How rich is "too rich"?

[bengal_fan]

In order to prove that they sinned outside of vow-breaking and lying to the Holy Spirit, you have to either ignore or twist St. Peter’s words and the verses.

or look at the example in all of scripture as opposed to just focusing in on one passage. it is perfectly clear that it was not just the lie (or else we would all be dead) but the nature of the promise that was broken. take that with the commands of Jesus to love your neighbor, His instructions to the rich young ruler, His warnings to the wealthy, the OT passages referring to sharing (specifically the year of jubilee) and it is clear that it is what was being lied about that caused the sever reaction. it is not twisting the words, it is taking them in the context of ALL of scripture.

I believe the verse you are referring to is Romans 14:23:

If you look at the surrounding verses, you’ll see St. Paul is discussing personal conscience and judgment, as well as the issues of being around a ‘weaker’ Christian. St. Paul uses the example of wines and meats

but he is then summing it ALL up in the same way the Jesus would sum everything up in the 2 greatest commandments. paul is giving examples but then giving the overarching standard or “anything that is not done in faith is sin.”

, but I’ll give a modern example.

Personally, I watch movies and play video games that have violence in them and I, in examining Scripture, do not see anything sinful about either (it might fall under Paul’s “permissible but not beneficial” category, but I do not see the sin in it); however, I know some Christians do believe that such activities are sinful. Thus, there are two issues to look at:

A) For that person (who feels that playing violent video games is sinful), they should probably not play violent video games, because they are going against their conscience and their faith (if you think something is sinful and do it anyway, what does that say?)
B) I should not play violent video games around that person or discuss it with them to try and get them to join in or something (the idea of causing a brother to stumble)

option C) open your mind to the idea that you might actually be wrong on the issue. we are told to focus our minds on whatever is pure, right, holy, etc. those games and movies are not. it is not a sin of action, it is a sin of inaction. the sin comes from doing something that might be (and that is a slim “might” in the example you give) benign instead of doing something that builds the kingdom.

These verses don’t really have to do with the money issue we are discussing. The only relationship I can see would be perhaps, since you appear to view that having excess money or enjoying financial blessings as being wrong or sinful (not totally sure what your view is),

aren’t they the same thing? i just don’t see how some one can truly love their neighbor as themself if they hold onto excess (anything above necessities) when their neighbor has nothing. it is clear in scripture that doing just that is sin.

I shouldn’t do something to try and cause you to go against your conscience. Although I may disagree with your views, I’m not trying to advise you to go against them in your own life, only to question your attempts to put forth your views as a moral universal for all Christians.

i understand, i am just trying to show that if every Christian practiced what the early church did, 3 things would potentially take place:

1. more people would be drawn to Christ just like they were in the book of acts.
2. less poverty in the world.
3. we would experience God in our own lives more as well.

Also, I find it interesating you bring up the issue of giving sacrificially. I assume you are drawing from the story of the widow’s mite (Mark 12:41-44, Luke 21:1-4). This is the only reference I can find to a ‘giving sacrificially’ and, if you’ll notice, although Jesus commends her giving saying, “I tell you the truth, this poor widow has put in more than all the others,” (Luke 21:3, NIV) he does not say that it is sinful that the wealthy only gave out of their abundance.

that was the implication however. the disciples understood that Jesus was showing that the rich man’s gift was insufficient.

So, which is it? Do we give sacrificially to the point where we ‘have to trust God because you gave so much away’ or are we to maintain what is necessary for basic needs (which one could argue is not giving sacrificially, but only giving away all of your abundance).

it’s both. we are to give our abundance to those who have none. we are then to sacrifice what our ideas of “necessities” are. that is the trust. i guarantee what you and i think are necessary is not always the case. paul says, “if we have food and clothing we have more than enough.” he mentions nothing about shelter. he found that it was not a necessity. he came there because he put himself in places where he had to trust God and He came through.

Again, I go back to the original point of 2 Corinthians 9:7. If you say that it is sinful or somehow a sign of not truly being Saved if you do not ‘give sacrificially’ or however you choose to word it, then aren’t you in effect leading people to give out of compulsion (in this case, a mental/emotional/psychological compulsion)?

did i say it is a “sign of not truly being saved”? if i did, that was mispoken. i don’t want to be putting myself in a place of judging salvation. i will, however, admonish my brothers and sisters who i think are attempting to rationalize their abundance when others are suffering.

 

[nsper7]

or look at the example in all of scripture as opposed to just focusing in on one passage. it is perfectly clear that it was not just the lie (or else we would all be dead) but the nature of the promise that was broken. take that with the commands of Jesus to love your neighbor, His instructions to the rich young ruler, His warnings to the wealthy, the OT passages referring to sharing (specifically the year of jubilee) and it is clear that it is what was being lied about that caused the sever reaction. it is not twisting the words, it is taking them in the context of ALL of scripture.

What did St. Peter say their sin was? [Lying to the Holy Spirit]. Even if it was the ‘nature of the promise that was broken’ that led to such a harsh punishment, this does not address the person who does not make such a vow and, thus, does not give up everything.

but he is then summing it ALL up in the same way the Jesus would sum everything up in the 2 greatest commandments. paul is giving examples but then giving the overarching standard or “anything that is not done in faith is sin.”

I think you are drawing too much of an overarching standard. St. Paul was addressing behavior around other Christians.

option C) open your mind to the idea that you might actually be wrong on the issue. we are told to focus our minds on whatever is pure, right, holy, etc. those games and movies are not. it is not a sin of action, it is a sin of inaction. the sin comes from doing something that might be (and that is a slim “might” in the example you give) benign instead of doing something that builds the kingdom.

Then please explain what St. Paul meant when he said that all things were permissible, but not everything is beneficial. I am of the opinion that video games fall under that category. If they are permissible, then it is not sinful, unless you are going to accuse Paul of antinominism. Perhaps it is not beneficial, but it is permissible.

aren’t they the same thing? i just don’t see how some one can truly love their neighbor as themself if they hold onto excess (anything above necessities) when their neighbor has nothing. it is clear in scripture that doing just that is sin.

But how far are we to take this? If you use the Jerusalem Church as an example, the property was being shared by members of the church there. Remember Jesus says that the all the commandments (OT) are summed up in the two great commandments. If we say something is summed up, then we should be able to look at the OT laws being summed and see what they point to.

The laws point to caring for the poor, but not the idea of impvoerishing yourself and ‘giving sacrificially’. They also point to the idea of treating your neighbor fairly

i understand, i am just trying to show that if every Christian practiced what the early church did, 3 things would potentially take place:

1. more people would be drawn to Christ just like they were in the book of acts.

1. less poverty in the world.

1. we would experience God in our own lives more as well

The only church that was reported as doing this is the Jerusalem Church. No other geographical church is reported as doing this and no others are admonished by the Apostles to do it either.

that was the implication however. the disciples understood that Jesus was showing that the rich man’s gift was insufficient.

Prove it. Jesus was commending the widow’s sacrifice, but he does not negatively judge the donations of the wealthy (except to say that the widow’s gift is greater). One could argue he was simply refuting the idea that the size of the donation makes it better or worse. He never declared that the wealthy were sinning by only giving of their abundance.

it’s both. we are to give our abundance to those who have none. we are then to sacrifice what our ideas of “necessities” are. that is the trust. i guarantee what you and i think are necessary is not always the case. paul says, “if we have food and clothing we have more than enough.” he mentions nothing about shelter. he found that it was not a necessity. he came there because he put himself in places where he had to trust God and He came through.

You are going back on your earlier argument. Earlier, you said we were supposed to keep enough for necessities (you even went so far as to quote a dollar figure), but now you are saying we are to give sacrificially.

did i say it is a “sign of not truly being saved”? if i did, that was mispoken. i don’t want to be putting myself in a place of judging salvation. i will, however, admonish my brothers and sisters who i think are attempting to rationalize their abundance when others are suffering.

You have yet to show me where I’m sinning. We have looked at the story of Ananias and Saphira and the lesson there is don’t go back on a vow to God (or, better yet, don’t break promises in general). We have looked over the story of the Rich Young Ruler and, it seems to me, that when taken into context, the issue at hand was pride (the RYR thought he could Save himself and perfect himself and, when Jesus showed the guy what he had to do to be perfect [not Saved, but self-Saved through perfection], well he couldn’t do it). The lesson of that story is that only God can Save (with humans, it is impossible).

You show me the sin in not giving up my abundance…