Hi Robin.
Forget step 6 for right now.
I was asking if you accepted P3 from P1 and P2?
So, that is what i meant........sorry i wasnt clear.
jimd
Christian Living and Obligation.
-
_Jim from covina
- Posts: 37
- Joined: Mon Sep 04, 2006 11:22 am
Last edited by _frankern on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Jim,
Robin
I would agree that our obligation should be to the the poor and needy among us, even if it requires a sacrifice. Aside from that I'm not sure exactly what you are getting at.I was asking if you accepted P3 from P1 and P2?
Robin
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
God Bless
-
_Jim from covina
- Posts: 37
- Joined: Mon Sep 04, 2006 11:22 am
Okay Robin, thats good. so....what I am getting at is the rest of my argument.
P2 is equivalent to P5, unless you can rebuff P4.
If not, then we are obligated to not just the local needs, but worldwide, before we can partake in P3.
Right??
P2 is equivalent to P5, unless you can rebuff P4.
If not, then we are obligated to not just the local needs, but worldwide, before we can partake in P3.
Right??
Last edited by _frankern on Fri Mar 02, 2007 9:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Jim,
Here is what I understand you to be saying:
1. We must take care of the needs of our local Church family, i.e. all Christians in our area.
2. By extension, (1) also applies to all Christians worldwide.
3. Only when we have done (1) & (2), can we spend anything on non-necessities.
4. What consists of necessities is not defined. Certainly if we stick to the bare necessities, we will not have a computer or be on the internet.
I know many kind and generous Christians who would all be called rich by third world standards. Are these Christians living in sin?
Many poor people today have much more in material goods than my parents had when I was growing up. No car (walked or took the bus), no phone until I was in highschool, no TV, no air conditioning, never heard of going on vacation, not even a wristwatch. We got by fine; can I ignore helping anyone who has more than I had as a child? Sometimes poverty is relative, a state of mind.
Our church supports several missionaries. The ones working in the Phillipines and Indonesia never mention poor Christians needing help there. One works with the poor in Nairobi, Kenya, as a combination charity/evangelism. The church also supports a pre-school in Ramallah, Israel. None of these is aid to Christians per se.
A person at our church travels to Ramallah to oversee maintenance of the school there, and also has gone to Africa to work for the poor. Interestingly, he has a negative opinion of World Vision because their representatives drive what he regards to be unnecessarily expensive vehicles in poor countries.
If we think we should have nothing more than bare necessities to help the poor, wouldn't this be even more so of supporting missions? When Jesus said "go into all the world" He referred to making disciples and didn't mention the needs of the poor.
My late sister's first cousin by marriage was a multiple millionaire with a net worth of $300 million 20 years ago. He had grown up poor, but came to own seven homes from Hawaii to New York and flew his own Lear Jet. He was a Christian, came to church in jeans, and from what I've heard was a most generous man. His church hosted a state-wide christian convention; he personally paid for the food of all who attended. I certainly can't judge him for his possessions.
You raise many interesting questions; please do not misunderstand me, I do not believe we can ignore the needs of the poor, but this includes non-Christians as well as Christians. What is allowable as a standard of living without it being sinful?
Here is what I understand you to be saying:
1. We must take care of the needs of our local Church family, i.e. all Christians in our area.
2. By extension, (1) also applies to all Christians worldwide.
3. Only when we have done (1) & (2), can we spend anything on non-necessities.
4. What consists of necessities is not defined. Certainly if we stick to the bare necessities, we will not have a computer or be on the internet.
I know many kind and generous Christians who would all be called rich by third world standards. Are these Christians living in sin?
Many poor people today have much more in material goods than my parents had when I was growing up. No car (walked or took the bus), no phone until I was in highschool, no TV, no air conditioning, never heard of going on vacation, not even a wristwatch. We got by fine; can I ignore helping anyone who has more than I had as a child? Sometimes poverty is relative, a state of mind.
Our church supports several missionaries. The ones working in the Phillipines and Indonesia never mention poor Christians needing help there. One works with the poor in Nairobi, Kenya, as a combination charity/evangelism. The church also supports a pre-school in Ramallah, Israel. None of these is aid to Christians per se.
A person at our church travels to Ramallah to oversee maintenance of the school there, and also has gone to Africa to work for the poor. Interestingly, he has a negative opinion of World Vision because their representatives drive what he regards to be unnecessarily expensive vehicles in poor countries.
If we think we should have nothing more than bare necessities to help the poor, wouldn't this be even more so of supporting missions? When Jesus said "go into all the world" He referred to making disciples and didn't mention the needs of the poor.
My late sister's first cousin by marriage was a multiple millionaire with a net worth of $300 million 20 years ago. He had grown up poor, but came to own seven homes from Hawaii to New York and flew his own Lear Jet. He was a Christian, came to church in jeans, and from what I've heard was a most generous man. His church hosted a state-wide christian convention; he personally paid for the food of all who attended. I certainly can't judge him for his possessions.
You raise many interesting questions; please do not misunderstand me, I do not believe we can ignore the needs of the poor, but this includes non-Christians as well as Christians. What is allowable as a standard of living without it being sinful?
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
A Berean
-
_Jim from covina
- Posts: 37
- Joined: Mon Sep 04, 2006 11:22 am
Yes HOMER.........steps 1-3 are correct.
But according to my premises, its those in NEED. Per Jesus' description of what it is to love our neighbor.
And yes, Step 4 is the one that has some debate as i had stated before.
I am starting with what i think is the easier, although because most christians are so worldly, selfish, and love living for themselves, even this concept seems tough for them to swallow.
But this is the main question.
Well, what is necessary?
Living beyond our means, or living beyond our needs?
I think the easy one is to cancel out is Living beyond our means. And there are too many christians that do this.
I think a pragmatic way to looking at this is exemplied by buying what is necessary, instead of going beyond the necessary.
ex. Car -- I bet that most christians dont NEED a NEW car, but could do equally fine with a used car, and save money on the monthly payment and insurance.
I think many buy New cars and Big cars for status. How does a christian justify that or any other luxury item when they know of people dying around the world, considering our biblical obligation to help those in need?
How about all the things people buy, and put on credit, which reduces their expendable cash, for things they dont need. Big Screen Plasma TV, when a regular tv is sufficient. etc, etc, (i gave these ex. in Premise 3).
So i would conclude that living beyond one's means when its not necessary violates the commands of the new testament.
Even living beyond one's needs may be close, because again, what does one need to live? What are we here for? Why we're we so lucky to be born in a place with opportunity to earn lots of extra cash?
jd
But according to my premises, its those in NEED. Per Jesus' description of what it is to love our neighbor.
And yes, Step 4 is the one that has some debate as i had stated before.
You tell me, if we dont do what is commanded by the Jesus, Paul, John..........is it sin???I know many kind and generous Christians who would all be called rich by third world standards. Are these Christians living in sin?
I agree whole-heartedly, and i am sure Jesus would to.I do not believe we can ignore the needs of the poor, but this includes non-Christians as well as Christians
I am starting with what i think is the easier, although because most christians are so worldly, selfish, and love living for themselves, even this concept seems tough for them to swallow.
Remember, the sinful part is not obeying what the n.t. commands us to do regarding those in need.What is allowable as a standard of living without it being sinful?
But this is the main question.
Well, what is necessary?
Living beyond our means, or living beyond our needs?
I think the easy one is to cancel out is Living beyond our means. And there are too many christians that do this.
I think a pragmatic way to looking at this is exemplied by buying what is necessary, instead of going beyond the necessary.
ex. Car -- I bet that most christians dont NEED a NEW car, but could do equally fine with a used car, and save money on the monthly payment and insurance.
I think many buy New cars and Big cars for status. How does a christian justify that or any other luxury item when they know of people dying around the world, considering our biblical obligation to help those in need?
How about all the things people buy, and put on credit, which reduces their expendable cash, for things they dont need. Big Screen Plasma TV, when a regular tv is sufficient. etc, etc, (i gave these ex. in Premise 3).
So i would conclude that living beyond one's means when its not necessary violates the commands of the new testament.
Even living beyond one's needs may be close, because again, what does one need to live? What are we here for? Why we're we so lucky to be born in a place with opportunity to earn lots of extra cash?
jd
Last edited by _frankern on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Jim,
I will copy & paste the following for you from my earlier thread on Luke 12:33; I think Hicks provides a good answer regarding where most of us can easily start.
I will copy & paste the following for you from my earlier thread on Luke 12:33; I think Hicks provides a good answer regarding where most of us can easily start.
What are we to make of Luke 12:33?
John Mark Hicks comments:
Quote:
I admit it; actually, I confess it--I find "Sell your possessions and give to the poor" (Luke 12:33) a hard and difficult saying. Probably more than any other saying of Jesus--even "love your enemies"--I'm inclined to throw up my hands and say "I can't do that."
It puts me in the position of the Rich Young Ruler of Luke 18 and that is an very uncomfortable position in which to be. Now, with the Rich Young Ruler I can recontextualize, spiritualize and delegitimize the demand to "sell your possesssions and give to the poor." That was too specific, too tailored to the heart of that Ruler. Or, was it? Well, I can debate that one with myself.
But I can't "debate" Luke 12:33 which appears in the heart of Luke's rehearsal of Matthew's Sermon on the Mount material. It is "don't worry"--ok, hard but I can handle it. It is "seek his kingdom"--yes, Lord, I will do that. It is "don't be afraid"--yes, Lord, I'll trust you. And, then, like a lightning bolt to my heart, it is "Sell your possessions and give to the poor." And my heart stops and says, "uh, can you repeat that? I'm not sure I heard you right."
This is where my heart is, brothers and sisters. I don't want to sell my possessions. In fact, I want better possessions. I'll give mine away so I can upgrade, but not sell my upgrades so I can give to the poor. That does not make sense--at least not in the culture in which I have been trained, socialized and pampered.
So, what am I to do? Should I obey?
Perhaps I will have to start where this whole discussion started in Luke 12. Someone in the crowd asked Jesus to adjudicate between his brother and himself over inheritance. Jesus refused and pointed to their hearts--only they can act on the nature of their hearts. Life, Jesus said, "does not consist in the abundance of possessions" (Luke 12:15).
Ok, I know that, but what does it mean. Well, it means that we don't build bigger barns. This is the parable that Jesus told in response to this inquiry about inheritance. What do I do with the blessings God has given me? Do I build bigger barns so I can contain them, hoard them and consume them? Or, and I think this is Jesus real answer, don't build bigger barns. Instead take your increase and give it to the poor.
Perhaps that is my starting place on my journey to obey "sell your possessions and give to the poor." Perhaps I just need to start with the simple resolve to never build any more bigger barns. Perhaps I take my increases and give them to the poor. I can at least start there.
So, if you are troubled as I am by this saying to "sell your possessions and give to the poor," perhaps we start by not building any more "bigger barns." We start with using our increase to bless the poor, and then perhaps we can begin downsizing (selling our possessions) and increasing our giving to the poor. We start by not obtaining more before we start doing with less. I think God will honor that direction, but he will not honor the other option. (end of Hick's comment)
What do you think? Are we to make a law of Jesus statement or is Jesus describing the relative value of possesions compared to heavenly things?
If it is an absolute command as in "no one can be my disciple unless...." then who can honestly say they have obeyed? Or is this a teaching similar to Luke 14:26 regarding "hating" our dearest relatives, i.e., to be understood in a relative sense? If I sell all I have and give to the poor, then I will be poor and they will be obliged to sell all they have and give to me!
Nevertheless, Hicks got to me. As Hicks states, Jesus means for us to do something, and his suggestion seems a good place to start. I have resolved to sell some stuff and give the proceeds to the poor.
What do you think about Luke 12:33?
_________________
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
A Berean
-
_kaufmannphillips
- Posts: 227
- Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 2:25 pm
- Location: SW Washington
response
I love when people introduce the issue of legalismIf I gave out of a legalistic obligation, I would not be a cheerful giver, but a legalist.
. Such a boon to the disobedient.As if the worse problem were people doing the right thing even though they don't entirely feel like it in their heart.
Doing the right thing anyway can lead to feeling like it in your heart - and even if it doesn't, the hungry man who eats your food will get over a lousy attitude more easily than he will get over malnutrition.
As if it were all about the narcissistic purity of the giver.
Hard questions. What does your messiah say? "Do unto others as you would have done to you." So if you would rather someone made do with bologna and water so that you could have something/anything to eat, then....According to step 6, I can see no way in which one would ever achieve step 3. in other words, I see your steps as a call to poverty, or communalism, which I see as bad for society.
Also, how would you define basic needs?
I could drive a basic car that is gas efficient, but if another Christian car-pools or rides a bike, am I not sacrificing enough for my brothers and sisters?
What if I want to eat stake one night, when I could get full on a bologna sandwich, should I deny myself stake?
Should I only drink water?
And what else does he say? "Love your neighbor as yourself." What material advantage, then, should you allow yourself over your neighbor?
[edited once to augment]
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Hope my neighbor likes cornbread and beans as much as I do, that's the standard of excellence around here. Just suggested the wife put on a pot!:DHard questions. What does your messiah say? "Do unto others as you would have done to you." So if you would rather someone made do with bologna and water so that you could have something/anything to eat, then....
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
A Berean
-
_kaufmannphillips
- Posts: 227
- Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 2:25 pm
- Location: SW Washington
Cornbread and beans, mmmm.... How far away is Brownsville, neighbor?Hope my neighbor likes cornbread and beans as much as I do, that's the standard of excellence around here.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason: