Saturday, March 31, 2012

Rebuttal to Online Church Sermons,Why Christians Should Pay Tithes

You have completely twisted Jacob’s prayer out of context to suit your own desires.

1. Jacob the supplanter (not Israel) was telling God what to do – not a good example for Christians to follow. Notice the “if” condition.

2. Jacob commanded God to protect him and bless him first, and then he would return a tithe.

3. According to Deuteronomy 28 to 30 and Galatians 3:10, the whole law was a test – obey ALL to be blessed; break ONE to be cursed. It is foolish to think that God would bless a Hebrew for tithing while he was breaking many of the other 600 plus commands of the whole law.

4. Jacob did not believe his own vow. While returning and fearing Esau, he was willing to sacrifice his lesser wives and lesser children by placing them at the forefront to be slaughtered.

5. Jacob’s tithe was from defiled pagan dust. It was not a HOLY tithe of food from inside God’s HOLY land as required by the Law and as applied in Malachi 3:10 and Matthew 23:23. Again, this was not an example for Christians.

6. God never placed Gentiles or the Church under the Law and He never commanded them to tithe. New Covenant giving is freewill and sacrificial. Please stop abusing God’s Word to teach error.

Friday, March 30, 2012



When it comes to equating tithing with firstfruits, John Hagee is a biblical moron. Hagee has either never bothered to look up the words “firstfruit, firstfruits” in Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance, or else he knows the truth and deliberately lies about it.

Watch “John Hagee – God’s Law of Prosperity and Tithing” at He plainly states “God requires your giving to be the firstfruits. God’s gets this if nobody else gets theirs.”


(1) “Firstfruits, firstfruit” and “tithes, tithe” are never the same thing in God’s Word. Look it up for yourself and be reconciled with the truth.

(2) “Firstfruts” were always only a very small token offering given before the full harvest and before the full harvest. That the difference between the word “first” and “tenth.”

(3) “Firstfruits” were carried in a small basket per Deut 26:1-4. That cannot possibly be said of tithes.

(4) Like tithes, legitimate biblical HOLY firstfrutis could only come from FOOD from inside God’s HOLY land of Israel. Do your homework. You have been lied to.

(5) Like the 2nd tithe of one per cent given by the Levites to the priests, firstfruits were the BEST off God’s holy land. (Lev 27:30-34). The tithe was NOT the BEST.

(6) Like the tithe, only Hebrew food producers who lived inside Israel qualified as tithe-payers. Those Hebrews whose livelihood came from their own hands, Hebrews who lived outside Israel, and Gentiles could not tithe or give firstfruits. They could give sacrificial freewill offerings.

(7) Hagee said “God’s gets this if nobody else gets theirs.” THIS IS CRUEL AND WRONG. God does not expect the poor to give tithes first and do without essential food and medicine for their families peer 2nd Timothy 5:8.

(8) There is not a single thing taught by the Church today about tithing which is biblical. I challenge any responder to dialog with me.

Sunday, March 18, 2012

Reply to A-Mission-Driven-Life, Wes

If anything, Abram’s tithe was in obedience to the pagan law of the land. The Bible does not tell us WHY he tithed, but it would not have qualified as a HOLY tithe under the law. There is no authority to say he tithed by faith.

While God did own everything the Old Covenant law-tithe was always only FOOD from inside God’s HOLY land which HE had increased. HOLY tithes could not come from what man increased, from Gentiles, or from outside Israel. Period.

Firstfruits were very small token offerings per Deut 26:1-4 and Neh 10:35-37. They were never tithes and tithes were never given first.

Neither were tithes the BEST; they were the tenth per Lev 27:30-34 whether the best or not. The people did NOT give the BEST. However, the Levites gave the best tenth of what they received to the priests per Num 18:25-28.

In exchange for receiving the tithe as their inheritance, tithe recipients were not allowed to own or inherit property inside God’s HOLY land. ALL OT tithing principles are ignored today.

Except for food producers living inside Israel. The tithe was not the ”tenth part, of all they owned”. Jesus, Peter, and Paul did not qualify as tithe-payers.

The whole first Levitical tithe supported the SERVANTS to the priests which would be equivalent to our ushers, deacons, choir, musicians and maintenance men. The OT priests only received one tenth of that tithe – something ignored today.

Anybody who studies Neh 10:37-38; 13:5; 1 Kings 6:6 and the Levitical cities and families will discover that Mal 3:10 only referred to dishonest priests. The ordinary people were commanded to bring their tithes to the cities where the Levites and priests lived.

When Jesus mentioned tithing it was a “matter of the law” before Calvary in Mt 23:23 and is not properly “New Testament.” It would have been sin for him to teach against tithing to the Levitical priesthood before Calvary.
The “necessary change in the law” of tithing (compare Heb 7:5 and 12) was its “abolishment” in 7:18.

Thursday, March 15, 2012

Reply to Pastor John Clark on Tithing

West Side Community Church, Traverse City, Michigan, www.tcwscc.cOm Mar 12, 2012; video.
1. You quoted from Malachi 3:8-11 which was only commanded to Old Covenant Israel as part of the whole law. Gentles and the Church never were under that covenant or its laws.

2. You said that the sermon was for “60% of his congregation who wants to learn.” I ask you to engage me in an in-depth discussion of this subject if YOU truly want to learn.

3. You said that “God says [to Christians] ‘You ought to be tithing.’” This is not true. God never commanded either Gentiles or the Church to tithe. The New Covenant teaches freewill, generous, sacrificial giving.

4. You said “Otherwise you are robbing him.” The HOLY tithe was always only FOOD from inside God’s HOLY land of Israel to support its Old Covenant Levites and priests. You, the modern pastor, are robbing God’s people by re-defining the biblical use of the word tithe to suit your own needs.

5. You said “You return your tithe – not pay or give.” The only persons in the Bible who qualified to “return a tithe” were food producers who lived on God’s HOLY land. While the whole earth was God’s, God only accepted tithes from His HOLY land. It is dishonest to do otherwise.

6. You act as if the Old Covenant promised a blessing for only tithing. This is error. According to Galatians 3:10 (Deut 27:26) Israel must observe the whole law in order to claim blessings from any part of it. This is confirmed in Mal 4:4 and Neh 10:29 to Malachi’s audience.

7. You conveniently re-define ”storehouse” in Mal 3:9 as barns in the communities and then the local church. Almost correct on point one. According to Neh 10:37-38 the first whole Levitical tithe did indeed go to the Levitical cites and not to the Temple; that is where 98% of the Levites and priests who needed it for food lived. They, in turn, brought about 2% to the Temple store-ROOMS which were far too small to hold the tithe of the nation. The church is NOT a storehouse or storeroom for tithes.

8. You referred to Deu 14:29 and somehow twisted God’s Word to make that refer to the local church. Shame. Whatever happened to context and hermeneutics? According to Num 18:21-28 and Neh 10:37-39 the Levites received the first whole Levitical tithe and they were only SERVANTS to the priests. How does that work out today? And why do you accept “tithes” and own property? What happened to the prohibition of tithe-recipients owning property?

9. You reminded us that God said “test me”
In Mal 3:10. But you conveniently forgot to point out that the tithes were still only FOOD in Mal 3:10 as also in Lev 27 and Mt 23:23. Why is that? Was not the WHOLE LAW a test per Deut 27:26 and Gal 3:10? Did God bless OT Israel for tithing if they broke the rest of the law? I think not. Agin whatever happened to context and hermeneutics?

10. You said that “tithe” means 10% -- and refers to income. That is dishonest. It never meant 10% of income in God’s Word. Money was very common even in Genesis but money was never a tithed item. Not even Jesus, Peter, and Paul qualified as tithe payers.

11. You said that “we are to return to God His tithe, the first 10%.” Wrong again. The tithe is never the same as a first-fruit or first ten per cent in God’s Word. The firstfruit was a very small token offering according to Deut 26:1-4 and Neh 10:35-37a.

12. You mock non-tithers as charging God with being unreasonable. Yet you ignore First Timothy 5:8 and place a guilt trip on the poor who must choose between tithing and food and shelter for their family. Shame.

13. You have no concept of what it means to be in the presence of a holy God. You deliberately wear blue jeans with a hole in the knee and let your shirt hang out under a long-sleeve sweatshirt in front of a large crowd while preaching. Why? If this is all you have, I excuse and welcome you. However, if you have better to wear, then FOR THE SAKE OF GOD’S HOLINESS, wear it and show others that you respect the HOLINESS of God. I very seriously doubt that Jesus, Peter, Paul, Abraham, Jacob, Moses, David, Solomon or the other Bible saints would have approached God for serious worship wearing anything other than their best just to show respect.

In Christ’s love
Russell Earl Kelly, PHD

Monday, March 05, 2012

Irenaeus' Tithing Remarks

“And for this reason did the Lord, instead of that [commandment], ‘You shall not commit adultery,’ forbid even concupiscence; and instead of that which runs thus, ‘You shall not kill,’ He prohibited anger; and instead of the law enjoining the giving of tithes, to share all our possessions with the poor; and not to love our neighbors only, but even our enemies; and not merely to be liberal givers and bestowers, but even that we should present a gratuitous gift to those who take away our goods”

This is quoted in my book in Chapter 29, A Secular History of Tithing, pages 253-254. The quote continues:

“For with Him there is nothing purposeless, nor without signification, nor without design. And for this reason they (the Jews) had indeed the tithes of their goods consecrated to Him, but those who have received liberty set aside all their possessions for the Lord’s purposes, bestowing joyfully and freely not the less valuable portions of their property, since they have the hope of better things [hereafter]; as that poor widow acted who cast all her living into the treasury of God” (Against Heresies, book 4, chap. 18). Again, poverty and asceticism are indicated. Irenaeus clearly taught that the church was a dispenser of necessities for the poor. His life and writings reveal that he believed that its leaders should live as meagerly as ¬ possible.
(1) Irenaeus was not an inspired contributor to the Bible. His opinion of what Jesus meat was only that – his opinion.

(2) Jesus did not explicitly re-direct tithes from FOOD from Israel to GIFTS to the poor. This was only Irenaeus’ opinion (which is unbiblical). Irenaeus knew that he had no authority to redefine HOLY tithes away from FOOD>

(3) Natural law within the heart and conscience of every person tells to GIVE, but it does not tell us how much to give. A free-will sacrificial gift is natural law; tithing is not.

(4) Irenaeus was bishop of a church outside of Israel. No Israelite would ever say that HOLY tithes could come from defiled pagan land. We cannot assume or presume that Irenaeus had re-defined a holy tithe. That is why he does not come right out and plainly say what you want him to say.

(5) Like all of the early Church Fathers, Irenaeus clearly understood that tithes belonged to the Levites and priests under the law. Not even the rabbis such as Paul who led the synagogues ever dared to claim the tithe as their salary.

(6) “Those who have received liberty” refers both to Jews who are no longer under the law and to Gentiles who are no longer under the condemnation of the law of nature and conscience.

Prayer Langauge

I am a fundamental conservative dispensational independent Baptist.

I believe that the moment one accepts Christ as his/her personal Lord and Savior, he/she has been “bought with a price.”

That means that your body now belongs to God. Therefore the Holy Spirit then moves into, indwells, His house – formerly your body.

You then have as much of the Holy Spirit as you will ever have. That is called justification by faith.

Then comes sanctification. As you yield control of your life to the Holy Spirit, He controlsl more and more of your life – that is a different type of fullness –a fullness of control.

1 Cor 14:19 Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue.

“Unknown” is an inserted word; it is not in the original Greek.

As an educated rabbi, Paul spoke many languages: at least Hebrew,, Greek, Aramaic, and Latin. Yet he preferred to speak in the language he was most familiar with for clarity.

We worship God with our mind. It makes not sense for the Holy Spirit to pray to Himself and leave our mind out of the loop.

Romans 12:1-2

Reply to Steve Lyston, the Gleanor, on Tithing

Comments about The Gleanor

Steve Lyston: There are several causes of poverty. In truth, it cannot be dealt with unless individuals and nations address the spiritual aspects of this issue.

Russell E Kelly: Do not leave out the education aspects and self-motivation.

You: When we disobey God's word (Deuteronomy 28), it leads to both spiritual and physical poverty

Comment: Read ALL of Deuteronomy 28-30. First, it was addressed ONLY to Old Covenant national Israel. Second, since it is impossible to obey ALL 600 plus commands, Israel ended up being cursed. Read Galatians 3:10-13. Your theology seems to be based on legalism.

You: when we build on God's governmental principles,

Comment: New Covenant principles; not O.T. principles which were given only to Israel per Ex 19:5-6; Lev 27:34; Mal 4:4.

You: The root cause of poverty is disobedience.

Comment: There is no ONE root cause. Lack of education and motivation are just as important.

You: Tithe - Malachi 3:8-10. Tithing is not for the pastor to get rich.

Comment: That is what it usually accomplishes while most of his flock remain poor.

You: Tithing is for your blessing. It is your obedience to this instruction that will bring your blessing from God.

Comment: Not so. True biblical HOLY tithes were always only food from inside God’s holy land which God had miraculously increased. Tithes could not come from outside Israel, from Gentiles, or from what man increased. This is your major error concerning tithing. Tithing, like the whole law, was only commanded to O.T. Israel. Israel was commanded NOT to share its covenant. In order to be blessed for tithing, one must also obey the whole law. Deut 27:26; Gal 3:10. How do you explain these texts?

Friday, March 02, 2012


RTBLive Volume 2 is a debate at University of California Santa Barbara, February 20, 2008. Hugh Ross argued that there were 816 fine-tuned characteristics of the universe which must exist in order for humans to exist on earth. The odds, he said, for this are 10 to the minus 1032. Each of these 816 characteristics has been discussed in scientific journals.

In reply, Harry Nelson, an experimental scientist at UCSB admitted that Ross’ predictions have come true at least for particle parameters – the fine tuning has been increasing. He argued the fine-tuning proves nothing because the odds of him being at that UCSB debate were 10 to the minus 750 and the odds of him being in that particular spot were 2 x 10 to the minus 15. Yet both were true.

Also in reply to Ross, Kevin Plaxco, professor of chemistry and biochemistry at UCSB, describes himself as a practicing scientist. He argues that life as we know it is the result of coincidences and not divine intervention. While Ross and Rana credit divine intervention for explosive complex life suddenly appearing rather than gaps, Plaxco blames both our lack of knowledge about how godless evolution works and also observer bias. Against all the odds, he says, there is 100% chance that we exist to discuss life. All scientific knowledge increases, so will our knowledge of how the universe can become complex without a god.

There is something inherently wrong with comparing the odds of 10 to the minus 1050 from Ross with the counter from Nelson and Plaxco that those odds have been met coincidentally because there is 100% proof that we now exist.

The difference is intelligence. Ross and Rana submit their odds of life occurring as we now know it apart from any intelligent guidance. One the other hand Nelson’s odds of being at the UCSB debate on specific plot of ground are controlled by freewill intelligence. Many months before the debate, Nelson agreed to be in that spot at UCSB for that debate. The odds were almost 100% because he freely chose to attempt to meet 100% of his appointments. Therefore Nelson’s example proves Ross’ point rather than disproves it.

Plaxco’s discovery that “I exist, therefore the odds that all of Ross and Rana’s parameters have been met coincidentally” is equally absurd. At this he, as modern man and not Neanderthal, normally looks within himself as a sentient being and asks, “Who am I? Where did I come from” – not knowing the complexity of the parameters but curious enough to study them. If he experimentally takes away one element at a time and asks “Will man survive without this element?” he will confront the great question “Am I here by accident or design.”