The Crux of the Pro-tithe Argument

[Originalist]

Interestingly, the main crux of the pro-tithers' position is the fact that the practice is "MENTIONED" prior to the Law. Naturally, many will point out that animal sacrifices and circumcision were also mentioned before the Law. Thus, it would seem that, in order to be consistent, the pro-tithers would consider those practices to also be binding on the New Testament church. Ah, but they have cleverly (well, at least in their own eyes) found a way around that seeming contradictory obstacle. They simply attach tithing to the "moral code" that pre-existed before Law. If tithing is part of the moral code that pre-existed before the Law, then it certainly outlasts the abolishment of the Law. Certainly, we would not claim that the abolishment of the old covenant constitutes an abolishing of God's command to live holy and not commit murder, steal, lie, cheat, commit adultery, etc. So, to the pro-tither, saying that tithing was abolished is like saying God's laws against the sins listed above are also abolished.

Pretty clever, huh? I mean, if tithing did pre-date the Law as one of the moral imperatives that were incorporated into the Law, then the practice would be binding on the whole human race for all time. But there is just one tiny little problem with this theory. While nobody disputes the fact that tithing was practised in some areas and to some degree before the Law, the pro-tithers simply have not produced data that validates their claim that the tithe pre-existed as a moral imperative, or as part of God's eternal moral code. So, I invite them to do so now. Please make your case that tithing is a moral imperative, or part of the moral code that pre-dated the Law. Before the flood, and before the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, God made his moral imperatives clear. Where do we find God, prior to the Law, making tithing a moral imperative? This narrows the focus of the debate and prevents us all from chasing rabbits.

[Tithesmeister]

Interestingly, the main crux of the pro-tithers' position is the fact that the practice is "MENTIONED" prior to the Law. Naturally, many will point out that animal sacrifices and circumcision were also mentioned before the Law. Thus, it would seem that, in order to be consistent, the pro-tithers would consider those practices to also be binding on the New Testament church. Ah, but they have cleverly (well, at least in their own eyes) found a way around that seeming contradictory obstacle. They simply attach tithing to the "moral code" that pre-existed before Law. If tithing is part of the moral code that pre-existed before the Law, then it certainly outlasts the abolishment of the Law. Certainly, we would not claim that the abolishment of the old covenant constitutes an abolishing of God's command to live holy and not commit murder, steal, lie, cheat, commit adultery, etc. So, to the pro-tither, saying that tithing was abolished is like saying God's laws against the sins listed above are also abolished.

Pretty clever, huh? I mean, if tithing did pre-date the Law as one of the moral imperatives that were incorporated into the Law, then the practice would be binding on the whole human race for all time. But there is just one tiny little problem with this theory. While nobody disputes the fact that tithing was practised in some areas and to some degree before the Law, the pro-tithers simply have not produced data that validates their claim that the tithe pre-existed as a moral imperative, or as part of God's eternal moral code. So, I invite them to do so now. Please make your case that tithing is a moral imperative, or part of the moral code that pre-dated the Law. Before the flood, and before the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, God made his moral imperatives clear. Where do we find God, prior to the Law, making tithing a moral imperative? This narrows the focus of the debate and prevents us all from chasing rabbits.

I’m sorry. I just can’t support it with scripture. You win!

[mfblume]

You guys still hung up on giving monetary offerings?

[Tithesmeister]

You guys still hung up on giving monetary offerings?

Who are you guys? If you want to debate offerings, which were sometimes rendered in money, and tithes, which never were, and base that debate on real scripture? I’d be happy to participate in that debate.

[mfblume]

Who are you guys? If you want to debate offerings, which were sometimes rendered in money, and tithes, which never were, and base that debate on real scripture? I’d be happy to participate in that debate.

Giving does not have to be distinguished between money or items. Giving is giving no matter what it is, and tithes or no tithes are not even affected by that distinction.

[Tithesmeister]

Giving does not have to be distinguished between money or items. Giving is giving no matter what it is, and tithes or no tithes are not even affected by that distinction.

Tithes are affected, according to God. Be careful that you don’t teach false doctrine.

Actually giving was distinguished by God, in the scripture. They were not allowed to tithe whatever they decided was convenient. That was decided for them . . .
By God.

You are ignoring the scriptural fact that tithing was giving that was prescribed by God to be done a certain way and was relegated to certain specific use by certain specific people. Whereas offerings were allowed to be given of things that tithes were not.

Money being such a thing.

If you feel strongly about it. I’ll be happy to debate you with scripture. I doubt you’ll take advantage of the offer, because you are much to knowledgeable of scripture to hope to win such a debate.

[mfblume]

Tithes are affected, according to God. Be careful that you don’t teach false doctrine.

Actually giving was distinguished by God, in the scripture. They were not allowed to tithe whatever they decided was convenient. That was decided for them . . .
By God.

You are ignoring the scriptural fact that tithing was giving that was prescribed by God to be done a certain way and was relegated to certain specific use by certain specific people. Whereas offerings were allowed to be given of things that tithes were not.

Money being such a thing.

If you feel strongly about it. I’ll be happy to debate you with scripture. I doubt you’ll take advantage of the offer, because you are much to knowledgeable of scripture to hope to win such a debate.

1 Cor 9:13-14 is all I need to know. :thumbsup All else is splitting hairs that are not an issue in the new covenant.

Not worth a debate. Hence, why the hangup?

[Tithesmeister]

1 Cor 9:13-14 is all I need to know. :thumbsup All else is splitting hairs that are not an issue in the new covenant.

Not worth a debate. Hence, why the hangup?

I think you have misunderstood who has the hang up. Who is teaching giving tithes?

Do you teach tithing?

Are YOU hung up on this doctrine?

[Tithesmeister]

1 Cor 9:13-14 is all I need to know. :thumbsup All else is splitting hairs that are not an issue in the new covenant.

Not worth a debate. Hence, why the hangup?

Says the man who has endlessly debated sabbath keeping. Do you consider sabbath keeping worthy of debate?

Are you writing a book on sabbath keeping?

Do you have a hang up on keeping the sabbath?

Just curious.

[mfblume]

Says the man who has endlessly debated sabbath keeping. Do you consider sabbath keeping worthy of debate?

Are you writing a book on sabbath keeping?

Do you have a hang up on keeping the sabbath?

Just curious.

Yes, because sabbath keeping is a major issue that many are involved with and that poses a huge problem between the intended understanding that we are meant to have regarding law and grace. This distinction of varying beliefs about sabbath leads to a huge overall issue of whether we're to understand what the entire leading of the Spirit is all about. Tithing does not go that way at all.

[mfblume]

I think you have misunderstood who has the hang up. Who is teaching giving tithes?

Do you teach tithing?

Are YOU hung up on this doctrine?

Not at all, either way. I tithe simply because it's a pattern of giving and is not heaven or hell, anyway. And God has blatantly blessed me for it. But it's not heaven or hell.

[hometown guy]

Not at all, either way. I tithe simply because it's a pattern of giving and is not heaven or hell, anyway. And God has blatantly blessed me for it. But it's not heaven or hell.

Interesting, in your theory you are doing something God did away with and he is blessing you for it.... seems he would bless the ones not doing it if he did away with it...

[mfblume]

Interesting, in your theory you are doing something God did away with and he is blessing you for it.... seems he would bless the ones not doing it if he did away with it...

It is not a law like it was. To me, it's simply doing something in faith to give to God. And He outrightly blessed me for it! Someone who joined our church started giving tithes, and was amazed at how immediately God blessed it. It's not a law to us, though. It's just ONE WAY to give to God!

The LAW of it ended. We're no longer cursed if we do not give tithes, because Jesus is the one who took all the curses on us and we're free of a curse because of the cross. Saying that tithes frees us from a curse is replacing the cross with tithes. One extreme.

But another extreme is saying we cannot give tithes of our income in faith and see God bless us. HE DOES AND HE DID TO ME!

That shows the problem with the tithe debate that goes on here. Two extremes and both are wrong.

[Tithesmeister]

It is not a law like it was. To me, it's simply doing something in faith to give to God. And He outrightly blessed me for it! Someone who joined our church started giving tithes, and was amazed at how immediately God blessed it. It's not a law to us, though. It's just ONE WAY to give to God!

The LAW of it ended. We're no longer cursed if we do not give tithes, because Jesus is the one who took all the curses on us and we're free of a curse because of the cross. Saying that tithes frees us from a curse is replacing the cross with tithes. One extreme.

But another extreme is saying we cannot give tithes of our income in faith and see God bless us. HE DOES AND HE DID TO ME!

That shows the problem with the tithe debate that goes on here. Two extremes and both are wrong.

So . . .
By using your example, would a person be blessed for keeping the sabbath, even though it is no longer required?

Also, it is not extreme to teach exactly what the Bible does on a given subject.

The crux of the matter . . .

Do you receive tithes, in any form? Or do you advocate giving it to the widows, orphans, singers, etc., like the extremely extreme Bible taught that it was for.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Interestingly, the main crux of the pro-tithers' position is the fact that the practice is "MENTIONED" prior to the Law. Naturally, many will point out that animal sacrifices and circumcision were also mentioned before the Law. Thus, it would seem that, in order to be consistent, the pro-tithers would consider those practices to also be binding on the New Testament church. Ah, but they have cleverly (well, at least in their own eyes) found a way around that seeming contradictory obstacle. They simply attach tithing to the "moral code" that pre-existed before Law. If tithing is part of the moral code that pre-existed before the Law, then it certainly outlasts the abolishment of the Law. Certainly, we would not claim that the abolishment of the old covenant constitutes an abolishing of God's command to live holy and not commit murder, steal, lie, cheat, commit adultery, etc. So, to the pro-tither, saying that tithing was abolished is like saying God's laws against the sins listed above are also abolished.

Pretty clever, huh? I mean, if tithing did pre-date the Law as one of the moral imperatives that were incorporated into the Law, then the practice would be binding on the whole human race for all time. But there is just one tiny little problem with this theory. While nobody disputes the fact that tithing was practised in some areas and to some degree before the Law, the pro-tithers simply have not produced data that validates their claim that the tithe pre-existed as a moral imperative, or as part of God's eternal moral code. So, I invite them to do so now. Please make your case that tithing is a moral imperative, or part of the moral code that pre-dated the Law. Before the flood, and before the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, God made his moral imperatives clear. Where do we find God, prior to the Law, making tithing a moral imperative? This narrows the focus of the debate and prevents us all from chasing rabbits.

Why wasn't religious tithing exclusively to Hebrew/Israelites? The whole predating the law shows pagans tithing. Something they always did, most ancient religions tithed to their priestcraft. Circumcision was practiced by the Egyptians, Ethiopians, Phoenicians, and Syrians. Was a right of passage for all males. There was a time when Christians were adamant against circumcision. Not anymore, but funny how you have many passages of scripture telling the Christain not to circumcise their children going mostly unheeded but tithing? Whoo hoo, that's the candy stick!

[consapente89]

Abraham was following a pagan ritual when he tithed to Melchizedek? God borrowed circumcision from pagans? Can’t see anywhere in the NT where
circumcision is prohibited. Rather, it seems all spiritual significance is removed.

[Originalist]

Why wasn't religious tithing exclusively to Hebrew/Israelites? The whole predating the law shows pagans tithing. Something they always did, most ancient religions tithed to their priestcraft. Circumcision was practiced by the Egyptians, Ethiopians, Phoenicians, and Syrians. Was a right of passage for all males. There was a time when Christians were adamant against circumcision. Not anymore, but funny how you have many passages of scripture telling the Christain not to circumcise their children going mostly unheeded but tithing? Whoo hoo, that's the candy stick!

I am not questioning that tithing was practised prior to the Law. My original post is self-explanatory. Two pages worth of posts and not one person as even attempted to answer the question I posed. I find that to be rude.

[Evang.Benincasa]

I am not questioning that tithing was practised prior to the Law. My original post is self-explanatory. Two pages worth of posts and not one person as even attempted to answer the question I posed. I find that to be rude.

I'm not trying to be rude, but what I'm asking is why was tithing a well maintained practice is the ancient world. Even prior to Abraham?

[coksiw]

The Abraham tithing was once. No record of systematic tithing, in fact, no record of Isaac doing it. Even Jacob made a covenant of tithing with the Lord, like if he didn't practice it and he wanted to establish it.
Abraham tithing was voluntary. The modern tithing is compulsory, under the threat of disobedience and cursing, which is the Law.

Even the tithing you find before the Law, is not the tithing they teach you at church. The tithing at church is from the Law, and even that is applied incorrectly.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Abraham was following a pagan ritual when he tithed to Melchizedek? God borrowed circumcision from pagans? Can’t see anywhere in the NT where
circumcision is prohibited. Rather, it seems all spiritual significance is removed.

Abraham was following a practice which a huge portion of ancient societies followed. That was tithing the spoils of war. The tithes were made to the priestcraft of many religions, plus to the king, or leaders. New Testament is against the practice of circumcision. No longer was it of the flesh to make you a physical Judean/Israelite. But spiritual to bring you into the Israel of God, the domestic olive tree.

[consapente89]

I am not questioning that tithing was practised prior to the Law. My original post is self-explanatory. Two pages worth of posts and not one person as even attempted to answer the question I posed. I find that to be rude.

:sad

[coksiw]

I'm not trying to be rude, but what I'm asking is why was tithing a well maintained practice is the ancient world. Even prior to Abraham?

Could you please show references of tithing of wages from those pagans? Also, if you use history, I would think you would use it to confirm a development of a false teaching or to set the context for something from the scripture.

The tithing in the new testament is as weak as the baptism in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. Even if the ancient societies tithed to their priests, well, we are not pagans, and we are all priests in the Lord. Would that make us all qualified to receive tithing according to your pagan reference to support tithing?

I am thankful that the Bible speaks by itself, and more and more people are realizing tithing of wages, taught as an obedience to God issue, is a fraud, to the point that WSJ published an article about the situation no long ago.

[Originalist]

I'm not trying to be rude, but what I'm asking is why was tithing a well maintained practice is the ancient world. Even prior to Abraham?

Not relevant to my question.

[Evang.Benincasa]

The Abraham tithing was once. No record of systematic tithing, in fact, no record of Isaac doing it. Even Jacob made a covenant of tithing with the Lord, like if he didn't practice it and he wanted to establish it.
Abraham tithing was voluntary. The modern tithing is compulsory, under the threat of disobedience and cursing, which is the Law.

Even the tithing you find before the Law, is not the tithing they teach you at church. The tithing at church is from the Law, and even that is applied incorrectly.

Abraham tithed only once? How do you know? There is a Bible law that the Israelite was to bury his waste outside the camp Deuteronomy 23:13 Yet, no record of Isaac using the latrine, so should I believe that he never did? :heeheehee

[Evang.Benincasa]

Not relevant to my question.

Why not?

[coksiw]

Abraham was following a practice which a huge portion of ancient societies followed. That was tithing the spoils of war. The tithes were made to the priestcraft of many religions, plus to the king, or leaders. New Testament is against the practice of circumcision. No longer was it of the flesh to make you a physical Judean/Israelite. But spiritual to bring you into the Israel of God, the domestic olive tree.

The New Testament wasn't against tithing because tithing was never practised to support elders in the local assembly. It was of produce and livestock inside Israel to support the Levites. Were all elders levites? No. How could they justify the collection of tithing among the Jewish Christians?

I can find examples of an organized effort to support the elders and to support the missionaries in the New Testament. I can also find direct commands saying you should give as you propose in your heart. Compelling people to tithe to support the elders, quoting the Law and its curse, is not Apostolic.

[coksiw]

Abraham tithed only once? How do you know? There is a Bible law that the Israelite was to bury his waste outside the camp Deuteronomy 23:13 Yet, no record of Isaac using the latrine, so should I believe that he never did? :heeheehee

If the Bible didn't record a systematic tithing is because, I guess, it is not relevant to set a doctrine about it?

[Evang.Benincasa]

Could you please show references of tithing of wages from those pagans? Also, if you use history, I would think you would use it to confirm a development of a false teaching or to set the context for something from the scripture.

The tithing in the new testament is as weak as the baptism in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. Even if the ancient societies tithed to their priests, well, we are not pagans, and we are all priests in the Lord. Would that make us all qualified to receive tithing according to your pagan reference to support tithing?

I am thankful that the Bible speaks by itself, and more and more people are realizing tithing of wages, taught as an obedience to God issue, is a fraud, to the point that WSJ published an article about the situation no long ago.

So, did Cain and Abel give all of their harvest? Did Abraham give all of the spoils of war to the priest? Why did the ancient Romans tithe 10 percent to the Temple of Saturn? Hey, I am just asking questions.

[Evang.Benincasa]

If the Bible didn't record a systematic tithing is because, I guess, it is not relevant to set a doctrine about it?

Then why did the Bible bring it up at all? :heeheehee

[coksiw]

Then why did the Bible bring it up at all? :heeheehee

Hebrews has the answer.

[Evang.Benincasa]

The New Testament wasn't against tithing because tithing was never practised to support elders in the local assembly. It was of produce and livestock inside Israel to support the Levites. Were all elders levites? No. How could they justify the collection of tithing among the Jewish Christians?

I can find examples of an organized effort to support the elders and to support the missionaries in the New Testament. I can also find direct commands saying you should give as you propose in your heart. Compelling people to tithe to support the elders, quoting the Law and its curse, is not Apostolic.

The Levites were the teachers of the law. As in Galatians 6:6. Giving as you purpose is .50? Really?

[Evang.Benincasa]

Hebrews has the answer.

Melchizedek was not a Levite, yet Abraham tithed while Levi was in his loins. What does that mean?

[consapente89]

Abraham was following a practice which a huge portion of ancient societies followed. That was tithing the spoils of war. The tithes were made to the priestcraft of many religions, plus to the king, or leaders. New Testament is against the practice of circumcision. No longer was it of the flesh to make you a physical Judean/Israelite. But spiritual to bring you into the Israel of God, the domestic olive tree.

I’m not trying to be disrespectful, I just don’t see that. Regardless of how it was being practiced or who was practicing it before, scripture seems clear to me that this was a representation of the superior priesthood of Melchesidek, of which priesthood Jesus was/is of. Levi paying tithes into the priesthood of Jesus in the loins of Abraham. Which is why we pay tithes in Christ today.

I don’t think anyone in todays Christian world (that I am personally aware of) attaches any spiritual significance to circumcision. I can’t see any of the NT dealing with circumcision applying to the common custom for babies in the US to be circumcised for medical and hygiene reasons.

[coksiw]

So, did Cain and Abel give all of their harvest? Did Abraham give all of the spoils of war to the priest? Why did the ancient Romans tithe 10 percent to the Temple of Saturn? Hey, I am just asking questions.

The Bible doesn't say what percentage Cain and Abel sacrificed. Who did they give it to? What priest?

How the Romans tithe 10% to a pagan temple justifies that we must pay 10% of our wages? Are we going outside the Bible because the Bible itself can be used to prove a false teaching? Isn't what we are not supposed to do?

Your truth seems more true than the truth itself.

[coksiw]

The Levites were the teachers of the law. As in Galatians 6:6. Giving as you purpose is .50? Really?

Sure, that's why when Moses asked people to give for the tabernacle voluntarily, he failed miserably and had to create a false doctrine to compel people. You purposely ignore the work of the Spirit and the ability of people to respond.

[coksiw]

Melchizedek was not a Levite, yet Abraham tithed while Levi was in his loins. What does that mean?

Hebrews is trying to make a point totally unrelated to proving the practice of tithing to support elders. You are taking things tremendously out of context if you try to use it to prove the point of tithing.

[Evang.Benincasa]

I’m not trying to be disrespectful, I just don’t see that. Regardless of how it was being practiced or who was practicing it before, scripture seems clear to me that this was a representation of the superior priesthood of Melchesidek, of which priesthood Jesus was/is of. Levi paying tithes into the priesthood of Jesus in the loins of Abraham. Which is why we pay tithes in Christ today.

I don’t think anyone in todays Christian world (that I am personally aware of) attaches any spiritual significance to circumcision. I can’t see any of the NT dealing with circumcision applying to the common custom for babies in the US to be circumcised for medical and hygiene reasons.

Hygiene reasons? That's not even true. If you were circumcised it is because of Jewish doctors in the 1800s. Not because a bunch of Northerners thought it was cleaner practice. Yet, there is nowhere where we are told not to tithe. Not one verse by any Apostle telling us not to tithe. I brought up tithing in the ancient world because EVERYONE was doing it. It wasn't exclusive to the Hebrew. Therefore the Church being the True Israel would continue the practice with their ministry. That's all I am saying. I don't teach compulsory giving of any sort. Just like you got the Holy Ghost, or get healed from a illness. You are going to give as it is laid upon your heart to give. You don't give, it is entirely up to you and Jesus Christ. Not the guy on the platform. Paul taught not to even ask for it, and therefore it is totally up to the Holy Ghost in you. I brought up the tithing culture of other societies because even the PAGANS knew how to take care of their ministry.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Hebrews is trying to make a point totally unrelated to proving the practice of tithing to support elders. You are taking things tremendously out of context if you try to use it to prove the point of tithing.

What? Maybe its you taking them tremendously out of context to prove a point.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Sure, that's why when Moses asked people to give for the tabernacle voluntarily, he failed miserably and had to create a false doctrine to compel people. You purposely ignore the work of the Spirit and the ability of people to respond.

Moses did what?

Seriously? :laffatu

Exodus 36:3 Exodus 35:29, Exodus 36:2, and Amos 4:5

[consapente89]

Sure, that's why when Moses asked people to give for the tabernacle voluntarily, he failed miserably and had to create a false doctrine to compel people. You purposely ignore the work of the Spirit and the ability of people to respond.

.... wow

[Tithesmeister]

So . . .
By using your example, would a person be blessed for keeping the sabbath, even though it is no longer required?

Also, it is not extreme to teach exactly what the Bible does on a given subject.

The crux of the matter . . .

Do you receive tithes, in any form? Or do you advocate giving it to the widows, orphans, singers, etc., like the extremely extreme Bible taught that it was for.

Bump for Brother Blume. You have shared that you give tithes. You haven’t shared whether you receive tithes. If one is relevant, the other would be too.

[Nicodemus1968]

What these men really want is for you to ask them this question.

How do you give to your church and whats the scripture base for doing so?

Several of these men/women need the word to say exactly _____, or exactly _____, other wise they will not believe. It’s a matter of internal issues.

[coksiw]

.... wow

It was Sarcasm, brother, in response to EB saying that people can't be told to give free-will because otherwise they would give .50.
I was referring to the good response of the children of Israel to the call to collect offering for the Tabernacle in Exo 35.
Paul also called for a voluntary offering to bless the church in Jerusalem and people responded. Basically responding to the false argument that you must impose 10% on people otherwise they won't give.

[mfblume]

I receive tithes and I give tithes. Where does the Bible say tithes must be given to Orphans and widows? Yes, we minister to them. But where does the Bible say tithes go to them?

Tithesmeister, you are missing the fact that giving in faith and not by law can be done with tithes or not... Any amount or percentage. It's according to one's faith. You think the only people who tithe do so by law. That's your error.

[Nicodemus1968]

It was Sarcasm, brother, in response to EB saying that people can't be told to give free-will because otherwise they would give .50.
I was referring to the good response of the children of Israel to the call to collect offering for the Tabernacle in Exo 35.
Paul also called for a voluntary offering to bless the church in Jerusalem and people responded. Basically responding to the false argument that you must impose 10% on people otherwise they won't give.

What does tithe mean?

[Tithesmeister]

What does tithe mean?

God defined the tithe. If you don’t know what God’s definition of tithe is, I suggest you get to studying. Do you teach tithing as a doctrine, yet you don’t know what it means?

[Tithesmeister]

I receive tithes and I give tithes. Where does the Bible say tithes must be given to Orphans and widows? Yes, we minister to them. But where does the Bible say tithes go to them?

Tithesmeister, you are missing the fact that giving in faith and not by law can be done with tithes or not... Any amount or percentage. It's according to one's faith. You think the only people who tithe do so by law. That's your error.

Any amount or percentage is not tithes. You are missing the fundamental understanding of God ordained tithing, including what it is, who is to receive it, what is to be done with it etc..

Just because you admit it is not according to the law, doesn’t change the definition of the word. You were quick to blow the trumpet and proclaim that you tithe, but you were slow to admit that you accept tithes.

So . . .

Another question:

Do the widows in your church receive tithes?

The choir members?

What qualifies you to receive tithes?

Because you preach?

Pastor?

I’ll be waiting on your answers.

[Nicodemus1968]

Consider the source.

Lord Bless everyone, have great church tomorrow.

[Tithesmeister]

Consider the source.

Lord Bless everyone, have great church tomorrow.

Yes. Consider the source. The source is a man who teaches that he is entitled to the tithe. Even though he can offer NO scripture that says he is so entitled. He’s pretty sure he’s supposed to get them. And he probably accepts tithes from widows.

Bro Nicodemus?

Do you accept tithes from widows?

Because that would directly contradict the word of God.

Consider the source. Always.

[Truthseeker]

It's not binding on Christian's today.

[Nicodemus1968]

Some of these brothers like having 2,3,5 maybe even 10 Pastors to a church to better fit their “needs”. Imagine now having to support through tithe each Pastor.... LOL!

[mfblume]

Any amount or percentage is not tithes. You are missing the fundamental understanding of God ordained tithing, including what it is, who is to receive it, what is to be done with it etc..

You are splitting hairs once again. Paul stated that the way the ministry survived by income under Law is the same way that ministers live of the gospel in the New Testament.
The law aspect of it is gone. And it matters not if it is called tithes or just a percentage. You lose the forest for the trees in your assessment.

It does not matter all the details of what shodul be done with it, so long as the New Testament mandates are fulfilled with it.

Just because you admit it is not according to the law, doesn’t change the definition of the word. You were quick to blow the trumpet and proclaim that you tithe, but you were slow to admit that you accept tithes.

You're on a witch hunt, bro. I did not, again, did not, intentionally be slower on mentioning that I receive tithes when I stated that I give tithes. This shows me the disengenuous aspect that we're dealing with here. I simply indicated that I myself GIVE TITHES because the onus of this debate is allows on the one who actually GIVES, and teh argument is always DO YOU GIVE TITHES.

So . . .

Another question:

Do the widows in your church receive tithes?

I already asked about this and you never answered. Where does the new testament teach to give tithes to widows?

The choir members?

What qualifies you to receive tithes?

I never demanded tithes from the start. I never once told anyone they have to give tithes to me. Never.



Because you preach?

Pastor?

I’ll be waiting on your answers.

I'm still waiting on your answers.

Is this such an issue with you that it is the reason you called yourself TITHEMEISTER?

[Ehud]

God defined the tithe. If you don’t know what God’s definition of tithe is, I suggest you get to studying. Do you teach tithing as a doctrine, yet you don’t know what it means?

Could you be any more condescending? You know good and well that Bro. Blume is not advocating tithes as found in the Mosaic law. He is saying that he chose to cheerfully give 10% (which is what the word means) and that God has blessed his giving. You may not like the terms used, but he is absolutely not preaching what you are harping against.

[Evang.Benincasa]

It was Sarcasm, brother, in response to EB saying that people can't be told to give free-will because otherwise they would give .50.
I was referring to the good response of the children of Israel to the call to collect offering for the Tabernacle in Exo 35.
Paul also called for a voluntary offering to bless the church in Jerusalem and people responded. Basically responding to the false argument that you must impose 10% on people otherwise they won't give.

Listen, there is NOTHING mandertory. Not one thing is mandatory, or to be done in your own human will. You can't live for Jesus Christ without the Holy Ghost Spirit of truth guiding you into all truth. Whether it's your pet peeve 10 percent, or free will giving of an embarrassed saint's folded into pill size dollar bill, to airplane fuel expenses for a missionary pastor flying to the Amazon. It is all done through the Holy Ghost. I don't mock .50 donation, I know why it was given. But the whole argument for and against tithing is weak because half of you people don't have enough pieces of the puzzle. So the ones you strike a cord with are the neophyte, and the disgruntled.

Good job :thumbsup

Richard Dawkins would be proud.

[mfblume]

Tithe is literally and ONLY ten percent of ANYTHING. That is what tithe means literally. Come on, Meister, you know that, or you should. :thumbsup

It's like the word DOZEN. It means 12. Nothing more. And there is an old covenant DOCTRINE that ADDS to the term TITHE which is what you are actually thinking of, not TTHE itself. You assume taht because the word TITHE is connected in the Old Covenant with a teaching about it, that any time someone says that they "TITHE," you think of the commandment details with what to do with it in all its intricacies under Law. But if someone wants to call their giving by the term TITHE because it is ten percent they always give, then that does not necessarily demand that the commandment "associated with" tithes in the Law has to be adhered to. They know what the word TITHE means when you do not!

So, you need to study more perfectly, since you're a meister about it, what TITHE actually means.

To prove my case:

H4643
מַעַשְׂרָה...... מַעֲשַׂר...... מַעֲשֵׂר
ma‛ăśêr...... ma‛ăśar...... ma‛aśrâh
mah-as-ayr', mah-as-ar', mah-as-raw'
From H6240; a tenth; especially a tithe: - tenth (part), tithe (-ing).
Total KJV occurrences: 32

Notice it says a TENTH AND NOTHING ELSE?

No commandments with what to do with that tenth. It simply means TENTH. Anyone who looks up the term in the Hebrew lexicon would not find one iota of a thought about what to do with the TITHE. TITHE means one-tenth and NOTHING ELSE.

So, these are the detailed TREES you are missing for the forest. While you speak and speak so much about tithes and even have it in your namesake here, you failed to miss the most plain detail of them all. TITHE only means ten per cent and NOTHING ELSE. You've been focusing on the commandment associated with it under law, which is not part of the term itself, and think that it is part and parcel with the definition of the term TITHE. You've done that so much that if someone gives a consistent ten percent of their income and technically and correctly call it tithing, then you hammer them for not tagging on the associated commandments from law, when the use of the term was not invalidated by the tither whatsoever!

In reality, you are not against TITHE, itself, in the church but rather the law ASSOCIATED WITH TITHES.

While people rail on others for taking something from LAW and demanding they're wrong, the fact is they are the ones being legalistic because they fail to realize that if one does not give tithes as a law with its "related" commandments about where it goes, and they proceed to demand people tag on the commandments if they are going to use the term TITHE. You turn around and make legalists out of people when you are supposed to be speaking against legalism of the law. You do not allow people to use the word TITHE to describe the giving of ten per cent to the world of God unless they tag on the commandments from law with that giving, even though the term itself has nothing to do with the commandments and did not require them at all!

How ironic!

While you are against law-keeping, and therefore demand people do not give tithes, your failure to recognize that the word TITHE is fulfilled nicely in someone who gives ten percent of their income without all of the law's tagged-on requirements of what to do with it, you inadvertently are throwing law-keeping into the term TITHE when it has nothing to do with what is done with the currency!

[Tithesmeister]

What these men really want is for you to ask them this question.

How do you give to your church and whats the scripture base for doing so?

Several of these men/women need the word to say exactly _____, or exactly _____, other wise they will not believe. It’s a matter of internal issues.

In response to this, allow me to comment. When taking up an offering or tithes, the congregation is often urged to “give as unto the Lord”. Giving as unto the Lord is described very specifically in Matthew 25. Giving as NOT unto the Lord is covered as well.

[32] And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:
[33] And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.
[34] Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:
[35] For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:
[36] Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.
[37] Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?
[38] When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?
[39] Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?
[40] And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.
[41] Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:
[42] For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:
[43] I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.
[44] Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?
[45] Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.
[46] And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

[Tithesmeister]

God defined the tithe. If you don’t know what God’s definition of tithe is, I suggest you get to studying. Do you teach tithing as a doctrine, yet you don’t know what it means?

Could you be any more condescending? You know good and well that Bro. Blume is not advocating tithes as found in the Mosaic law. He is saying that he chose to cheerfully give 10% (which is what the word means) and that God has blessed his giving. You may not like the terms used, but he is absolutely not preaching what you are harping against.

I didn’t direct this comment to Brother Blume. This comment was to Brother Nicodemus. Who advocates and teaches a different doctrine on tithing than Brother Blume.

:thumbsup

[Nicodemus1968]

In response to this, allow me to comment. When taking up an offering or tithes, the congregation is often urged to “give as unto the Lord”. Giving as unto the Lord is described very specifically in Matthew 25. Giving as NOT unto the Lord is covered as well.

[32] And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:
[33] And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.
[34] Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:
[35] For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:
[36] Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.
[37] Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?
[38] When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?
[39] Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?
[40] And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.
[41] Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:
[42] For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:
[43] I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.
[44] Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?
[45] Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.
[46] And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

I’m trying to understand your reasoning for this verse? Are you writing that this is how were to give unto the Lord? So, if this is your “tithe” Your going to do this a 1/10 of every week, or month?

Listen, if you don't feel tithe is essential then don't do it. You don't have to feel you have to prove me wrong or yourself right. Walk in the light that you have been shown. I preached it very simple, just live what you preach. I preach tithe, I don't say there is a certain amount, I wouldn’t know if they give 10% because I don't know what people make, its none of my business. I’m able to preach it because I live it, i gave to the ministry of my Pastor for 17 years I gave 10% tithe and 5% offering every week, every month, every year. I don't believe its salvational I believe it has to do with being blessed. Worldly finance counselors will tell you to give at least 10% to a church or charity because they have seen first hand that some way some how it comes back to you in more that what you have given. Tithe is a conviction of mine, you may not have the same conviction are you less, not at all. Well pick on each other, hopefully in all fun and games, yet live what you preach, Ill respect your opinion and you respect mine.

[Tithesmeister]

Some of these brothers like having 2,3,5 maybe even 10 Pastors to a church to better fit their “needs”. Imagine now having to support through tithe each Pastor.... LOL!

Thank you for saying this. It is actually the response I was hoping for. I thought you might be the one who would say it.

You see brother, we agree about something. We agree that a pastor is a gift to the church, from God. His purpose is to edify the church. Right so far?

But then it heads downhill from there. You think there should only be one in a church. I think there should be many. Why do I think so? Because, we have this wonderful gift from God, who knows uniquely how to bless us, so why not a dozen pastors?

You provided the answer. You seem to believe (I’m not wanting to put words in your mouth, but this seems to be what your post implies) that the pastor gets ten percent of your income. So, if you have ten pastors, and you give them ten percent each, of your income, you have nothing left. Don’t worry, I get the math part.

This is the unintended consequences of false doctrine. I have repeatedly invited you to post scripture supporting a pastor’s entitlement to tithes (not offerings or support, but specifically tithes) and you have, of course failed to do so, because, of course, such scripture doesn’t exist in OT or New.

But you teach and believe it anyway. And then you point out that the people can hardly afford one pastor, much less five or ten. But . . . If we weren’t having to follow the false doctrine of tithing, the affordability problem goes away. And the church can enjoy the good gifts of God without the man made restrictions of false doctrine.

God bless.

[Tithesmeister]

I receive tithes and I give tithes. Where does the Bible say tithes must be given to Orphans and widows? Yes, we minister to them. But where does the Bible say tithes go to them?

Right here.

[28] At the end of three years thou shalt bring forth all the tithe of thine increase the same year, and shalt lay it up within thy gates:
[29] And the Levite, (because he hath no part nor inheritance with thee,) and the stranger, and the fatherless, and the widow, which are within thy gates, shall come, and shall eat and be satisfied; that the LORD thy God may bless thee in all the work of thine hand which thou doest.



Tithesmeister, you are missing the fact that giving in faith and not by law can be done with tithes or not... Any amount or percentage. It's according to one's faith. You think the only people who tithe do so by law. That's your error.

No. I KNOW people tithe because of false doctrine being taught by many, for many years, even generations. There are many reasons why people tithe. Most are based on false teaching.

Do you know of anybody who teaches false doctrine regarding tithes?

Do you know anybody who doesn’t teach false doctrine concerning tithes, but benefits financially from a false culture of tithe doctrine?

Regarding the bold above, please don’t assume what I think. I’d rather you ask. I actually know that most, in America anyway, have been taught a corrupted version of the law tithe. I suspect you know this as well.

[consapente89]

Thank you for saying this. It is actually the response I was hoping for. I thought you might be the one who would say it.

You see brother, we agree about something. We agree that a pastor is a gift to the church, from God. His purpose is to edify the church. Right so far?

But then it heads downhill from there. You think there should only be one in a church. I think there should be many. Why do I think so? Because, we have this wonderful gift from God, who knows uniquely how to bless us, so why not a dozen pastors?

You provided the answer. You seem to believe (I’m not wanting to put words in your mouth, but this seems to be what your post implies) that the pastor gets ten percent of your income. So, if you have ten pastors, and you give them ten percent each, of your income, you have nothing left. Don’t worry, I get the math part.

This is the unintended consequences of false doctrine. I have repeatedly invited you to post scripture supporting a pastor’s entitlement to tithes (not offerings or support, but specifically tithes) and you have, of course failed to do so, because, of course, such scripture doesn’t exist in OT or New.

But you teach and believe it anyway. And then you point out that the people can hardly afford one pastor, much less five or ten. But . . . If we weren’t having to follow the false doctrine of tithing, the affordability problem goes away. And the church can enjoy the good gifts of God without the man made restrictions of false doctrine.

God bless.

That makes absolutely NO sense. Quit preaching tithes and a church will be able to support more pastors than they can if you preach tithes?! So... the bi-vocational pastor that HAS to supplement his income in order to support his family because there are not enough funds generated in the church, all he has to do is quit preaching tithes and the church will be able to afford even MORE ministry?!

[Tithesmeister]

That makes absolutely NO sense. Quit preaching tithes and a church will be able to support more pastors than they can if you preach tithes?! So... the bi-vocational pastor that HAS to supplement his income in order to support his family because there are not enough funds generated in the church, all he has to do is quit preaching tithes and the church will be able to afford even MORE ministry?!

Allow me to break it down for you. Let’s get away from pastors, and substitute singers instead. (There are actually verses that support singers receiving tithes, unlike pastors.) So, if we were tithing to singers, we probably couldn’t afford a choir. But since we don’t typically do so, many churches have a choir loft full of singers. If you want to see the singers in a church diminish down to, say one, reinstate the doctrine of tithing to singers. As it is, most singers/choir members aren’t paid to sing. So most churches have plenty of singers.

What part doesn’t make sense?

[TakingDominion]

You don't have or want a Pastor in your life. That much makes sense to me.

[Tithesmeister]

You don't have or want a Pastor in your life. That much makes sense to me.

Brother Nicodemus accuses me of wanting many, you accuse me of wanting none. Somebody is mistaken.

By the way, I am advocating for more pastors. Which doesn’t seem to fit your conclusion. I am responding to Brother Nicodemus saying we can’t afford more pastors. Pastors are a gift from God. But we can only afford one?

Salvation is a free gift from God. Will it get to the point that we can’t afford salvation?

[TakingDominion]

You say you want many, but our opinion of a Pastor seems very different. I'm saying you don't want a Pastor that can tell you what not to do. You don't want a Pastor that can set a standard over you and your family. You don't want a Pastor to submit your life to. You want a dozen men that don't receive their income from the church. Men too afraid to preach anything that will step on your toes. Who makes final decisions in that type of church? That is a train wreck. God's design has always been one man as his leader and authority over a congregation. Yes, have other elders and teachers in the church, but there can only be one Pastor or shepherd over the congregation. Your problem isn't tithing. Your problem is authority.

[Ehud]

I didn’t direct this comment to Brother Blume. This comment was to Brother Nicodemus. Who advocates and teaches a different doctrine on tithing than Brother Blume.

:thumbsup

My apologies. I was reading Bro. Blume's posts and must have glossed right over Brother Nic. :tiphat

[Tithesmeister]

You say you want many, but our opinion of a Pastor seems very different. I'm saying you don't want a Pastor that can tell you what not to do. You don't want a Pastor that can set a standard over you and your family. You don't want a Pastor to submit your life to. You want a dozen men that don't receive their income from the church. Men too afraid to preach anything that will step on your toes. Who makes final decisions in that type of church? That is a train wreck. God's design has always been one man as his leader and authority over a congregation. Yes, have other elders and teachers in the church, but there can only be one Pastor or shepherd over the congregation. Your problem isn't tithing. Your problem is authority.

Could you perhaps post scripture?

I have some questions for you.

Since the plan of God is for one man in authority over the church (as you believe). Can you show me examples in the scripture of this design?

Who was the one man who was in authority (as pastor) over the church of Thessalonica?

Rome?

Jerusalem?

Ephesus?

Jerusalem?

I’m not trying to discredit you. If what you say is true, and it has always been God’s design as you say, it shouldn’t be any problem for you to name ALL of the pastors of the New Testament churches.

I’ll wait.

[Tithesmeister]

My apologies. I was reading Bro. Blume's posts and must have glossed right over Brother Nic. :tiphat

Entirely understandable. I’m not mad.

[Nicodemus1968]

You say you want many, but our opinion of a Pastor seems very different. I'm saying you don't want a Pastor that can tell you what not to do. You don't want a Pastor that can set a standard over you and your family. You don't want a Pastor to submit your life to. You want a dozen men that don't receive their income from the church. Men too afraid to preach anything that will step on your toes. Who makes final decisions in that type of church? That is a train wreck. God's design has always been one man as his leader and authority over a congregation. Yes, have other elders and teachers in the church, but there can only be one Pastor or shepherd over the congregation. Your problem isn't tithing. Your problem is authority.

This has conversation has been going on for a couple months. He is a saint in a church that I guess from what he posts, the Pastor doesn’t accept tithes. He may accept offerings, Tithemeister hasn’t said I believe on the offering part. Now, he says many pastors would be a blessing, its not biblical for one man to be the authority of a local assembly. He also clams tithing to a Pastor is not biblical and therefore we shouldnt do it. I’m a Pastor that believes the Pastor should be full time if he is able to, not because he is in debit and cant afford to.

[Ehud]

Entirely understandable. I’m not mad.

:highfive

[Tithesmeister]

You say you want many, but our opinion of a Pastor seems very different. I'm saying you don't want a Pastor that can tell you what not to do. You don't want a Pastor that can set a standard over you and your family. You don't want a Pastor to submit your life to. You want a dozen men that don't receive their income from the church. Men too afraid to preach anything that will step on your toes. Who makes final decisions in that type of church? That is a train wreck. God's design has always been one man as his leader and authority over a congregation. Yes, have other elders and teachers in the church, but there can only be one Pastor or shepherd over the congregation. Your problem isn't tithing. Your problem is authority.

In answer to the question of authority. I would like to post a scripture. Is that permissible? I hope it doesn’t anger you, because it doesn’t seem to support your doctrine. Sorry.

Eph.5

[23] For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.

Do you understand this headship to represent authority?

Just for good measure.

1Cor.11

[1] Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.
[2] Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.
[3] But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

Paul says follow me as I follow Christ. Then Paul praises them for all of the consideration they have shown him in verse two.

Verse three begins with but.

But what? BUT I WOULD HAVE YOU TO KNOW, that the head of every man is Christ. Paul is describing the order of authority here.

I’m not sure if you know this, but I am a man. As such I am a part of the group he references as “every man”. So my head, (the one in authority over me) is Jesus. This seems to be in conflict with your doctrine.

Odd that Paul didn’t take the opportunity to remind them that he, or their current pastor/s were in authority over them.

Maybe he forgot?

Twice?

[Tithesmeister]

This has conversation has been going on for a couple months. He is a saint in a church that I guess from what he posts, the Pastor doesn’t accept tithes. He may accept offerings, Tithemeister hasn’t said I believe on the offering part. Now, he says many pastors would be a blessing, its not biblical for one man to be the authority of a local assembly. He also clams tithing to a Pastor is not biblical and therefore we shouldnt do it. I’m a Pastor that believes the Pastor should be full time if he is able to, not because he is in debit and cant afford to.

Brother you say what you believe. And you tell what you think I believe. And you have said that you would like for me to respect your opinion, and you would respect mine. However, it is my opinion, that we should respect God’s opinion. If your opinion is supported by scripture, I should be happy to respect it. What is frustrating to me is that you have not posted scripture that says being a pastor entitles you to tithes. Instead you stand on your record. You paid tithes and offerings religiously for so many years.

Could you just post scripture showing that a pastor is or was ever entitled to tithes just because he is or was a pastor. Even in the Old Testament?

Is it asking too much for me to want doctrine to be supported by scripture?

Is that a bad thing?

[coksiw]

You say you want many, but our opinion of a Pastor seems very different. I'm saying you don't want a Pastor that can tell you what not to do. You don't want a Pastor that can set a standard over you and your family. You don't want a Pastor to submit your life to. You want a dozen men that don't receive their income from the church. Men too afraid to preach anything that will step on your toes. Who makes final decisions in that type of church? That is a train wreck. God's design has always been one man as his leader and authority over a congregation. Yes, have other elders and teachers in the church, but there can only be one Pastor or shepherd over the congregation. Your problem isn't tithing. Your problem is authority.

Brother, I am afraid you are accusing him of more than he had said. This is ad hominem, which is not the best thing to do.
There is at least one UPCI church I know of that advocates and practice plurality of elders at the same level (no senior head) and it works just fine. They have plenty of articles published of how to do it. No all the elders are full time employed by the church.

[Tithesmeister]

Brother, I am afraid you are accusing him of more than he had said. This is ad hominem, which is not the best thing to do.
There is at least one UPCI church I know of that advocates and practice plurality of elders at the same level (no senior head) and it works just fine. They have plenty of articles published of how to do it. No all the elders are full time employed by the church.

Interesting. I’m encouraged to hear this.

I didn’t realize Taking Dominion was a man. I wondered.

So brother TD, does your wife have authority over you?

Because that would be a similar situation as the pastor having authority over you in relation to Paul’s instruction. Both would be out of order. Unfortunately, both situations are all too common.

[Nicodemus1968]

In answer to the question of authority. I would like to post a scripture. Is that permissible? I hope it doesn’t anger you, because it doesn’t seem to support your doctrine. Sorry.

Eph.5

[23] For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.

Do you understand this headship to represent authority?

Just for good measure.

1Cor.11

[1] Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.
[2] Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.
[3] But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

Paul says follow me as I follow Christ. Then Paul praises them for all of the consideration they have shown him in verse two.

Verse three begins with but.

But what? BUT I WOULD HAVE YOU TO KNOW, that the head of every man is Christ. Paul is describing the order of authority here.

I’m not sure if you know this, but I am a man. As such I am a part of the group he references as “every man”. So my head, (the one in authority over me) is Jesus. This seems to be in conflict with your doctrine.

Odd that Paul didn’t take the opportunity to remind them that he, or their current pastor/s were in authority over them.

Maybe he forgot?

Twice?

What’s the role of the Pastor? From what you post now and what you have posted in the past, the Pastor...

Isn’t the authority of the local assembly
Should not accept tithe
Should have a job (full time) outside the church
Should be spending his time ministering to widows, orphans, and strangers
Giving monetary (tithe) donations to the widows, orphans, and strangers
Should introduce multiple Pastors to the congregation
Should have a Bishop or another to make sure he is not out of line
Is not a prophet
Is not a messenger of God

You posted there is a divide between the pulpit and the pew, and in some instances there is, Ive seen this first hand in my life. Yet, I believe the proof is in the pudding, I said for you to do this before and Ill say it again. You come on here and you post with “I’m not serious, I just want to prove you wrong with my knowledge” whether you mean to or not that’s how I take it. I’m not saying leave or stop posting, maybe tone back your cockiness just a bit.

Now, the church structure the way it is today has worked for several decades, I’m saved today by having one Pastor as the authority of the local congregation. I have paid tithe, offering, been submitted to the office of a Pastor while other offices have came through, I have received counsel from the Pastor, and was placed in the ministry with the understanding of authority. Has everything been roses and flowers, no sir but it worked. The Bible says....

Acts 5:39
But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God.

You can take this verse and say thats its only meaning is this certain way, I dont look at the word that way, there are meanings and things in this word that we haven’t scratched the service of. Anyways, If the current way of Pastors is not the will of God, God will step in and stop it. If saints are hurt by a Pastor having too much authority it will stop in its tracks, I can say this I know this from first hand experience. You come against tithing, Pastors in a rebellion type way, if its right your fighting against God. It has worked for many years, could there changes yes sir, Ill be the first to pray for God to change me so I can become a better leader.

Now, if your assembly operates like you post, fine Ive never seen a congregation operate like that. But if it doesn’t, then go and ask God to give you burden for a city and show the rest of us how to build a church for God, using what you believe to be true. If its of God, I will not fight against it, if its not, there will not be anything to fight against.

[Nicodemus1968]

Brother you say what you believe. And you tell what you think I believe. And you have said that you would like for me to respect your opinion, and you would respect mine. However, it is my opinion, that we should respect God’s opinion. If your opinion is supported by scripture, I should be happy to respect it. What is frustrating to me is that you have not posted scripture that says being a pastor entitles you to tithes. Instead you stand on your record. You paid tithes and offerings religiously for so many years.

Could you just post scripture showing that a pastor is or was ever entitled to tithes just because he is or was a pastor. Even in the Old Testament?

Is it asking too much for me to want doctrine to be supported by scripture?

Is that a bad thing?

I have posted scriptures on tithe before with you. This isn’t the first time we have gone through this. Your a hard person to have a conversation with, your the type that would condemn a person for praying for someone to receive the Holy Ghost because the Bible doesn’t give us the words how to pray for them. We cannot be lead the spirit without the Bible expressly saying it verbatim. You live to the letter of the law, the letter kills and thats what your post are like to read. There is no understanding, your trying to be the most knowledgeable, and go ahead your very skillful in words, I’m not, I’m just a simple country preacher. All I can say is, you better live what you post or preach, you better not be condemning men and then living another way from what you preach. The Pharisees would place burdens on souls, then they themselves would not bare. God is not mocked what ye sow you will reap.

[coksiw]

Iglesia Evangelica Gentil de Cristo, is an apostolic pentecostal church with its origins in Mexico. They are expanding in Mexico and they are also starting works in the USA.
They believe in oneness, acts 2:38, and holiness. They preach free-will giving and I have seen messages from there against tithing wages as modern church do, and they are growing, and are incorporated, and have building, and pastors, and having a great membership in my town. I have friends that go there. I do not know their polity structure, though.

If there is a will, there is a way, the same way the church did it with free-will giving until the year 487. It takes a leap of faith to drop tithing. And not only faith, but also courage to accept that the UPCI (if you are with them) will take your license and kick you out if you stopped preaching and believing in tithing.

[coksiw]

It is OK to deliberate with a council of wise, Spirit-filled elders. Isn't that what the UPCI do anyways in their General Conference?

Here is an example from the scripture of a group deliberating about doctrinal issues:

[Act 15:6-7, 23, 28 NKJV] 6 Now the apostles and elders came together to consider this matter. 7 And when there had been much dispute, Peter rose up [and] said to them: "Men [and] brethren, you know that a good while ago God chose among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. ... 23 They wrote this [letter] by them: The apostles, the elders, and the brethren, To the brethren who are of the Gentiles in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia: Greetings. ... 28 For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things:

Those cases are actually rare. Local assembly business issues, don't you do those already with more than one person anyways? trustees?
Standard issues, how often do you have to deliberate about those, really?
Most of the time, the team is more about sharing the load than about deliberating.

[consapente89]

Allow me to break it down for you. Let’s get away from pastors, and substitute singers instead. (There are actually verses that support singers receiving tithes, unlike pastors.) So, if we were tithing to singers, we probably couldn’t afford a choir. But since we don’t typically do so, many churches have a choir loft full of singers. If you want to see the singers in a church diminish down to, say one, reinstate the doctrine of tithing to singers. As it is, most singers/choir members aren’t paid to sing. So most churches have plenty of singers.

What part doesn’t make sense?

Okay I get your point, but that's not how it works. I'm sure you realize that. Your arguments are ludicrous. The tithe is used at the Pastor's discretion. If he has an assistant, and wants to pay his assistant out of the tithe, it is within his discretion to do so. If he wants to pay the evangelist out of the tithe, that is also his choice. Even in tithing churches with multiple "pastors", not every "pastor" receives 10%. I'm sure you know that.

Bottom line, you want no real pastor but many mini pastors living on little income.

[Tithesmeister]

I have posted scriptures on tithe before with you. This isn’t the first time we have gone through this. Your a hard person to have a conversation with, your the type that would condemn a person for praying for someone to receive the Holy Ghost because the Bible doesn’t give us the words how to pray for them. We cannot be lead the spirit without the Bible expressly saying it verbatim. You live to the letter of the law, the letter kills and thats what your post are like to read. There is no understanding, your trying to be the most knowledgeable, and go ahead your very skillful in words, I’m not, I’m just a simple country preacher. All I can say is, you better live what you post or preach, you better not be condemning men and then living another way from what you preach. The Pharisees would place burdens on souls, then they themselves would not bare. God is not mocked what ye sow you will reap.

Brother,

I just don’t know what to say. The spirit or attitude that seems to be behind your posts bothers me. I sincerely apologize if I come across as cocky, brash, condescending etc.. I honestly have had some of these thoughts about you as well.

But, I also have a feeling that if we got together, we would have a wonderful time. I don’t believe we would fuss about everything. We probably would be great friends as well as brothers. I obviously need to dial it back. I’m not going to apologize for what I believe, but I will apologize for my delivery, sincerely. Brother, I believed essentially what you do at one point. So I understand where you’re coming from. But as I studied the Bible, I saw that my beliefs didn’t align with scripture. I was wrong. So I changed my belief. But I don’t want to be cocky and all that.

I must admit that your insinuation that I am “conceded” because of my high education bothered me, and it also amused me. I can assure you that I am not highly educated, and that my education is certainly no reason for me to be conceited. I suspect that you don’t have any reason to be concerned either, along those lines. But I apologize for being perceived as conceited and condescending. In the mouth of two or three witnesses, let the person take heed. :thumbsup

Now, maybe we could get together and shoot ducts or something?

By the way, just wondering if you actually eat those things? I’m not a duck hunter, but I know some who are, and it seems to me that they love to shoot ducks, and they will put them in the freezer, but they dread eating them?

I do have a recipe for duck that’s not too bad.

Anyway brother, sincere apologies. I’ll try to do better.

[Tithesmeister]

Okay I get your point, but that's not how it works. I'm sure you realize that. Your arguments are ludicrous. The tithe is used at the Pastor's discretion. If he has an assistant, and wants to pay his assistant out of the tithe, it is within his discretion to do so. If he wants to pay the evangelist out of the tithe, that is also his choice. Even in tithing churches with multiple "pastors", not every "pastor" receives 10%. I'm sure you know that.

Bottom line, you want no real pastor but many mini pastors living on little income.

Okay, brother. Could you please post some scripture? Please? I’m trying to mind my manners.

Or would you prefer that I just take your word for it?

Thank you.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Could you perhaps post scripture?

I have some questions for you.

Since the plan of God is for one man in authority over the church (as you believe). Can you show me examples in the scripture of this design?

Who was the one man who was in authority (as pastor) over the church of Thessalonica?

Rome?

Jerusalem?

Ephesus?

Jerusalem?

I’m not trying to discredit you. If what you say is true, and it has always been God’s design as you say, it shouldn’t be any problem for you to name ALL of the pastors of the New Testament churches.

I’ll wait.

Romans 16:3-5, 2 Timothy 1:16, Col 4:15, and Philemon 1:2.
Key people are brought to our attention which were the ministers in their own homes. Saints gathered in these houses and met. We see in 3 John 1:9 that a individual who was an elder was over the congregation. The big problem was which John points out to Gaius is that Diotrephes LOVED BEING FIRST AMONG MANY. When dealing with Church governance we must start with this small letter from John the Apostle. Commending an elder who was most likely working with Diotrephes. Aquila was head over his household, as were the rest of these ministers. All accountable to each other. But they were not to be the head, but they were to be the feet. Ministering to the church family, and helping the neophytes grow as little children to young men, and ultimately into elders themselves. I think that we miss the point, by looking at the bug on the ecclesiastical leaf, and missing the forest of the Bible's truth.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Okay, brother. Could you please post some scripture? Please? I’m trying to mind my manners.

Or would you prefer that I just take your word for it?

Thank you.

Maybe you can calm the waters by instead of telling everyone what they aren't supposed to do to support ministry. Tell everyone how we are to Biblically support the ministry and church family.

[Tithesmeister]

Romans 16:3-5, 2 Timothy 1:16, Col 4:15, and Philemon 1:2.
Key people are brought to our attention which were the ministers in their own homes. Saints gathered in these houses and met. We see in 3 John 1:9 that a individual who was an elder was over the congregation. The big problem was which John points out to Gaius is that Diotrephes LOVED BEING FIRST AMONG MANY. When dealing with Church governance we must start with this small letter from John the Apostle. Commending an elder who was most likely working with Diotrephes. Aquila was head over his household, as were the rest of these ministers. All accountable to each other. But they were not to be the head, but they were to be the feet. Ministering to the church family, and helping the neophytes grow as little children to young men, and ultimately into elders themselves. I think that we miss the point, by looking at the bug on the ecclesiastical leaf, and missing the forest of the Bible's truth.

:thumbsup

[Tithesmeister]

It is OK to deliberate with a council of wise, Spirit-filled elders. Isn't that what the UPCI do anyways in their General Conference?

Here is an example from the scripture of a group deliberating about doctrinal issues:

[Act 15:6-7, 23, 28 NKJV] 6 Now the apostles and elders came together to consider this matter. 7 And when there had been much dispute, Peter rose up [and] said to them: "Men [and] brethren, you know that a good while ago God chose among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. ... 23 They wrote this [letter] by them: The apostles, the elders, and the brethren, To the brethren who are of the Gentiles in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia: Greetings. ... 28 For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things:

Those cases are actually rare. Local assembly business issues, don't you do those already with more than one person anyways? trustees?
Standard issues, how often do you have to deliberate about those, really?
Most of the time, the team is more about sharing the load than about deliberating.

Brother, allow me to commend you for posting scripture that is relevant to the subject at hand. I really appreciate it.

[Nicodemus1968]

Brother,

I just don’t know what to say. The spirit or attitude that seems to be behind your posts bothers me. I sincerely apologize if I come across as cocky, brash, condescending etc.. I honestly have had some of these thoughts about you as well.

But, I also have a feeling that if we got together, we would have a wonderful time. I don’t believe we would fuss about everything. We probably would be great friends as well as brothers. I obviously need to dial it back. I’m not going to apologize for what I believe, but I will apologize for my delivery, sincerely. Brother, I believed essentially what you do at one point. So I understand where you’re coming from. But as I studied the Bible, I saw that my beliefs didn’t align with scripture. I was wrong. So I changed my belief. But I don’t want to be cocky and all that.

I must admit that your insinuation that I am “conceded” because of my high education bothered me, and it also amused me. I can assure you that I am not highly educated, and that my education is certainly no reason for me to be conceited. I suspect that you don’t have any reason to be concerned either, along those lines. But I apologize for being perceived as conceited and condescending. In the mouth of two or three witnesses, let the person take heed. :thumbsup

Now, maybe we could get together and shoot ducts or something?

By the way, just wondering if you actually eat those things? I’m not a duck hunter, but I know some who are, and it seems to me that they love to shoot ducks, and they will put them in the freezer, but they dread eating them?

I do have a recipe for duck that’s not too bad.

Anyway brother, sincere apologies. I’ll try to do better.

I’d rather have duck than steak. :thumbsup

[Evang.Benincasa]

I’d rather have duck than steak. :thumbsup

http://www.piwesthunting.com/

[Tithesmeister]

Maybe you can calm the waters by instead of telling everyone what they aren't supposed to do to support ministry. Tell everyone how we are to Biblically support the ministry and church family.

I’d like to clarify something. I don’t generally go around telling people not to tithe. I usually focus on what people teach about tithing. If the teaching is in line with scripture, the rest will fall into place, I believe. This is born out, it seems to me, by the fact that most of those opposing me are receiving tithes. They also seem to be teaching something that they are not able to support with scripture, judging by the lack of scripture posted to support their position.

Otherwise, I think it’s a great idea EB. I’m a little gun shy though. Because the scripture I would quote to support ministry, is the same ones they use to support tithing.

So how about for starters . . .

17] Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine.
[18] For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward.

It seems to me that this use of honor is more in line with what we would refer to as an honorarium. I don’t believe it is talking about accolades, but an offering in appreciation. I think it indicates free will, or even perhaps a negotiated amount. But the fact that it mentions double honor says (to me) that it is not a set percentage. Because, a tithe is a tithe. If you double it, it would become two tithes.

Also, it indicates (especially), that it is somewhat subjective. As in not automatic.

Whatcha think?

[Evang.Benincasa]

I’d like to clarify something. I don’t generally go around telling people not to tithe. I usually focus on what people teach about tithing. If the teaching is in line with scripture, the rest will fall into place, I believe. This is born out, it seems to me, by the fact that most of those opposing me are receiving tithes. They also seem to be teaching something that they are not able to support with scripture, judging by the lack of scripture posted to support their position.

Otherwise, I think it’s a great idea EB. I’m a little gun shy though. Because the scripture I would quote to support ministry, is the same ones they use to support tithing.

So how about for starters . . .

17] Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine.
[18] For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward.

It seems to me that this use of honor is more in line with what we would refer to as an honorarium. I don’t believe it is talking about accolades, but an offering in appreciation. I think it indicates free will, or even perhaps a negotiated amount. But the fact that it mentions double honor says (to me) that it is not a set percentage. Because, a tithe is a tithe. If you double it, it would become two tithes.

Also, it indicates (especially), that it is somewhat subjective. As in not automatic.

Whatcha think?

Here is what I found individuals doing who taught no more tithes but taught the double honor, or double portion. some took it as 20% but others believed it was as much as you were able to give, or take. Still, while some who are on the receiving end get happy about the pay increase, this is what Paul is trying to say. He emphasises that he preaches the Gospel without charge, meaning he ( or we) are never to ask for it from the saints, the neophytes, and church family. We are to teach, preach, but never ask, and therefore by Jesus laying it upon the hearts of those who are truly of the Body, then we receive support. In 3 John the apostle tells Gaius that the ministers were to take NOTHING from the pagans as far as support. Therefore the ministers understand that God is the provider. Just like God commanded Elijah to makes the odds greater for the prophets of BAAL 1 Kings 18:33. That Elijah watered down his sacrifice to the place that no fire to consume it, ONLY the fire from God 1 Kings 18:38. How the armies of Israel were whittled down to a select few Judges 7:7, the same way we are to never ask for the support. As to not make our glorying void 1 Corinthians 9:15. No one knows how to supply as well as God, and therefore when the saints love their brethren, and are focusing on Jesus Christ, they will do as the Lord moves them to do.

[coksiw]

I’d like to clarify something. I don’t generally go around telling people not to tithe. I usually focus on what people teach about tithing. If the teaching is in line with scripture, the rest will fall into place, I believe. This is born out, it seems to me, by the fact that most of those opposing me are receiving tithes. They also seem to be teaching something that they are not able to support with scripture, judging by the lack of scripture posted to support their position.

Otherwise, I think it’s a great idea EB. I’m a little gun shy though. Because the scripture I would quote to support ministry, is the same ones they use to support tithing.

So how about for starters . . .

17] Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine.
[18] For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward.

It seems to me that this use of honor is more in line with what we would refer to as an honorarium. I don’t believe it is talking about accolades, but an offering in appreciation. I think it indicates free will, or even perhaps a negotiated amount. But the fact that it mentions double honor says (to me) that it is not a set percentage. Because, a tithe is a tithe. If you double it, it would become two tithes.

Also, it indicates (especially), that it is somewhat subjective. As in not automatic.

Whatcha think?


Beside individual efforts, the examples of giving from church-wide efforts (collections) are to three recipients:

* Saints:
[1Co 16:1 NKJV] 1 Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given orders to the churches of Galatia, so you must do also:
[1Ti 5:3 NKJV] 3 Honor widows who are really widows.
[Act 6:1 NKJV] 1 Now in those days, when [the number of] the disciples was multiplying, there arose a complaint against the Hebrews by the Hellenists, because their widows were neglected in the daily distribution.
[2Co 8:1-4 NKJV] 1 Moreover, brethren, we make known to you the grace of God bestowed on the churches of Macedonia: 2 that in a great trial of affliction the abundance of their joy and their deep poverty abounded in the riches of their liberality. 3 For I bear witness that according to [their] ability, yes, and beyond [their] ability, [they were] freely willing, 4 imploring us with much urgency that we would receive the gift and the fellowship of the ministering to the saints.

* Assembly elders (jewish term)/overseers (hellenistic term):
[1Ti 5:17 NKJV] 17 Let the elders who rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in the word and doctrine.
[1Pe 5:1-2 NKJV] 1 The elders who are among you I exhort, I who am a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that will be revealed: 2 Shepherd the flock of God which is among you, serving as overseers, not by compulsion but willingly, not for dishonest gain but eagerly;

* Missionaries:
[Phl 4:17-18 NKJV] 17 Not that I seek the gift, but I seek the fruit that abounds to your account. 18 Indeed I have all and abound. I am full, having received from Epaphroditus the things [sent] from you, a sweet-smelling aroma, an acceptable sacrifice, well pleasing to God.

How the saints give:

* Attitude:
[2Co 9:7 NKJV] 7 [So let] each one [give] as he purposes in his heart, not grudgingly or of necessity; for God loves a cheerful giver.

* As you prosper (no a fix percentage here, 10% to a poor means a lot more than 10% to a rich, common sense):
[1Co 16:2 NKJV] 2 On the first [day] of the week let each one of you lay something aside, storing up as he may prosper, that there be no collections when I come.

* Sacrificially, at times:
[2Co 8:3 NKJV] 3 For I bear witness that according to [their] ability, yes, and beyond [their] ability, [they were] freely willing,

Attitude of a minister: How the minister receives the offering it is also an important thing. There shouldn't be a demand, and imposing preaching from the pulpit to support. There shouldn't be an attitude of "if you don't support me I won't work". Mention the needs as Paul did for the saints in Jerusalem and let the saints propose themselves to give.

Paul even went as far as to not ask or mention it to the new saints for himself. Instead he worked with his own hands. He waited for them to come up with the idea and the promise to give.

[Phl 4:15-17 NKJV] 15 Now you Philippians know also that in the beginning of the gospel, when I departed from Macedonia, no church shared with me concerning giving and receiving but you only. 16 For even in Thessalonica you sent [aid] once and again for my necessities. 17 Not that I seek the gift, but I seek the fruit that abounds to your account.

[1Pe 5:2 NKJV] 2 Shepherd the flock of God which is among you, serving as overseers, not by compulsion but willingly, not for dishonest gain but eagerly;
[1Ti 3:3 NKJV] 3 not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money, but gentle, not quarrelsome, not covetous;
[2Th 3:8-9 NKJV] 8 nor did we eat anyone's bread free of charge, but worked with labor and toil night and day, that we might not be a burden to any of you, 9 not because we do not have authority, but to make ourselves an example of how you should follow us.
[1Co 9:4, 11-12, 14-15 NKJV] 4 Do we have no right to eat and drink? ... 11 If we have sown spiritual things for you, [is it] a great thing if we reap your material things? 12 If others are partakers of [this] right over you, [are] we not even more? Nevertheless we have not used this right, but endure all things lest we hinder the gospel of Christ. ... 14 Even so the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should live from the gospel. 15 But I have used none of these things, nor have I written these things that it should be done so to me; for it [would be] better for me to die than that anyone should make my boasting void.

-----

The closest I have seen to this is Faith Promises Missions from the UPCI. They every year present the results, and the need, and then the saints pray and propose an amount in their heart to give through out the year, even sacrificially, because they are moved to give. And also that way, the ministers can plan ahead and budget because they have the promise forms filled by the saints.

[Tithesmeister]

Here is what I found individuals doing who taught no more tithes but taught the double honor, or double portion. some took it as 20% but others believed it was as much as you were able to give, or take. Still, while some who are on the receiving end get happy about the pay increase, this is what Paul is trying to say. He emphasises that he preaches the Gospel without charge, meaning he ( or we) are never to ask for it from the saints, the neophytes, and church family. We are to teach, preach, but never ask, and therefore by Jesus laying it upon the hearts of those who are truly of the Body, then we receive support. In 3 John the apostle tells Gaius that the ministers were to take NOTHING from the pagans as far as support. Therefore the ministers understand that God is the provider. Just like God commanded Elijah to makes the odds greater for the prophets of BAAL 1 Kings 18:33. That Elijah watered down his sacrifice to the place that no fire to consume it, ONLY the fire from God 1 Kings 18:38. How the armies of Israel were whittled down to a select few Judges 7:7, the same way we are to never ask for the support. As to not make our glorying void 1 Corinthians 9:15. No one knows how to supply as well as God, and therefore when the saints love their brethren, and are focusing on Jesus Christ, they will do as the Lord moves them to do.

Amen

[Evang.Benincasa]

Amen

Also it eliminates any coercion.

[Tithesmeister]

Beside individual efforts, the examples of giving from church-wide efforts (collections) are to three recipients:

* Saints:
[1Co 16:1 NKJV] 1 Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given orders to the churches of Galatia, so you must do also:
[1Ti 5:3 NKJV] 3 Honor widows who are really widows.
[Act 6:1 NKJV] 1 Now in those days, when [the number of] the disciples was multiplying, there arose a complaint against the Hebrews by the Hellenists, because their widows were neglected in the daily distribution.
[2Co 8:1-4 NKJV] 1 Moreover, brethren, we make known to you the grace of God bestowed on the churches of Macedonia: 2 that in a great trial of affliction the abundance of their joy and their deep poverty abounded in the riches of their liberality. 3 For I bear witness that according to [their] ability, yes, and beyond [their] ability, [they were] freely willing, 4 imploring us with much urgency that we would receive the gift and the fellowship of the ministering to the saints.

* Assembly elders (jewish term)/overseers (hellenistic term):
[1Ti 5:17 NKJV] 17 Let the elders who rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in the word and doctrine.
[1Pe 5:1-2 NKJV] 1 The elders who are among you I exhort, I who am a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that will be revealed: 2 Shepherd the flock of God which is among you, serving as overseers, not by compulsion but willingly, not for dishonest gain but eagerly;

* Missionaries:
[Phl 4:17-18 NKJV] 17 Not that I seek the gift, but I seek the fruit that abounds to your account. 18 Indeed I have all and abound. I am full, having received from Epaphroditus the things [sent] from you, a sweet-smelling aroma, an acceptable sacrifice, well pleasing to God.

How the saints give:

* Attitude:
[2Co 9:7 NKJV] 7 [So let] each one [give] as he purposes in his heart, not grudgingly or of necessity; for God loves a cheerful giver.

* As you prosper (no a fix percentage here, 10% to a poor means a lot more than 10% to a rich, common sense):
[1Co 16:2 NKJV] 2 On the first [day] of the week let each one of you lay something aside, storing up as he may prosper, that there be no collections when I come.

* Sacrificially, at times:
[2Co 8:3 NKJV] 3 For I bear witness that according to [their] ability, yes, and beyond [their] ability, [they were] freely willing,

Attitude of a minister: How the minister receives the offering it is also an important thing. There shouldn't be a demand, and imposing preaching from the pulpit to support. There shouldn't be an attitude of "if you don't support me I won't work". Mention the needs as Paul did for the saints in Jerusalem and let the saints propose themselves to give.

Paul even went as far as to not ask or mention it to the new saints for himself. Instead he worked with his own hands. He waited for them to come up with the idea and the promise to give.

[Phl 4:15-17 NKJV] 15 Now you Philippians know also that in the beginning of the gospel, when I departed from Macedonia, no church shared with me concerning giving and receiving but you only. 16 For even in Thessalonica you sent [aid] once and again for my necessities. 17 Not that I seek the gift, but I seek the fruit that abounds to your account.

[1Pe 5:2 NKJV] 2 Shepherd the flock of God which is among you, serving as overseers, not by compulsion but willingly, not for dishonest gain but eagerly;
[1Ti 3:3 NKJV] 3 not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money, but gentle, not quarrelsome, not covetous;
[2Th 3:8-9 NKJV] 8 nor did we eat anyone's bread free of charge, but worked with labor and toil night and day, that we might not be a burden to any of you, 9 not because we do not have authority, but to make ourselves an example of how you should follow us.
[1Co 9:4, 11-12, 14-15 NKJV] 4 Do we have no right to eat and drink? ... 11 If we have sown spiritual things for you, [is it] a great thing if we reap your material things? 12 If others are partakers of [this] right over you, [are] we not even more? Nevertheless we have not used this right, but endure all things lest we hinder the gospel of Christ. ... 14 Even so the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should live from the gospel. 15 But I have used none of these things, nor have I written these things that it should be done so to me; for it [would be] better for me to die than that anyone should make my boasting void.

-----

The closest I have seen to this is Faith Promises Missions from the UPCI. They every year present the results, and the need, and then the saints pray and propose an amount in their heart to give through out the year, even sacrificially, because they are moved to give. And also that way, the ministers can plan ahead and budget because they have the promise forms filled by the saints.

Great post. Thorough and balanced.

[Michael The Disciple]

In response to this, allow me to comment. When taking up an offering or tithes, the congregation is often urged to “give as unto the Lord”. Giving as unto the Lord is described very specifically in Matthew 25. Giving as NOT unto the Lord is covered as well.

[32] And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:
[33] And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.
[34] Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:
[35] For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:
[36] Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.
[37] Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?
[38] When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?
[39] Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?
[40] And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.
[41] Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:
[42] For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:
[43] I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.
[44] Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?
[45] Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.
[46] And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

This is strikingly powerful! I have never heard it taught in the context of the tithing issue.

Very good!

[Michael The Disciple]

Paul laid down plain teaching on how ministers should live.

Acts 20:33-35

I have coveted no man's silver, or gold, or apparel. 34Yea, ye yourselves know, that these hands have ministered unto my necessities, and to them that were with me. 35I 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.

Paul was addressing the Elders (Pastors) of the Church. It would have been a great time for him to teach them what is taught today. That the Pastors should receive tithes.

But no. He never mentions it. Only that they should work a job like everyone else and remember the poor.

[Michael The Disciple]

And yes the saints can give to the ministry.

Galatians 6:1

Let him that is taught in the word communicate unto him that teacheth in all good things.

But not limited to the ministry.

Galatians 6:10

As we have therefore opportunity, let us do good unto all men, especially unto them who are of the household of faith.

[Tithesmeister]

This is strikingly powerful! I have never heard it taught in the context of the tithing issue.

Very good!

:thumbsup

[Tithesmeister]

And yes the saints can give to the ministry.

Galatians 6:1

Let him that is taught in the word communicate unto him that teacheth in all good things.

But not limited to the ministry.

Galatians 6:10

As we have therefore opportunity, let us do good unto all men, especially unto them who are of the household of faith.

And the ministry can give to the saints.

Acts 20

17] And from Miletus he sent to Ephesus, and called the elders of the church.

And what did he tell these elders, whom he was never to see again? Well, just before he had his final prayer with them, he said this . . .

[33] I have coveted no man's silver, or gold, or apparel.
[34] Yea, ye yourselves know, that these hands have ministered unto my necessities, and to them that were with me.

Now this says what it means. Paul wasn’t covetous, (which is identified as a sin that will send you to hell, perhaps faster than drinking beer):heeheehee but Paul didn’t stop there. Often people stop quoting Paul there, but in the next verse, Paul drops the bombshell.

[35] 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.

Now, we often hear this in context of giving tithes TO pastors. But Paul was talking to Past, excuse me, Paul was talking to the elders, about supporting the saints, who were weak. Which is backwards from how it is so often taught.

[coksiw]

And the ministry can give to the saints.

Acts 20

17] And from Miletus he sent to Ephesus, and called the elders of the church.

And what did he tell these elders, whom he was never to see again? Well, just before he had his final prayer with them, he said this . . .

[33] I have coveted no man's silver, or gold, or apparel.
[34] Yea, ye yourselves know, that these hands have ministered unto my necessities, and to them that were with me.

Now this says what it means. Paul wasn’t covetous, (which is identified as a sin that will send you to hell, perhaps faster than drinking beer):heeheehee but Paul didn’t stop there. Often people stop quoting Paul there, but in the next verse, Paul drops the bombshell.

[35] 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.

Now, we often hear this in context of giving tithes TO pastors. But Paul was talking to Past, excuse me, Paul was talking to the elders, about supporting the saints, who were weak. Which is backwards from how it is so often taught.


Michael and Tithesmeister, I think you guys need to look at other verses too before jumping to conclusions.

Take into account that after that speech, Paul sent Timothy to Ephesus:

[1Ti 1:3 NKJV] 3 As I urged you when I went into Macedonia--remain in Ephesus that you may charge some that they teach no other doctrine,

And in the same letter he tells him:
[1Ti 5:17-18 NKJV] 17 Let the elders who rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in the word and doctrine. 18 For the Scripture says, "You shall not muzzle an ox while it treads out the grain," and, "The laborer [is] worthy of his wages."

So ye need to reconcile Acts 20 with 1 Ti 5.

[Tithesmeister]

So how about for starters . . .

17] Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine.
[18] For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward.

It seems to me that this use of honor is more in line with what we would refer to as an honorarium. I don’t believe it is talking about accolades, but an offering in appreciation. I think it indicates free will, or even perhaps a negotiated amount. But the fact that it mentions double honor says (to me) that it is not a set percentage. Because, a tithe is a tithe. If you double it, it would become two tithes.

Also, it indicates (especially), that it is somewhat subjective. As in not automatic.

Whatcha think?

I actually posted the double honor scripture. My understanding is above.

Michael and Tithesmeister, I think you guys need to look at other verses too before jumping to conclusions.

Take into account that after that speech, Paul sent Timothy to Ephesus:

[1Ti 1:3 NKJV] 3 As I urged you when I went into Macedonia--remain in Ephesus that you may charge some that they teach no other doctrine,

And in the same letter he tells him:
[1Ti 5:17-18 NKJV] 17 Let the elders who rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in the word and doctrine. 18 For the Scripture says, "You shall not muzzle an ox while it treads out the grain," and, "The laborer [is] worthy of his wages."

So ye need to reconcile Acts 20 with 1 Ti 5.

I’m not sure they reconcile, like a math equation or bank statement. It appears that the reward that the elder is worthy of, is dependent on what work he is involved in (the word and doctrine, in particular). And how well he does at tending to his duties. If an elder that “rules well” is worthy of double honor, doesn’t that bring into question whether or not a pastor (or elder) is automatically supported, at a certain rate, whether it be called tithes, offerings, honor or double honor?

If the definition of reconcile, is to make consistent, I think we have that already. What is difficult, is to reconcile this scripture with automatic tithing to a pastor. Paul’s entire ministry is impossible to reconcile with a tithe doctrine.

[Michael The Disciple]

Almost all false doctrine develops because one does not consider the whole counsel of God. Was Paul wrong in Acts 20? Telling the Elders to work with their own hands?

As Tithemeister noted double honor is in the eye of the beholder. Why cant that be consistent with Gal 6? One having a love for the pure word and wanting to bless the teacher?

And for certain we see no place where Ministers are guaranteed any certain paycheck.

Dom pointed out its all by faith. If the Minister believes he is not supposed to work fine. Let him trust God for his finances. Not go out preaching people into Hell for not paying him 10%.

[coksiw]

I actually posted the double honor scripture. My understanding is above.



I’m not sure they reconcile, like a math equation or bank statement. It appears that the reward that the elder is worthy of, is dependent on what work he is involved in (the word and doctrine, in particular). And how well he does at tending to his duties. If an elder that “rules well” is worthy of double honor, doesn’t that bring into question whether or not a pastor (or elder) is automatically supported, at a certain rate, whether it be called tithes, offerings, honor or double honor?

If the definition of reconcile, is to make consistent, I think we have that already. What is difficult, is to reconcile this scripture with automatic tithing to a pastor. Paul’s entire ministry is impossible to reconcile with a tithe doctrine.

Almost all false doctrine develops because one does not consider the whole counsel of God. Was Paul wrong in Acts 20? Telling the Elders to work with their own hands?

As Tithemeister noted double honor is in the eye of the beholder. Why cant that be consistent with Gal 6? One having a love for the pure word and wanting to bless the teacher?

And for certain we see no place where Ministers are guaranteed any certain paycheck.

Dom pointed out its all by faith. If the Minister believes he is not supposed to work fine. Let him trust God for his finances. Not go out preaching people into Hell for not paying him 10%.

I agree with you guys about the 10% thing but I am bringing the fact that it seems to me that full support or partial support to release the elders or missionaries from having to work must come entirely from the heart of the saints, and the elder or missionary attitude shouldn't be about demanding but instead do the work regardless of pay because they have the call to do it, as Paul did.

1 Tim talks about supporting the widows as an organized effort, we all agree that. The only other example of organized effort to support the widows is in Acts, and it was a "daily distribution". In the same "list" there were the elders that ruled well and taught. Distribution of money, or distribution of groceries? I don't know. The Bible is vague in the details of how that worked out, but I think it is with a purpose: what matter is the organized effort of the church to bless stains, elders and missionaries, and do what they can afford: benevolence fund? why not; full time elder? so be it; part time elder? so be it; a building? why not.
It is a blessing to have ministry working full time to prepare teachings for the assembly, and be a teacher of teachers for ministry training. It is also a blessing to have a separate facility to meet, even if it is very basic and is renting. The church meets wherever, I agree, but having a separate facility is nice. Again, it is totally possible, the "Iglesia Evangelica Gentil de Cristo" does it.

[Nicodemus1968]

Almost all false doctrine develops because one does not consider the whole counsel of God. Was Paul wrong in Acts 20? Telling the Elders to work with their own hands?

As Tithemeister noted double honor is in the eye of the beholder. Why cant that be consistent with Gal 6? One having a love for the pure word and wanting to bless the teacher?

And for certain we see no place where Ministers are guaranteed any certain paycheck.

Dom pointed out its all by faith. If the Minister believes he is not supposed to work fine. Let him trust God for his finances. Not go out preaching people into Hell for not paying him 10%.

So, what you and others are saying is. It’s ok for members of a local assembly to give money to their Pastor in a way that’s not taught in the word. But it’s wrong for a Pastor to preach about it?

[coksiw]

So, what you and others are saying is. It’s ok for members of a local assembly to give money to their Pastor in a way that’s not taught in the word. But it’s wrong for a Pastor to preach about it?

You should preach the Word, teach the Truth and do not hide it. Let the saints respond to it :), show them what the Apostles taught and practice, and do not add to it, and the blessing will be much greater for everyone!

[Tithesmeister]

So, what you and others are saying is. It’s ok for members of a local assembly to give money to their Pastor in a way that’s not taught in the word. But it’s wrong for a Pastor to preach about it?

What?

Voluntary giving is taught in the word.

Giving by compulsion is taught against in the word.

Don’t you agree?

[jediwill83]

What?

Voluntary giving is taught in the word.

Giving by compulsion is taught against in the word.

Don’t you agree?


Nah. Easier to just build a system based on blessings/curses/compulsion than to trust a freewill work of the Spirit on the heart of the giver.

[Nicodemus1968]

What?

Voluntary giving is taught in the word.

Giving by compulsion is taught against in the word.

Don’t you agree?

com·pul·sion
/kəmˈpəlSHən/
noun
noun: compulsion; plural noun: compulsions
the action or state of forcing or being forced to do something; constraint.

Can you please give me an example that you are aware of that a Pastor is forcing the members of the congregation to pay a 10% tithe?

Because if that is happing, I would call that abuse. Now, if the members of the congregation are happy to put money in the plate, and allow their Pastor to take what he needs, is that compulsion?

[Nicodemus1968]

Nah. Easier to just build a system based on blessings/curses/compulsion than to trust a freewill work of the Spirit on the heart of the giver.

Where you go to church, does your Pastor force you to pay a 10% tithe?

[coksiw]

com·pul·sion
/kəmˈpəlSHən/
noun
noun: compulsion; plural noun: compulsions
the action or state of forcing or being forced to do something; constraint.

Can you please give me an example that you are aware of that a Pastor is forcing the members of the congregation to pay a 10% tithe?

Because if that is happing, I would call that abuse. Now, if the members of the congregation are happy to put money in the plate, and allow their Pastor to take what he needs, is that compulsion?

If you demand that a member to serve on the platform or preach/teach to the assembly must tithe, then you are indirectly forcing them to tithe by using their desire to serve. You would be charging them a mandatory fee to exercise their call, which is totally against the spirit of giving in the NT.

[Nicodemus1968]

If you demand that a member to serve on the platform or preach/teach to the assembly must tithe, then you are indirectly forcing them to tithe by using their desire to serve. You would be charging them a mandatory fee to serve, which is totally against the spirit of giving in the NT.

Like I said the Pastor is not forcing them to pay a 10% tithe. If they don't want to pay that, they are more than welcome to go somewhere else. I don't know a Pastor that knows what everyone in the assembly makes to make sure there giving their 10%, do you?

[Nicodemus1968]

If you demand that a member to serve on the platform or preach/teach to the assembly must tithe, then you are indirectly forcing them to tithe by using their desire to serve. You would be charging them a mandatory fee to exercise their call, which is totally against the spirit of giving in the NT.

There are some churches that are blessed to build bigger places of worship. Is that wrong? I don't read in the NT about “Building Programs.”

[Tithesmeister]

Almost all false doctrine develops because one does not consider the whole counsel of God. Was Paul wrong in Acts 20? Telling the Elders to work with their own hands?

One thing is for sure. If Paul was wrong, he was consistently wrong.

1Corinthians 4

[9] 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.
[10] 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.
[11] Even unto this present hour we both hunger, and thirst, and are naked, and are buffeted, and have no certain dwellingplace;
[12] And labour, working with our own hands: being reviled, we bless; being persecuted, we suffer it:
[13] Being defamed, we intreat: we are made as the filth of the world, and are the offscouring of all things unto this day.

And in Thessalonians, they were evidently having a problem with elders wanting the church to support them, so they could focus on “full time ministry”.

[10] And indeed ye do it toward all the brethren which are in all Macedonia: but we beseech you, brethren, that ye increase more and more;
[11] And that ye study to be quiet, and to do your own business, and to work with your own hands, as we commanded you;
[12] That ye may walk honestly toward them that are without, and that ye may have lack of nothing.

Evidently, Paul’s commandment was not observed to his satisfaction. In 2 Thessalonians, he reiterated his commandment in even stronger language.

2 Thessalonians 3

[6] Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.
[7] For yourselves know how ye ought to follow us: for we behaved not ourselves disorderly among you;
[8] 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:
[9] Not because we have not power, but to make ourselves an ensample unto you to follow us.
[10] For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.
[11] For we hear that there are some which walk among you disorderly, working not at all, but are busybodies.
[12] Now them that are such we command and exhort by our Lord Jesus Christ, that with quietness they work, and eat their own bread.
[13] But ye, brethren, be not weary in well doing.
[14] And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed.
[15] Yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother.
[16] Now the Lord of peace himself give you peace always by all means. The Lord be with you all.

There’s a lot of detail in this passage. It seems to be too much to ignore. Unless you want to, I guess.

[jediwill83]

Where you go to church, does your Pastor force you to pay a 10% tithe?


Every Apostolic church Ive attended preached mandatory tithing and that if you did not tithe it was grounds for hell.

[Nicodemus1968]

What?

Voluntary giving is taught in the word.

Giving by compulsion is taught against in the word.

Don’t you agree?

What if we take a poll and we find most of everyone in church loves to give 10% to their Pastor. They support him, there not in some “hostage” situation, they give because they lobe to give. Is that wrong? Or, is it wrong to tell them there wrong to give 10%?

[Nicodemus1968]

Every Apostolic church Ive attended preached mandatory tithing and that if you did not tithe it was grounds for hell.

I feel bad for you. For being in that type of an abusive church.

[Nicodemus1968]

One thing is for sure. If Paul was wrong, he was consistently wrong.

1Corinthians 4

[9] 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.
[10] 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.
[11] Even unto this present hour we both hunger, and thirst, and are naked, and are buffeted, and have no certain dwellingplace;
[12] And labour, working with our own hands: being reviled, we bless; being persecuted, we suffer it:
[13] Being defamed, we intreat: we are made as the filth of the world, and are the offscouring of all things unto this day.

And in Thessalonians, they were evidently having a problem with elders wanting the church to support them, so they could focus on “full time ministry”.

[10] And indeed ye do it toward all the brethren which are in all Macedonia: but we beseech you, brethren, that ye increase more and more;
[11] And that ye study to be quiet, and to do your own business, and to work with your own hands, as we commanded you;
[12] That ye may walk honestly toward them that are without, and that ye may have lack of nothing.

Evidently, Paul’s commandment was not observed to his satisfaction. In 2 Thessalonians, he reiterated his commandment in even stronger language.

2 Thessalonians 3

[6] Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.
[7] For yourselves know how ye ought to follow us: for we behaved not ourselves disorderly among you;
[8] 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:
[9] Not because we have not power, but to make ourselves an ensample unto you to follow us.
[10] For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.
[11] For we hear that there are some which walk among you disorderly, working not at all, but are busybodies.
[12] Now them that are such we command and exhort by our Lord Jesus Christ, that with quietness they work, and eat their own bread.
[13] But ye, brethren, be not weary in well doing.
[14] And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed.
[15] Yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother.
[16] Now the Lord of peace himself give you peace always by all means. The Lord be with you all.

There’s a lot of detail in this passage. It seems to be too much to ignore. Unless you want to, I guess.

What if the congregation wants there Pastor full time? Will you go against their choice to choose to support their Pastor in a way he doesn’t have to fulfill a worldly job?

[jediwill83]

What if the congregation wants there Pastor full time? Will you go against their choice to choose to support their Pastor in a way he doesn’t have to fulfill a worldly job?


Fine. But let it be distinguished openly that is is totally voluntary and has nothing to do with a certain amount or percentage.


People can build any sized clubhouse they want...just dont twist scripture to fund it. Seems to me that there are strict penalties to saying God said or commanded something He didnt actually say or command.

[Tithesmeister]

What if we take a poll and we find most of everyone in church loves to give 10% to their Pastor. They support him, there not in some “hostage” situation, they give because they lobe to give. Is that wrong? Or, is it wrong to tell them there wrong to give 10%?

I don’t tell people they are wrong to give. I tell people they are wrong to teach something that is extra biblical as truth. If someone wants to give a tenth, or a half, that is their business. But they are often doing what they have been taught to do. And SOMETIMES it is as Jediwill says. They are told they will go to hell if they don’t.

I believe that pastors that teach tithe or hell are in grave danger of going to hell themselves. A lot of pastors bought into the teaching of AMF that the tithe is the pastor’s and if you don’t comply you are lost. It is a completely false doctrine.

It is born of covetousness.

It is a lie.

It is idolatrous.

It is extortion.

And any one of these sins will keep you from heaven. According to the New Testament.

[Tithesmeister]

You are splitting hairs once again. Paul stated that the way the ministry survived by income under Law is the same way that ministers live of the gospel in the New Testament.


Can you explain to me how the tithe generated income in the Old Testament, and how Paul states that it should be the same in the New Testament?

Is income money?

Please expound on this for me.

[coksiw]

Like I said the Pastor is not forcing them to pay a 10% tithe. If they don't want to pay that, they are more than welcome to go somewhere else. I don't know a Pastor that knows what everyone in the assembly makes to make sure there giving their 10%, do you?

Brother what do you think Paul meant with compulsion?

[coksiw]

There are some churches that are blessed to build bigger places of worship. Is that wrong? I don't read in the NT about “Building Programs.”

Nothing wrong with it if the assembly can afford it with free will giving

[Tithesmeister]

What if we take a poll and we find most of everyone in church loves to give 10% to their Pastor. They support him, there not in some “hostage” situation, they give because they lobe to give. Is that wrong? Or, is it wrong to tell them there wrong to give 10%?

If people want to give 10 percent, why would it necessarily go to the pastor?

Brother Nicodemus, could you be so kind as to post a summary of the tithe doctrine that you believe and teach? And why you believe it? If it is based on scripture? Or Brother ________taught it and you believed it. I would really be interested. I’m not being facetious.

Thank you.

[Nicodemus1968]

If people want to give 10 percent, why would it necessarily go to the pastor?

Brother Nicodemus, could you be so kind as to post a summary of the tithe doctrine that you believe and teach? And why you believe it? If it is based on scripture? Or Brother ________taught it and you believed it. I would really be interested. I’m not being facetious.

Thank you.

I will tomorrow morning.

[Tithesmeister]

I will tomorrow morning.

Thanks

[votivesoul]

Why do we act like having a full-time job means a man can't or shouldn't be a full-time minister? Remember the unprofitable servants Jesus spoke of in Luke 17:10? Worked all day in the field then came back to the Master's house, and continued to serve at table preparing and serving food until the Master relieved them of their responsibilities for the day?

And what of this:

1 Thessalonians 2:9,

For ye remember, brethren, our labour and travail: for labouring night and day, because we would not be chargeable unto any of you, we preached unto you the gospel of God.

Paul and his team worked during the day to provide himself and his crew their funds, then spent the evenings preaching the Gospel.

2 Thessalonians 3:8,

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:

Here again, travailing, that is, working very hard, night and day, so the Thessalonians wouldn't have to financially support Paul and his team.

There was never a time in the traditional, institutional church model where I wasn't working 40-50 hours a week and ministering full-time. While at university I was taking full-time course credits (like working a 40 hour/week job), working 30 hours a week, and ministering full-time planting then leading and growing a church.

It's called taking up your cross. All these men who want to go full-time ministry, or already have, and intend to quit their jobs and expect to be financially renumerated by the church: a question I have for all of them:

Paul laboured abundantly more than you all and did more for the Kingdom of God than you all, and suffered more than you all, and he worked full-time in secular and sacred work, no vacations, no insurance plans, no vehicle stipends, no mortgage payments on a parish paid in full, and did it all his life until he was imprisoned, and you want to quit your job and have everything Paul and his team never had and you think you'll be able to do more for the Kingdom of God if you just go full-time without secular employment?

In weight-lifting, you never get stronger if you don't add more weight. You want to do more for God and be used to an even greater degree than before. Add more weight. Take on as much burden and responsibility as you possibly can. God's glory is compared to weight. If you want to see a greater display of God's glory, you have to let Him add the weight. Easy-road ministry never accomplishes God's will.

[TakingDominion]

So you're advocating for no full time ministry without them working a second job? What if a church can very easily afford their pastor to not have to work another job? Do you think that pastor should have a secular job? Personally, I want my pastor to focus on teaching, preaching and building the church.

Also, how would a traveling evangelist keep secular employment?

Saying Paul worked and therefore preachers today should work doesn't make sense to me. Paul also rode camels, wore sandals and ate hummus. I'm glad we don't have to do any of those today and it's because of the blessings of God.

[votivesoul]

So you're advocating for no full time ministry without them working a second job?

It is what Paul lived and advocated and taught the elders in Ephesus to do.


What if a church can very easily afford their pastor to not have to work another job?

Spend it elsewhere, like helping the poor and needy, the homeless, local kids who can't afford school supplies, paying someone's rent, or helping someone acquire a vehicle. Start in the church, in the household of God, then move on from there.

Do you think that pastor should have a secular job?

Absolutely. Jesus contrasted Himself as the Good Shepherd from hirelings in John 10. Hirelings are wage earners. Jesus made it clear that those who earn a wage while looking after the Shepherd's sheep will run when the wolves come. Ever hear the saying "keeping the wolves at bay"? It's related to finances. What happens to many pastors who are struggling financially or the church is struggling financially? How many want to, or at least think about bailing out of their calling? How many start hammering the church for $$$?

It's a hireling mentality.

Simon Peter said elders should not take upon themselves the role of overseer by constraint or for filthy lucre's sake (1 Peter 5:2). What is filthy lucre? Ill-gotten gains received unethically or improperly, from either dishonest, of dishonorable sources. One form of this is taking a regular wage from the church.

Paul made it clear what he thought of when he thought of the idea of being paid to preach. He called it peddling God's Word (2 Corinthians 2:7). He refused to be financially renumerated for his ministry. So, I think you can connect the dots and see that shepherding God's sheep, by definition has to be a wage-free labor of love, or else it's filthy lucre/peddling the Word of God.

Add to that his instruction to Timothy to be content with offerings of food and clothing makes it pretty clear Paul didn't want his team receiving money as gifts.

Paul only received financial assistance after he was placed under house arrest in Rome, and could not work, because of his chain, and couldn't pay for his rent. So, Epaphroditus worked himself near to death to keep Paul in that rented house and out of a Roman jail, and when the Philippians heard about it, they were sorry and decided to send Paul a monetary offering. But at the end of the letter, Paul makes it clear it wasn't the money he was after, he knew how to abound and how to be abased, and could, therefore, withstand a dungeon if that is what it was going to take for God's glory to be revealed. So, Paul knew he could do all things through Christ which strengthened him. Rather, then, he appreciated the financial donation because it was going to be blessed by God on their behalf for their own sakes. When the Philippians heard what had happened to Paul, they abandoned him and his ministry. The letter is very clear that Paul took pains to convince them that what had happened to him was the will of God, even letting them know he was winning souls among Caesar's household. It's why the letter was written not just to the saints, but more specifically to the bishops and deacons, that is, the overseers who make the crucial decisions and the deacons who handle the church's finances and giving.

We see, then, that Epaphroditus was the key when he came to Philippi and told them what was going on. His visit changed their minds, particularly the minds of the bishops and deacons, who abandoned their former assistance to their founding apostle.

So, if you re-read Philippians (without stopping for chapter breaks and in paragraph form without verses helps here) again in this light, and you will see why the only reason Paul took money was for what I just wrote above. It's obvious once you know to look for these things.

Personally, I want my pastor to focus on teaching, preaching and building the church.

He can't do that working a secular job? A minister of the Gospel is a minister 100% of the time, everywhere he goes, not just in a church setting. Most of the successful soul-winners I know have the most success through their secular work. What a great way to focus on teaching, preaching, and building the church, by having a captive audience to win to the Lord.

While at university, I taught my boss a Bible study on the Gospel using her computer workstation during a shift using biblegateway.com and she came to church that night and was baptized and received the Holy Spirit.

Currently, I work for Walmart and have had so many opportunities to pray for and be a blessing and witness. I baptized a coworker in the name of the Lord Jesus last October who had received the Holy Spirit back as a teen in the 70's with the Jesus People, have had a college student who attended my alma mater receive a revelation of Acts 2:38 because of what I've been teaching, been used by God to work a miracle of healing for a backslider I used to teach in Sunday school when she was a kid, who is facing a severely complicated pregnancy. The list goes on to the glory of God. As far as work goes, as far as I am concerned, I tend as a shepherd the lost sheep who work for and/or shop at, my store. And God blesses. I took a new position a year ago, only to find out then that I became the boss of someone who received the Holy Spirit at my former church who told me my brother baptized in her in the name of Jesus (but she has fallen away since then). The connections and possibilities are endless, because of my secular work, which I treat as SACRED.

Also, how would a traveling evangelist keep secular employment?

An itinerant prophet is not a pastor, right? The needs are different. The travelling preacher can receive donations of assistance, like food and clothing as needed, and can be sent on his way to the next place through the help of a local church, as indicated by the Holy Scriptures.

Not as a wage, but as basic coverage and reimbursement of expenses.

Saying Paul worked and therefore preachers today should work doesn't make sense to me.

Paul said that, as an APOSTLE men like him and Barnabas had the right, if they elected to make use of it, to forebear working for the sake of prayer and the Word (1 Corinthians 9:1-6). He never indicated that anyone other than an apostle had that right. So, and unless someone is an apostle, and that's verified Biblically, no one has the right to forebear working.

But even if a person is an apostle, and has the right to forebear, we still must consider Paul's example as the best path to follow, for, as he himself wrote, that the Gospel be not hindered. Paul had exceptional wisdom and insight from the Lord. He tried to make it plain what it meant to be an apostle. It is the most difficult ministry to live out, especially as traveling church planters (for example, see 1 Corinthians 4). He didn't want people coveting the role due to the perks.

Paul also rode camels, wore sandals and ate hummus. I'm glad we don't have to do any of those today and it's because of the blessings of God.

Methods of travel, footwear, and dietary choices are nowhere near in the same category as understanding and applying the correct principles of the Holy Scriptures regarding financial remuneration for the ministry.

And yet, Paul, traveling by foot, or possibly by animal, and by ship, in his rugged sandals and eating mashed chickpeas and sesame seeds and olive oil did more than most are doing with vehicles, smartphones, internet, vast ministerial networks and fellowships and bank accounts at their disposal. So, go figure out how that works.

[Nicodemus1968]

So you're advocating for no full time ministry without them working a second job? What if a church can very easily afford their pastor to not have to work another job? Do you think that pastor should have a secular job? Personally, I want my pastor to focus on teaching, preaching and building the church.

Also, how would a traveling evangelist keep secular employment?

Saying Paul worked and therefore preachers today should work doesn't make sense to me. Paul also rode camels, wore sandals and ate hummus. I'm glad we don't have to do any of those today and it's because of the blessings of God.

I dont believe Votivesoul is writing no minister should be full time ministry. He’s just giving his opinion why you can work 40-50 hours a week and still be a full time minister. Your absolutely right to want your Pastor to be full time, thats how I wanted my Pastor to be when I was a saint in a church! I didnt want my Pastor working 8-10 hrs for “the man” and then getting off, then go tend to the needs of the church.

[Nicodemus1968]

Why do we act like having a full-time job means a man can't or shouldn't be a full-time minister? Remember the unprofitable servants Jesus spoke of in Luke 17:10? Worked all day in the field then came back to the Master's house, and continued to serve at table preparing and serving food until the Master relieved them of their responsibilities for the day?

And what of this:

1 Thessalonians 2:9,

For ye remember, brethren, our labour and travail: for labouring night and day, because we would not be chargeable unto any of you, we preached unto you the gospel of God.

Paul and his team worked during the day to provide himself and his crew their funds, then spent the evenings preaching the Gospel.

2 Thessalonians 3:8,

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:

Here again, travailing, that is, working very hard, night and day, so the Thessalonians wouldn't have to financially support Paul and his team.

There was never a time in the traditional, institutional church model where I wasn't working 40-50 hours a week and ministering full-time. While at university I was taking full-time course credits (like working a 40 hour/week job), working 30 hours a week, and ministering full-time planting then leading and growing a church.

It's called taking up your cross. All these men who want to go full-time ministry, or already have, and intend to quit their jobs and expect to be financially renumerated by the church: a question I have for all of them:

Paul laboured abundantly more than you all and did more for the Kingdom of God than you all, and suffered more than you all, and he worked full-time in secular and sacred work, no vacations, no insurance plans, no vehicle stipends, no mortgage payments on a parish paid in full, and did it all his life until he was imprisoned, and you want to quit your job and have everything Paul and his team never had and you think you'll be able to do more for the Kingdom of God if you just go full-time without secular employment?

In weight-lifting, you never get stronger if you don't add more weight. You want to do more for God and be used to an even greater degree than before. Add more weight. Take on as much burden and responsibility as you possibly can. God's glory is compared to weight. If you want to see a greater display of God's glory, you have to let Him add the weight. Easy-road ministry never accomplishes God's will.

It's called taking up your cross.

You and I both know that’s not what that means! If your want to use that verse, then Ill use this one for ministers that want a full time worldly job and while also trying to be a full time minister.

Matthew 6:24-25
No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon. [25] Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment?

We should be wanting full time ministry. If your a saint or a preacher, you should desire for your minister to be full time. If your a minister you should be working toward full time ministry. The weights Votivesoul must be talking about is the weight of debt from cars, trucks, high and lofty lifestyles, recreational toys etc... that cause a minister to need a quite a bit of money a month to live.

[Michael The Disciple]

When I was a Pastor/Elder for 13 years there was never a time when I didn't think of myself as a full time minister tho I worked a job.

[Michael The Disciple]

TD

Saying Paul worked and therefore preachers today should work doesn't make sense to me.

Same argument Evangelicals make about speaking in tongues. Just because the early Church spoke in tongues doesn't mean we should.

[Michael The Disciple]

Why do we act like having a full-time job means a man can't or shouldn't be a full-time minister? Remember the unprofitable servants Jesus spoke of in Luke 17:10? Worked all day in the field then came back to the Master's house, and continued to serve at table preparing and serving food until the Master relieved them of their responsibilities for the day?

And what of this:

1 Thessalonians 2:9,

For ye remember, brethren, our labour and travail: for labouring night and day, because we would not be chargeable unto any of you, we preached unto you the gospel of God.

Paul and his team worked during the day to provide himself and his crew their funds, then spent the evenings preaching the Gospel.

2 Thessalonians 3:8,

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:

Here again, travailing, that is, working very hard, night and day, so the Thessalonians wouldn't have to financially support Paul and his team.

There was never a time in the traditional, institutional church model where I wasn't working 40-50 hours a week and ministering full-time. While at university I was taking full-time course credits (like working a 40 hour/week job), working 30 hours a week, and ministering full-time planting then leading and growing a church.

It's called taking up your cross. All these men who want to go full-time ministry, or already have, and intend to quit their jobs and expect to be financially renumerated by the church: a question I have for all of them:

Paul laboured abundantly more than you all and did more for the Kingdom of God than you all, and suffered more than you all, and he worked full-time in secular and sacred work, no vacations, no insurance plans, no vehicle stipends, no mortgage payments on a parish paid in full, and did it all his life until he was imprisoned, and you want to quit your job and have everything Paul and his team never had and you think you'll be able to do more for the Kingdom of God if you just go full-time without secular employment?

In weight-lifting, you never get stronger if you don't add more weight. You want to do more for God and be used to an even greater degree than before. Add more weight. Take on as much burden and responsibility as you possibly can. God's glory is compared to weight. If you want to see a greater display of God's glory, you have to let Him add the weight. Easy-road ministry never accomplishes God's will.

Good teaching VS:highfive

[Nicodemus1968]

Thanks

I was taught probably like everyone here,

Genesis 28:20-22
And Jacob vowed a vow, saying, If God will be with me, and will keep me in this way that I go, and will give me bread to eat, and raiment to put on, [21] So that I come again to my father's house in peace; then shall the Lord be my God: [22] And this stone, which I have set for a pillar, shall be God's house: and of all that thou shalt give me I will surely give the tenth unto thee.

Malachi 3:8
Will a man rob God? Yet ye have robbed me. But ye say, Wherein have we robbed thee? In tithes and offerings.

We can argue on thats not what that means. Yet, thats what I was taught and I believed it. I supported my Pastor for 17+ years through 10% tithe and 5% offering, every week, month, and year. Now, the tithe was a covenant between God and myself, it wasnt between the Pastor and myself. Jacobs vow to God wasnt to another man but to God! So I gave faithfully to the work of God, not to the man, and he in return took what he received and gave 10% back to the church.

What I preach and teach is different than what I was taught. I dont preach 10% tithe, and I dont preach offering. I say give unto the Lord, and whats put in the plate is whats in the plate. I wasn’t called of man, I was called of God. God will supply my need. This may be different than what you would believe, but you asked. I’m starting a work for God, new work from the ground up, so I work as God opens the door. If there is no work then i wait on God

Isaiah 40:31
But they that wait upon the Lord shall renew their strength; they shall mount up with wings as eagles; they shall run, and not be weary; and they shall walk, and not faint.

I was blessed to have a Pastor up here teach me about Gods provision. What he taught me is lost in Pentecost! The Holy Ghost spoke to me a year ago and told me “I’m going to take care of you”, and he has. I have probably worked maybe 70 hours from 2019 up till now. I dont live a lavish lifestyle, I can survive on very little. I dont need new vehicles, i dont need a big house, i need Jesus. I have 5 children and a wife, and we live in a single wide trailer in a trailer park. God has been good to us. I dont want to be a burden on the church, so that means to me I dont live in a way that will be!

I believe every minister should be full time, and if the church isn’t there, then work very little to sustain your monthly needs and work in the spirit. I am a servant to the souls in my town, at the drop of a hat I can be where the need is. I dont have to go to a boss to ask permission.

My mentor in a church not too far from me, had several families leave, they were big supporters of the church. A spirit of fear started working against him, that he might now have to go and get a job. I known him for 20+ years he would’ve went and did what he had to do, but God was going to use what others intented for evil, for good. One evening service a man came into the church, the Spirit told the Pastor, he is a raven, he is not here to be saved. The Pastor didnt know what to make of that. After service, the man came up to the Pastor and handed him a big wad of cash, the Pastor said “ill make sure it goes to the church”, the man looked at him and said “thats for you”, he walked out and hasn’t been there since.

1 Kings 17:4
And it shall be, that thou shalt drink of the brook; and I have commanded the ravens to feed thee there.

I believe in ravens, God has supplied my need through them. I believe in Gods provision, and I believe living in the spirit to where God supplies. So to answer you’re question again, I dont preach a 10% tithe or hell, but I don’t condemn those that do preach tithe (not the hell part).

[Michael The Disciple]

If people want to give 10 percent, why would it necessarily go to the pastor?

Brother Nicodemus, could you be so kind as to post a summary of the tithe doctrine that you believe and teach? And why you believe it? If it is based on scripture? Or Brother ________taught it and you believed it. I would really be interested. I’m not being facetious.

Thank you.

The standard answer is that after tithe is given to the Pastor then you are to give offerings where you will.

[Nicodemus1968]

TD



Same argument Evangelicals make about speaking in tongues. Just because the early Church spoke in tongues doesn't mean we should.

What about,

Matthew 4:19-20
And he saith unto them, Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men. [20] And they straightway left their nets, and followed him.

Is there a scripture thats stats Peter and the rest went back to fishing for work again? Just because Paul did as an Apostle doesn’t mean every preacher should be a full time worker outside the spirit.

[TakingDominion]

Regarding traveling evangelists or itinerant preachers as you called them. Unfortunately, in today's world it is impossible do what they relying soley on donations of food and clothing. My Duramax doesn't run on french fry grease. Although, I wish it did.

[TakingDominion]

Also you left out all these verses about paying the preacher...

1 Timothy 5:17-18 ESV /
Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching. For the Scripture says, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain,” and, “The laborer deserves his wages.”

Galatians 6:6 ESV /
One who is taught the word must share all good things with the one who teaches.

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

1 Corinthians 9:9-14 ESV
For it is written in the Law of Moses, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain.” Is it for oxen that God is concerned? Does he not speak entirely for our sake? It was written for our sake, because the plowman should plow in hope and the thresher thresh in hope of sharing in the crop. If we have sown spiritual things among you, is it too much if we reap material things from you? If others share this rightful claim on you, do not we even more? Nevertheless, we have not made use of this right, but we endure anything rather than put an obstacle in the way of the gospel of Christ. Do you not know that those who are employed in the temple service get their food from the temple, and those who serve at the altar share in the sacrificial offerings? ...

Acts 20:33-35 ESV /
I coveted no one's silver or gold or apparel. You yourselves know that these hands ministered to my necessities and to those who were with me. 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.’”

2 Thessalonians 3:7-10 ESV
For you yourselves know how you ought to imitate us, because we were not idle when we were with you, nor did we eat anyone's bread without paying for it, but with toil and labor we worked night and day, that we might not be a burden to any of you. It was not because we do not have that right, but to give you in ourselves an example to imitate. For even when we were with you, we would give you this command: If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat.

Luke 10:7 ESV /
And remain in the same house, eating and drinking what they provide, for the laborer deserves his wages. Do not go from house to house.

1 Thessalonians 5:12-13 ESV /
We ask you, brothers, to respect those who labor among you and are over you in the Lord and admonish you, and to esteem them very highly in love because of their work. Be at peace among yourselves.

Romans 4:4 ESV /
Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due.

[TakingDominion]

You say the tithe should be going to help the poor or buy school supplies for kids.. I'm not against any of that, but tell me, where in scripture does it indicate that is what we should be doing with the tithe?

It's funny that you want to say there's no scripture for the tithe to go to the pastor, but then when asked what should be done with the tithe, you give an entirely unscriptural answer. I have one for you..

Numbers 18:24 ESV /
For the tithe of the people of Israel, which they present as a contribution to the Lord, I have given to the Levites for an inheritance. Therefore I have said of them that they shall have no inheritance among the people of Israel.”

[Nicodemus1968]

Regarding traveling evangelists or itinerant preachers as you called them. Unfortunately, in today's world it is impossible do what they relying soley on donations of food and clothing. My Duramax doesn't run on french fry grease. Although, I wish it did.

I had a dully 24V Cummings, I wish ran on French fry grease.

[jediwill83]

It is what Paul lived and advocated and taught the elders in Ephesus to do.




Spend it elsewhere, like helping the poor and needy, the homeless, local kids who can't afford school supplies, paying someone's rent, or helping someone acquire a vehicle. Start in the church, in the household of God, then move on from there.



Absolutely. Jesus contrasted Himself as the Good Shepherd from hirelings in John 10. Hirelings are wage earners. Jesus made it clear that those who earn a wage while looking after the Shepherd's sheep will run when the wolves come. Ever hear the saying "keeping the wolves at bay"? It's related to finances. What happens to many pastors who are struggling financially or the church is struggling financially? How many want to, or at least think about bailing out of their calling? How many start hammering the church for $$$?

It's a hireling mentality.

Simon Peter said elders should not take upon themselves the role of overseer by constraint or for filthy lucre's sake (1 Peter 5:2). What is filthy lucre? Ill-gotten gains received unethically or improperly, from either dishonest, of dishonorable sources. One form of this is taking a regular wage from the church.

Paul made it clear what he thought of when he thought of the idea of being paid to preach. He called it peddling God's Word (2 Corinthians 2:7). He refused to be financially renumerated for his ministry. So, I think you can connect the dots and see that shepherding God's sheep, by definition has to be a wage-free labor of love, or else it's filthy lucre/peddling the Word of God.

Add to that his instruction to Timothy to be content with offerings of food and clothing makes it pretty clear Paul didn't want his team receiving money as gifts.

Paul only received financial assistance after he was placed under house arrest in Rome, and could not work, because of his chain, and couldn't pay for his rent. So, Epaphroditus worked himself near to death to keep Paul in that rented house and out of a Roman jail, and when the Philippians heard about it, they were sorry and decided to send Paul a monetary offering. But at the end of the letter, Paul makes it clear it wasn't the money he was after, he knew how to abound and how to be abased, and could, therefore, withstand a dungeon if that is what it was going to take for God's glory to be revealed. So, Paul knew he could do all things through Christ which strengthened him. Rather, then, he appreciated the financial donation because it was going to be blessed by God on their behalf for their own sakes. When the Philippians heard what had happened to Paul, they abandoned him and his ministry. The letter is very clear that Paul took pains to convince them that what had happened to him was the will of God, even letting them know he was winning souls among Caesar's household. It's why the letter was written not just to the saints, but more specifically to the bishops and deacons, that is, the overseers who make the crucial decisions and the deacons who handle the church's finances and giving.

We see, then, that Epaphroditus was the key when he came to Philippi and told them what was going on. His visit changed their minds, particularly the minds of the bishops and deacons, who abandoned their former assistance to their founding apostle.

So, if you re-read Philippians (without stopping for chapter breaks and in paragraph form without verses helps here) again in this light, and you will see why the only reason Paul took money was for what I just wrote above. It's obvious once you know to look for these things.



He can't do that working a secular job? A minister of the Gospel is a minister 100% of the time, everywhere he goes, not just in a church setting. Most of the successful soul-winners I know have the most success through their secular work. What a great way to focus on teaching, preaching, and building the church, by having a captive audience to win to the Lord.

While at university, I taught my boss a Bible study on the Gospel using her computer workstation during a shift using biblegateway.com and she came to church that night and was baptized and received the Holy Spirit.

Currently, I work for Walmart and have had so many opportunities to pray for and be a blessing and witness. I baptized a coworker in the name of the Lord Jesus last October who had received the Holy Spirit back as a teen in the 70's with the Jesus People, have had a college student who attended my alma mater receive a revelation of Acts 2:38 because of what I've been teaching, been used by God to work a miracle of healing for a backslider I used to teach in Sunday school when she was a kid, who is facing a severely complicated pregnancy. The list goes on to the glory of God. As far as work goes, as far as I am concerned, I tend as a shepherd the lost sheep who work for and/or shop at, my store. And God blesses. I took a new position a year ago, only to find out then that I became the boss of someone who received the Holy Spirit at my former church who told me my brother baptized in her in the name of Jesus (but she has fallen away since then). The connections and possibilities are endless, because of my secular work, which I treat as SACRED.



An itinerant prophet is not a pastor, right? The needs are different. The travelling preacher can receive donations of assistance, like food and clothing as needed, and can be sent on his way to the next place through the help of a local church, as indicated by the Holy Scriptures.

Not as a wage, but as basic coverage and reimbursement of expenses.



Paul said that, as an APOSTLE men like him and Barnabas had the right, if they elected to make use of it, to forebear working for the sake of prayer and the Word (1 Corinthians 9:1-6). He never indicated that anyone other than an apostle had that right. So, and unless someone is an apostle, and that's verified Biblically, no one has the right to forebear working.

But even if a person is an apostle, and has the right to forebear, we still must consider Paul's example as the best path to follow, for, as he himself wrote, that the Gospel be not hindered. Paul had exceptional wisdom and insight from the Lord. He tried to make it plain what it meant to be an apostle. It is the most difficult ministry to live out, especially as traveling church planters (for example, see 1 Corinthians 4). He didn't want people coveting the role due to the perks.



Methods of travel, footwear, and dietary choices are nowhere near in the same category as understanding and applying the correct principles of the Holy Scriptures regarding financial remuneration for the ministry.

And yet, Paul, traveling by foot, or possibly by animal, and by ship, in his rugged sandals and eating mashed chickpeas and sesame seeds and olive oil did more than most are doing with vehicles, smartphones, internet, vast ministerial networks and fellowships and bank accounts at their disposal. So, go figure out how that works.




Thank you. Seriously...with all the arguing and silliness posts like THIS are the reason I keep coming back.


Isnt it crazy how the plain simple explanation of scriptural truths in CONTEXT have become so edgy and "out of the box?"

[Tithesmeister]

com·pul·sion
/kəmˈpəlSHən/
noun
noun: compulsion; plural noun: compulsions
the action or state of forcing or being forced to do something; constraint.

Can you please give me an example that you are aware of that a Pastor is forcing the members of the congregation to pay a 10% tithe?

Because if that is happing, I would call that abuse. Now, if the members of the congregation are happy to put money in the plate, and allow their Pastor to take what he needs, is that compulsion?

I’m not sure how I missed this, but evidently I did. I will try to find the sermon by Greg Riggen on tithing. He is a VERY aggressive advocate of tithing. He believes God is keeping accounts of tithing, and if you’re a penny in arears you are lost. Because God has the best accountants.

He says that it is impossible to be saved, if you do not tithe. Because God will not allow thieves into heaven.

He once was the Kansas District Superintendent of UPCI, I believe.

[Michael The Disciple]

I’m not sure how I missed this, but evidently I did. I will try to find the sermon by Greg Riggen on tithing. He is a VERY aggressive advocate of tithing. He believes God is keeping accounts of tithing, and if you’re a penny in arears you are lost. Because God has the best accountants.

He says that it is impossible to be saved, if you do not tithe. Because God will not allow thieves into heaven.

He once was the Kansas District Superintendent of UPCI, I believe.

I have heard that very argument made to the point that if you shortchange God by....one...penny.... you will go to Hell as a thief and robber!

[hometown guy]

I have heard that very argument made to the point that if you shortchange God by....one...penny.... you will go to Hell as a thief and robber!

I agree. Don’t be a thief or robber and you have nothing to worry about. Now will he send you to hell over one penny... I’m not going to find out.

[Tithesmeister]

I was taught probably like everyone here,

Genesis 28:20-22
And Jacob vowed a vow, saying, If God will be with me, and will keep me in this way that I go, and will give me bread to eat, and raiment to put on, [21] So that I come again to my father's house in peace; then shall the Lord be my God: [22] And this stone, which I have set for a pillar, shall be God's house: and of all that thou shalt give me I will surely give the tenth unto thee.

Malachi 3:8
Will a man rob God? Yet ye have robbed me. But ye say, Wherein have we robbed thee? In tithes and offerings.

We can argue on thats not what that means. Yet, thats what I was taught and I believed it. I supported my Pastor for 17+ years through 10% tithe and 5% offering, every week, month, and year. Now, the tithe was a covenant between God and myself, it wasnt between the Pastor and myself. Jacobs vow to God wasnt to another man but to God! So I gave faithfully to the work of God, not to the man, and he in return took what he received and gave 10% back to the church.

What I preach and teach is different than what I was taught. I dont preach 10% tithe, and I dont preach offering. I say give unto the Lord, and whats put in the plate is whats in the plate. I wasn’t called of man, I was called of God. God will supply my need. This may be different than what you would believe, but you asked. I’m starting a work for God, new work from the ground up, so I work as God opens the door. If there is no work then i wait on God

Isaiah 40:31
But they that wait upon the Lord shall renew their strength; they shall mount up with wings as eagles; they shall run, and not be weary; and they shall walk, and not faint.

I was blessed to have a Pastor up here teach me about Gods provision. What he taught me is lost in Pentecost! The Holy Ghost spoke to me a year ago and told me “I’m going to take care of you”, and he has. I have probably worked maybe 70 hours from 2019 up till now. I dont live a lavish lifestyle, I can survive on very little. I dont need new vehicles, i dont need a big house, i need Jesus. I have 5 children and a wife, and we live in a single wide trailer in a trailer park. God has been good to us. I dont want to be a burden on the church, so that means to me I dont live in a way that will be!

I believe every minister should be full time, and if the church isn’t there, then work very little to sustain your monthly needs and work in the spirit. I am a servant to the souls in my town, at the drop of a hat I can be where the need is. I dont have to go to a boss to ask permission.

My mentor in a church not too far from me, had several families leave, they were big supporters of the church. A spirit of fear started working against him, that he might now have to go and get a job. I known him for 20+ years he would’ve went and did what he had to do, but God was going to use what others intented for evil, for good. One evening service a man came into the church, the Spirit told the Pastor, he is a raven, he is not here to be saved. The Pastor didnt know what to make of that. After service, the man came up to the Pastor and handed him a big wad of cash, the Pastor said “ill make sure it goes to the church”, the man looked at him and said “thats for you”, he walked out and hasn’t been there since.

1 Kings 17:4
And it shall be, that thou shalt drink of the brook; and I have commanded the ravens to feed thee there.

I believe in ravens, God has supplied my need through them. I believe in Gods provision, and I believe living in the spirit to where God supplies. So to answer you’re question again, I dont preach a 10% tithe or hell, but I don’t condemn those that do preach tithe (not the hell part).

Thank you brother, for posting this. May God bless you, your family and your work. In Jesus name.

[diakonos]

Not a tithe guy in the traditional sense
but
1 Cor 9:11-14 - Allows for a minister to live off of offerings.

[mfblume]

What about,

Matthew 4:19-20
And he saith unto them, Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men. [20] And they estraightway left their nets, and followed him.

Is there a scripture thats stats Peter and the rest went back to fishing for work again? Just because Paul did as an Apostle doesn’t mean every preacher should be a full time worker outside the spirit.

Right.

1 Cor 9 clearly stated that ministers can live of the gospel and the only reason Paul did not was to avoid accusations of him simple seeking money. But he insisted that it is the minister's right.

That's why Jesus told them to go two by two and not take scrip nor purse, because people would support them.

[mfblume]

Can you explain to me how the tithe generated income in the Old Testament, and how Paul states that it should be the same in the New Testament?

Is income money?

Please expound on this for me.

Only if you understand that TITHE does not go hand in hand with all the laws about it in the old covenant. But Paul simply stated that the general manner of ministers living of the gospel was the same as priests living of the altar. It's the general aspect, not the split hairs of exactly how that's done. The New Testament does not get into anything more than ministers being able to be supported by offerings from the believers. That's what it meant by not muzzling the ox while he treads the corn.

[mfblume]

One thing is for sure. If Paul was wrong, he was consistently wrong.

1Corinthians 4

[9] 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.
[10] 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.
[11] Even unto this present hour we both hunger, and thirst, and are naked, and are buffeted, and have no certain dwellingplace;
[12] And labour, working with our own hands: being reviled, we bless; being persecuted, we suffer it:
[13] Being defamed, we intreat: we are made as the filth of the world, and are the offscouring of all things unto this day.

And in Thessalonians, they were evidently having a problem with elders wanting the church to support them, so they could focus on “full time ministry”.

[10] And indeed ye do it toward all the brethren which are in all Macedonia: but we beseech you, brethren, that ye increase more and more;
[11] And that ye study to be quiet, and to do your own business, and to work with your own hands, as we commanded you;
[12] That ye may walk honestly toward them that are without, and that ye may have lack of nothing.

Evidently, Paul’s commandment was not observed to his satisfaction. In 2 Thessalonians, he reiterated his commandment in even stronger language.

2 Thessalonians 3

[6] Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.
[7] For yourselves know how ye ought to follow us: for we behaved not ourselves disorderly among you;
[8] 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:
[9] Not because we have not power, but to make ourselves an ensample unto you to follow us.
[10] For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.
[11] For we hear that there are some which walk among you disorderly, working not at all, but are busybodies.
[12] Now them that are such we command and exhort by our Lord Jesus Christ, that with quietness they work, and eat their own bread.
[13] But ye, brethren, be not weary in well doing.
[14] And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed.
[15] Yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother.
[16] Now the Lord of peace himself give you peace always by all means. The Lord be with you all.

There’s a lot of detail in this passage. It seems to be too much to ignore. Unless you want to, I guess.

What about 1 Cor 9?

1 Corinthians 9:4-15.. Have we not power to eat and to drink? ..(5).. Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas? ..(6).. Or I only and Barnabas, have not we power to forbear working? ..(7).. Who goeth a warfare any time at his own charges? who planteth a vineyard, and eateth not of the fruit thereof? or who feedeth a flock, and eateth not of the milk of the flock?

Above Paul said that people are supported in the ministry just as the one who feeds the flock can live from the milk involved in his work. Who goes to war at his own out of pocket expense?


..(8).. Say I these things as a man? or saith not the law the same also? ..(9).. For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen?


He said that an ox ate of the very same corn he tread while he worked. The ox did not go to other sources of food other than the food that was provided to him where he tread.


..(10).. Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written: that he that ploweth should plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope. ..(11).. If we have sown unto you spiritual things, is it a great thing if we shall reap your carnal things?

Reaping carnal things is whatever it takes to live provided by the people to whom he ministered.


..(12).. If others be partakers of this power over you, are not we rather? Nevertheless we have not used this power; but suffer all things, lest we should hinder the gospel of Christ.

This is the reason Paul said he did not take incomce in money or food or whatever from the churches as your references above indicate. It was not because he should not do it. It was because he did not want the touchy people to accuse him of anything, when he had the full right to take support from them.

In other words, he said believers should support ministers, but he abrogated that RIGHT when he di not have to.


..(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. ..(15).. But I have used none of these things: neither have I written these things, that it should be so done unto me: for it were better for me to die, than that any man should make my glorying void.

Again he said it was his right to be supported by the people only he exempted himself. ANd we cannot turn around and say that we should follow Pual and God expects us to follow Paul and exempt ourselves of that right when the whole point in this chapter is that it is a right to be supported.

Again, read that chapter. It's a RIGHT. ANd Paul merely stepped away from that right and he would not have said it was a right if he meant no one should NOT exempt themselves.

[mfblume]

Right here.

[28] At the end of three years thou shalt bring forth all the tithe of thine increase the same year, and shalt lay it up within thy gates:
[29] And the Levite, (because he hath no part nor inheritance with thee,) and the stranger, and the fatherless, and the widow, which are within thy gates, shall come, and shall eat and be satisfied; that the LORD thy God may bless thee in all the work of thine hand which thou doest.
That is under the law.

So, you again demand that tithe must accompany laws associated with tithes when the term itself does not include that demand whatsoever. It did under law. But we are not under law so the accusatio of giving tithes being legalistic is only true if the laws related to it are involved. Not just giving ten percent.






No. I KNOW people tithe because of false doctrine being taught by many, for many years, even generations. There are many reasons why people tithe. Most are based on false teaching.

Do you know of anybody who teaches false doctrine regarding tithes?

Do you know anybody who doesn’t teach false doctrine concerning tithes, but benefits financially from a false culture of tithe doctrine?

Regarding the bold above, please don’t assume what I think. I’d rather you ask. I actually know that most, in America anyway, have been taught a corrupted version of the law tithe. I suspect you know this as well.

The point is what the New Testament teaches. Not what people were taught. Way back as an early believer in young years I heard it taught that we are cursed if we do not tithe. But reading Gal 3 shows me otherwise. But that does not mean I cannot give ten per cent apart from the restrictions under law, which is what I teach is an OPTION.

[mfblume]

BUMPTithe is literally and ONLY ten percent of ANYTHING. That is what tithe means literally. Come on, Meister, you know that, or you should. :thumbsup

It's like the word DOZEN. It means 12. Nothing more. And there is an old covenant DOCTRINE that ADDS to the term TITHE which is what you are actually thinking of, not TTHE itself. You assume that because the word TITHE is connected in the Old Covenant with a teaching about it, that any time someone says that they "TITHE," you think of the commandment details with what to do with it in all its intricacies under Law. But if someone wants to call their giving by the term TITHE because it is ten percent they always give, then that does not necessarily demand that the commandment "associated with" tithes in the Law has to be adhered to. They know what the word TITHE means when you do not!

So, you need to study more perfectly, since you're a meister about it, what TITHE actually means.

To prove my case:

H4643
מַעַשְׂרָה...... מַעֲשַׂר...... מַעֲשֵׂר
ma‛ăśêr...... ma‛ăśar...... ma‛aśrâh
mah-as-ayr', mah-as-ar', mah-as-raw'
From H6240; a tenth; especially a tithe: - tenth (part), tithe (-ing).
Total KJV occurrences: 32

Notice it says a TENTH AND NOTHING ELSE?

No commandments with what to do with that tenth. It simply means TENTH. Anyone who looks up the term in the Hebrew lexicon would not find one iota of a thought about what to do with the TITHE. TITHE means one-tenth and NOTHING ELSE.

So, these are the detailed TREES you are missing for the forest. While you speak and speak so much about tithes and even have it in your namesake here, you failed to miss the most plain detail of them all. TITHE only means ten per cent and NOTHING ELSE. You've been focusing on the commandment associated with it under law, which is not part of the term itself, and think that it is part and parcel with the definition of the term TITHE. You've done that so much that if someone gives a consistent ten percent of their income and technically and correctly call it tithing, then you hammer them for not tagging on the associated commandments from law, when the use of the term was not invalidated by the tither whatsoever!

In reality, you are not against TITHE, itself, in the church but rather the law ASSOCIATED WITH TITHES.

While people rail on others for taking something from LAW and demanding they're wrong, the fact is they are the ones being legalistic because they fail to realize that if one does not give tithes as a law with its "related" commandments about where it goes, and they proceed to demand people tag on the commandments if they are going to use the term TITHE. You turn around and make legalists out of people when you are supposed to be speaking against legalism of the law. You do not allow people to use the word TITHE to describe the giving of ten per cent to the world of God unless they tag on the commandments from law with that giving, even though the term itself has nothing to do with the commandments and did not require them at all!

How ironic!

While you are against law-keeping, and therefore demand people do not give tithes, your failure to recognize that the word TITHE is fulfilled nicely in someone who gives ten percent of their income without all of the law's tagged-on requirements of what to do with it, you inadvertently are throwing law-keeping into the term TITHE when it has nothing to do with what is done with the currency!

[Tithesmeister]

What about 1 Cor 9?

1 Corinthians 9:4-15.. Have we not power to eat and to drink? ..(5).. Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas? ..(6).. Or I only and Barnabas, have not we power to forbear working? ..(7).. Who goeth a warfare any time at his own charges? who planteth a vineyard, and eateth not of the fruit thereof? or who feedeth a flock, and eateth not of the milk of the flock?

Above Paul said that people are supported in the ministry just as the one who feeds the flock can live from the milk involved in his work. Who goes to war at his own out of pocket expense?


..(8).. Say I these things as a man? or saith not the law the same also? ..(9).. For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen?


He said that an ox ate of the very same corn he tread while he worked. The ox did not go to other sources of food other than the food that was provided to him where he tread.


..(10).. Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written: that he that ploweth should plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope. ..(11).. If we have sown unto you spiritual things, is it a great thing if we shall reap your carnal things?

Reaping carnal things is whatever it takes to live provided by the people to whom he ministered.


..(12).. If others be partakers of this power over you, are not we rather? Nevertheless we have not used this power; but suffer all things, lest we should hinder the gospel of Christ.

This is the reason Paul said he did not take incomce in money or food or whatever from the churches as your references above indicate. It was not because he should not do it. It was because he did not want the touchy people to accuse him of anything, when he had the full right to take support from them.

In other words, he said believers should support ministers, but he abrogated that RIGHT when he di not have to.


..(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. ..(15).. But I have used none of these things: neither have I written these things, that it should be so done unto me: for it were better for me to die, than that any man should make my glorying void.

Again he said it was his right to be supported by the people only he exempted himself. ANd we cannot turn around and say that we should follow Pual and God expects us to follow Paul and exempt ourselves of that right when the whole point in this chapter is that it is a right to be supported.

Again, read that chapter. It's a RIGHT. ANd Paul merely stepped away from that right and he would not have said it was a right if he meant no one should NOT exempt themselves.

Brother Blume,

In this chapter, Paul quotes the law of Moses. The tithe law is part of the law of Moses. So, while Paul is quoting the law of Moses, he talks about the ox? This is a very poor example for you to use if you are advocating for a tithe being available for pastors. The important similarity that you and Paul have is that you, Paul and the ox are just alike in one wise, none of you are entitled to tithes, according to the law of Moses that Paul is quoting.

The passage does not change anything regarding a pastor being entitled to tithes. If anything it reinforces my position. Here we have Paul, who is very well educated in the law, quoting the law, and talking about the ox.

Why didn’t Paul refer to the tithe law, instead of talking about the comparatively vague law about the ox?

Was he known for being timid?

Was he afraid to speak his mind?

We know Paul knew the law, he was not afraid to speak his mind, yet he didn’t say, “pastors are eligible to receive tithes, according to the law”. He said instead, that the Mosaic law forbids muzzling the ox that treads the corn. Because Paul was like you Brother Blume, in that he was not eligible to receive tithes according to the law that he is quoting. And Paul, Brother Blume, was no hypocrite. And it would be the very epitome of hypocrisy for him to quote the law of Moses regarding tithes, when he (like you), had no right to tithes under that same law. Paul was a Benjamite, Brother Blume. As a Benjamite, he was ineligible to receive tithes under the law that he is quoting. So he draws a comparison to the ox. The ox wasn’t eligible for tithes either, under the law (again, like you). He could eat all he wanted, the Mosaic law granted him the right. But the ox couldn’t take anything home to the stall. He couldn’t put it in the bank. The law didn’t give him the right to receive tithes. Because the ox was no Levite. Anymore than Paul was a Levite. Or Brother Blume is a Levite.

I have not once said, nor do I believe, that being a pastor excludes you from support from the church. The issue is tithes. And tithes didn’t go on the altar. The general tithe didn’t go to the temple either. Remember, the tithe went to the forty eight cities of tillage. There was only one temple.

So, once more. Quote scripture that you, as a pastor, are entitled to tithes. Paul was quoting Mosaic law. Follow his example that YOU quoted in Corinthians, and show me where the law entitles you to a tithe. It doesn’t entitle you Brother Blume. The law excludes you, as it did Paul as well.

[Tithesmeister]

BUMP

Brother Blume,

You asked about widows being eligible for tithes in the Bible. I gave you the scriptural example of the Old Testament. Then you asked for a New Testament example.

Acts.6

[1] And in those days, when the number of the disciples was multiplied, there arose a murmuring of the Grecians against the Hebrews, because their widows were neglected in the daily ministration.

Did you ever wonder why the Grecian widows were neglected? I have. The Hebrew widows were getting taken care of, but the Grecian widows weren’t.

It is not spelled out specifically in the Bible why this is so. But allow me to give you my theory. The Hebrew widows were provided for by the Mosaic tithing law, which the Jerusalem church was still following. The Mosaic tithing law did NOT provide for Grecian widows though. Hence the murmuring mentioned above.

So, what did the church do? They arranged to take care of the widows.

[2] Then the twelve called the multitude of the disciples unto them, and said, It is not reason that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables.
[3] Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business.

The apostles appointed no less than seven men of wisdom, and full of the Holy Ghost, to take care of the widows, that were not eligible to receive tithes (just like you are ineligible to receive tithes). The Grecian widows were taken care of by the church, the Hebrew widows were taken care of by the tithe. All of the widows were taken care of. According to the New Testament example found in Acts.

I’m still waiting for your scripture that says that you (as a pastor) are in any way entitled to tithes.

[votivesoul]

I dont believe Votivesoul is writing no minister should be full time ministry. He’s just giving his opinion why you can work 40-50 hours a week and still be a full time minister. Your absolutely right to want your Pastor to be full time, thats how I wanted my Pastor to be when I was a saint in a church! I didnt want my Pastor working 8-10 hrs for “the man” and then getting off, then go tend to the needs of the church.

While I am saying just that, I am saying something more, too. I am saying a man should not separate his work from his ministry, or treat one as secular and one as sacred. It is all sacred work, and it is all ministry. When Paul abode with Aquila and Priscilla, for they all worked in leather tent-making, what do you suppose they did together all day beside make tents? I think we can rest assured they talked together about the Lord, broke bread together, probably prayed with each other, and witnessed on the streets where they sold their handmade products.

And after the day was done, they gathered with the believers from around the city and shared the Gospel night after night with as many as wanted to hear it. I think we can rightly say people they met during the day likely came to hear them preach at night. This all transpired in Corinth, the city where Jesus told Paul he had many people and so, he could preach the Gospel freely and with boldness. There was a great revival there. Paul stayed for 18 months. That's the longest Paul stayed anywhere. How did that revival happen? Because Paul and Aquila set aside so-called secular work so they could minister full-time? Not a chance. It happened because they didn't hinder the Gospel by demanding funds from the church there to let them off the hook from working.

[Esaias]

Luke 10:2-9 KJV
Therefore said he unto them, The harvest truly is great, but the labourers are few: pray ye therefore the Lord of the harvest, that he would send forth labourers into his harvest. [3] Go your ways: behold, I send you forth as lambs among wolves. [4] Carry neither purse, nor scrip, nor shoes: and salute no man by the way. [5] And into whatsoever house ye enter, first say, Peace be to this house. [6] And if the son of peace be there, your peace shall rest upon it: if not, it shall turn to you again. [7] And in the same house remain, eating and drinking such things as they give: for the labourer is worthy of his hire. Go not from house to house. [8] And into whatsoever city ye enter, and they receive you, eat such things as are set before you: [9] And heal the sick that are therein, and say unto them, The kingdom of God is come nigh unto you.

[votivesoul]

It's called taking up your cross.

You and I both know that’s not what that means! If your want to use that verse, then Ill use this one for ministers that want a full time worldly job and while also trying to be a full time minister.

Matthew 6:24-25
No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon. [25] Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment?

We should be wanting full time ministry. If your a saint or a preacher, you should desire for your minister to be full time. If your a minister you should be working toward full time ministry. The weights Votivesoul must be talking about is the weight of debt from cars, trucks, high and lofty lifestyles, recreational toys etc... that cause a minister to need a quite a bit of money a month to live.

The cross is the weight and burden of moral responsibility to God and man, to deny yourself and fulfill the commandments of your Savior. That weight and burden takes on many forms, but one of the forms it takes is the moral responsibility of a man to work and provide for himself and his family, with his own hands, from the sweat of his own brow, while fulfilling whatever other callings from God he may have.

It is not serving two masters to work a job and earn an income while also serving in the church as a herald of the Good News.

That is the weight I am talking about. I care not for all the luxuries you mentioned. They can be tossed on the dunghill with all the other, worldly things many ministers think they have a right to have bought and paid for by the wages they get from the church.

[Tithesmeister]

Only if you understand that TITHE does not go hand in hand with all the laws about it in the old covenant. But Paul simply stated that the general manner of ministers living of the gospel was the same as priests living of the altar. It's the general aspect, not the split hairs of exactly how that's done. The New Testament does not get into anything more than ministers being able to be supported by offerings from the believers. That's what it meant by not muzzling the ox while he treads the corn.

Brother Blume,

Does Paul mention tithes at all in this chapter? You seem to think I’m splitting hairs. But it strikes me as hypocrisy to quote the law to establish a right, only to discard the same law, when it excludes you from receiving tithes.

Paul wasn’t establishing a right for non Levites to receive tithes. That would have been CONTRARY to the law. Nor was he establishing a responsibility for Gentiles or Christians to pay tithes. Again, this would have been contrary to the law. He was saying, it is the right of the minister of God to eat and drink of offerings from a church.

Paul really was not even speaking as a pastor in this passage. He was speaking specifically as an apostle. As he makes clear.

There were twelve apostles in the Jerusalem church. Paul was asserting that he was an apostle, as much as the other twelve. He wasn’t asserting that he was a pastor or elder. He was referring to his position as an apostle.

Don’t you agree?

[Nicodemus1968]

Luke 10:2-9 KJV
Therefore said he unto them, The harvest truly is great, but the labourers are few: pray ye therefore the Lord of the harvest, that he would send forth labourers into his harvest. [3] Go your ways: behold, I send you forth as lambs among wolves. [4] Carry neither purse, nor scrip, nor shoes: and salute no man by the way. [5] And into whatsoever house ye enter, first say, Peace be to this house. [6] And if the son of peace be there, your peace shall rest upon it: if not, it shall turn to you again. [7] And in the same house remain, eating and drinking such things as they give: for the labourer is worthy of his hire. Go not from house to house. [8] And into whatsoever city ye enter, and they receive you, eat such things as are set before you: [9] And heal the sick that are therein, and say unto them, The kingdom of God is come nigh unto you.

Glad to read your back!

[loran adkins]

Like I said the Pastor is not forcing them to pay a 10% tithe. If they don't want to pay that, they are more than welcome to go somewhere else. I don't know a Pastor that knows what everyone in the assembly makes to make sure there giving their 10%, do you?

So you don't think that to say if you don't do this you are going to hell and you are in rebelling to the pastor, is being compulsory?

[coksiw]

We keep discussing this topic, and people keep hardening their heart, but there is only one truth. I don't know how some can teach tithing as an obedience issue for the church when it is obviously not there.

Teaching the Word of God is not a game, there are implications to the teacher.

[2Ti 2:15 NKJV] Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

[Michael The Disciple]

Paul really was not even speaking as a pastor in this passage. He was speaking specifically as an apostle. As he makes clear.

There were twelve apostles in the Jerusalem church. Paul was asserting that he was an apostle, as much as the other twelve. He wasn’t asserting that he was a pastor or elder. He was referring to his position as an apostle.

A good job of rightly dividing the word of truth. He establishes the truth that Apostles do have the God given right to receive offerings.
He also establishes the truth that he would rather die than seem to be abusing this right and rejoices he can preach the gospel for free!

Meanwhile over in Acts 20 he charges the Pastors/Elders to work with their own hands.

While mixing in the truth from Galatians 6 and 1 Timothy 5 that the saints have a duty and responsibility to give to the ministry.

[votivesoul]

Regarding traveling evangelists or itinerant preachers as you called them. Unfortunately, in today's world it is impossible do what they relying soley on donations of food and clothing. My Duramax doesn't run on french fry grease. Although, I wish it did.

If you had read more closely, I also wrote of "sending them on their way", which is the Scriptural concept of paying traveling expenses.

See e.g., Acts 15:3, Acts 21:5, Romans 15:24, 2 Corinthians 1:16.

[Nicodemus1968]

So you don't think that to say if you don't do this you are going to hell and you are in rebelling to the pastor, is being compulsory?

I wouldn’t say that. Do I agree with that approach, no I don’t. I believe the Pastor that says this, believes it whole heartily. With that said the saints that are in the church(s) that’s I’ve seen are fine with giving tithe. That’s what I’m saying, there is no reason to believe a Pastor or any other member of the ministry is forcing anyone to pay a 10% tithe, if saints are willing to support with that amount.

[Nicodemus1968]

We keep discussing this topic, and people keep hardening their heart, but there is only one truth. I don't know how some can teach tithing as an obedience issue for the church when it is obviously not there.

Teaching the Word of God is not a game, there are implications to the teacher.

[2Ti 2:15 NKJV] Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

Thats why we discuss. There’s a good chance not many of us will move on our belief. Maybe down the road somebody reads these threads and gain a revelation.

[votivesoul]

Also you left out all these verses about paying the preacher...

Not addressing every possible verse on a subject does not equal leaving them out of the discussion.

1 Timothy 5:17-18 ESV /
Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching. For the Scripture says, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain,” and, “The laborer deserves his wages.”

First, you must realize there is no agreement about the "double honor" and it being anything to do with a financial stipend from the church. Secondly, in regards to the quotes from the OT, anyone can see immediately that this is talking about food, not money.

Whenever I went house to house teaching the Word, if the hosts wanted to feed me, I ate most hardily, without reservation.

Galatians 6:6 ESV /
One who is taught the word must share all good things with the one who teaches.

You have to read money into this. All good things can mean a lot of different things, but wages in the form money is not specified, either way.

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

1 Corinthians 9:9-14 ESV
For it is written in the Law of Moses, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain.” Is it for oxen that God is concerned? Does he not speak entirely for our sake? It was written for our sake, because the plowman should plow in hope and the thresher thresh in hope of sharing in the crop. If we have sown spiritual things among you, is it too much if we reap material things from you? If others share this rightful claim on you, do not we even more? Nevertheless, we have not made use of this right, but we endure anything rather than put an obstacle in the way of the gospel of Christ. Do you not know that those who are employed in the temple service get their food from the temple, and those who serve at the altar share in the sacrificial offerings? ...

Again, the comparison is to food. The Levites and priests were fed from portions of the animal and grain offerings that were offered up at the altar. No one tossed money into the fire.

Otherwise, the material benefits Paul speaks of, besides food, is likely clothing and a place to stay and travel expenses, as already shown by and through other verses of Scripture penned by Paul.

Acts 20:33-35 ESV /
I coveted no one's silver or gold or apparel. You yourselves know that these hands ministered to my necessities and to those who were with me. 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.’”

Paul wanted no one's money! Paul worked with his own hands to supply his financial need. These verses prove the point most splendidly. Paul left the elders/pastors of Ephesus the right example of working hard in order to help the weak. Basically, Paul told these ministers to work secular employment and use the wages they receive to give to others who cannot work, or are slaves (i.e. the weak) and be a blessing to them.

2 Thessalonians 3:7-10 ESV
For you yourselves know how you ought to imitate us, because we were not idle when we were with you, nor did we eat anyone's bread without paying for it, but with toil and labor we worked night and day, that we might not be a burden to any of you. It was not because we do not have that right, but to give you in ourselves an example to imitate. For even when we were with you, we would give you this command: If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat.

Again, this proves the point. Work hard during the day and then minister at night. You seem to have advocated for something completely different. So, if a pastor is not willing to work at secular employment, Paul's instruction is pretty clear: they have no right to eat with the church.

Luke 10:7 ESV /
And remain in the same house, eating and drinking what they provide, for the laborer deserves his wages. Do not go from house to house.

Again, what are the wages? Jesus makes it clear it is food and a place to stay, along with traveling expenses. It's never an income to build up a bank account for a home and a car and a vacation fund and money to send the kids to a private Christian school, or whatever.

1 Thessalonians 5:12-13 ESV /
We ask you, brothers, to respect those who labor among you and are over you in the Lord and admonish you, and to esteem them very highly in love because of their work. Be at peace among yourselves.

You can and should do all of this, no money involved. Money involvement actually hinders this verse, because sometimes the giving of money can lead to bribery or a sense of entitlement, or the idea that all you have to do is cut a check and you're okay with the Lord, or competition between laborers, and etc. Money can seriously interfere with correctly honoring those who labor in the church.

Romans 4:4 ESV /
Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due.

This is a metaphor for salvation by works of the law versus grace. Has nothing to do with providing a wage-based income to a minister in the church so he doesn't have to work in secular employment.

[votivesoul]

You say the tithe should be going to help the poor or buy school supplies for kids.. I'm not against any of that, but tell me, where in scripture does it indicate that is what we should be doing with the tithe?

It's funny that you want to say there's no scripture for the tithe to go to the pastor, but then when asked what should be done with the tithe, you give an entirely unscriptural answer. I have one for you..

Numbers 18:24 ESV /
For the tithe of the people of Israel, which they present as a contribution to the Lord, I have given to the Levites for an inheritance. Therefore I have said of them that they shall have no inheritance among the people of Israel.”

I never said the "tithe" should go anywhere. I never wrote the word tithe until now. You asked if a church was financially able to, couldn't they pay a minister a wage, and I said if the church had the money available to do so, they should use it elsewhere. No mention of tithes. You read that into my discourse.

No one tithes in my church, yet we have the means to give away thousands of dollars every year to various needs as they arise. A coworker of mine from a couple of years ago when I was an optometrist in the Walmart Vision Center was in an auto accident and broke both of her legs and was disabled for almost a year and we gave over $7,000.00 for her and her family without so much as a fund-raiser or a call to give. We had the money and so, we cut the check. Now, imagine if that money was in a pastor's bank account? Would he give it up so this lost soul wouldn't lose her house?

That's the conflict of interest underlying this entire discussion. It IS more blessed to give than to receive, unless the giving interferes with the pastor's paycheck??? While I am not trying to indict every pastor for all time in every place, there are plenty who have threatened to quit and give up on the church if they didn't get paid. The love of money is the root of all evil, after all.

Food, clothing, temporary shelter while traveling, and traveling expenses are all that the Scriptures clearly allow for, and only for itinerant apostles and evangelists. All else is speculation, or not clearly spelled out. But that's not how most churches operate. They pay a wage to a pastor and he uses it for his mortgage, his car payment, medical bills, his family needs, and etc. There is no allowance for this in the teachings of the Apostles.

[votivesoul]

Only if you understand that TITHE does not go hand in hand with all the laws about it in the old covenant. But Paul simply stated that the general manner of ministers living of the gospel was the same as priests living of the altar. It's the general aspect, not the split hairs of exactly how that's done. The New Testament does not get into anything more than ministers being able to be supported by offerings from the believers. That's what it meant by not muzzling the ox while he treads the corn.

It is incredibly naive to think that the word tithe can be divorced from the OT law and canon. No one would even have the word drilled into their heads and come up with the idea of giving ten percent of their yearly income if it wasn't for the laws concerning the tithe in the OT. Two references in Genesis wouldn't make the difference. People tithe because of the law. It's plain and simple, even if in your own mind you separate the two, the vast majority do not. This thread is proof. Malachi 3 has already been referenced, and it always is, to terrify saints into making sure they tithe so they don't go to hell as a thief and robber of God. And Malachi, in referencing tithes, is referencing the Torah laws and commandments of the tithe.

So no, I don't think you should try to convince everyone that the word tithe has nothing to do with the law, because even the word itself is part of the church vernacular because of the law. If tithing wasn't a part of the law, not a soul would speak of it.

[votivesoul]

What about 1 Cor 9?

1 Corinthians 9:4-15.. Have we not power to eat and to drink? ..(5).. Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas? ..(6).. Or I only and Barnabas, have not we power to forbear working? ..(7).. Who goeth a warfare any time at his own charges? who planteth a vineyard, and eateth not of the fruit thereof? or who feedeth a flock, and eateth not of the milk of the flock?

Above Paul said that people are supported in the ministry just as the one who feeds the flock can live from the milk involved in his work. Who goes to war at his own out of pocket expense?


..(8).. Say I these things as a man? or saith not the law the same also? ..(9).. For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen?


He said that an ox ate of the very same corn he tread while he worked. The ox did not go to other sources of food other than the food that was provided to him where he tread.


..(10).. Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written: that he that ploweth should plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope. ..(11).. If we have sown unto you spiritual things, is it a great thing if we shall reap your carnal things?

Reaping carnal things is whatever it takes to live provided by the people to whom he ministered.


..(12).. If others be partakers of this power over you, are not we rather? Nevertheless we have not used this power; but suffer all things, lest we should hinder the gospel of Christ.

This is the reason Paul said he did not take incomce in money or food or whatever from the churches as your references above indicate. It was not because he should not do it. It was because he did not want the touchy people to accuse him of anything, when he had the full right to take support from them.

In other words, he said believers should support ministers, but he abrogated that RIGHT when he di not have to.


..(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. ..(15).. But I have used none of these things: neither have I written these things, that it should be so done unto me: for it were better for me to die, than that any man should make my glorying void.

Again he said it was his right to be supported by the people only he exempted himself. ANd we cannot turn around and say that we should follow Pual and God expects us to follow Paul and exempt ourselves of that right when the whole point in this chapter is that it is a right to be supported.

Again, read that chapter. It's a RIGHT. ANd Paul merely stepped away from that right and he would not have said it was a right if he meant no one should NOT exempt themselves.

1 Corinthians 9 is about itinerant apostles who go about evangelizing as church planters. Paul makes it clear in verse 1.

AM I NOT AN APOSTLE? AM I NOT FREE? HAVE I NOT SEEN JESUS CHRIST [see Acts 1:21-22] OUR LORD? ARE YE NOT MY WORK IN THE LORD?

[Tithesmeister]

It is incredibly naive to think that the word tithe can be divorced from the OT law and canon. No one would even have the word drilled into their heads and come up with the idea of giving ten percent of their yearly income if it wasn't for the laws concerning the tithe in the OT. Two references in Genesis wouldn't make the difference. People tithe because of the law. It's plain and simple, even if in your own mind you separate the two, the vast majority do not. This thread is proof. Malachi 3 has already been referenced, and it always is, to terrify saints into making sure they tithe so they don't go to hell as a thief and robber of God. And Malachi, in referencing tithes, is referencing the Torah laws and commandments of the tithe.

So no, I don't think you should try to convince everyone that the word tithe has nothing to do with the law, because even the word itself is part of the church vernacular because of the law. If tithing wasn't a part of the law, not a soul would speak of it.

Would it offend anyone, if I said amen? And maybe waved my hanky?

[Nicodemus1968]

A good job of rightly dividing the word of truth. He establishes the truth that Apostles do have the God given right to receive offerings.
He also establishes the truth that he would rather die than seem to be abusing this right and rejoices he can preach the gospel for free!

Meanwhile over in Acts 20 he charges the Pastors/Elders to work with their own hands.

While mixing in the truth from Galatians 6 and 1 Timothy 5 that the saints have a duty and responsibility to give to the ministry.

Preaching this gospel isn’t free, I’m not micromanaging your post (please don’t get that feeling). I like what D.C. Moody once said in a message I heard, “a young man came up to him and said, Elder, i want to preach like you.... he then told this young man, you seen one hour, what about the 23 hours of what you didnt see!”

Look at this,

Matthew 4:18-20
And Jesus, walking by the sea of Galilee, saw two brethren, Simon called Peter, and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea: for they were fishers. [19] And he saith unto them, Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men. [20] And they straightway left their nets, and followed him.

I dont read anywhere where Peter, James, and John picked up their nets as a career again after the Lord called them. When Jesus sent them out by 2, the people who they were ministering where to support them! I dont read where they went to the sea and starting catching fish to supply there evangelism trip. It went as far as Jesus telling them that those that do not receive you, let your peace return to you. Study what that meaneth....

Accepting a call of God is a walk of faith. If a minister is starting a work, then he may need to work a little. My belief is only to supply his monthly need. If that take 20 hours then have the rest of the time to minister. Because a minister doesn’t work at a physical job, that doesn’t mean he is lazy! Friend, the spiritual side of working is work unlike Ive ever done physically. The mind of a minister must be continually on the Lord, its a discipline of the mind to be ready whenever the Lord is calling.

Paul was an apostle, he started churchs throughout the region, that call is different in itself. Paul was mightily used of God, not because of his tent making skills, yet his dedication, and disciplined lifestyle for God to work with him.

Is your current lifestyle ...

Working around God?

Or God working around You?

The minister especially has to be available all the time. Not bound by a 40+ hr work schedule. What if God tells you to available this week, not to do any work, pray, fast, stay home and allow his spirit to minister to you? Would your boss be ok with that?

[Nicodemus1968]

Would it offend anyone, if I said amen? And maybe waved my hanky?

As in defeat?

:surrender

:heeheehee

[Tithesmeister]

As in defeat?

:surrender

:heeheehee
As in agreement.
My hanky is not white.

Brother,
I really do commend your attitude, if not your doctrine. Remember when you first crossed swords with me on the tithe doctrine. (Well it was really like I had a sword and you had a penknife, but I digress). You left the discussion in a huff, and told me I had a spirit of rebellion or something? Comments were made about witchcraft, IIRC.

Lo and behold, here we are a few months later, and I’m thinking you may invite me over for grilled duck breast and onions. And I may just take you up on it.

I think you’re looking our way brother. I’m claiming you as a truth in tithing convert, by faith. :happydance

Isn’t this fun?!

[Nicodemus1968]

As in agreement.
My hanky is not white.

Brother,
I really do commend your attitude, if not your doctrine. Remember when you first crossed swords with me on the tithe doctrine. (Well it was really like I had a sword and you had a penknife, but I digress). You left the discussion in a huff, and told me I had a spirit of rebellion or something? Comments were made about witchcraft, IIRC.

Lo and behold, here we are a few months later, and I’m thinking you may invite me over for grilled duck breast and onions. And I may just take you up on it.

I think you’re looking our way brother. I’m claiming you as a truth in tithing convert, by faith. :happydance

Isn’t this fun?!

Let my words be few.

[Michael The Disciple]

The minister especially has to be available all the time. Not bound by a 40+ hr work schedule. What if God tells you to available this week, not to do any work, pray, fast, stay home and allow his spirit to minister to you? Would your boss be ok with that?

What about the disciple? Does he not have to be led by the Spirit? Do you believe God does not work dynamically in the life of his saints? Do they not need to be available at any time to the Lord? How many people have I witnessed to while I was working a job? I never kept count but in a company of 1200 people in my last job there were very few who did not know who I was. I have laid hands on an injured co worker and seen God heal him and immediately he went all around the place testifying how God healed him.

Dont fall into the clergy/laity trap.

[Nicodemus1968]

What about the disciple? Does he not have to be led by the Spirit? Do you believe God does not work dynamically in the life of his saints? Do they not need to be available at any time to the Lord? How many people have I witnessed to while I was working a job? I never kept count but in a company of 1200 people in my last job there were very few who did not know who I was. I have laid hands on an injured co worker and seen God heal him and immediately he went all around the place testifying how God healed him.

Dont fall into the clergy/laity trap.

I don’t believe saints are “less than” anything. With that said not everyone is the watchmen, not everyone is leadership, not everyone is called into the ministry. Those who are in my opinion are held to a higher standard. I believe saints can have a powerful relationship with God. I’ll say this and this is a shame on us (ministry) most of the intercessors I’ve seen are saints. But I put the man of God in a place of, if your needed you better go, if God is calling you better go. The Pastor (ministry) needs to see what’s up ahead to warn them, we are servants.

I’m not doubting you, ministry is always held at a higher standard.

[Evang.Benincasa]

What about the disciple? Does he not have to be led by the Spirit? Do you believe God does not work dynamically in the life of his saints? Do they not need to be available at any time to the Lord? How many people have I witnessed to while I was working a job? I never kept count but in a company of 1200 people in my last job there were very few who did not know who I was. I have laid hands on an injured co worker and seen God heal him and immediately he went all around the place testifying how God healed him.

Dont fall into the clergy/laity trap.

Mike if the Apostle Paul believed like you, no epistels would of been written.
Because it sounds like you believe that the church has no elders who lead, but is totally comprised of unaccountable rouges who do whatever they feel to do. Led by the Spirit? Oh, sure, met a huge amount of loners who operating from trailers, over the internet. Who constantly remind everyone from relatives, to co workers, to neighbors that they are led by the Spirit of Jesus Christ. Yet, surprisingly, these same relatives, co workers, and neighbors run the other way as they approach? But, please keep telling us about your glory days, about all your personal achievements. How the 1970s and early 80s God was meeting you over at Waffle House, and you were casting demons out of the pecan waffles.

[Michael The Disciple]

Mike if the Apostle Paul believed like you, no epistels would of been written.
Because it sounds like you believe that the church has no elders who lead, but is totally comprised of unaccountable rouges who do whatever they feel to do. Led by the Spirit? Oh, sure, met a huge amount of loners who operating from trailers, over the internet. Who constantly remind everyone from relatives, to co workers, to neighbors that they are led by the Spirit of Jesus Christ. Yet, surprisingly, these same relatives, co workers, and neighbors run the other way as they approach? But, please keep telling us about your glory days, about all your personal achievements. How the 1970s and early 80s God was meeting you over at Waffle House, and you were casting demons out of the pecan waffles.

Blessings Dom:highfive

[mfblume]

1 Corinthians 9 is about itinerant apostles who go about evangelizing as church planters. Paul makes it clear in verse 1.

Why, then, did he say that he had the right to the provision but abrogated it to not let anyone accuse him?

We have some sorting out to do with all the references that relate to Paul and his secular work.

I say this because we are reading people in this thread make reference to Paul's description of himself living by his own hands in other passages, so as to allegedly provide proof that ministers should not receive provision from the believers to whom they minister. Paul is being used as an example for everyone. However, 1 Cor 9 shows us that he actually claimed the right to receive provision and not support himself by the work of his own hands. So, if people are going to use Paul's references to encourage ministry to not receive income from their field of harvest, they need to study this chapter and realize Paul explicitly claimed that he had full right to provision.

If Paul is an example of not receiving income for the ones who actually should not receive income, then we have a huge problem. This means that people cannot use his words about his secular work to provide for himself, since he only said that to avoid blame of mongering for filthy lucre, when, if he did take support, he did not have such an intention whatsoever.

That's one issue that must be sorted out.

The next is what you claimed here about this only applying to some who preach the gospel, and not all, who are distinct from the rest because they are itinerant. When we read through Paul's chapter here, he does not once focus in on the distinction of being itinerant in his ministry. He simply generalizes the right fro those to receive support by referring to the ones who preach the gospel.

How does the reference to not muzzling the ox who treads the corn only apply to the itinerant ministers and not any minister who is called to the ministries listed in Eph 4:11?

Plowing and threshing is not only for itinerants.

Sowing spiritual things is not only for itinerants.

Paul said that anyone who ministers about holy things live of the temple, and does that only apply spiritually in type to the itinerants?

Paul stated in the first verse that the people were his labour in the Lord. Is this not true of all ministers called especially to give the Word.

(As an aside, some think that every believer is meant to give the word and be a minister of the word in this way. That is not true. Paul distinctly stated that some are called to minister the word to people in Eph 4 when he spoke of prophets, evangelists, apostles, pastors and teachers. Paul told Timothy that elders who rule well should be counted worthy of double honour, especially the ones who labour in word and doctrine. Not al believers, therefore, labour in word and doctrine.)

1 Corinthians 9:1.. Am I not an apostle? am I not free? have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? are not ye my work in the Lord?

By free, he meant he was free of the need to work secular jobs to support himself.

The people who were his work in the Lord were the souls he ministered to and brought to God.

I see no distinction here in mentioning his apostleship in order to inform people that itinerants alone should be support but simply a reference to what his particular calling was among those others who likewise labour in the word and doctrine in the lives of believers.

Are not other Eph chapter 4 "gift-ministries" just as much comparable to a soldier going to war, a vineyard husbandman, a shepherd feeding the flock (verse 7), an ox treading the corn, a plowman and a thresherman (verse 0), and a sower of the seed of the word (Verse 11) as apostles are?

I see far more weight stating that these above examples Paul used to prove there is a right to support for the ministry belongs to an gift-ministry and not just itinerants, than I see in the first verse limiting the explanation only to itinerant ministries.

In fact, I see anything but itinerancy in the example of the shepherd example in verse 11 is more for a pastor (literally a shepherd in the Greek) than an itinerant ministry that leaves the flock for other fields of ministry in a constant manner, although itinerants would qualify just as well in the overall explanation he gives.

As I explain to tithemeister next, tithe to me is simply a per centage some choose to give and they should understand it can be any percentage, and it is NOT bound to the many legalities that are bound to it under law. We are not under law. Period. Like you said, I suppose those who criticize tithing are thinking of those who associate all the demands of law with it that went with that number in that covenant. I do not see that at all, which is the background of my explanation.

This just shows more of a need to explain law versus grave than it is to say those who use the word tithe are hypocrites.

[mfblume]

It is incredibly naive to think that the word tithe can be divorced from the OT law and canon. No one would even have the word drilled into their heads and come up with the idea of giving ten percent of their yearly income if it wasn't for the laws concerning the tithe in the OT. Two references in Genesis wouldn't make the difference. People tithe because of the law. It's plain and simple, even if in your own mind you separate the two, the vast majority do not. This thread is proof. Malachi 3 has already been referenced, and it always is, to terrify saints into making sure they tithe so they don't go to hell as a thief and robber of God. And Malachi, in referencing tithes, is referencing the Torah laws and commandments of the tithe.

So no, I don't think you should try to convince everyone that the word tithe has nothing to do with the law, because even the word itself is part of the church vernacular because of the law. If tithing wasn't a part of the law, not a soul would speak of it.

I understand that point, but we can do the same thing with general sacrifice.

If one simply gives a tenth as a manner of giving, there is nothing wrong with that even if it is not done with all the laws associated with the tithe in the old testament.

Since the New Testament does not demand "tithes", again, it's just giving, no matter what percentage it is.

Is it right to demand the Malachian verse of a curse on those who choose to give ten percent of their income as an offering, just because they give the same percentage that La required people to give in assocation with all of the other laws of the old covernant?

It's just a word. Of course, there is the legalistic element involved with the vast majority of those who use the term. But if a person is simply giving that percentage as an offering while understanding that none of the legalities associated with that particular percentage woudl curse any giver, then so what about the term? What needs to be explained is that forsaking a certain tenth percentage will not curse a person and thereby do the work that cross did not removing the curse.

This thread had so many demands that the reference to tithe demands all the legalities and it simply does not. If a person chooses to fgive ten percent they are NOT required to abide by all the legalities associated with it under the Old Covenant. They just are not. That's my point.

[mfblume]

Brother Blume,

Does Paul mention tithes at all in this chapter? You seem to think I’m splitting hairs. But it strikes me as hypocrisy to quote the law to establish a right, only to discard the same law, when it excludes you from receiving tithes.

Paul wasn’t establishing a right for non Levites to receive tithes. That would have been CONTRARY to the law. Nor was he establishing a responsibility for Gentiles or Christians to pay tithes. Again, this would have been contrary to the law. He was saying, it is the right of the minister of God to eat and drink of offerings from a church.

Paul really was not even speaking as a pastor in this passage. He was speaking specifically as an apostle. As he makes clear.

There were twelve apostles in the Jerusalem church. Paul was asserting that he was an apostle, as much as the other twelve. He wasn’t asserting that he was a pastor or elder. He was referring to his position as an apostle.

Don’t you agree?

I was not focusing on tithes when I quoted 1 Cor 9, but just noting that a minister has the right to receive support because others were saying they do not have that right. But since a person CAN give ten per cent, (who says they cannot ?) and they consider it support, then why can't the minister receive it?

Paul speak of a shepherd, a plowman, a soldier, a thresherman as examples of the ministry, and apostles were not the only ones who fulfilled those references

[mfblume]

Brother Blume,

You asked about widows being eligible for tithes in the Bible. I gave you the scriptural example of the Old Testament.

And that was under law, legalilsm.

Then you asked for a New Testament example.

Acts.6

[1] And in those days, when the number of the disciples was multiplied, there arose a murmuring of the Grecians against the Hebrews, because their widows were neglected in the daily ministration.
Nothing said about tithes there.



Did you ever wonder why the Grecian widows were neglected? I have. The Hebrew widows were getting taken care of, but the Grecian widows weren’t.

It is not spelled out specifically in the Bible why this is so. But allow me to give you my theory. The Hebrew widows were provided for by the Mosaic tithing law, which the Jerusalem church was still following. The Mosaic tithing law did NOT provide for Grecian widows though. Hence the murmuring mentioned above.

So, what did the church do? They arranged to take care of the widows.

[2] Then the twelve called the multitude of the disciples unto them, and said, It is not reason that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables.
[3] Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business.

The apostles appointed no less than seven men of wisdom, and full of the Holy Ghost, to take care of the widows, that were not eligible to receive tithes (just like you are ineligible to receive tithes). The Grecian widows were taken care of by the church, the Hebrew widows were taken care of by the tithe. All of the widows were taken care of. According to the New Testament example found in Acts.

I’m still waiting for your scripture that says that you (as a pastor) are in any way entitled to tithes.

You are again missing the forest for the trees. And I already covered the fact that a person is free to give ten per cent to the church ministry for support without any attached legalities associated with it from the law. Sorry, but your insistence on narrowing this down to legalities is not a new covenant issue.

[mfblume]

Brother Blume,

In this chapter, Paul quotes the law of Moses. The tithe law is part of the law of Moses. So, while Paul is quoting the law of Moses, he talks about the ox? This is a very poor example for you to use if you are advocating for a tithe being available for pastors.

The important similarity that you and Paul have is that you, Paul and the ox are just alike in one wise, none of you are entitled to tithes, according to the law of Moses that Paul is quoting.

The passage does not change anything regarding a pastor being entitled to tithes. If anything it reinforces my position. Here we have Paul, who is very well educated in the law, quoting the law, and talking about the ox.

You are overlooking the obvious fact that the legalities of law associated with cursing and so on are not binding on the new covenant church. A person does not have to give "tithes", but a person does have to give and support.

Paul quoted the Law in this chapter, but not to imply that all the legalities associated with tithes back in that day are binding on the new testament believer. His reference to law no more implies that than quoting Psalm 110:1 and saying that's fulfilled in Christ implies that we have to take every other reference written back under that day of the old covenant and keep those laws including literal temple sacrifice and bringing a woman and making her drink the bitter water that causeth the curse if she was suspected of adultery.

He is simply using a principle that applies to new covenant ministers without any demand to apply the legalities.

You need to understand what I believe in order to understand my point, which I should have explained earlier. I do not believe we have to give ten percent and no more or no less. The New Covenant does not lay that out. It teaches to give according to your faith, and encourages folks to stretch their faith. So, if one gives ten per cent, they could just as rightfully given 3.684 per cent, or 85 per cent. With that having been said, someone can give tithes since it is a good percentage for that person. Why did God choose the ten per cent and associate it with all the legalties that the Law demanded? COuld it be that ten per cent is reasonable? Doesn't really matter. The point is that's how I look at using the word tithes. I do not have to give that amount but can give any other percentage I feel to give in faith. And the congregant does not have to do anything different than that as well. But if they happen to think a ten per cent manner is what they choose to give, having come from a legalistic background or not, and carrying it forward, they can do so as long as the person does not think they're cursed if they don't.

And that means that the widow and orhpan issue is not binding in such a concept.



Why didn’t Paul refer to the tithe law, instead of talking about the comparatively vague law about the ox?

Was he known for being timid?

Was he afraid to speak his mind?

Again, I never said that 1 Cor 9 is restricted to the context of tithes. By tithe I thought YOU meant the general concept of a minister receiving income because that's what is the general thought here, ...I think anyway.

We know Paul knew the law, he was not afraid to speak his mind, yet he didn’t say, “pastors are eligible to receive tithes, according to the law”. He said instead, that the Mosaic law forbids muzzling the ox that treads the corn. Because Paul was like you Brother Blume, in that he was not eligible to receive tithes according to the law that he is quoting. And Paul, Brother Blume, was no hypocrite. And it would be the very epitome of hypocrisy for him to quote the law of Moses regarding tithes, when he (like you), had no right to tithes under that same law. Paul was a Benjamite, Brother Blume. As a Benjamite, he was ineligible to receive tithes under the law that he is quoting. So he draws a comparison to the ox. The ox wasn’t eligible for tithes either, under the law (again, like you). He could eat all he wanted, the Mosaic law granted him the right. But the ox couldn’t take anything home to the stall. He couldn’t put it in the bank. The law didn’t give him the right to receive tithes. Because the ox was no Levite. Anymore than Paul was a Levite. Or Brother Blume is a Levite.

I have not once said, nor do I believe, that being a pastor excludes you from support from the church. The issue is tithes. And tithes didn’t go on the altar. The general tithe didn’t go to the temple either. Remember, the tithe went to the forty eight cities of tillage. There was only one temple.

So, once more. Quote scripture that you, as a pastor, are entitled to tithes. Paul was quoting Mosaic law. Follow his example that YOU quoted in Corinthians, and show me where the law entitles you

Because I do not believe that a tithe is the necessary legalistic manner to give, your words d not apply to my perspective.

[coksiw]

Brother Blume,
Regarding your “10% being reasonable”, you need to take into account that the tithe was not on traders, labors, fishermen, or miner, to bring examples. It was only on the land produce and livestock, for the Levites, who didn’t have a land.
Jesus, who was a carpenter, was never recorded paying tithes, or the disciples themselves. It was recorded that he paid taxes, though.
Look at Booz, a landlord, who had labors working for him. You could see there what kind of wealth landlords had, to the point of having labors and slaves to work on the land.


I can bring to you several examples of people neglecting retirement savings, piling debt on their family, or not honoring their needy parents financially because of giving 10% of the wages.
The generalization of 10% being reasonable for all income and all classes is just not only not biblical but also naive.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Brother Blume,
Regarding your “10% being reasonable”, you need to take into account that the tithe was not on traders, labors, fishermen, or miner, to bring examples. It was only on the land produce and livestock, for the Levites, who didn’t have a land.
Jesus, who was a carpenter, was never recorded paying tithes, or the disciples themselves. It was recorded that he paid taxes, though.
Look at Booz, a landlord, who had labors working for him. You could see there what kind of wealth landlords had, to the point of having labors and slaves to work on the land.


I can bring to you several examples of people neglecting retirement savings, piling debt on their family, or not honoring their needy parents financially because of giving 10% of the wages.
The generalization of 10% being reasonable for all income and all classes is just not only not biblical but also naive.

I watched this over the years, but don’t know where it’s from. Where does it say fisherman couldn’t tithe? Pharisees tithed and by Paul’s example he was a laborer who made tents. So where is this prohibition found in the Bible? Where were tradesmen prohibited to tithe THEIR anise, mint, and cumin?

[coksiw]

I watched this over the years, but don’t know where it’s from. Where does it say fisherman couldn’t tithe? Pharisees tithed and by Paul’s example he was a laborer who made tents. So where is this prohibition found in the Bible? Where were tradesmen prohibited to tithe THEIR anise, mint, and cumin?

Jesus reference to Pharisees tithing was about the mint and spices that grew in their pots and backyards, which grew from the land. It was an observation of the law to the ridiculous details.

The Law doesn’t prohibit to tithe other things but it didn’t require it. Nevertheless I see you are changing my topic from “requirement” to “prohibition”.

You can’t determine a doctrine from one verse and ignore the rest that talk about it more clearly. Tithing is said from the increase but when you bring the rest of the verses it says that it is from produce and livestock clearly. And to support that interpretation there is no record of other things being mandatorily tithed.

There is one record of Jesus using a negative example of a Pharisee tithing “everything I gain”, but not further details, and presented as a negative example. Whatever "gain" was, it was not money, since tithing was not to be presented to the Levites as money according to the Law. Just as a matter of curiosity, the Pharisees did give money offerings, and the Hillel school used to teach that if you gave 1/40 you had a "good eye" and if you gave 1/60 you had a "bad eye". That money offering probably went to the synagogue benevolent fund, or the temple building fund.

Brother, there are plenty of posts about this topic if you want to know more.
I was just answering the “10% reasonable” argument which is new in the thread.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Jesus reference to Pharisees tithing was about the mint and spices that grew in their pots and backyards, which grew from the land. It was an observation of the law to the ridiculous details.

The Law doesn’t prohibit to tithe other things but it didn’t require it. Nevertheless I see you are changing my topic from “requirement” to “prohibition”.

You can’t determine a doctrine from one verse and ignore the rest that talk about it more clearly. Tithing is said from the increase but when you bring the rest of the verses it says that it is from produce and livestock clearly. And to support that interpretation there is no record of other things being mandatorily tithed.

There is one record of Jesus using a negative example of a Pharisee tithing “everything I gain”, but not further details, and presented as a negative example. Whatever "gain" was, it was not money, since tithing was not to be presented to the Levites as money according to the Law. Just as a matter of curiosity, the Pharisees did give money offerings, and the Hillel school used to teach that if you gave 1/40 you had a "good eye" and if you gave 1/60 you had a "bad eye". That money offering probably went to the synagogue benevolent fund, or the temple building fund.

Brother, there are plenty of posts about this topic if you want to know more.
I was just answering the “10% reasonable” argument which is new in the thread.

So fishermen and tent makers didn’t grow herbs in their back yards?
Jesus wasn’t saying that the Pharisee was ridiculous for the smallest details, like straining gnats. But that they forgot what the tithe was truly about. Still, you haven’t proved that the fishermen, carpenters, and tent makers didn’t tithe.
Could you please supply the information concerning Rabbinical backyard gardens?

[coksiw]

So fishermen and tent makers didn’t grow herbs in their back yards?
Jesus wasn’t saying that the Pharisee was ridiculous for the smallest details, like straining gnats. But that they forgot what the tithe was truly about.

Definitely, I agree with you.


Still, you haven’t proved that the fishermen, carpenters, and tent makers didn’t tithe.

From their gains of their trade or from the backyard mint?


Could you please supply the information concerning Rabbinical backyard gardens?
The Gospel mentions mint and anise and cummin. The tithing commandment was of the increase of the land. There is no commandment about tithing of the food you buy. Therefore, the only sensible explanation about the spices Jesus was talking about is the one you grow yourself, which was subject to tithing of the increase from the produce of the land. This explanation aligns with the Scripture.
What other explanation you have that also aligns with the Scripture?

[Nicodemus1968]

Definitely, I agree with you.


From their gains of their trade or from the backyard mint?


The Gospel mentions mint and anise and cummin. The tithing commandment was of the increase of the land. There is no commandment about tithing of the food you buy. Therefore, the only sensible explanation about the spices Jesus was talking about is the one you grow yourself, which was subject to tithing of the increase from the produce of the land. This explanation aligns with the Scripture.
What other explanation you have that also aligns with the Scripture?

Do you believe the Bible is very specific on what tithe is, who should pay it, and who should receive it?

It’s not a “gotcha” question.

I just have wondered that, because Abraham gave tithe,

Genesis 14:18-20
And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God. [19] And he blessed him, and said, Blessed be Abram of the most high God, possessor of heaven and earth: [20] And blessed be the most high God, which hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand. And he gave him tithes of all.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Definitely, I agree with you.


From their gains of their trade or from the backyard mint?


The Gospel mentions mint and anise and cummin. The tithing commandment was of the increase of the land. There is no commandment about tithing of the food you buy. Therefore, the only sensible explanation about the spices Jesus was talking about is the one you grow yourself, which was subject to tithing of the increase from the produce of the land. This explanation aligns with the Scripture.
What other explanation you have that also aligns with the Scripture?

Again, you refer to backyard mint? Were the pharisees the only ones with herbs growing? Also there was a tithe of livestock production, which was milk, butter, cheese, kefir, wool, and whatever else they harvested from their goats, oxen, and sheep Deut 18:4, Deut 32:14, Exod 23:19, Exod 34:26, Num 13:27, Lev 27:30-33. What i think the confusion is all about, is that our system of commerce, and trade is far different then their system was in the Bible. You and I deal with paper currency, electronic currency, and therefore barter as far as livestock produce, and farmed goods are a mystery to the believer of today. No one was shopping at Whole Foods Market or Winn Dixie. They were raising their own livestock and produce from the land. Therefore it had to be tithed by the producer.

[coksiw]

Also there was a tithe of livestock production, which was milk, butter, cheese, kefir, wool, and whatever else they harvested from their goats, oxen, and sheep Deut 18:4, Deut 32:14, Exod 23:19, Exod 34:26, Num 13:27, Lev 27:30-33.

I looked at all your bible references and I didn't find one that proves your point that Israel not only had to tithe the livestock that passed under the rod but also the production of it: butter, milk, cheese, etc...
Could you please post verses about that?

There is reference to wine and oil, but not reference of bringing grapes or olives. Do you see the point?



What i think the confusion is all about, is that our system of commerce, and trade is far different then their system was in the Bible. You and I deal with paper currency, electronic currency, and therefore barter as far as livestock produce, and farmed goods are a mystery to the believer of today. No one was shopping at Whole Foods Market or Winn Dixie. They were raising their own livestock and produce from the land. Therefore it had to be tithed by the producer.

I appreciate you attempt to help me understand but I think you are still wrong. There was money and wages and labor back then, beside slaves. Also other trades like carpenter, miner, and such. They didn't tithe the gain of their trade. Anyways, the correspondence between their life and our life is not relevant to the application of tithing because it starts with the assumption that we need to do such an application, which the NT doesn't.

My point of bringing the other trades is to show you that not every income and not every class had to tithe. The current teaching of tithing generalizes it to all incomes and classes as if the Law did so as well, which is not the case.

[coksiw]

Do you believe the Bible is very specific on what tithe is, who should pay it, and who should receive it?

It’s not a “gotcha” question.

I just have wondered that, because Abraham gave tithe,

Genesis 14:18-20
And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God. [19] And he blessed him, and said, Blessed be Abram of the most high God, possessor of heaven and earth: [20] And blessed be the most high God, which hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand. And he gave him tithes of all.

The Law is specific of what to tithe. Abraham tithed of the spoil of war, and the Law requires an offering of the spoil of war which is much less than the tithe. Israel was obedient to that Law. They didn't extrapolate Abraham tithe of the spoil of war to tithe spoil of wars.

Nicodemus, I don't know why you bring the Abraham tithing, which was free-will, not an obedience/curse issue as taught by most Apostolic churches. Except for a few, most teach tithing quoting Mal, which is the law, and which is an obedience issue with curses included. That's not Abraham tithing.

Brother, did you answer my question what Paul meant with compulsion in here?
2 Co 9:7 Each of you should give what you have decided in your heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.

[Nicodemus1968]

The Law is specific of what to tithe. Abraham tithed of the spoil of war, and the Law requires an offering of the spoil of war which is much less than the tithe. Israel was obedient to that Law. They didn't extrapolate Abraham tithe of the spoil of war to tithe spoil of wars.

Nicodemus, I don't know why you bring the Abraham tithing, which was free-will, not an obedience/curse issue as taught by most Apostolic churches. Except for a few, most teach tithing quoting Mal, which is the law, and which is an obedience issue with curses included. They teach it with the curses of the law, as a obedience issues, which makes it a sin to not obey it. That's not Abraham tithing.

Brother, did you answer my question what Paul meant with compulsion?

Paul forced tithe?

[coksiw]

Paul forced tithe?

Sorry I was still editing my post. This is what I meant, in here:
2 Co 9:7 Each of you should give what you have decided in your heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.

[Nicodemus1968]

Sorry I was still editing my post. This is what I meant, in here:
2 Co 9:7 Each of you should give what you have decided in your heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.

I believe that. I see nothing wrong with that.

[hometown guy]

Sorry I was still editing my post. This is what I meant, in here:
2 Co 9:7 Each of you should give what you have decided in your heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.

I believe that. I see nothing wrong with that.

That’s how I give my offering too....

[coksiw]

Good for you guys.

When somebody teaches from the pulpit that you must give 10% otherwise you can't serve on the platform, or you are "robbing God", or you could be curse with a curse, I honestly don't know how you can't call that compulsion.

If you don't give 10% but let's say 6%, then you are disobedient, lack faith, bad christian, can't preach from the pulpit, can't hold a ministry license. The fact that you give doesn't matter, what qualifies you is that you give 10%. I don't know how you can't call that compulsion.

[hometown guy]

Good for you guys.

When somebody teaches from the pulpit that you must give 10% otherwise you can't serve on the platform, or you are "robbing God", or you could be curse with a curse, I honestly don't know how you can't call that compulsion.

If you don't give 10% but let's say 6%, then you are disobedient, lack faith, bad christian, can't preach from the pulpit, can't hold a ministry license. The fact that you give doesn't matter, what qualifies you is that you give 10%. I don't know how you can't call that compulsion.

I don’t “ give “ 10% that’s already God’s. I give offering.

[coksiw]

Your faithfulness to the tradition of men is more important than your faithfulness to the Scripture.
You got your reward already: the approval of your own.

Here some history of your beloved tradition on the Church, which started around the same time the Trinity came into place: https://books.google.com/books?id=Yxk3AAAAMAAJ&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&pg=PR17#v=onepage&q&f=false

[Truthseeker]

Good for you guys.

When somebody teaches from the pulpit that you must give 10% otherwise you can't serve on the platform, or you are "robbing God", or you could be curse with a curse, I honestly don't know how you can't call that compulsion.

If you don't give 10% but let's say 6%, then you are disobedient, lack faith, bad christian, can't preach from the pulpit, can't hold a ministry license. The fact that you give doesn't matter, what qualifies you is that you give 10%. I don't know how you can't call that compulsion.



You are correct.

[Nicodemus1968]

Your faithfulness to the tradition of men is more important than your faithfulness to the Scripture.
You got your reward already: the approval of your own.

Here some history of your beloved tradition on the Church, which started around the same time the Trinity came into place: https://books.google.com/books?id=Yxk3AAAAMAAJ&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&pg=PR17#v=onepage&q&f=false

Do you believe in Fasting?

[Evang.Benincasa]

You are correct.

Are you saying that with the prayer shawl on, or off?

[Evang.Benincasa]

Do you believe in Fasting?

I believe in slowing.

[Truthseeker]

Are you saying that with the prayer shawl on, or off?

Off, as always. :thumbsup

[Evang.Benincasa]

Off, as always. :thumbsup

How’d you get involved with that group?
Do they talk up a lot of Hebrew? Does the pastor want to be called rabbi?
But more importantly, how’d you and the wife end up there?

[Truthseeker]

How’d you get involved with that group?
Do they talk up a lot of Hebrew? Does the pastor want to be called rabbi?
But more importantly, how’d you and the wife end up there?

No, they haven't got unto all those things. He just into the tallit thing. We have been here for years, but not happy and frustrated to be honest. We anticipate a change soon.

[Nicodemus1968]

I believe in slowing.

Not from what I remember.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Not from what I remember.

You remember way too much. :lol

I can’t have any fun. :foottap

[Nicodemus1968]

You remember way too much. :lol

I can’t have any fun. :foottap

:heeheehee

[coksiw]

Michael and Tithesmeister, I think you guys need to look at other verses too before jumping to conclusions.

Take into account that after that speech, Paul sent Timothy to Ephesus:

[1Ti 1:3 NKJV] 3 As I urged you when I went into Macedonia--remain in Ephesus that you may charge some that they teach no other doctrine,

And in the same letter he tells him:
[1Ti 5:17-18 NKJV] 17 Let the elders who rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in the word and doctrine. 18 For the Scripture says, "You shall not muzzle an ox while it treads out the grain," and, "The laborer [is] worthy of his wages."

So ye need to reconcile Acts 20 with 1 Ti 5.

I think I can find consistency now between Acts 20 and 1 Ti 5.

[1Ti 5:3-4, 17 NKJV] 3 Honor widows who are really widows. 4 But if any widow has children or grandchildren, let them first learn to show piety at home and to repay their parents; for this is good and acceptable before God. ... 17 Let the elders who rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in the word and doctrine.
[1Ti 6:1 NKJV] 1 Let as many bondservants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honor, so that the name of God and [His] doctrine may not be blasphemed.

The use of Honor here is as in "honor your parents". It means having them in high esteem and help them out as needed or even with gifts sometimes. Pretty much treating them as parents. So It is not a hiring, but support them as needed.

It seems to me that the support for full-time ministry is exclusive to apostles, who have to leave their job to go to other places. It looks to me that co-location (hospitality) was the method they used. And in that house they would be supported with expenses (food, clothing, etc...) until they were done with the church planting.
Paul himself did co-location but tried not to be a burden (food, clothing, etc...) to no one in the targeted city but instead use the offering from other churches and tent-making.

This goes in line with first-century synagogues. They didn't hire full-time ministers for the local assembly. They had vocations. In fact they were highly recommended to have a secular income: http://jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/12494-rabbi (see the Vocations of Rabbis section). I am not saying we should follow their steps exactly but it does give a good context of the cultural expectations around the new testament.

I also scanned the first-century church documents for full-time local ministers and I found nothing. What I found was actually a warning against any prophet or teacher asking for money.

Wow how things have changed since them. What surprises me is that you get that message so strong that you can't have church without full-time local ministers. The synagogues did it, first-century church did it, and even in my church I see a lot of people ministering (even pastoring) without a wage. In fact, one of those unsalaried pastors got many other churches started in the area we were doing church planting. They are all moved to congregate and serve because of their love for God and his work.

[Nicodemus1968]

I think I can find consistency now between Acts 20 and 1 Ti 5.

[1Ti 5:3-4, 17 NKJV] 3 Honor widows who are really widows. 4 But if any widow has children or grandchildren, let them first learn to show piety at home and to repay their parents; for this is good and acceptable before God. ... 17 Let the elders who rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in the word and doctrine.
[1Ti 6:1 NKJV] 1 Let as many bondservants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honor, so that the name of God and [His] doctrine may not be blasphemed.

The use of Honor here is as in "honor your parents". It means having them in high esteem and help them out as needed or even with gifts sometimes. Pretty much treating them as parents. So It is not a hiring, but support them as needed.

It seems to me that the support for full-time ministry is exclusive to apostles, who have to leave their job to go to other places. It looks to me that co-location (hospitality) was the method they used. And in that house they would be supported with expenses (food, clothing, etc...) until they were done with the church planting.
Paul himself did co-location but tried not to be a burden (food, clothing, etc...) to no one in the targeted city but instead use the offering from other churches and tent-making.

This goes in line with first-century synagogues. They didn't hire full-time ministers for the local assembly. They had vocations. In fact they were highly recommended to have a secular income: http://jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/12494-rabbi (see the Vocations of Rabbis section). I am not saying we should follow their steps exactly but it does give a good context of the cultural expectations around the new testament.

I also scanned the first-century church documents for full-time local ministers and I found nothing. What I found was actually a warning against any prophet or teacher asking for money.

Wow how things have changed since them. What surprises me is that you get that message so strong that you can't have church without full-time local ministers. The synagogues did it, first-century church did it, and even in my church I see a lot of people ministering (even pastoring) without a wage. In fact, one of those unsalaried pastors got many other churches started in the area we were doing church planting. They are all moved to congregate and serve because of their love for God and his work.

So do you think that most of the assemblies today are in rebellion to Gods word?

[coksiw]

So do you think that most of the assemblies today are in rebellion to Gods word?

It is more complex than that. The assembly has some autonomic regarding finances. They can decide to have a full-time minister. I know of one assembly that wanted a full-time pastor and rejected the current one (a friend of mine) because he wouldn’t want to quit his job.
The system is already in place, powered by ignorance or fraud, but that’s what some assemblies want.

My point is that the Pauline assembly doesn’t need a full-time Pastor to work, and in fact it worked without it for centuries.

My conclusion: We do not need a full-time minister to start and keep churches. Those that do it, I don’t judge them, since it is their choice. What I think is wrong is teaching tithing as currently taught by most apostolic churches.

Honestly, I just wanted to make sense of Acts 20 and 1 Tim 5.

[Tithesmeister]

Sorry I was still editing my post. This is what I meant, in here:
2 Co 9:7 Each of you should give what you have decided in your heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.

coksiw and Nicodemus,

I’m not sure 2 Corinthians 9:7 is a good reference for a discussion on tithing. This is discussing an offering “for the saints”. It is not an offering for pastors or elders exclusively. Of course they were eligible to partake of the offering, because they were saints as well. This offering is mentioned several times in Paul’s letters. It was for the poor saints at Jerusalem, because they were experiencing a famine.

Now for general giving, or even for giving alms, it may well be relevant. But for ministerial support, it is not necessarily meant in that context, in my opinion.

[Michael The Disciple]

Honestly, I just wanted to make sense of Acts 20 and 1 Tim 5.

I think Coksiw reconciled it pretty good. The local ministry should work a job. The saints should at least periodically give them an offering for their extra time involvement laboring in the word.

If there are apostles or evangelists they should be counted worthy of full time support. And yet even they could be like Paul and work as is needed.

So do you think that most of the assemblies today are in rebellion to Gods word?

If they teach a "tithing" system yes. If they dont teach local ministry to work yes.

[Tithesmeister]

I think I can find consistency now between Acts 20 and 1 Ti 5.

[1Ti 5:3-4, 17 NKJV] 3 Honor widows who are really widows. 4 But if any widow has children or grandchildren, let them first learn to show piety at home and to repay their parents; for this is good and acceptable before God. ... 17 Let the elders who rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in the word and doctrine.
[1Ti 6:1 NKJV] 1 Let as many bondservants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honor, so that the name of God and [His] doctrine may not be blasphemed.


The use of Honor here is as in "honor your parents". It means having them in high esteem and help them out as needed or even with gifts sometimes. Pretty much treating them as parents. So It is not a hiring, but support them as needed.

It seems to me that the support for full-time ministry is exclusive to apostles, who have to leave their job to go to other places. It looks to me that co-location (hospitality) was the method they used. And in that house they would be supported with expenses (food, clothing, etc...) until they were done with the church planting.
Paul himself did co-location but tried not to be a burden (food, clothing, etc...) to no one in the targeted city but instead use the offering from other churches and tent-making.

This goes in line with first-century synagogues. They didn't hire full-time ministers for the local assembly. They had vocations. In fact they were highly recommended to have a secular income: http://jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/12494-rabbi (see the Vocations of Rabbis section). I am not saying we should follow their steps exactly but it does give a good context of the cultural expectations around the new testament.

I also scanned the first-century church documents for full-time local ministers and I found nothing. What I found was actually a warning against any prophet or teacher asking for money.

Wow how things have changed since them. What surprises me is that you get that message so strong that you can't have church without full-time local ministers. The synagogues did it, first-century church did it, and even in my church I see a lot of people ministering (even pastoring) without a wage. In fact, one of those unsalaried pastors got many other churches started in the area we were doing church planting. They are all moved to congregate and serve because of their love for God and his work.

I think you are right or at least mostly right about this. It refers to support. I think it is referring to mostly food. But being a help. In whatever way was needed most. My point about this is that Honour, really means more than just speaking highly of someone. It means supporting them to some degree.

It probably didn’t mean paying their electric bill or heating bill in Bible times, but it could be a way of doing the same thing today.

[Evang.Benincasa]

If they dont teach local ministry to work yes.

What does the above mean?

[diakonos]

Man, those other Apostles were just stupid. Appointing deacons to do petty things so they themselves could continue in the Word and in prayer. What were they thinking?

[Evang.Benincasa]

Man, those other Apostles were just stupid. Appointing deacons to do petty things so they themselves could continue in the Word and in prayer. What were they thinking?


Peter went back to secular work, catches a huge catch. Then Jesus tells Peter to drag the catch over to Him. Then asks Peter if Peter loved Jesus more than Peter's big haul of fish. Jesus told Peter that he would now catch men. Changing Peter's vocation. But after the death, burial, and resurrection, Peter gets the other guys to go back to fishing. Which wasn't Jesus' plan.

[Tithesmeister]

I guess I’m not understanding the difficulty of reconciling the two passages. They both are about helping the weak, or less fortunate. The only difference I see is that one is the local church being helped, specifically by the elders, and the other is the gentile churches binding together in a concerted effort to help the mother church at Jerusalem.

I do believe that this may have been God’s way of dealing with the prejudice of the Jews toward the Gentiles. It would perhaps be more difficult to have a haughty attitude towards the Gentiles, when they are sustaining your very life.

[Tithesmeister]

You are overlooking the obvious fact that the legalities of law associated with cursing and so on are not binding on the new covenant church. A person does not have to give "tithes", but a person does have to give and support.

I believe you are wrong here brother. Why does a person have to give (to the church”)? Why can they not be receivers? Did the Grecian widows give? Are you a giver? Or are you really a receiver?

Example:
If you give tithes, (to the church), as you say. And you give ten thousand dollars on an income (from the church) of one hundred thousand dollars. You didn’t actually give to the church. You actually took or received ninety thousand dollars from the church. It is really a math problem.

Right?



Paul quoted the Law in this chapter, but not to imply that all the legalities associated with tithes back in that day are binding on the new testament believer. His reference to law no more implies that than quoting Psalm 110:1 and saying that's fulfilled in Christ implies that we have to take every other reference written back under that day of the old covenant and keep those laws including literal temple sacrifice and bringing a woman and making her drink the bitter water that causeth the curse if she was suspected of adultery.


He is simply using a principle that applies to new covenant ministers without any demand to apply the legalities.

Paul is referring to himself as an apostle here, specifically. You are extrapolating that, to the broader meaning of ministers, which, if understood in the proper context of the scripture, could mean anyone who ministered, (served) from widows to pastors or elders.

Notice the first verse . . .

1Cor.9

[1] Am I not an apostle? am I not free? have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? are not ye my work in the Lord?

Also, notice what word is not there. The minister word. Coincidentally, neither is the pastor word. Paul is comparing himself to the other apostles, because they evidently questioned his apostleship.

[3] Mine answer to them that do examine me is this,
[4] Have we not power to eat and to drink?
[5] Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?

He was making a very narrow comparison between himself and other apostles. This is not a comparison between himself and the local pastor, or himself as a pastor.

Can you see the word minister or pastor in this passage?

[Tithesmeister]

You need to understand what I believe in order to understand my point, which I should have explained earlier. I do not believe we have to give ten percent and no more or no less. The New Covenant does not lay that out. It teaches to give according to your faith, and encourages folks to stretch their faith. So, if one gives ten per cent, they could just as rightfully given 3.684 per cent, or 85 per cent. With that having been said, someone can give tithes since it is a good percentage for that person. Why did God choose the ten per cent and associate it with all the legalties that the Law demanded? COuld it be that ten per cent is reasonable?

The two questions I have put in bold print above are relevant questions. Allow me to answer, and even expound on them.

Question 1. Why did God make it ten percent? The biblical answer is that God gave them the land. It is called the promised land for a reason. God required them to give a tithe of the increase of the seed of the land, and the flocks and herds that were supported by the land. The Levites didn’t have any increase of the land to tithe on. Why? Because they didn’t have any land (originally). Since they didn’t have any land, God gave them (and the widows, orphans and strangers) the tithe of the land from the other tribes that did have land. Remember, no land, no tithe of the land. Maybe, this will help . . .

Lev.27

[30] And all the tithe of the land, whether of the seed of the land, or of the fruit of the tree, is the LORD's: it is holy unto the LORD.

The tithe was about the land. Most people miss that part. If you didn’t own land, you did not tithe. If you owned land that did not produce, you did not tithe. If you were making tents, or otherwise earning wages from ANY thing other than crops, flocks and herds, you did not tithe. The tithe was connected to the land. The land that God gave the Israelites.

Question 2. Is it reasonable? To begin with, you have to remember what the tithe was ten percent (or one tenth) of. It was essentially one tenth of their food. Not exclusively, but mostly. That is how God ordained the tithe. Of course, it was reasonable. He gave them the land, remember? So, all he required of them was the tenth of the increase that the land produced.

So let me say this. Forget about the church for a moment. Brother Blume, if you give me fertile farm land (as God gave the Israelites) I would be happy to return the tenth of what that land produced. Cows, crops, sheep etc.. I actually have a friend who owns a thousand acres of prime (row crop) farm land. He owns it through inheritance from his wife’s family. Notice I didn’t call him a farmer. He is not. He allows a farmer to farm it for . . .

Twenty percent of the crops. So, yes. Ten percent is reasonable. My friend actually told me that his father in law talked to him before he died, and he told him that twenty percent of the crop was the fairest way to the farmer and the owner. He told my friend to never rent for cash. That way you share with the farmer in good years as well as lean years. So, if twenty percent is fair, ten percent seems downright reasonable.

I hope I didn’t confuse anyone with this answer.

So, now let’s compare the “new man-made” method of tithing , to God’s way that He ordained. Instead of the tenth of your food. It has become an income tithe. So for all practical purposes, it is one tenth of your house, your utility bills, your children’s college fund, your retirement fund, your mechanic bills, the gas you put in your car, your medical bills, and your dentist bills, your taxes?, your vacation funds, anything you inherit, if you have a flat tire, or if you help your children out. These things, and many more, are considered titheable.

Do you see the difference? I could go on!

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the average household spends about ten percent of its income on food. It fluctuates from about eight percent on the low side, to about fifteen percent on the upside depending on the year and the cost of food. So if we use a hundred thousand dollars a year for an example , if your food cost is ten thousand (ten percent of one hundred thousand) a tithe of the food cost would be one thousand dollars. On the other hand, under your new improved “man made tithing system” your tithing cost would be ten thousand dollars on the same hundred thousand dollars.

So, Gods way was much more reasonable, in my humble opinion.

What do you think?

[Tithesmeister]

Again, I never said that 1 Cor 9 is restricted to the context of tithes. By tithe I thought YOU meant the general concept of a minister receiving income because that's what is the general thought here, ...I think anyway.



Because I do not believe that a tithe is the necessary legalistic manner to give, your words d not apply to my perspective.

Brother, you mention tithes three times in these brief comments in reference to 1 Corinthians chapter nine. In my Bible the word tithe is not mentioned there at all.

Could you help me out with where you are seeing tithe in this chapter?

Is it the ox? Does ox mean tithe to you?

Which word is it that you are taking to mean tithe?

Because, I just don’t see tithe in this.

“Restricted to tithes?” I hardly think so. At least we agree on that.

How bout “Is it even talking about tithes?”

The answer to that is no. Paul is not EVEN talking about tithes here. If he were, he would have said so. Instead of carrying on about oxen and other things.

You seem to think that Paul was afraid to mention the word tithe. Do you believe Paul wrote Hebrews? Because Hebrews does mention tithes. What a coincidence! Hebrews was written to the people that WERE supposed to tithe, under the old covenant. Hmmm. I wonder why tithes is mentioned in a writing to the Hebrews, but never in the writings to the Gentiles (ie Corinthians and other letters to Gentiles).

Brother, I know you said you don’t believe that tithing is according to the law. And you don’t tithe, or receive tithes because of the law. So, is it just a coincidence that you are a pastor, and you also, for some reason receive tithes? Do any widows in your church also receive tithes? Not because of the law, of course, but just by coincidence?

How did that just happen to work out?

Do you do any teaching on tithing? At all?

If so, what do you teach?

[Nicodemus1968]

Brother, you mention tithes three times in these brief comments in reference to 1 Corinthians chapter nine. In my Bible the word tithe is not mentioned there at all.

Could you help me out with where you are seeing tithe in this chapter?

Is it the ox? Does ox mean tithe to you?

Which word is it that you are taking to mean tithe?

Because, I just don’t see tithe in this.

“Restricted to tithes?” I hardly think so. At least we agree on that.

How bout “Is it even talking about tithes?”

The answer to that is no. Paul is not EVEN talking about tithes here. If he were, he would have said so. Instead of carrying on about oxen and other things.

You seem to think that Paul was afraid to mention the word tithe. Do you believe Paul wrote Hebrews? Because Hebrews does mention tithes. What a coincidence! Hebrews was written to the people that WERE supposed to tithe, under the old covenant. Hmmm. I wonder why tithes is mentioned in a writing to the Hebrews, but never in the writings to the Gentiles (ie Corinthians and other letters to Gentiles).

Brother, I know you said you don’t believe that tithing is according to the law. And you don’t tithe, or receive tithes because of the law. So, is it just a coincidence that you are a pastor, and you also, for some reason receive tithes? Do any widows in your church also receive tithes? Not because of the law, of course, but just by coincidence?

How did that just happen to work out?

Do you do any teaching on tithing? At all?

If so, what do you teach?

Why would Paul bring up the oxen? It says “thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth the corn”.

When Paul says, if I sow things that are spiritual is it some great thing that I reap your carnal things, what does that mean for us today?

Paul says those that minister about holy things live of the things in the temple. Again for us today what does that mean?

We can go round and round with this tithe debate, this group believes a Pastor has no right to tithe. This group believes a Pastor has every right.

Like I said before if the church is content for their Pastor to receive their tithe, who’s wrong? Are they not free to decide?

If the Pastor gets up and starts threatening them with tithe and places undo burdens on them for something that’s not Godly, God will judge them. I’ve seen it! Church’s that had many members, very wealthy are now down to a couple saints and the Pastor is no longer there. Imagine going to church with your family in a facility that can seat 400 and there is only 25 of you.

God is not mocked...

Maybe learn Wisdom, if the church is content with their Pastor as full time and they pay him tithe, wage, salary, the gospel is being preached. If your Pastor isn’t a full time minister and doesn’t receive any tithe, wage, or salary the gospel is still being preached.

[Tithesmeister]

Why would Paul bring up the oxen? It says “thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth the corn”.

When Paul says, if I sow things that are spiritual is it some great thing that I reap your carnal things, what does that mean for us today?

Paul says those that minister about holy things live of the things in the temple. Again for us today what does that mean?

We can go round and round with this tithe debate, this group believes a Pastor has no right to tithe. This group believes a Pastor has every right.

Like I said before if the church is content for their Pastor to receive their tithe, who’s wrong? Are they not free to decide?

If the Pastor gets up and starts threatening them with tithe and places undo burdens on them for something that’s not Godly, God will judge them. I’ve seen it! Church’s that had many members, very wealthy are now down to a couple saints and the Pastor is no longer there. Imagine going to church with your family in a facility that can seat 400 and there is only 25 of you.

God is not mocked...

Maybe learn Wisdom, if the church is content with their Pastor as full time and they pay him tithe, wage, salary, the gospel is being preached. If your Pastor isn’t a full time minister and doesn’t receive any tithe, wage, or salary the gospel is still being preached.

Just in general, it is about truth. We should start there. The tithe doctrine that is commonly taught is a culture of lies. It’s not just about money. It’s about souls. Sometimes I think people don’t get that part. And it’s not just about the souls of the tithers, but also the tithees.

Are pastors who lie about tithes going to heaven? The Bible clearly says that ALL liars will not.

Salvation is free. If you believe Jesus. If you believe some pastors, salvation costs ten percent of your gross, or net income. Which is just gross.

Do you believe that there are people that leave the church because of aggressive funds raising?

If they do, are they wrong to instinctively believe that the church is more concerned with their money, than they are their salvation?

Do you believe salvation is free? Without cost?

Is it wise to believe that God is going to give a pass on lying, if the church profits from the lies?

I’m not trying to be harsh, but the word of God consistently undermines the commonly taught tithe doctrine. And the ones doing the teaching, can’t even agree on what the truth is. Because it is not the truth. So it becomes a matter of who will follow the truth, and who will distort the truth, and how much.

Do you realize brother, that you seem to be justifying something that you can’t support with scripture?

What if we followed the same logic with adultery? Well, some people are getting saved, even though the pastor is indulging in adultery. Homosexuality? Drunkenness?

Where would you draw the line? What sins are we going to decide are allowable, regardless of what the Bible says?

[Tithesmeister]

Why would Paul bring up the oxen? It says “thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth the corn”.

When Paul says, if I sow things that are spiritual is it some great thing that I reap your carnal things, what does that mean for us today?

Paul says those that minister about holy things live of the things in the temple. Again for us today what does that mean?

We can go round and round with this tithe debate, this group believes a Pastor has no right to tithe. This group believes a Pastor has every right.

Like I said before if the church is content for their Pastor to receive their tithe, who’s wrong? Are they not free to decide?

If the Pastor gets up and starts threatening them with tithe and places undo burdens on them for something that’s not Godly, God will judge them. I’ve seen it! Church’s that had many members, very wealthy are now down to a couple saints and the Pastor is no longer there. Imagine going to church with your family in a facility that can seat 400 and there is only 25 of you.

God is not mocked...

Maybe learn Wisdom, if the church is content with their Pastor as full time and they pay him tithe, wage, salary, the gospel is being preached. If your Pastor isn’t a full time minister and doesn’t receive any tithe, wage, or salary the gospel is still being preached.

Brother, you asked some questions. I don’t want to ignore them. But could you attempt to give your answer first?

What does this ox have to do with tithing?

Is money carnal?

What are tithes doing on the altar?

Remember, we are talking about tithes. Tithe has a specific meaning. I realize that some are trying to blur the lines when it comes to the definition of tithes. But God defined the tithe. It is not up to us to change his definition. We are prohibited from doing so.

And, I hate to be facetious, but I am still . . .




Waiting . . .

For a scripture to be quoted, that says a pastor is entitled to tithes. I will accept Old Testament scripture or New Testament scripture. I am begging for a scripture that says being a pastor, in itself, entitled anyone, at anytime, to receive tithes.

Just

One

[Tithesmeister]

Here is a message on tithes, where the pastor (Greg Riggen) preaches for two hours trying to convince his congregation that he is entitled to tithes. Aaaand they will be lost for not tithing, if they should choose to not do so. He claims to be fighting false doctrine, all while preaching . . .

False doctrine!!

He claims that it is impossible to be saved if you don’t tithe. PLEASE listen to this sermon, if you think I exaggerate the doctrine of tithing being salvific, according to some pastors.

http://www.apostolicvault.com/admin/podcastgen/?name=2013-10-24_gods_holy_tithe_1.mp3

Brother Nicodemus, perhaps you can get some pro tithes ideas from this sermon?

Enjoy!

[Tithesmeister]

Peter went back to secular work, catches a huge catch. Then Jesus tells Peter to drag the catch over to Him. Then asks Peter if Peter loved Jesus more than Peter's big haul of fish. Jesus told Peter that he would now catch men. Changing Peter's vocation. But after the death, burial, and resurrection, Peter gets the other guys to go back to fishing. Which wasn't Jesus' plan.

Interesting . . .

[Nicodemus1968]

Here is a message on tithes, where the pastor (Greg Riggen) preaches for two hours trying to convince his congregation that he is entitled to tithes. Aaaand they will be lost for not tithing, if they should choose to not do so. He claims to be fighting false doctrine, all while preaching . . .

False doctrine!!

He claims that it is impossible to be saved if you don’t tithe. PLEASE listen to this sermon, if you think I exaggerate the doctrine of tithing being salvific, according to some pastors.

http://www.apostolicvault.com/admin/podcastgen/?name=2013-10-24_gods_holy_tithe_1.mp3

Brother Nicodemus, perhaps you can get some pro tithes ideas from this sermon?

Enjoy!

Funny thing brother, I don't have to listen to the recording. I know what the spirit reveals to me. I work for God, he pays me what I have need of. If there is nothing in the church account or it’s full God sustains me, simple as that!

You already know I don’t believe salvation is tied to tithing. Yet, I will not Condemn a church that does tithe. Just like I wont tell someone there going to hell for believing a lie called the rapture.

Pastors that say your going to hell for not giving me money, there spirit is pretty evident. We call men like that “Ultra Cons” I don’t enjoy there spirit just as much as a loose living tongue talking liberal.

[Tithesmeister]

Funny thing brother, I don't have to listen to the recording. I know what the spirit reveals to me. I work for God, he pays me what I have need of. If there is nothing in the church account or it’s full God sustains me, simple as that!

You already know I don’t believe salvation is tied to tithing. Yet, I will not Condemn a church that does tithe. Just like I wont tell someone there going to hell for believing a lie called the rapture.

Pastors that say your going to hell for not giving me money, there spirit is pretty evident. We call men like that “Ultra Cons” I don’t enjoy there spirit just as much as a loose living tongue talking liberal.

Okay brother. I can tell you’re thinking about it. I realize it may take a bit.

God bless you.

But, if the Spirit tells you something that contradicts the Bible, it is not be the Spirit, but a spirit. There is a difference. Just a word of wisdom.

[votivesoul]

Why, then, did he say that he had the right to the provision but abrogated it to not let anyone accuse him?

We have some sorting out to do with all the references that relate to Paul and his secular work.

I say this because we are reading people in this thread make reference to Paul's description of himself living by his own hands in other passages, so as to allegedly provide proof that ministers should not receive provision from the believers to whom they minister. Paul is being used as an example for everyone. However, 1 Cor 9 shows us that he actually claimed the right to receive provision and not support himself by the work of his own hands. So, if people are going to use Paul's references to encourage ministry to not receive income from their field of harvest, they need to study this chapter and realize Paul explicitly claimed that he had full right to provision.

If Paul is an example of not receiving income for the ones who actually should not receive income, then we have a huge problem. This means that people cannot use his words about his secular work to provide for himself, since he only said that to avoid blame of mongering for filthy lucre, when, if he did take support, he did not have such an intention whatsoever.

That's one issue that must be sorted out.

I think Paul sorted out the issue quite well. It was he who wrote itinerant apostle-evangelists have the right to forbear work, and it was he who wrote that he refused to ever do so.

The crux is, why did he forbear if he had the right?

He answers that in verse 12 of chapter 9. It was his belief that doing so would hinder the Gospel. But why would it hinder the Gospel for Paul and Barnabas to refrain from working and be financially supported by the Corinthians assembly?

Paul answers in 2 Corinthians 11 when he writes of the "super-apostles" who were taking financial advantage of the Corinthians in Paul's absence. See verse 20:

For ye suffer, if a man bring you into bondage, if a man devour you, if a man take of you, if a man exalt himself, if a man smite you on the face...

These deceitful workers who were preaching "another Jesus" had caused the Corinthians to submit to them (bondage) and then, began to devour them. Here, devour is the same Greek word used in the Gospels when Jesus spoke of Pharisees devouring widows' houses (See: Matthew 23:14, Mark 12:40, and Luke 20:47; also note: Luke 15:30). Obliviously then, especially in conjunction with the use of "take" (from the Greek lambano meaning to aggressively lay hold on or seize) the idea is that these angels of light were taking the Corinthians for all they were worth and were thereby hindering the Gospel, even to the point of taking the pre-eminence that belonged to Christ for themselves, and ruling over the church like Lords who had the right to abuse the saints of God.

Paul did not want to be in any way compared to these men. He did not want to be accused of being covetous for anyone's wealth.

Apart from that, he additionally preferred to set an example for the elders he had trained, appointed, or had appointed through his emissaries like Timothy or Titus, to show them how to support and take care of the impoverished by working. Acts 20:25-35 shows this quite well.

So, the right was there, all along, and the apostles in Jerusalem apparently made use of that right, just as they made use of the right to marry and lead about their wives, but that situation was unique in that the Twelve, with the occasional exception of Simon Peter, were not itinerant. They all left their homes and lives and careers behind to oversee the church which they began on Pentecost. Even after Saul's persecution, they stayed in the city and refused to abandon their calling (See Acts 8:1).

At least half of them were from Galilee, Matthew gave up his cushy job as a Jewish collector of Roman taxes, and etc. Additionally, there were thousands of converts to lead and teach and prepare for the Lord's coming in Jerusalem, especially after Saul converted and revival again took off in Jerusalem (See Acts 21:20). The Twelve needed to forebear working to care for so many souls. Paul's assemblies were never that large.

(continued...)

[Esaias]

I think Paul sorted out the issue quite well. It was he who wrote itinerant apostle-evangelists have the right to forbear work, and it was he who wrote that he refused to ever do so.

The crux is, why did he forbear if he had the right?

He answers that in verse 12 of chapter 9. It was his belief that doing so would hinder the Gospel. But why would it hinder the Gospel for Paul and Barnabas to refrain from working and be financially supported by the Corinthians assembly?

Paul answers in 2 Corinthians 11 when he writes of the "super-apostles" who were taking financial advantage of the Corinthians in Paul's absence. See verse 20:



These deceitful workers who were preaching "another Jesus" had caused the Corinthians to submit to them (bondage) and then, began to devour them. Here, devour is the same Greek word used in the Gospels when Jesus spoke of Pharisees devouring widows' houses (See: Matthew 23:14, Mark 12:40, and Luke 20:47; also note: Luke 15:30). Obliviously then, especially in conjunction with the use of "take" (from the Greek lambano meaning to aggressively lay hold on or seize) the idea is that these angels of light were taking the Corinthians for all they were worth and were thereby hindering the Gospel, even to the point of taking the pre-eminence that belonged to Christ for themselves, and ruling over the church like Lords who had the right to abuse the saints of God.

Paul did not want to be in any way compared to these men. He did not want to be accused of being covetous for anyone's wealth.

Apart from that, he additionally preferred to set an example for the elders he had trained, appointed, or had appointed through his emissaries like Timothy or Titus, to show them how to support and take care of the impoverished by working. Acts 20:25-35 shows this quite well.

So, the right was there, all along, and the apostles in Jerusalem apparently made use of that right, just as they made use of the right to marry and lead about their wives, but that situation was unique in that the Twelve, with the occasional exception of Simon Peter, were not itinerant. They all left their homes and lives and careers behind to oversee the church which they began on Pentecost. Even after Saul's persecution, they stayed in the city and refused to abandon their calling (See Acts 8:1).

At least half of them were from Galilee, Matthew gave up his cushy job as a Jewish collector of Roman taxes, and etc. Additionally, there were thousands of converts to lead and teach and prepare for the Lord's coming in Jerusalem, especially after Saul converted and revival again took off in Jerusalem (See Acts 21:20). The Twelve needed to forebear working to care for so many souls. Paul's assemblies were never that large.

(continued...)

:yourock

[votivesoul]

(continued from above...)

The next is what you claimed here about this only applying to some who preach the gospel, and not all, who are distinct from the rest because they are itinerant. When we read through Paul's chapter here, he does not once focus in on the distinction of being itinerant in his ministry.

Not so, Mike.

First, he reminds the Corinthians that they were his work in the Lord. Was Paul from the church in Corinth or from the church in Antioch?

He obviously travelled, and having no abode, he remained in Corinth as a guest of the city, or perhaps a temporary resident, but not as a citizen. We know from Acts 18 and 19 that after Paul spent his time in Corinth, he travelled to the coasts of Ephesus. So, Paul's ministry was clearly itinerant in nature.

Secondly, if you look at the examples Paul gives, he mentions the following:

- Soldiers going off to war.

Roman soldiers and indeed all soldiers are by nature of their vocation itinerant.

- Shepherds who partake of the milk and wool and lamb of the flock.

Shepherds lived most of their lives outside, under the sky and stars. They walked and travelled and led their sheep across hill and valley to wherever the grass was greenest. So, again heavily itinerant.

- The priests and servants of the temple who ate from the sacrifices offered there.

The Levitical priesthood was divided by King David into 24 courses, who rotated and served in the temple in 8-day shifts (See 2 Chronicles 23:8) on a continuous 168-day cycle. They did not all live in Jerusalem. Rather, they travelled in from all over the country and lived and worked in the temple precinct for their scheduled time of year, then went home again.

- The one who plows and threshes

Anyone who knows anything about farming knows that almost all the hired hands who work farms around the world and in the ancient world, are and were immigrant workers who travelled as itinerant employees who helped sow and reap, shared in the produce and food the farm generates, receive their final wages, then go home.

Lastly, from the more stationary example, we can see the following:

- Planters of vineyards.

This example reflects Paul's work as the church planter who founded the Corinthians assembly. That is, like Paul, the one who digs out a vineyard and gets it going and makes it happen and generates a profit from it, is something similar to the apostle-evangelist who starts a church work.

Additionally, it should also be noted that like with farmers, often the general laborers of a vineyard are people who come in for the season, work the vines and help the owner, get paid, then leave.

So, even here there is a hint of itinerancy.

He simply generalizes the right fro those to receive support by referring to the ones who preach the gospel.

It is not Paul who generalizes, but you, and many other ministers, who don't seem to ever see any of the categorical differences Paul took great pains to lay out for us in his writings regarding the different gifts and the graces these gifts receive from the Lord, wherever and whenever Paul addresses the topic of ministry and church leadership structure.

How does the reference to not muzzling the ox who treads the corn only apply to the itinerant ministers and not any minister who is called to the ministries listed in Eph 4:11?

Because Paul used the quote from Deuteronomy 25:4 as part of the case he made for his apostolic calling. What is chapter 9 about? It's about Paul defending his calling as the Corinthian assembly's founding apostle and evangelist. It's not about Paul being their local prophet and teacher like he had been at the church in Antioch according to Acts 13:1. It's about reminding and proving that he and Barnabas and Apollos were the ones who put in the labor and time as emissaries of Christ Jesus, and so, if the Corinthians were going to take the lead from anyone, it ought to be from them, and no one else (that is to say, the 10,000 instructors in Christ; See 1 Corinthians 4:15). He was trying to bring this mess of a church back into unity and focus, and help them realize that some of the people who were causing divisions through heresies and were propping themselves up as factional leaders in the church needed to be dressed down and ignored because they were carnal and didn't know what they were talking about or how to correctly lead a church.

And so, in this way, Paul and Barnabas and Apollos were the "oxen" who tread out the corn.

Plowing and threshing is not only for itinerants.

Addressed and shown to be otherwise in many cases.

Sowing spiritual things is not only for itinerants.

We have to remember the context. Paul's use of this concept is not given to us as a generalized, universal principle, but as a specific appeal to help get the Corinthians focused on his ministry and ministry team, because they had gone too far afield into divisional rivalries. So, he transferred a certain amount of authority to both himself and Apollos, figuratively speaking, just to straighten out the issues until the dust cleared (See 1 Corinthians 4:6).

Paul said that anyone who ministers about holy things live of the temple, and does that only apply spiritually in type to the itinerants?

Addressed and shown that those who served in the temple lived of those things only insofar as they served in their courses on a rotating basis, then went home.

Paul stated in the first verse that the people were his labour in the Lord. Is this not true of all ministers called especially to give the Word.

Again, remember the context. The Corinthians weren't just Paul's work in the Lord as if Paul was just a local prophet and teacher and pastor. They were his work in the Lord as a traveling apostle evangelist. So, I don't think we should extrapolate from that context the idea that Paul is in chapter 9 referring to all laboring ministers for all time in every place. He is only referring to himself and Barnabas, and by extension, Apollos, and perhaps Titus, who also came to Corinth for a short time.

(As an aside, some think that every believer is meant to give the word and be a minister of the word in this way. That is not true. Paul distinctly stated that some are called to minister the word to people in Eph 4 when he spoke of prophets, evangelists, apostles, pastors and teachers. Paul told Timothy that elders who rule well should be counted worthy of double honour, especially the ones who labour in word and doctrine. Not al believers, therefore, labour in word and doctrine.)

As an aside, I am not going to address this right now.

1 Corinthians 9:1.. Am I not an apostle? am I not free? have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? are not ye my work in the Lord?

By free, he meant he was free of the need to work secular jobs to support himself.

The people who were his work in the Lord were the souls he ministered to and brought to God.

Agreed.

I see no distinction here in mentioning his apostleship in order to inform people that itinerants alone should be support but simply a reference to what his particular calling was among those others who likewise labour in the word and doctrine in the lives of believers.

Because you have been trained not to see the distinction? Why didn't Paul just write "Am I not a minister?" Or "Am I not a servant?"? If he had done that, this conversation would be going in an entirely different direction. But as it stands we cannot see the use of the word "apostle" then somehow think it's shorthand for every gift and ministry in the church.

Are not other Eph chapter 4 "gift-ministries" just as much comparable to a soldier going to war, a vineyard husbandman, a shepherd feeding the flock (verse 7), an ox treading the corn, a plowman and a thresherman (verse 0), and a sower of the seed of the word (Verse 11) as apostles are?

No. As addressed and explained. But of particular note are prophets, pastors and teachers, who are typically local, non-traveling ministers who shepherd the saints and provide the sincere milk of the Word from house to house. These are always exhorted to work and provide for themselves and even help financially support others (I realize there are exceptions with prophets, such as Agabus, Silas, and etc. But in other cases, prophets remain in one place, like the five other men listed in Acts 13:1).

I see far more weight stating that these above examples Paul used to prove there is a right to support for the ministry belongs to an gift-ministry and not just itinerants, than I see in the first verse limiting the explanation only to itinerant ministries.

Well, hopefully, you see it differently now. ;)

In fact, I see anything but itinerancy in the example of the shepherd example in verse 11 is more for a pastor (literally a shepherd in the Greek) than an itinerant ministry that leaves the flock for other fields of ministry in a constant manner, although itinerants would qualify just as well in the overall explanation he gives.

That's because you're not thinking of what an actual shepherd of sheep in the ancient and in many cases modern, world actually does. While such things as sheep farms exist, in the ancient world, sheep roamed the country side and their shepherds led them far and wide and were frequently never home. Compare it, if you will, to an over the road truck driver, who's only home a few days a month.

As I explain to tithemeister next, tithe to me is simply a per centage some choose to give and they should understand it can be any percentage, and it is NOT bound to the many legalities that are bound to it under law. We are not under law. Period. Like you said, I suppose those who criticize tithing are thinking of those who associate all the demands of law with it that went with that number in that covenant. I do not see that at all, which is the background of my explanation.

This just shows more of a need to explain law versus grave than it is to say those who use the word tithe are hypocrites.

Just because you think of tithe that way, which is fine if you do, you have to recognize you have a very novel approach that many, if not most, do not share. Most do not divorce the word tithe from the associated legalities of the Torah. In fact, you can't even preach or teach on tithing as merely a 10 percent offering, from the Bible. You have to use a dictionary or your own words. Because every use of the word tithe is in some form or another associated with the law, even Abraham's tithe to Melchizedek and Jacob's vow.

[Michael The Disciple]

What does the above mean?

The question was asked in post 212:


So do you think that most of the assemblies today are in rebellion to Gods word?

It was my answer to that question. Churches that do not teach the the instructions Paul gave concerning the elders working with their own hands but rather expecting to get a regular salary from tithes are in rebellion to Apostolic teaching IMO.

[Tithesmeister]

If the Pastor gets up and starts threatening them with tithe and places undo burdens on them for something that’s not Godly, God will judge them. I’ve seen it! Church’s that had many members, very wealthy are now down to a couple saints and the Pastor is no longer there. Imagine going to church with your family in a facility that can seat 400 and there is only 25 of you.

God is not mocked...

Brother, this is a sad situation. This is the type of situation that a plural eldership is supposed to navigate through, make wise decisions for the good of the church and protect the people from danger. Sometimes the danger may be an out of control pastor. Wisdom is certainly needed. But so is knowledge. The wisdom supplements the knowledge. It is hard to see the good in this type of situation. The pastor basically wrecks the church and then leaves? Paul said WE are supposed to judge matters in the church. God has given us that responsibility.

People that were possibly several generations in that local assembly, are without a church home? They make a decision to go somewhere else? Or possibly nowhere? I don’t believe that’s God’s will. I’m not saying that God can’t turn it into something good for all concerned, but Paul taught that there is a time and place to protect the church. It sounds like somebody failed in their calling in this case, and I’m not talking about the pastor exclusively. Deacons have a function in the church. It is to look out for the church. It is not necessarily to be a yes man to the pastor.



Maybe learn Wisdom, if the church is content with their Pastor as full time and they pay him tithe, wage, salary, the gospel is being preached. If your Pastor isn’t a full time minister and doesn’t receive any tithe, wage, or salary the gospel is still being preached.

Sometimes wisdom is too late in coming. Sometimes it is ignored altogether. This sounds like one of those times. Good intentions? Maybe. Sometimes good intentions aren’t enough. The Bible talks about pastors slaughtering the sheep. Pastors hardly ever quote those verses.

Jer.23

[1] Woe be unto the pastors that destroy and scatter the sheep of my pasture! saith the LORD.
[2] Therefore thus saith the LORD God of Israel against the pastors that feed my people; Ye have scattered my flock, and driven them away, and have not visited them: behold, I will visit upon you the evil of your doings, saith the LORD.

It sounds like this pastor scattered the sheep. And the deacons allowed it, instead of manning up.

Jeremiah 10

[21] For the pastors are become brutish, and have not sought the LORD: therefore they shall not prosper, and all their flocks shall be scattered.

Where were the deacons when this event took place? It doesn’t seem that they were protecting the church.

[Tithesmeister]

(continued from above...)



Not so, Mike.

First, he reminds the Corinthians that they were his work in the Lord. Was Paul from the church in Corinth or from the church in Antioch?

He obviously travelled, and having no abode, he remained in Corinth as a guest of the city, or perhaps a temporary resident, but not as a citizen. We know from Acts 18 and 19 that after Paul spent his time in Corinth, he travelled to the coasts of Ephesus. So, Paul's ministry was clearly itinerant in nature.

Secondly, if you look at the examples Paul gives, he mentions the following:

- Soldiers going off to war.

Roman soldiers and indeed all soldiers are by nature of their vocation itinerant.

- Shepherds who partake of the milk and wool and lamb of the flock.

Shepherds lived most of their lives outside, under the sky and stars. They walked and travelled and led their sheep across hill and valley to wherever the grass was greenest. So, again heavily itinerant.

- The priests and servants of the temple who ate from the sacrifices offered there.

The Levitical priesthood was divided by King David into 24 courses, who rotated and served in the temple in 8-day shifts (See 2 Chronicles 23:8) on a continuous 168-day cycle. They did not all live in Jerusalem. Rather, they travelled in from all over the country and lived and worked in the temple precinct for their scheduled time of year, then went home again.

- The one who plows and threshes

Anyone who knows anything about farming knows that almost all the hired hands who work farms around the world and in the ancient world, are and were immigrant workers who travelled as itinerant employees who helped sow and reap, shared in the produce and food the farm generates, receive their final wages, then go home.

Lastly, from the more stationary example, we can see the following:

- Planters of vineyards.

This example reflects Paul's work as the church planter who founded the Corinthians assembly. That is, like Paul, the one who digs out a vineyard and gets it going and makes it happen and generates a profit from it, is something similar to the apostle-evangelist who starts a church work.

Additionally, it should also be noted that like with farmers, often the general laborers of a vineyard are people who come in for the season, work the vines and help the owner, get paid, then leave.

So, even here there is a hint of itinerancy.



It is not Paul who generalizes, but you, and many other ministers, who don't seem to ever see any of the categorical differences Paul took great pains to lay out for us in his writings regarding the different gifts and the graces these gifts receive from the Lord, wherever and whenever Paul addresses the topic of ministry and church leadership structure.



Because Paul used the quote from Deuteronomy 25:4 as part of the case he made for his apostolic calling. What is chapter 9 about? It's about Paul defending his calling as the Corinthian assembly's founding apostle and evangelist. It's not about Paul being their local prophet and teacher like he had been at the church in Antioch according to Acts 13:1. It's about reminding and proving that he and Barnabas and Apollos were the ones who put in the labor and time as emissaries of Christ Jesus, and so, if the Corinthians were going to take the lead from anyone, it ought to be from them, and no one else (that is to say, the 10,000 instructors in Christ; See 1 Corinthians 4:15). He was trying to bring this mess of a church back into unity and focus, and help them realize that some of the people who were causing divisions through heresies and were propping themselves up as factional leaders in the church needed to be dressed down and ignored because they were carnal and didn't know what they were talking about or how to correctly lead a church.

And so, in this way, Paul and Barnabas and Apollos were the "oxen" who tread out the corn.



Addressed and shown to be otherwise in many cases.



We have to remember the context. Paul's use of this concept is not given to us as a generalized, universal principle, but as a specific appeal to help get the Corinthians focused on his ministry and ministry team, because they had gone too far afield into divisional rivalries. So, he transferred a certain amount of authority to both himself and Apollos, figuratively speaking, just to straighten out the issues until the dust cleared (See 1 Corinthians 4:6).



Addressed and shown that those who served in the temple lived of those things only insofar as they served in their courses on a rotating basis, then went home.



Again, remember the context. The Corinthians weren't just Paul's work in the Lord as if Paul was just a local prophet and teacher and pastor. They were his work in the Lord as a traveling apostle evangelist. So, I don't think we should extrapolate from that context the idea that Paul is in chapter 9 referring to all laboring ministers for all time in every place. He is only referring to himself and Barnabas, and by extension, Apollos, and perhaps Titus, who also came to Corinth for a short time.



As an aside, I am not going to address this right now.



Agreed.



Because you have been trained not to see the distinction? Why didn't Paul just write "Am I not a minister?" Or "Am I not a servant?"? If he had done that, this conversation would be going in an entirely different direction. But as it stands we cannot see the use of the word "apostle" then somehow think it's shorthand for every gift and ministry in the church.



No. As addressed and explained. But of particular note are prophets, pastors and teachers, who are typically local, non-traveling ministers who shepherd the saints and provide the sincere milk of the Word from house to house. These are always exhorted to work and provide for themselves and even help financially support others (I realize there are exceptions with prophets, such as Agabus, Silas, and etc. But in other cases, prophet remain in one place, like the five other men listed in Acts 13:1).



Well, hopefully, you see it differently now. ;)



That's because you're not thinking of what an actual shepherd of sheep in the ancient and in many cases modern, world actually does. While such things as sheep farms exist, in the ancient world, sheep roamed the country side and their shepherds led them far and wide and were frequently never home. Compare it, if you will, to an over the road truck driver, who's only home a few days a month.



Just because you think of tithe that way, which is fine if you do, you have to recognize you have a very novel approach that many, if not most, do not share. Most do not divorce the word tithe from the associated legalities of the Torah. In fact, you can't even preach or teach on tithing as merely a 10 percent offering, from the Bible. You have to use a dictionary or your own words. Because every use of the word tithe is in some form or another associated with the law, even Abraham's tithe to Melchizedek and Jacob's vow.

Good stuff VS. You said it better than I could have.

[Evang.Benincasa]

I think Coksiw reconciled it pretty good. The local ministry should work a job. The saints should at least periodically give them an offering for their extra time involvement laboring in the word.

If there are apostles or evangelists they should be counted worthy of full time support. And yet even they could be like Paul and work as is needed.



If they teach a "tithing" system yes. If they dont teach local ministry to work yes.

How much tent manufacturing was Paul involved in? How many times in the entire Bible was it mentioned that Paul manufactured tents?

[Michael The Disciple]

How much tent manufacturing was Paul involved in? How many times in the entire Bible was it mentioned that Paul manufactured tents?



Not as important as the fact he instructed the elders to work with their own hands is it? That he said he toiled night and day as to not be chargeable to the people.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Not as important as the fact he instructed the elders to work with their own hands is it? That he said he toiled night and day as to not be chargeable to the people.

Mike? You just took two epistles and combined them. I guess when Timothy and Silas came down from Macedonia they should of told Paul to put down the Bible and get a job Acts 18:5. So, after Peter and the apostles got everyone to sell their property, they got deacons to do the heavy lifting? All so they could loaf around praying and Bible studying? How long have you pastored a church? How long were you a missionary?

[coksiw]

Mike? You just took two epistles and combined them. I guess when Timothy and Silas came down from Macedonia they should of told Paul to put down the Bible and get a job Acts 18:5. So, after Peter and the apostles got everyone to sell their property, they got deacons to do the heavy lifting? All so they could loaf around praying and Bible studying? How long have you pastored a church? How long were you a missionary?

I think Mike was talking about elders, not apostles. There is no reference to elders working full-time for the Gospel. There is of the apostles. Nevertheless, it was always free-will giving.
You may argue that modern pastors are like apostles: church planters; so they may need to work full-time to the ministry. I do have some doubts about generalizing that statement, but I can see some Pastors having the apostolic gift.

[Evang.Benincasa]

I think Mike was talking about elders, not apostles. There is no reference to elders working full-time for the Gospel. There is of the apostles. Nevertheless, it was always free-will giving.
You may argue that modern pastors are like apostles: church planters; so they may need to work full-time to the ministry. I do have some doubts about generalizing that statement, but I can see some Pastors having the apostolic gift.

Apostles are elders. Peter makes this statement that he was an elder. The whole five fold ministry are elders. What people see and have in their heads is a Roman Catholic template. Which is a clergy system of sectors called a parish. If we never had full time ministers and instead have what some people discribe on the Internet? Christianity would of been on the same level of Zoroastrians. :lol

[Evang.Benincasa]

What is even funnier, is that all of you came into Pentecost through a one pastoral system with tithing. Now you fight it, and have nothing better to replace it?

[coksiw]

What is even funnier, is that all of you came into Pentecost through a one pastoral system with tithing. Now you fight it, and have nothing better to replace it?

I came to the Gospel through a Trinitarian Pentecostal Church. Should I go back to it? The Oneness Pentecostal preachers came out of the Trinitarian Churches. Should they be thankful and come back to it? Baptism in Jesus name the same.

Do I have something better to replace it? Absolutely!! Some have done it already, oneness, holiness churches, and have running them without tithing; based totally on free-will. See my previous posts for examples.

The Apostles are elders, but not all elders are apostles. The Bible makes a distinction depending on the context. Just to give you an example:

[Act 15:6 NKJV] Now the apostles and elders came together to consider this matter.

Brother, we are not being ridiculous, or stupid, or just bringing negative criticism.

[Evang.Benincasa]

I came to the Gospel through a Trinitarian Pentecostal Church. Should I go back to it? The Oneness Pentecostal preachers came out of the Trinitarian Churches. Should they be thankful and come back to it? Baptism in Jesus name the same.

Do I have something better to replace it? Absolutely!! Some have done it already, oneness, holiness churches, and have running them without tithing; based totally on free-will. See my previous posts for examples.

The Apostles are elders, but not all elders are apostles. The Bible makes a distinction depending on the context. Just to give you an example:

[Act 15:6 NKJV] Now the apostles and elders came together to consider this matter.

Brother, we are not being ridiculous, or stupid, or just bringing negative criticism.

How long have you had no full time ministers? Are they self employed? If Sister Foofoofnick goes to the emergency room, and Brother so and so has an issue can they leave the job to take care of that church buisness? How long were you full time before you started to do what you are doing now? How long have you been taking care of your comgregation? What issues have you faced while you been working your secular job plus bringing in the sheaves? Do you have a building or is it house church?

[Evang.Benincasa]

The early Christian ministers were called the παραβαλανεῖς.
This Greek term meant someone who took care of people who were stricken with plague, or leprosy. Risking their own lives. Paul uses this word in Philippians 2:30 speaking of Epaphorditus who gambled with his own life to serve Paul and the church. Paul says that this man did it while his vocation was for Christ. Peter turned to Jesus and makes the statement that he and the other students left behind everything to be Jesus’ students. Jesus removed Peter from secular work, as well as Matthew’s obligations to the Empire. A job that didn’t come easily, and you sure couldn’t do it part time. Or come up short while doing it.

[coksiw]

How long have you had no full time ministers? Are they self employed? If Sister Foofoofnick goes to the emergency room, and Brother so and so has an issue can they leave the job to take care of that church buisness? How long were you full time before you started to do what you are doing now? How long have you been taking care of your comgregation? What issues have you faced while you been working your secular job plus bringing in the sheaves? Do you have a building or is it house church?

You definitely have not followed the conversation on this thread.

[Nicodemus1968]

You definitely have not followed the conversation on this thread.

Brother, I understand what you and tithemeister are saying especially when you bring up people who use the pulpit to force tithe. I don’t agree with that, and neither to others, yet we don’t throw the baby out with the bath water! I told this to tithemeister, of the church is content with their minister being full time, and paying a tithe so he can be, we shouldn’t try to go in there and force them to stop. I believe a minister should be full time, when God calls you it’s not part time! You leave what your doing and you go what God has called you to do. If your called God will sustain you.

On tithe, you and others may disagree with the scriptures preachers use, and you may have the evidence to back you up, yet...

Acts 5:39
But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God.

Church’s that I know have been established by a full time minister and have been paid tithe. Many if not all church’s of the upc or wpf or independent church’s have the same structure. If your a Pastor and you don’t feel to accept tithe then by all means don’t. Of you want to work full time and Pastor part time then that’s up to you.

[coksiw]

Brother, I understand what you and tithemeister are saying especially when you bring up people who use the pulpit to force tithe. I don’t agree with that, and neither to others, yet we don’t throw the baby out with the bath water! I told this to tithemeister, of the church is content with their minister being full time, and paying a tithe so he can be, we shouldn’t try to go in there and force them to stop. I believe a minister should be full time, when God calls you it’s not part time! You leave what your doing and you go what God has called you to do. If your called God will sustain you.

On tithe, you and others may disagree with the scriptures preachers use, and you may have the evidence to back you up, yet...

Acts 5:39
But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God.

Church’s that I know have been established by a full time minister and have been paid tithe. Many if not all church’s of the upc or wpf or independent church’s have the same structure. If your a Pastor and you don’t feel to accept tithe then by all means don’t. Of you want to work full time and Pastor part time then that’s up to you.

The fact that the UPC, and WPF grew and got established with tithing does not make it right. Many Trinitarian churches have worked hard to spread the Word of God, and many, like me, have come to God first through a Trinitarian church. The translation of the Bible you have probably came from a group that was Trinitarian, probably even the publisher. I am also thankful that there was a Trinitarian Pentecostal Church in my town, where I received the baptism of the Holy Spirit. We didn't have a oneness church I knew of back then. There, I also got to experience the power of the real God for the very first time. I am thankful for their work. I also believe that in their imperfection God put them there to bring his Word to the people, and the experience of a real God. I have many friends that are or were pastors, and they are humble loving people that preach and teach regardless, and are used mightily by God. Yet the believe and teach tithing. At least the practice what they believe!!!

I am not against preventing the assembly to have full-time ministry if they can afford it. In fact, it is a nice thing to have. As well as having buildings. I was just exploring God's word regarding 1 Tim 5, not to judge other, but to just make sense of it.

Brother, I am black and white regarding doctrine, but I am not black/white regarding the possibility of God using us in our imperfections to bring salvation. My word may sound rough on this forum, but in face to face conversation, I am not a fire and brimstone person against tithing, because I know my brothers and their intention, and love them, and I know the power of God in their life.

I believe the blessing will be greater if we stop teaching tithing, even as a recommended amount. Tithe on the Church started as a recommended amount. The problem with that it is that it soon becomes a measuring stick, and soon a mandate. That's what exactly happened in history.

Paul had it right: the money topic can hinder the Gospel. He was very very careful regarding that. I believe tithing hinders the Gospel nowadays: it makes the preachers look bad when they preach it, and lose some credibility in many people's eyes. Not everybody is an ignorant. They read the NT and they can see by themselves the obvious.

[Tithesmeister]

The fact that the UPC, and WPF grew and got established with tithing does not make it right. Many Trinitarian churches have worked hard to spread the Word of God, and many, like me, have come to God first through a Trinitarian church. The translation of the Bible you have probably came from a group that was Trinitarian, probably even the publisher. I am also thankful that there was a Trinitarian Pentecostal Church in my town, where I received the baptism of the Holy Spirit. We didn't have a oneness church I knew of back then. There, I also got to experience the power of the real God for the very first time. I am thankful for their work. I also believe that in their imperfection God put them there to bring his Word to the people, and the experience of a real God. I have many friends that are or were pastors, and they are humble loving people that preach and teach regardless, and are used mightily by God. Yet the believe and teach tithing. At least the practice what they believe!!!

I am not against preventing the assembly to have full-time ministry if they can afford it. In fact, it is a nice thing to have. As well as having buildings. I was just exploring God's word regarding 1 Tim 5, not to judge other, but to just make sense of it.

Brother, I am black and white regarding doctrine, but I am not black/white regarding the possibility of God using us in our imperfections to bring salvation. My word may sound rough on this forum, but in face to face conversation, I am not a fire and brimstone person against tithing, because I know my brothers and their intention, and love them, and I know the power of God in their life.

I believe the blessing will be greater if we stop teaching tithing, even as a recommended amount. Tithe on the Church started as a recommended amount. The problem with that it is that it soon becomes a measuring stick, and soon a mandate. That's what exactly happened in history.

Paul had it right: the money topic can hinder the Gospel. He was very very careful regarding that. I believe tithing hinders the Gospel nowadays: it makes the preachers look bad when they preach it, and lose some credibility in many people's eyes. Not everybody is an ignorant. They read the NT and they can see by themselves the obvious.

UPCI, WPF, ALJC on tithing.

Source UPCI ARTICLES of FAITH
TITHING

We believe tithing is God's financial plan to provide for His work, and has been since the days of Abraham. Tithing came with faith under Abraham; Moses' law enjoined it, and Israel practiced it when she was right with God; Jesus indorsed it (Matthew 23:23); and Paul said to lay by in store as God has prospered you. Do not rob God of His portion, viz., tithes and offerings. (Read Malachi 3.)

WPF

Tithing
Tithing was not only a tenth of one’s increase, but was also the first tenth of firstfruits. Beginning with the days of Creation, belonging to, and thus being holy unto the Lord, the idea of firstfruits is established from the very beginning. It is seen again in Genesis in Abraham paying tithes to Melchizedek (Genesis 14:18-20, Hebrews 7:4-10). Following this, Jacob also tithed, (Genesis 28:22) as did Israel in tithing to the Levites, (Numbers 18:21,22) and Jesus endorsed it as something which should be routine (Matthew 23:23). Witholding any part of the tithe was to rob God (Malachi 3:8-10). Giving to the Lord is a privilege belonging to his people. The motive for giving is love and an awareness that whatever one possesses, it is in fact, a possession of the Master and that we are merely His stewards. Cheerful giving is the knowledge that God will meet each need. (II Corinthians 9:7)

ALJC

Tithing
We believe tithing is God’s financial plan to provide for His work, and has been since the days of Abraham. Tithing came with faith under Abraham, Moses’ law enjoined it, Israel practiced it when she was right with God, Jesus endorsed it (Matthew 23:23), and Paul said to lay by in store as God has prospered you. Do not rob God of His portion, that is tithes and offerings (Read Malachi 3).

Notice that UPCI and ALJC are virtual copies.

[coksiw]

UPCI, WPF, ALJC on tithing.

Source UPCI ARTICLES of FAITH
TITHING

We believe tithing is God's financial plan to provide for His work, and has been since the days of Abraham. Tithing came with faith under Abraham; Moses' law enjoined it, and Israel practiced it when she was right with God; Jesus indorsed it (Matthew 23:23); and Paul said to lay by in store as God has prospered you. Do not rob God of His portion, viz., tithes and offerings. (Read Malachi 3.)

WPF

Tithing
Tithing was not only a tenth of one’s increase, but was also the first tenth of firstfruits. Beginning with the days of Creation, belonging to, and thus being holy unto the Lord, the idea of firstfruits is established from the very beginning. It is seen again in Genesis in Abraham paying tithes to Melchizedek (Genesis 14:18-20, Hebrews 7:4-10). Following this, Jacob also tithed, (Genesis 28:22) as did Israel in tithing to the Levites, (Numbers 18:21,22) and Jesus endorsed it as something which should be routine (Matthew 23:23). Witholding any part of the tithe was to rob God (Malachi 3:8-10). Giving to the Lord is a privilege belonging to his people. The motive for giving is love and an awareness that whatever one possesses, it is in fact, a possession of the Master and that we are merely His stewards. Cheerful giving is the knowledge that God will meet each need. (II Corinthians 9:7)

ALJC

Tithing
We believe tithing is God’s financial plan to provide for His work, and has been since the days of Abraham. Tithing came with faith under Abraham, Moses’ law enjoined it, Israel practiced it when she was right with God, Jesus endorsed it (Matthew 23:23), and Paul said to lay by in store as God has prospered you. Do not rob God of His portion, that is tithes and offerings (Read Malachi 3).

Notice that UPCI and ALJC are virtual copies.

Every time the new testament mentions firstfruit is referring to Jesus as the firstfruit of the resurrection, or us, as the firstfruit to the Lord. Never about money collection.

They are just twisting God's word to prove their point. Anyways, we know that.

[Evang.Benincasa]

You definitely have not followed the conversation on this thread.

So, direct me to your posts where you answer my questions?

[Tithesmeister]

Every time the new testament mentions firstfruit is referring to Jesus as the firstfruit of the resurrection, or us, as the firstfruit to the Lord. Never about money collection.

They are just twisting God's word to prove their point. Anyways, we know that.

Firstfruits and tithes were never the same thing. There is such a misunderstanding of tithes. Some of it is , I believe, intentional. First fruits were delivered directly to the priests, tithes were generally delivered to the rank and file Levites. Priests only received one tenth of the Levitical tithe. They received all of the firstfruits.

This may be why I’ve never been able to get any pro-tithe pastor to answer the question:

Are you a Levite?

Or are you a priest?

Nicodemus, would you like to answer this question?

Because, if you are a priest, the biblical percentage of the tithe would be 10 percent. Not all of the tithe, as many teach. It’s pretty obvious that these doctrines are not based on scripture anyway. Some people pretend that they are though.

If you sort through the doctrines of the Apostolic churches that are posted, you will find untruths, half truths and omissions.

One omission is that they all carefully avoid the issue of what the tithe is to be used for. Compare this intentionally vague instruction with the careful and precise verbiage found in the Bible. It’s mostly made up. Because honesty about the scripture is a luxury they can’t afford. Unfortunately.

[aegsm76]

Just wondering what examples can be given of a "successful" church/work that does not accept tithes?
Not throwing stones, just really wondering.
Because I do not know of any.