But, first...
"Now let's leave the human opinions aside for a moment, and look at what Scripture says:
"And all the tithe of the land, whether of the seed of the land, or of the fruit of the tree, is the LORD'S: it is holy unto the LORD." (Leviticus 27:30)
I am not completely certain that all human opinion can be left out of this. For example, you have an opinion here and I don't wish to ignore it. It might be right, it might be wrong. But, I don't see how we can leave opinion out. After all, even Stanley's opinion is something you wish to include. So, I will concede that we should be careful about opinion, but I still believe it will affect things.
Next, this Levitical passage is directly out of the Mosaic Law. Recall, Exodus 19, the first of some 1500 commandments given to the Jews becomes the "Law" to which all Hebrews claim they are going to commit. Unfortunately, as we read the rest of the Torah, the Prophets, and the Writings (what we call the OT), we find that they do not, cannot, keep the Law. However, they do not recognize their own dilemma. Ultimately, Jeremiah is given a prophecy that tells them, "A day is coming when no man will have to tell another 'Know the Lord', for each shall..." There is one of the many hints of a "New Covenant". Would you agree that to this point in Jeremiah, however, the "Old Covenant" is still in place? Would you also agree that the so-called "Chosen People" are Israel at this point?
If so, then you will notice that the tithing was to the priests to care for them, since they had no property, no land, no means of making a living except for mediating the sacrifices, day in and day out. The Levites (from which we get Leviticus) were these priests and they were to collect this tithe and bring it to the "temple". Now, I trust that you no longer think there is either a temple or sacrifices performed by priests. This, interestingly, is where the Catholics see that the "priesthood" continues on and holy sanctuaries (such as "Saint" Peter's cathedral) actually house holy activities. But, as Jesus prophesied, an hour WAS COMING (but was not there yet till the shed blood) when the true worshippers shall worship in spirit and truth (and not at a place). If you use the Gospels correctly, you will notice that this is all foretelling of the coming "New Covenant". Jn 4:23ff. This is a proper use of M,M,L,J.
Malachi is still within this Old Covenant, and, of course, God was promising his children that "If they obeyed, He would take care of them." But, notice, they did not and were all swept away into captivity. These are shadows, pictures, images of the plight of man in general. But, the promises were to His chosen...Israel, should they be able to keep the commandments.
I am puzzled by your reference to Heb. 5 supporting the tithe. Can you be more specific?
The giving Paul described is simply a "give as much as you can to help these starving people." Read the context. There is no temple, there are no priests, there is no tithing. He would, after all, tell them to tithe to where? Does Stanley hint that the "tithing" he believes in should go to his "organization" or "an organization"? Where is that part in the text?
And, of course, Jesus fulfilled the entire Law. That is why Paul said it is fading away into disuse. And, he pointed out that the real purpose of the Law is convict folks who still don't get it.
"We know that the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully, realizing the fact that Law was not made for a righteous man (a man freed) but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching." I Tim. 1:8ff
And,
"Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, that we may be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are NO LONGER UNDER A TUTOR." Gal. 3:24, 25. And, the tithe was not a "requirement" before the Law (Abraham & Mel), but something someone did if they wanted to pay tribute to someone. Abraham did not repeat this. Stanley is implying something about repeating it to an organization.
Now, this remark about God being "cruel", is very poignant. You have captured even the so-called "Lord's Prayer" problem. Read the entire prayer, "...for Thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen. For if you forgive men for their transgressions, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But, if you do not forgive men, then your Father WILL NOT FORGIVE YOU." Yes, I suppose in the way you mean the question, this is cruel. But, is this your Gospel? Is this the good news you teach? Well, it is in the Sermon on the Mount found in Matt. You better do it or die. But, if it is the Law, given to the Jews, then it makes enormous sense. Got to run... Grace to you.
Can you post anything either Dr. Stanley or I posted that wasn't supported by Scripture? Opinions are meaningless. That's why Dr. Stanley never gives a sermon without supporting Scripture and it's why I always provide Scripture to support what I post.
Next, this Levitical passage is directly out of the Mosaic Law. Recall, Exodus 19, the first of some 1500 commandments given to the Jews becomes the "Law" to which all Hebrews claim they are going to commit. Unfortunately, as we read the rest of the Torah, the Prophets, and the Writings (what we call the OT), we find that they do not, cannot, keep the Law. However, they do not recognize their own dilemma. Ultimately, Jeremiah is given a prophecy that tells them, "A day is coming when no man will have to tell another 'Know the Lord', for each shall..." There is one of the many hints of a "New Covenant". Would you agree that to this point in Jeremiah, however, the "Old Covenant" is still in place? Would you also agree that the so-called "Chosen People" are Israel at this point?
Well, of course the Old Covenant was still in place at that point and the chosen people, the Jews, whom God refers to as the "apple of His eye", were and still are, Israel.
f so, then you will notice that the tithing was to the priests to care for them, since they had no property, no land, no means of making a living except for mediating the sacrifices, day in and day out. The Levites (from which we get Leviticus) were these priests and they were to collect this tithe and bring it to the "temple". Now, I trust that you no longer think there is either a temple or sacrifices performed by priests. This, interestingly, is where the Catholics see that the "priesthood" continues on and holy sanctuaries (such as "Saint" Peter's cathedral) actually house holy activities. But, as Jesus prophesied, an hour WAS COMING (but was not there yet till the shed blood) when the true worshippers shall worship in spirit and truth (and not at a place). If you use the Gospels correctly, you will notice that this is all foretelling of the coming "New Covenant". Jn 4:23ff. This is a proper use of M,M,L,J.
Yes, just like the tithe in the Old Testament involved priests, and just like salvation in the Old Testament, according to God's law, involved animal sacrifice, the tithe in the New Testament, in the fulfillment of the Old Testament law, does not involve priests but involves giving part of what God already owns back to Him in a more direct way and salvation now involves a person's faith and trust in Jesus Christ's death on the cross as payment for sin.
I am puzzled by your reference to Heb. 5 supporting the tithe. Can you be more specific?
It is a reiteration of the fact that, as I put in my post, Hebrews 5:6 states: And he says in another place, “You are a priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek." So, just as Melchizedek received tithes in Genesis, Jesus receives our tithes now.
The giving Paul described is simply a "give as much as you can to help these starving people." Read the context. There is no temple, there are no priests, there is no tithing. He would, after all, tell them to tithe to where? Does Stanley hint that the "tithing" he believes in should go to his "organization" or "an organization"? Where is that part in the text?
I don't know - you tell me. Did Dr. Stanley hint that the tithing his message was about and which he backed up with Scripture should go to his church? You haven't hesitated so far to lie about the man. You tell me.
And you can also tell me where, in the Scriptures provided in Dr. Stanley's sermon outline, there were any conditions put on tithing. Can you produce the conditions which are in the Scriptures about tithing that were posted?
Now, this remark about God being "cruel", is very poignant. You have captured even the so-called "Lord's Prayer" problem. Read the entire prayer, "...for Thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen. For if you forgive men for their transgressions, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But, if you do not forgive men, then your Father WILL NOT FORGIVE YOU." Yes, I suppose in the way you mean the question, this is cruel. But, is this your Gospel? Is this the good news you teach? Well, it is in the Sermon on the Mount found in Matt. You better do it or die. But, if it is the Law, given to the Jews, then it makes enormous sense.
But that doesn't address the issue. You accused Dr. Stanley of being cruel when God Himself that whatever a person gives, that same amount will be returned to him. Was it cruel for God to say that? And was it cruel when Jesus didn't stop the poor widow from giving money even though she was poor?