What do you think of all the super-rich pastors around the world and their lifestyles??

[Arrabon]

6 hours ago, Alive said:

I like this conversation.

@Alive

Me too X2

[Slug1]

On 7/2/2021 at 2:38 PM, Josheb said:

Break it down. 

What are you views pertaining to a person being prosperous?
What are you views pertaining to a pastor being prosperous?
If prosperity is permitted then are the limits to how much a pastor should prosper? 
Is the means of any pastor's prosperity relevant or important? 
Is how the prosperity is managed or spent relevant or important? 
What are the alternatives (once the prosperity has been attained)? 
How might that which is be changed?

Once you've got some semblance of the above self-articulated then ask how much of that set of beliefs are rooted in clear and whole scripture.

Normally...... I'd start with scripture but I suspect the reverse will serve you best on this occasion. 

When I've read your answers to these question I'll offer some of my own and the scriptural basis thereof, if you're still interested because your answers to those few questions might solve the op for you and others' views won't be needed. 

 

 

I will say this: God's jurisprudence (justice) is built on the premise of property and true ownership quite substantively. Grace? Not so much. Properly understood, the two cannot be separated.

Over the years in discussion about "prosperity,"here is what I offer:

Prosperity isn't truly about "riches", it's about being "rich" with what God has given and by rich, I mean this, the more God gives, the more there is OF oneself to give to others in ministry. But this mindset is in opposition of pretty much all prosperity gospels.

You see, when God "gives" more money to prosper a person, it's not for the person, it's so God can use them in greater ways. The prosperity is "for" the ministry or for the church they attend, etc.

Prosperity is not so they can "have" more.

Also with the usual "prosperity" preaching, comes the push about "divine" health. I'm reminded however about Paul, he had a problem and God didn't change his "health or problem" at all. All that was changed was Paul's outlook, his perspective. Paul was PROSPERED (made rich) by God's revelation to him and this prosperity wasn't about "money" at all. Paul took this prosperity and it caused him to be more focused on the ministry - put MORE of a fire in him for execution of the ministry.

That is the heart of "true" prosperity, not a new car, but doing MORE with the car one has

We have Timothy also, drink more wine says Paul. IOWs, deal with the stomach issues (like the rest of us - my thought). Paul didn't advise that Timothy "try" harder to be faithful and God would heal him of the problem. At the heart of ALL prosperity gospels, that would be the fruit of those indoctrinated by such a gospel.

As for specifics of "health." There are only examples of healing (being MADE healthy through supernatural power/authority of God) throughout the Bible, there are no examples of what can be construed as "divine healthy living" to be in support of any prosperity gospel.

There are ONLY examples of CHANGED and RIGHT (righteous) living and this is true prosperity of the Gospel!

Let me say as well, As has been mentioned, this CAN mean that a Christian can be physically healthy and financially wealthy but this is NOT because of the Gospel, nor is it because of any prosperity gospel either, when you really view the doctrine.

[Ozarkbound]

I blame the people who send them the money. People who study the Word of God for themselves know better. Those with itchy ears fall for anything.

[appy]

Regarding leaving a church. We most certainly should leave any church; If there is error being taught on core doctrines.  The church leaders are tolerant to any errant doctrine being taught within the church fellowship. Legalism is being pushed. Fear and loyalty of and to church leaders. Allowing an unbeliever or someone with an open and blatant sinful lifestyle to lead church members.

[David1701]

16 hours ago, Josheb said:

That is true but isn't an inference to say the singular or plural conjugations are indications of congregations? Just because the singular ekklesia is used instead of ekklesiai does not necessarily mean there was only one congregation, especially if we're talking about what might have amounted to a several hundred people in a large city. Remember: they met in synagogues and houses. One church, but perhaps many house meetings. The conjugation ekklesiais is singular but it means multiple gatherings (Mt. 18:17; Eph. 5:23). Ecclesiologically there is only one Church, the body of Christ. Ecclesiastically there are many churches and within each are many congregations (this is why I always capitalize "Church" in my posts and rarely use the small-c church, preferring instead to say "the congregation I attend..."). One Church; many congregations. Any number of Christians and non-Christians may be in a congregation but the Church is constituted only of Christians. I'm not sure about other translations but the NAS never uses the word "congregation." In the OT we find the Hebrew "qahal" or "assembly." When the Jews translated the Tanakh into Greek they used the word ekklesia. They saw a parallel between the assembly and those who are "called out." Just as I think there are problems with the inference a singular ekklesia necessitates a single gathering, so to multiple gathering do not necessitate more than one called outs. Christ does not have more than one body. His body does, however, have more than one member.

Corinth is estimated to have had as many as 90k people. Antioch had a half mil. Ephesus and Rome had more than a million! If my math is correct that makes the last two more than twice the size of Los Angeles and four times as large as New York City!  

Fundamentally, I think we err when we read "church" or ecclesia" as anything other than the body of Christ or those called out of the world into service of God through His resurrected Son. 

However, your observation is an astute one I hadn't considered before. 

This too is an inference not actually stated in the text. If just one percent of the city had been converted to Christ within the first twenty years of the Church then there were 900 converts in that city. There were more Christians in Corinth than Jews. Probably two or three times as many, so it's not likely one assembly could fit in the courtyard(s) of that city's synagogue or a single believer's house. Even half of one percent means more converts than Jews. 

I completely agree. 

Source?

Yes, I completely understand and have often expressed the exact same view. 
 

The conjugations of ekklesia are certainly interesting and informative but I am not prepared to agree with the inferences asserted. Have you another source for the position even large cities had only one gathering, assembly, or congregation? 

I didn't mean that there was only one meeting place, in any particular town.  They often met from house to house; but, there was only one body of Christ in each town, as a microcosm of the whole; whereas, there was always a plurality in a region. You couldn't leave the Baptists and go the Anglicans - there were no such distinctions.

I prefer "assembly" or "congregation" to "church", since the Greek word refers to people called out of the mass of humanity, to gather together.  I suppose "convocation" could be the best translation (although imperfect), since it incorporates (semi-pun intended) the idea of being called together.

If you asked a thousand people what "church" means, I doubt if ten percent of them would give a biblical definition (probably far fewer).

Tynedale used "congregation" in many of the places where "ekklesia" appears, in the NT; and some editions of the Geneva Bible did the same (although not the one I have - 1599).  I've read that King James insisted that the KJV translators used "church" instead (I can't remember where I read it), since it accorded better with his Anglicanism; and most Bibles since then have followed suit, out of tradition.  The Darby and World English Bible translations use "assembly".

Interesting as this all is, I seem to have side-tracked the thread; so, I'll return to the proper subject.

Amassing personal wealth is never encouraged, in the NT (and especially not for those in responsible positions in the assemblies, since they are to be examples) and there are several warnings given about it, so super-rich pastors are painting a large target on their own backs...

Edited July 4, 2021 by David1701
typo

[David1701]

On 7/2/2021 at 3:11 AM, R. Hartono said:

They never even build a single sanctuary to treat n feed poor lazarus on the streets like that model of mother theresa church in calcutta

Did  Jesus told the story of poor lazarus for nothing ? What did they do with that donation from people

 

 

 

 

Helping the poor is certainly enormously better than amassing personal wealth.  It is more blessed to give than to receive.

Regarding "Mother" Thesesa, she encouraged people to be the "best" of whatever false religion they happened to be in, and did not warn them to repent and believe in Jesus Christ, so she is a very bad example.

[David1701]

14 minutes ago, Josheb said:

Thanks for the clarification. 

I believe that is correct. 

Such as?

Matt. 13:22 (VW)

And that which was sown among the thorns is he who hears the Word, and the cares of this world and the deceitfulness of riches choke the Word, and he becomes unfruitful.

Riches are deceitful.

Matt. 19:23-26 (VW)

23 Then Jesus said to His disciples, Truly, I say to you that it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of Heaven.
24 And again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.
25 When His disciples heard it, they were greatly astonished, saying, Who then can be saved?
26 But Jesus looked at them and said to them, With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.

Riches are a hindrance to entering the kingdom of heaven, although God is stronger, of course.

Luke 16:19-25 (VW)

19 There was a certain rich man who was clothed in purple and fine linen and fared sumptuously every day.
20 And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, full of sores, who was laid at his gate,
21 desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man’s table. Moreover the dogs came and licked his sores.
22 So it happened that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham’s bosom. The rich man also died and was buried.
23 And being in torments in Hades, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.
24 Then he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.
25 But Abraham said, Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things; but now he is comforted and you are tormented.

The end of those who focus on amassing riches for themselves...

 

1 Tim. 6:5-10 (VW)

5 useless wranglings of men of corrupt minds and destitute of the truth, who suppose that godliness is a means of gain. From such withdraw yourself.
6 But godliness with contentment is great gain.
7 For we brought nothing into this world, and it is evident that we can carry nothing out.
8 And having food and clothing, with these we shall be content.
9 But those who purpose to be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and harmful lusts which plunge people into ruin and destruction.
10 For the love of money is a root of all evils, for which some being greedy, have strayed from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.

Purposing to be rich leads to temptations, snares and lusts, which plunge people into ruin and destruction.

 

[Mike Mclees]

Jesus said what profits aa man if he gain the world but lose his soul.

Jesus spoke a parable about a man who had some barns that were full so he built bigger barns and they were also filled. As the man relaxed on his porch He said to himself I have worked hard and now have plenty so I will retire and enjoy life. But the the death angel came to him and said thou fool, today your soul is required of thee. 

There is something wrong with preachers that preach for their own gain living lavish life styles

Edited July 4, 2021 by Mike Mclees

[David1701]

8 minutes ago, Josheb said:

I think the angel is in the details here. 

The original assertion was "personal wealth is never encouraged, in the NT.................  and there are several warnings given about it...." 

There are several warnings given about personal wealth.

None of the passages just cited actually state any such thing. What is being decried is the love of money, not the personal wealth itself. This is very important because wealth (prosperousness, prosperity, money, wealth in other material forms such as cattle) is described in very diverse ways throughout scripture and it is always a mistake to pit one against the other. Material success is a blessing from God. Material success is also a stronghold that has bound many a wealth person. How then can a blessing also be a stronghold? Many think that way. Mistakenly. Wealth is not the problem. What people think and do with wealth or in wealth may (or may not) be a problem. James, for example, warns the elite not to take the privileged places in the assembly , thereby indicating some identified gentrifiction and attitudes facilitating it. 

We can all agree wealth can be a problem, but it is a problem whenever there are heart issues making it such. It is always a matter of idolatry, the placement of something other than God in the place of God in the creature's life. Any number of things can be idols including the self, religion, spouse, work, and..... money. None of them are inherently idols. We make them idols. 

If a super-rich pastor is in fact saved then he does not have the problem of the rich young ruler for whom it would be easier to get a camel through the eye of a needle. He may have all his works burned to ash and emerge from God's testing charred and covered in soot but he will be saved. If, however, his wealth is a strong tower he deems unscalable and that is where lies his love then it is likely he was never submitted to God through the resurrected son; he has had his reward and there will no more for him. 

Money is not a problem. Money is not the problem. The love of money is a problem. 

Which one of us would not like to have immeasurable wealth by which we might spread the gospel and meet the God-honoring needs of widows and orphans? Which one of us would actually follow through on that imagination were it realized? 

God knows. 

OT blessings were often physical ones.  NT blessings are primarily spiritual.

What I said was that the NT warns about amassing personal wealth and the quotes I gave confirm that this is true.  Yes, warnings about loving money are intertwined with this, since you are only going to amass wealth for yourself, if you love it.

Money passing through your hands and going on to help orphans, widows, Christian ministries, etc., is not amassing personal wealth and was not what I was talking about.

[Marathoner]

Indeed, the love of money is the root of all evil. There is neither blessing nor curse to be found in riches or poverty. The Lord is the giver of gifts, and He gives as He sees fit.

God blessed me when I was a homeless vagabond just as He blesses me here and now; the lesson of poverty is evident in the good stewardship of what Christ is pleased to bestow upon me. Don't ridicule the poor nor curse the wealthy, for who are we to question the provision of our Father in heaven?

I'm thankful for the decades I spent adrift with no place to rest my head. I'm exceedingly frugal and thrifty because of it and while I'm certainly not well off according to the measure of the country where I reside, I'm doing exceedingly well because I'm wise with what the Lord sends my way. 

I'm finally past the point where I reeled in horror at the money I've been saving. Money and Marathoner seldom met in times past. 

It's simple: it's not my money! It's simply waiting for the Lord to send it elsewhere.