Should members give money to their church?

[annsni]

Exactly! Pro-tithers better start eating their money instead of putting it into an envelope.

Also, when putting it into the envelope, it is recorded as so-and-so gave such-and-such amount as a tithe. Defeating the 'do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing' command, eh?

Eh - I always make sure my left hand is behind my back when I write the check.

 

[rlvaughn]

I disagree. Paul only worked when he had to. Note that Paul was usually supported by churches in his missionary work (Phil. 4:15, 2 Cor. 11:8, etc.). He only had two reasons for working at his secular profession: to avoid being indebted to the Corinthians he was trying to reach for Christ (as you point out), and to make ends meet when the churches were not faithful to support him.

Brother John, I must also disagree. It seems your use of "when he had to" is restricted too narrowly. At least a third reasons exists, as found in Acts 20 and II Thessalonians 3 -- as an example.

Acts 20:33-35 I have coveted no man's silver, or gold, or apparel. Yea, ye yourselves know, that these hands have ministered unto my necessities, and to them that were with me. I have shewed you all things, how that so labouring ye ought to support the weak, and to remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, It is more blessed to give than to receive.

II Thess. 3:7-9 For yourselves know how ye ought to follow us: for we behaved not ourselves disorderly among you; Neither did we eat any man's bread for nought; but wrought with labour and travail night and day, that we might not be chargeable to any of you: Not because we have not power, but to make ourselves an ensample unto you to follow us.

I think the overall picture indicates Paul and others worked more often than not, and even when they received help from others it does not mean that it was some type of full salary that keep them from working. In his writing to the Corinthians, we learn that there were two parts combined to keep Paul from being chargeable to them -- working and support from other churches (e.g. cf. II Cor. 11:9)

Though in I Cor. 9 Paul indicates that Peter and others did accept their maintenance (and even their wives, 9:5), it does not follow that they always did so. I Cor. 4 indicates that other apostles at one time or another labored with their hands. Note that "we" is the subject of the sentence in verse 12, and "apostles" is the antecedent of "we".

I Cor 4:9-12 For I think that God hath set forth us the apostles last, as it were appointed to death: for we are made a spectacle unto the world, and to angels, and to men. We are fools for Christ's sake, but ye are wise in Christ; we are weak, but ye are strong; ye are honourable, but we are despised. Even unto this present hour we both hunger, and thirst, and are naked, and are buffeted, and have no certain dwellingplace; And labour, working with our own hands: being reviled, we bless; being persecuted, we suffer it:

So Paul was not the only one for whom this was a practice. He cites Barnabas in I Cor. 9, verse six (to me it appears this reference to Barnabas is after he and Paul had separated; cf. Acts 15:36-41 & 18:1-17). In I Corinthians 12, he indicates that Titus also followed him in this.

Paul's argument of chapter 9 in I Corinthians seems to be a little flat if he was not making this a common practice but was doing it only because he had to. He labored not only in Corinth, but also in Ephesus and Thessalonica, and not only because he had to but to set an example for others. And in I Cor. 9 he is not talking about something he was forced in to by not getting support, but a right that he had in a deliberate manner set aside.

 

[Aaron]

What trees?

Focus, Aaron.

We are talking about tithes, not trees or forests.

Scripture clearly shows us...

First, I wasn't arguing that the church was commanded to tithe. That mistake and your exposition of Hebrews does not commend your ability to see what Scripture "clearly shows us." Our disagreement is much more fundamental than the tithe.

If you believe the law was in effect at the time Hebrews was penned, then what you think of the tithe is the least of my worries. I wonder if you understand the Gospel at all, but I won't argue that here.

:wavey:

 

[standingfirminChrist]

First, I wasn't arguing that the church was commanded to tithe. That mistake and your exposition of Hebrews does not commend your ability to see what Scripture "clearly shows us." Our disagreement is much more fundamental than the tithe.

If you believe the law was in effect at the time Hebrews was penned, then what you think of the tithe is the least of my worries. I wonder if you understand the Gospel at all, but I won't argue that here.

:wavey:

Hebrews 7:8 And here men that die receive tithes; but there he [receiveth them], of whom it is witnessed that he liveth.

It is quite obvious that some were wanting to remain under the Law, else men would not have been receiving the tithes.

But the author clearly states in verses 18 and 19 that the writings of the law were being disannulled.

One cannot rely on the OT Law as a principle for tithing for that tithe was only crops, flocks and herds.

One cannot rely on Abram's tithe for he tithed to a king of a pagan land and also tithed not his own property, but the property of others.

One cannot say Jacob is to be our example for although he promised to give a tenth, he only did so after God would meet certain requirements.

Had God established the tithe prior to the Law, Jacob would not have been able to barter with God. God would have told him it was established and he would pay it whether he was brought back into his land or not.

I was born in Africa. Have not seen Africa since 15 months old. Should I make a vow with God telling Him if He brings me back into my country, I will tithe?:laugh:

 

[Aaron]

1Co 9:14 In the same way, the Lord commanded that those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel.

How do you interpret this? Is it an expectation of members to give regularly to support the local assembly, and by extension their pastor, etc.?

Yes.

I want to pay particular notice to the word "should." If those who proclaim the gospel SHOULD live by the gospel, then SHOULD members give? How should members give? Is there a guide, or rule, a member should use to determine how much money to give to his local church?

His love for the Gospel will determine his giving.

 

[nunatak]

We need to keep in mind as well, that when giving, our right hand isn't supposed to know what the left hand is doing. What you give should be between you and God.

Wow, great point.

 

[nunatak]

His love for the Gospel will determine his giving.

If this is true, then we should give everything we have to the church.

 

[John of Japan]

Wow, maybe this is a record! I said this to JerryL (who ignored it) on p. 1 and now it is answered on p. 17 by someone else!

Brother John, I must also disagree. It seems your use of "when he had to" is restricted too narrowly. At least a third reasons exists, as found in Acts 20 and II Thessalonians 3 -- as an example.

Acts 20:33-35 I have coveted no man's silver, or gold, or apparel. Yea, ye yourselves know, that these hands have ministered unto my necessities, and to them that were with me. I have shewed you all things, how that so labouring ye ought to support the weak, and to remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, It is more blessed to give than to receive.

II Thess. 3:7-9 For yourselves know how ye ought to follow us: for we behaved not ourselves disorderly among you; Neither did we eat any man's bread for nought; but wrought with labour and travail night and day, that we might not be chargeable to any of you: Not because we have not power, but to make ourselves an ensample unto you to follow us.

Good post. Point taken! :thumbsup:

I think the overall picture indicates Paul and others worked more often than not, and even when they received help from others it does not mean that it was some type of full salary that keep them from working. In his writing to the Corinthians, we learn that there were two parts combined to keep Paul from being chargeable to them -- working and support from other churches (e.g. cf. II Cor. 11:9)

Whether Paul and others worked more often than not is speculation, not exegesis. I'll stick to my view from my personal experience that a missionary (and pastor, evangelist, etc.) would rather work full time for the Lord if possible. Who wouldn't in their chosen profession?

Though in I Cor. 9 Paul indicates that Peter and others did accept their maintenance (and even their wives, 9:5), it does not follow that they always did so. I Cor. 4 indicates that other apostles at one time or another labored with their hands. Note that "we" is the subject of the sentence in verse 12, and "apostles" is the antecedent of "we".

I Cor 4:9-12 For I think that God hath set forth us the apostles last, as it were appointed to death: for we are made a spectacle unto the world, and to angels, and to men. We are fools for Christ's sake, but ye are wise in Christ; we are weak, but ye are strong; ye are honourable, but we are despised. Even unto this present hour we both hunger, and thirst, and are naked, and are buffeted, and have no certain dwellingplace; And labour, working with our own hands: being reviled, we bless; being persecuted, we suffer it:

So Paul was not the only one for whom this was a practice. He cites Barnabas in I Cor. 9, verse six (to me it appears this reference to Barnabas is after he and Paul had separated; cf. Acts 15:36-41 & 18:1-17). In I Corinthians 12, he indicates that Titus also followed him in this.

Point taken.

Paul's argument of chapter 9 in I Corinthians seems to be a little flat if he was not making this a common practice but was doing it only because he had to. He labored not only in Corinth, but also in Ephesus and Thessalonica, and not only because he had to but to set an example for others. And in I Cor. 9 he is not talking about something he was forced in to by not getting support, but a right that he had in a deliberate manner set aside.

I believe that Corinth was the exception. As you have pointed out, he needed to do it there as an example. But answer me this, why in the world would a missionary want to work a job instead of spending his full time obeying the Great Commission unless he had to? If a pastor in the homeland wants to be working full time in his ministry, why wouldn't a missionary? Look at Acts 28:30-31. Though I can't prove it Biblically, I have no doubt that Paul was in his element there, delighted that he could be preaching and teaching full time.

Even if I were to grant (I don't) that Paul always worked as a tent-maker in addition to his missionary work, that doesn't prove that he preferred to. Lack of sufficient support is a problem for most missionaries and always has been. No need to doubt that it was in the first century. Paul's only had one church supporting him when he started out according to Phil. 4:15.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

In 1 Corinthians 16, Paul is not speaking of a collection for himself for his work, but rather for the poor saints of Macedonia.

Jesus Himself said in Luke's Gospel that the 'laborer is worthy of his hire.'

I believe the pastor who is voted in by the Church to be their leader should receive a salary from the congregants.

I am not against a pastor having a second job if he feels he can handle it and the responsibilities that a pastor has, then praise the Lord, let him work if he deems it necessary.

If the pastor works a second job, and he is not able to study properly, then maybe the Church should step in and give the pastor a raise... one that is enough to cover what he needs to survive without a second job.

 

[JerryL]

Wow, maybe this is a record! I said this to JerryL (who ignored it) on p. 1 and now it is answered on p. 17 by someone else!


Good post. Point taken! :thumbsup:


Whether Paul and others worked more often than not is speculation, not exegesis. I'll stick to my view from my personal experience that a missionary (and pastor, evangelist, etc.) would rather work full time for the Lord if possible. Who wouldn't in their chosen profession?



Point taken.

I believe that Corinth was the exception. As you have pointed out, he needed to do it there as an example. But answer me this, why in the world would a missionary want to work a job instead of spending his full time obeying the Great Commission unless he had to? If a pastor in the homeland wants to be working full time in his ministry, why wouldn't a missionary? Look at Acts 28:30-31. Though I can't prove it Biblically, I have no doubt that Paul was in his element there, delighted that he could be preaching and teaching full time.

Even if I were to grant (I don't) that Paul always worked as a tent-maker in addition to his missionary work, that doesn't prove that he preferred to. Lack of sufficient support is a problem for most missionaries and always has been. No need to doubt that it was in the first century. Paul's only had one church supporting him when he started out according to Phil. 4:15.

I went back to page 1 to see where you asked me a question. If you had I didn't ignore it, I didn't see it. It wasn't there anyway, plus I amnow on vacation in the Smokies and just happened to borrow my daughter's computer to check this board ou
t. Another thing is that on one of the first pages I also said I wuld be gone for 2 weeks. I am now on my 3rd week away,I only get Sunday's to catch up. Back to my vacation, I will answer any questions I might find for me on Saturday.

 

[John of Japan]

I went back to page 1 to see where you asked me a question. If you had I didn't ignore it, I didn't see it. It wasn't there anyway, plus I amnow on vacation in the Smokies and just happened to borrow my daughter's computer to check this board out. Another thing is that on one of the first pages I also said I wuld be gone for 2 weeks. I am now on my 3rd week away,I only get Sunday's to catch up. Back to my vacation, I will answer any questions I might find for me on Saturday.

Didn't say I asked you a question. I disagreed with you on a debate thread. I thought maybe that meant we would have a discussion. Guess not. And you did discuss with several others after my comment. But hey, I'm okay. I have no inner need for all my posts to be answered.:type:

 

[JerryL]

Didn't say I asked you a question. I disagreed with you on a debate thread. I thought maybe that meant we would have a discussion. Guess not. And you did discuss with several others after my comment. But hey, I'm okay. I have no inner need for all my posts to be answered.:type:

Okay, I'll bite. How do you get that churches usuallly paid him when it says they only. I didn't say that I am against a preacher being paid, I'm against preaching false doctrine to get him paid. In the Acts chapter 20 account, why would he work to show them "how working hard in this way we must help the weak" and not do the same work at other times?

Php 4:15 And you Philippians yourselves know that in the beginning of the gospel, when I left Macedonia, no church entered into partnership with me in giving and receiving, except you only.
Php 4:16 Even in Thessalonica you sent me help for my needs once and again.
2Co 11:8 I robbed other churches by accepting support from them in order to serve you
ct 20:24 But I do not account my life of any value nor as precious to myself, if only I may finish my course and the ministry that I received from the Lord Jesus, to testify to the gospel of the grace of God.
Act 20:25 And now, behold, I know that none of you among whom I have gone about proclaiming the kingdom will see my face again.
Act 20:33 I coveted no one's silver or gold or apparel.
Act 20:34 You yourselves know that these hands ministered to my necessities and to those who were with me.
Act 20:35 In all things I have shown you that by working hard in this way we must help the weak and remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he himself said, 'It is more blessed to give than to receive.'"

 

[JerryL]

Brother John, I must also disagree. It seems your use of "when he had to" is restricted too narrowly. At least a third reasons exists, as found in Acts 20 and II Thessalonians 3 -- as an example.

Acts 20:33-35 I have coveted no man's silver, or gold, or apparel. Yea, ye yourselves know, that these hands have ministered unto my necessities, and to them that were with me. I have shewed you all things, how that so labouring ye ought to support the weak, and to remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, It is more blessed to give than to receive.

II Thess. 3:7-9 For yourselves know how ye ought to follow us: for we behaved not ourselves disorderly among you; Neither did we eat any man's bread for nought; but wrought with labour and travail night and day, that we might not be chargeable to any of you: Not because we have not power, but to make ourselves an ensample unto you to follow us.

I think the overall picture indicates Paul and others worked more often than not, and even when they received help from others it does not mean that it was some type of full salary that keep them from working. In his writing to the Corinthians, we learn that there were two parts combined to keep Paul from being chargeable to them -- working and support from other churches (e.g. cf. II Cor. 11:9)

Though in I Cor. 9 Paul indicates that Peter and others did accept their maintenance (and even their wives, 9:5), it does not follow that they always did so. I Cor. 4 indicates that other apostles at one time or another labored with their hands. Note that "we" is the subject of the sentence in verse 12, and "apostles" is the antecedent of "we".

I Cor 4:9-12 For I think that God hath set forth us the apostles last, as it were appointed to death: for we are made a spectacle unto the world, and to angels, and to men. We are fools for Christ's sake, but ye are wise in Christ; we are weak, but ye are strong; ye are honourable, but we are despised. Even unto this present hour we both hunger, and thirst, and are naked, and are buffeted, and have no certain dwellingplace; And labour, working with our own hands: being reviled, we bless; being persecuted, we suffer it:

So Paul was not the only one for whom this was a practice. He cites Barnabas in I Cor. 9, verse six (to me it appears this reference to Barnabas is after he and Paul had separated; cf. Acts 15:36-41 & 18:1-17). In I Corinthians 12, he indicates that Titus also followed him in this.

Paul's argument of chapter 9 in I Corinthians seems to be a little flat if he was not making this a common practice but was doing it only because he had to. He labored not only in Corinth, but also in Ephesus and Thessalonica, and not only because he had to but to set an example for others. And in I Cor. 9 he is not talking about something he was forced in to by not getting support, but a right that he had in a deliberate manner set aside.

Amen, I saw this after my reply. You said it better than me.

 

[JerryL]

Didn't say I asked you a question. I disagreed with you on a debate thread. I thought maybe that meant we would have a discussion. Guess not. And you did discuss with several others after my comment. But hey, I'm okay. I have no inner need for all my posts to be answered.:type:

I said I only get Sundays to catchup, I missed your post, I didn't ignore you.

 

[JerryL]

Didn't say I asked you a question. I disagreed with you on a debate thread. I thought maybe that meant we would have a discussion. Guess not. And you did discuss with several others after my comment. But hey, I'm okay. I have no inner need for all my posts to be answered.:type:

I said I only get Sundays to catchup, I missed your post, I didn't ignore you. When I answered others, I was reading the last post I saw. I may or may not answer anything while I borrow my daughter's lattop, I hate typing on this thing.

 

[Aaron]

If this is true, then we should give everything we have to the church.

The first disciples did just that.

 

[Goldie]

Duplicate post - removed.

 

[Goldie]

Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver - 2 Corinthians 9:7

Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye. Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come - 1 Corinthians 16:1-2

Now ye Philippians know also, that in the beginning of the gospel, when I departed from Macedonia, no church communicated with me as concerning giving and receiving, but ye only - Philippians 4:15

Only the church at Philippi helped Paul financially. Perhaps the others were to covetous. :laugh:

 

[John of Japan]

Okay, I'll bite. How do you get that churches usuallly paid him when it says they only. I didn't say that I am against a preacher being paid, I'm against preaching false doctrine to get him paid. In the Acts chapter 20 account, why would he work to show them "how working hard in this way we must help the weak" and not do the same work at other times?

Php 4:15 And you Philippians yourselves know that in the beginning of the gospel, when I left Macedonia, no church entered into partnership with me in giving and receiving, except you only.
Php 4:16 Even in Thessalonica you sent me help for my needs once and again.
2Co 11:8 I robbed other churches by accepting support from them in order to serve you
ct 20:24 But I do not account my life of any value nor as precious to myself, if only I may finish my course and the ministry that I received from the Lord Jesus, to testify to the gospel of the grace of God.
Act 20:25 And now, behold, I know that none of you among whom I have gone about proclaiming the kingdom will see my face again.
Act 20:33 I coveted no one's silver or gold or apparel.
Act 20:34 You yourselves know that these hands ministered to my necessities and to those who were with me.
Act 20:35 In all things I have shown you that by working hard in this way we must help the weak and remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he himself said, 'It is more blessed to give than to receive.'"

You know, it's really not fun to discuss with you. I'm not sure I want to anymore. You appear to be already sure you are right, so you are really not reading my posts. You missed where I commented on "beginning of the Gospel," and you once again have missed my very first post in which I listed another passage where Paul talked about missionary support (even though you list it here without realizing its significance). And now you list several passages which have nothing to do with my point.

Goodbye and God bless.

 

[JerryL]

You know, it's really not fun to discuss with you. I'm not sure I want to anymore. You appear to be already sure you are right, so you are really not reading my posts. You missed where I commented on "beginning of the Gospel," and you once again have missed my very first post in which I listed another passage where Paul talked about missionary support (even though you list it here without realizing its significance). And now you list several passages which have nothing to do with my point.

Goodbye and God bless.

Okay.:wavey: