Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: circlecity
"It's pretty clear that there is no more obligation to tithe then there is to become circumcised."

And yet Paul circumcised Timothy to spread the gospel. Was Paul 'sinning' when he did that? Does it occur to you that it may have been a sin NOT to circumcise Timothy in that situation?

Likewise, could it not also be a sin NOT to tithe if God calls a believer to do so to spread the gospel?

He who has ears let him hear.

103 posted on 02/28/2011 11:53:35 AM PST by GourmetDan (Eccl 10:2 - The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies ]


To: GourmetDan
"And yet Paul circumcised Timothy to spread the gospel. Was Paul 'sinning' when he did that? Does it occur to you that it may have been a sin NOT to circumcise Timothy in that situation?"

No, because Paul specifically refused to have Titus circumcised and the entire issue at the Counsel of Jerusalem was whether gentile Christians would have to follow the law, particularly be circumcised. Paul won - the outcome of the counsel of Jerusalem was that gentile Christians were not bound by the law and circumcision was not required. Please read the book of Galatians, it covers all this.

And no, Timothy was not sinning when he was circumcised. Romans 14 deals with this and if someone not bound by the law chooses to follow it they are not sinning. Paul just calls them weaker Christians. Finally, no it is no a sin not to tithe. Spreading the Gospel has nothing to do with this issue. Whether or not one chooses to tithe has nothing to do with their effectiveness in spreading the Gospel.

132 posted on 02/28/2011 1:01:38 PM PST by circlecity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson