Do we receive whatever things we ask in prayer, believing?

[john darling]

Paul worked making tents by trade before and shortly after his conversion.

Thanks for posting those verses. I appreicate that you've made the effort to explain the context of the situation, though I think you've still missed the mark.

Paul had more problems with the Corinthians than he did with any of the other churches. They were stubborn about providing for his needs. Rather than confuse them with teachings about how they should provide for him he decided that he would provide for himself, to ensure that they could not later accuse him of sponging off them. He didn't want them to have any excuse like, "who does Paul think he is to correct us. He was eating our food and living under our roof and he has the nerve to tell us that we don't have enough faith"? etc...

Here is an example of this...

2COR 12:13 For what is it wherein ye were inferior to other churches, except it be that I myself was not burdensome to you? forgive me this wrong.

2COR 12:14 Behold, the third time I am ready to come to you; and I will not be burdensome to you: for I seek not your's but you: for the children ought not to lay up for the parents, but the parents for the children.

2COR 12:15 And I will very gladly spend and be spent for you; though the more abundantly I love you, the less I be loved.

2COR 12:16 But be it so, I did not burden you: nevertheless, being crafty, I caught you with guile.

2COR 12:17 Did I make a gain of you by any of them whom I sent unto you?

2COR 12:18 I desired Titus, and with him I sent a brother. Did Titus make a gain of you? walked we not in the same spirit? walked we not in the same steps?

In verse 13 Paul describes how he treated this church different regarding being "burdensome" in the context of depending on them for material goods. He says, "forgive me this wrong", but somewhat sarcastically because although he realized he was wrong to try to take matters into his own hands by going off to make tents for money (so that he could say he was not a financial burden on the Corinthians), he still had good intentions with it. In other words, his "wrong" was that he was too soft on them about their responsibility to provide for his material needs.

He goes on to explain that when he next comes, he will not be burdensome. In verse 17 and 18 this becomes even more clear when he asks them if he tried to make any gain from them. Obviously they had a problem with materialism and were confused by how to interpret Paul's behavior, probably because Paul did a lot of preaching while the rest of the church did more manual labor-type jobs with helping the poor or social work in the community.

This is made clear by the verses you posted earlier, but I'll go ahead and post some verses you left out, to make the context more clear.

1COR 9:1 Am I not an apostle? am I not free? have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? are not ye my work in the Lord?

1COR 9:2 If I be not an apostle unto others, yet doubtless I am to you: for the seal of mine apostleship are ye in the Lord.

1COR 9:3 Mine answer to them that do examine me is this,

1COR 9:4 Have we not power to eat and to drink?

1COR 9:5 Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?

1COR 9:6 Or I only and Barnabas, have not we power to forbear working?

Paul could exercise his spiritual authority and demand the material support he needed, but he chose not to go that route.

1COR 9:7 Who goeth a warfare any time at his own charges? who planteth a vineyard, and eateth not of the fruit thereof? or who feedeth a flock, and eateth not of the milk of the flock?

This is consistent with what Jesus said about the laborer being worthy of his hire. We become employees (or soldiers) of God and it's God's responsibility to provide for us. In the same way, if we have material goods then we have a responsibility to provide for our brothers and sisters. The Corinthians were not getting this lesson.

1COR 9:8 Say I these things as a man? or saith not the law the same also?

1COR 9:9 For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen?

1COR 9:10 Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written: that he that ploweth should plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope.

1COR 9:11 If we have sown unto you spiritual things, is it a great thing if we shall reap your carnal things?

Again, the concept of sharing within the community of believers. God takes care of his employees in the same way that the church should be taking care of it's members.

1COR 9:12 If others be partakers of this power over you, are not we rather? Nevertheless we have not used this power; but suffer all things, lest we should hinder the gospel of Christ.

Paul didn't use his god-given authority. Instead he went off to make money, thinking it would be better than confusing the Corinthians with these issues of material provision. In the end he realized he was wrong and that he should have taught them their Christian responsibility even if it did offend them.

1COR 9:13 Do ye not know that they which minister about holy things live of the things of the temple? and they which wait at the altar are partakers with the altar?

1COR 9:14 Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel.

He's making it super clear. The laborer is worthy of his hire. If we seek first the kingdom of God, God will provide the things we need. Since all Christians are called on to preach the gospel (not just a select few) then this principle applies to all of us.

1COR 9:15 But I have used none of these things: neither have I written these things, that it should be so done unto me: for it were better for me to die, than that any man should make my glorying void.

Another reference to him going off to provide for himself rather than to "burden" them with the responsibility of providing materially for their fellow Christians, for which he later wrote "forgive me this wrong in treating you differently in this way".

Now, consider the original verse from acts where we get this story of Paul making tents for money. You posted up to verse 4, but verse 5 is part of the context, as well. It says,

ACTS 18:5 And when Silas and Timotheus were come from Macedonia, Paul was pressed in the spirit, and testified to the Jews that Jesus was Christ.

Paul was there in Corinth on his own for a while. He was having all these problems with the Corinthians. When he met Priscilla and Aquila he found some comfort in what must have been a very emotionally difficult time for him.

But, when his Christian brothers Timothy and Silas came, he was "pressed in the spirit" and went out preaching. The context is that the visit from his Christian brothers convicted him. Instead of preaching the gospel, they found him busily working for money. He realized that he wasn't supposed to be using his time to make tents. He was supposed to be out there preaching the gospel. This kind of thing happens to all of us at times.

As inspired as Paul was, he wasn't perfect; he made mistakes too, just like any other human being. Paul recognized this when he said, "GAL 1:7 ... there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. GAL 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

In conclusion, all this context works together to show that Paul was not teaching the virtues of money making. Despite his mistake with the Corinthians, his teachings about material provision and preaching the gospel were quite consistent with what Jesus taught. However, even if Paul did teach that it's okay to work for money, that would not make it okay. Paul is not the cornerstone. He is not the savior. He is not the master. Jesus is. And Jesus said we cannot work for God and mammon at the same time without cheating on one or the other.

 

[john darling]

I always kinda wonder how it is that people see a worldly job as an answer to prayer, especially when the answer to the prayer seems to point to greater dependence on the worldly system of love for wages.

I thought the comment was cold, untrue, rude and IMO, a big mistake to say such a thing.

You've got these feelings, but you've not shown that they are justified. They seem to be more emotional than rational like, "how dare I question another Christian's attitude towards money and materialism". Is it really so wrong to question a person's attitude toward mammon? Jesus talked about pigs, goats, vipers and hypocrites. I don't think I did anything so dramatic as that. Of course, he was justified because he was right, but if it's the right or wrong of the situation which determines such dramatic challenges, then shouldn't you be addressing my reasons for why instead of rebuking me for making the observation at all?

For example, you said there is a big difference between "serve" and "work" in Matthew 6:24. I've just seen you said you will get to the rest of my post soon. I'd very much like it if you'd put a response to that part in the forefront of your thinking.

Deb doesn't need me to defend her, we as guys have tendency there, so, that made it even worse and maybe the reason I jumped in on your comment to another poster, but that aside, my reaction would have probably been pretty much the same no matter who you said it too.

This is why I suggested that you're allowing emotions to come before reason. Instead of judging the right or wrong of either mine or Deb's argument, you've decided that Deb needs defending, presumably becasue she's female and "guys have a tendency there".

In short, I think you messed up there in the way you worded that .....assuming, or at best, strongly indicating someone here has a love for wages because they don't work the job you see fit, a job like you have.

A job like I have? I don't think I've ever said what my job is and I'm quite certain I don't even know what Deb's job is to make a comparison. This is why it's important that you understand the job is not what is at issue and never has been from the very start. Deb's comment was not about finding a job which is not "spiritual enough". Her comment was about praying for a job with better monetary advantage. Go back to my original post on the issue and you will see I commented specifically on that issue. I don't know why you keep missing that point. It may be that you need to slow down and look at what I'm really saying.

 

[Brother Mike]

And the lord commended the unjust steward, because he had done wisely: for the children of this world are in their generation wiser than the children of light. And I say unto you, Make to yourselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness; that, when ye fail, they may receive you into everlasting habitations.
(Luk 16:8-9)

 

[The_Epsicle]

Thanks for posting those verses. I appreicate that you've made the effort to explain the context of the situation, though I think you've still missed the mark.

Paul had more problems with the Corinthians than he did with any of the other churches. They were stubborn about providing for his needs. Rather than confuse them with teachings about how they should provide for him he decided that he would provide for himself, to ensure that they could not later accuse him of sponging off them. He didn't want them to have any excuse like, "who does Paul think he is to correct us. He was eating our food and living under our roof and he has the nerve to tell us that we don't have enough faith"? etc...

Here is an example of this...



In verse 13 Paul describes how he treated this church different regarding being "burdensome" in the context of depending on them for material goods. He says, "forgive me this wrong", but somewhat sarcastically because although he realized he was wrong to try to take matters into his own hands by going off to make tents for money (so that he could say he was not a financial burden on the Corinthians), he still had good intentions with it. In other words, his "wrong" was that he was too soft on them about their responsibility to provide for his material needs.

He goes on to explain that when he next comes, he will not be burdensome. In verse 17 and 18 this becomes even more clear when he asks them if he tried to make any gain from them. Obviously they had a problem with materialism and were confused by how to interpret Paul's behavior, probably because Paul did a lot of preaching while the rest of the church did more manual labor-type jobs with helping the poor or social work in the community.

This is made clear by the verses you posted earlier, but I'll go ahead and post some verses you left out, to make the context more clear.



Paul could exercise his spiritual authority and demand the material support he needed, but he chose not to go that route.



This is consistent with what Jesus said about the laborer being worthy of his hire. We become employees (or soldiers) of God and it's God's responsibility to provide for us. In the same way, if we have material goods then we have a responsibility to provide for our brothers and sisters. The Corinthians were not getting this lesson.



Again, the concept of sharing within the community of believers. God takes care of his employees in the same way that the church should be taking care of it's members.



Paul didn't use his god-given authority. Instead he went off to make money, thinking it would be better than confusing the Corinthians with these issues of material provision. In the end he realized he was wrong and that he should have taught them their Christian responsibility even if it did offend them.



He's making it super clear. The laborer is worthy of his hire. If we seek first the kingdom of God, God will provide the things we need. Since all Christians are called on to preach the gospel (not just a select few) then this principle applies to all of us.



Another reference to him going off to provide for himself rather than to "burden" them with the responsibility of providing materially for their fellow Christians, for which he later wrote "forgive me this wrong in treating you differently in this way".

Now, consider the original verse from acts where we get this story of Paul making tents for money. You posted up to verse 4, but verse 5 is part of the context, as well. It says,



Paul was there in Corinth on his own for a while. He was having all these problems with the Corinthians. When he met Priscilla and Aquila he found some comfort in what must have been a very emotionally difficult time for him.

But, when his Christian brothers Timothy and Silas came, he was "pressed in the spirit" and went out preaching. The context is that the visit from his Christian brothers convicted him. Instead of preaching the gospel, they found him busily working for money. He realized that he wasn't supposed to be using his time to make tents. He was supposed to be out there preaching the gospel. This kind of thing happens to all of us at times.

As inspired as Paul was, he wasn't perfect; he made mistakes too, just like any other human being. Paul recognized this when he said, "GAL 1:7 ... there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. GAL 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

In conclusion, all this context works together to show that Paul was not teaching the virtues of money making. Despite his mistake with the Corinthians, his teachings about material provision and preaching the gospel were quite consistent with what Jesus taught. However, even if Paul did teach that it's okay to work for money, that would not make it okay. Paul is not the cornerstone. He is not the savior. He is not the master. Jesus is. And Jesus said we cannot work for God and mammon at the same time without cheating on one or the other.

I am not saying we should be concerned with money, God will provide all of our needs so we should trust His promise. However this does not mean that Paul made a mistake by making tents for money with Aquila and Priscilla, there is nothing in the Acts to suggest that. He admits to the mistake of asking nothing of the Corinthians when he was there with them later but in Acts there is no indication he did wrong. There is nothing wrong with working for a living, and we should remain as we were when Christ called us.

"Each one should remain in the condition in which he was called. Were you a bondservant when called? Do not be concerned about it. (But if you can gain your freedom, avail yourself of the opportunity.) For he who was called in the Lord as a bondservant is a freedman of the Lord. Likewise he who was free when called is a bondservant of Christ. You were bought with a price; do not become bondservants of men. So, brothers, in whatever condition each was called, there let him remain with God." - 1 Corinthians 7:20-24

I don't deny that preachers can ask their congregations to support them and that the congregations should support them, but the preacher has the right to deny himself that right as Paul did. For those of us who aren't preachers we serve the Lord through our jobs, as Martin Luther puts it:

"The Christian shoemaker does his duty not by putting little crosses on the shoes, but by making good shoes, because God is interested in good craftsmanship." - Martin Luther

Or, since what Martin Luther says is hardly authoritative Scripture, as Paul puts it in his letter to the Colossians:

"Bondservants, obey in everything those who are your earthly masters, not by way of eye-service, as people-pleasers, but with sincerity of heart, fearing the Lord. Whatever you do, work heartily, as for the Lord and not for men, knowing that from the Lord you will receive the inheritance as your reward. You are serving the Lord Christ." - Colossians 3:22-24

When I go to work as a Lifeguard I am not serving my manager, or the swimmers, or the city that owns the pool, and I'm not serving myself for the sake of a paycheck, but I am serving God.

Also, I only posted those scriptures to show that Paul was a tentmaker. I thought that was the part you were disputing so I just wanted to establish that he was indeed a tentmaker.

 

[Kenny_ms]

"how dare I question another Christian's attitude towards money and materialism".

[This post was off topic and probably better handled via SAC rather than on the open boards. WIP]

 

[Kenny_ms]

This is why I suggested that you're allowing emotions to come before reason.

[This post was off topic and probably better handled via SAC rather than on the open boards. WIP]

 

[john darling]

Response to deleted text. Please take this to private conversation.

 

[Kenny_ms]

Response to deleted post. Please discuss in private.

 

[john darling]

I am not saying we should be concerned with money

If we are not concerned for money, then what is the point of working to get more of it?

God will provide all of our needs so we should trust His promise.

If this is true, then what is the point in working for money?

However this does not mean that Paul made a mistake by making tents for money with Aquila and Priscilla, there is nothing in the Acts to suggest that.

So when the account from Acts (the one and only verse in all the Bible which mentions Paul's tent making) says that he was, "pressed in the spirit" when Silas and Timothy came and that he then gave his time to preaching the gospel, (as a result of being "pressed in the spirit" you see no problem there with what he was doing before he was pressed in the spirit? What do you think "pressed in the spirit" means? Try to remember the overall context about Paul's motivations for WHY he felt he needed to work for money in this case and how that relates to what Jesus, Paul's master said about service to mammon (money and the things money can buy). You say Paul did not make a mistake, but I'm fairly confident Paul was not the kind of person who would say, "forgive me this wrong" if he didn't mean it.

I don't deny that preachers can ask their congregations to support them and that the congregations should support them, but the preacher has the right to deny himself that right as Paul did. For those of us who aren't preachers we serve the Lord through our jobs, as Martin Luther puts it:

But look at the context. Paul was only "denying his right" because he thought it would cause the Corinthians to stumble if he pushed them to provide for his material needs when they were obviously struggling with such a teaching. He stressed that he wasn't there just to make a material gain from them. Why would he stress such a point if he didn't feel it was a significant problem with them?

He was not "denying his right" to be cared for by the church. He was "denying his right" to demand that the Corinthians should provide for him, almost certainly because he felt such a demand would be misunderstood by them.

Otherwise we would have heard the same story from all the other churches. But we don't. We only hear of this problem with the Corinthian church. Can't you see that this whole "tent making" issue was local to a specific issue within a specific church? It cannot reasonably be used to contradict all that Jesus said about working for love just because the account itself exists in the first place.

"The Christian shoemaker does his duty not by putting little crosses on the shoes, but by making good shoes, because God is interested in good craftsmanship." - Martin Luther

Or, since what Martin Luther says is hardly authoritative Scripture, as Paul puts it in his letter to the Colossians:

"Bondservants, obey in everything those who are your earthly masters, not by way of eye-service, as people-pleasers, but with sincerity of heart, fearing the Lord. Whatever you do, work heartily, as for the Lord and not for men, knowing that from the Lord you will receive the inheritance as your reward. You are serving the Lord Christ." - Colossians 3:22-24

Sure, when we work we shold do so as unto the lord, no matter what the job is. But the issue was never about work. The issue was about WHY we work, or "who" we work for; God or mammon (money and the things money can buy). So, yes, we should be interested in good craftsmanship. Yes, we should do our work well, not just to please humans, but to please God, even if we are slaves or "bondservants".

However, as you so rightly quoted Paul, if we can gain our freedom, we should do so. Do not become bondservants of men. How many of us today are actual, legitimate slaves to our work in the sense that we are not physically able to leave even if we wanted to? In western civilizations, very, very few of us. The people who have the freedom to post here on this forum are not slaves.

When I go to work as a Lifeguard I am not serving my manager, or the swimmers, or the city that owns the pool, and I'm not serving myself for the sake of a paycheck, but I am serving God.

The easiest way to test this is to ask yourself if you would continue doing the job even if you didn't get paid. I don't meant that you should be accountable to me with your answer, but that every Christian should ask themselves that same question as a matter of habitual reflection.

Also, I only posted those scriptures to show that Paul was a tentmaker. I thought that was the part you were disputing so I just wanted to establish that he was indeed a tentmaker.

It's strange to me that you would make this point. The context in which Deborah brought it up was to show that service to mammon IS okay, because "Paul made tents for a living". I questioned that, which caused you to also defend the point. The whole context was one of service to mammon. I realize you probably don't see it that way, but if you will go back through and follow carefully what both Deborah and I were saying, you will see that she brought it up as a counter argument to working for love.

The whole "tent making" argument is verry popular, because it hinges on a saint like Paul justifying service to mammon. It's a terribly convenient doctrine, but that's all it is; convenient. If you'll also notice it was not Deborah's first choice in attempting to refute my arguments. She chose a different line of reasoning.

When I answered her argument she brought out a new counter claim. That's how it is with the teachings of Jesus. There is very rarely any serious consideration of what he taught. There is almost always some new proof text from some other place in the Bible or some argument for why Jesus didn't really mean what he said, or about how women can't be challenged (as Kenny has suggested), or about how those who suggest such radical teachings are just "fanatical".

 

[john darling]

Please take this discussion to private SAC. Thanks.

 

[WIP]

Remember, this is the A&T forum. Certain rules apply.

 

[Kenny_ms]

(Post deleted. As per multiple requests and reminders by administration, certain rules apply in this forum, one of them being: "Subsequent responses either opposing or adding additional information should include references to specific supportive scripture relevant to the thread and offer explanation of the member's understanding of how that scripture applies." Obadiah)

 

[Kenny_ms]

(Post deleted. As per multiple requests and reminders by administration, certain rules apply in this forum, one of them being: "Subsequent responses either opposing or adding additional information should include references to specific supportive scripture relevant to the thread and offer explanation of the member's understanding of how that scripture applies." Obadiah)

 

[Obadiah]

As per an administrator: "Remember, this is the A&T forum. Certain rules apply." One in particular is "Subsequent responses either opposing or adding additional information should include references to specific supportive scripture relevant to the thread and offer explanation of the member's understanding of how that scripture applies." Another is that threads must stay on topic. Let's get back to the topic of "Do we receive whatever things we ask in prayer, believing?"

Personal arguments need to be taken to private messages and not aired in the public forums, and personal insults will not be tolerated (Per ToS 2.4).

 

[Obadiah]

When you are hired into a worldly system of working for money, do you stipulate that part of your job must include the freedom to preach the gospel whenever you feel it is appropriate? There is no monetary employer who would agree to such terms. Some may turn a blind eye to the times when you say, "God bless you" to a customer on their way out or give you a bit of space in other ways, but no employer will agree that "preaching the gospel" should be an official part of your job duties because you are not being hired to preach the gospel. You are being hired to perform whatever duties for which the employer agreed to pay you to perform. This means that any time you spend doing a different job (i.e. preaching the gospel) is time which you are cheating on your employer.

My employer not only allows sharing of the gospel to our clients (not just a casual "God bless you" but actual sharing of the gospel message), but encourages it and is happy when it is done even though it's not an official part of my job. And my employer is NOT a church, not a non-profit charity organization, and DOES pay me wages (in money)! I asked to be able to be in this kind of a position per Matthew 21:22: “whatever things you ask in prayer, believing, you will receive." whether or not it paid money. Had it not paid money, God would have provided for me by some other means. But he gave me both in one.

 

[Brother Mike]

My employer not only allows sharing of the gospel to our clients (not just a casual "God bless you" but actual sharing of the gospel message), but encourages it and is happy when it is done even though it's not an official part of my job. And my employer is NOT a church, not a non-profit charity organization, and DOES pay me wages (in money)! I asked to be able to be in this kind of a position per Matthew 21:22: “whatever things you ask in prayer, believing, you will receive." whether or not it paid money. Had it not paid money, God would have provided for me by some other means. But he gave me both in one.

That is awesome, thanks for sharing that. Mark 11:24

 

[WIP]

I work for a global company that builds industrial packaging equipment. We have an on-staff corporate chaplain. We hold weekly devotions every Tuesday morning for anyone that wishes to attend and this is on company time. Here's our corporate Values statement.

View attachment 6892

 

[Deborah13]

Her comment was about praying for a job with better monetary advantage.

No it wasn't. I didn't have any job at the time.

My employer not only allows sharing of the gospel to our clients (not just a casual "God bless you" but actual sharing of the gospel message), but encourages it and is happy when it is done even though it's not an official part of my job.

Here's our corporate Values statement.

Awesome, you both are truly blessed.

 

[john darling]

No it wasn't. I didn't have any job at the time.

There has been a couple of times when I prayed for something and I have been glad God did not answer that prayer. In time, He gave me something better. One time it was a better job making quite a bit more money.

I'm fairly open to having misunderstood your words, but based on the way you've expressed it here, it looks pretty consistent with my comment that you were praying for a job "making better money".

Maybe the misunderstanding is that you were praying for "a job" in general, and he answerd the prayer with a job making better money than what you were hoping for? If that's the case then I think the spirit of my comment is still consistent with what you shared about praying for the job. In the end it really doesn't matter whether the prayer was for "this" much money or "that" much money. The point is that you've interpreted the circumstances surrounding the job as not only God wanting you to work for mammon, but rather more mammon than what you had previously been content to work for.

It's just not consistent with what Jesus taught.

MT 6:24 No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.

Maybe the problem is that you do not see "mammon" as being inclusive of "money"? Or you do not see "serve" and "work" as being contextually consistent in this case?

 

[Kenny_ms]

The point is that you've interpreted the circumstances surrounding the job as not only God wanting you to work for mammon, but rather more mammon than what you had previously been content to work for.

It's just not consistent with what Jesus taught.

I'm not commenting on what Deb meant or didn't mean but the point you make of praying for or simply wanting to make more money in a job not being consistent with what Jesus wants.


Can you please explain why Jesus would not want us to make more money than we do?