:thumbsup:
And let's not forget the whole idea of trying to calculate a so-called "tithe" based on the modern methods of determining "income."
Do we really need the tax code of the IRS to help us follow an alleged command from the Bible?
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Storehouse Thithing according John R. Rice
- Thread starter Salty
- Start date
And let's not forget the whole idea of trying to calculate a so-called "tithe" based on the modern methods of determining "income."
Do we really need the tax code of the IRS to help us follow an alleged command from the Bible?
Hey, Bro. Greg. Thanks for the endorsement, and praise God that my book was a blessing to you.
:flower:
Steadfast Fred
Active Member
I also have AresMan's book and am blessed tremendously by it.
I especially like his expository teaching on "they which preach the Gospel" in that book. AresMan lists all the verses necessary to show that "they which preach the Gospel" is not speaking of pastors, but rather evangelists and missionaries... Traveling ministers.
I especially like his expository teaching on "they which preach the Gospel" in that book. AresMan lists all the verses necessary to show that "they which preach the Gospel" is not speaking of pastors, but rather evangelists and missionaries... Traveling ministers.
Gregory Perry Sr.
Active Member
Sadly.........
I love my Pastor and highly respect him on most matters but on this one he is intransigent. He believes what he has been taught and is immovable on the issue of storehouse tithing. I doubt he would ever read bro.Daniel's book. I gave him a short series of articles once that pretty much summarized the "high spots" of what Daniel's book goes into detail about and he rejected it with the comment that it was "bad exegesis"of the scriptures. We just agreed to disagree on the matter. Truth is...I know of very few Baptist pastors (that I am aware of) who would accept the truth on this matter. I have my opinions as to why I think they wouldn't but I will keep them to myself for now.
Bro.Greg:saint:
I love my Pastor and highly respect him on most matters but on this one he is intransigent. He believes what he has been taught and is immovable on the issue of storehouse tithing. I doubt he would ever read bro.Daniel's book. I gave him a short series of articles once that pretty much summarized the "high spots" of what Daniel's book goes into detail about and he rejected it with the comment that it was "bad exegesis"of the scriptures. We just agreed to disagree on the matter. Truth is...I know of very few Baptist pastors (that I am aware of) who would accept the truth on this matter. I have my opinions as to why I think they wouldn't but I will keep them to myself for now.
Bro.Greg:saint:
Steadfast Fred
Active Member
My pastor also took offense to the fact that we are not required to tithe. We did not agree to disagree, we just disagreed with each other. LOL
For those who have honest reasons that they believe in the truth of tithing I think it is often because of the confusion about the "teaching" that tithing is thought to do for people. They percieve the tithes PURPOSE as being to teach people to put God first, trust him financially and blah blah. They would also be correct!!! But, it was to teach that to the people of Israel, not the NT. Christian. They have described the tithe as "training wheels" into a larger committment to begin giving. But, it is an error to think that that justifies the doctrine. It's like a built in "argument from consequences". They believe that since the Christian can learn those truths from tithing (and I believe that they can) and that I learned from tithing, that that demonstrates the truth of the doctrine itself. But that is an erroneous way of thinking.
Put differently, the perceived benefits of "tithing" (real or imagined) such as teaching self-discipline etc... seem to validate the truth of the "tithe" doctrine, when in fact, it doesn't. That's a common fallacious way of thinking.
I cannot overstate IMO that if you divorced any Scripture or verbiage about "giving" from applying to the tithe (And you should in order to be internally consistent with the tithe doctrine) than the doctrine is VASTLY weakened. But, ironically, those who support "tithing" will invariably equivocate between "tithing" and "giving". That ALSO is erroneous.
Tithing is often thought of as a "starting-point" in your.............GIVING! People then think that they should then "GIVE" more. But, that is not consistent with the teaching of the tithe. If the "tithe" is taught correctly, than it is not a "starting point", but also an "ending" point as well. To teach it consistently would be to say one is:
1.) Paying a tithe
AND THEN
2.) Giving an offering.
But the verses about "giving" are blended in with the concept of tithing as though they are inherently interrelated, and they are not.
This is why statements so common such as "Ten percent should be the MINIMUM! we should be giving God EVERYTHING!" is really a confused statement. It's well-meant, and it is pious. But the "tithe" is not a "minimum" for anything.......it's the min. AND the max. and it isn't about "giving"
God would reject an offering or gift, that was not given cheerfully.
He demanded the tithe, whether you liked it or NOT!
I think if people can divorce themselves from confusing the relationship between tithing and giving, than the doctrine will fall flat on it's face.
Last edited by a moderator:
Hi guys, just wanted to get in about a cent's worth, and would first say that I would fall into the group that views tithing as not something commanded to the Church, but I do view giving very much to be. It was asked in the thread (and I saw no answer to the question (and it may have been how much I was thinking of that wasn't answered, lol)) where this giving should go. First, I would mention the general principle found in scripture concerning the poor, our responsibility to care for the Body, and (and for those who like controversy, lol) I would quote Paul for a giving that finds much resentment in the unbelieving world:
1 Corinthians 9:11
King James Version (KJV)
11 If we have sown unto you spiritual things, is it a great thing if we shall reap your carnal things?
I am just going to post this verse and wait to see if someone will comment on it. I would mention Paul's quotation that leads up to this as well as the context, and I would be curious to see what you guys think.
Concerning "how much" in regards to giving, I didn't see this verse posted...
2 Corinthians 9
King James Version (KJV)
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.
As to where this giving is directed I would submit this verse from the same chapter...
1 For as touching the ministering to the saints, it is superfluous for me to write to you:
And I will stop there. What do you guys think? Should we provide for the men that minister the word? For the saints, our brethren?
The Church I attend receives an offering, and from that offering both of these are taken care of. Not only that, but funds for mission work is also accommodated through these offerings.
While I am against the teaching that Christians must tithe (no matter the amount taught), I do believe we see an obligation to supply certain needs, one of which being those that minister the word unto us (i.e. the Pastor, missionaries, etc.), as well as the poor beginning first with our brothers and sisters.
Did I say I would stop there? lol
Okay, my cent's worth.
God bless.
1 Corinthians 9:11
King James Version (KJV)
11 If we have sown unto you spiritual things, is it a great thing if we shall reap your carnal things?
I am just going to post this verse and wait to see if someone will comment on it. I would mention Paul's quotation that leads up to this as well as the context, and I would be curious to see what you guys think.
Concerning "how much" in regards to giving, I didn't see this verse posted...
2 Corinthians 9
King James Version (KJV)
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.
As to where this giving is directed I would submit this verse from the same chapter...
1 For as touching the ministering to the saints, it is superfluous for me to write to you:
And I will stop there. What do you guys think? Should we provide for the men that minister the word? For the saints, our brethren?
The Church I attend receives an offering, and from that offering both of these are taken care of. Not only that, but funds for mission work is also accommodated through these offerings.
While I am against the teaching that Christians must tithe (no matter the amount taught), I do believe we see an obligation to supply certain needs, one of which being those that minister the word unto us (i.e. the Pastor, missionaries, etc.), as well as the poor beginning first with our brothers and sisters.
Did I say I would stop there? lol
Okay, my cent's worth.
God bless.
Gregory Perry Sr.
Active Member
Nothing Wrong With That...
Darrell....I see nothing wrong with what you are suggesting from the Scriptures you quoted. Some can give more, others less, but all should do what we can to make sure that "the ox that treads out the corn" is fed and taken care of. I think our giving should be no less than liberal and cheerful but I don't think there is any mandate given in scripture, as some preachers dogmatically teach, that ALL our giving has to be done through the local church (and they usually mean THEIR local church). Every man should purpose in his own heart, between him and the Lord, who and what he should give to...and do it cheerfully. I happily and cheerfully give to my local church AND several worthy para-church ministries as the Lord enables me. It is a great blessing to my wife and I to be able to do so as we are able.
Bro.Greg:saint:
Darrell....I see nothing wrong with what you are suggesting from the Scriptures you quoted. Some can give more, others less, but all should do what we can to make sure that "the ox that treads out the corn" is fed and taken care of. I think our giving should be no less than liberal and cheerful but I don't think there is any mandate given in scripture, as some preachers dogmatically teach, that ALL our giving has to be done through the local church (and they usually mean THEIR local church). Every man should purpose in his own heart, between him and the Lord, who and what he should give to...and do it cheerfully. I happily and cheerfully give to my local church AND several worthy para-church ministries as the Lord enables me. It is a great blessing to my wife and I to be able to do so as we are able.
Bro.Greg:saint:
Thanks, brother Greg, and I am in agreement with your statement as well. I have long thought that those that teach dogmatically on tithing lack a particular trust in the Lord to actually supply the needs of His people. Might sound a little harsh, but I look at it just as I do the joy we have in our salvation, which will result in singing in our hearts that has a source, not obligation, but is simply the inevitable result of the joy itself. As the Lord moves in our lives and we grow, I think our hearts will be moved to give, and like yourself, it will not be limited just to the local church but will be part of our character which, after all, is being conformed to the image of Christ, Who, ultimately, is the prime example of...giving.
God bless.
salzer mtn
Well-Known Member
Most people that tithe will blow the trumpet and let you know they do. It seems to be that tithing is the main thing on their mind, like who tithes and who don't. Some people that tithe may not even agree on what the money is being spent on but their mindset is, i have given to God and i'm not accountable after it leaves my hands. I know some that gives a lot to the church but they think their voice is louder than any one else also when it comes to the vote. Some churches just take up money as they have need of it. Last week my home church was in revival services and we made up for a family that had lost their home and car in a recent flood. This is real giving to the Lord in my oppinion. Churches tithing just to put it in the bank is not a worthy cause. Churches paying a pastor so he can live like a king is not a worthy cause.
First...nice car. Is that yours?
I have had a few occasions where while talking with a member of a fellowship they do make it known that they are very generous to the Church, and it always has made me feel bad for them, in that it removes any doubt as to their understanding.
You raise a good point of discussion concerning what Pastors make, though, one I think worth commenting on, anyway. I think there are some Pastors that might take advantage, and I remember the first fellowship I joined shortly after being saved distinctly. I had a very high opinion of my Pastor as well as my associate Pastor, but as much as I hate to say it, when I think back on them what comes to mind is 1) the church budget going from about 200K to almost 850K in one year; 2) the associate Pastor had come on staff declaring he would only receive as the budget allowed and then he complained to me that the Church was "cheating him." As a new believer and very impressionable at that time, I am still very disappointed in both of these men that I not only looked up to but looked to as role models.
But, I will also say this: I believe we will be hard pressed to find an "occupation" that is more difficult than being a Pastor (unless it is being a missionary in a hostile country). How many have the resolve to deal with that which many Pastors deal with, and it is just my opinion that their compensation should reflect that. Not that I think they should be rich because they have to deal with what they do, but more along the lines of we should not expect them to live in poverty. And the longer they have served, I believe it is right that they, like most of us (except for those of us that are self-employed :tear
should receive raises. Of course we would expect that their ministries were worthy, and if not, then they should be replaced.I have a young Pastor friend that in the last couple of years has had to deal with the politics of the "Elders" and I for one have prayed that God give him the resolve to overcome their tradition (which makes them feel He "works for them") through the power of the word. He has had to work other jobs to support his wife and two small children, which is not necessarily a bad thing, but I know my own Pastor is afforded the time that most Pastors need for preparation concerning ministry (not to mention time to minister to individuals as well).
But I think that it is likely that those that "live like a king" compared to those, like my friend, who make a modest wage, would probably be a small number. Just a guess on my part. But I do think that Pastors that are worthy should receive a decent wage. I remember before I was saved I would despise people in the Church that I saw leaving in nice cars. I had a mindset that they should all be poor, lol. Never occurred to me that they had been blessed by God.
Okay, sorry for rambling.
God bless.
Steadfast Fred
Active Member
Neither Pastors, nor Assistant Pastors, should be on the payroll of the Church Budget.
Instead, they should be true to what the Bible says. They should follow Paul's example. Paul, in addressing the early Church, told the Elders that he worked with his own hands to provide for himself and those who traveled with him. He told the Elders that they too should labor with their hands.
In 2 Thessalonians 3:12, Paul again stated the importance of working.
In his epistle to the Church at Corinth, Paul inferred that to take money for preaching would hinder the Gospel.
Instead, they should be true to what the Bible says. They should follow Paul's example. Paul, in addressing the early Church, told the Elders that he worked with his own hands to provide for himself and those who traveled with him. He told the Elders that they too should labor with their hands.
In 2 Thessalonians 3:12, Paul again stated the importance of working.
In his epistle to the Church at Corinth, Paul inferred that to take money for preaching would hinder the Gospel.
He DOES "work for them".....PERIOD.
Here's the reality........THEY......and not HE, cough up the cash-flow to keep him employed......"GOD" doesn't pay his salary....THEY DO.
That's brass-tacks. And if "GOD" all of a sudden decides that those insufferable individuals are no longer the ones that this magical man should glean his salary from...then I can predict with certainty how "GOD" will rectify it:
He will work amongst those insufferable people to take a vote to oust the man and stop paying him money for a service which they no longer desire that he provide.
That will be the sign from "God"........that, "God" doesn't want him there anymore.
End of discussion. If he hasn't the work ethic to feed his family........then he can't demand the sheep pay him to refuse to work. He can get a real job.........and cease pretending that those whom he thinks of as "SHEEP" are the ones who are simultaneously responsible to FEED HIM!
Shepherds feed the SHEEP! Or do the Sheep feed them?
I am not PRECISELY ready to make that assertion.....I think that the "double-honor" idea is possibly exegeted that a man who DOES WORK to take care for his own family, but who also serves as the elder and preaches two times a week, and does INDEED LABOUR in the word, and has taught the saints for years (that takes a lot of work as I'm sure you know)...........is indeed "worthy" of some recompense for the labour of study and effort to create Power-points that you see every Sunday, or out-lines which are OBVIOUSLY well-researched......
I do not be-grudge a man for some amount of recompense as a "double"-honor for adding that extra work as a steward and teacher.
Steadfast Fred
Active Member
"Double Honour" is not speaking of salary, it is speaking of respect.
Last edited by a moderator:
You said you read my book. That's not the position I put forward. Is there a basis you have for the "honor" not being material? Do keep in mind that earlier in the same chapter, Paul said to honor the widows that are widows indeed. The context is clearly about some kind of material care, except that the elders receive this honor on the basis of rewarding a laborer.
Steadfast Fred
Active Member
AresMan,
I have indeed read your book. I have it on my iPad. Your addressing "double honour" is just prior to your addressing "they which preach the Gospel." (of course, I didn't have to tell you that, as you wrote the book, right?)
I have seen your position and the many other positions you put forth that others embrace and teach. I believe reward is not speaking of wages, but rather something given in appreciation (this also lines agrees with the word "honor,"imo )
I have indeed read your book. I have it on my iPad. Your addressing "double honour" is just prior to your addressing "they which preach the Gospel." (of course, I didn't have to tell you that, as you wrote the book, right?)
I have seen your position and the many other positions you put forth that others embrace and teach. I believe reward is not speaking of wages, but rather something given in appreciation (this also lines agrees with the word "honor,"imo )
Sorry, but the Pastor does not "work for the Elders." You might not be aware of this, but the Pastor holds a role of leadership. If the Elders are the Pastor's "employers," then perhaps it should be they that do the preaching.
You present a rather secular viewpoint in my opinion of the leadership roles in the Body.
Again, this presents an image of running a business, which is precisely one of the problems in certain fellowships.
I will stick with all we have comes from God, which includes the funds that members are moved to give.
This statement is mind boggling.
No, not really. That is a secular approach that has no basis in scripture.
It denies God as the source of supply and inserts a board as the leadership. The problem with that is that it is not the board that determines the theology that a preacher of God's word brings...it is God.
More likely He will rescue the man of God from their untoward and godless behavior and practice and write Ichabod over the church door.
This is hilarious. You got this from my post? lol
Doubtful.
Where do you come up with this? Did you bother to read the post? Did you catch this...
...?
Yet you create slander against this fellow.
And I can tell you this as well: I will put this young man against just about anyone I know concerning doctrine, as he is about as solid in his theology as anyone I have ever come across.
What are you talking about?
You do not view being a Pastor as a "real job?"
You are seriously confusing the issues here. You are talking about two different things.
Here is a verse for you to consider:
1 Corinthians 9
King James Version (KJV)
11 If we have sown unto you spiritual things, is it a great thing if we shall reap your carnal things?
13 Do ye not know that they which minister about holy things live of the things of the temple? and they which wait at the altar are partakers with the altar?
14 Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel.
Note the last verse HOS, it is the Lord that ordained this...not the elders.
The Pastor has a Boss, to be sure, but it is not his role to kowtow to elders steeped in tradition. It is his duty to feed the congregation in spiritual things, and this I can assure this young man does.
Again, you confuse two different issues, one spiritual, one carnal. When you can properly distinguish between the two as taught in scripture, perhaps you might understand the post you have responded to.
Shepherds minister spiritual things, those ministered to minister carnal things, that is, the things by which the minister lives by.
God bless.
Fine, then don't cry about it when the "elders" cease desiring to pay him. If he works for God, and it is God who called him to perform that role, than God shall take care of him. But, you are worried that these "elders" won't. If he doesn't work for them, than it isn't their responsibility to pay him.
What does "leadership" have to do with anything?.........O.K. so, if your young man is such a gifted "leader".....then why is it you seem concerned that he can't convince the congregation to follow him?
Here's a hint: the "leader" is the person that people ACTUALLY follow. Not the one who demands to BE FOLLOWED. Whoever it is that the congregation is following is the leader.........not your compadre, he just wants to be.
Or, they could can him and get someone else to do the job. "Employers" don't do the work, they pay people to do the work they don't want to do or can't do. They can't do it or don't want to do it. So, they pay someone else to do it.
How about I reverse the scenario on you:
If your friend needs this pay-check so badly, then why doesn't he go out and earn it from someone who WANTS to pay him for his work?
If your friend isn't performing said task to their satisfaction, than they have no requirement whatsoever to continue paying him.
It is PRECISELY a "secular" viewpoint I am presenting......and do you know why? Because admit it or not, it is a "secular" scenario, and also it is secular worldly and material "lucre" and "mammon" that you are concerned about for your friend. I don't doubt that he is the most well-meaning and Spiritual one in the lot of them.......but, in order to win this scenario and actually help the Church he is in.....there is one sure-fire way to do it. I've seen this scenario (everyone who's been a Baptist for more than a decade has) and it's to stop relying on "their" money to do it. Like it or not, there is a reality to that situation. And that is, that their money is in charge of that Church. And for as long as your friend is beholden to it, than it will remain that way.
I would bet this much:
If you are honest with yourself, you will admit that your concern isn't for that church or it's Spiritual health..........it's for your friend's financial security. Deep-down, IMO....I think you know I'm correct in that. Guess what? As long as that is the concern that YOU have for him, it's the same concern that these insufferable old codgers have too. I am being realistic. I've seen these scenarios turn around before................and usually, it involves a man who doesn't need their "secular" money to do it.
It is, and you are correct..........but you are acting as though it isn't "business" that you want for the CEO of that company. But, your concern, I repeat, is PRECISELY for "business" for your friend. You want the board to pay him for a task they aren't comfortable paying him for. Ask yourself.....does God REALLY desire that scenario? and whose job is it to "lead" them out of that? I can tell your friend how, in a second, to fix it.........it's to stop taking their money. Know what'll happen? The codgers who run the show will either repent or eventually leave (because they are likely carnal anyway) and then new blood will begin pouring into that church. And it will be people who sincerely seek to follow God rather than these old thugs who merely desire the "preemininece" among them. Then guess what?
Within about two years.......there will be more than enough people who love that man and DESIRE to give him a fair recompense for his labour then they will vote to pay him a good and fair wage. Seen it before.
You can pray all you want for an improbable scenario. But God's not likely to do it.
Me too....but God uses human agents to dole out his providence, and that's what you want done here. And it isn't a pay-check from the sky you want.....it's a pay-check from "Old-Dead Baptist Church"
I am willing to bet the money that you desire for your friend that a whole LOT of the assumptions you make about the Pastoral staff of New Testament Churches isn't strictly Scriptural either my friend........Traditional, yes, "Scriptural"?? NO. By way of example... your friend is the "elder"...those codgers are just old goats.
The board IS the "leadership" around there, or does this scenario not exist? I mean, does your friend really "lead" the situation? I don't think he does, or this discussion would not exist. That's his failure to lead.......not their failure to follow.
Not if Scripture is to be believed. The same scenario existed for the Apostle Paul and rather than "get rescued".....Paul responded (oh so counter-intuitively) by getting himself a job.
If you and your friend truly cared about those people, and not the fatness of his wallet, or the wealth he can extract from those Spiritually defunct people, he could try the counter-intuitive tactic of not relying on their lucre and then see what kind of revival might occur there.
Uhhh........no...I asserted it, as in, "I" this corporation of one said it......not you.
And what then, is it precisely that you are doing to these "elders" about whom you speak?? HUH? You, sir, are as guilty of "slandering" them, as you think I am of your compadre. Are you not?
I don't doubt you for a minute.
His not being able to demand any money from the flock he is pastoring, if you read me correctly.
It depends. It always does. I sure do know a LOT of crusty old "pastors" who out-lived their usefulness decades earlier who won't for the life of them give their job away, nor the pay-check they extract for it.
Then again, there are also Godly men who labour selflessly and continually in the word who are under-recompensed as well. BOTH scenarios are real. I truly don't doubt for a minute that your friend is the latter either, as you suggest.
I am sorta.....I am aware that I equivocated the various meanings of "feed".....and that what I posted wasn't "literally" the intent of those passages. I was borrowing the phraseology to make a different but similar point. Perhaps that was bad dialectic.
And...........you are correct AGAIN! :applause: What you have blithely failed to consider is that Paul's response to that VERY SAME church's failure to support him is PRECISELY what advice I am giving now. Paul GOT.. A.. JOB!!You said that you wanted God's man "rescued" from that scenario......but, that isn't what Paul's response was. Paul wasn't "rescued", he got a job and that's Scripture. Take that truism, dry it out, cut it up, flavour it, then tamp it down into your pipe, and subsequently smoke it.
I don't doubt it. As did the Apostle Paul, and when carnal men didn't recompense him fairly........he got himself a job.
Again....my post knowingly was equivocal, perhaps that was not the best way to make my point. I understand it for sure.........I just should have expressed it better.
Of course......Paul wasn't a "Bishop" or a "Shepherd" in that sense either.........he was a missionary. So, strictly speaking, the only men who have a "right" to expect payment, are men willing to leave the comforts of these United States and the cozy offices they work from. Your friend isn't a Missionary. You will nowhere find in the Scripture nor early church history that the pastors or bishops of local assemblies derived their living from that position. Missionaries did.......not Bishops.
God bless you too.
Last edited by a moderator: