By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our community.
SignUp Now!No problem Brother Nick., i see these discussions as open and free for all to comment on as they wish. As such your observations are greatly appreciated.Hate to get into Brother @KingJ's back and forth with you, but the above clearly stands out.
If you'd seen my earlier posts Brother Nick, you would have seen me replying extensively To KingJ and quoting Christs words in full, please see my posts #73,#83,#88,#91,#93,#99, where i tried in vain to bring the issue down to 7 simple questions to understand what the differences are between us and finally #118 where i was replying to KingJ asking for " one sentence, one verse, one explicit statement " to support my view that Christ condemns the mere possession of Riches and those that possess them. So if you'd like a more extensive discussion, with context, then please choose any of those posts and we can take it from there.Especially when you say you don't want to be accused of taking Christs words out of context.
That is true of course Brother Nick, but Christ explicitly cites riches and this particular Rich man to make the point that the possession of Riches is a barrier to salvation. In context, prior to the words in Luke 18:24-30, Christ had told the Rich man "to give ALL he had to the poor and you shall have Treasure in heaven and come follow me", this is a theme reiterated in ALL the gospel stories dealing with the Rich ruler and is also shown in Christs words in Luke 12 32-34 where Christ says "If you only include those 2 verses, then you'd be correct. However, (always seems to be a however between us Brother Steve) you need to include the following so that what Jesus is saying something there that is evident, which is that no one can enter the kingdom of God under their own auspices.
No Brother Nick, youre wrong, if you read my previous posts you'll see that Christs condemnation of the rich is a constant theme throughout his teaching, and while its true that the prevailing thought of that time was that the rich were in some way blessed by God, which gave rise to the Disciples question of "Who then can be saved", because if the rich can't be saved then who can be?, Christs teaching, as in so many other ways turned the world on its head, the poor and oppressed were blessed and the Rich and powerful condemned as in Luke 6: 20-25"He just emphasized the rich, because the thought of the day was if you're poor, you must have done something wrong, or you'd be rich like us! Such pride! lol You'd realize this if you were to acknowledge that one can enter the Kingdom of God except through Jesus who is God! If you think otherwise, please let me know! Then that would change everything and any discussion with you on this would truly be fruitless.
And that is so true, we must never constrict God to our ideas of whats right or wrong, of just and unjust, for everything is possible with God.Anyway, the following verses add the context.
[Luk 18:27-30 KJV] 27 And he said, The things which are impossible with men are possible with God. 28 Then Peter said, Lo, we have left all, and followed thee. 29 And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or parents, or brethren, or wife, or children, for the kingdom of God's sake, 30 Who shall not receive manifold more in this present time, and in the world to come life everlasting.
I see verses 29 and 30 as a fulfillment of Christs commandment to "Deny yourself, take up your Cross and follow me", the disciples had given up what they had, denied themselves and followed Christ and their reward was the community of their fellow believers in this life and life everlasting in the next. Again the concept of forgoing Earthly treasures to receive heavenly treasure in the form of the Kingdom is reiterated by Christ.I know you take 29 & 30 to include the rich which is truth, however, the answer was specific to the question asked of Him by Peter, who said they left everything. So, of course Jesus addressed the things they have left for Him. Unless you also take it to mean, that unless one is to be saved you must leave your entire family, friends that it also holds true that is included for the rich. More people than they themselves realize, or that Scripture says, will surely not make into the Kingdom of God, regardless of it appears from your standing of economic status will make it.
Agreed Brother Nick, but as on so many other occasions Christ makes it clear that to enter the Kingdom of God you must follow his teachings and commandments and in them he shows that the possession of riches is a barrier to salvation, as it stops the seed of Faith coming to fruition, Mark 4:18-19 "Jesus as He has done many times, presents the fact that no one, I repeat, no one, is making it into the Kingdom of God, unless they come through Him. Rich, poor, black, white, yellow, 1 legged, 1 armed, 1 eyed, male, female, Greek or Jew Brother Steve, for that is the only way one can be Born Again.
As i said, no problem Brother NickSorry to intrude on your discussion with Brother KingJ. I been following this discussion for a while, and when I read the above from you, I just could not help myself and but add my 2 cents, 2 pence to the back and forth.
Please continue on my brothers!
With the Love in Christ Jesus.
YBIC/Moderator
Nick
\o/
Because it also comes down to rich according to whom?you know I agree brother, but then the question comes, how much can we save for ourselves, how much can we have, before it is deemed wrong? I am thinking of things like paying rent/mortgage, bills, (which forever is going up) food(same) and some extra for yourself.. where is that line? to avoid forever punishing yourself, I mean.. which could be easily done even if what you use for extra to yourself is small.
I agree with you that the door is not closed although depending on where the heart is can make it harder.Because it also comes down to rich according to whom?
Riches is also relative to the society you happen to be living in. Say a rich person in the poorest of nations, moves to a richer nation or even vice versa, and their economic status changes. According to this type of doctrine the person now is saved, or damned depending on which direction their social economic status they moved to or happen to be at when death occurs.
The point in scripture is pretty straightforward: material wealth is temporary, vulnerable, and ultimately unable to secure lasting good for the soul. I would point out these rich people who were saved, but of course it would be ignored, though they were followers of Jesus (Joseph of Arimathea, Lydia).
Whether that distortion comes from leftist ideology which I believe it probably does, or prosperity-gospel excess on the other side, or any other cultural influences, it is still a distortion of the text. Grace is offered freely to every sinner who turns to Christ. Wealth can make that turning harder in practice, but it does not close the door.
I know that your post was probably intended for Rad, but I couldn't stop myself from replying to you. lol
With the Love in Christ Jesus.
YBIC/Moderator
Nick
\o/
Youre taking out of context again, describe how hardly the rich shall enter into the Kingdom of God and you shall have your answer. You need to quote the whole relevant text and also the many other times Christ condemned the rich just for being rich. However this is dealt with below.Your passage certainly teaches that riches are a serious spiritual danger. I have never denied that. What it does not do is state that wealth itself is the condemning factor.
Four things you need to consider:
1. Claim Substitution
Original claim: "The mere possession of riches condemns the possessor to hell."
Passage provided: "How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God."
Those are not the same claim. The passage says rich people enter the kingdom with great difficulty; your claim says the mere possession of wealth automatically condemns a person to hell.
So then what is your deduction as to the meaning of Christs words, for i cant see it any differently as "Its impossible for a Rich man to enter Heaven", in fact Christ took it a stage further, he said its "EASIER FOR A CAMEL TO PASS THROUGH THE EYE OF A NEEDLE THAN A RICH MAN ENTER HEAVEN", not just as hard, but easier, so where does that leave you?2. Assertion by Inference
Your argument is:
Camel through a needle = impossible.
Rich man entering the kingdom = impossible.
Therefore every rich person is condemned to hell.
But that final step is your deduction, not Christ's statement.
For a long time i couldn't understand the disciples reaction, until i was told many years ago by someone far more learned in Scripture than myself, the Theological Advisor to the Charity TEARFUND, that their reaction came from the understanding or belief that the rich were in some way "Blessed" by God, so if Christ was condemning the rich, then "who then can be saved". The answer Christ gives to the Disciples question is at the Heart of our faith, that we can never "save" ourselves, for we are ALL wretched sinners unworthy in the sight of God, and that it is only by Gods grace, Mercy and forgiveness that any of us are saved, or as Christ said " The things which are impossible with men are possible with God"In fact, the disciples reached the same conclusion you do: "Who then can be saved?" To which Christ responded with, "The things which are impossible with men are possible with God" (Luke 18:27)
You see youre "Cherry picking" again and taking Christs words out of context, The "cherry picking" comes from the fact that out of all 3 accounts in the Gospels, only 1, Marks, refers to "trust in Riches", the other 2 in Matthews and Lukes Gospel just say" How hard it will be for the rich to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. It will be easier for a Camel to pass through the eye of a needle than a rich man enter Heaven", theres no mention of "trust in riches, so if that was an important clarification why did Christ only mention it in 1 out of 3 versions of the same story?.3. Ignoring Christ's Clarification
In Mark 10:23 Jesus speaks of those who have riches.
In Mark 10:24 He immediately explains: "How hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God."
If possessing riches and trusting in riches are identical, Christ's clarification serves no purpose. Yet you treat the two phrases as interchangeable without demonstrating that they are.
You know very well that Abraham, David and Job lived under the OT Covenant where being rich wasnt something that would condemn you in itself, Christ changed that, under the NT Covenant being rich is condemned for all the reasons ive listed in my numerous previous postings. As for Joseph of Arimathea, there is no further mention of what happened to him, but even if he was Rich and God saved him, where is the problem with that, or do you restrict God to follow the same teachings and commandments he gives to us to follow?. God is God, he can do with His creation as he wills, and any attempt to constrain him by our own futile notions of Justice are fruitless as Christ illustrated in the Parable of "The Workers in the Vineyard" where in verse 15 the "goodman of the house", God, says "Is it not lawful for me to do what i will with mine own?. Is thine eye evil because i am good". Christ gives us the basis on which we must try to live our lives, and thats it, how WE should live our lives, not God, WE, and if God chooses to do something different then who are we to question that. Otherwise how can there ever be a "Day of Judgement" where God will consign the majority of his creation to everlasting torment, when Christ tells us to "Turn the other cheek, do not resist evil, Love our enemies, Pray for those that persecute us and do good to those that spitefully use us". God is not restricted by our notions of whats right or wrong but we are here to obey his teachings on Love, Compassion ,Justice and the incompatibility of Riches with our professed faith.4. Contradicted by Biblical Examples
Your interpretation would condemn Abraham, Job, David and Joseph of Arimathea merely because they possessed wealth.
Yet Scripture never says any of them were condemned for being rich.
Hi Hannah, i did want to reply to your post this afternoon but time has caught up with me as it always does, but youre first on my list for tomorrow, so i'll give you my thoughts then.you know I agree brother, but then the question comes, how much can we save for ourselves, how much can we have, before it is deemed wrong? I am thinking of things like paying rent/mortgage, bills, (which forever is going up) food(same) and some extra for yourself.. where is that line? to avoid forever punishing yourself, I mean.. which could be easily done even if what you use for extra to yourself is small.
No worries RadHi Hannah, i did want to reply to your post this afternoon but time has caught up with me as it always does, but youre first on my list for tomorrow, so i'll give you my thoughts then.![]()
To answer this first, as its a short reply, i chose the name "Rad" as short for "Radical", as i believed my views on Christs teachings were "Radical" 20 years ago when i joined the forums, now a lot older and a bit wiser, i realise Christ is the "Radical" one and i'm just catching up to where hes always been.I once knew a man called Rad he was from Tcheckoslovakia, I wonder where you got your name from just curious His name full was Radovan they shorten it to Rad
Before i reply to your question Hannah i think we need to put our situation in context. We live in a world where according to the UN and other development organisations around 1 billion people live in abject poverty, barely existing on less than a couple of $'s a day, where 800 million men, women and children go to bed hungry every night, 50 million of whom are in a state of starvation close to death, where around 800 million people have no access to clean drinking water and Billions lack access to any form of improved sanitation, where Basic health care and education is beyond the reach of hundreds of millions and as a consequence of all this poverty and deprivation around 16,000 young children die from the effects of Malnutrition and easily preventable illnesses and diseases, 8,500 of whom die from hunger related causes. Hundreds of Millions more, possibly even billions more, live just above the abject poverty level and every day is a struggle for survival.you know I agree brother, but then the question comes, how much can we save for ourselves, how much can we have, before it is deemed wrong? I am thinking of things like paying rent/mortgage, bills, (which forever is going up) food(same) and some extra for yourself.. where is that line? to avoid forever punishing yourself, I mean.. which could be easily done even if what you use for extra to yourself is small.
Some interesting points raised Brother Nick, which i will have to deal with later, as time has caught me up yet againBecause it also comes down to rich according to whom?
Riches is also relative to the society you happen to be living in. Say a rich person in the poorest of nations, moves to a richer nation or even vice versa, and their economic status changes. According to this type of doctrine the person now is saved, or damned depending on which direction their social economic status they moved to or happen to be at when death occurs.
The point in scripture is pretty straightforward: material wealth is temporary, vulnerable, and ultimately unable to secure lasting good for the soul. I would point out these rich people who were saved, but of course it would be ignored, though they were followers of Jesus (Joseph of Arimathea, Lydia).
Whether that distortion comes from leftist ideology which I believe it probably does, or prosperity-gospel excess on the other side, or any other cultural influences, it is still a distortion of the text. Grace is offered freely to every sinner who turns to Christ. Wealth can make that turning harder in practice, but it does not close the door.
I know that your post was probably intended for Rad, but I couldn't stop myself from replying to you. lol
With the Love in Christ Jesus.
YBIC/Moderator
Nick
\o/
I like radical. I always say to Jesus to let me go for Him and tell me what to do wanna be efficient for Him. Always wanted to.To answer this first, as its a short reply, i chose the name "Rad" as short for "Radical", as i believed my views on Christs teachings were "Radical" 20 years ago when i joined the forums, now a lot older and a bit wiser, i realise Christ is the "Radical" one and i'm just catching up to where hes always been.