All Activity

Yeah, there's nothing Biblically required about making the tithe the minimum;

Giving to God—Abundant Sharing Posted on November 14, 2016 by The Way Quote: Tithing (giving one-tenth of one’s increase) to the Lord is established in God’s Word as a basic law of God’s prosperity. In making the tithe our minimum, we open the floodgates for prosperity to ourselves, and we help make available the knowledge of God to others. We also have the joy of giving above and beyond the tithe, which we call abundant sharing. Abundant sharing is a heart-motivated commitment to freely share of our abundance out of love for and thankfulness to God. Two main purposes for abundantly sharing are so that God’s people may give and thus receive the subsequent blessings, and so that the necessary financial and physical means are provided to help move God’s prevailing Word.

Our Legal Rights in Christ to God’s Blessings This article was posted 5 years ago by twi. In it they say "One of these immutable laws is the law of giving."

2 Corinthians 9:5-7 So I considered it necessary to urge the brothers that they go on ahead to you and arrange in advance your previously promised generous gift (blessing) that the same would be ready as a generous gift (blessing) and not as one grudgingly given due to greediness (covetousness). 6 Now I say this: the one who sows sparingly (refraining) will also reap sparingly (refraining), and the one who sows generously (upon blessings) will also reap generously (upon blessings). 7 Each one must do just as he has decided in his heart, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver. Sparingly = 5340 pheidomenós (adverb): Sparing, refraining, withholding. This is in the context of verse 5 which says "not as one grudgingly given due to greediness" NASB which is one Greek word - 4124 pleonexia meaning greed, covetousness. So sparingly here isn't about giving a small amount but giving a small amount because of greed (an intense and selfish desire for something). IOW, you don't have to give out of what you need, but out of your blessings. Generously = 2129 ep' eulogia (noun): upon (on the basis of) blessings (See 1909 epi) I know it can be a challenge to get past twi's doctrine and expectations of habitual giving/abundant sharing in order to begin giving according to one's own heart. And again, the purpose for Paul's collection in 2 Cor 8 and 9 is for the poor saints in Jerusalem maybe because of a famine or because of persecution or both. My last word on this is the concept of giving "in order" to receive. Can't see how this is a right attitude to have.

I do not think there is a law of "giving and receiving", Of course I know that not everyone in this forum is Christian or Bible purist, but if we take the Bible as a reference, it does not mention giving as a law (unlike the Mosaic law or other civil, agricultural, etc. regulations) - the closest thing is "He who soweth sparingly shall reap also sparingly; and he who soweth bountifully shall reap also bountifully." Is that a Law? Does it always happen the same way? If a person gives abundantly, will that person always receive abundantly? I believe God and the Bible, and I choose to give BUT freely, Not by coercion, obligation or pressure. There are two books that contain a lot of information on this subject and that obviously do not coincide with TWI's vision: "The Tithing Dilemma" by Ernest Martin " L’identification des dîmes: Quelle dîme est donc payée par les chrétiens" by Hughes N.

Pardon me if I misunderstand, but if God had set it up as a law, wouldn't there be a one to one ratio of action and reaction? Why don't they (or anyone else) just call it the concept of giving (and receiving)? One would think they could expand on it to include the organization's understanding of what the believer's giving is conceptually supposed to be used for... and perhaps expand the teaching to include TWI responsibility to contribute to community support organizations, at least 10 percent of gross receipts.

I've obviously extended this thread to include "giving" (aka twi's doctrine of abundant sharing) as well as tithing. If anyone finds this is being , I can start a new thread.

That's how I understand it as well. Apparently, once the temple was destroyed, the transactional tithe in order to receive God's blessings took on a mandatory monetary value according to some religious organizations.

I want to look at the words "generous gift" in 2 Corinthians 9:5 So I considered it necessary to urge the brothers that they go on ahead to you and arrange in advance your previously promised generous gift, that the same would be ready as a generous gift, and not as one grudgingly given due to greediness. (NASB) Translations of 2 Corinthias 9:5 shows parallel verses which used different word(s) instead of "generous gift." They include willing gift, blessing, a matter of bounty, matter of generosity, bountiful gift, etc. However, 2129. eulogia gives the definition of eulogia as meaning "blessing, praise, benefit." It also shows it's specific meaning for 2 Cor 9:5 as "the blessing of a collection sent from Christians to their brethren" (See 5a). The word "generous" is not mentioned. Finally, Verses with eulogia show how this word is translated as "blessing" in all its usages (except Romans 16:18) and 2 Cor 9:5-6 where it is translated in terms of bounty or generosity. Why is this? 2 Corinthians 9:6 is the next verse that should be looked at as well.

“…doors…keys…” **transactions Malachi sounds transactional, too. Bring the WHOLE tithe (not more) and see if blessing don’t pour out from heaven. Maybe a promise. Maybe a challenge. But the tithe was about food, right? The priests had to eat. Livestock were given to be cooked (sacrificed) and eaten. These animals also provided milk and eggs. The temple money changers, who Jesus rebuked, converted coin to livestock. The livestock was then offered. For sacrifice. To be eaten. The tithe was about food. Do I have this right?

(Highlighting and colour of font above is mine) 2 Corinthians 8:7 Therefore, as ye abound in every thing, in faith, and utterance (logos), and knowledge, and in all diligence, and in your love to us, see that ye abound in this grace also. You said that you saw this verse as showing abounding is the "standard that is supposed to underscore our motivation to give." I see it also as "abounding" in all of the areas are necessary in order for any one specific area to be successful in God's eyes. IOW, you need to abound in faith if you want to abound in all the others; you need to abound in speaking the word if you want to abound in all the others; you need to abound in knowledge if you want to abound in all the others, etc. According to BibleHub, "abound" is 4052 perisseuó meaning to abound (exist in large numbers or amounts), to be in abundance (a very large quantity of something), to overflow (the excess or surplus not able to be accommodated by an available space), to excel (to be superior to: surpass in accomplishment or achievement). Is it taking it too far then to say that this abounding in all 6 things is required to receive anything from God as opposed to pfal's list of 5 things to do in order to receive anything from God?

Bungalow Bill?

Your last line (highlighting is mine) shows the error in twi's calling giving (tithe/AS) a law. However, in their writings about giving, they do (or at least did) quote the two promises above to support their concept of guaranteed results. Malachi says "bring" and God will "open and pour." 2 Cor 9 says "be a cheerful giver" and God is able to provide "all grace, all sufficiency and an abundance." A promise is defined as "a declaration or assurance that one will do a particular thing or that a particular thing will happen." God's promises are guaranteed according to Isaiah 55:20, "For as many as the promises of God are, in Him they are yes; therefore through Him also is our Amen to the glory of God through us." So, is twi's only error in calling giving and receiving a law whereas God accurately considers giving and receiving a promise? What difference is there really between the two?

Sudden Impact?

The Wreak of the Edmund Fitzgerald Bill and his elephants were taken by surprise So Captain Marvel zapped him right between the eyes (zzah) All the children sing

Adrien Brody Paul Gleeson Jarod Leto Elias Koteas Ben Chaplin Tim Blake Nelson Thomas Jane George Clooney Woody Harrelson John Cusack John C Reilly John Savage Jim Caviezel Sean Penn

It's evident that God established giving according to the heart in the New Testament. Calling it a law is complex, because if it fails in any case, it would no longer be a law, since laws "are always fulfilled." In TWI, at least in recent years, when a person tithed and didn't get results, contradictory excuses arose, such as: "They are giving without the love of God in the renewed mind in manifestation." "They are giving without believing" "They are giving out of compulsion." Ultimately, it's a vicious circle, because TWI's entire belief system is based on another principles that VPW developed (or plagiarized). Tithing and Abundant Sharing are based on the "law of believing" and the love of God in the renewed mind in manifestation, and others. If one fails, it's because the other is failing, and so on. The central issue is that these three main beliefs or principles are not 100% biblical and generate condemnation in people.

Thank you for confirming that they call it the law of giving which lines up with their law of believing. In both cases, however, when the law doesn't work then the giver/believer must be doing something wrong (not cheerful enough, not generous enough, not trusting enough). Been there, done that. Yet, the promises are there in the bible. For tithing, there's Malachi 3:10 10Bring the whole tithe into the storehouse, so that there may be food in My house, and put Me to the test now in this,” says the LORD of armies, “if I do not open for you the windows of heaven and pour out for you a blessing until it overflows. For giving, there's 2 Corinthians 9:7-8 7Each one must do just as he has decided in his heart, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver. 8And God is able to make all grace overflow to you, so that, always having all sufficiency in everything, you may have an abundance for every good deed; Is a biblical promise and a law not similar in some way?

This sounds like a Mac Davis song to me. But I don't have any clue.

Oh, I can see There ain't no room for me You're only holding out Your heart in sympathy If there's another man Then girl, I understand Go on and take his hand I'll be blue (Baby blue) And I'll be crying, too (Crying, too, crying, too) But girl, you know I only want What's best for you What good is all my pride If our true love has died? Go on and be his bride George

Well, I adhere to the main post here. However, publicly TWI is teaching about GIVING not Tithing (If you watch their current STS they do not mention tithe) - unless you are in a private circle where they still expect 10% or more from "leaders" and "faithful believers". TWI is full of contradictions...they still sell "Christians Should be Prosperous", in that book VPW says..."Do not pray for prosperity if you do not tithe". But....check TWI's description on their website: "This booklet opens the doors to prosperous living. Biblically established keys, such as the law of giving and receiving, unlock true prosperity for the believer" THE LAW OF GIVING OR TITHING?

Apparently. Not Leatherheads. Adrien Brody Paul Gleeson Jarod Leto Elias Koteas Ben Chaplin Tim Blake Nelson Thomas Jane George Clooney Woody Harrelson John Cusack John C Reilly John Savage Jim Caviezel

December, 1963 The legend lives on from the Chippewa on down of the big lake they call Gitchigumi.

Apparently, George Clooney played a major role. Leatherheads? George

Yes. I remember all of the hubbub about the occasional buttock on the show. Boring by today's standards but considered pretty racy back then. Dennis Franz was Det. Andy Sipowicz on NYPD Blue. He was Lt. Norman Buntz on Hill Street Blues a decade earlier. (Early on in Hill Street, he played a jerk cop, Sal Benedetto. That character disappeared (killed off? I don't remember) and Franz returned to the show a couple of years later as Buntz. He then had the spin-off Beverly Hills Buntz, co-starring Peter Jurasik.) WW is up. George