Mr Fresh, take a step back, have a drink and brethe in and out.

You had a post suggesting pastorship was been bastardised/financial rewards/career pastors, you raised some questions and tried to adduce the notion of tithes and offering as an inducement to church planting. Some-how, insinuating people were making a joke of the calling. You need to re-read your post again and I would suggest you only make ascertions if you know anyone personally that has turned the christain calling to a joke. Am not talking of excesses here, but the chistain calling.

I am not a pastor but i am called to proclaim the good news. There is no special calling needed for that. Now if I do that all the time or not is a different question. I have a career and other aspirations that makes it practically impossible for me to go to the uppermost part of the earth to preach. Do i do my bit, No, i fall short at times.

IF you are a christain you share the same basic calling as pastors.

@Joagbaje
As usual you are wrong, Paul also worked when he was in thessalonia. It is also recorded in Acts that he worked to earn his living.

Well You're right for once

Joagbaje:

Well You're right for once

Was that really necessary?

Well, now that you agree Paul had a pattern of making his hands provide for his needs depite being a 'full time minister', is he a good enough eample for present day ministers who "sacrificially" give up "lucrative jobs" to earn more decent income in 'full time ministry'? Contrary to what you assume, this is no blind criticism. What you call "lay ministry" is the trend we observe in Paul. So where did the salaries come from? We may as well pay every usher, prayer warrior, worship singers etc. If it sounds absurd to pay new testament believers for serving in the Lord's vineyard, it is equally faulty to pay a pastor (priest) based on the unscriptural clergy/laity division that you propose. God's family is a kingdom of priests and kings! We thrive under functional leadership, no doubt, but we don't owe these leaders any salaries.

Posted by: Joagbaje  
Insert Quote
Quote from: Pastor Kun on Today at 12:08:44 PM
@Joagbaje
"Paul was a full time minister" yet the bible records on several occasions that he was working to support himself. So going by your using the example of Paul, other full time ministers should exemplify him and also work to support themselves.


Paul only worked in Corinth because of the carnality of the Corinthians ,they were stingy. So ,paul didnt want them to call him names due to their carnal minds. He supported himself while he was with them he also recieved money from other churches.

He also made his action clear to them. He made them know he was aware of his rights as a minister to recieve money from them like other apostles. Who were also on full time .

1 Corinthians 9:4-9
4 Have we not the right to our food and drink [at the expense of the churches]?
5 Have we not the right also to take along with us a Christian sister as wife, as do the other apostles and the Lords brothers and Cephas (Peter)?
6 Or is it only Barnabas and I who have no right to refrain from doing manual labor for a livelihood [in order to go about the work of the ministry]?
7 [Consider this:] What soldier at any time serves at his own expense? Who plants a vineyard and does not eat any of the fruit of it? Who tends a flock and does not partake of the milk of the flock?
8 Do I say this only on human authority and as a man reasons? Does not the Law endorse the same principle?
9 For in the Law of Moses it is written, You shall not muzzle an ox when it is treading out the corn. Is it [only] for oxen that God cares?

The point is. Ministers who are called to lay ministry ,doing business and jobs should go ahead , and those who are not allowed to do any other thing should not be condemned.

Some people have resigned lucrative jobs to go full time ministry. It's not laziness it's sacrifice. Some have family turned agsinst them , some even experience wives divorcing them.

Half quoting scriptures is a tradition in Christ Embassy
And twisting the bible to make it say what you want

One you are either copying from pastor Chris books, or you’re going out your way to make the bible say what you want it to say!

I am not happy with you the now I see what your trying to do?
Now I like you but this is not good I come to as brother in Christ trying to warn you what you’re doing is wrong on so many levels I beg you with all the love in my heart repent

Why did you leave the passages out that clearly showing that the gospel is to be free of charge and the Gospel is not to be exploited in short?

I have seen what you’re doing there with the scriptures I have seen this in many “Christ Embassy” churches.
You have been half quote passages and even skip over certain verses now please read things in context?

Now why don’t you please read the full verses and the passages?

(Joagbaje) now i love you please don't be angry but take this as a point of correction.

now stop reading little red riding hood for false prophets   it mr

Matthew 12:36 But I tell you that men will have to give account on the Day of Judgment for every careless word they have spoken

Matthew 12:36 But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.

(KJV) 2 Peter 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
(English Standard Version) as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.)

(NIV) (2 Peter 3:16-18) 16 He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.17 Therefore, dear friends, since you have been forewarned, be on your guard so that you may not be carried away by the error of the lawless and fall from your secure position. 18 But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and forever! Amen.

Psalm 56:5 All day long they twist my words; they are always plotting to harm me.

Jeremiah 23:36 But you must not mention 'the oracle of the LORD' again, because every man's own word becomes his oracle and so you distort the words of the living God, the LORD Almighty, our God. Hebrews 5:11 We have much to say about this, but it is hard to explain because you are slow to learn.

2 Peter 2:14 With eyes full of adultery, they never stop sinning; they seduce the unstable; they are experts in greed--an accursed brood!

2 Peter 3:2 I want you to recall the words spoken in the past by the holy prophets and the command given by our Lord and Saviour through your apostles.

2 Peter 3:14 So then, dear friends, since you are looking forward to this, make every effort to be found spotless, blameless and at peace with him.

1 Corinthians 9:10 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.
1 Corinthians 9:11 If we have sown unto you spiritual things, is it a great thing if we shall reap your carnal things?
1 Corinthians 9:12If 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.
1 Corinthians 9:13 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?
1 Corinthians 9:14Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel.
1 Corinthians 9:15 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.
1 Corinthians 9:16For though I preach the gospel, I have nothing to glory of: for necessity is laid upon me; yea, woe is unto me, if I preach not the gospel!
1 Corinthians 9:17For if I do this thing willingly, I have a reward: but if against my will, a dispensation of the gospel is committed unto me.
1 Corinthians 9:18What is my reward then? Verily that, when I preach the gospel, I may make the gospel of Christ without charge, that I abuse not my power in the gospel.
1 Corinthians 9:19For though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more.

cautious:

Was that really necessary?

[b]Well, now that you agree Paul had a pattern of making his hands provide for his needs depite being a 'full time minister', is he a good enough eample for present day ministers who "sacrificially" give up "lucrative jobs" to earn more decent income in 'full time ministry'? Contrary to what you assume, this is no blind criticism. [/b]What you call "lay ministry" is the trend we observe in Paul. So where did the salaries come from? We may as well pay every usher, prayer warrior, worship singers etc. If it sounds absurd to pay new testament believers for serving in the Lord's vineyard, it is equally faulty to pay a pastor (priest) based on the unscriptural clergy/laity division that you propose. God's family is a kingdom of priests and kings! We thrive under functional leadership, no doubt, but we don't owe these leaders any salaries.

Thank you cautious,

You see, people of today just want to hide under certain bible verses that suits them and create all sorts of ungodly teachings out of such. I don't have to keep arguing or debating everyone but we all agree to the fact that support to ministers of God is biblical. However, fixed salary is baseless even as Apostle Paul they also quote did full time ministry plus also have a pattern of making his hands provide for his needs. The rights of an Apostle that Paul talked about was simply sharing and free will giving that doesn't stay fixed as if when Paul doesn't get his support, he will not live or provide for his needs. I hope we have all being blessed by this thread anyway. Thank you all.

^^

@Goshen360:

I think what you are missing is that you are arguing against differing sets of people.

1 set (Debosky etc) are fair and wish to stop you from leaning too far in one direction thus becoming as it were, too rigid about something that truly actually depends on motives. If for example, a "missionary" (left family, not working so he can minister in a village, to lepers in their colony etc) receives a "regular" support, I think this is alright and I believe you do too. His family may receive a regular fixed "salary" from a group of people who in effect have formed a "church" whether they be a named church or not. That is an example of scriptural-ly sound support for ministers. You will find yourself wrong if you continue to NOT separate these people from second set.

Set 2 are almost all aspiring "pastors" or worshipers of such. They were brought up on corrupted doctrine and for them, the Gospel must be about profit! There is nothing you can do about these since they serve "pastor" and "tummy". Ignore them and just defend truth so that others can see a differing opinion.

I personally agree with you but tend towards what I believe set 1 is saying - there are circumstances that may require ministers get a salary. However, such are not to be deliberately sought for and should occur ONLY because of circumstances.

One question I wish to ask everyone - is there a Christian here who has asked God what his life vocation should be who did not hear that he should go preach? If then God wants US ALL to preach, why should it default to salaries except for those who circumstances force into dire situations AS WE FIND in the Biblical examples?

^^^
Thanks my brother. Your is a clear, true and pure talk. I hope to update on your comment. Thanks and God bless you.

^^^
Thanks my brother. Yours is a clear, true and pure talk. I hope to update on your comment. Thanks and God bless you.

nuclearboy:

^^

@Goshen360:

I think what you are missing is that you are arguing against differing sets of people.

1 set (Debosky etc) are fair and wish to stop you from leaning too far in one direction thus becoming as it were, too rigid about something that truly actually depends on motives. If for example, a "missionary" (left family, not working so he can minister in a village, to lepers in their colony etc) receives a "regular" support, I think this is alright and I believe you do too. His family may receive a regular fixed "salary" from a group of people who in effect have formed a "church" whether they be a named church or not. That is an example of scriptural-ly sound support for ministers. You will find yourself wrong if you continue to NOT separate these people from second set.

Set 2 are almost all aspiring "pastors" or worshipers of such. They were brought up on corrupted doctrine and for them, the Gospel must be about profit! There is nothing you can do about these since they serve "pastor" and "tummy". Ignore them and just defend truth so that others can see a differing opinion.

I personally agree with you but tend towards what I believe set 1 is saying - there are circumstances that may require ministers get a salary. However, such are not to be deliberately sought for and should occur ONLY because of circumstances.

One question I wish to ask everyone - is there a Christian here who has asked God what his life vocation should be who did not hear that he should go preach? If then God wants US ALL to preach, why should it default to salaries except for those who circumstances force into dire situations AS WE FIND in the Biblical examples?

i sniffed this set out from the first page hence my decision to not waste my time arguing with folks for whom the gospel is nothing but a means to an end.

cautious:

Well, now that you agree Paul had a pattern of making his hands provide for his needs depite being a 'full time minister', is he a good enough eample for present day ministers who "sacrificially" give up "lucrative jobs" to earn more decent income in 'full time ministry'?

The fact remains that it was Paul's personal choice and not a biblical rule or principle.  The principle is clear about welfare of full time ministers. Jesus himself layed the rules. Paul didn't deny the principle . He acknowledge the principle .but he chose to do otherwise for his personal reason

Joagbaje:

The fact remains that it was Paul's personal church and not a biblical rule or principle.  The principle is clear about welfare of full time ministers. Jesus himself layed the rules. Paul didn't deny the principle . He acknowledge the principle .but he chose to do otherwise for his personal reason

what does this mean? How do you own a church?

^^^^
I meant personal choice not church

Joagbaje:

^^^^
I meant personal choice not church

Ok. Clarified.

I find myself agreeing with nuclear boy again. . . . How times gave changed!

Salary in itself is not the issue, it's what drives the person - motivation for profit or a true desire to devote oneself solely to preaching the message without seeking other forms of vocation.

The potential for abuse is what has led me to rethink some of my giving to a 'church'.

I think what you disagreed with in the past, Debosky, was not my ideas (which have not changed) but my style of delivery, which definitely tended to attrition.


Some people have perfected the art of camouflage; log in with one ID, say something, log out, return as someone else and support. If need be, they obfuscate and challenge contrary points of view gradually derailing issues. Because they are criminal in nature, they keep changing and of course, using supporters more vacuous than themselves, gradually make you (the supposed opponent) the point! Harried and frustrated at seeing so much dishonesty, you lose temper and of course, the head-man (who is probably the same person) comes in again, ending up looking like a teacher of mature standing!

Truly is the devil a wise adversary. Very sharp and very aware of our emotions and how to use them against us! When push comes to shove, we share much, me & you - tithes were the main problem back then and remember, LIKE GOSHEN, I never fought against tithes EXCEPT AS being of compulsion based on the Word. However, they harped on technicalities in whatever one said till it seemed it was selfishness and turned it upside down! I have re-read dozens of threads and now know how to handle such issues.

Happy new year, by the way

debosky:

I find myself agreeing with nuclear boy again. . . . How times gave changed!

Salary in itself is not the issue, it's what drives the person - motivation for profit or a true desire to devote oneself solely to preaching the message without seeking other forms of vocation.

The potential for abuse is what has led me to rethink some of my giving to a 'church'.

The bit that I've highlighted interests me. I am pretty certain that I have not come across a single person who opposes the abuses of "tithing" or "firstfruit" etc who also says no giving should be made into "church". For all my ranting, I myself remain part of "organised church" for that matter.

Apart from 'abuse' (or maybe it is even part of the abuse) is that the placing of too much emphasis on giving to "church"  has the effect of making people fail to do that which Jesus and Christian doctrine demands of them. In fact, I often feel ashamed when I see non-Christians either with some knowledge of the Bible or simply with common sense tell our fellow professing Christians that it is better to give money to a more pressing cause e.g. someone in need of an operation, someone starving etc than to say noooo 'I cannot do that one because the money is meant for my "tithe" or my "firstfruit" oh'.

The placing of too much emphasis on giving to 'church' means that many Christians then resort to token acts of charity or cannot even then afford to help precisely where Jesus told them to help ---------- feed the hungry, clothe the nak.ed etc.

PS On the main thread topic, I also reason along same lines as debosky and nuclearboy; we do not have to be dogmatic about what constitutes "support"; it would depend on particular circumstances and particular circumstances may necessitate "support" in the form of (monthly etc) salary.

Interestingly even this thread follows what I have said. Goshen360 "leaned" too much to one side and that is all they have been attacking! Harried and trying to rally, he too seemed to have fallen in the same trap. Satan uses the same tricks!  

That is why I tried to pull him back and you will notice (to his credit), he DID pull back, showing he wasn't fanatic like they tried to make him seem!


[size=18pt]AND YES[/size]

Abuse of giving is the real problem most of us have! "Give to Church", "it belongs to church only","that is where your blessing is, a high priest gets you 100%, a senior priest gets you 60%, a ordinary pastor gets you 30%, church member gets you 10%, outsider gets you 5% AND IF YOU DARE GIVE an almagiri, you get a bomb in return"

Funny though, isn't it, that the almagiri might not have become an animal & killed your brother IF YOU HAD SHOWED HIM LOVE!

For me the point here is one not of "what is being given or collected" in the description of a salary but it is one of WELFARE

Thanks once again @  nuclearboy, I truly get the picture of what you are saying. My teachings updated. You, Enigma and debosky have seen the other side of the coin presented in this matter. I strongly agree with all of you the church had abused many teachings of Jesus just to suite their own "Church" desires. Let's all keep our eyes open, watch and pray. Like you rightly said, am not a fanatic as some people seems to see me. Thanks to my friend and brother, Joe also and everyone who had taken time to contribute. I might be raising another plague in the body of Christ soon and we look at it together. God help us all.

@away4real

What are we saying, what are you saying? what's the topic being discussed here? what makes you think i don't preach in my own way? should i also be demanding salaries or "support" too?

THIS WAS NOT DONE WITH THE FIRST YEARS OF THE CHURCH

THE APOSTLE NEVER TOOK WAGES