Where exactly the UPCI got tithing from?

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

Well? Here’s the man of the hour explaining the UPCI doctrine of tithing. Watch and listen then let’s continue the discussion. What do y’all think? DKB in his own words.

https://youtu.be/9_jgPKW7bWM?si=Z6gvZ_2tn3iW6hxc

I listened to the video. He believes in tithing?

Now, that is are only take away. He believes in tithing. He teaches others to tithe. He also logically would therefore tithe himself. Now everyone who listens to this recording of Brother David K Bernard, would have to say he believes, teaches, and practices tithing. How did I do?

[coksiw]

Esaias,
Thank you so much for sharing those findings!!!

[Tithesmeister]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

I listened to the video. He believes in tithing?

Now, that is are only take away. He believes in tithing. He teaches others to tithe. He also logically would therefore tithe himself. Now everyone who listens to this recording of Brother David K Bernard, would have to say he believes, teaches, and practices tithing. How did I do?

Man!! You’re awesome! Such depth of understanding and willingness to answer the tough questions. Can I call you my pastor and send all my tithes to you?

[coksiw]

Regarding all the findings so far, these are the points:

A. They argue they are preventing the saints from a blessing. Basically, stating that tithing ensures financial blessing. A sort of prosperity doctrine not found in the teaching of the Apostles.

B. Their stronger argument is actually that the tithing was done by Abraham and Jacob. Therefore, we should follow the example and do the same. With one twist: Abraham and Jacob did it voluntarily, but they turn it mandatory to be able to participate in the congregation. Except, the Apostles also had the Abraham and Jacob story, and every time they spoke of money, they had plenty of opportunities to use, but never did. Why? because it is not applicable. Furthermore, Abraham was wealthy, Jacob was wealthy, the tithe in the law applied to the cattle and produce, basically, in an agriculture society, to the wealthy, ... the poor did not tithe, the craftmen (likely also middle to poor class in an agriculture society) didn't, the fisherman either. Even those that had some land or cattle but wasn't enough source of income, must have complemented it with other non-titheable source incomes (e.g. trades), effectively having a less than the tithe income tax. Most of the early Christians were not the rich people. The Apostles preaching tithing to them would have been highly noticed and recorded in the NT. But everytime they preached/taught about money, never did, and never used the Abraham/Jacob example either.

C. They also appeal to direct instructions from God to preach it. Not only Haywood had that experience but also Seymour testified of a tongue interpretation saying that God commanded such. When the Scriptures details how God speaks, meaning, when the Bible calls that "God said", "the word came", etc..., it is described as an audible voice in a dream or a vision, in the O.T., and carries to the N.T. Everything else, it is called "revelation", "guidance", "moving", etc... of the Spirit. Saying that God said something but in reality you just felt something in your spirit or in your mind, it is putting words in God's mouth He didn't say.
If the person receives an experience about a topic, this is what usually happen:
* It is from God, and you indeed got the point well
* It is from God, but you have so much desire to speak on a conflicting point that you misunderstand what God was trying to guide you to (e.g., you feel broken inside as you speak a topic and you think that's God wanting you to talk about it with burden, when in reality may be the Spirit making you feel bad because you are talking about it to begin with, or doing it incorrectly)
* It is from your own imagination but you are attributing it to God.
The tongue interpretation of Seymour is another topic. Interpretation has been used and abused beyond what it is Biblical. That's for another Post.
If you had a "revelation" that contradicts the Apostles doctrine, your revelation is from your own imagination; or you indeed got something from God but you are misunderstanding the entire point because your flesh wants you to go so bad in a different direction so you have hardened your heart to what God really wants you to understand.
Apparently, the best way to convince a Pentecostal is with a "God told me", and then some misinterpreted Scriptures.

This thread has been very productive, indeed

[Tithesmeister]

I’m sure y’all caught this. But just in case you didn’t, beginning at around the 4:10 mark DKB says that there is no statement of change of the tithe in the New Testament! That’s a big deal. We agree on the tithe doctrine. Who knew? He says “in fact Jesus assumed that the tithe would continue.

What does that mean?

The tithe would continue to be agricultural.
The Jews would tithe and the Gentiles would continue to be ineligible to tithe.
The tithe would be eaten. It would continue to be food.
The tithe would continue to be only from the promised land.
The tithe would continue to be given to only the family of the tither, widows, fatherless, Levites and strangers. (Strangers were by definition nonJews, aka Gentiles, which means that Gentiles were not only not eligible to tithe, they were eligible to receive tithes).
The tithe would continue to not be money.

These are just a sample of some of the characteristics of the tithe that would remain unchanged.

I’m sure y’all caught that, but you never know.
Glad to help.

[coksiw]

Originally Posted by coksiw

Regarding all the findings so far, these are the points:

A. They argue they are preventing the saints from a blessing. Basically, stating that tithing ensures financial blessing. A sort of prosperity doctrine not found in the teaching of the Apostles.

B. Their stronger argument is actually that the tithing was done by Abraham and Jacob. Therefore, we should follow the example and do the same. With one twist: Abraham and Jacob did it voluntarily, but they turn it mandatory to be able to participate in the congregation. Except, the Apostles also had the Abraham and Jacob story, and every time they spoke of money, they had plenty of opportunities to use, but never did. Why? because it is not applicable. Furthermore, Abraham was wealthy, Jacob was wealthy, the tithe in the law applied to the cattle and produce, basically, in an agriculture society, to the wealthy, ... the poor did not tithe, the craftmen (likely also middle to poor class in an agriculture society) didn't, the fisherman either. Even those that had some land or cattle but wasn't enough source of income, must have complemented it with other non-titheable source incomes (e.g. trades), effectively having a less than the tithe income tax. Most of the early Christians were not the rich people. The Apostles preaching tithing to them would have been highly noticed and recorded in the NT. But everytime they preached/taught about money, never did, and never used the Abraham/Jacob example either.

C. They also appeal to direct instructions from God to preach it. Not only Haywood had that experience but also Seymour testified of a tongue interpretation saying that God commanded such. When the Scriptures details how God speaks, meaning, when the Bible calls that "God said", "the word came", etc..., it is described as an audible voice in a dream or a vision, in the O.T., and carries to the N.T. Everything else, it is called "revelation", "guidance", "moving", etc... of the Spirit. Saying that God said something but in reality you just felt something in your spirit or in your mind, it is putting words in God's mouth He didn't say.
If the person receives an experience about a topic, this is what usually happen:
* It is from God, and you indeed got the point well
* It is from God, but you have so much desire to speak on a conflicting point that you misunderstand what God was trying to guide you to (e.g., you feel broken inside as you speak a topic and you think that's God wanting you to talk about it with burden, when in reality may be the Spirit making you feel bad because you are talking about it to begin with, or doing it incorrectly)
* It is from your own imagination but you are attributing it to God.
The tongue interpretation of Seymour is another topic. Interpretation has been used and abused beyond what it is Biblical. That's for another Post.
If you had a "revelation" that contradicts the Apostles doctrine, your revelation is from your own imagination; or you indeed got something from God but you are misunderstanding the entire point because your flesh wants you to go so bad in a different direction so you have hardened your heart to what God really wants you to understand.
Apparently, the best way to convince a Pentecostal is with a "God told me", and then some misinterpreted Scriptures.

This thread has been very productive, indeed

Quote from David Bernard, the irony of life:

‘Some Charismatics believe in new revelations—receiving new doctrines by direct revelation from God apart from a study of Scripture. An advertisement in Charisma magazine for a study Bible promised, “This is the only complete publication of all the spiritual warfare strategies that have been given Morris Cerullo, by God, through divine revelation.”8 One leader stated:
The Bible is God’s Word, but through prophets the Holy Spirit also brings revelation to this generation that is equally God’s Word. The prophet is not a method that God uses; but in fact is the only method He uses to speak to this generation. . . . The message of a true prophet of God is not to be judged.9
Some of the Positive Confession teachers speak of rhema as a direct, personal revelation that God can give to people. This concept has some validity when speaking of direction that God gives individuals in daily life, which always harmonizes with the Bible, but it become dangerous when used as the basis for establishing authority, teaching doctrine, or directing the lives of others.’
—David K. Bernard, “A History of Christian Doctrine”

[coksiw]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

I’m sure y’all caught this. But just in case you didn’t, beginning at around the 4:10 mark DKB says that there is no statement of change of the tithe in the New Testament! That’s a big deal. We agree on the tithe doctrine. Who knew? He says “in fact Jesus assumed that the tithe would continue.

What does that mean?

The tithe would continue to be agricultural.
The Jews would tithe and the Gentiles would continue to be ineligible to tithe.
The tithe would be eaten. It would continue to be food.
The tithe would continue to be only from the promised land.
The tithe would continue to be given to only the family of the tither, widows, fatherless, Levites and strangers. (Strangers were by definition nonJews, aka Gentiles, which means that Gentiles were not only not eligible to tithe, they were eligible to receive tithes).
The tithe would continue to not be money.

These are just a sample of some of the characteristics of the tithe that would remain unchanged.

I’m sure y’all caught that, but you never know.
Glad to help.

Such a detailed teacher as he is, it is very disappointing to see him violating his own doctrinal principles he applies in other areas. He contradicts himself when it comes with principles of interpretation to harmonize with the UPCI and his own ideas.

[Tithesmeister]

Originally Posted by coksiw

Such a detailed teacher as he is, it is very disappointing to see him violating his own doctrinal principles he applies in other areas. He contradicts himself when it comes with principles of interpretation to harmonize with the UPCI and his own ideas.

Yes. Let’s apply his “theory” of Abram tithing to Melchizedek. He says that we should tithe because Abram did and we are sons of Abraham. Because there is no indication that he was obeying God with his tithe.

So, if we should tithe because Abram did, should we also have multiple wives or concubines? Because, to follow his logic (or lack there of) we should have children with multiple women because we are sons of Abraham therefore we will do what he did.

So, I’m sure DKB has some “work” to do.

And with Jacob? We should make deals with God.

I commit before all of you and God, that if he gives me ten billion dollars within a week that I will give one billion to the poor.

But wait there’s more . . .

If God gives me ten trillion dollars before sundown today, I will give two trillion to the poor (that is TWO tithes, just in case y’all are having trouble doing the math).
Aren’t I generous?

[jediwill83]

Originally Posted by coksiw

Regarding all the findings so far, these are the points:

A. They argue they are preventing the saints from a blessing. Basically, stating that tithing ensures financial blessing. A sort of prosperity doctrine not found in the teaching of the Apostles.

B. Their stronger argument is actually that the tithing was done by Abraham and Jacob. Therefore, we should follow the example and do the same. With one twist: Abraham and Jacob did it voluntarily, but they turn it mandatory to be able to participate in the congregation. Except, the Apostles also had the Abraham and Jacob story, and every time they spoke of money, they had plenty of opportunities to use, but never did. Why? because it is not applicable. Furthermore, Abraham was wealthy, Jacob was wealthy, the tithe in the law applied to the cattle and produce, basically, in an agriculture society, to the wealthy, ... the poor did not tithe, the craftmen (likely also middle to poor class in an agriculture society) didn't, the fisherman either. Even those that had some land or cattle but wasn't enough source of income, must have complemented it with other non-titheable source incomes (e.g. trades), effectively having a less than the tithe income tax. Most of the early Christians were not the rich people. The Apostles preaching tithing to them would have been highly noticed and recorded in the NT. But everytime they preached/taught about money, never did, and never used the Abraham/Jacob example either.

C. They also appeal to direct instructions from God to preach it. Not only Haywood had that experience but also Seymour testified of a tongue interpretation saying that God commanded such. When the Scriptures details how God speaks, meaning, when the Bible calls that "God said", "the word came", etc..., it is described as an audible voice in a dream or a vision, in the O.T., and carries to the N.T. Everything else, it is called "revelation", "guidance", "moving", etc... of the Spirit. Saying that God said something but in reality you just felt something in your spirit or in your mind, it is putting words in God's mouth He didn't say.
If the person receives an experience about a topic, this is what usually happen:
* It is from God, and you indeed got the point well
* It is from God, but you have so much desire to speak on a conflicting point that you misunderstand what God was trying to guide you to (e.g., you feel broken inside as you speak a topic and you think that's God wanting you to talk about it with burden, when in reality may be the Spirit making you feel bad because you are talking about it to begin with, or doing it incorrectly)
* It is from your own imagination but you are attributing it to God.
The tongue interpretation of Seymour is another topic. Interpretation has been used and abused beyond what it is Biblical. That's for another Post.
If you had a "revelation" that contradicts the Apostles doctrine, your revelation is from your own imagination; or you indeed got something from God but you are misunderstanding the entire point because your flesh wants you to go so bad in a different direction so you have hardened your heart to what God really wants you to understand.
Apparently, the best way to convince a Pentecostal is with a "God told me", and then some misinterpreted Scriptures.

This thread has been very productive, indeed

It is the true definition of "Grieving the Holy Spirit"...

[jediwill83]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

Yes. Let’s apply his “theory” of Abram tithing to Melchizedek. He says that we should tithe because Abram did and we are sons of Abraham. Because there is no indication that he was obeying God with his tithe.

So, if we should tithe because Abram did, should we also have multiple wives or concubines? Because, to follow his logic (or lack there of) we should have children with multiple women because we are sons of Abraham therefore we will do what he did.

So, I’m sure DKB has some “work” to do.

And with Jacob? We should make deals with God.

I commit before all of you and God, that if he gives me ten billion dollars within a week that I will give one billion to the poor.

But wait there’s more . . .

If God gives me ten trillion dollars before sundown today, I will give two trillion to the poor (that is TWO tithes, just in case y’all are having trouble doing the math).
Aren’t I generous?

Yeah this kinda thinking in preaching littered liberally with heresy of hearsay amounts to the kind of "good church spiritualism" that Aaron tried to convince Moses they were having by saying,"Look, hear me out, we had a meeting, vented our spleens, got a lil emotional, had this desire to sacrifice and look what just popped up out of NOWHERE when we gave in this way we werent exactly commanded to give to who we gave it to!"


Congrats...another golden calf promising salvation and prosperity if you just do things different from what the Word says.


Its evil and needs to be repented of.


Again as I have said before...taking something that is supposed to come freely without compulsion and FORCING it directly or indirectly through coercion by tying a curse or loss of salvation is evil and heretical to the Gospel.