Candour: 'The church started in Jerusalem as a movement.......Got to Rome and became an institution..........spread all over Europe and became a culture...........landed in America and became an industry....a very BIG INDUSTRY but the Head of the church is coming back for the movement.'

Saw the above somewhere on the net. Just thought i should share it because it's the American version that is spreading like wild fire all over Nigeria and trying to drown the voice of the true Gospel.

That is tru we here in Europa, Uk is different, we don't have this big new churches. I see it the first time wen i was in America and for me it was not like a church, like i know it from my country where i can go when they have no churchservice, just so sit and pray, this churches are so big and all is about who is better who make more people rich, who make more miracles and this bad thing from america come to nigeria. Nigerians are the best in this business, when i was in lagos so many different advertisment from the churches and all churches are only want the money from there followers.

Pastor Kun:

They don't collect salaries because the church account is merely an appendage of their personal account. They already have unfettered access to the church's finances to spend as they please so why should they restrict themselves to salaries?

I for instance run my own personal business and I don't collect a salary from it but that does not mean I am not the chief beneficiary of the business so you guys should stop playing on our intelligence.

So Kun, you are the General Overseer of your business abi?

Issokay!!!

DrummaBoy:

So Kun, you are the General Overseer of your business abi?

Issokay!!!

I am not into church business oh!

Pastor Kun:

I am not into church business oh!

I know now

The people I am talking to know themselves

Pastor Kun:

They don't collect salaries because the church account is merely an appendage of their personal account. They already have unfettered access to the church's finances to spend as they please so why should they restrict themselves to salaries?

I for instance run my own personal business and I don't collect a salary from it but that does not mean I am not the chief beneficiary of the business so you guys should stop playing on our intelligence.

I'm sorry, but your post betrays a lack of familiarity with the facts about some of these ministries. The ministers have millions in their bank account, e.g. from selling books that they have no need to dip into the church's finances. That a business head or even some head pastors have compete control of and access to the church's finances does not mean that one cannot be independently wealthy apart from church funds. Rick Warren made so much money from his books that he paid back to the church all the salary they paid him over the years and now tithes about 90% if I'm not mistaken. I guess to you, he paid all that money back because he has access to the funds and can take it back. That makes no sense.

Candour:

Contentment is the key bro. Contentment! Contentment!! Contentment!!!

The way the MOG you mentioned above amass material things will almost make an ungrounded person suspect there is no place called heaven. I mean if we are eager to be with the Lord, why the craze to acquire things and more things and more things? It's simple: They lack any fiber of contentment in their body and souls.

1John 2:15
'Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the father is not in him.'

I don't know much about Prince or very much about Oyedepo. But as far as I know, Joel Osteen lives a very simple life. He dresses well but not that expensively. He drives his father's former car (Lexus). He owns one house he lives in and he mentioned that he was feeling guilty about buying an investment property but God told him there was no problem. You don't see him in the social (party) circuit with the high rollers. So, to you, somebody that controls a ministry with an income of more than $100 million is amassing personal wealth by living in one house and investing in another property?

Candour:

Incase you do not know, Eli and Samuel's kids you claim were not destitutes are the exact examples of the Charlatans in Christianity today because They were very corrupt. Read 1Sam 2:12-17 to get the gist of Eli's sons which was so bad that God had to get them killed in battle. Read 1Sam 8:1-3 to get the gist of Samuel's sons. infact i'll quote verse 3 here

1Sam 8:3
'And his sons walked not in his ways, but turned aside after lucre, and took bribes, and perverted judgement'

From this verse you can make the following deductions
1. Samuel was a honest servant of God who was content with having his needs met
2. His sons were crooks who saw service to God as a means to enrich themselves

Now which of the examples above will you recommend as standard for your ministers today? Any minister of the gospel not content with having his needs met but instead wants to compete with the high fliers in society is a crook and a thief and will inevitably devise schemes to fleece his flock like the children of Eli and Samuel.

No matter how you see it, true gospel stewardship WILL NEVER pay as much as secular pursuits. Christ our Lord did not have cash stored up. The bag Judas kept was nearly empty most times because he too like most pastors today saw the office as one to loot. Our Lord's needs were met whenever they arose like when a fish provided money for tax and that is what the Lord expects of us Christians and i dare say much more of his ministers.



The Levites were mandated not to get any land which is a deprivation on its own. The Lord provided 10% for them which was enough to meet there needs particularly when you remember they had to share this 10% with the widows, orphans, Strangers and other needy people in Isreal. No one here has said ministers should not get support from their congregations, at least i NEVER SAID that. what i oppose is you saying your friend who went into the ministry deserves everything that your friend who took a secular job got. You mentioned houses, cars, luxuries etc. The gospel is NOT a business. Your pastor friend should be happy God counted him worthy of a place in the vineyard instead of lamenting about the material things he's missing. God promised to meet needs, he didn't promise a chateau or golden chariots. If he's regretting, he should check; maybe God didn't call him after all.

You keep shifting the goal post. Were Samuel's or Eli's children priests? The simple point you need to address is whether Samuel, Eli, Moses and Co. were poor or different in any way from their "mates" in the secular world. Their children do not come into the discussion. Otherwise, we should also ask about the children of Elijah, Elisha and others you mentioned. Also, I gave a hypo and was not talking about a real friend. And all of us should count ourselves happy that God called us into His kingdom. Based on that, christians in Mobil should live less than the unbelivers in Mobil, going by your logic. But I've not heard you say that. We all agree that the needs of ministers should be met, just as God met the needs of the tribe of Levi. What is problematic is your definition of "needs." Owning a house is not a need for a pastor, but it is a need for the brother in Mobil. Same with owning a car. Again, one more time, you've not been able to provide one scriptural verse that says that ministers should live a poorer life than other christians, especially when it comes to owning the essentials of (modern) life.

nlMediator:

I don't know much about Prince or very much about Oyedepo. But as far as I know, Joel Osteen lives a very simple life. He dresses well but not that expensively. He drives his father's former car (Lexus). He owns one house he lives in and he mentioned that he was feeling guilty about buying an investment property but God told him there was no problem. You don't see him in the social (party) circuit with the high rollers. So, to you, somebody that controls a ministry with an income of more than $100 million is amassing personal wealth by living in one house and investing in another property?

That is a nice information you just relayed about Osteen and i must confess that i'm impressed and indeed touched. Now my bro, that is a worthy example for you and i and other pastors if truly Osteen lives a frugal and simple lifestyle. This is the koko of what i've been trying to pass across. The fact that somebody controls a million dollar ministry should not be a license to indulge. Good you didn't try to make a case for Oyedepo because a pastor in a poor country like Nigeria owing 4 private jets amongst other paraphernalia of gross conspicuous consumption is a wicked and cruel example for the gospel of Jesus.

Now i admit you wont find a verse that says 'thou shalt not buy things' but a MOG living in obscene opulence in the midst of grinding poverty in the land runs contrary to everything Christ and the apostles stood for. Christ always made a case for the poor to be taken care of. The apostles encouraged collections to be made for the poor. God in the old testament instituted the TITHE to take care of Levites, widows, orphans, strangers and other less privileged people. What are our extremely wealthy MOG doing to alleviate poverty even in their own ministries? Rather you see them keep collecting and collecting like they would drop dead the minute they stop. I tell you dear bro, It's only a very greedy and wicked pastor that does that and they abound all over our country.

nlMediator:

You keep shifting the goal post. Were Samuel's or Eli's children priests? The simple point you need to address is whether Samuel, Eli, Moses and Co. were poor or different in any way from their "mates" in the secular world. Their children do not come into the discussion. Otherwise, we should also ask about the children of Elijah, Elisha and others you mentioned.

My bro, read the references i gave you. Samuel and Eli's children were priests who were not content with 'small offerings' but devised means to get more and in the process earned rebuke from God. My bro, the bible didn't compare them with their mates but while they obviously had their needs catered for, there is nothing to show they lived a life of Opulence. Infact Elijah was fed by birds and a widow? Is that an example of a man who had everything going well for him? Elisha was housed by the woman of Shunem, If he had a big house would he need that particular hospitality?

Also, I gave a hypo and was not talking about a real friend. And all of us should count ourselves happy that God called us into His kingdom. Based on that, christians in Mobil should live less than the unbelivers in Mobil, going by your logic. But I've not heard you say that. We all agree that the needs of ministers should be met, just as God met the needs of the tribe of Levi. What is problematic is your definition of "needs." Owning a house is not a need for a pastor, but it is a need for the brother in Mobil. Same with owning a car. Again, one more time, you've not been able to provide one scriptural verse that says that ministers should live a poorer life than other christians, especially when it comes to owning the essentials of (modern) life.

You keep trying to draw words out of my mouth. see what i said ' true gospel stewardship WILL NEVER pay as much as secular pursuits' I never said owning a house or a car was a crime for a pastor. Even the couple i used as an example who run an orphanage have a house they keep the kids. What i maintain is that a minister should be an example of contentment. Why should a true minister called by God be regretting that his friend has moved ahead of him? we brought nothing into this world and it's certain we are taking nothing out so says the bible so why the fuss? Even you and i as church members should learn contentment and modesty. We shouldn't be trying to match the world. We have a better place to aspire to unless we do not really know what we believed. Not all things are expedient for us as Christians even if you can afford it. It's called TEMPERANCE and it's one of the fruits of the spirit. Let us learn to bridle our tastes and i tell you a pastor needs to bridle his even more because he's meant to be an example to you and i

A pastors wealth is not from salary or allowance. A pastor is first a giver. It's only few pastors that have allowances. These are Mostly general overseers and full time pastors. 99% of pastors have their professional jobs and businesses .

Pastoring is primarily a responsibility. This I know in Cec ,Deeper life, Redeemed church and some other ministries. 99% of pastors have income earning jobs. In most ministries , The criterial of sending someone out to pastor is that he has a good job or business. The money given as offerings and tithes is not in the custody of these pastors. They rather give their own also because they are Christians.

Some pastors only get to resign from their jobs to embark on full time ministry if the ministry feels such can't cope with the two. It's still by choice. So when we discuss this issue we should have this in mind. The anti MOGs always feel a pastor does nothing and he sits to collect what others labour for. Pastoring is responsibility and sacrifice.

Now to the G.Os . The G.O also may have a job or business as the case may be. I know a medical doctor who has a big hospital complex and he started a church . The church is mostly funded from his income in the hospital . It's a call and sacrifice. That's why some G.O can tell you they don't take salary from church. Because they have other sources. That apart

Even if a pastor or G.O gets paid from the church board or whatever . The allowance or salary only gives him opportunity to sow. He gives offerings and tithes like everyone else. Some pastors are not givers ,and they end up struggling financially.

if a pastor is wealthy his money is not coming from salary. His money comes from two areas. His giving and his gift. A pastor who gives will receive. Secondly if a man has special gifts , like healing ,prophecy, miracles, people who have been healed , will definitely appreciate him. A real pastor hardly buy things like cars, people give to him and he himself give to others. Imagine a wealthy man gets healed of HIV and he sends gift to the pastor or buys him a car. Someone will feel the pastor has used church money to buy a car. A pastor with grace receives many things ,he can use all that he receives,he gives to others too.

Ihedinobi:

How does Luke 10 say that? I assume that by basic need you probably mean a hot meal, shelter and perhaps clothing, right?

Deducing from the command to take no extra personal belongings but eat whatever they set before you.

Jo is so on point. How on earth or heaven will anyone ever say that true gospel work will NEVER pay as secular pursuits? Is there any bible verse that says that or this is just a man's idea as usual? Is this not tantamount to taking gain as a standard of godliness? Anyways, its not by argument, everybody will forever have points.

2 Corinthians 11:8 I robbed other churches, taking wages of them, to do you service.

Mr anony:
Deducing from the command to take no extra personal belongings but eat whatever they set before you.

Jesus later told them to take na. There are different administrations but the same Spirit.

Zikkyy:

Just letting you know that the bible reference you quoted was not addressing the discussion. Loving my neighbour as myself does not mean i should ensure the pastor is able to do everything i do. am sure he did not take up the pastoral work for the purpose of being able to do all things i want and pray to do.



Issues created by people like you.

WHAT!!!!!!!!!!
Thou shall love your neighbour as yourself does not address the discussion? Case closed fa.

Bro Image, good day to you, sir. Have you seen my mails yet? I sent you one yesterday, I think, and one maybe the day before or so. Please do get back to me as soon as you can manage. Thank you, bro.

Image123: Jo is so on point. How on earth or heaven will anyone ever say that true gospel work will NEVER pay as secular pursuits? Is there any bible verse that says that or this is just a man's idea as usual? Is this not tantamount to taking gain as a standard of godliness? Anyways, its not by argument, everybody will forever have points.

2 Corinthians 11:8 I robbed other churches, taking wages of them, to do you service.

That's because you see ministry as a means of gain. The verse you quoted, did Paul say he built up a financial empire from it? He collected wages from churches, yet he was naked and hungry often, why was that?

The man lived a life of selflessness because he knew ministry came with responsibilities unlike the money grabbers of today. Peter and the others were catered for by the church but I doubt you'll be able to say they became rich by it.

A minister should lead by example and if he wants to build a loving and selfless congregation, he has to lead the way. This will make it impossible for a true minister to accumulate wealth if he has to be true to his calling of care for the flock. This is the reason despite all Paul got, he never got rich with it because he always shared.

Christians are expected to be modest and contented, how much more a minister of the gospel? If you see nothing wrong in a pastor living in obscene opulence when some members of his congregation are struggling to make ends meet, then there is something wrong with your value system brother.

Ihedinobi: Bro Image, good day to you, sir. Have you seen my mails yet? I sent you one yesterday, I think, and one maybe the day before or so. Please do get back to me as soon as you can manage. Thank you, bro.

Fixed. Sorry for the late reply

@ Candour
It will do you a world of good to stop being sentimental and focus on the thread. The thread is about ministers and their pay, should they be paid, is there biblical reasons or tangible discussions why they should be paid etc. It is not about oscillating and obssessing on Oyedepo.

Image123: @ Candour
It will do you a world of good to stop being sentimental and focus on the thread. The thread is about ministers and their pay, should they be paid, is there biblical reasons or tangible discussions why they should be paid etc. It is not about oscillating and obssessing on Oyedepo.

Good. A nice advice for both of us.

I'm happy you went back to the purpose of the thread because you and I are both guilty of derailing. Check all my posts, I Never said support shouldn't be given to ministers whether by salary or by allowances and gifts.

Cheers

DrummaBoy:

Sir, the position you stated above that Paul was not a part time minister and thus a full time minister, and that it was the elders, more like Deacons, that were working part time, cannot be supported by any scripture in the NT (I would be happy if you can point them out to me). We must understand that the concept of a full time or a part time minister was alien to the thinking of first century Christians; that concept was made popular in our time. Yes, in Acts 6:4 we see the apostles mention that there was a need for them to give themselves to the preaching of the word and to prayer, but that statement is no evidence for a full time ministry that is supported by some kind of salary or pay. The impression that Paul gives us in Phillipians 4 when he received support from the Phillipian church was that what was given to him was a gift and not his pay.

[color=#000099][/color]

So, it is obvious from this passage that the support Paul received from this church was a gift and not a pay. A gift depicts a free will giving; a blessing of some sort, to another. A pay is meeting a debt and Romans 4:4 gives the clearest sciptural difference btw a gift and a pay. If Paul was receiving his pay, there would not have been the element of gratitude that is so well expressed in that passage. I believe this is how both Paul and the other apostles were supported in ministry: via free will giving by those who they had ministered to and who in return chose to minister to them. All of this was done even as they engaged in what we shall call a "full time" ministry today.

1. Was Paul a full-time minister or not?
I assume we both agree that a full-time minister is a believer who treats his spiritual service as he would a full-time career. If we do, tell me where Paul was shown splitting his time between his work as a minister of the Gospel and any other career.

As for my own evidence,

(a) Did you note the screenshots I attached? Paul explained every time that he chose not to receive his sustenance from the church he served at any particular time why he didn't. Why did he need to in the first place? And when he did, did you notice that he took care to explain that he was not rejecting them by refusing to take pay from them but that he was trying to teach them to be gainfully employed and not be sloths by his example?

(b) The popular argument that Paul worked part-time as a tentmaker is not a very well educated one. He practised his craft with his friends, but he received his sustenance from the churches he served. Read Acts 18:1-5 and cross-reference with 2 Corinthians 11:8,9. (a) above explains why he practiced that craft at all. He did it as a part of his teaching ministry.

2. Gift or Pay?
When something is a gift, it is not an exchange or reward for something else, is it? Well, see 1 Corinthians 9:7-14 and 1 Timothy 5:17. They have something to say to the matter.

They got this example not from the Old Testament but from Jesus' ministry himself that was shown to have been supported by a number of women. And I maintain that the fact that women supported Jesus' ministry gives us an idea of how lean his treasury was: we get this from the fact that women were never the leading money makers in those days and despite the meager allowance they earned, they supported Jesus' ministry. Now, Jesus made things worse: it was bad enough that his treasury was lean, he went further to make a thief his treasurer in the person of Judas. What can we glean from our Lord here: No man can serve two master; it is either you serve God or mammon. Jesus showed an attitude to money in ministry that some of our Pastor and leaders can learn from - even though I do not subscribe to the idea of making a thief a church treasurer but it gives us an idea of the attitude of our Lord to money.

Now, my point is this: the idea of full time ministry work in the NT, that is supported by some kind of salary cannot be found anywhere in the scriptures. I concur with those who say that church history shows that paid ministry did not come into Christendom until some 300 years after Christ. And, whatever led to this idea, is not necessarily wrong. It is ably supported by 1 Corinthians 9:14. But I still think that in the midst of the confusion that we have found ourselves in today's church, the model of ministry that we see in the NT, that is supported by free will giving should be returned to.

However, it is becoming increasingly difficult for this to happen with the place that money has taken in today's church. A lot of ministers today no longer serve God, they serve mammon! And the number one culprit in this matter (the Oga at the top of it all - apologies to christembassey) is tithing. This is the reason God, by the Holy Spirit, in the heart of men, is asking us to find out the place of tithing in the New Testament church. Unfortunately, in all the debates about tithing, no one has been able to supply one scripture from the whole of the bible, and particulary the NT, were anyone paid tithes on wages he earned.

The NT model derived from the age-old and God-approved tradition of returns for labor. If you labored in the Gospel, you were sustained by the Gospel. That was the case for everyone bar none.

And I've heard this argument that "there is no place in the NT where anyone was either instructed to pay tithes or that anyone did" and it has been offered severally as justification for the validity of the non-tithing position. But, that is an argument from silence. That it wasn't recorded didn't necessarily mean that it had been tithing had been annulled. It could simply mean that it was taken for granted or swallowed into a more comprehensive doctrine. To demonstrate the difficulty of that position, let me ask you, can you produce any NT Scripture that specifically nullified tithing, a Scripture that does not offer ambiguity in interpretation?

So, I welcome this discuss on the place of paid ministers in today's church wholeheartedly because it will lead us inevitably to understanding the true place of money in the church today.

BTW, Ihedinobi, you mention that full time ministers like the apostles are different from elders in the church. You claim the former were on some kind of pay while the latter were not - that it was the elders that worked, albiet, part time. Well, Peter referred to himself as an elder in 1 Peter 5:1. From that scripture one can claim that the NT saw elders as leaders in the church generally and, as I have said before, those who worked "full time" were supported by gifts and free will offering and the others who were not full time may also have enjoyed a similar largesse. However, if we follow your permutation that elders worked part time, then Peter, as an elder, also must have had a side job he did like Paul who was a tent-maker.

In conclusion for now, we must not under rate the power of God himself to providing for the vision he himself has given to his servants. If God send a man, God will move people to support him financially, without that man needing to resort to cunning fables to extort money from people. That is how the NT preachers lived. Paid ministers today should not be the norm; it should come in extreme cases when the need is very apparent.

You see the bolded part of this section of your post? Take it and compare it with what I actually said and tell me how you deduced the claims you say I made from what I actually wrote. It is not a very pleasing thing to have words put in one's mouth.

As for God providing for the man He sends forth, of course He does provide. It was He that commanded that those who are served spiritually should serve those who serve them thus in material provision. Why does He need to do more than that?

Zikkyy:

Support - to 'dash' pastor money, food e.t.c.

Pastor himself should be careful so he does not become a burden to the congregation. If the congregation having difficulty taking care of themselves, pastor should look for other paid employment to support himself jare.

So we can call alms-giving "support" too, abi?

If being provided for by the Gospel you preach is a command of the Lord Himself, would a pastor who seeks sustenance elsewhere be walking in obedience to the Lord?

Goshen360: ^ Even their 'pay' shouldn't be a 'fixed' and 'regular' or monthly salary. It should be a form of 'support' to them.

I never start, I dey come !!!

Come as soon as you can, bro. I'm curious where the Scriptures said the above.

Goshen360: ^

There no ONE Apostle that received constant, continuous and monthly 'pay' as salary but support. This support must be from the people's heart and decision as they desire it to be fit towards whatever they want to give. This to me, is even better than 'fixed', constant and continuous 'monthly' salary'. Again, ministry is not about gathering people together and making merchandise of them but a call to service and to serve.

You're in ministry to give to people and the people when taught, in return should by the knowledge of what was taught see the light of the scriptures by the Holy Spirit to extend their pocket to their teacher, NOT their teacher demanding monthly 'pay'. That's exactly what Paul was saying when he said, "don't he have the right to living"?

Many church leaders use Paul's example to justify 'pay' for gospel ministers BUT they also refuse to take the sacrificial decision of Paul when he said, he did not use this right because to advance the gospel. We cannot take one side of Paul's right and leave out his sacrifice - saying, that's his personal decision. Aren't all ministers of the gospel?

I have already explained about Paul's actions in my response to DrummaBoy. Suffice to say that Paul was ministering to Corinthian and Thessalonia churches, at least, by waiving his right to support from them. They were lazy busybodies ordinarily, and he was teaching them that in Christ we work productively and do not laze about and look for handouts. But even in doing so, he needed his sustenance still. That was what Timothy and Silas brought him from other churches he had served in Macedonia. Those churches were not paying him for anything, they were standing in for the Corinthian church was in debt to him for. The same way the Philippians stood in for the Thessalonians when Paul served them. So what Paul received from the Macedonians and the Philippians was a gift from them because they were not the ones receiving his ministry at the time, but at the same time, they were wages paid him on behalf of the churches that couldn't pay him.

Furthermore, as you rightly pointed out, payment was a right. You do no wrong whatsoever whe you exercise your rights or waive them. The only thing that counts is how wise it is to exercise or waive them in the currency of situations.

Mr anony:
Deducing from the command to take no extra personal belongings but eat whatever they set before you.

The command was to not provide for their needs because the laborer is worthy of his hire, Our Lord said. However, if what was set before them was as big as a house, were they commanded to refuse it?

Image123:
Fixed. Sorry for the late reply

Seen. Thank you sir.

Candour: ...Christians are expected to be modest and contented, how much more a minister of the gospel?...

Does contentedness apply to large quantities too? If a rich man drives a Porsche, is he being modest?

Ihedinobi:
And I've heard this argument that "there is no place in the NT where anyone was either instructed to pay tithes or that anyone did" and it has been offered severally as justification for the validity of the non-tithing position. But, that is an argument from silence. That it wasn't recorded didn't necessarily mean that it had been tithing had been annulled. It could simply mean that it was taken for granted or swallowed into a more comprehensive doctrine. To demonstrate the difficulty of that position, let me ask you, can you produce any NT Scripture that specifically nullified tithing, a Scripture that does not offer ambiguity in interpretation?

Weldone bro. I must say this thread has helped me understand some things better how delicate ministry finance is. I however have some enquiry with respect to the above quote from your write up.

1. With our knowledge of Jewish laws and customs, can we confidently say Jesus collected tithes as part of contributions to his ministry?

2. Can we also confidently say the apostles including Paul who were all Jewish collected tithes from people when their is no record of them being from the tribe of Levi?

3. If the apostles didn't collect tithes, it follows that NO early christian paid tithes. Then won't it be correct to agree with Catholic records which show that tithes only came into Christianity @ a council in 585AD?

I'm all for catering for ministers of the gospel. Paul and the other apostles received support. Whether its a structured salary or having their bills picked by the church makes no difference to me as long as their needs are met. What I believe we should watch is greed and I believe our Lord and the apostles will agree.

Ihedinobi:

Does contentedness apply to large quantities too? If a rich man drives a Porsche, is he being modest?

Why not my bro? He can surely. It's modesty but pastors are called fathers in the lord abi? How will you and I feel if our father has money to spend on luxuries but can't seem to take our physical welfare seriously?

Remember the church is a family right?

Candour:

Weldone bro. I must say this thread has helped me understand some things better how delicate ministry finance is. I however have some enquiry with respect to the above quote from your write up.

1. With our knowledge of Jewish laws and customs, can we confidently say Jesus collected tithes as part of contributions to his ministry?

2. Can we also confidently say the apostles including Paul who were all Jewish collected tithes from people when their is no record of them being from the tribe of Levi?

3. If the apostles didn't collect tithes, it follows that NO early christian paid tithes. Then won't it be correct to agree with Catholic records which show that tithes only came into Christianity @ a council in 585AD?

I'm all for catering for ministers of the gospel. Paul and the other apostles received support. Whether its a structured salary or having their bills picked by the church makes no difference to me as long as their needs are met. What I believe we should watch is greed and I believe our Lord and the apostles will agree.

Fair questions I'm sure but I was not making a case at all in that part of my post that I need to defend. I was pointing out something wrong about a position. I don't intend to discuss tithing on this thread.

Regardless, answers to your questions will bring us back to something I've already insinuated: that the case against tithing that some people try to make is based on inferences, reasonable or not, rather than clear, unambiguous statements from the New Testament which are what these particular anti-tithers demand of pro-tithers. Do you get my point now?

Ihedinobi:

Fair questions I'm sure but I was not making a case at all in that part of my post that I need to defend. I was pointing out something wrong about a position. I don't intend to discuss tithing on this thread.

Regardless, answers to your questions will bring us back to something I've already insinuated: that the case against tithing that some people try to make is based on inferences, reasonable or not, rather than clear, unambiguous statements from the New Testament which are what these particular anti-tithers demand of pro-tithers. Do you get my point now?

No problems bro. I respect your decision not to discuss it here.

God bless us all as we follow the thread and learn.

Candour:

Why not my bro? He can surely. It's modesty but pastors are called fathers in the lord abi? How will you and I feel if our father has money to spend on luxuries but can't seem to take our physical welfare seriously?

Remember the church is a family right?

I totally agree that it is no modesty that the keepers or messengers of a church should be in affluence when many of those whom they keep are in need. But I was focused on only that part of your statement that I quoted to illuminate something: that it isn't how much a person has that decides whether they are content or not and it isn't how they use what they have that decides whether they're modest. Contentment and modesty are determined by context: how does the person in question relate to their environment, social and otherwise?

So a pastor who has millions and rides his own private jets is not a wicked shepherd for all that. He is a wicked shepherd for having all that when there are those under his wings who barely feed well, barely provide enough for their children, barely cover their unclothedness etc etc. He is the point of distribution. A pastor is a shepherd. It is his job to make sure that the children of God are well provided for in everything just like a shepherd is responsible to ensure that the sheep in his charge are properly fed and provided for in everything and safe from all harm.

Ihedinobi:

I totally agree that it is no modesty that the keepers or messengers of a church should be in affluence when many of those whom they keep are in need. But I was focused on only that part of your statement that I quoted to illuminate something: that it isn't how much a person has that decides whether they are content or not and it isn't how they use what they have that decides whether they're modest. Contentment and modesty are determined by context: how does the person in question relate to their environment, social and otherwise?

So a pastor who has millions and rides his own private jets is not a wicked shepherd for all that. He is a wicked shepherd for having all that when there are those under his wings who barely feed well, barely provide enough for their children, barely cover their unclothedness etc etc. He is the point of distribution. A pastor is a shepherd. It is his job to make sure that the children of God are well provided for in everything just like a shepherd is responsible to ensure that the sheep in his charge are properly fed and provided for in everything and safe from all harm .

Ihedinobi, I send you a million holy kisses for the bolded part.

This is what I wish and pray Christendom will realise today. If we can't imbibe the spirit of distribution, how do we show we are Christlike?

Meanwhile I agree that modesty is subjective

I think I can rest my case.

God bless you my dear brother.