What is the appropriate level of giving for retired people?

[2003cobra]

I understand that believers of Gentile origin are not under the Law and we are not living in a theocracy. Therefore the Old Testament laws have application at most as historical guidance.

Of course we are to give as God has prospered us, and we are to give cheerfully.

In this thread, I am hoping to solicit comments on practical ways to determine appropriate giving levels.

I have my own ideas on the topic, and I am seeking input. I don’t think there is one right answer, other than to do as the Lord leads you.

Comments?

 

[oatmeal]

I understand that believers of Gentile origin are not under the Law and we are not living in a theocracy. Therefore the Old Testament laws have application at most as historical guidance.

Of course we are to give as God has prospered us, and we are to give cheerfully.

In this thread, I am hoping to solicit comments on practical ways to determine appropriate giving levels.

I have my own ideas on the topic, and I am seeking input. I don’t think there is one right answer, other than to do as the Lord leads you.

Comments?

Tithing as a minimum of earnings is always a good idea.

 

[2003cobra]

Tithing as a minimum of earnings is always a good idea.

Thank you for your post, and I agree.

That raises the question: tithing on what? Tithing is typically applied to income received, and that may miss some important things.

Maybe an example will help:
Suppose a retired couple has a retirement income from pensions of $30000/year and investment income from stocks of $20000/year for a total income of $50000/year.

A tithe on that would be $5000/year.

However, to generate $20000/year in dividends would require $1,000,000 in investments.

The stock market rose nearly 20%, meaning the increase in the couple’s stock account would have increased $200,000 in 2017. Should that increase be considered?

 

[oatmeal]

Thank you for your post, and I agree.

That raises the question: tithing on what? Tithing is typically applied to income received, and that may miss some important things.

Maybe an example will help:
Suppose a retired couple has a retirement income from pensions of $30000/year and investment income from stocks of $20000/year for a total income of $50000/year.

A tithe on that would be $5000/year.

However, to generate $20000/year in dividends would require $1,000,000 in investments.

The stock market rose nearly 20%, meaning the increase in the couple’s stock account would have increased $200,000 in 2017. Should that increase be considered?

Well, we are to honor the Lord with the firstfruits of our increase.

Proverbs 3:9 Honour the Lord with thy substance, and with the firstfruits of all thine increase:

 

[Right Divider]

You guys remain under the curse of the law if you tithe.

This is the appropriate amount:

2Cor 9:7 (AKJV/PCE)​

(9:7) Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, [so let him give]; not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver. ​

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Sharing in One's Abundance

Sharing in One's Abundance

1 Cor. 16:2 applies here.

Give liberally (Matthew 10:8), cheerfully (2 Cor. 9:7), privately (Matthew 6:3-4), and regularly (1 Cor. 16:2).

The question is not "How much should I give?", but rather, "What can I give?"

God shares in His abundance with us...so should we all.

AMR

 

[2003cobra]

Well, we are to honor the Lord with the firstfruits of our increase.

Proverbs 3:9 Honour the Lord with thy substance, and with the firstfruits of all thine increase:

That would imply that the growth in the stock accounts should be considered in the level of giving.

 

[2003cobra]

You guys remain under the curse of the law if you tithe.

This is the appropriate amount:

2Cor 9:7 (AKJV/PCE)​

(9:7) Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, [so let him give]; not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver. ​

Do you mean that a person who believes they are required to tithe is under the curse of the law, while a person who uses tithing as a guideline and gives of his out of something other than obligation is not under the law?

 

[Right Divider]

That would imply that the growth in the stock accounts should be considered in the level of giving.

It would also put you under the law, which is a curse. If you are going to tithe, you'd better keep all of the law.

 

[2003cobra]

1 Cor. 16:2 applies here.

Give liberally (Matthew 10:8), cheerfully (2 Cor. 9:7), privately (Matthew 6:3-4), and regularly (1 Cor. 16:2).

The question is not "How much should I give?", but rather, "What can I give?"

God shares in His abundance with us...so should we all.

AMR

I agree with this.

I think your post implies that net worth is more important in that consideration than income is.

Is that correct?

 

[Right Divider]

Do you mean that a person who believes they are required to tithe is under the curse of the law, while a person who uses tithing as a guideline and gives of his out of something other than obligation is not under the law?

Tithing is part of the law. You do not need the law to give you a guideline.

 

[2003cobra]

I would also put you under the law, which is a curse. If you are going to tithe, you'd better keep all of the law.

RD, the statement of mine that you quoted did not mention the law or tithing.

In post 3, I gave an example of a retired couple. Please comment on what you think are considerations in what that couple should give.

 

[Right Divider]

RD, the statement of mine that you quoted did not mention the law or tithing.

I didn't say that it did, but that is the CONTEXT of what you've been discussing here.

In post 3, I gave an example of a retired couple. Please comment on what you think are considerations in what that couple should give.

I already did.

http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...tired-people&p=5165364&viewfull=1#post5165364

 

[2003cobra]

Tithing is part of the law. You do not need the law to give you a guideline.

I think Galatians 3 indicates it can have some value as historical information, as long as we recognize we are not under the law.

Is the law then opposed to the promises of God? Certainly not! For if a law had been given that could make alive, then righteousness would indeed come through the law. 22 But the scripture has imprisoned all things under the power of sin, so that what was promised through faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. 23 Now before faith came, we were imprisoned and guarded under the law until faith would be revealed. 24 Therefore the law was our disciplinarian until Christ came, so that we might be justified by faith. 25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer subject to a disciplinarian, 26 for in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith.

 

[2003cobra]

I didn't say that it did, but that is the CONTEXT of what you've been discussing here.

My opening post is clear that I know we aren’t under the law.

I already did.

http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...tired-people&p=5165364&viewfull=1#post5165364

I was hoping for something more quantitative, but if that is all you have, then that is all you have.

Thanks for your input.

 

[Right Divider]

I think Galatians 3 indicates it can have some value as historical information, as long as we recognize we are not under the law.

Is the law then opposed to the promises of God? Certainly not! For if a law had been given that could make alive, then righteousness would indeed come through the law. 22 But the scripture has imprisoned all things under the power of sin, so that what was promised through faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. 23 Now before faith came, we were imprisoned and guarded under the law until faith would be revealed. 24 Therefore the law was our disciplinarian until Christ came, so that we might be justified by faith. 25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer subject to a disciplinarian, 26 for in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith.

When were you under the law?

P.S. What strange "translation" is that?

 

[2003cobra]

When were you under the law?

P.S. What strange "translation" is that?

I have already said believers of Gentile origin are not under the law. Why do you keep ignoring my clear statements?

That is a strange translation. It is the New Revised Standard Version, my favorite.

 

[Right Divider]

I have already said believers of Gentile origin are not under the law. Why do you keep ignoring my clear statements?

Gentiles that joined with Israel were required to keep the law.

Exod 12:48-49 (AKJV/PCE)​

(12:48) And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as one that is born in the land: for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof. (12:49) One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you. ​

This was pronounced the day that they left Egypt.

 

[jamie]

Jesus didn't tithe.

Paul didn't tithe.

The Twelve didn't tithe.

 

[2003cobra]

Gentiles that joined with Israel were required to keep the law.

Exod 12:48-49 (AKJV/PCE)​

(12:48) And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as one that is born in the land: for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof. (12:49) One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you. ​

This was pronounced the day that they left Egypt.

Yes, Gentiles who moved to Israel and lived among the Israelites were expected to follow the Law of Moses.

By the way, the passage you quoted is only about those eating the Passover, so it doesn’t really support your statement.

This is off the topic that we are discussing.