Rich ruler, poor apostles (rebuttal part 1) -- Utah's Religion Debate

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, [3] ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 13:21:38 08/15/05 Mon
Author: Lord Veritas
Subject: Rich ruler, poor apostles (rebuttal part 1)
In reply to: Sheepdog 's message, "Re: Salvation FREE and Eternal (Part 1)" on 06:10:30 08/02/05 Tue

>What does �receive him� and �believe on his name� mean?
>Does it require any action by us?
>Lord Veritas: Only our faith, which is enough to
>release the grace of God that saves us.
>SD: According to Christ, faith alone (if faith means
>belief inside) isn�t enough.
>Remember the man who asked Christ what he must do to
>be saved? Jesus didn�t say, �believe in me, that�s
>it.� Nope, he told the man to keep the commandments.
>The man replied that he had done this all his life,
>what more did he need to do? Sell all that he had and
>follow, (in other words, feed the sheep by becoming a
>missionary and leaving the world behind.) this is not
>faith alone. It is action, in addition to keeping all
>the commandments.
Let's take a look at what the passage of the rich young ruler REALLY says. Because, after all, you must know what a passage says before you can discern what it means.
Matthew 19:16-29
" 16 � And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?

17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.

18 He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Ex. 20.13 � Deut. 5.17 Thou shalt not commit adultery, Ex. 20.14 � Deut. 5.18 Thou shalt not steal, Ex. 20.15 � Deut. 5.19 Thou shalt not bear false witness, Ex. 20.16 � Deut. 5.20

19 Honor thy father and thy mother: Ex. 20.12 � Deut. 5.16 and, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. Lev. 19.18

20 The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet? "
In the above verses, the rich young man asks Christ what can he do to get eternal life. Christ replies that if he will enter into eternal life, then keep the commandments. The young man replies that he has already kept all the commandments; yet his question "What do I lack" reveals that he still lacks something crucial. Notice that upon hearing that he kept the commandments, Christ does not say"Congratulations, you have earned a spot in heaven"

"21 Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me."
In this Christ says that the young man must
a) give up everything he has
b) to come and follow him
Then the young man will be perfect and "have treasure in heaven". Your "missionary clause" in your above paragraph is woefully absent.

"22 But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions.

23 � Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven."
The rich man rejects Christ's teaching for his own possessions and leaves. In response, Christ turns to his apostles and says that, in spite of keeping the commandments, the rich man's chances of entering heaven are not only not guaranteed...they are also highly unlikely.

"24 And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God."
This is the punctuation on Christ's earlier point, that just as it is impossible for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, it is even more impossible for even a rich man to get into heaven. This clearly shows that even the most "valuable" men cannot get into heaven, at least, not on their own.

"25 When his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved?

26 But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible."
After that bombshell is dropped the apostles ask Christ who can be saved. Christ replies that salvation is impossible for men, but that through God, everything (which includes salvation) is possible.

"27 Then answered Peter and said unto him, Behold, we have forsaken all, and followed thee; what shall we have therefore?

28 And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, Mt. 25.31 ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. Lk. 22.30 "
This time Peter speaks up. Note that he does not say that he or his apostolic brethren kept the commandments. He only that they all gave up everything they had to follow Christ. Yet Christ still promises that they will sit on twelve thrones, judging all of Israel.

"29 And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive a hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.

30 But many that are first shall be last; and the last shall be first "

Herein Christ tells what truly gets men into heaven: giving up everything for his name's sake. This will cause "the first" such as the wealthy man, to be the last into heaven (if they even get there at all), and the "last", such as the poverty-stricken apostles, to be "first" (who are already guaranteed thrones over Israel).

And that is what true saving faith requires, to give up everything you have to follow Christ.

So, when taken in context, this passage shows that keeping the commandments will not get you into heaven. The rich man, in spite of being wealthy and keeping all the commandments, has virtually no chance of entering heaven. Incontrast, the poor apostles, who, having given up all they have, are relying on nothing except Christ for their future, have been promised thrones over God's chosen nation
and will, because of their faith, achieve everlasting life.
Christ does say in verse 17 "if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments." But apparently, you misunderstood it to mean , " You have to keep the commandments to get eternal life" which it doesn't, especially in the context of the rest of the passage. Rather, it is an "if-then statement", meaning that "if you are among those who will get eternal life, then you should keep the commandments. ", not "If you are among those who keep the commandments, then you will get eternal life". Simply put, you got Christ's words backwards. And, if you reread the passage, you will clearly see that he DOES say faith alone on him (synonymous with belief on his name), is enough.

Action and keeping the commandments will not get you into heaven; the faith that results in actions and keeping the commandments gets you into heaven. Christ said it himself in the passage you tried to use against me. But once again, the truth triumphs over the lie...who would have thought that THAT would happen...

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Rich ruler, poor apostles (rebuttal part 1) -- QUITTNER, 11:20:01 08/19/05 Fri

As I understand it, those who wrote the 4 "authorized" gospels, at least 40 years after Jesus was killed by the Romans, were NOT members of "The Kingdom of God", and they relied on garbled stories about it handed down mouth-to-mouth.
..... The "Kingdom of God" ("of heaven") was an alternative community, separated from "The World", partly described in Acts 2 and Acts 4. Members had a different, communal, loving lifestyle, quite different from those of the outsiders who still lived "in the World". It was an artificial "family" of likeminded, specially selected members. No others could get in, and high quality of character/morality was required of all members. Compare with current rquirements of religious orders and other groups that still require of all applicants for full membership vows of obedience, poverty and chastity. Keeping always all of the commandments of God was, of course, only one of these requirements - nobody could get to be a member otherwise. All members were poor as individuals, including Jesus and the apostles, they had pooled their possession and given them to the administration of the Kingdom of God for the use of all members as required. Outsiders therefore called members "The Poor". Members, and ONLY members, had "life", even "eternal life", as compared with the outsiders who were (spiritually) "dead". Compare with the passage where a member was not permitted to attend a funeral (let the dead bury their dead).
..... After the Romans had killed Jesus, many changes were made, many new unauthorized versions of Christianity were invented, and the first priority was on maximizing the quantity of members (read: of their money), never mind their quality.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> You don't read many scriptures, do you? -- Lord Veritas, 17:15:29 02/07/06 Tue

>As I understand it, those who wrote the 4 "authorized"
>gospels, at least 40 years after Jesus was killed by
>the Romans, were NOT members of "The Kingdom of God",
>and they relied on garbled stories about it handed
>down mouth-to-mouth.
LV: That does not say much for your understanding. Three of those who wrote the gospels, Matthew, Mark, and John, were all eyewitnesses to the life and death of Christ and saw him after his resurrection. Luke compiled his gospel based on other eyewitness accounts. So much for your garbled "mouth to mouth" theory.

>..... The "Kingdom of God" ("of heaven") was an
>alternative community, separated from "The World",
>partly described in Acts 2 and Acts 4. Members had a
>different, communal, loving lifestyle, quite different
>from those of the outsiders who still lived "in the
>World". It was an artificial "family" of likeminded,
>specially selected members. No others could get in,
>and high quality of character/morality was required of
>all members. Compare with current rquirements of
>religious orders and other groups that still require
>of all applicants for full membership vows of
>obedience, poverty and chastity. Keeping always all of
>the commandments of God was, of course, only one of
>these requirements - nobody could get to be a member
>otherwise. All members were poor as individuals,
>including Jesus and the apostles, they had pooled
>their possession and given them to the administration
>of the Kingdom of God for the use of all members as
>required. Outsiders therefore called members "The
>Poor". Members, and ONLY members, had "life", even
>"eternal life", as compared with the outsiders who
>were (spiritually) "dead". Compare with the passage
>where a member was not permitted to attend a funeral
>(let the dead bury their dead).
LV: An interesting conspiracy theory, but unless you have specific quotes from the Bible that show that heaven is not the kingdom of God, that eternal life is a code phrase, etc, then that is all you have-an interesting conspiracy theory. I will address the passage of the "let the dead bury the dead" in a following post.
>..... After the Romans had killed Jesus, many changes
>were made, many new unauthorized versions of
>Christianity were invented, and the first priority was
>on maximizing the quantity of members (read: of their
>money), never mind their quality.
LV: I am going to assume that the reason you cited no specific information for this theory was because you were pressed for time. Either way, the accusations you make in the passage above are too vague and need to be substantiated to be taken seriously, otherwise, they are nothing more than a rant. In addition, the issue of unauthorized "Christian" sects is tangential to the main argument here of whether salvation is free and eternal or not, so please bring up that issue in a different thread where it has more relevance, such as the lost gospel and Constantinian threads.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]