Tim 5:17)

1. Who are the elders that rule well? Pastors are elders, and elders (plural) take oversight of the local church. That is what "rule" means.

2. Who labor in the Word and doctrine? Those who preach and teach within the assembly, and work hard to bring out Bible truths.

3. What is double honor? The context shows that it is GENEROUS COMPENSATION to those who are the pastor/elder/bishops.

Looks like you are the one who is not willing to take responsibility within your church by complaining about "tithes".

So then when we have chosen or have been chosen to sit under ministers if in our heart we see that they are not really laboring in the word and doctrine, then should we still accord them with 'double honour'?

I presume that single honor would be given to our faithful brothers and sisters. Where is the test for determining who is deserving of double honor and how do we honor someone doubly? Should it not be in the heart of the one who is considering giving a part of what he has [money?] to the one who seems to deserve it? Who deserves it? When it comes to that probably no one does.

Should we without question give a part to a man who effectively is saying, "I deserve it"? That sounds quite a bit like a lot of the commercials I hear in the secular world these days. They bother me as well... when they keep on saying "You deserve it" to everyone!

In the OT a double portion was given to the eldest son, but as we see with Esau some who despised that consideration by their actions lost that special consideration.

In the case of Elisha he asked that he be given a double portion of the spirit of Elijah his spirit upon his departure. Elijah told him that he would receive it if he could 'see' him leave. He did see so he did receive.

In the case of Reuben, because he fornicated with his step-mother we see that the double portion went to Joseph.

Just being in the correct position [such as pastor] even legally [who determines legality?] likewise should not cause a person to automatically qualify for the double portion... should it?

Where does providing the means to put bread and butter on the table for him and his come into this?

 

[amadeus]

yeh, but our pastors "have gone a'whoring" imo, long time ago; so what about that? Do they even fit the passage anymore?
@amadeus

"that there be no gatherings when i come" is maybe the operative phrase for the rest of this convo though? also "let him who has two coats give to him who has none"

If they [the pastors[ don't fit then it is between the person in the congregation and God. If called you to be there, then it should be God calls you to 'come out' of there. Of course a lot of people are in a place and don't have a clue as whether or not God called them to be there... although they might say they do.

This kind of a question makes it clear [to me] why it is so important to have and retain a regular communication between the individual and God. Too many, who claim to be "Christians" have seemingly never the voice of God. A 'good' pastor would be helpful, but who has a 'good' pastor? Should a person simply join up with some church group so as to have a pastor without regard to what kind of a pastor he is or whether or not God called the person to that place? I wouldn't advise it, but that is a generality which could mean nothing at all. When you have a real situation maybe sound advice is available through some man.

What does this have to do with tithing? I don't know!

 

[quietthinker]

The only law we are under is love.
If we love then we give.

Yeahhhhh, give me the axe handle!

 

[Truther]

My church of the past really wanted your tithes.

How about yours?

It is a scam of centuries.
It is a stumblingblock to sinners and saints.
Those that teach it will pay for wrecking the reformation too.

 

[Waiting on him]

It is a scam of centuries.
It is a stumblingblock to sinners and saints.
Those that teach it will pay for wrecking the reformation too.

Just my opinion, the Protestant church carried with them much of the worldly doctrines founded by their mother.

 

[Truther]

Just my opinion, the Protestant church carried with them much of the worldly doctrines founded by their mother.

Excellent observation.

Their mother is the mother of harlots.

They are her daughters, because they keep some of their mother's doctrines.

 

[Enoch111]

So then when we have chosen or have been chosen to sit under ministers if in our heart we see that they are not really laboring in the word and doctrine, then should we still accord them with 'double honour'?

You've raised some good points. Those who do not labor in the Word and doctrine should not even be among the elders. And if there were always a plurality of elders, then the rest of them would have to address this issue and ask that brother to focus on another ministry.

I presume that single honor would be given to our faithful brothers and sisters.

Since this matter pertains to compensation for those who devote themselves fully to the ministry of the Word, it would not apply to faithful brothers and sisters serving without expectation of compensation. And those who are self-supporting and still minister the Word would decline any compensation.

Where is the test for determining who is deserving of double honor and how do we honor someone doubly?

The Holy Spirit would show the assembly who is a genuine laborer by the quality of his ministry. And then the Christians could recommend better compensation, or generous compensation.

Should we without question give a part to a man who effectively is saying, "I deserve it"?

It is not for the laborer to declare what he deserves. It is up to the rest of the Christians to compensate fairly and justly.

Just being in the correct position [such as pastor] even legally [who determines legality?] likewise should not cause a person to automatically qualify for the double portion... should it?

The apostles did not see the elders as "employees" of the church, but as those appointed by God to be in spiritual leadership. So it would not be an issue of legality, but of spirituality. Again, they did not see just one man as being the shepherd of 100 or 200 people. That's why they called it a "presbytery" (a group of presbyters or elders).

Where does providing the means to put bread and butter on the table for him and his come into this?

That would be the basic living wage for a person in that position. God did not envision preachers as being beggars in the assembly. Hence "thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn". The ox was free to eat what he needed. Therefore 'For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward.' (1 Tim 5:18)

 

[FHII]

IF your heart is first and foremost on God, then supporting physical operations of the church through tithes should be an obvious and natural thing to do.

If you attitude is "Yeah I like Jesus- but don't you dare touch my money!!!" ... where is your heart and what are you truly placing first?

This sums up what I believe! Right on! Someone else mentioned (think it was #MaryMOG) that we aren't under a tithing principle, but to give according to our heart. I agree with that too.

I want to comment on a few more things:

First, there's been a lot of talk about Malachi 3. Well, Malachi isn't the law. It was a book written when the Law was in effect, but it itself is not the Law. What God was expressing was his frustration that he wasn't being put first. He proclaimed curses and blessing according to how they reacted. While the Law is no longer in effect, I believe the promises still stand.

Second, while tithing was incorporated into the Law, it actually predates the Law. Abraham paid tithes. It may have been a one off... But yes, tithing was before the Law.

Third, there has been discussion about 1 Cor 16. Paul asked for and offering this time to aide the brethren in Jerusalem. This should not be applied across the board as some kind of notion that all donations to the Church should go to feed the poor and not support operations, including the Pastor's salary.

Phillipians 4:14 and beyond tell of how the congregation gave to Paul to meet HIS needs. He said he didn't desire a gift, but they sent it, and it was Fruit in THEIR account.

So... Giving prospers you as much, if not more, than it does the Pastor.

Now, of course, I believe Paul was wise with the finances. I believe he used some of it for his expenses (the notion that he was making tents everywhere he went and lived on that money is false... I have a direct quote from Paul where he said he preached the gospel so he wouldn't be a financial burden) But that he appropriated it in the right direction as led by God.

So, the bottom line: Tithing is not demanded, as we are to give according to what is our heart. But it is at least a pretty good place to start.

 

[Josho]

You need to give 100%

Lolz just kidding.

When you give, give out of your heart, there is no set amount.

 

[justbyfaith]

You do understand that the "windows of heaven" is rain! Do you want the promise of rain?

Yea God!...send your rain / reign (of the Holy Spirit)!

See John 6:35, John 4:13-14, John 7:37-39.

 

[LC627]

Last time I checked no churches I've been to accept crops and livestock...that's what the tithes were. That's how the Levites were taken care of.

In the context of the New Testament church and our congregations, people should freely give out of a joyful heart. This varies from family to family but each member of the church should contribute towards the congregation and its work.

 

[justbyfaith]

Last time I checked no churches I've been to accept crops and livestock...that's what the tithes were. That's how the Levites were taken care of.

In the context of the New Testament church and our congregations, people should freely give out of a joyful heart. This varies from family to family but each member of the church should contribute towards the congregation and its work.

It's not wrong to liquidate your assets before tithing them.

 

[Waiting on him]

This sums up what I believe! Right on! Someone else mentioned (think it was #MaryMOG) that we aren't under a tithing principle, but to give according to our heart. I agree with that too.

I want to comment on a few more things:

First, there's been a lot of talk about Malachi 3. Well, Malachi isn't the law. It was a book written when the Law was in effect, but it itself is not the Law. What God was expressing was his frustration that he wasn't being put first. He proclaimed curses and blessing according to how they reacted. While the Law is no longer in effect, I believe the promises still stand.

Second, while tithing was incorporated into the Law, it actually predates the Law. Abraham paid tithes. It may have been a one off... But yes, tithing was before the Law.

Third, there has been discussion about 1 Cor 16. Paul asked for and offering this time to aide the brethren in Jerusalem. This should not be applied across the board as some kind of notion that all donations to the Church should go to feed the poor and not support operations, including the Pastor's salary.

Phillipians 4:14 and beyond tell of how the congregation gave to Paul to meet HIS needs. He said he didn't desire a gift, but they sent it, and it was Fruit in THEIR account.

So... Giving prospers you as much, if not more, than it does the Pastor.

Now, of course, I believe Paul was wise with the finances. I believe he used some of it for his expenses (the notion that he was making tents everywhere he went and lived on that money is false... I have a direct quote from Paul where he said he preached the gospel so he wouldn't be a financial burden) But that he appropriated it in the right direction as led by God.

So, the bottom line: Tithing is not demanded, as we are to give according to what is our heart. But it is at least a pretty good place to start.

I'm in agreement with you here except for the bit about Abraham, he was on his way back from the slaughter of the kings. He didn't go hope and gather a tenth of his crops, he stop on his way home in Salem current Jerusalem, and tithed the king there.

 

[Waiting on him]

Last time I checked no churches I've been to accept crops and livestock...that's what the tithes were. That's how the Levites were taken care of.

In the context of the New Testament church and our congregations, people should freely give out of a joyful heart. This varies from family to family but each member of the church should contribute towards the congregation and its work.

Yes, for three years they were to take the tithe to where God had placed His name and consume it before Him. What ever their soul lust after

 

[LC627]

I'm in agreement with you here except for the bit about Abraham, he was on his way back from the slaughter of the kings. He didn't go hope and gather a tenth of his crops, he stop on his way home in Salem current Jerusalem, and tithed the king there.

It's hard to make a case from Abraham as mandating tithing as his reasoning to give 10% came from a vow he made.

 

[Waiting on him]

How much of annual average "church" funds would most say are allocated to administrative?

 

[Waiting on him]

60,70,80%??

 

[LC627]

60,70,80%??

IMO, too much. Also, Churches don't need some paid positions such as worship leaders, secretaries, etc.

 

[justbyfaith]

IMO, too much. Also, Churches don't need some paid positions such as a worship leaders, secretaries, etc.

Worship leaders are essential.

 

[Josho]

IMO, too much. Also, Churches don't need some paid positions such as a worship leaders, secretaries, etc.

It would depend on size of Church.

But I agree about the paid positions.