Christian Living and Obligation.

[_Jim from covina]

The christian obligation with his finances.
(esp. considering the warning of 1jn2 regarding materialism/consumerism)

(1) We have an obligation to take care of our basic needs along with our

families. E.g. Food, clothing, shelter. This is self evident.

(2) We have an obligation to take care of our local "church" of those that

are in need,assuming we are aware (and we should be, or made to

be/shepherds responsibility).

Loving our neighbor is the fulfillment of the Law, according to jesus,i.e.,

The good samaritan, those who are in need.
1 jn 3:17-18. James 1, 2. Gal 6, etc.


(3) Then, once the needs of step 1 and 2 have been met, we can spend our $

on non-needs (which are not sin).........such as our desires, enjoyments,

pleasures,i.e. harleys, that are not our primary vehicle (this is popular

among calvary pastors), Plasma t.v.'s, boats, vacation homes, New vehicles

vs. used vehicles, bigger houses vs. basic houses. and on and on.


(4) IT makes no moral difference if i help someone 1 mile away, or 10,000

miles away. Distance does not change the moral status nor the obligation

required of the christian to help the person down the street or in Africa.


Therefore, (5), we are obligated to take care of the world wide "church" of

those that are in need.


(6) Step 2 and Step 5 are morally equivalent, and therefore equally obligatory.

In Conclusion (7) When the needs of step 2 and 5 have been met, we can

spend our $ money on non-needs (step 3).



In this way we might see the fulfillment of 2 Corinthians 8:15 "He who
gathered much had nothing left over, and he who gathered little had no
lack." ACTS 2 & 4.
But if we jump to Step 3 before taking care of Step 7, then we are not

fulfilling the Greatest Commandment. LOVE OUR NEIGHBOR AS OURSELVES.

Does anybody think this is wrong???

jimd.......

p.s. if not......have u repented?

[Guest]

Jim--

how do you define "having needs met?" to what degree must they be met?

TK

[Guest]

Therefore, (5), we are obligated to take care of the world wide "church" of

those that are in need.

But we can not possibly "take care of" the needs of the whole world. We would thus never get to step #7.

[_Jim from covina]

HELLO TK

"needs", would be basic needs to live as in step 1.
There is a popular term used nowadays, "absolute poverty", which could apply. Those that die daily from such easily attainable goods, i.e. food, medicine,etc.

ITs a fact that people die daily from lack of such basic needs. That is incredulous considering how rich we are, and our obligation. MOre incredulous is our attitude toward such things.


HOMER..........a little surprised at your statement.

First, even if we couldnt get to step 7, how does that void our OBLIGATION as COMMANDED by GOD to do so????

Secondly, think about how many christians are in america, and how much they spend on non-essential items to live.
If we took just 50 million christians out of the many more in America,
And they cut out some of their non-essential waste, i.e. changed the big SUV for a smaller car, just in the car payment and insurance alone could net $100 a month. There are plenty of examples to give where money could be saved.

50 million christians times $100 a month. =
$ 5 BILLION a month.............Billion!

I am sure we could meet the basic needs of the christian dying around the world, and most likely the non-christian as well.

YES?????? NO??????


jimd

[Guest]

I don’t' think it is the Christians duty to eradicate poverty around the world, but rather to spread the Gospel around the world. Each Christian should not give out of a legalistic duty to rescue people out of poverty but rather give as the Holy Spirit directs us.

If I chose to spend $50,000 on a new SUV, rather than help a brother or sister in need, than I am probably not sensitive to the needs of the body of Christ. However, that is different than saying I must deny myself anything beyond my basic needs until all basic needs are given to everyone.

It is a well-known fact that is we spread the gospel (even to the poorest in the world), and they accept it, their quality of life will generally get better.

Robin

[Guest]

Jim,

Perhaps we misunderstand one another.

First, even if we couldnt get to step 7, how does that void our OBLIGATION as COMMANDED by GOD to do so????

As I understand you, step 2 and step 5 are morally equal and are to both be accomplished before we can spend on non-essentials.

Your step 7 is when we have taken care of the needs of the poor worldwide, then we can spend our money on non-essentials. I do not believe it is posssible for all the Christians in the world, let alone the USA where I seriously doubt there are 50 million true Christians, to take care of all the needs of the poor.

Are you saying we must contribute toward the needs of the poor worldwide before we can spend on non-essentials or that poverty must actually be wiped out before worldwide first?

I have pondered this question long ago and found no answer other than Paul's admonition "let the rich be rich toward God". Most of us in this country are "rich".

By the way, how do you define essentials? Where do you draw the line? Paul said "with food and clothing, I will be content." Is this where the line is drawn between essential and non-essential for us, and if so, isn't it also necessarily the line for everyone else, i.e. the poor? If they have food and clothing, shouldn't they also be content? Can we have a plasma TV if we get them one? I am not being facetious, this is a serious subject. I have no Harley, plasma TV, boat, camper, recreational vehicles, etc. This is no virtue, I have simple needs and no desire for them, but I've got lots of tools in my shop.

I once thought the ideal for a Christian would be to live in a one room cabin, have a pair of jeans or two and some flannel shirts, have my books of course , just the basics. Then I thought of how it would be with the Christians I am in fellowship with. Shouldn't they do the same? I realized I would look down on them in pride if they did not, and I am worse than before.

P.S. you might be interested in the earlier thread in this category "Luke 12:33."

[_Jim from covina]

THanks Robblaine, and Homer.
I want any critiques and problems exposed with my concept. Keep them coming!

First, ROB.......

I don’t' think it is the Christians duty to eradicate poverty around the world, but rather to spread the Gospel around the world.

my answer.....How do you answer these texts?

1 jn 3:17-18-"he who sees his brother in need and does nothing........"
James 1-true religion/orphans/widows.....james 2 true faith/is action.
Gal 6-"do good unto all men, especially the christian"., etc.
And the "good samaritan", which stems from Jesus stating that loving your neighbor is fulfilling the LAW of GOD, which is those in need.


AND HOMER.........

Are you saying we must contribute toward the needs of the poor worldwide before we can spend on non-essentials or that poverty must actually be wiped out before worldwide first?

YES.......we are obligated to meet the basic needs of our christian brethren. This obligation stems from the biblical commands, (as stated above with rob)

By the way, how do you define essentials?

This of course is what i think the most debatable point. And i dont think there is or has to be a particular line. (important to keep in mind).

THat being said..........

The point is that Christians live beyond their basic needs, while other christians die daily, from not having basic needs.
Why do you or any christian think that class distinction is ok? Especially between other christians?

The other points i think are amiss. Its not about helping poor people live like us, e.g plasma tv. ITs regarding basic necessities and needs of life which i asserted in my little thesis there. IF you get prideful, thats beside the point. Whether there are enough christians to accomplish this, thats beside the point.

I am arguing for the obligatory aspect of my premises based of the biblical texts.

If you grant P1 and P2, then P4 or P5 must be rebuffed.



Thanks again for all replies.
jim d

[Guest]

1 jn 3:17-18-"he who sees his brother in need and does nothing........"
James 1-true religion/orphans/widows.....james 2 true faith/is action.
Gal 6-"do good unto all men, especially the christian"., etc.
And the "good samaritan", which stems from Jesus stating that loving your neighbor is fulfilling the LAW of GOD, which is those in need.

1 John 3:17-18
3:17 But whoever has this world's goods, and sees his brother in need, and shuts up his heart from him, how does the love of God abide in him?
3:18 My little children, let us not love in word or in tongue, but in deed and in truth.

I of course agree with John's statement. But certainly people could be sensitive to their brothers need and provide for them without subjecting themselves to poverty. However if this is what a person chooses they should be commended.

James 1:27
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.

Why would this statement have to exclude individuals that live above poverty level? Surely a wealthy man can have pity on the widowed and orphans and provide for them.

Galatians 6:10
6:10 Therefore, as we have opportunity, let us do good to all, especially to those who are of the household of faith.

Again, This statement is not a call to poverty. We are taught that we be charitable, and especially to the household of God.

I can sympathize with you, and agree that we should do all we can to help the poor and needy, and if someone sees a need and refuses to help because they are greedy, than they are not a Christian because they love the world and not God. I personally know many who live comfortable and yet are very charitable.

Let me ask you about some scriptures.

Proverbs 13:22 A good man leaves an inheritance to his children's children, But the wealth of the sinner is stored up for the righteous.

1 Timothy 6:17 Command those who are rich in this present age not to be haughty, nor to trust in uncertain riches but in the living God, who gives us richly all things to enjoy.

2 Corinthians 9:7 So let each one give as he purposes in his heart, not grudgingly or of necessity; for God loves a cheerful giver.

Do you believe that the fallowing men were righteous in Gods eyes?

Abraham
Isaac
Jacob
Joseph
David
Solomon
Job
Josiah
Joseph of Arimathea

Thank you,
Robin

[_Jim from covina]

ROBIN, thanks for the response.

I of course agree with John's statement. But certainly people could be sensitive to their brothers need and provide for them without subjecting themselves to poverty. However if this is what a person chooses they should be commended.

IN your other responses you likewise mentioned the idea of poverty.
I never said one should submit oneself to poverty.
Why do you equate living within one's needs (basic necessities of life) as poverty???

I dont want to get into verse wars, i am still looking for where my argument is wrong, first.

Please look at my original argument and premises again, and let me ask you.......do you agree with P3?

If not, then what is wrong with P2? (Assuming we have cleared up the 'poverty' issue, it should be more clear)

jim d

[Guest]

Hi Jim,

Please look at my original argument and premises again, and let me ask you.......do you agree with P3?

If not, then what is wrong with P2? (Assuming we have cleared up the 'poverty' issue, it should be more clear)

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?

If I gave out of a legalistic obligation, I would not be a cheerful giver, but a legalist.

50 million christians times $100 a month. =
$ 5 BILLION a month.............Billion!

I would guess that most Christians give more that $100.00 / month to the poor, but I don't know for sure.



Thanks,
Robin