I find no command, approved example or necessary inference for the church to use their treasury for benevolence except for needy saints. The Bible does say to do good to all men, but that is on an individual level and not to be used as permission to use the treasury for benevolence for those outside of the faith.

Hi Craig. Sorry to take so long to get with you. I have been very busy. I will work on your questions and get you a response.

I will address one question for the moment regarding the verse about "all men". Was the book written to, a man or the church at Galatia?

Is this verse plural or singular?

9 And let us not grow weary while doing good, for in due season we shall reap if we do not lose heart. 10 Therefore, as we have opportunity, let us do good to all, especially to those who are of the household of faith.

Just some things to consider brother. We can study this further if you desire.

It was written to the brethren. But still, I see that as not a command to use the church treasury for benevolence for those outside of Christ. The treasury can be used for benevolence to only those who are of the faith. However if I see someone in need and I am able, I can use my personal funds to extend help to him. That is in keeping with the Word. I see no scriptures for the Lord's church that authorizes the use of the treasury for food pantries or orphanages or to fund colleges.

Brother, please look again. I understand your thoughts on this and I agree that the top priority is the saints but because there is a definite line drawn between those in and outside the faith, we cannot make a blanket judgment that it is absolute that we cannot give from the contribution to those that are in need that are not of the faith. In addition, we cannot draw lines of fellowship or bind this on people/congregations for this reason.

If you and your congregation decides to give in a personal vs contribution way, that is your decision and is fine but as I stated before, we cannot bind such as a law when this pattern is given to the brethren (plural) and there is a line separating those in and out of the faith being helped. This is more than enough doubt to let us know that we should not be condemning of those that do not agree with your position about giving. Your position can be a personal and congregational decision but not a universal teaching in and of itself.

Now regarding orphanages and colleges, we need to be careful to not group all giving into the same bucket.

In the US, if a family takes care of children that need a home, they must be registered and thus become an institution. I do not suggest we give to any organization without considering and understanding the situation and people involved. For example, I know a sound brother that has four children and has taken in 8 orphans to care for.

He needs money to help care for them. Since children are of the kingdom as well as commanded to care for them and the widows, we have a responsibility to help if possible. If a congregation decides to give on a personal level because of whatever reason, then great but if a congregation, to fulfill the command to help orphans and widows, well we cannot judge them as sinning.

Maybe we can warn them to be careful because of whatever reason but we cannot make a blanket law to bind in light of the scriptures and the command. If the widows can be helped from the contribution because they are of the kingdom then why not the children who are also of the kingdom but are not saved.

If the law is to be held that we cannot give to nonbelievers, what about kids and orphans that are not baptized? As I previously stated, since they are of the kingdom, according to Jesus, we are to help them too.

All the examples of using the contribution is about being needy and Colleges are man made institutions that are not really made for the needy but for those that can afford the bill to be educated. Colleges are about profit. With that being said, I truly find no authority for giving to them at all. It is not the same as giving to help children. I know the colleges say that they do have needy for knowledge but that is just a sales pitch.

I can see the reasoning the colleges use to get money and why congregations give to them. The congregations think it is a good way to teach the lost that go to school. It is seriously unwise to give to such organizations, especially those colleges these days that have contributed in injuring the church during the last 15 or so years. To give to a university that brings in false teachers to lectureships etc is subject to judgment.

Congregations and their leaders are responsible to know what they spend the contribution on.

Make no mistake about me brother, I do not find many orphan homes that are worthy of contribution but they do exist and I know of some.

Ultimately, I am not trying to make you change the entirety of your position but only readjust your position to not draw lines of fellowship, not group all giving and congregations into the same pool of judgment. There is enough doubt from the scriptures to no allow us to take a hard line on many of these situations you mention.

If we truly apply them as laws, I could easily begin to make a list of unsound things non-institutional congregations spend their contribution on too..if we apply such things, where does it end? It has to end with the autonomy of the congregation in areas where there is doubt or effort to put forth and apply commands and pattern found in scripture.

The church should not be institutional or non-institutional but be sound in their judgment and realize that if we do not abide in the Word, we will face judgment for our decisions. God knows if we just blow the contribution or if we are being responsible and modeling ourself after the church example in the Word.

I pray this makes sense. Please let me know if I am not clear.

Your zeal for Truth is encouraging.

Matthew 19:14
But Jesus said, “Let the little children come to Me, and do not forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of heaven.”

James 1:27
Pure and undefiled religion before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their trouble, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world.

Acts 6:1
Now in those days, when the number of the disciples was multiplying, there arose a complaint against the Hebrews by the Hellenists, because their widows were neglected in the daily distribution.

You will not find one example of the church relieving anyone with the treasury outside of the faith. There is a difference between church benevolence and benevolence as an individual Christian.

Read the verse again. Also look at 2 Cor 9:13. It goes into more detail and again, separates those that are of the faith and those that are not, being helped. In this case, he states that this help comes from the distribution. The same kind of distribution given to the widows and Christians.

6 But this I say, He which soweth sparingly shall reap also sparingly; and he which soweth bountifully shall reap also bountifully.
7 Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver.
8 And God is able to make all grace abound toward you; that ye, always having all sufficiency in all things, may abound to every good work:
9 (As it is written, He hath dispersed abroad; he hath given to the poor: his righteousness remaineth for ever.
10 Now he that ministereth seed to the sower both minister bread for your food, and multiply your seed sown, and increase the fruits of your righteousness)
11 Being enriched in every thing to all bountifulness, which causeth through us thanksgiving to God.

12 For the administration of this service not only supplieth the want of the saints, but is abundant also by many thanksgivings unto God;

13 Whiles by the experiment of this ministration they glorify God for your professed subjection unto the gospel of Christ, and for your liberal distribution unto them, and unto all men;

14 And by their prayer for you, which long after you for the exceeding grace of God in you.
15 Thanks be unto God for his unspeakable gift.

Where do these verses say that the church treasury can be used to extend benevolence to those who are not needy Christians?

13 Whiles by the experiment of this ministration they glorify God for your professed subjection unto the gospel of Christ, and for your liberal distribution unto them, and unto all men;

That chapter is talking about one of the Lord's church helping out another needy church with their treasury. That is scriptural. That does not however indicate that it also means those outside of the faith are to be included.

Yes, it does. It draws a line..it says "them" and then to "all men" and the context is all about benevolence.

"all men" means all men.

How many are left out of all? None.

Brother, I know you do not want to admit something you hold so strongly to but try as you might you cannot make 2 Corinthians 9:13 mean something other than what it says in simple easy to understand language.

13 Whiles by the experiment of this ministration they glorify God for your professed subjection unto the gospel of Christ, and for your liberal distribution unto them,AND unto ALL men;

If you do not want to give out of the contribution, you and your congregation are free to make that decision but it is not something you can bind in light of the Gal 6 and 2 Cor 9 verses.

Hi Craig,

I have to agree with Steven on the language here. Just to give you a little something more to think about... Note that according to the rules of grammar, the "them" in verse 13 MUST refer to the previously stated group of people, which is "the saints" of verse 12.
So to clarify verse 13, it could be written as,
The conjoining of "them", meaning "the saints", with "all men" using "and" necessitates the conclusion that "all men" is distinct from "the saints". Otherwise, Paul is being redundant. Who are not saints? The non-believers.

Now, you might argue that "the saints" here refer only to the saints in Jerusalem and that "all men" mean the saints elsewhere. However, that is not born out by the passage because that would make Paul refer to believers in Jerusalem as "saints" and believers elsewhere as mere "men". If Paul had meant "saints in other cities", he would have said so using language such as "and unto all saints everywhere". He did not do so.

Again I agree with Steven. If your congregation chooses to help non-believing needy people only by individuals acting, there is nothing unscriptural about that approach as long as the need is being fulfilled. But to bind this practice on others is to bind where God has not bound.

Now, I will say this: I think it may be wiser in many cases for individuals to take care of their needy neighbors immediately as opportunity arises. I have the following reasons for this line of thinking: 1) the need may be immediate and waiting to get consensus and help from the congregation may not meet the need in a timely manner, 2) an individual helping a someone they know personally gives the individual a level of influence over the other person, potentially making it easier to get the person to study God's word with him, and 3) always helping the needy out of the church treasury sometimes can cause individuals (not all) to think "I gave to the church, so my obligation to help others is fulfilled." That is just flat wrong thinking.

__________________
--Laura

O Lord, I know the way of man is not in himself; It is not in man who walks to direct his own steps.
Jeremiah 10:23 (NKJV)

Galatians 6:10 (1-10 in context) would be one place to find the authorization for churches to help the poor. This is a letter to the churches of Galatia and the words "we" and "us" are used throughout.

10As we have therefore opportunity, let us do good unto all men, especially unto them who are of the household of faith.

I am actually mentally working through this matter right now. Our congregation is blessed with 5 acres of fallow land. A brother, who had to go on disability, asked if he could use to plant a garden with the intent of feeding the poor. I say that if we don't we are "burying our talents."

__________________
Butch Adams
Blue Ridge, VA
http://daleridgechurchofchrist.net
http://mydailypause.org

Every example of benevolence in the work of the New Testament church demonstrates that the church, as a corporate body and from its treasury, only rendered financial aid to needy Christians (i.e. Acts 2:45; 4:34-35; 6:1-6; 11:27-30; 24:17; Rom. 15:25-31; 1 Cor. 16:1-4; 2 Cor. 8:6-9; 1 Tim. 5:3-16). God never made a definitive statement prohibiting the church to help those on the outside because He did not have to. He told us what to do. God did not say “Sing Only.” He “Only Said” to sing. God did not say “Saints Only.” He “Only Said” Saints.

2 Corinthians 9:13 states the following in reference to the aid the Corinthians sent to the Judean saints: "while, through the proof of this ministry, they glorify God for the obedience of your confession to the gospel of Christ, and for your liberal sharing with them and all men." The word "liberal sharing" is from the Greek word "koinonia" and it necessarily implies spiritual fellowship with the Judeans who received the benevolent funds. We cannot and do not have spiritual fellowship with sinners so benevolent funds cannot be rendered by the church from its treasury to non-Christians.

On an individual level we can use our personal funds to help out non christians and we can even let it be known among the congregation an opportunity to help has become available and you can take up a collection for that specific situation and give it to the person or family in need without using the church treasury.

Craig,
We only need ONE example to prove your statement wrong. You did not address this, so I will repeat:
This is clear scripture showing that the saints as a collective did in fact help those who were not Christians. You can try to extend this to "spiritual fellowship" all you want, but the text in fact does not bear that out. Please show how "all men" MUST be saints and will not create redundancy in the text.

__________________
--Laura

O Lord, I know the way of man is not in himself; It is not in man who walks to direct his own steps.
Jeremiah 10:23 (NKJV)

And I just said earlier that christians can take up a specific collection from among themselves to help out nonchristians or Christians individually can extend benevolence to non christians. But to take the money from that designated as the church treasury for benevolence toward non-christians cannot be supported using that scripture.

Please find the word "men" in this passage in the Greek.

The passage reads in the Greek "...for the liberality of your contribution to them and to all,"

Now the question becomes, who is the all that is being talked about? With the removing of the word "men" your reasoning above is not sound. Paul could very well say grammatically, "For the liberality of your contribution to them (the saints in Jerusalem) and to all (the saints everywhere). "All" can now be used in conjunction with "'to them" and in fact MUST be used in conjunction with "to them" because it is connected with "and".

Kindly,
Don

__________________
Don Gelles,
Preacher, Church of Christ in Hyde Park
Austin, Texas
www.hydeparkcoc.org

Right. The New American Standard says: "...for the liberality of your contribution to them and to all," It does not say, "...for the liberality of your contribution to them and to all men,".

In light of what you said the verse says in the Greek and upon further study of that verse, and the fact the Greek word used for the phrase "liberality of your contribution" is "koinonia" which means "fellowship", this verse is better understood to mean Paul is referring to other saints everywhere rather than non-christians with which we have no spiritual fellowship.

If Christians collectively take up a specific collection, then the collected money is by definition "the church's" money. Please show where scripture delineates "the treasury" vs. money belonging to the church that isn't "the treasury".

__________________
--Laura

O Lord, I know the way of man is not in himself; It is not in man who walks to direct his own steps.
Jeremiah 10:23 (NKJV)

This is a very real problem in the Lord's Church.

The ladies Bible class takes up funds and it does not go into the "treasury", I see members ask for "funds" to buy so and so a gift. I see women collecting funds to host a bridal shower. I see people giving money to pay for "the food for the men's breakfast". I see parents giving money for youth activities. And the list could go on and on. There is lots of money being collected from members that never goes through the treasury. yet, members are being asked to support something.

With this taking place, why then could I not say, "Hey Joe this Children's Home over here needs a new roof. Let split the cost 50/50 between us and put on a new roof." That money would never go to the treasury and it would be the same thing as all the other things mentioned above.

Acts chapter 5:4 makes it clear that our money is ours to do with as we want. I can give it to the treasury or i can give it to brother Joe. or I can give it to buy a bridal gift for a sister in Christ. The problem I have is when church funds are used for entertainment. It is not the churches responsibility to send the youth group to Six Flags. If they want to go let mom and dad pay and not the church.

Kindly,
Don

__________________
Don Gelles,
Preacher, Church of Christ in Hyde Park
Austin, Texas
www.hydeparkcoc.org

Perhaps what I am saying needs to be a new thread.... "How we abuse the money in the treasury"

Just a thought?

__________________
Don Gelles,
Preacher, Church of Christ in Hyde Park
Austin, Texas
www.hydeparkcoc.org

Don, I have checked the Greek and indeed the word "men" is not there. The fact remains that when Paul said "all", if he had meant saints only, he could and would have said so. He did not. All means "all" unless the word is modified by something that limits its scope or the context bears out a limitation. I do not believe either to be the case.

The context is clearly speaking of a liberal collection or contribution taken up. So, let's consider for a moment the position that the act of helping needy people is fellowshipping with them in the way that Christians are to only fellowship with each other -- which is the argument being made here. If this be the case, then I pose that