Is Tithing Biblical?

[exIFB]

I think leaving is really commenting on the IFB type pastor who DOES only "work" for a few hours a week. Where I am, the presy pastors do visitation in hospitals, chapel services at schools, and a lot of them also have their own businesses (one does photography), but they actually put in a lot of community service. At one IFB church in town, which I never attended because they were briders, all of the pastors had full time jobs and were not paid from the tithes. One is a principal of a school and is an awesome guy (but I would never attend the church because every sermon was about baptism). The other IFB church in town is a hyles missionary who still bills himself as a missionary to NZ (he sometimes preaches at Crown College, and his kids go there), but he doesn't do any missionary work. I don't know if he takes a wage from church funds. His only outreach is putting tracts in mailboxes on saturday morning. When some of the other church members started up ministries such as radio shows and nursing home ministries, he came along once for some photo ops (and brought his little crown college intern as well), and never took any interest apart from that.

I have no idea how he pays for three kids (four at one stage) to go through crown college, with board and food and all that. I know how much it costs. And sad thing is, the girls are only going to find husbands... or to get a "teaching degree" which is worthless outside of fundamentalism.

[Tony R]

(04-06-2011 05:11 PM)Donb123 Wrote:  

(04-06-2011 04:55 PM)Tony R Wrote:  And since when did “double honor” come to have anything to do with finances?

Most commentaries that I just browsed indicate that the pastor is worthy of their salary and it says it emphatically by saying "doubly." E.g. not so much twice the pay but just that they're REALLY worth what they've earned.

Obviously this means they had better earn it

See Strongs Concordance 5092:
Word: timh

Pronounce: tee-may'

Strongs Number: G5092

Orig: from 5099; a value, i.e. money paid, or (concretely and collectively) valuables; by analogy, esteem (especially of the highest degree), or the dignity itself:--honour, precious, price, some. G5099

Use: TDNT-8:169,1181 Noun Feminine

Heb Strong: H1926 H1935 H1952 H3366 H3513 H3519 H3701 H4242 H4377 H5797 H6187 H7613

1) a valuing by which the price is fixed
1a) of the price itself
1b) of the price paid or received for a person or thing bought or sold
2) honour which belongs or is shown to one
2a) of the honour which one has by reason of rank and state of office which he holds
2b) deference, reverence

Thanks Donb123. That is enlightening information. (Sincerely)

[exIFB]

The problem with what those men stated above is that by "truly faithful theological education" they really mean "truly calvinistic theological education" and if a man who loved God and was faithful and desired an education but attended somewhere like Dallas theological seminary, he wouldn't be taken seriously. None of those men consider Charles Ryrie to be a faithful Bible teacher, despite him having the same qualifications as they do. And all of those men consider many missionaries without a proper formal education to be excellent ministers of the gospel (Ray Comfort for example, who I don't like, but I doubt those guys above would dis him for not having a college degree).

[Tony R]

You nailed it exIFB!

[exIFB]

I am saying that they don't really care about education, but whether or not someone subscribes to their theology, and if someone gets an education that doesn't suit their theology, they still wouldn't accept it.

[Tony R]

It is beside the point. In Post #27, pblawman asked the question…

(04-06-2011 04:23 PM)pblawman Wrote:  Why should the church expect a pastor to give up four years of his life for undergrad, plus additional time for seminary, and not be compensated then for ministering full time to them.

To my knowledge, there is no scriptural reason to compensate a pastor for his TRAINING, regardless of his doctrinal preference or type of theological education. I concede that pastors should be “counted worthy of double honour [value, i.e. money paid]” but they are to be granted double honor based on the fact that they “rule well” and “labour in the word and doctrine”, not on their training/education.

[pblawman]

(04-06-2011 07:02 PM)Tony R Wrote:  It is beside the point. In Post #27, pblawman asked the question…

(04-06-2011 04:23 PM)pblawman Wrote:  Why should the church expect a pastor to give up four years of his life for undergrad, plus additional time for seminary, and not be compensated then for ministering full time to them.

To my knowledge, there is no scriptural reason to compensate a pastor for his TRAINING, regardless of his doctrinal preference or type of theological education. I concede that pastors should be “counted worthy of double honour [value, i.e. money paid]” but they are to be granted double honor based on the fact that they “rule well” and “labour in the word and doctrine”, not on their training/education.

I agree with you. You don't pay a pastor for his pedigree, you pay for his performance. However, I believe there is a strong correlation between time and effort spent in preparation and ultimate performance.

[pblawman]

(04-06-2011 06:05 PM)exIFB Wrote:  The problem with what those men stated above is that by "truly faithful theological education" they really mean "truly calvinistic theological education" and if a man who loved God and was faithful and desired an education but attended somewhere like Dallas theological seminary, he wouldn't be taken seriously. None of those men consider Charles Ryrie to be a faithful Bible teacher, despite him having the same qualifications as they do. And all of those men consider many missionaries without a proper formal education to be excellent ministers of the gospel (Ray Comfort for example, who I don't like, but I doubt those guys above would dis him for not having a college degree).

I would reply, but it's kinda like riding a bicycle around a cul de sac. Yeah, you're moving, but you're not really getting anywhere.

[TomK]

(04-06-2011 07:02 PM)Tony R Wrote:  To my knowledge, there is no scriptural reason to compensate a pastor for his TRAINING, regardless of his doctrinal preference or type of theological education. I concede that pastors should be “counted worthy of double honour [value, i.e. money paid]” but they are to be granted double honor based on the fact that they “rule well” and “labour in the word and doctrine”, not on their training/education.

Well said.

I am not a fan of pastor's getting super-star salaries, even though this is only a small percentage of pastors. Obviously churches are free to choose a pastor with a high school diploma and a part time job (my pastor in my teen years) or a pastor who went to seminary, worked an internship, and they can pay him a salary, or any combination of these. None are more biblical than others. As in most areas of life, you get what you pay for.

In high school, my pastor had no theological education, worked a job, and the church never rose above 30 in attendance.

I worked under a pastor who sold his home and his successful business to start a church in the inner city. He had a Bible Institute education. That church was running 300+ when I left in it's fifth year.

I was in a mega church in jr. high with a pastor who had been there for years and had a seminary education. I grew so much and so did the church.

Education isn't biblical, it is available and it is wise.

Full time/part time/bi-vocational isn't biblical. I've never been a part of a church that didn't want to provide the pastor a salary, even if they couldn't. If possible, why busy a pastor with a paper route when he could give himself to prayer and the ministry of the Word?

[exIFB]

Thanks for the ironic plus pblawman hehe