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


2 Corinthians 9:7 Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver.

I see no percentage mentioned there, do you?


That verse has no % in it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I guess it comes down to how each individual interprets the scriptures concerning giving?

There really is no need for interpretation with regards to how a Christian is to give. The instructions given to Christians in the New Testament are very clear.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Why did you fail to quote 2 Cor. 8:14?

"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality:"

The surrounding verses emphasise equal giving which can only be accomplished with a percentage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Sorry Irishman, that says nothing of a percentage either.

Paul is instructing the Church at Corinth to give out of their abundance. No instruction to give a percentage.

The word "abundance" is translated from the Greek word "perisseuma" and is speaking of "surplus". He is instructing them to give anything that is over and above that which they have need of.

For example, if you were in that Church and had 600 pieces of silver and your needs came to 478 pieces of silver your surplus would be the remaining 122 pieces of silver. This would be what Paul would instruct you to use to meet the need of others. No percentage, but that which is above.

John81, on the other hand may have the same amount of silver as you and his needs add up to 594 pieces of silver. His surplus would be a mere 6 pieces of silver.

Others may have the same amount, but have need of a total of 728 pieces of silver.

Now suppose you and John said you would each give 10% of your silver and no more? Guess those who have a greater need are out of luck, eh?

Edited by Standing Firm In Christ
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Okay, so are you against giving to missionaries too then, SFIC? It sounds like you have a scriptural problem with the deputation system that has worked for decades.
What does "take neither scrip, nor purse" mean to you, Rick?

No, I am not against giving to missionaries. I just do not believe it is Scriptural for missionaries to go from Church drumming up support for their ministry. Paul certainly did not. Instead, he encouraged the Church to see to the needs of the poor.

Of course missionaries need money to survive, I don't question that. But from what I see God sends them out telling them to look for the provisions they need in the towns or cities they are ministering in.

Mark 6:8-11 And commanded them that they should take nothing for their journey, save a staff only; no scrip, no bread, no money in their purse: But be shod with sandals; and not put on two coats. And he said unto them, In what place soever ye enter into an house, there abide till ye depart from that place. And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart thence, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.

If God is sending a missionary to a poor country, then that missionary should live as those he ministers to... poor also. Teaching them they can be rich in their poverty.

Where God guides, God provides. He will not tell one to go somewhere where He will not provide for that person. If one feels God has told him to go to the mission field, he needs to listen to God and go. I fiind no evidence of God telling someone to "Go, but first drum up support".

Luke 22:35 And he said unto them, When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye any thing? And they said, Nothing. Edited by Standing Firm In Christ
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I can just see it now.

God: Why did you not go where I sent you?
Man: Well God, I would have, but...
God: But?
Man: Well God, I went out on deputation, as is customary, to get support...
God: Deputation?
Man: Yes, so I could get the Churches to support me.
God: Did I not tell you to go?
Man: Yes, you did. But you see, I did not get enough support from the Churches.
God: So, it is the Church that is to be blamed for your disobedience to my instruction?
Man: Well, I didn't have the means to go. And the normal custom is to drum up support for the missionary.
God: Did I not tell you in My Word to take no money?
Man: Yes, but...
God: And did I not say that I will provide all your need according to My riches in Glory by Christ Jesus?
Man: Yes, but...
God: It appears you have a misguided faith. You believe I sent you, but don't have faith in me to sustain you. Your faith is directed toward man and not Me.
God: Did I not provide for the Apostles when I sent them out? Did I not provide for the Israelites in the wilderness? Did I not provide for Elijah by sending ravens with food? Am I not the same God today as I was then?

Luke 22:35 And he said unto them, When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye any thing? And they said, Nothing.

Edited by Standing Firm In Christ
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Why did you fail to quote 2 Cor. 8:14?

"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality:"

The surrounding verses emphasise equal giving which can only be accomplished with a percentage.

Actually, what this is speaking to is Christians should be living on basically even terms. We shouldn't have Christians living it up while others are in poverty. Whatever means we have to help elevate the lives of our brothers/sisters in Christ, we should do so, even when this means our standard of living may lower.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Okay, so are you against giving to missionaries too then, SFIC? It sounds like you have a scriptural problem with the deputation system that has worked for decades.

Who is against giving to missionaries? The deputation system is pretty new in the scheme of Christianity and in many cases is a huge waste of time and money. Why not use the methods that worked for centuries with Christians abundantly supporting missionaries without them having to take months away to go around begging for money and trying to put on a more exiciting presentation than other missionaries in order to move emotions so they can get the dollars?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

What better methods?

How about Biblical methods? If they say they are called of God to go to the mission fields, send them with neither scrip, nor money for their purse.

If God lays it on a Church's mind to send a special offering toward the missions (not the missionary's living expenses) then the Church should do such.

That is how Paul instructed the Church at Corinth, is it not?

And I am not so sure that the support for money should be sent. Paul came to the Church of Corinth himself to acquire the support funds for those in his mission field.

Let the missionaries come to the Church to pick up the support funds.

Edited by Standing Firm In Christ
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Standing Firm said this on the "Seven Dispensations" Thread:
I am not evading either Psalm 110 or Hebrews 7. The fact remains that this Melchizedek that Abram gave tithes to does not appear at all to be a Christophany. Both he and the king of Sodom went out to meet Abram. Abram gives 10% of the spoils of war to Melchizedek. Abram is not seen to praise Melchizedek, not even a "Blessed is Melchizedek, priest of the Most High God". But Melchizedek, on the other hand, salutes Abram with "Blessed be Abram of the most High God. Melchizedek brings bread and wine to Abram. All Abram has for this earthly king is 10% of what doesn't even belong to him. Abram then turns and gives the remaining 90% of the spoils (except for Lot and the food already eaten) to the pagan king of Sodom. Who got the greater praise in this picture? The king of Sodom, who got much, much more given to him than Melchizedek.

But you are evading! You continue to harp on Melchizedek being a pagan king. You continue to cite OUTSIDE SOURCES to prove your point, and dismiss the CLEAR SCRIPTURAL STATEMENTS on Melchizedek!
NOTE: This is not a discussion on WHO Melchizedek is (a pre-incarnate Christ, etc.) That is not the point here. I am not offering my opinion on that subject, because it is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

The FACT is FROM Scripture that Melchizedek is "the priest of the most high God." Genesis 14 states it clearly. Hebrews 7 confirms it. You can quote book after book after book and it does not change what THE SCRIPTURES SAY.
Furthermore, Melchizedek BLESSED Abraham. This is what Hebrews 7:7 says about it:
"And without all contradiction, the less is blessed of the better."
The Apostle Paul is claiming that Melchizedek is GREATER than Abraham, otherwise it makes no sense for Abraham to give a tithe to him.
Under the Law, the tithe went to the Levites and the Priests. So why would Abraham arbitrarily give a tithe to some pagan king? It makes no sense. Somebody is going to an awful lot of trouble to condemn the tithe, but they are going to PAGAN SOURCES to do so, condemning Melchizedek in the process.
Melchizedek was not some flunky pagan king, as you allege. Hebrews 7 confirms that he was a GODLY MAN who was the priest of the MOST HIGH GOD - and that does not mean Baal - it means JEHOVAH.

Psalm 110 and Hebrews 7 are in direct opposition to what you are teaching concerning Melchizedek.

Standing Firm said this on the "7 Dispensations" Thread:
Abram was obligated to pay to Melchizedek a tithe of the spoils of war. It was not because of a love for Melchizedek, but rather because of an Arab custom.

The fact that the pagan's had one they called their "most high god" and the fact that there is no indication that Abram addressed Melchizedek as priest of the Lord Most High, but Melchizedek spoke such of Abram speaks volums.

There is only one (HUGE!) problem with this theory. There is not ONE Scripture to support any of this. It is man-made conjecture. The Bible defines its own terms its own way. We are not bound to define Bible terms with secular meanings. If so, we would accept the pagan Greek philosophy about "Hades." It is not the same as the Biblical Hell.
The pagan Arab (alleged) tithe is not the same as the Biblical tithe.

Finally, the Gentile designation for the Biblical God is "the most high God." Not all "pagans" are pagans. Your evasion of Hebrews 7 and Psalm 110 speaks volumes, for these passages TELL US WHO HE IS.

PS - the King of Sodom was there because Abram fought on his behalf! It was Sodom's people and spoils that the other kings took - Abram got it all back. He gave 10% to God (via Melchizedek) - which is what God demanded of the OT Jew under the Law. God didn't demand 90% - only 10%. And again, since Abram won it in war, IT WAS HIS TO GIVE OR KEEP AS HE DESIRED. Only Socialist-Democrats-Communists give away what isn't theirs. The King of Sodom was not "Melchizedek's Ambassador." Where did you get that idea?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...