Featured Church budget dwindling

Who was in those days?

 

Come on Fred.....get on the band wagon! Ive been spending the last year and more proclaiming the Gospel (And for Free) so why not capitalize & make some money outa the deal....so come on!!!! :smilewinkgrin:

Evangelist.....you need a job so here is your chance.

 

Paul said Elders should work as he worked. Why can't he be the standard? He said he set an example for them.

 

Who schooled Timothy? Wasn't Luke with him for awhile. Who helped create the pastoral network back in the day & then instructed them. He did of course collect money though Fred, right?!?:love2:

 

Baker, Robert A.,[Baptist Seminary Textbook] A Summary of Christian History [p194, 250] (Nashville: Broadman, 1959), 11, 43. This Southern Baptist textbook states, “The leaders [before A.D. 100] usually worked with their hands for their material needs. There was no artificial distinction between clergy and laity.” … “The earliest bishops or presbyters engaged in secular labor to make their living and performed the duties of their church office when not at work.” 218

Blomberg,Craig L., see Introduction to Biblical Interpretation

 

This is a congregational lead church. But please explain the differences.

 

The difference is one being governed by popular vote and the other being led by the plurality of elders in all decisions.

I don't think someone being on staff would play much of a role in congregational rule but would definitely in elder rule. This is one of the problems I have with only one or two elders being on staff and the rest volunteer. To think the salaried staff are not influencing the decisions would be foolish.

 

There are two kinds of Elder churches currently. The first one is Elder rule church and in this kind of governance the Elders make all the decisions and then tell the church what they all will do.

The other is Elder led churches where the Elders work in place of committees, which we find in congregational led churches, in this the Elders will meet and make decisions on what to bring before the church for a vote. Rather than typical Baptist committees the Elders are the committees and then the church votes on the recommendations from then Elders.

I believe a biblical case can be made for congregational led churches and Elder led churches based on precedence. There is no precedence to be found for Elder Rule church governance.

However, on this issue there is no "thus saith the Lord". I believe there is much freedom in this. I would never be a part of Elder rule churches. I find that problematic. The Elders have no accountability to the church. I personally do not like that.

 

Shepherds lead the sheep in all facets, they do not meet to figure out the best way to lead and then go to the pasture to let the sheep vote on it. Absolutely there is a biblical precedence for elder rule by the very descriptive terms used. If anything, based on these terms (sheep, shepherd), the biblical basis for sheep led churches is not found. The head determines where the body goes, it doesn't make suggestions to the body and allow it to decide,

 

This assumes that this is not leadership. That is false. Leadership does not mean you always have absolute control or the final say. Leadership is as much influence as anything else.

Precedence and terms are two different things.

Well if that is your position then good. While I will not say that this is a clear precedence I will also say that a good case can be made for it. Making a good case does not mean that it is the absolute way to do it.

Well good. If that is your position then that is the church you need to go to. Not many of those out there. Again there is no 'thus saith the Lord" on this issue.

However, In Acts 6 the church picked for themselves and voted on Deacons. So there is clear precedence for congregations participation in making decisions in the church.

Also, when church discipline is to be instituted the people in question are to be brought before the church not just the Elders.

 

You bring up a good point. Concerning spiritual matters, though, the elders are required to have complete control.

Not when the terms are used to describe the very thing setting the precedence. This is what pro choice people say, its OK to murder an unborn human if we don't call it that.

Its my position only due to what the Bible says about the church model. The flesh would want a say in the matter, the spirit understands the importance of submitting.

Acts 6 actually supports elder rule. The 12 gathered, made a decision and told what needed to be done, they didn't give the option between selecting deacons or something else. Concerning discipline, the congregation is being made aware of what is going on, they are making no decisions on the matter.

 

Scripture never says that. Again there is no "thus saith the Lord".

Uh..precedence is a matter of a past action taken. It has nothing to do with what a term is. The definition of "precedence' and the definition of "term" are two different things. They cannot be conflated.

Again there is no "thus saith the Lord"

So what? The 12 also gathered and gave them the option to choose for themselves who would be Deacons. However, if you are going to treat this as equal to "thus saith the Lord" then you and the rest of your church needs to go and sell all that you have and hold all things in common. That is if we are going to be consistent.

You did not get that from scripture. It never says anything of the sort.

 

Paul received income from the church at Philippi...in fact, according to him, they met ALL his needs...

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.
Php 4:17 Not that I seek the gift, but I seek the fruit that increases to your credit.
Php 4:18 I have received full payment, and more. I am well supplied, having received from Epaphroditus the gifts you sent, a fragrant offering, a sacrifice acceptable and pleasing to God.


Further, we are commanded by God to be full time ministers...Pastoring IS working.

1Co_9:14 In the same way, the Lord commanded that those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel.


NOWHERE does Paul say he did not get paid for ministry (as that would be a lie...), nor does he command other men/elders not to be paid. You can be paid, without "coveting" people's gold and silver. Do you covet your bosses money, every time you get a paycheck?

HORRIBLE exegesis. :tonofbricks:

 

The pastor is a missionary. If a pastor is not out evangelizing and ministering, he needs to find a different profession. The point is that you don't support other missionaries, if you cannot even support your first missionary!

But I agree with you on what you say above about the tithe...we are to give, "Whatever" we "purpose" in our heart...the tithe was grain! It wasn't even money.

If you want to make a Baptist uncomfortable, read what God told them to do with the "tithe" of grain in deuteronomy. I always tell Baptist preachers, if they want to follow the tithe laws, they have to follow ALL of them...

Deu 14:24 And if the way is too long for you, so that you are not able to carry the tithe, when the LORD your God blesses you, because the place is too far from you, which the LORD your God chooses, to set his name there,
Deu 14:25 then you shall turn it into money and bind up the money in your hand and go to the place that the LORD your God chooses
Deu 14:26 and spend the money for whatever you desire—oxen or sheep or wine or strong drink, whatever your appetite craves. And you shall eat there before the LORD your God and rejoice, you and your household.

Do you think they would still want a "tithe" if they knew they could use it for an alcohol laden celebration?

 

Whoever wrote that translation missed the mark big time. Paul did not receive wages from the Philippians... it was a gift, an offering.

Philippians 4:15-18 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. For even in Thessalonica ye sent once and again unto my necessity. Not because I desire a gift: but I desire fruit that may abound to your account. But I have all, and abound: I am full, having received of Epaphroditus the things which were sent from you, an odour of a sweet smell, a sacrifice acceptable, wellpleasing to God.

And 1 Corinthians 9:14 is not speaking of pastors... it is speaking of traveling ministers. Aresman has a good book that explains all this.

 

No, it says all his needs were met...and since I can read the Greek, I know its accurate. Paul received full payment for all his needs, from the church in Philippi, and there is not a single text in the Bible that says otherwise. You are twisting scripture to justify a position, that is the product of a modern anti-church culture.

I don't care what "Aresman" has, he is wrong. He is talking about people who preach and teach the Gospel...and that is pastors. In fact, the Bible says that those who do better, should be paid more...

1Ti 5:17 Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching.


The text of the Bible stands mightily against you. :tonofbricks:

 

Can you explain what you mean by elders having "complete control" in spiritual matters?

Actually Acts 6 shows that they Apostles presented the proposal to the people, they were pleased and the people chose those who were in charge of the feeding ministry.

 

Having your needs met and receiving a salary are not the same thing. When Jesus sent out the disciples in pairs and told them not to take anything along, He wasn't sending them out to get paid.

That begs the question, is it salary being spoken of? Context would allude to it being double the gifts received of widows. The widows were not on staff.

 

Think the control a shepherd has over the flock of sheep and his love, care and correction over them to the point of putting himself in danger.

Just because the church was pleased by what the apostles had decided doesn't mean they had a say in the matter besides doing what they were told to do.