Jump to content
  • Welcome Guest

    For an ad free experience on Online Baptist, Please login or register for free

Will A Man Rob God?


Recommended Posts

  • Members

From manilla.usembassy.gov:

Non-Resident Aliens Who Intend to Work in the Philippines


(DOLE) to secure an Alien Employment Permit (AEP).

All foreign nationals seeking admission to the Philippines for the purpose of employment, all non-resident foreign nationals already working in the Philippines, and all non-resident foreign nationals admitted to the Philippines on on-working visas, who wish to work in the Philippines, regardless of the source of compensation and duration of employment are required by the Philippine

Department of Labor and Employment



(BLE). Missionaries or religious workers who intend to engage in gainful employment are not exempted from securing an AEP.

NOTE: In support of the UN Spouse Employment Policy, the Philippine government has also exempted the spouses of members of international organizations from securing an AEP. Spouses however, are required to file an application for a Certificate of Exemption from the DOLE's

Bureau of Local Employment



If your missionary friend says he is not allowed to work, something is not adding up. It is evident that missionaries are indeed allowed to have gainful employment in the Philippines.




Well that was a few years ago. His church had to make a donation to a missionary organisation over here, from time to time, and thay paid him.
Link to comment
Share on other sites


Deputation is an unbiblical practice. Jesus sent the Disciples out telling them to take no scrip, nor money for their purse. The Apostle Paul did not go from Church to Church drumming up money for missionary support before entering into his missionary journeys.

No, as a matter of fact, he Paul indicates that he worked to sustain himself and his company. (Acts 18:3, 20:34, 28:30; 1 Corinthians 9:15; 1 Thessalonians 2:9; and 2 Thessalonians 3:8)

Again, deputation is a definition and so is trinity...moot, at best. Gathering support and opportunity for those not going to the fields to participate in taking the gospel to all nations. If you don't want it, don't bark against it but, don't attempt to justify lack of love as Bible principle.


There is one church, there is no church to church, just God's people strung all over the earth. You call missionaries "drummers" while they go about taking the word of God to a world in need of salvation? I don't believe you mean that in a loving way, do you? They don't have the necessary resources to go on there way and do what God commanded them. Why? Because of the hardness of men's hearts to support the propagation, to give, to share, to participate, and to love. I guess the answer to you being or having been a missionary was no.

You're alluding to scriptures which purely and obviously pertain to the disciples while Christ was with them, and I venture to say out of context. This goes with the others you allude to…Matthew 10:10 “Nor scrip for your journey, neither two coats, neither shoes, nor yet staves: for the workman is worthy of his meat.” You’re using incorrect context as excuse to withhold from the missionary's necessity. Go ahead Ananias withhold. Paul did work beside those he took the gospel to. So do the missionaries I support, they work side by side. Why? Paul could have asked and most likely been provided for. It was for the sake of the purety of the gospel message. Although many in foreign lands are not permitted to have gainful employment to support their necessity, most if not all work alongside the indigenous peoples. They have to get over there to those places, they have to provide printed literature (in the native language…its not free), they have to travel nearly impassable roads. Paul was a citizen of Rome and didn't have to have passports, visa approval, or vaccinations. Paul didn't have a wife or children to care for, most missionaries I know go to the field with at least a wife. The appearance of your attitude is selfish, thankless, self-centered, and reckless.

You used Acts 18:3 out of context. Paul used his skill to help a displaced man and his wife while seeking opportunity to spread the gospel.
You used Acts 20:34 out of context. Paul was telling these people he didn't bring the gospel to them with pretext to get rich.
Never mind that Paul only wanted his necessities provided for as he often spoke of, but that many churches (Christians) were unwilling to do so. So Paul worked for food and raiment just like our missionaries do today side by side with those they minister to.
You have taken Acts 28:30 so far out of context in your use that I implore you to read this for yourself in context; please don't overlook what Paul was doing while at the hired house (vs. 31).
In 1 Cor 9:15 I couldn’t wrap my mind around this so I resorted to JFB for commentary: "Paul's special gift of continency, which enabled him to abstain from marriage, and his ability to maintain himself without interrupting seriously his ministry, made that expedient to him which is ordinarily inexpedient; namely, that the ministry should not be supported by the people." Jamieson, Fausset & Brown
1 Thessalonians 2:9; and 2 Thessalonians 3:8
Again, I tell you that some nations don’t allow gainful employment on a visa today while other nations may insist on it. It is important to peoples of other nations that you don’t appear to be wanting of anything. It’s a good thing tent makers were in high demand when Paul preached the gospel. I’m not so sure whatever livlihood a missionary may have had before embarking on God’s mission would be as transferrable.

Romans 12:9,10,13
9 Let love be without dissimulation. Abhor that which is evil; cleave to that which is good.
10 Be kindly affectioned one to another with brotherly love; in honour preferring one another;
13 Distributing to the necessity of saints; given to hospitality.

(No matter what the definition used, such as...deputation.)

Philippians 4:14-18
14 Notwithstanding ye have well done, that ye did communicate with my affliction.
15 Now ye Philippians know also, that in the beginning of the gospel, when I departed from Macedonia, no church communicated with me as concerning giving and receiving, but ye only.
16 For even in Thessalonica ye sent once and again unto my necessity.
17 Not because I desire a gift: but I desire fruit that may abound to your account.
18 But I have all, and abound: I am full, having received of Epaphroditus the things which were sent from you, an odour of a sweet smell, a sacrifice acceptable, wellpleasing to God.

(Fruit that may abound to your account, now how could that be?)
John 4:36-38


Brother, God loves us both. Thank the Lord.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I am not evading at all.
The location of Melchizedek's reign show it was in the land of Canaan, which at that time was a pagan land inhabited by a cursed people. Melchizedek was a king over pagan people residing in a pagan land. There is no getting around that fact.

You also keep dodging the fact that Abram did not take that tithe to a Tabernacle, nor did he take it to a Church.

And that tithe that was given to Melchizedek was not personal property, it was not money that Abram/Levi had worked for. It was the spoils of war. You keep evading that fact.

As I said, if I am ever in a war, I will gladly imitate Abram and give 10% to a king of a pagan land.

Did I ever say that Melchizedek was NOT the king at Jerusalem? No, I didn't say that.
YOU insist on Melchizedek being a Baalite priest, and you defend that absurd idea to the hilt, quoting all kinds of MEN to support your idea.
The problem is that Psalm 110 and Hebrews 7 are clearly in contradiction to your man-made theory. If Melchizedek is a Baalite priest - as you claim - then how in the world does Jesus Christ follow him in this priestly line? Would that not then mean that Jesus Christ was a priest of Baal, just as Melchizedek was???? What blasphemy!

As far as missionaries - or pastors - working outside jobs, I Cor. 9 is absolutely clear. The church is to provide for the pastor. Period. Paul abstained from it because he had a special calling from God.
Most countries will not allow missionaries in as missionaries. Sure, they could go in as laborers, but then the time and energy of the "missionary" is consumed with labor, living, etc. and he never really gets to do the evangelism and training that is necessary.
Here is a better question. Why would we NOT want to support foreign missionaries (and even home missions - i.e. church planting!)?
You say "it is not Scriptural."
I say, "Is it UN-scriptural?" Is there anything in Scripture that would prevent us from allowing the practice of "deputation" as we know it? Can you give us a thorough Bible study that would prove beyond any reasonable doubt that it is absolutely wrong and sinful to raise funds to be supported in the efforts to go to foreign lands, win foreigners to Christ, and then train them to keep their own churches?
Thank God for the work William Carey did, and then Judson, and all who followed. But if we had listened to the detractors - who said very much the same thing you are saying, only with a much stronger Calvinistic bent to it - those mission works and Bible translations would never have been made.

Maybe deputation is not in the Bible, but it is certainly not UN-Biblical.
Meeting in a church building is not in the Bible.
Bus routes are not in the Bible.
Sunday Schools are not in the Bible.
Mid-week prayer meetings are not in the Bible.
Week long revival meetings are not in the Bible.

In fact, Paul said we are to be content with food and raiment - so I guess we should all sell our houses and cars and appliances?

Let's be reasonable about this brother!

In Christ,
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members


Again, deputation is a definition and so is trinity...moot, at best. Gathering support and opportunity for those not going to the fields to participate in taking the gospel to all nations. If you don't want it, don't bark against it but, don't attempt to justify lack of love as Bible principle.


There is one church, there is no church to church, just God's people strung all over the earth. You call missionaries "drummers" while they go about taking the word of God to a world in need of salvation? I don't believe you mean that in a loving way, do you? They don't have the necessary resources to go on there way and do what God commanded them. Why? Because of the hardness of men's hearts to support the propagation, to give, to share, to participate, and to love. I guess the answer to you being or having been a missionary was no.

You're alluding to scriptures which purely and obviously pertain to the disciples while Christ was with them, and I venture to say out of context. This goes with the others you allude to…Matthew 10:10 “Nor scrip for your journey, neither two coats, neither shoes, nor yet staves: for the workman is worthy of his meat.” You’re using incorrect context as excuse to withhold from the missionary's necessity. Go ahead Ananias withhold. Paul did work beside those he took the gospel to. So do the missionaries I support, they work side by side. Why? Paul could have asked and most likely been provided for. It was for the sake of the purety of the gospel message. Although many in foreign lands are not permitted to have gainful employment to support their necessity, most if not all work alongside the indigenous peoples. They have to get over there to those places, they have to provide printed literature (in the native language…its not free), they have to travel nearly impassable roads. Paul was a citizen of Rome and didn't have to have passports, visa approval, or vaccinations. Paul didn't have a wife or children to care for, most missionaries I know go to the field with at least a wife. The appearance of your attitude is selfish, thankless, self-centered, and reckless.

You used Acts 18:3 out of context. Paul used his skill to help a displaced man and his wife while seeking opportunity to spread the gospel.
You used Acts 20:34 out of context. Paul was telling these people he didn't bring the gospel to them with pretext to get rich.
Never mind that Paul only wanted his necessities provided for as he often spoke of, but that many churches (Christians) were unwilling to do so. So Paul worked for food and raiment just like our missionaries do today side by side with those they minister to.
You have taken Acts 28:30 so far out of context in your use that I implore you to read this for yourself in context; please don't overlook what Paul was doing while at the hired house (vs. 31).
In 1 Cor 9:15 I couldn’t wrap my mind around this so I resorted to JFB for commentary: "Paul's special gift of continency, which enabled him to abstain from marriage, and his ability to maintain himself without interrupting seriously his ministry, made that expedient to him which is ordinarily inexpedient; namely, that the ministry should not be supported by the people." Jamieson, Fausset & Brown
1 Thessalonians 2:9; and 2 Thessalonians 3:8
Again, I tell you that some nations don’t allow gainful employment on a visa today while other nations may insist on it. It is important to peoples of other nations that you don’t appear to be wanting of anything. It’s a good thing tent makers were in high demand when Paul preached the gospel. I’m not so sure whatever livlihood a missionary may have had before embarking on God’s mission would be as transferrable.

Romans 12:9,10,13
9 Let love be without dissimulation. Abhor that which is evil; cleave to that which is good.
10 Be kindly affectioned one to another with brotherly love; in honour preferring one another;
13 Distributing to the necessity of saints; given to hospitality.

(No matter what the definition used, such as...deputation.)

Philippians 4:14-18
14 Notwithstanding ye have well done, that ye did communicate with my affliction.
15 Now ye Philippians know also, that in the beginning of the gospel, when I departed from Macedonia, no church communicated with me as concerning giving and receiving, but ye only.
16 For even in Thessalonica ye sent once and again unto my necessity.
17 Not because I desire a gift: but I desire fruit that may abound to your account.
18 But I have all, and abound: I am full, having received of Epaphroditus the things which were sent from you, an odour of a sweet smell, a sacrifice acceptable, wellpleasing to God.

(Fruit that may abound to your account, now how could that be?)
John 4:36-38


Brother, God loves us both. Thank the Lord.
You are falsely accusing me. I don't have a lack of love for mission work. What I have a problem with is people saying God called them to do something when it is apparent they have a lack of faith in God supplying their need. Paul never practiced, nor taught the things that are practiced in Churches today when it comes to missionaries and support.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members


Did I ever say that Melchizedek was NOT the king at Jerusalem? No, I didn't say that.
YOU insist on Melchizedek being a Baalite priest, and you defend that absurd idea to the hilt, quoting all kinds of MEN to support your idea.
The problem is that Psalm 110 and Hebrews 7 are clearly in contradiction to your man-made theory. If Melchizedek is a Baalite priest - as you claim - then how in the world does Jesus Christ follow him in this priestly line? Would that not then mean that Jesus Christ was a priest of Baal, just as Melchizedek was???? What blasphemy!

As far as missionaries - or pastors - working outside jobs, I Cor. 9 is absolutely clear. The church is to provide for the pastor. Period. Paul abstained from it because he had a special calling from God.
Most countries will not allow missionaries in as missionaries. Sure, they could go in as laborers, but then the time and energy of the "missionary" is consumed with labor, living, etc. and he never really gets to do the evangelism and training that is necessary.
Here is a better question. Why would we NOT want to support foreign missionaries (and even home missions - i.e. church planting!)?
You say "it is not Scriptural."
I say, "Is it UN-scriptural?" Is there anything in Scripture that would prevent us from allowing the practice of "deputation" as we know it? Can you give us a thorough Bible study that would prove beyond any reasonable doubt that it is absolutely wrong and sinful to raise funds to be supported in the efforts to go to foreign lands, win foreigners to Christ, and then train them to keep their own churches?
Thank God for the work William Carey did, and then Judson, and all who followed. But if we had listened to the detractors - who said very much the same thing you are saying, only with a much stronger Calvinistic bent to it - those mission works and Bible translations would never have been made.

Maybe deputation is not in the Bible, but it is certainly not UN-Biblical.
Meeting in a church building is not in the Bible.
Bus routes are not in the Bible.
Sunday Schools are not in the Bible.
Mid-week prayer meetings are not in the Bible.
Week long revival meetings are not in the Bible.

In fact, Paul said we are to be content with food and raiment - so I guess we should all sell our houses and cars and appliances?

Let's be reasonable about this brother!

In Christ,
Melchizedek was not the king of Jerusalem. Jebus/Jerusalem was South of Salem/Shalem. Melchizedek ruled over a pagan people in a pagan land. Abram never identified him a a servant of Jehovah God, but Abram did identify himself as a servant of Jehovah God.

Abram tithed of the spoils of war because it was mandatory for the victors of a war to do so. He did not tithe to him because he was God's priest. If he had tithed because Melchizedek was God's priest, he would have tithed his own belongings. Nowhere does Scripture say Melchizedek was given property that belonged to Abram. Nowhere is there reference to anyone else giving tithes to Melchizedek.

Sorry, but Abram's tithe cannot be used to say Christians should tithe their money today.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members


Sorry, but Abram's tithe cannot be used to say Christians should tithe their money today.

Actually, nothing from the Old Testament can rightly be used to override how Chrisitians are told to give under the New Testament.
Link to comment
Share on other sites


You are falsely accusing me. I don't have a lack of love for mission work. What I have a problem with is people saying God called them to do something when it is apparent they have a lack of faith in God supplying their need. Paul never practiced, nor taught the things that are practiced in Churches today when it comes to missionaries and support.

You are falsely accusing me. I don't have a lack of love for mission work. What I have a problem with is people saying God called them to do something when it is apparent they have a lack of faith in God supplying their need. Paul never practiced, nor taught the things that are practiced in Churches today when it comes to missionaries and support.


Don't attempt to change the subject. Whether or not you lack love for missions is between you and God. You're not answering any of the truths I put before you above.

"No Holy Spirit, no love, no provision." If you feel like this is specifically speaking to you then you have too high of an opinion of self.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I have not used any verses out of context.

It is clear, however, that you have.

Romans 12 has nothing whatsoever with the unbiblical practice of begging for support money.

As I said previously, Where God guides, God provides. If one feels that one has to beg money to go out in the mission field before answering a call from God, it shows one of two things...

1. Either God has not called that one to the mission field
or
2. God has called, but that one doesn't have faith that God provides for those He calls.

It is a disgrace to beg others to support you if God told you to go into the mission field. If God told you to go, He will also tell others to assist if necessary, He never tells one to beg for money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

to several of you posting against missionaries recieving support, you need to do an honest study of the phrase "brought forward" in our Bible.
You guys are so far out of line with the word of God that I can't even follow your logic. And you're also stuck in Kingdom passages that have nada to do with the church of Christ which is His body. No scrip,?? Seriously? You'd toss that out there and not blush?

God bless,
calvary
(try starting with 3 John and help me understand what "taking nothing from the gentiles" means)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Tithe does indeed mean "a tenth"

And you are correct, what the farmers and herders of Israel gave was far more than a tenth. Funny how those who insist that tithing is for today don't even follow the Biblical tithe.

Many don't even realize that neither Jesus, nor His disciples were required to tithe under the Mosaic Law.


and niether am I, but I do.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

to several of you posting against missionaries recieving support, you need to do an honest study of the phrase "brought forward" in our Bible.
You guys are so far out of line with the word of God that I can't even follow your logic. And you're also stuck in Kingdom passages that have nada to do with the church of Christ which is His body. No scrip,?? Seriously? You'd toss that out there and not blush?

God bless,
calvary
(try starting with 3 John and help me understand what "taking nothing from the gentiles" means)
I am not against missionaries receiving support. Nowhere have I said such. What I am against is their begging other Church's for support. The practice of "drumming up support through deputation is highly unscriptural.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I am not against missionaries receiving support. Nowhere have I said such. What I am against is their begging other Church's for support. The practice of "drumming up support through deputation is highly unscriptural.


Missionaries would not need to "drum" up support if believers gave their 10%!!! Even if it isn't NT bible doctrine to give 10%, if EVERY believer gave 10% there would be more than enough to go around. I stopped my studies because the fact is, regardless of what anyone says, GOD DOES NOT DEPOSIT A SALARY INTO YOUR ACCOUNT AT THE END OF EVERY MONTH!! He gave us a principle to work with in order to support His work.
Every KJV only church I have ever seen that preaches sound doctrine in TRUTH is small with barely enough to support a pastor, never mind missionaries. I don't know what it's like in other countries, but that's the case here. I need to work to put food on the table, every man needs to work to feed his family, so why do most not regard a pastors calling as "WORK" and as such begrudge their earning a decent wage? Also, why must most bible students go through years of borderline poverty, before they "EARN" the right to a pathetic pittance from the church? Even apprentices earn more!! Edited by 2Tim215
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Oh?

Where do you guys come up with all this? Cerntainly not the Word of God.

Christians are not required to give 10% of their money to support missionaries.

The Biblical tithe was not used to support missionaries, Abrams tithe of the spoils of war were not to support missionaries.

You know, the Word of God isn't a book you can add to any time you think something needs to be changed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

SFIC, did you not read, or are you so stuck in your opinion that that is all you can see?


Even if it isn't NT bible doctrine to give 10%, if EVERY believer gave 10% there would be more than enough to go around. I stopped my studies because the fact is, regardless of what anyone says, GOD DOES NOT DEPOSIT A SALARY INTO YOUR ACCOUNT AT THE END OF EVERY MONTH!! He gave us a principle to work with in order to support His work.



I highlighted in blue so that you can read it now

2Ch 31:5 And as soon as the commandment came abroad, the children of Israel brought in abundance the firstfruits of corn, wine, and oil, and honey, and of all the increase of the field; and the tithe of all things brought they in abundantly.

I think all things could possibly include money.

2Ch 31:10 And Azariah the chief priest of the house of Zadok answered him, and said, Since the people began to bring the offerings into the house of the LORD, we have had enough to eat, and have left plenty: for the LORD hath blessed his people; and that which is left is this great store.

Note that "since" the people began to bring in their offerings the priests had enough to eat, implying that they didn't before, and there was more than needed - maybe enough to support missionaries you think?

It's a principle that works because God made it work and I think that you are just being supercilious.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Oh?

Where do you guys come up with all this? Cerntainly not the Word of God.

Christians are not required to give 10% of their money to support missionaries.

The Biblical tithe was not used to support missionaries, Abrams tithe of the spoils of war were not to support missionaries.

You know, the Word of God isn't a book you can add to any time you think something needs to be changed.


I think you are taking this to the extreme like you do with your position that people can't be saved from other versions of the bible.

It is the responsiblilty of the church to support their missionaries. We send them out we should help them out. The Mormons seem to have no problem with this. Maybe that's why they are growing while bible believing churches are shrinking.

I just can't fathom how you can't see this. Edited by Wilchbla
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...