The Crux of the Pro-tithe Argument

[Originalist]

Interestingly, the main crux of the pro-tithers' position is the fact that the practice is "MENTIONED" prior to the Law. Naturally, many will point out that animal sacrifices and circumcision were also mentioned before the Law. Thus, it would seem that, in order to be consistent, the pro-tithers would consider those practices to also be binding on the New Testament church. Ah, but they have cleverly (well, at least in their own eyes) found a way around that seeming contradictory obstacle. They simply attach tithing to the "moral code" that pre-existed before Law. If tithing is part of the moral code that pre-existed before the Law, then it certainly outlasts the abolishment of the Law. Certainly, we would not claim that the abolishment of the old covenant constitutes an abolishing of God's command to live holy and not commit murder, steal, lie, cheat, commit adultery, etc. So, to the pro-tither, saying that tithing was abolished is like saying God's laws against the sins listed above are also abolished.

Pretty clever, huh? I mean, if tithing did pre-date the Law as one of the moral imperatives that were incorporated into the Law, then the practice would be binding on the whole human race for all time. But there is just one tiny little problem with this theory. While nobody disputes the fact that tithing was practised in some areas and to some degree before the Law, the pro-tithers simply have not produced data that validates their claim that the tithe pre-existed as a moral imperative, or as part of God's eternal moral code. So, I invite them to do so now. Please make your case that tithing is a moral imperative, or part of the moral code that pre-dated the Law. Before the flood, and before the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, God made his moral imperatives clear. Where do we find God, prior to the Law, making tithing a moral imperative? This narrows the focus of the debate and prevents us all from chasing rabbits.

[Tithesmeister]

Originally Posted by Originalist

Interestingly, the main crux of the pro-tithers' position is the fact that the practice is "MENTIONED" prior to the Law. Naturally, many will point out that animal sacrifices and circumcision were also mentioned before the Law. Thus, it would seem that, in order to be consistent, the pro-tithers would consider those practices to also be binding on the New Testament church. Ah, but they have cleverly (well, at least in their own eyes) found a way around that seeming contradictory obstacle. They simply attach tithing to the "moral code" that pre-existed before Law. If tithing is part of the moral code that pre-existed before the Law, then it certainly outlasts the abolishment of the Law. Certainly, we would not claim that the abolishment of the old covenant constitutes an abolishing of God's command to live holy and not commit murder, steal, lie, cheat, commit adultery, etc. So, to the pro-tither, saying that tithing was abolished is like saying God's laws against the sins listed above are also abolished.

Pretty clever, huh? I mean, if tithing did pre-date the Law as one of the moral imperatives that were incorporated into the Law, then the practice would be binding on the whole human race for all time. But there is just one tiny little problem with this theory. While nobody disputes the fact that tithing was practised in some areas and to some degree before the Law, the pro-tithers simply have not produced data that validates their claim that the tithe pre-existed as a moral imperative, or as part of God's eternal moral code. So, I invite them to do so now. Please make your case that tithing is a moral imperative, or part of the moral code that pre-dated the Law. Before the flood, and before the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, God made his moral imperatives clear. Where do we find God, prior to the Law, making tithing a moral imperative? This narrows the focus of the debate and prevents us all from chasing rabbits.

I’m sorry. I just can’t support it with scripture. You win!

[mfblume]

You guys still hung up on giving monetary offerings?

[Tithesmeister]

Originally Posted by mfblume

You guys still hung up on giving monetary offerings?

Who are you guys? If you want to debate offerings, which were sometimes rendered in money, and tithes, which never were, and base that debate on real scripture? I’d be happy to participate in that debate.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

Who are you guys? If you want to debate offerings, which were sometimes rendered in money, and tithes, which never were, and base that debate on real scripture? I’d be happy to participate in that debate.

Giving does not have to be distinguished between money or items. Giving is giving no matter what it is, and tithes or no tithes are not even affected by that distinction.

[Tithesmeister]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Giving does not have to be distinguished between money or items. Giving is giving no matter what it is, and tithes or no tithes are not even affected by that distinction.

Tithes are affected, according to God. Be careful that you don’t teach false doctrine.

Actually giving was distinguished by God, in the scripture. They were not allowed to tithe whatever they decided was convenient. That was decided for them . . .
By God.

You are ignoring the scriptural fact that tithing was giving that was prescribed by God to be done a certain way and was relegated to certain specific use by certain specific people. Whereas offerings were allowed to be given of things that tithes were not.

Money being such a thing.

If you feel strongly about it. I’ll be happy to debate you with scripture. I doubt you’ll take advantage of the offer, because you are much to knowledgeable of scripture to hope to win such a debate.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

Tithes are affected, according to God. Be careful that you don’t teach false doctrine.

Actually giving was distinguished by God, in the scripture. They were not allowed to tithe whatever they decided was convenient. That was decided for them . . .
By God.

You are ignoring the scriptural fact that tithing was giving that was prescribed by God to be done a certain way and was relegated to certain specific use by certain specific people. Whereas offerings were allowed to be given of things that tithes were not.

Money being such a thing.

If you feel strongly about it. I’ll be happy to debate you with scripture. I doubt you’ll take advantage of the offer, because you are much to knowledgeable of scripture to hope to win such a debate.

1 Cor 9:13-14 is all I need to know. All else is splitting hairs that are not an issue in the new covenant.

Not worth a debate. Hence, why the hangup?

[Tithesmeister]

Originally Posted by mfblume

1 Cor 9:13-14 is all I need to know. All else is splitting hairs that are not an issue in the new covenant.

Not worth a debate. Hence, why the hangup?

I think you have misunderstood who has the hang up. Who is teaching giving tithes?

Do you teach tithing?

Are YOU hung up on this doctrine?

[Tithesmeister]

Originally Posted by mfblume

1 Cor 9:13-14 is all I need to know. All else is splitting hairs that are not an issue in the new covenant.

Not worth a debate. Hence, why the hangup?

Says the man who has endlessly debated sabbath keeping. Do you consider sabbath keeping worthy of debate?

Are you writing a book on sabbath keeping?

Do you have a hang up on keeping the sabbath?

Just curious.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

Says the man who has endlessly debated sabbath keeping. Do you consider sabbath keeping worthy of debate?

Are you writing a book on sabbath keeping?

Do you have a hang up on keeping the sabbath?

Just curious.

Yes, because sabbath keeping is a major issue that many are involved with and that poses a huge problem between the intended understanding that we are meant to have regarding law and grace. This distinction of varying beliefs about sabbath leads to a huge overall issue of whether we're to understand what the entire leading of the Spirit is all about. Tithing does not go that way at all.