Join Hidden in Him and For His Glory for discussions on how
https://christianforums.net/threads/become-a-vessel-of-honor-part-2.112306/
LOL It appears to me that it may be you who is uptight about money. You asked for my opinion about a particular verse, I gave it. I think you should Ecc 10 in context.
How honest is it not to quote the whole post, since it is not the denial your snip-and-clip makes it appear? It says we can discuss your passages after you refute the ones I've repeatedly put before you, the ones you have yet to address. Refusing the challenge says a lot about your confidence in the argument. This is ridiculous. And I have to ask myself, why am I wasting my time? Good-bye.
When the man said, "I have used none of these things," and "What then is my reward? That, when I preach the gospel, I may offer the gospel without charge so as not to make full use of my right to the gospel," he is saying he has never accept money for his preaching.
Yes, because they do discount every thing you've tried to make those verses say. They do not say Paul's vocation was "apostle" nor do they say he ever accepted money for his preaching. He didn't. He defends the right of the pastors to be paid, who take up his work when he moves on. He never, ever states that he or any other apostle should be paid. That is why he was a tent-maker.
And again, he denies himself the right to accept that compensation because, as he clearly said, "But I have used none of these things," as you go on to point out in this post. But why does he not make use of those things? "For if a preach the gospel, I have nothing to boast of, for I am under compulsion; for woe is me if I do not preach the gospel. For if I do this voluntarily [Gr., hekon, meaning "voluntary, unforced, without compensation or requirement"] I have a reward [Gr., misthos, meaning "those rewards given by God for upon either good deeds, or endeavors of punishment"]; but if against my will, I have a stewardship [Gr., oikonomia, "the office of manager or overseer"] entrusted to me." So you see, he was separating himself from the office of overseer (bishop, pastor) in this statement. While he does not deny that he has the right to compensation, he refuses that compensation, he never took a single denarius for preaching, but he reserves that right for those who will follow him in shepherding the flocks who form a church because of his gospel message.
He never asked for an offering. That's the point you're failing to see in this passage. None of the other passages you have attempted to use to refute this viewpoint apply to the specific circumstance he is addressing.
Which is exactly why the Acts 18:3 is so significant! Don't you see that? He never accepted payment for preaching the gospel or planting a church. He was a bivocational missionary, the first one ever.
They apply to pastors. Not Paul. That's your error in bringing them into the discussion.
There is no need to discuss them because they are not applicable to the discussion. None of those passages show Paul applying them to himself, because in 1 Corinthians 9:1-18, he clearly claims the right for the apostles to live off the vocation of preaching, but at the same time disqualifies them -- including himself -- from ever having done so, or every doing so. That fact is clear from the passage, and is not refuted elsewhere.
No, I looked at the entire passage, several times, as I've done here again. You seem to be so blind to what the passage says, you are even blind to those who accurately point out what you are missing.
Of course he preached the gospel, and of course he wrote of his preaching the gospel. So did Dr. Luke write of his preaching, in recording the three missionary journeys Paul took. There was no point in writing about his tent-making. That wasn't the gospel. God's word deals with the gospel. But the only "vocation" Paul is said to have in the Bible is tent-maker. He wouldn't write of that. Luke wouldn't write of that. It wasn't the point. But it is how Paul fed and clothed himself. Your insistence he did not makes no sense in light of what God's word clearly states.
No, it doesn't say anything of the sort. In fact, it says the exact opposite!! He says, (in the NASB), "For you recall, brethern, our labor and hardships [Gr., kopos (labor) meaning "intense labor united with trouble and toil, and mochthos (hardships), meaning "a hard and difficult labor; toil, travail"] how working night and day so as not to be a burden to any of you, we proclaimed the gospel of God." These are two separate endeavors. The gospel is not intense manual labor, and the Greek leaves no doubt that is what Paul was speaking of, rather than the spiritual and intellectual labor of preaching and teaching the Thessalonians. He labored (likely at tent making, but perhaps at some other toilsome, difficult manual work while likely enduring persecution or physical affliction because of the heavy labor) separately from his preaching "so as not to be a burden" while preaching in his free time, away from the work. It is clear you have not considered this in your examination of the verse, but in the Greek, the meaning is exceptionally clear. There can be no other interpretation.
In reality, it is you who have focused on me incorrectly, claiming I have camped on that verse alone, whereas the truth is I've taken into account the entire passage in 1 Corinthians, until now, and in examining this "proof verse" of yours shown that it actually speaks the exact opposite of what you believe it says.
Not so sure about Paul specifically but I've heard somewhere that although Jesus didn't have a bed to call his own, he did allow others to help in that area. He was the 1st Apostle. I don't know what the whole discussion is bending over but it's perfectly okay to offer to give in support for the work that is done (or will be done).
Absolutely Deborah, it’ll be my pleasure! Do you want the short or long version? I’ll give you the short version for now and expand on it later if needed.
