Making friends with unrighteous wealth? Luke 16:1-9

[Josheb]

This can easily be debated (as it is in many threads, posts and forums).

Thus, it is not automatically accepted as true, and it is rejected by some believers, for Biblical reasons, or because of what they have observed themselves in life.....

Yes, it can be easily debated but it cannot be exegetically debated. Yes, the matter is rejected by some Christians but it is not rejected for "Biblical reasons." It is rejected for eisegetic, not exegetic reasons. Yes, some believers base their views on "what they have observed themselves..." but personal anecdotal experience is not a rational basis for forming sound doctrine, especially on all occasions where it contradicts whole scripture. Scripture is clear and decisive and in public hermit's other op titled, "Give up all my possession?!" I provided a survey of scripture proving that conclusion.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

LOL! Well what did you THINK i was talkin' 'bout Jeff? Sheeesh.

I posted that the ideas/ verses used were often used by the false prosperity gospel, and that is what I posted for - thankfully a tangent type footnote in this thread, as you thankfully and fully clarified that you yourself did not propose nor support the false prosperity gospel (that others on this forum have done/ supported, in error) ...

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Yes, it can be easily debated but it cannot be exegetically debated. Yes, the matter is rejected by some Christians but it is not rejected for "Biblical reasons." It is rejected for eisegetic, not exegetic reasons. Yes, some believers base their views on "what they have observed themselves..." but personal anecdotal experience is not a rational basis for forming sound doctrine, especially on all occasions where it contradicts whole scripture. Scripture is clear and decisive and in public hermit's other op titled, "Give up all my possession?!" I provided a survey of scripture proving that conclusion.

On this forum, it has been observed that some who have this world's wealth have made it their treasure, and thus that is where their heart is, as Jesus Says.

 

[brinny]

I posted that the ideas/ verses used were often used by the false prosperity gospel, and that is what I posted for - thankfully a tangent type footnote in this thread, as you thankfully and fully clarified that you yourself did not propose nor support the false prosperity gospel (that others on this forum have done/ supported, in error) ...

Well thank goodness, Jeff. I'm thankful that my clarification of what the verses meant helped. The bottom line, is that NONE of us can be used of God if we still have "self" and "self will" and "pride" on the throne, and that is "prosperity gospel" is. It has nothing to do with the living God. It's abominable to God. And those who espouse it are sinning blatantly, because they cannot claim to have never heard of the living God nor His grace. In essence, they are "robbing" God.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Actually, I was referring to the false prosperity gospel that has nothing to do with feelings nor emotions nor pride -
rather the false teaching that God will bless "true believers" with lots of monetary prosperity
and temporal, physical comforts (which bring woes from Jesus!) , and such.

and that is "prosperity gospel" is.

 

[brinny]

Actually, I was referring to the false prosperity gospel that has nothing to do with feelings nor emotions nor pride -
rather the false teaching that God will bless "true believers" with lots of monetary prosperity
and temporal, physical comforts (which bring woes from Jesus!) , and such.

Any "false gospel" is an abomination to the living God, bottom line. It is the equivalent of "wolves in sheep's clothing". This comes to mind:

"It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God." ~Heb 10:31

 

[public hermit]

Since I see you've read my response to your op on giving away our possessions and deemed it informative I'll assume you also now understand 1) how the passage in question in this op should be treated and 2) neither wealth nor privilege are inherently antithetical to being Christian but 3) both can definitely be idolatrous.

What I now understand is your reading of the passage. I am also curious how others read it.

 

[Josheb]

On this forum, it has been observed that some who have this world's wealth have made it their treasure, and thus that is where their heart is, as Jesus Says.

Yes, it is an easily observed phenomenon both inside the body and outside the body but that does not mean riches or wealth is inherently ungodly, unrighteous, or unchristian. Again: we do not set sound thinking, sound doctrine, and sound practice on anecdotal experience but upon whole scripture correctly-rendered.

 

[Josheb]

What I now understand is your reading of the passage. I am also curious how others read it.

If what I posted is correct then it is not my reading, but an accurate and objective summary of what the whole word of God teaches cohesively. The comment I just received implies a an interest in subjectivity rather than objectivity.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Yes, it is an easily observed phenomenon both inside the body and outside the body but that does not mean riches or wealth is inherently ungodly, unrighteous, or unchristian. Again: we do not set sound thinking, sound doctrine, and sound practice on anecdotal experience but upon whole scripture correctly-rendered.

Worldly anything, including worldly riches (what the world thinks is good even), worldly wealth, is inherently ungodly, unrighteous and unchristian.
(when taking into account ALL SCRIPTURE)

 

[public hermit]

If what I posted is correct then it is not my reading, but an accurate and objective summary of what the whole word of God teaches cohesively. The comment I just received implies a an interest in subjectivity rather than objectivity.

Consider it how you will. Let me ask you, how do you know your reading is the objective summary and not another?

 

[Josheb]

Consider it how you will. Let me ask you, how do you know your reading is the objective summary and not another?

I do not and nothing I have posted should be construed to say otherwise. This is why we have discussion forums. If flaws exegetical or logical flaws are found in the cases made then they cannot be objective standards by which all other views - especially anecdotal personal experiences and opinions - are measured.

So I read an op.
I affirm that which bears integrity with scripture correctly exegeted.
I inquire about that which is either unclear or I don't understand.
I correct that which is blatantly incorrect and provide a more exegetical alternative which is then examined by others... affirming, inquiring, correcting, etc.

That's how discussions are supposed to work, yes? Or is that too subjective for you?

As it stands the prooftexting of a single sentence in a single episode of scripture has been addressed and the questions asked were answered. A more thorough summary of scripture from beginning to end was provided....

...and then ignored...

...under the auspices of "That's your pov."

That dissent is not worth the cyberspace it consumed to post it unless the intent it solely trolling.

If a flaw in my case is found then post it; if not then affirm what was posted.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

I do not and nothing I have posted should be construed to say otherwise. This is why we have discussion forums.

I don't think so.
That is called conclusions or evidence not in fact (not presented or stated or proven yet, anywhere)

 

[Josheb]

Worldly anything, including worldly riches (what the world thinks is good even), worldly wealth, is inherently ungodly, unrighteous and unchristian.
(when taking into account ALL SCRIPTURE)

Fail.

God made the world. He declared the world and everything He made in it "very good" (Gen. 1:31). The world has become not-good because of sin but the world in and of itself is not inherently bad. When the scriptures speaking of worldly and fleshly bad things it does so in the context of sin, not good creation.

And your dissent does not in any way change what I posted. Whether worldly or not God in His word plainly states riches can be a blessing or riches can be a curse and it is not money that is evil but the love of money that is the root of all evil. Another post astutely noted everything is God's. You, me, the earth, and all its wealth is God's.

And you just went on record stating it is inherently "ungodly, unrighteous, and unchristian." You might want to look up that word "inherent" and adjust your thinking doctrine, and practice accordingly.

God will restore the heavens and the earth, the good heavens and earth that became corrupted and He'll do that because they are not inherently corrupt; the became corrupted. In addressing the legalisms of false teachers about marriage and foods and "things gratefully shared in" by believers Paul wrote Timothy, "everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with gratitude; for it is sanctified by means of the word of God and prayer (1 Tim. 4:4).

From Genesis 1:31 to one of the last epistles penned: everything God created is good. Often abused and perverted, but created by God good. Corrupted by sin but created by God good.

Adjust thinking, doctrine, and practice accordingly.

 

[Josheb]

I don't think so.
That is called conclusions or evidence not in fact (not presented or stated or proven yet, anywhere)

The evidence was provided and you were directed to the op in which that evidence was provided.

"Nunh uhn" isn't a cogent or rational response.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Everything of the world is of the world, all society IS pernicious (death dealing)
as God's Word Says.
Everything "of the flesh" IS FLESH, AND profits nothing.

 

[public hermit]

I do not and nothing I have posted should be construed to say otherwise. This is why we have discussion forums. If flaws exegetical or logical flaws are found in the cases made then they cannot be objective standards by which all other views - especially anecdotal personal experiences and opinions - are measured.

So I read an op.
I affirm that which bears integrity with scripture correctly exegeted.
I inquire about that which is either unclear or I don't understand.
I correct that which is blatantly incorrect and provide a more exegetical alternative which is then examined by others... affirming, inquiring, correcting, etc.

That's how discussions are supposed to work, yes? Or is that too subjective for you?

As it stands the prooftexting of a single sentence in a single episode of scripture has been addressed and the questions asked were answered. A more thorough summary of scripture from beginning to end was provided....

...and then ignored...

...under the auspices of "That's your pov."

That dissent is not worth the cyberspace it consumed to post it unless the intent it solely trolling.

If a flaw in my case is found then post it; if not then affirm what was posted.

This thread has one intention, which is framed by the general question, "What is your interpretation?" Personally, I wanted to hear how others read it, because it's not the most clear cut of passages. I assume from the outset that there are going to be different interpretations, because I am familiar with a good bit of the literature on this passage and there is widespread disagreement. Morever, there is widespread disagreement between people who may very well be more capable than you or I.

You seem to assume there is only one interpretation that is correct. I'm not arguing otherwise. You also seem to assume yours is the correct one. Fine. For my part, I'm interested in hearing anyone's interpretation.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

COOL!

This thread has one intention, which is framed by the general question, "What is your interpretation?" Personally, I wanted to hear how others read it, because it's not the most clear cut of passages. I assume from the outset that there are going to be different interpretations, because I am familiar with a good bit of the literature on this passage and there is widespread disagreement. Morever, there is widespread disagreement between people who may very well be more capable than you or I.

You seem to assume there is only one interpretation that is correct. I'm not arguing otherwise. You also seem to assume yours is the correct one. Fine. For my part, I'm interested in hearing anyone's interpretation.

Love Not the World (CLC) by Watchman Nee

 

[Josheb]

I wanted to hear how others read it, because it's not the most clear cut of passages.

To what end?

I assume from the outset that there are going to be different interpretations, because I am familiar with a good bit of the literature on this passage and there is widespread disagreement. Morever, there is widespread disagreement between people who may very well be more capable than you or I.

Care to cite three different examples of those widespread disagreement?

You seem to assume there is only one interpretation that is correct.

And now we get into the issues of either reading comprehension or sincere intent because I don't "seem" to "assume" any such thing. I stated quite explicitly 1) the text shouldn't be treated separately from all else that scripture says on the matter. That's not a function of "my interpretation;" that's a product of long-established and well-established exegetical rules that should be employed by all. In other words, "interpretation" shows a presuppositional bias that itself warrants correction. Based on the evidence of your posts you believe - not seem to believe - the passage can be interpreted, it can be interpreted by itself as stand-alone text, it should be interpreted as such, and it's okay to ask for such things.

It is not.

I'm not arguing otherwise.

You are not arguing at all. Nor are you discussing the op. You want to hear from others according to your own words. You want to hear from others even though you are familiar with a good bit of the literature on this passage. You want to hear from others even though you're familiar with a good bit of the literature on the passage and the "widespread disagreement."

If it's true you already possess such knowledge then why is this op really posted because it is not a desire to hear how others read it. According to you you already know.

So how about you be just a little more forthcoming, and honestly so?

What's this op really about?

You also seem to assume yours is the correct one.

Never said any such thing.

Fine. For my part, I'm interested in hearing anyone's interpretation.

1) The evidence says otherwise.

2) To what end?

 

[public hermit]

Never said any such thing.

You're right. You gave the interpretation for the passage on the other thread. My apologies.

What is your interpretation of this passage?