Money possessing you

[Hope in God]

As Christians, possessing or working for money is definitely not the issue. The temptation is "money possessing you", especially to the point where it becomes one’s underlying motivation in life. Some people are very motivated by the accumulation of money.

In 1922, in Egypt, King Tut’s tomb was opened. It contained gold items at a present day value of $680 million. And this was just one person’s treasure. Imagine the full opulence of Moses’ day.

And yet, it is written that "by faith Moses esteemed the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures of Egypt, for he had respect unto the recompense of the reward." (Heb. 11: 26).

(How could that have been, that Moses esteemed the reproach of Christ? Jesus was not yet born. But we know, He did exist then, didn’t He?) More on that later.

To the elders at the church at Ephesus Paul listed his credentials as an apostle of God. Acts 20:33-34, “I have coveted no man's silver, or gold, or apparel. Yea, ye yourselves know, that these hands have ministered unto my necessities, and to them that were with me.”

Paul took nothing from the Ephesians while caring for the needs of his fellow travelers and himself. A selfless guy, indeed.

Of little importance were offerings to Peter as well, for he was carrying no money with him when he encountered the lame beggar. Acts 3:6, “Then Peter said, Silver and gold have I none; but such as I have give I thee: In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth rise up and walk.”

After Samuel had given the Israelites a king, he, like Paul, listed a personal quality. I Sam. 12:3, “…..whose ox have I taken?... or of whose hand have I received any bribe to blind mine eyes therewith? and I will restore it you.” He needed not to be paid to be a prophet. He merely was.

What was Daniel’s reply when was asked to read the writing on the wall? Daniel 5:17, “ Then Daniel answered and said before the king, Let thy gifts be to thyself, and give thy rewards to another; yet I will read the writing unto the king, and make known to him the interpretation.”

 

[FHII]

(How could that have been, that Moses esteemed the reproach of Christ? Jesus was not yet born. But we know, He did exist then, didn’t He?) More on that later

I have been studying this chapter heavily lately, so I was interested to hear what you had to say.... Yet, you never made it back to this thought.

The answer is in understanding the chapter as a whole. This chapter is about having faith but never receiving the promise of Christ. Christ didn't have "promises":. He was the "promise". Phenomenal chapter!

Acts 2:33-34, “I have coveted no man's silver, or gold, or apparel.

Just a correction: that's Acts 20:33-34.

Of little importance were offerings to Peter as well, for he was carrying no money with him when he encountered the lame beggar.

Ok... I am with you on certain things, here. Neither Peter or Paul looked to accumulate wealth. Neither did Samuel or Daniel. But none of them looked down on giving to the ministry or to God.

The latter two were prophets. They weren't Levites or Priests. So they weren't receivers of tithes. However, other prophets did receive and actually asked for offerings. Take Elisha, for example, who asked the widow to feed him first even though she was about to starve to death (he later saw it so that her oil and flour didn't run out).

As for Paul... He like many was selfless, but he talked often of giving and by that I mean to support his ministry and travels.

My point is that giving to a ministry or preacher is not a bad thing. They need it to continue their ministry and support themselves.

God will deal with them if they misuse the money. But that shouldn't stop us from being givers

 

[Hope in God]

I have been studying this chapter heavily lately, so I was interested to hear what you had to say.... Yet, you never made it back to this thought.

The answer is in understanding the chapter as a whole. This chapter is about having faith but never receiving the promise of Christ. Christ didn't have "promises":. He was the "promise". Phenomenal chapter!



Just a correction: that's Acts 20:33-34.



Ok... I am with you on certain things, here. Neither Peter or Paul looked to accumulate wealth. Neither did Samuel or Daniel. But none of them looked down on giving to the ministry or to God.

The latter two were prophets. They weren't Levites or Priests. So they weren't receivers of tithes. However, other prophets did receive and actually asked for offerings. Take Elisha, for example, who asked the widow to feed him first even though she was about to starve to death (he later saw it so that her oil and flour didn't run out).

As for Paul... He like many was selfless, but he talked often of giving and by that I mean to support his ministry and travels.

My point is that giving to a ministry or preacher is not a bad thing. They need it to continue their ministry and support themselves.

God will deal with them if they misuse the money. But that shouldn't stop us from being givers

__________________________
My point is in relation to how today's ministries are run. Today, we have wealthy televangelists, one of whom boasts of his great wealth, Kenneth Copeland, whose fortune is valued at $746 million. He cannot, in any way, be emulating the ministers of the Bible. Sure, Paul did speak of other churches giving, but it was for the care of other churches his main emphasis was.

To whom was he going to send their liberality?

1 Corinthians 16:1-3
Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye. Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come. And when I come, whomsoever ye shall approve by your letters, them will I send to bring your liberality unto Jerusalem.

To the church in Jerusalem, not himself.

 

[FHII]

My point is in relation to how today's ministries are run. Today, we have wealthy televangelists, one of whom boasts of his great wealth, Kenneth Copeland, whose fortune is valued at $746 million.

While that is unfortunate, for every Copeland there are probably a thousand ministers who are making a modest living or even below that. I would hope that you are speaking of these few and not ministers in general.

I must also say that I am more concerned with the truth (and the whole truth) being preacher than I am with how much a preacher is making. Chances are that if he is preaching the whole truth... He's not going to make that kind of money.

But since we are here, what would be an acceptable net worth? Clearly 746 million is well above that point. But where would that point be?

Sure, Paul did speak of other churches giving, but it was for the care of other churches his main emphasis was.

To whom was he going to send their liberality?

1 Corinthians 16:1-3
......

To the church in Jerusalem, not himself

Yes, Paul was working for the Church, but not always in this way. In 1 Cor 16 he was describing a relief mission for Jerusalem.... On of at least 2 he did. Not every time he spoke of giving was for that purpose. Some times it was to cover his travel expenses. He wasn't looking to live lavishly, but he did have fleshly needs that needed to be met, and no he didn't always make tents to make ends meet.

A few references are Philippians 4:15-18, Galatians 6:6, 1 Thessalonians 2:9 and 2 Corinthians 9:14 (chapters 8 through 11deal with this... In chapter 11:8 he even makes a shocking statement saying he robbed other churches to do service to the Corinthians).

I don't want to make it seem that I am disagreeing with you, because I am not. I just tend to stand up for preachers who clearly have a right to make a living through their God given calling (as long as it really was God calling them). They shouldn't be in it for the money, but I wouldn't condemn them if God blesses them with wealth.

 

[Hope in God]

While that is unfortunate, for every Copeland there are probably a thousand ministers who are making a modest living or even below that. I would hope that you are speaking of these few and not ministers in general.

I must also say that I am more concerned with the truth (and the whole truth) being preacher than I am with how much a preacher is making. Chances are that if he is preaching the whole truth... He's not going to make that kind of money.

But since we are here, what would be an acceptable net worth? Clearly 746 million is well above that point. But where would that point be?



Yes, Paul was working for the Church, but not always in this way. In 1 Cor 16 he was describing a relief mission for Jerusalem.... On of at least 2 he did. Not every time he spoke of giving was for that purpose. Some times it was to cover his travel expenses. He wasn't looking to live lavishly, but he did have fleshly needs that needed to be met, and no he didn't always make tents to make ends meet.

A few references are Philippians 4:15-18, Galatians 6:6, 1 Thessalonians 2:9 and 2 Corinthians 9:14 (chapters 8 through 11deal with this... In chapter 11:8 he even makes a shocking statement saying he robbed other churches to do service to the Corinthians).

I don't want to make it seem that I am disagreeing with you, because I am not. I just tend to stand up for preachers who clearly have a right to make a living through their God given calling (as long as it really was God calling them). They shouldn't be in it for the money, but I wouldn't condemn them if God blesses them with wealth.

_________________________________
What we have today within the prosperity gospel is nothing like what it is you wrote, FHI. They have missed the mark with their get rich quick seed faith nonsense. The emphasis has to, once again, be to raise up believers through Biblical training, understanding and applying fasting, and the presentation of the gospel to the saved.

Where, in Scripture, do you see anything being done in lavish buildings? Nowhere. That approach is totally unscriptural. Folks met in one another's homes or outside, not in kingdoms built upon the pleading for building funds, which, as I view it, have devolved into seeker friendly social groups as opposed to members of the body of Christ whose call is to go into all the world, not to rest on their laurels, pay tithes to both keep the building afloat and enrich leadership.

How sad it is to realize just how many believers have actually led anyone to the Lord within their entire Christian walk. It is epidemic, the slow loss of the ministry of reconciliation. It is being replaced by social meetings and outings for seniors, young people, children and church athletes. A community center is what they have, not a training center for those who truly want to hear the Word of God and to grow up in Christ.

 

[Hope in God]

While that is unfortunate, for every Copeland there are probably a thousand ministers who are making a modest living or even below that. I would hope that you are speaking of these few and not ministers in general.
I must also say that I am more concerned with the truth (and the whole truth) being preacher than I am with how much a preacher is making. Chances are that if he is preaching the whole truth... He's not going to make that kind of money.

There are many more prosperity preachers than you might imagine.
Joel Osteen has 40,000 members who meet in his gathering place.
• Joel Osteen
• Creflo Dollar
• Benny Hinn
• TD Jakes
• Joyce Meyer
• Paula White
• Fred Price
• Kenneth Copland
• Robert Tilton
• Eddie Long
• Juanita Bynum
• Paul Crouch

Count all those who listen and apply all the errors in the prosperity gospel and you have, easily, millions of Spirit filled Christians, because, as is well known, Charismania has assaulted churches over the entire globe.

But since we are here, what would be an acceptable net worth? Clearly 746 million is well above that point. But where would that point be?

Yes, Paul was working for the Church, but not always in this way. In 1 Cor 16 he was describing a relief mission for Jerusalem.... On of at least 2 he did. Not every time he spoke of giving was for that purpose. Some times it was to cover his travel expenses. He wasn't looking to live lavishly, but he did have fleshly needs that needed to be met, and no he didn't always make tents to make ends meet.

A few references are Philippians 4:15-18, Galatians 6:6, 1 Thessalonians 2:9 and 2 Corinthians 9:14 (chapters 8 through 11deal with this... In chapter 11:8 he even makes a shocking statement saying he robbed other churches to do service to the Corinthians).

I don't want to make it seem that I am disagreeing with you, because I am not. I just tend to stand up for preachers who clearly have a right to make a living through their God given calling (as long as it really was God calling them). They shouldn't be in it for the money, but I wouldn't condemn them if God blesses them with wealth.

 

[Willie T]

How do we justify Abraham being just about the wealthiest man in the whole country.... and many others who were also nearly as rich?

 

[Enoch111]

How do we justify Abraham being just about the wealthiest man in the whole country.... and many others who were also nearly as rich?

Willie,
That's quite simple. Wealth in itself is not evil. It is the love of money that is at the root of all evil. Abraham and Job (and other wealthy saints) loved God more than their wealth. And wealth can be a tremendous blessing to do the will of God and further the Kingdom of God on earth in many different ways.

Had Joseph of Arimathaea not been a rich man, he would not have had an expensive sepulchre reserved for himself which he gave to Christ. He also had the courage to go to Pilate and ask for the body of Christ. And the Holy Spirit had prophesied that this would happen long before it happened.

This post is by no means in support of the preachers preaching the Prosperity Gospel and living lavishing at the expense of other Christians. That is plainly wrong. If they wish to be wealthy, they should go and work at it and engage in a business venture.

 

[FHII]

What we have today within the prosperity gospel is nothing like what it is you wrote, FHI.

How so? What did I write about the prosperity gospel that you disagree with?

The emphasis has to, once again, be to raise up believers through Biblical training, understanding and applying fasting, and the presentation of the gospel to the saved.

I certainly don't disagree. I noted that I am more interested in whether they are preaching the truth than I am concerned with their finances.

Where, in Scripture, do you see anything being done in lavish buildings? Nowhere. That approach is totally unscriptural.

Are you sure about that? What about Solomon's Temple? The second Temple? What of the Tabernacle in the Wilderness? All these had objects and portions of the temple overlaid with gold. There are other precious metals and stones involved.

What about the book of Haggai? That may have been a bit more modest, but God was upset that they had ceiled houses of their own but the Lord's house hadn't been built.

Folks met in one another's homes or outside, not in kingdoms built upon the pleading for building funds,

Again, I bring up the temples, the Tabernacle and the Lord's House. But I assume you are looking for NT examples. Sure, you are right, but I would ask, "why"? First off, there weren't that many Christians, especially during the Apostle's travels. Second, they were sort of outlaws. So it's not like it is against the NT principles, is it? How big of a place do you need for 30 people ( more or less)?my point is that a large building was not needed because there weren't that many people, they were probably poor themselves and they had to stay under cover.

. It is being replaced by social meetings and outings for seniors, young people, children and church athletes.

I wholeheartedly agree.

 

[FHII]

Hope in God wrote:

"There are many more prosperity preachers than you might imagine.
Joel Osteen has 40,000 members who meet in his gathering place.
• Joel Osteen
• Creflo Dollar
• Benny Hinn
• TD Jakes
• Joyce Meyer
• Paula White
• Fred Price
• Kenneth Copland
• Robert Tilton
• Eddie Long
• Juanita Bynum
• Paul Crouch

Count all those who listen and apply all the errors in the prosperity gospel and you have, easily, millions of Spirit filled Christians, because, as is well known, Charismania has assaulted churches over the entire globe. "

This I assume is in response to my statement that for every one Ken Copeland there is, there are probably a 1000 ministers who are making a modest living.

Are you saying you disagree?

 

[Enoch111]

I noted that I am more interested in whether they are preaching the truth than I am concerned with their finances.

The two things do go hand in hand. Preachers who get obscenely wealthy cannot be preaching the truth or doing the truth. That money is not their's personally. They are entitled to receiving reasonable compensation, since the laborer is worthy of his hire. But living in multi-million dollar mansions, or driving expensive cars, and flying in astronomically expensive jets smacks of something else. A con job.

 

[FHII]

The two things do go hand in hand. Preachers who get obscenely wealthy cannot be preaching the truth or doing the truth. That money is not their's personally. They are entitled to receiving reasonable compensation, since the laborer is worthy of his hire. But living in multi-million dollar mansions, or driving expensive cars, and flying in astronomically expensive jets smacks of something else. A con job.

I absolutely agree with you, but perhaps for different reasons.

I am going to ask a question, then give my point of view, then revisit the question.

The question is:. Does the wealth of a man (in this case, a preacher) define his abilities and character?

So, there's the question. Now, I agree with you that preachers who get obscenely wealthy cannot be preaching or following (doing) the truth. I believe it's because the truth is not that popular. If they preached the whole truth they wouldn't have as many followers and donations.

It's easy to preach John 3:16, Phillipians 4:13 and Matthew 7:7. It pumps the crowd up and gets them energized. Then throw in 2 Corinthians 9:6 and you got folks eager to give!

But when you start talking about Hebrews 10:25, Romans 10:14, 1 Corinthians 1:21 and 2 Thessalonians 2:11.... Ya gotta watch yourself. These aren't popular verses, and if you preach the truth on these verses (and I could add MANY more), you aren't going to build a quanitative empire. You will build a small but quality empire.

What people tend to do is look at the wealth a preacher has and they decide it's unchristian. Chances are it is, but not because he has it, but how he got it. I don't know if you can get that wealthy without compromising the truth.

So, let's revisit the question. Does a man's wealth define his abilities and character?

If a poor preacher is preaching it straight and he himself lives by it, then would would you say his wealth doesn't define him? Would up say he is upright? What if he preached lies and/or didn't live by it?

In either case you wouldn't look at his net worth to define his abilities, but you would look at his doctrine and his adherence to it.

What of a rich man who preached the same truth and followed it as well?

Enoch111, before you answer, remember that you correctly quoted and commented on 1 Timothy 6:10.

Now, I will not comment further on any individual prosperity preacher and whether he fits the mold. I've already suggested they probably don't. My point that we should not blast them for their wealth, but rather inquire on their doctrine.

 

[Hope in God]

Most of the Charismatic sect of the church are either sitting under prosperity, positive thinking, seeker sensitive, sheep/shepherding, or Oneness extremes. There are few inbetweens. Oh, I do know of a church whose leadership says they are evangelical, charismatic and liturgical. How possible is that? It really can't be as I see it. Sadly, what has been set aside, or never presented, within much of the church, is well balanced foundational sound doctrine. Today's practice is to harp on the same things week after week -- not that repetition is bad, as it is needed and encouraged in Scripture, but what that harping essentially points to is extremism, not real training.

As to the money, it's far too obvious given the verses I shared at the beginning, to think the acquiring of vast sums is God's intent. Rather it is godliness with contentment -- that is great gain, not the other.

 

[Hope in God]

_______________________________
Sure, many make a modest living, but deeply rooted in their belief systems is the prosperity nonsense. I don't see contentment at lower levels of income, but rather a desire for bigger and better buildings and kingdom building, if indeed it is possible, and it does seem to be. I've witnessed many small groups grow into a thousand within five years. Today, however, I admit, there is a great deal of competition. Ambitious types are pushing for the creation of large facilities everywhere. Instead, I feel God's intent, His heart, is more into home groups, with, of course, one or two within who have sat under sound doctrine that's balanced and foundational.

 

[Hope in God]

How so? What did I write about the prosperity gospel that you disagree with?


I certainly don't disagree. I noted that I am more interested in whether they are preaching the truth than I am concerned with their finances.


Are you sure about that? What about Solomon's Temple? The second Temple? What of the Tabernacle in the Wilderness? All these had objects and portions of the temple overlaid with gold. There are other precious metals and stones involved.

What about the book of Haggai? That may have been a bit more modest, but God was upset that they had ceiled houses of their own but the Lord's house hadn't been built.



Again, I bring up the temples, the Tabernacle and the Lord's House. But I assume you are looking for NT examples. Sure, you are right, but I would ask, "why"? First off, there weren't that many Christians, especially during the Apostle's travels. Second, they were sort of outlaws. So it's not like it is against the NT principles, is it? How big of a place do you need for 30 people ( more or less)?my point is that a large building was not needed because there weren't that many people, they were probably poor themselves and they had to stay under cover.

I wholeheartedly agree.

The point of having a temple in the OT was for God's presence to abide, where sacrifices would take place. The body of a believer is today the temple of the Holy Ghost, not structures made with hands. We are each stones of that building, but the way churches operate today, we never get the opportunity to let the hand or foot or toe or nose do anything, share anything. It's all about the stage show.

 

[FHII]

but the way churches operate today, we never get the opportunity to let the hand or foot or toe or nose do anything, share anything. It's all about the stage show

You don't speak for all churches.

As to participation, not getting to "share anything".... I see where you are coming from. I'm not coming from the same direction, but I see where you are coming from.

I bid you farewell in this conversation.

 

[Enoch111]

The question is:. Does the wealth of a man (in this case, a preacher) define his abilities and character?

No it does not necessarily define his abilities and character.

When it comes to preachers or ministers of the Gospel it should be evident from Scripture that they are compensated for their services by Christians. And the Bible makes it clear that they should be fairly compensated, and in the case of those who clearly labor in the Word and doctrine (make serious efforts to feed with both the milk and the meat of Scripture) they should be generously compensated.

But here's the difference. Their compensation does not come from running a business but from the gifts and offering of Christians to God.

Which means that they cannot become extremely wealthy if they are true men of God. Indeed, they would turn down any compensation which is above and beyond what is reasonable, and far beyond anything that an ordinary Christian would earn. Christian giving -- according to Scripture -- is to help the poorer brethren, the widows and orphans, and the missionaries. Over and above that, to help anyone in need, and for the propagation of the Gospel. It is not to be lavished on ornate buildings or egotistical preachers attempting to fleece the flock.

 

[FHII]

But here's the difference. Their compensation does not come from running a business but from the gifts and offering of Christians to God.

Yes, but does that mean they or even modest churches shouldn't be run as a business? It is true that Peter, John and Paul and the rest didn't run a business. Although, I seem to remember Jesus having an accountant handle the finances.

Churches must ( in this country and time, anyway) have somewhat of a business department. They have building codes, tax regulations and other obligations they must follow. Unfortunately govt has forced them to make sure they have their ducks in a row. So, while they rely on donations (and it should be that way), they are forced to act as a business.

Which means that they cannot become extremely wealthy if they are true men of God.

Theoretically why not? Current regulations state that a Pastor is allowed 30-33% of the offering by govt regulations in order to maintain tax free status as a non profit organization. This, by the way, is unbiblical.

Now, in 2006 Creflo Dollar's church had a revenue of $70 million. Under the govts regulations, that gives him $21 million.

But what of a minister who's Church revenue is say $250,000 for a year? That's $75,000. Which is still nice. That seems more reasonable, no? But they still abided by the same percentage.

[Sheesh! I am doing a lousy job defending my point!]

But no, I don't necessarily agree with that point that they cannot become extremely wealthy. They probably won't if they are preaching the truth.

What I can see happening is that their heart will state they don't need that much and they will redirect their earnings.

Indeed, they would turn down any compensation which is above and beyond what is reasonable, and far beyond anything that an ordinary Christian would earn.

Absolutely 100% incorrect! Let me go to the next quote before explaining.

Christian giving -- according to Scripture -- is to help the poorer brethren, the widows and orphans, and the missionaries. Over and above that, to help anyone in need, and for the propagation of the Gospel.

Again, not true!

Christian giving is NOT for helping the poor pay bills. It isn't to even support the ministry. Giving is to show value and appreciation to God. When you give in the collection plate you are giving to God. That is the mindset Christians should have.

When Abel gave his sacrifice, how many poor folks got to eat his firstlings? Who ate Noah's sacrifice? Now when the Levites received offerings, they got to enjoy it... They possibly out of goodness dispursed leftovers to the poor.

Bringing it to NT times, if what you say is true, why didn't Jesus fish out the poor widow's two mites and give it back along with 2 more?

He didn't do that. Instead, he bragged on her and her offering! The reason is that when you give, the biggest beneficiary of your giving isn't God, and it isn't his minister (who gets the money): it's you! 2 Corinthians 9:7 and Philipians 4:17.

So a true man of God is not going to rob you of the opportunity of being a giver. Perhaps he might return the gift after it was received, but he's not going to refuse it. Again, remember that Jesus didn't turn back the widow, but blessed her.

In conclusion, it's tough to defend these ministers who make millions. Some of them have scandals hanging over them. But under Biblical principles, I can't blame them solely based on what they earn. There are plenty of other issues to bring up with them, but not this.

No it does not necessarily define his abilities and character.

I agree.

 

[Enoch111]

Yes, but does that mean they or even modest churches shouldn't be run as a business?

Churches must be run as organizations, even though the spiritual reality is that they are organisms.

Businesses are run for A PROFIT. Churches exist for (a) the salvation of souls, (b) the edification of saints, and (c) the uplifting of those in any genuine need (material or spiritual). Two entirely different objectives.

The income of a church comes from the gifts and offerings of the saints to God, not from the sale of goods and services. And that income is NOT DEVOTED TO A PREACHER(S). And neither to the elders and deacons. The elders and deacons have a solemn responsibility before God to invest that money in the Kingdom of God (souls for Christ) according to Bible principles.

If any preacher or evangelist wishes to become wealthy, he should refuse to take any compensation from his church, refuse to ask for any gifts for his ministry, run his own business, and ensure that all the offerings in the church go where they should go. Paul refused to accept compensation from the churches and earned his own living. He refused to be a burden to any church, even though he had the right to accept compensation.

 

[FHII]

And that income is NOT DEVOTED TO A PREACHER(S). And neither to the elders and deacons

It's devoted to God and he gives it to the preacher. He relies on the preacher to use it properly. The preacher (biblically) makes the decisions.

Paul refused to accept compensation from the churches and earned his own

Absolutely untrue! I have already given 3 or 4 sets of scripture that state otherwise.