Of Course I Believe in Prosperity, so do you

[Biblicist]

Can't find the post, but someone said something about "unrealistic healing."

Only on CF do people who are full gospel, charismatic, pentecostal make crazy statements like that.

You seem to be exhibiting the same problem that I mentioned earlier in that your lack of exposure to mainstream theology is getting you into a bit of strife. I did not use the phrase “unrealistic healing” but “unrealistic healings” which are two different things; the first refers to healing as it is found in the New Covenant and the second refers to the many times that false proclamations of healing are declared either upon a sick individual or by the sick person themselves and the context was with how I was pointing to the way in which so many people often try to bribe the Father into providing some form of healing and with no success – usually the bribe ends up in the coffers of some wealthy tele-evangelist.

Now healing isn't even our to claim

Interesting, I think that both the wofs and non-wofs would both jump you on this one as we all believe that we can claim healing in the name of Jesus, well the mainline Full Gospel believers should know that healing is certainly in the New Covenant and giving the right circumstances we can certainly be healed in the name of Jesus when we call upon the Father.

John MacArthur would love you for that statement!

You need the Word of Faith. you need to good bible teaching.

"Word of faith...good Bible teaching", now there’s two phrases that certainly amount to an oxymoron.

 

[Biblicist]

Thank god we arfe not loosing. We are winning...

It seems to me that your idea of winning may not be all that different to that of Jamie Dimons’ success when he was able to walk away untouched from the recent congressional hearings into the Wall Street financial crash. He and his cronies may have survived for another day but many rank and file mums and dads have suffered greatly to keep him and his associates in the wealth that he and his mates are used to.

 

[Simon Peter]

Wow you think its ok to rob God. Okay. God doesnt accept offering any way you feel He should get it. He doesn't have problem rejecting offerings. What you have said reminds me of Cain and his brother Abel.

Why don't you tell me how you think I'm robbing God exactly?
Please quote the scriptures that make your case.

If you believe we are legally bound to tithe, then quote the scriptures of the tithe requirement.

I'm betting you can't do it.



peace,
Simon

 

[BondiHarry]

That isn't tithing. That is offering. There are different rules and promises that go with each type of givng. The tithe is a certain amount: 10% right off top.

If we are giving of 'necessity' that hardly sounds like an offering to me, it sounds like a duty (which the tithe WAS).

 

[hislegacy]

I am not legally bound to tithe -

I am love bound to worship God with my spirit, my mind, my words and my finances.

 

[Simon Peter]

I am not legally bound to tithe -

I am love bound to worship God with my spirit, my mind, my words and my finances.

peace,
Simon

 

[dkbwarrior]

You may want to consider educating yourself on tithing.

A good place to start: http://www.truthforfree.com/files/PDF/REK-Tithing3.pdf

I tried to read this Faulty, out of respect for you. After all, you have read and commented on my lessons, I feel that I owe you the same respect. However, I got through chapter two (page 37) and had to stop. That isn’t Bible study at all. That is pure intellectual hogwash.

In chapter two, he spends almost the entire chapter trying to discredit the example of Abram giving a tenth of the spoils to Melchizedek, by talking about his research on ancient Caananite and Semitic customs of worship and practice. He deduces from this extra-biblical information that El-Elyon (The Most High God) that Mechizedek served was a pagan god, probably none other than Baal himself. He logically deduces from this that if so, it doesn't represent any type of pattern for us. Like I said, almost all of his reasoning for this is extra-biblical.

The only biblical argument he makes for this case is his contention that since Abraham already knew God as Yahweh, (note the multiple uses of the name Yahweh throughout Genesis), why would Melchizedek not call Him by His real name, rather than Most High God, which was a term he claims was used by the pagans in reference to Baal?

He might have a point here except for one simple fact. Abraham did not know God by His name Yahweh, as we can see from Gods' statement to Moses:

And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name Jehovah was I not known to them.
Exodus 6:3

Jehovah is, of course, the KJV translator’s rendition of the Hebrew transliteration Yahweh. The only reason that the name Yahweh/Jehovah is used throughout the book of Genesis, which records history prior to Moses, was because it was written by Moses after the fact, who did know that name of God, and used it liberally in his writings.

I don’t know about you, but I don’t believe the Bible was written to only be understood if you are well educated on extra-biblical events. That would mean that only smart and/or well educated people could understand it, and I don’t believe that for an instant.

I need biblical reasons for my beliefs, and the only biblical argument he gave is fully and completely flawed. It may well be true that El-Elyon was used by pagans for Baal, or whatever other reasons, I don't know, but will take his word on it. I have no bone to pick with that on either side. However, what is important to me is that the Bible doesn’t use it that way. The Bible never uses the name El-Elyon, (Most High God), to refer to anyone other than God, the true God. Scripture is not meant to be privately interpreted. Scripture is meant to interpret scripture, which is one of the reasons that there is so much of it. Neither historical, nor current extra-biblical information or events can be used to interpret the Biblical text, unless you want to get off into complete error. These can only be used to augment or supplement what the Bible itself already teaches.

My conclusion is if this is how this guy does his studying, and how he interprets scripture, it is not worth my time to finish the book. I am surpirsed that you would accept such a study as having any merit.

I do agree that much of what we call the tithe today doesn't apply to us as Christians. But this isn't a WOF or prosperity gospel isolated issue. This is something that goes across denominational lines. And the logic that this writer is using to dispute it is useless to me. Im actually a bit annoyed that I wasted an hour of my time on such an unsupportable argument.

Peace...

 

[Simon Peter]

However, I got through chapter two (page 37) and had to stop. That isn’t Bible study at all. That is pure intellectual hogwash.

Try this one:

TITHING BOOK

Seriously, this is the best I've read on the subject.

peace,
Simon

 

[lismore]

That would depend on what you are talking about. Jesus applies to everything that is of God. He is the reason we are in Covenant with God. However, that alone will not manifest the promises of God in your life. Thats just religious talk. Sounds good and spiritual, but won't get your bills paid.
.

Thanks for the reply!

Ephesians 1:3

Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in the heavenly realms with every spiritual blessing in Christ.

Every spiritual blessing is in Christ. After all your striving you will find that you're not any more prosperous than a believer in Christ who does not strive. The blessing is not in striving, it's in the Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[dkbwarrior]

Try this one:

TITHING BOOK

Seriously, this is the best I've read on the subject.

peace,
Simon

Thank you. I just finished it. It was a good read. I really like the fact that he uses mostly scripture to make his argument. I basically agree with him, except for a couple of minor interpretive mistakes he makes.

The interpretive mistakes that I believe he made are:

1. He uses the argument that assets are different than income, and because tithing was on crops and cattle, which are assets, therefore tithing was intended to be on assets rather than income. The problem with that is that these are not biblical terms, nor is the statement itself intirely accurate. The biblical term is increase; one was supposed to tithe on the increase. The Bible itself makes no distiction between assets and income in that context. His interpretation leads to two inconsistencies: First, one was required to tithe on the increase of the specified assests, not the assets themselves; and secondly, the provision of the law that allows one to turn the tithe on the increase into cash (which according to the writer would then make it income) and take that instead of the tithe items itself means that in the eyes of God it was the increase that was important to tithe on, whether or not it could be classified as an asset or an income or something else entirely.
2. He makes the argument that since the book of Hebrews uses the term give in regards to Abrahams tithe, and payed in regards to Levis tithe, that this is referring to the difference in Abrahams tithe to Melchizedek, and Levis tithe to the Priests. The problem with this interpretation is that the verse he is questioning specifically says that "Levi paid tithes IN Abraham, because he was still in the loins of his father, when Melchisidek met him." The context of this verse is clearly referring to Abrahams tithe to Melchisidek while Levi was still inside of Abraham, not Levis tithing to the priesthood more than 400 years later. In fact, the verse he was making his point from there actually seemed to imply the exact opposite of what he was saying in that section, as it appears to indicate that the word give and paid are used as synonyms in regards to the same event. He said that he was going to get back to this later in the booklet, but he never did.

However, these are rather minor, especially when he comes to the conclusion that none of the rules for the Levitical tithe apply to us anyways. I agree with his conclusion though, as we are not under the law, we are under grace. Therefore, if we are not under the law, but under grace, those items of contention do not matter anyways, as they are not applicable to us.

I liked what he had to say about Malachi. However, I draw a slightly different conclusion than he did. His contention is that since Malachi was referring to the Levites, it is not applicalbe to the church. But I think it makes it more applicable, rather than less, as we are a kingdom of priests, the New Testament tells us:

10 And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth.
-Revelation 5:10

I don't believe however, that we are required to obey the tithe legalistically to the letter, for the simple reason that we have been delivered from the law. However, the things that were done aforetime were done for our learning, they are types and shadows of how we should behave and give us guidelines for our behavior. Therefore I think that in spite of all of it, the tithe is a good general principle to follow. And this is where I part company with the anti-tithe argument.

I do myself get frustrated when I hear preachers, (and yes it happens alot in WOF circles, and it annoys me), start breaking down the particulars of the tithe as a legal requirement. That to me is missing the point of the freewill offering entirely.

Peace...

 

[MinJeremiah]

I tried to read this Faulty, out of respect for you. After all, you have read and commented on my lessons, I feel that I owe you the same respect. However, I got through chapter two (page 37) and had to stop. That isn’t Bible study at all. That is pure intellectual hogwash.

In chapter two, he spends almost the entire chapter trying to discredit the example of Abram giving a tenth of the spoils to Melchizedek, by talking about his research on ancient Caananite and Semitic customs of worship and practice. He deduces from this extra-biblical information that El-Elyon (The Most High God) that Mechizedek served was a pagan god, probably none other than Baal himself. He logically deduces from this that if so, it doesn't represent any type of pattern for us. Like I said, almost all of his reasoning for this is extra-biblical.

The only biblical argument he makes for this case is his contention that since Abraham already knew God as Yahweh, (note the multiple uses of the name Yahweh throughout Genesis), why would Melchizedek not call Him by His real name, rather than Most High God, which was a term he claims was used by the pagans in reference to Baal?

He might have a point here except for one simple fact. Abraham did not know God by His name Yahweh, as we can see from Gods' statement to Moses:

And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name Jehovah was I not known to them.
Exodus 6:3

Jehovah is, of course, the KJV translator’s rendition of the Hebrew transliteration Yahweh. The only reason that the name Yahweh/Jehovah is used throughout the book of Genesis, which records history prior to Moses, was because it was written by Moses after the fact, who did know that name of God, and used it liberally in his writings.

I don’t know about you, but I don’t believe the Bible was written to only be understood if you are well educated on extra-biblical events. That would mean that only smart and/or well educated people could understand it, and I don’t believe that for an instant.

I need biblical reasons for my beliefs, and the only biblical argument he gave is fully and completely flawed. It may well be true that El-Elyon was used by pagans for Baal, or whatever other reasons, I don't know, but will take his word on it. I have no bone to pick with that on either side. However, what is important to me is that the Bible doesn’t use it that way. The Bible never uses the name El-Elyon, (Most High God), to refer to anyone other than God, the true God. Scripture is not meant to be privately interpreted. Scripture is meant to interpret scripture, which is one of the reasons that there is so much of it. Neither historical, nor current extra-biblical information or events can be used to interpret the Biblical text, unless you want to get off into complete error. These can only be used to augment or supplement what the Bible itself already teaches.

My conclusion is if this is how this guy does his studying, and how he interprets scripture, it is not worth my time to finish the book. I am surpirsed that you would accept such a study as having any merit.

I do agree that much of what we call the tithe today doesn't apply to us as Christians. But this isn't a WOF or prosperity gospel isolated issue. This is something that goes across denominational lines. And the logic that this writer is using to dispute it is useless to me. Im actually a bit annoyed that I wasted an hour of my time on such an unsupportable argument.

Peace...

I got to the part about Jesus not tithing and his says Jesus didn't tithe because he actually gave more. No Jesus tithes and paid taxes, I do that every week. I still tithe. The guy isn't scriptually sound at all.

 

[MinJeremiah]

Thank you. I just finished it. It was a good read. I really like the fact that he uses mostly scripture to make his argument. I basically agree with him, except for a couple of minor interpretive mistakes he makes.

The interpretive mistakes that I believe he made are:

1. He uses the argument that assets are different than income, and because tithing was on crops and cattle, which are assets, therefore tithing was intended to be on assets rather than income. The problem with that is that these are not biblical terms, nor is the statement itself intirely accurate. The biblical term is increase; one was supposed to tithe on the increase. The Bible itself makes no distiction between assets and income in that context. His interpretation leads to two inconsistencies: First, one was required to tithe on the increase of the specified assests, not the assets themselves; and secondly, the provision of the law that allows one to turn the tithe on the increase into cash (which according to the writer would then make it income) and take that instead of the tithe items itself means that in the eyes of God it was the increase that was important to tithe on, whether or not it could be classified as an asset or an income or something else entirely.
2. He makes the argument that since the book of Hebrews uses the term give in regards to Abrahams tithe, and payed in regards to Levis tithe, that this is referring to the difference in Abrahams tithe to Melchizedek, and Levis tithe to the Priests. The problem with this interpretation is that the verse he is questioning specifically says that "Levi paid tithes IN Abraham, because he was still in the loins of his father, when Melchisidek met him." The context of this verse is clearly referring to Abrahams tithe to Melchisidek while Levi was still inside of Abraham, not Levis tithing to the priesthood more than 400 years later. In fact, the verse he was making his point from there actually seemed to imply the exact opposite of what he was saying in that section, as it appears to indicate that the word give and paid are used as synonyms in regards to the same event. He said that he was going to get back to this later in the booklet, but he never did.

However, these are rather minor, especially when he comes to the conclusion that none of the rules for the Levitical tithe apply to us anyways. I agree with his conclusion though, as we are not under the law, we are under grace. Therefore, if we are not under the law, but under grace, those items of contention do not matter anyways, as they are not applicable to us.

I liked what he had to say about Malachi. However, I draw a slightly different conclusion than he did. His contention is that since Malachi was referring to the Levites, it is not applicalbe to the church. But I think it makes it more applicable, rather than less, as we are a kingdom of priests, the New Testament tells us:

10 And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth.
-Revelation 5:10

I don't believe however, that we are required to obey the tithe legalistically to the letter, for the simple reason that we have been delivered from the law. However, the things that were done aforetime were done for our learning, they are types and shadows of how we should behave and give us guidelines for our behavior. Therefore I think that in spite of all of it, the tithe is a good general principle to follow. And this is where I part company with the anti-tithe argument.

I do myself get frustrated when I hear preachers, (and yes it happens alot in WOF circles, and it annoys me), start breaking down the particulars of the tithe as a legal requirement. That to me is missing the point of the freewill offering entirely.

Peace...

Tithing shouldn't be looked at as a burden. If people feel it is as burden then they don't believe in the oppertunity it offers for God blessing your finances. i think it really reveals your heart to argue against at and not wanna do it.

 

[Simon Peter]

Thank you. I just finished it. It was a good read. I really like the fact that he uses mostly scripture to make his argument. I basically agree with him, except for a couple of minor interpretive mistakes he makes.

...
I don't believe however, that we are required to obey the tithe legalistically to the letter, for the simple reason that we have been delivered from the law. However, the things that were done aforetime were done for our learning, they are types and shadows of how we should behave and give us guidelines for our behavior. Therefore I think that in spite of all of it, the tithe is a good general principle to follow. And this is where I part company with the anti-tithe argument.

I do myself get frustrated when I hear preachers, (and yes it happens alot in WOF circles, and it annoys me), start breaking down the particulars of the tithe as a legal requirement. That to me is missing the point of the freewill offering entirely.

Peace...

I'm glad you found it an interesting read.

I'm don't consider myself 'anti-tithe', more anti-legalism and pro-giving.
The word tithe (tenth) is misused so often in church, and the truth of the OT tithe is so rarely taught in church that it makes people like me seem 'anti-tithe'.

I believe in generous giving that benefits our neighbour, rather than a church building. Yes support ministers, pastors, and missionaries, but never because of manipulative guilt-trip sermons.

Because titihing is not a legal requirement there's no robbing God or law breaking by witholding, but there's blessing in giving.


peace,
Simon

 

[Optimax]

Anyone who wants to improve or live a better life desires prosperity. The problem with people is they just don't wanna use the word prosperity.

The dictionary defination of prosperity is successful, flourishing, or thriving condition, especially in financial respects; good fortune. The Bible defines it as success, happiness, health, peace, wholeness, and abundance.

What prosperity is not: get rich scheme, sin, not part of the gospel, something preachers shouldn't have, something not to be desired, or a gimic.

First let me say that the prosperity message has been abused, but not to the extent as some proclaim. There a very few preachers that are stealing from people. Usually the ones who are you have never even heard of.

There is nothing bad in the defintion of prosperity. In fact mostly everyone who will read this is pursuing all these things. There is a error however in the church world that you can't talk about it in church or pursue it through the Bible; or people try to seperate money from prosperity. However the Bible is the best authority on the subject and money is inluded with prosperity. No prosperity is not just about money. We know that. When people say that, it is to get you to not talk about money at all. It does include money though. It isn't about material things, but it includes them.

The fact is you want more money and you want material things. You work 40 hrs a week for what? Money. You invest in a college education for what? Money and success. You workout and try to eat right for what? A healthy body. If you want to own you own home and be debt free you desire prosperity. If you want a nice car, you desire prosperity. For some reason you think you desires are more moral than
other. It is ok to desire a boat, but not a rolex; a camper not a lexus... WRONG!!!

Anytime God manfests himself in your life that is prosperity. It doesn't matter how small or big it may seem to you, it is prosperity. But for some reason folks don't want to call it that though. Properity isn't a bad word.

Does God want you to have expensive material things? The question is do you want expensive material things and can you really afford them? If you can afford them He doen't care. God does't set the value on things, man does. All cars and clothes are just cars and clothes to God. A million dollar home and a fifty thousand dollar home are just homes to him. This is where your desire and will come in. Think about it, look at how God lives. He walks on gold streets. Do you think he cares if you buy your wife something that say Louis Vuitton on it? If that floats your boat and creates happiness and enjoyment, buy it. It is all about preference. I like Lincoln. Others like Cadillac or BMW. Some like Bently and Phantom. It is your choice.

"God doesn't want everyone rich and having millions of dollars..." Whatever God wants you rich. Again another one of those words. Rich doesn't mean millionaire. it just means having abundant supply. God want you to have alot of money. you want alot of money also. It takes money to go places, to give, to see, to live. It takes money to both survive and to thrive. You need to make and receive as much money as you can for the glory of God.

The fact is you support the prosperity message two ways or one way. Either you agree with it on vocally and with actions or with just your actions. If you have a job, your practicing one of the priciples to fianancial prosperity. If you have a saving and checking account, you supporting another principle. If you pray to get help that is another. If you eat out at a restuarant, there it is again. If you drive your own car when you can take the city bus I gotch you also. I can keep going on and on. Just dive in. you practice and believe in properity.

 

[Michaelismyname]

It takes money to go places, to give, to see, to live. It takes money to both survive and to thrive. You need to make and receive as much money as you can for the glory of God

.

belated reply .. to this excerpt only

really ? and here was i thinking that GoD is able to do all things and with him nothing is impossible

 

[MinJeremiah]

.

belated reply .. to this excerpt only

really ? and here was i thinking that GoD is able to do all things and with him nothing is impossible

God is able. He also is the one who came up with the work and reward concept. God isn't a magician. We are to live by faith, not depend on miracles. Thank God for miracles, but I don't wanna have to need one. I'd rather follow sound biblical finance priciples.

 

[Andre77]

I have not read all posts, and may repeat what has already been said.My apologies in this case.
However, I would think that we are under a New Covenant with no "law", and excludes legalism - also with giving of your income, time, knowledge etc. Giving only 10% may even be wrong as you may have much more than you need, yet there are million starving. You may be able to do without that new Mercedes, or the big house.

Insofar as prosperity is concerned, it is usually associated with the idea that God wants us to be wealthy. This suggests that if you are not, there must be something wrong with you?
A few things strike me. First, the people, especially in persecuted countries, are anything but wealthy. Yet they are prepared to die for their faith. So God does not want them to have money - or their faith being tested to the ultimate is not quite up to standard?
Secondly, the times in my life I was most blessed was when I was really sick (cancer). God carried me through and was an amazingly blessed time.

In the third instance, Scripture does not teach concern with financial wealth, health or freedom from setbacks etc at all:
Jesus said Joh 15:20 Remember the Word which I said to you, A slave is not greater than his lord. If they persecuted Me, they also will persecute you.
Also further in Scripture:
2Co 6:4 but in everything commending ourselves as God's servants, in much patience, in afflictions, in emergencies, in difficulties,
2Co 6:5 in stripes, in imprisonments, in riots, in labors, in watchings, in fastings,.... .

It may even be that not having "a good time" insofar as wealth, health etc is concerned, may often be beneficial.
Rom 5:3 And not only so, but we glory also in afflictions, knowing that affliction works out patience,
Rom 5:4 and patience works out proven character; and proven character, hope.

Rev 3:17 Because you say, I am rich, and I am made rich, and I have need of nothing, and do not know that you are wretched and miserable and poor and blind and naked.
Rev 3:18 I advise you to buy from Me gold having been fired by fire, that you may be rich; and white garments, that you may be clothed, and your shame and nakedness may not be revealed. And anoint your eyes with eye salve, that you may see.
Rev 3:19 I, as many "as I love, I rebuke and I chasten." Be zealous, then, and repent.

Pro 3:11 My son, do not reject the chastening of Jehovah, and do not loathe His correction;
Pro 3:12 for whom Jehovah loves He corrects, even as a father corrects the son with whom he is pleased.

Forget about the stuff of the world - they are actually worth nothing. Take care and be concerned about our souls and living a life as a "shining light" (thus be totally different from the world. Sadly we want to "blend in")

 

[aWalkbyFaith]

Wasn't this the first church?

Acts 4:32-35
"32 Now the multitude of those who believed were of one heart and one soul; neither did anyone say that any of the things he possessed was his own, but they had all things in common. 33 And with great power the apostles gave witness to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And great grace was upon them all. 34 Nor was there anyone among them who lacked; for all who were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the proceeds of the things that were sold, 35 and laid them at the apostles’ feet; and they distributed to each as anyone had need."

 

[Andre77]

"God want you to have alot of money. you want alot of money also"

I take it is fact that some people do want a lot of money. Maye because they want to make it really hard for themselves to get into heaven?
See Mat 19:23 And Jesus said to His disciples, Truly I say to you that a rich man will with great difficulty enter into the kingdom of Heaven.

To the contrary to God wanting us to be rich, Jesus states:
Luk 12:29 And you, do not seek what you shall eat, or what you shall drink, and stop being in anxiety.
Luk 12:30 For all the nations of the world seek after these things, and your Father knows that you need these things.
Luk 12:31 But seek the kingdom of God and all these things will be added to you.
Luk 12:32 Stop being afraid, little flock, because your Father was pleased to give you the kingdom.
Luk 12:33 Sell your possessions and give alms. Make for yourselves purses that do not grow old, an unfailing treasure in Heaven, where a thief cannot come near, nor moth can corrupt.
Luk 12:34 For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.

In Hebrews it is also stated:
Hebrews 13:5 Keep your life free from love of money, and be content with what you have, for he has said, “I will never leave you nor forsake you"

These passages actually addresses the heart of the matter, if you read carefully.

 

[Yahu]

Luk 12:33 Sell your possessions and give alms. Make for yourselves purses that do not grow old, an unfailing treasure in Heaven, where a thief cannot come near, nor moth can corrupt.

How many will be poor, blind and naked in the kingdom of heaven because they seek after selfish things in this life?

17 Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked:
18 I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see.

These individuals 'say, I am rich' and 'have need of nothing'. They have prosperity in this life but have no spiritual wealth saved up. Sounds to me like a WoF doctrine being countered. They have not suffered and overcome trials to earn refined gold. They have not earned their robes of righteousness granted for overcoming the flesh. They are spiritual blind. Their eternal status in the kingdom reflects those facts.