Matthew 10:8
8 Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils: freely ye have received, freely give.

On the basis of the scripture above. It is understood that the gospel should be ministered at no cost. On the other hand . It is believed by many also that it cost a lot to reach out to people with the gospel. And so there by, contributions are required to reach out either on tv or crusade etc.

What of the place of giving , when people give ,are they paying for a free gospel?

Those who advocate free gospel sometimes criticises those who raise money for the preaching of the gospel. Is there a difference? Is there a misunderstanding? Are we looking at the same thing or 2 different things. Please air your view without insult an abuse so we can learn . Biblical references will be appreciated where relevant.

The gospel of Jesus is far from being free though you don't have to pay for it
There's a church venues involved
access road, if needed
church runnings, welfare and helps e.t.c
Now, the reason why i say you don't have to pay for it is because, some others could have volunteered to pay for things and contribute towards project

Nor was there anyone among them who lacked; for all who were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the proceeds of the things that were sold
and laid them at the apostles' feet; and they distributed to each as anyone had need.
And Joses, who was also named Barnabas by the apostles (which is translated Son of Encouragement), a Levite of the country of Cyprus,
having land, sold it, and brought the money and laid it at the apostles' feet.
Acts 4:34-37
The need and use of money for the gospel didn't arise today, it started right from bible days

Jo, i think you need to be a bit more specific. Do you refer to the cost of the gospel to the beneficiary (soul to be won over) or cost to the pastor/preacher preaching the gospel?

mabell:

The gospel of Jesus is far from being free though you don't have to pay for it

So, what are you saying? is the gospel free or at a (huge) cost?

no one is saying christians should not contribute to their churches,rather the emphasis should be on freewill n not thru twisting of selected bible passages.

Telling someone he is cursed because he did not pay tithes is clearly unchristian

Luke 9:3 - 6
3 He told them: “Take nothing for the journey—no staff, no bag, no bread, no money, no extra tunic.
4 Whatever house you enter, stay there until you leave that town. 5If people do not welcome you, shake the dust off your feet when you leave their town, as a testimony against them.”
6 So they set out and went from village to village, preaching the gospel and healing people everywhere.

If pastors and preachers are followers of Jesus Christ then they should follow his instruction above.

Zikkyy:

Jo, i think you need to be a bit more specific. Do you refer to the cost of the gospel to the beneficiary (soul to be won over) or cost to the pastor/preacher preaching the gospel?

That's the point I'm really getting at. Because when the phrase is used . "the gospel is supposed to be free" it is often wrongly applied. When people give in church for example, other people cry fraud! The gospel is supposed to be free. Other times we hear things such as . "you don't need money to preach the gospel" that's why I don't want to be too specific . Let's look at it from our different perspective.

From my understanding.The gospel should be preached to people free, sometimes we can even give them extra . Like food and clothing etc . But the preaching of the gospel is not free. It cost the sacrifice of those who are involved. So for the receivers is free. But on the other side of preachers and organisers. It cost a lot and the two should not be confused .

I wonder how much the missionaries charged our ancestor when they brought Christianity to our lands.


but hey, faith is now a commodity with a price tag.

^^
pls explain . Is anyone charging anybody to reach them for Jesus

MrBible:

Luke 9:3 - 6
3 He told them: “Take nothing for the journey—no staff, no bag, no bread, no money, no extra tunic.
4 Whatever house you enter, stay there until you leave that town. 5If people do not welcome you, shake the dust off your feet when you leave their town, as a testimony against them.”
6 So they set out and went from village to village, preaching the gospel and healing people everywhere.

If pastors and preachers are followers of Jesus Christ then they should follow his instruction above.

Do you understand the implication of this? It means that the preachers should be supported . Look at verse 4 again.

. . . 4 Whatever house you enter, stay there until you leave that town

Staying there means, welfare support, clothes ,feeding,shoes .

Sorry, not "charging",

Extortion and manipulation for financial gain is more appropriate.

And yes, it happens in most churches. In most cases, the only evidential beneficiary of the whole "process" are the people in charge i.e self accliamed " men of God".

How much did Jesus collect for bringing the "good news"?

dare2think:

Sorry, not "charging",
Extortion and manipulation for financial gain is more appropriate.

And yes, it happens in most churches. In most cases, the only evidential beneficiary of the whole "process" are the people in charge i.e self accliamed " men of God".

You have to be more specific . If people give in a church. Are you saying they are not blessed for it?. Pls make it clear scripturallly.

How much did Jesus collect for bringing the "good news"?

Did Jesus receive money? Yes he did. But you are not. Lear on the purpose when you say "for bringing the good news" that's a different thing. And that's the problem I'm trying to address. We generalise issues. Jesus didn't. Charge people for bringing the gospel to them . But he received financial assistance. Where did he get money to buy food?

The gospel is free but preaching the gospel is costly. The white pple that came to Africa to preach the gospel did so free but they travelled down here, their welfare and other things were supported by pple that gave sacrificially. So even if you want to preach from village to village you still need money to do the work, like transportation, feeding etc.

It will even cost much more if you are to use modern day technology for evangelism, it will cost mega cash to do so. That do not mean pple shld pay to receieve the gospel but preachers and partners of the gospel need to put money into the gospel.

Most times pple make so much noise abt what the missionaries did when they came to Africa, that is good but such pple give #50 offering in church out of so much they have and expect things to just happen. How much do you put into the work? If everybody shld give #1000 can we even take the gospel to the next country? Everybody ought to give at the level in which God has blessed him, we shld all give our best. If God has blessed you in millions you shld not be giving #1000 if you really love God.

If the missionaries depended on offerings they will not build any school or hospital. Pple were giving in millions to do good works and preach the gospel freely. Someone will say but the offerings of churches are so much this days, anyway the cost of maintenance and running a church is not cheap too this days.

@joagbaje
Jesus was a carpenter, he obviously supported himself from his own sweat. That does not nullify the issue that he could have received material support from followers, but one thing is clear, he didn't go around soliciting and arm twisting people for money like you charlatans do today.

Joagbaje:

when the phrase is used . "the gospel is supposed to be free" it is often wrongly applied. When people give in church for example, other people cry fraud! The gospel is supposed to be free. Other times we hear things such as . "you don't need money to preach the gospel"  

The way I see it, giving in church and hearing/listening to the gospel are two unrelated events (from a cost perspective). Now to your question; i would say YES, the gospel is meant to be delivered free, rendered without charge to the potential beneficiaries.

Joagbaje:

From my understanding.The gospel  should be preached to people free, sometimes we can even give them extra . Like food and clothing etc . But the preaching of the gospel is not free. It cost the sacrifice of those who are involved.

Support to the preacher does not mean the gospel is not free sir. When governments provide free education or healthcare, they don’t call it ‘partially’ free education, do they? The fact that government will incur cost to provide it does not change anything; it’s still free education or healthcare. Asking if the gospel is free is akin to asking if salvation is free. Knowing that Christ paid the price, can we then say salvation is not free?

Joagbaje:

So for the receivers is free. But on the other side of preachers and organisers. It cost a lot and[b] the two should not be confused .[/b]

this is one reason i need you to be specific; to avoid confusion.

Joagbaje:

Do you understand the implication of this? It means that the preachers should be supported . Look at verse 4 again.

. . . 4 Whatever house you enter, stay there until you leave that town

Staying there means, welfare support, clothes ,feeding,shoes .

This should not be interpreted to mean the disciples went from one house to the other in any town they visited. It possible the support was from the house owner alone, while they go about preaching.

Joagbaje:

You have to be more specific . If people give in a church. Are you saying they are not blessed for it?. Pls make it clear scripturallly.

Funny you are asking for specifics

Joagbaje:

Did Jesus receive money? Yes he did. But you are not. Lear on the purpose when you say "for bringing the good news" that's a different thing. And that's the problem I'm trying to address. We generalise issues.

KunleOshob:

@joagbaje
Jesus was a carpenter, he obviously supported himself from his own sweat. That does not nullify the issue that he could have received material support from followers, but one thing is clear, he didn't go around soliciting and arm twisting people for money like you charlatans do today.

Totally untrue, He was the son of a carpenter, the moment He embarked on full-time ministry that income stream ceased to flow.
Luke 8:1-3 tells us a few of the financial supporters

Zikkyy:

So, what are you saying? is the gospel free or at a (huge) cost?

Maybe i should make myself clearer
The gospel, to the recipient could be free but to to the one who preaches it will entail the use of money
The people that gave out gideon's bible spent millions on that project but the people who recieved it spent nothing
that's what i mean

dare2think:

I wonder how much the missionaries charged our ancestor when they brought Christianity to our lands.


but hey, faith is now a commodity with a price tag.

They didn't need to because they already raised funds for that purpose
do a study on it

nuella2:

The gospel is free but preaching the gospel is costly. The white pple that came to Africa to preach the gospel did so free but they travelled down here, their welfare and other things were supported by pple that gave sacrificially. So even if you want to preach from village to village you still need money to do the work, like transportation, feeding etc.

You know i am yet to figure out the purpose of this thread YES, the gospel is free if pastor incur cost to travel to my village nko does that change anything or are you saying i should pay for travel & accommodation cost I am beginning to see this as an attempt to justify the need for invoicing the potential beneficiaries of the gospel. I can imagine a visiting pastor (to my village) with the following comment. "my brother, you know i am giving out this message for free, but em, you see. . i had to em em borrow some money from my neighbour in addition to the little money i was having to come down here. I am not asking you to pay for this free message, but nna, i just need a little something from you to enable me return the money i borrowed and compensate me for my effort here"  

nuella2:

It will even cost much more if you are to use modern day technology for evangelism, it will cost mega cash to do so. That do not mean pple shld pay to receieve the gospel but preachers and partners of the gospel need to put money into the gospel.

Most times pple make so much noise abt what the missionaries did when they came to Africa, that is good but such pple give #50 offering in church  out of so much they have and expect things to just happen. How much do you put into the work? If everybody shld give #1000 can we even take the gospel to the next country? Everybody ought to give at the level in which God has blessed him, we shld all give our best. If God has blessed you in millions you shld not be giving #1000 if you really love God.

If the missionaries depended on offerings they will not build any school or hospital. Pple were giving in millions to do good works and preach the gospel freely. Someone will say but the offerings of churches are so much this days, anyway the cost of maintenance and running a church is not cheap too this days.

Is this an appeal for more funding or you are asking for a refund

mabell:

Maybe i should make myself clearer
The gospel, to the recipient could be free but to to the one who preaches it will entail the use of money
The people that gave out gideon's bible spent millions on that project but the people who recieved it spent nothing
that's what i mean

My sister, we are fully aware you can't preach the gospel at zero logistic cost but that still does not change the fact that gospel is not for sale. As long as you don't charge for a service rendered, that service is free. simple

Joagbaje:

Do you understand the implication of this? It means that the preachers should be supported . Look at verse 4 again.

. . . 4 Whatever house you enter, stay there until you leave that town

Staying there means, welfare support, clothes ,feeding ,shoes . [/color]

Vanity upon vanity!


Pastor JoAgbaje: You mean to tell me you need to buy a new pair of shoes in the course of a weekend retreat? Didn't you read the part of a passage that told the Disciples to carry nothing extra? haba!

Giving to support the Gospel should be from one's own freewill and not because "God told me to go on this trip and you need to finance it" kind of rhetorics  we sometimes hear from the pulpits these days. You should preach to the ones you can reach by foot, then car/by driving before you attempt to reach those you can get to by flying(even if there's hard currency involved)

Zikkyy:

You know i am yet to figure out the purpose of this thread YES, the gospel is free if pastor incur cost to travel to my village nko does that change anything or are you saying i should pay for travel & accommodation cost I am beginning to see this as an attempt to justify the need for invoicing the potential beneficiaries of the gospel. I can imagine a visiting pastor (to my village) with the following comment. "my brother, you know i am giving out this message for free, but em, you see. . i had to em em borrow some money from my neighbour in addition to the little money i was having to come down here. I am not asking you to pay for this free message, but nna, i just need a little something from you to enable me return the money i borrowed and compensate me for my effort here" 

Is this an appeal for more funding or you are asking for a refund

I didnt say they shld refund the preacher his money, preachers make sacrifices all the time. I have personally treacked to a village to preach some years ago, we treaked for like three hours cos there was no means of modern day transportation. And we didnt charge anybody there, we paid our transport to a particular village before the treaking experience. So my point is the gospel is free but christians need to put in money to preach this free gospel bc we cant pay the television stations with the blood of Jesus.

If i see a preacher in my village i will partner with him, not bc he asked for it or i want to compensate him but i love to give to preachers of the gospel, where my legs cant reach let my money reach its my motto for evangelism.

When it comes to reaching the world for the gospel i dont think only reaching my neighbours but the world and i knw that will cost me money which i am ready to do bc where my heart is my treasure will be there also, afterall this world is not my home so i want to make all the impact. I dont want to regret when the master comes back. This is not the time to be thinking of doing only small small things, time is running out.

ogajim:


Vanity upon vanity!
Pastor JoAgbaje: You mean to tell me you need to buy a new pair of shoes in the course of a weekend retreat? Didn't you read the part of a passage that told the Disciples to carry nothing extra? haba!

How many days they went was not stated. For the fact that they didn't go with anything means ,they are to get supplied on the course of their jouneys.

Giving to support the Gospel should be from one's own freewill and not because "God told me to go on this trip and you need to finance it" kind of rhetorics  we sometimes hear from the pulpits these days. You should preach to the ones you can reach by foot, then car/by driving before you attempt to reach those you can get to by flying(even if there's hard currency involved

Every giving must be with revelation and faith and not by compulsion . I'm yet to see a pastor that will force anyone into giving. Maybe there is.

Just drove past CEC plc headquarters @ oregun, loads of snazzy chicks hanging outside there. Just wandering what racket is going on there again.

This is quite an interesting thread with interesting comments so far. My intended responses are scattered all across the thread already.

I think everybody will agree that the gospel itself indeed is free but the propagation of the gospel is what's costly (no doubt about this). As we yorubas say - "Owo ni keke ihinrere" (Money is the major tool for the gospel).

It is another topic though on how then to acquire funds for the propagation of the gospel. This should be the real purpose of all the tithes and offerings we give but I think this is not the case in our churches today. Most churches today rarely, practically pay much attention to evangelism.

Tee_Jay:

Totally untrue, He was the son of a carpenter, the moment He embarked on full-time ministry that income stream ceased to flow.
Luke 8:1-3 tells us a few of the financial supporters

That's true.

Luke 8:3-4
3 Joanna, whose husband Chusa was Herod's administrator; Susanna; and many other women. They provided financial support for Jesus and his disciples. 4 :

So it is cristal clear that giving of money for the sake of the gospel is appropriate. For that reason ,calling Christians MuGu for giving money in church is not right because it's a scriptural thing they are doing. So long as it's don't of their own free will.

KunleOshob:

Just drove past CEC plc headquarters @ oregun, loads of snazzy chicks hanging outside there. Just wandering what racket is going on there again.

What racket do you expect in church.

Titus 1:15
15 Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled.

toluxa1:

This is quite an interesting thread with interesting comments so far. My intended responses are scattered all across the thread already.

I think everybody will agree that the gospel itself indeed is free but the propagation of the gospel is what's costly (no doubt about this). As we yorubas say - "Owo ni keke ihinrere" (Money is the major tool for the gospel).

It is another topic though on how then to acquire funds for the propagation of the gospel. This should be the real purpose of all the tithes and offerings we give but I think this is not the case in our churches today. Most churches today rarely, practically pay much attention to evangelism.

Well said . I have often heard series of negative comments about this who give money for sponsor of the gospel. Sme call them MuGu , dummies etc. And also the emphasis that the gospel is free. That's why the missing link to be ironed out. If anyone feel it is wrong to give for the gospel sake . Let them state it clearlly . And if it is not wrong to give. Why calling givers names such as mugu and dummies. If the gospel is free to the world , it is costly to the church. And it is appropriate for the church to sponsor it. On tv, radio, Internet ,Satelite ,and the print media.

nuella2:

I didnt say they shld refund the preacher his money, preachers make sacrifices all the time. I have personally treacked to a village to preach some years ago, we treaked for like three hours cos there was no means of modern day transportation. And we didnt charge anybody there, we paid our transport to a particular village before the treaking experience.

nuella2:

If i see a preacher in my village i will partner with him, not bc he asked for it or i want to compensate him but i love to give to preachers of the gospel, where my legs cant reach let my money reach its my motto for evangelism.

Okay Ma i don hear

nuella2:

So my point is the gospel is free but christians need to put in money to preach this free gospel bc we cant pay the television stations with the blood of Jesus.

It's good to see you agree the gospel is free I am not so sure now but i don't think people are against giving. Maybe people criticize the way pastor coerce/trick the congregation into parting with the monetary content of their wallet or purse You should also expect people to react when this funding is spent on activities or transactions that does not promote the gospel. an example is the church purchasing a private jet for the pastor.

Joagbaje:

For that reason ,calling Christians MuGu for giving money in church is not right because it's a scriptural thing they are doing.

Now i see why you came up this thread But you are very wrong to say people call Christians mugu for giving in church. Actually, they are called mugu falling for the pastor sweet raps

^^^ I always felt that you guys bothering to respond were wasting your time. The whole thread was engineered for a purpose, to promote a particular agenda.

Why don't they tell us how "Offer 7" advances the gospel? Or how "tithes" which some say are exclusively for "ministers" advance the gospel? Or how "giving to the pastor" or "sowing into the pastor's life" so that you can be blessed in exchange/return (which one of them recently called debit and credit account, exchange of giving and receiving etc) advances the gospel?

It is a manipulative thread: while I agree that the thread could be productive if the manipulation is countered, I still take the view that the thread is a waste of time because the main manipulators will not repent anyway.