Should we listen or learn from Christians who are millionaires?

timothyu said:

Is giving a matter of material things or what we give of ourselves?Is not true giving then giving to others what we needed for ourselves?

Click to expand...

Not sure what you are saying

Tree of Life said:

How much more could you give away?

Click to expand...

I can’t put a dollar amount on that but I could give more than I do for sure.

Mountainmanbob said:

I know some millionaire Christians whose good works are brighter than the Stars.

Money is not a bad thing but, the love of money is. These people don't love their money. Yet, they use it for many, many good purposes.

M-Bob

Click to expand...

If they don’t love it, why do they hold on to so much more than they need? Any family can live fine on a lot less than a million dollars.

I think it needs pointing out that such as Warren Buffet lead a relatively frugal life.
Despite being one of the richest people on the plannet

Wealth can be expressed many ways
And used many ways.

If - as buffets wealth is (and most of the billionaires)- it is simply the shares of companies he owns. It is better that he does, for the good of all the employees, since companies run badly make many unemployed!. And in the case of bill gates, he is spending some of his to try to give all clean water. Most of the superwealthy have vowed to give away what they have. Tom Hunter in the UK spends all his wealth priming projects for the public good. Capitalism has rough edges, and it needs excesses controlling, but it performs better than communism or autocratic socialism. And it is necessary to make money before you can spend it on good causes!

However. I cannot abide those SELLING Gods Word, that is all of those who get rich just from ministry.
There are lines you can cross, and that for me is one of them. You are given the Word for free, and any skill or gift you have in promoting it is also a gift from God. So to abuse it for personal wealth is to me an anathema.

Some (rick warren is it? purpose driven life?) vow to increase year on year the proportion of what they give away an already high percentage, so I am surprised he has much left.....

Jadis40 said:

You missed my point. But you are right in saying that we don't know the details of all the conversations Paul had with Lydia. But what we do know is what is recorded in Acts. Namely that she was a believer in God before Paul's encounter with her and other women, and that after Paul and Silas were released from jail, they went to her house.

Click to expand...

If your point was supported by saying we know that Paul did not condemn someone, then your point is not supported. There is really no way around Jesus’ instructions and the example of his disciples.

James Murphy said:

Threads like these always bring out the resident Marxists lol

Click to expand...

Reminds me of this saying:

Jason isn't a socialist he's just a wacko.

I would listen to a rich man who gave glory to God for his riches, and in turn, proved it by using his wealth to bless others. But the temptation of a rich man is to believe in self-sufficiency - and often, their advice is along these lines too. This advice is worthless to me. I'd rather learn how they became blessed and what they are doing with it.

The self-sufficient ones (or how they see themselves) don't look up and thank God neither for the riches or the very air they breath. This is why Jesus said it was hard for them to enter the kingdom of God. It was a matter of gratitude. He didn't condemn riches entirely, but this temptation to only look at oneself as the source of your wealth, as the decider of your own fate. One might even be able to say some poor men strangely have this attitude as well. The rugged individualists especially. Despite being poor, they do not look up, and only live with pride.

Tree of Life said:

Lol thanks. I think I've heard enough.

I gather that the parts of the OT that you don't like no longer apply and the parts that you do like apply. The problem with this approach is that you're not worshipping or following the God of the Bible. Rather, you're using parts of the Bible to fashion a god after your own image. That's idolatry.

Click to expand...

So therefore you've criticised the entire early church and even after the Council of Nicaea who in many aspects completely rejected the moral teachings in the Old Testament. Obviously they thought the OT was ridiculously important but most teachings were now obsolete due to Christ's law being greater than them.

For example, they were against all violence by Christians whereas the OT accepts some forms of violence.

They kept a perpetual spiritual Sabbath everyday rather than a physical Sabbath once a week.

They no longer did any types of oaths or promises because they fulfilled every single word, the OT allowed some types of promises.

They fasted from evil rather than just a physical fast (though they still fasted twice a week).

They shared all their possessions with every brother and sister whereas the OT just had quite charitable people.

Christians were circumcised by the heart were those of the OT were circumcised of the body.

I could go on for a lot longer but the point is they simply didn't use the OT for direct moral teachings anymore (though OT could certainly teach a moral lesson).

Just Another User said:

For example, they were against all violence by Christians whereas the OT accepts some forms of violence.

Click to expand...

This is misleading. The Church in the NT no longer has the power of the sword so we don't kill adulterers. Rather, we excommunicate them (assuming they are unrepentant). But Christians are permitted to be police officers or soldiers and this has always been the case. Only the anabaptist sect argued for complete pacifism in the seventeenth century.

They kept a perpetual spiritual Sabbath everyday rather than a physical Sabbath once a week.

They no longer did any types of oaths or promises because they fulfilled every single word, the OT allowed some types of promises.

Click to expand...

Both of these are highly debatable.

They fasted from evil rather than just a physical fast (though they still fasted twice a week).

Click to expand...

Gentile Christians were not required to celebrate Yom Kippur but fasting was still important in the Christian life and remains so today.

They shared all their possessions with every brother and sister whereas the OT just had quite charitable people.

Click to expand...

We see the example of one church (Jerusalem) sharing possessions but don't find this example repeated in any other NT church except in an organized way through the deacons.

Christians were circumcised by the heart were those of the OT were circumcised of the body.

Click to expand...

OT believers were also called to be circumcised in heart (Deuteronomy 10:12-17).

I could go on for a lot longer but the point is they simply didn't use the OT for direct moral teachings anymore (though OT could certainly teach a moral lesson).

Click to expand...

I disagree. The NT relies heavily and quotes extensively from the OT. There is not 100% continuity. The appearance of Jesus did bring about a big shift. But the OT still applies as we filter its applications through the appearance of Christ.

Jason wants to say that when Proverbs celebrates wise stewardship and talks positively of wealth that this somehow does not apply to Christians because Jesus changed that. I can readily understand how Jesus made OT sacrifices obsolete. But I don't see how Jesus made wisdom sayings on wealth obsolete. That has yet to be argued for on this thread.

Jadis40 said:

Reminds me of this saying:

View attachment 252007

Click to expand...

This Winston Churchill?

Tree of Life said:

This is misleading. The Church in the NT no longer has the power of the sword so we don't kill adulterers. Rather, we excommunicate them (assuming they are unrepentant). But Christians are permitted to be police officers or soldiers and this has always been the case. Only the anabaptist sect argued for complete pacifism in the seventeenth century.

Click to expand...

That simply isn't true. We have no record pre 325AD of anyone supporting Christians going into the military. Literally not a single one. Before 175AD I would dare say no a single Christian was in the army. We know by about 250AD by Origen in Against Celsus that though some Christians were apart of the army due to conversion it was always best to leave if possible and to never use the sword. From Hippolytus, anyone who joined the army, committed an oath or used the sword if they were trapped in the army were banished from the church. They constantly quotes Isaiah 2:3-4 saying that Christians no longer waged physical wars but spiritual ones.

Early Christians on Violence

Here's some quotes on the issue.

Tree of Life said:

Both of these are highly debatable.

Click to expand...

Sure if you're a Messianic but I can't think of a scholar who would say that a majority of Christians kept the Sabbath after 70AD (you can get a quote if you think I'm wrong which I probably am) but 1st century history isn't my strongpoint. I would doubt there was a group of Christians keeping the Sabbath after 135AD after the revolt in Judea was put down. We also don't have a single early christian writing before 400AD of even supporting a Sabbath in any way shape or form. Apparently up to the 500s too but I've never read up to that time. We also know that many early christian in the 4th and 5th century such as the great historian Eusebius, Jerome and other lessor known figures critcised the upcoming Jewish followers of Jesus since they still kept the Sabbath and the OT laws such as dietary laws.

On the oaths, again I can only think of one person who supports oaths and that's Clement of Alexandria. I say supports oaths because the chap contradicts himself and says that oaths should never be allowed. Besides that, every other Christian who talks about oaths condemns them and we don't see the confusion that we see in Clement's quote.

Tree of Life said:

Gentile Christians were not required to celebrate Yom Kippur but fasting was still important in the Christian life and remains so today.

Click to expand...

Agreed but as we see in the Shepard of Hermas a 140-150AD Christian work considered scripture by many early christians, that a fasting was useless if not insulting to the Father and his Son if you still committed evil. Fasting from evil was the main emphasise rather than a simple food fast. Nevertheless they fasted on Wednesdays and Fridays according to sources like the Didache (late first century) to differentiate themselves from the Jews who fasted on Monday and Thursday. Interestingly, fasting was usually bread and water rather than nothing unless you think you can do it without(though the latter types of fasts did occur). Everyone fasted without food on the Friday and Saturday before Easter on Sunday in the West and something similar happened for the Christians in the East who celebrated the Resurrection on Passover.

Tree of Life said:

We see the example of one church (Jerusalem) sharing possessions but don't find this example repeated in any other NT church except in an organized way through the deacons.

Click to expand...

I can't comment on NT church since it's hard to interpret and my NT history is weak at best. We do know however that at least in the 2nd century if not beyond, practically every church shared all their possessions with each other. Be that literal stockpiles of possessions or going to one's house and getting something it varies. Eventually as churches grew bigger and bigger it became harder and harder, though they always tried to achieve this goal. Irenaeus, a mid to late 2nd century Christian hearer and follower of Polycarp; who was probably in turn the last bishop alive appointed by John the Apostle by his death in the 150s; was critical of tithing and said Christians share all possession rather than Jews who share some of their possessions and only their worst.

Tree of Life said:

OT believers were also called to be circumcised in heart (Deuteronomy 10:12-17).

Click to expand...

Ahh but we see in Ezekiel 36 that this will be the only thing that followers of God need and it will happen to every follower rather than just a select few (probably matching with the Day of the Lord in Joel 2.

Tree of Life said:

I disagree. The NT relies heavily and quotes extensively from the OT. There is not 100% continuity. The appearance of Jesus did bring about a big shift. But the OT still applies as we filter its applications through the appearance of Christ.

Click to expand...

Obviously the OT is important. 100%. In fact, we probably don't use it enough in my own opinion. What I am saying is the teachings of the Early church demonstrate that the teachings of Christ and the Apostles made them ascend the OT. Lets not forget that every appearance of God in the OT is Christ since no one has seen the Father.

Tree of Life said:

Jason wants to say that when Proverbs celebrates wise stewardship and talks positively of wealth that this somehow does not apply to Christians because Jesus changed that. I can readily understand how Jesus made OT sacrifices obsolete. But I don't see how Jesus made wisdom teaches on wealth obsolete. That has yet to be argued for on this thread.

Click to expand...

How would you interpret Luke 14:33 and the talk with the Rich Younger Ruler and Jesus? I'm not trying to catch you out. Now for the early church they took Luke 14:33 ridiculously seriously as well as the talks between that man and Jesus. Since they were closer to the culture, time and language of the NT as well as many of the writing being written by people who knew the Apostles I think we should take them seriously too.

I think self justification is more of an issue.

Jason0047 said:

It matters little what you are I think. What matters is if we accept what God's Word says. By your question: Are you suggesting or proposing that gain is godliness?

Click to expand...

I do not relate, at all, material gain or riches to Godliness.... I do believe the Godly will prosper spiritually and naturally.......but Those who are rich, or poor, are not necessarily Godly or unGodly.....as He rains on the just as well as the unjust.

The earth is the Lords and the fullness thereof.....and he gives to whom He pleases......How can we then try and make one question their standing with God if they receive what God allowed them to have?

Mammon is not important to me, therefore I do not think to use it to judge anything....much less something as important as ones salvation..

Anyone ever wonder what happened to all the riches that the magi brought to Mary and Joseph and Jesus?

I wonder if have a good lawyer and watch out for cameras in health spas in Florida would be good advice coming from the rich. Would they advise us there are two sets of punishment?

.

.