Not Providing = Worse than an Unbeliever

Status
Not open for further replies.

C. Matthew McMahon

Christian Preacher
1 Timothy 5:8 But if [b:f6bebf6733]anyone[/b:f6bebf6733] does not [b:f6bebf6733]provide[/b:f6bebf6733] for his own, and especially for those of his [b:f6bebf6733]household[/b:f6bebf6733], he has [b:f6bebf6733]denied the faith[/b:f6bebf6733] and is [b:f6bebf6733]worse than an unbeliever[/b:f6bebf6733].

If God ordains the steps a man should take, and does not provide him with adequate means by which He is able to support his family no matter how hard he tries to do this, or no matter how hard he prays for relief, which is basically kicking against the goads if God has ordained otherwise, how do you think God can say that this man is worse than an infidel or unbeliever? If a person really was a good steward, and did all he could to fulfill this task for his family, and God was against him on this, and desired he would be hopelessly in debt and poor with basic necessities, how then could this Scripture apply to him?

- Thinking out loud...

Your thoughts?
 
Think of it this way - let's say the father is a Peruvian. He lives in the slums of Lima. He has very little money at all, and a hole in the wall in which he lives.

Or,

The dad is in Hatti. He wants to provide for his family. He scrounging the garbage dump every day.

There is no task too menial for these people. But there is no real provision. Don't think of this as an American idea. Just provision in general. It seems strange to me that situations like that exist, and yet, there are implications from the text that seem to indicate that even those who are working hard, and not providing, are still encompassed in a bad situation. But, we know all things are ordered by providence.

What does the Haitian or Peruvian do? What CAN he do? Will God understand that he cannot provide?
 
Matthew,
I tend to think the passage is referring to a different kind of person then what you described. Two passages come to mind that I think are examples of people who would fit. One has the means to provide, but doesn't for whatever reason, in this case for religious reasons. The other is just plumb lazy.

[b:288481fb3e]One has the Means[/b:288481fb3e]
Mar 7:10-13 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death: But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free. And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother; Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

[b:288481fb3e]One is Lazy[/b:288481fb3e]
2Th 3:10-12 For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat. For we hear that there are some which walk among you disorderly, working not at all, but are busybodies. Now them that are such we command and exhort by our Lord Jesus Christ, that with quietness they work, and eat their own bread.

Bob

[Edited on 7-7-2004 by blhowes]
 
The issue here is intention, not results. God provides wealth or poverty. This is the application of "if a man does noit work, he shall not eat" to the family realm.
 
Surely the text refers to those who do not TRY to provide? It seems to me that the text assumes the ability to do so. If someone can provide, but doesn't, he is worse than an infidel. Thus if you had someone who was healthy, but wouldn't work the text would apply to him. Or someone who was rich, but was a miser.

Since increase is from the Lord, I don't think you can condemn anyone who makes the effort to provide, and who honors God in what he does, but from whom God withholds the fruit of their labour.

A slightly different hypothetical situation. A Colombian farmer has his entire crop taken away by guerillas --has that man failed to provide for his family?
 
Exactly my point.

The text does revolve around those who are lazy, not those who try.

So what the Columbian farmer do when his crop is wiped out?

What does Charles Ingalls do when he loses his wheat crop and has nothing left? He has no means to provide and has to leave his family to find work. Most of the time he makes a few dollars.

Why do you think that God's providence strikes in that way so often with so many people in third world countries, even among Christians.
 
Although the situation is a bit different now, I believe that part of the reason for such difficulties in the third world is the fact that these areas (Africa and Asia especially) have rejected the gospel and are bearing the results of such unbelief.

It should sober us here.
 
[quote:ee9af505f1]
So what the Columbian farmer do when his crop is wiped out?
[/quote:ee9af505f1]

He devotes his land to growing cocaine, or he joins the guerrillas.

I would say that what should happen is that the church helps out --just as the Gentile churches contributed when there was a famine in Judea. Perhaps we ought to consider more closely our responsibility to engage in the relief of the brethren in this way.
 
Matthew,
Based on your follow-up question, I'm not sure if I understand your original intent in asking. Are you asking "How should those in poor countries feel about God's providence when they read such a passage?"

Or are you asking on a more personal level, such as, "I've not been able to make much money lately so am I sinning because its hurting my ability to 'provide'?"

If it is indeed the latter, then I would wholeheartedly agree with the opinions expressed by Ruben and Fred that it is completely a matter of one's heart's intentions and motivations in taking care of their families. If someone "claims" to have love for their fellow man, than it should surely be expressed to those in their own families. And one way to show it is by helping them materially when they are in need. If someone has means, and refuses to provide what is desparately lacking, he is in fact showing he has no love. THIS is what is worse than being an unbeliever, because even an unbeliever has enough love to provide for those he most cares about. As Jesus said, "Even the tax collectors and sinners love those that first loved them." (paraphrase)

I hope that you weren't feeling that this was in some way applying to you, because it definitely is NOT.
 
matthew said,
If God ordains the steps a man should take, and does not provide him with adequate means by which He is able to support his family no matter how hard he tries to do this, or no matter how hard he prays for relief, which is basically kicking against the goads if God has ordained otherwise, how do you think God can say that this man is worse than an infidel or unbeliever?

I would say God is God he gives and takes away who can speak a word against him? Allthough it doesnt bring rest to the man who though trying see's no mercy but the truth of the matter is God is God he does as he pleases.

blade
 
"A little that the righteous has
Is better than the riches of many wicked....

"The Lord knows the days of the upright,
And their inheritance shall be forever.
They shall not be ashamed in the evil time,
And in the days of famine they shall be satisfied....

"For those blessed by him shall inherit the earth....

"The steps of a good man are ordered by the Lord,
And he delights in his way.
Though he fall, he shall not be utterly cast down;
For the Lord upholds him with his hand.

I have been young, and now am old;
Yet I have not seen the righteous forsaken,
Nor his children begging bread.
He is ever merciful and lends;
And his children are blessed."

From Ps. 37:16-26

I don't suggest simply throwing these verses in some poor and wretched person's face. However, these are promises of God. And they have a two-level pastoral application. The primary one is spiritual. Hebrews 11:38 reminds us that the world is not worthy of some people, and by extension their families sometimes, who are destined to have a short, hard life in this world. But they too have an inheritance that is beyond measure for blessing. Secondly, whom God leaves in this world and who put their trust in him, will see his providing hand. "Give us this day our daily bread." The real question is: will you take our eyes off your circumstances and the crushing difficulties of life, and trust God? Trust and obey? That means doing what you can while you trust God. So what if you can't? What if your situation is such that your back is broken in some industrial accident, and the corrupt or [i:064b14cca8]gringo[/i:064b14cca8] run operation leaves you and your family to starve (for all they care)? If you are conscious, you can still do something. You can do the work of prayer, to the God of your salvaton and of all comfort and of provision, Jehovah-Jireh (God-will-see-to-it). Do you believe in this God!

P.S. And, secondarily, diligence in one generation will, in the ordinary providence of God, see fruits in the ones afterward.
 
I think its a little of both.

I was thinking about classes, and what class a person belonged as a result of providence.

A man in Peru who cannot provide for his family because of circumstance has no means. God simply crushes him providentially into the dust and his family goes hungry.

For instance, one church member of a Peruvian church just had a baby, has no money, no job and no help.

He would like to provide, but even in working the garbage dump he makes so little money that it is not worth the time. But he is stuck in that cycle and has no means to escape it. He will never be able to go to school to get a better job. There are no better jobs, and he is not qualified to do anything. He is poor.

What does he do? Is he like Lazarus that waits on the side of road to die? If the Psalmist says that he has never seen a child of God begging bread, how does that apply to Lazarus who did sit by the table of the rich man begging bread, and others who do not have the ability to provide for their families and are begging for bread?

I think this runs more into the question of theodicy.
 
[quote:f85e61e813]
For instance, one church member of a Peruvian church just had a baby, has no money, no job and no help.
[/quote:f85e61e813]

Perhaps this is an over-simplistic practicality, but I do think that we Christians in healthier economies have to take a great deal of blame for this kind of situation.

What are we doing about this Peruvian Christian family?

Isn't there any place where we can send five or ten dollars that might otherwise go to Blockbuster or the movie theater, or a fast food restaurant, to send this brother in need?

Why should he have "no help," when we could help him? Maybe because there are so many us who have five or ten dollars to give, but aren't organized enough, or aware enough, or perhaps really interested enough, to spend it on him instead of on the latest release.

"But whoso hath this world's good, and seeth his brother have need, and shutteth up his bowels of compassion from him, how dwelleth the love of God in him?"

We have money, and this man has a need. Can't we do something for him?
 
Donations to the Peru trip for these men is what I have been trying to raise for 3 months now. We divided up the need in three areas: 1) Physical Relief, 2) books, 3) trip exspenses

We have covered #3, and the pastoral conference (becaused we actually pay for that for them) but not the other 2.

If any would like to help, you can use the donation button on A Puritan's Mind to this end (Its been there for this purpose since last year).

http://www.apuritansmind.com/ChristianWalk/PeruMissionTrip.htm
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top