I was told “give where are are led, and give where you are fed.”
@ldebrobander
Ай бұрын
Guidelines for giving have already been established in the Scriptures by Christ and the Apostle Paul in the Epistles. If we follow the Scriptures, then money becomes a non-issue. Yes, giving -- not tithing. We are not under the Law, but under grace.
@februarydragon
5 жыл бұрын
A church actually spending money on its members. Never saw that before. Every church I ever saw always screamed about needing money. That's one reason why I quit going.
@CWOWI
5 жыл бұрын
Hi DinWinter. You need to get out more if you've never seen a church give back to its members, lol. The way they did church for the first 300 years, and the way cwowi does it now, and the way God is moving all over the world - is church in the home. It is very down to earth, rotating homes, rotating who leads each meeting, food, and making sure emergency needs are taken care of - that's Christianity 101. Acts 2: 42 is the pattern: They steadfastly took part in teaching, food, fellowship, and prayer. V46 adds they did this 'house to house'. You can email me and I'd be happy to send you my book Return of the First Church, which is my journey to house church and the historical and scriptural reasons for it. Email me at cwowi@aol.com if interested. If you know my story, you know the soul searching and scripture and history searching I did upon seeing many of the things I suspect you saw. But I didn't use them to justify dropping out, but rather to seek out how God does want us to do church. Much of the auditorium's sins are found in the pyramid structure they all have - the 'Moses' at the top with 'captains' over 1000's, 100's, 50's, and 10's, under him or her. That's part of the pyramid that is the auditorium church. That pattern follows that of Jethro's advice to Moses in Exodus 18 upon the setting up of the federal government of Israel, the brand new nation just out of the Sea. Historically Constantine legalized Christianity in a series of edicts in the 300's AD - I was in Pompeii listening to an Italian archaeologist explaining the temple to Apollo we were at, and how it became a church in the 300's. She said; "Constantine realized the pagan temples were perfect for his needs as he called the people out of home based churches. The temples had rows of seats, a platform, a pulpit, so he took over the pagan temples and brought the people out of homes to them." And that is historically accurate. House church isn't like that, it isn't the auditorium in miniature. I encourage you to learn, rather than drop out, using someone else's hypocrisy to justify your own hypocrisy. Blessings, John cwowi.org and cwowi@aol.com
@blakeparker180
5 жыл бұрын
Whoever reads this please pray for me: I want my life to be dedicated to GOD, pray that HIS plans are fulfilled in my life
@CWOWI
5 жыл бұрын
Blake - following up - I've prayed for you, checking up on you - you can update by email if you prefer: cwowi@aol.com John Fenn
@robinloper5243
Жыл бұрын
Good message, but the background music is distracting and unnecessary.
@marieherfert7640
6 жыл бұрын
Really good and freeing
@heather77
6 жыл бұрын
This is great
@billj503
6 жыл бұрын
love these vids
@misssymeeefamily6260
5 жыл бұрын
I want to find or host one! I’m going to start praying.
@CWOWI
5 жыл бұрын
Hi 2ndchance Family - if you email me at cwowi@aol.com we may have people in your area - let me know. John
@nelacostabianco
6 жыл бұрын
I fully endorse your paradigm to give and support those in need, however, you'll have to agree that the Eastern mindset is more conducive culturally to these gestures than the Western mindset. Its easy for people here to join a group and come across as sincere but take advantage of other's generosity.
@byhislove
6 жыл бұрын
LOL you are on a roll!
@ItsAshley08
4 жыл бұрын
I LOVE This! I am in Central South Carolina looking for a house church! Can you please help me find a house church?
@Pfsif
5 жыл бұрын
I will NEVER pay a professional clergyman to replace Christ as the head of the fellowship.
@j.m.edwards9156
4 жыл бұрын
Hate to say this because we are similar in thought in some ways with a home church, the horizontal giving is New Testament First Century Christianity. But the vertical giving you describe is the doctrine of Baalam. I’m not trying to knock you hard because you’re at least most of the way towards New Testament giving, but the only things that were given to the elders and leaders of First Century Christianity was firstfruits. This is not 10% but rather a token gesture to show appreciation for the labor in the Lord. 2 Thessalonians 3 is very clear that anyone who doesn’t provide their own bread is walking disorderly and believers are to shun that person until they work with their own hands the thing that is good so that they can have to give to those that need, not be the one who needs, especially as an elder or leader. The Paul principal acknowledges the value as worthy of being paid for, but dismissed that right entirely as qualifications for both bishops and deacons in both Timothy and Titus as well as other places. A livelihood that you don’t work for personally is filthy lucre. In a First Century eklesia, everyone works for their own bread. Studying the Bible and sharing that study doesn’t qualify as labor but rather die diligence for all believers.
@jeremyh7563
4 жыл бұрын
Nope, does not jive with NT instruction. The actions of Paul as an Apostle, or perhaps a missionary, regarding funding was different than that which was to take place within a body where Elders were in place. Among many other examples, 1 Tim 5:17-18 is the strongest affirmation of this as Paul is found instructing his representative to several congregations on what should be standard church life.
@j.m.edwards9156
4 жыл бұрын
Jeremy H I’d sure love to see all of these examples. I Tim 5:17 and 18 is the most abused and tortured verse for this idea of elder salary and payment under the guise of honor. I haven’t been able to find it anywhere else in New Testament Scripture, or for that matter anywhere within the first two centuries of Christianity. The only instances I have found are a firstfruits offering for a teacher or prophet, however, firstfruits would require thousands of gifts to even begin providing a living. They are intended as tokens of appreciation and gratitude, not subsistence as a tenth would be. And there are clear injunctions that anyone asking for funds in exchange for their services are Christ mongers or Christ salesmen who are to be rejected from the assembly.
@jeremyh7563
4 жыл бұрын
@@j.m.edwards9156 I see no grounds for referring to financial return/support/gift to leaders as first-fruits, but I do see clear injunction and command given in the NT to provide financially for certain teachers within the assembly. I have provided you one example of which you quickly dismissed without any explanation other than some have misused such; Paul's basic argument for providing is also found elsewhere (1 Cor. and Galatians) with moral necessities connected to OT principals/law being cited. Again, that Paul would provide clear instruction for local churches to provide financially (though to what extent is reasonable to ask) for their leaders is very evident, and this clearly is something which he sensed he could decline but others should not be expected to do. Suggesting that Paul dismisses the rights of these individuals to such support morally due them, and suggesting that such money received within ministry would be filthy lucre, is quite a dangerous stretch.
@j.m.edwards9156
4 жыл бұрын
Jeremy H I appreciate your reply, and you are correct, I dismissed it quickly without addressing it so I’ll do that now. 1) nowhere in scripture is there any precedence for an elder of any sort to be paid 200% of anything. Even Levite’s for their inheritance get 120% and that was a clear command thats very well spelled out. Other places in scripture value the sacred and holy as 1/5th (20%) more than they common. If the 1 Tim. 5:17 passage is indeed about elder remuneration for sacred service rather than honor, 200% is a massive stretch without additional witness or example anywhere else in scripture or historical record. The only example I’m aware of for a double portion is the kinsman redeemer portion of his fathers inheritance, which obviously is completely out of context for this passage as a parallel for a bishop or elder of an assembly. Also the kinsman redeemer double portion was a singular event, while Timothy’s example appears to be a continuing honor. 2) people today utilize 1 Timothy 5:17 primarily for a single bishop hierarchal structure, perhaps unaware that there were typically multiple elders for each assembly. This single bishop perspective is a post- Catholic or post-Reformation error. The plain language is that its referring to and would apply to any elder in the assembly who rules well, period. One who rules well and labors in the word and doctrine is especially worthy of this double honor. Do the math. Firstly, If you are paying a double salary to every elder in the assembly you’re gonna put a unreasonable burden on everyone else and probably break the bank, especially when you consider the size of most home churches today and then. Secondly, an elder that rules his own house well, shouldn’t need money from the assembly, unless he’s suffering imprisonment or something like that for the cause of Christ as Paul instructs in Hebrews 10:34 and 13:3. In the first century, an old man who wasn’t financially secure enough to sit in the gates was never considered for or entrusted with any kind of elder position. Thirdly, the idea of someone (who was not Levite or Aaronic) in the first century expecting remuneration for their spiritual instruction is something a philosopher master would do, or any one of a number of gnostics, or a Simon Magus etc. This perspective is in direct contradiction to the principles commanded by Christ in Matt. 10:7&8. Freely you have received, freely give. Even for healings and miracles. In the Old Testament, there are multiple injunctions against anyone in an elder or judge position receiving anything from the people they serve, for good cause. Moses and Samuel both stress that they have received nothing from anyone for nothing. Both were in a much better position to claim remuneration than any elder in our assemblies today, by an order of magnitudes. As to the issue of first fruits, there is no mention in the New Testament to give first fruits to anyone, just as there is no instruction to give tithes to anyone, though it does acknowledge that Levites can expect tithes according to the Law in Hebrews 7:5. I know of no one in an assembly today that can claim that status, especially since the reason for the percentage was due to them replacing the fathers of the home as the priests and thus offering sacrifices for sin. Numbers 3:11,12. Its kinda hard to claim remuneration for a job that’s unnecessary today, and no one is qualified to do anymore. Why should any believing father pay another man to be his families priest, when we all are kings and priests in Christ? This idea is antithetical and utterly abhorrent to a Melchizedek priesthood. Looping back to the firstfruits, the only instance I’ve found for any sort of remuneration in the first century is in the Didache. Remuneration for visiting prophets and ministers is hospitality, period! End of story!!! And thats only for the first three days. After that, if he’s not found something to do to earn his own bread, he’s considered a Christ salesman and is to be sent packing. Basically exactly like 2 Thess 3:11-14 and 2 Peter 2:1-3 & 14, 15. For Prophets and teachers who are well regarded and appreciated in the assembly, the members are encouraged to show appreciation for their gifts by offering them firstfruits. If you understand biblical firstfruits, it doesnt take long to realize that you cant even begin to subsist off of them as they are seasonal and token gifts. BTW, the Didache is considered to be non Canonical by most today, so if you’re not ok with it, there’s literally no injunction anywhere in first or second century to give anything to any elder, bishop or deacon. As to the principle of not muzzling the ox, this is intricately entwined with the laborer is worthy of his reward or hire. Its origination comes from the Jewish culture where the father is pictured as the ox of the house, and as such, it is natural for him to be the first partaker of the produce he’s worked for. In 1 Corinthians 9, Paul refers to this principle again in a spiritual application, and associates it with a precept given by Christ (vrs 14) that they which preach the gospel, should live of the gospel. (I’ll address this in a moment). However, read the rest of the chapter. Paul states that if he utilizes this precept, it essentially makes him a hireling, removes his reward and is an abuse of his (presumably apostle level) power in the gospel. He also writes in verse 15 that he has used none of these things, has not written that it should be done for him so that he can make the gospel of Christ without charge. 2 Cor. 12:17,18 Paul asks if anyone he sent to them ever made a gain from them? And states that he did not burden them. Addressing the principle Paul quotes in 1 Cor 9:14, Paul is referring to Matthew 10:10, Luke 9:3 & 10:4-7. These scriptures are specifically to the 12 apostles, and define “living of the gospel” as room and board for a single man who is traveling without purse or script (without any money or food), and only as long as they are teaching the gospel. When they’ve taught it, they are to move to the next town and rinse and repeat. It is intellectually impossible to equate this principle with elder salary. It also appears to be utilized as a very limited example, as in Luke 22:35,36, Christ reminds them of this very brief period of “living of the gospel” and then countermands those instructions and tells them, “but now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his script . . . “. A positive sentiment that every New Testament writer upholds (except James) and additionally adds negative injunctions against coveteousness, filthy lucre, merchandising and the doctrine of Balaam. Not to mention Ezekiels prophecy in chapter 34:10, 23 that after the son of David comes and becomes the Shepherd, that the shepherds shall not feed themselves any more from the flock.
@jeremyh7563
4 жыл бұрын
@@j.m.edwards9156 Your case rests heavily on inferences drawn from Hebraic social order and the concepts of particular cases of giving in the OT economy. Paul's usage of the OT is not typically though drawn out to support an old injunction but used to display a greater, often even beyond what one might imagine, from the original context. Indeed, it seems you have a bend towards establishing continuance of certain Mosaic order and a strong knee-jerk response against the visible church in general whereby, in keeping with that, you categorize those receiving funds beyond sparse amounts you allow as charlatans. I applaud your sentiment about the visible church, and recognition that there is such a thing as filthy lucre, but don't find the basis for establishing all as you have as such agreeable to NT instruction. However, I would suggest that if we wished to retain some literal precedence from measures provided for Levites, etc. and see direct correspondence within the NT, it is clear that funds received seemed necessary for workers regular subsistence (Neh10:37, 13:10). The same principal is allowed within the NT framework, as you might suggest. Setting aside the gifts that Christ received from those supporting his ministry as perhaps difficult in heart for a man to bear comparison to, we do find those in mission journeys who 'ate what was set before them by sons of peace'. The trouble with the comparison is that, though we can presume it was little, the text does not delineate what all was put before them, and in fact one could infer, at times, there could be differences. But, there is a further problem in that, again, we are looking at those in temporary circumstances. As I see it, Paul and his emissaries often moved as such but Elders/Leaders were not doing so and there need would be in some ways comparable to Levites and Priests of old which needed regular gifts to survive. Paul seems to have more than an ear of corn in mind when he sees the worker having even an interest and participation in what is received in the 1 Cor. text. As far as double honor, from 1 Tim 5, it is clear that certain if not significant amounts of that honor consist in the financial arena, though it did not have to end there. Further, it is not clear that all Elders were then at all times to receive, but particular ones. To launch into double being needing to be fulfilled financially with numerical precision is odd. Anyhow, as indicated, I think there are theological commitments/presuppositions that drive your argument which color the situation. Do you happen to say 'Shalom' when you part from company? Your lingo may not be mine, but in some ways it is fine and dandy if it is your faith, some of your perspectives are probably grand in my eyes, but, as you might agree, there not mine that matter.
Пікірлер: 33