The only "rich" man who Christ said received salvation

[d taylor]

-
​

The rich young ruler was a believer

 

[All Becomes New]

-
​

The rich young ruler was a believer

Yikes.

 

[Godsunworthyservant]

We also know he was a rich man, and a disciple. You seemed uncertain about that fact.

Oh, no I'm not uncertain that he was rich or that he was a disciple Christ who gave hid burial tomb to the Lord. what I'm uncertain about is what he did with his wealth. I would figure that since he was a disciple of Christ that he was also a philanthropist and gave generously to the poor, but the Bible doesn't state that, so I'll just speculate and hope.

 

[d taylor]

-​

Zacchaeus was already a born again believer, he was just a lost born again believer.

Saving the Lost (Luke 19:9)
by Kenneth Yates
Ken Yates (ThM, PhD, Dallas Theological Seminary) is the Editor of the Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society and GES’s East Coast and International speaker. His latest book is Mark: Lessons in Discipleship.
​

In Luke 19:1-9, we find the well-known story of a short, but rich, man named Zacchaeus. We are all familiar with the story, and with how the Lord went to Zacchaeus’s home. Zacchaeus is clearly a believer. In fact, he strongly desires to follow the Lord in discipleship and begins that process by giving away the majority of his vast wealth because of what the Lord teaches him.

Saving the Lost (Luke 19:9) – Grace Evangelical Society

 

[Godsunworthyservant]

The details are only used to forward your claim because your claim literally does not work unless you define it so narrowly. It's like asking, "How many people in the Bible got boils for their righteousness?" (Job) So, I feel your details are an excuse for not being fair with the data.

You may define it as you wish. If you wish to discuss Job, start a thread and I'll add my 2 cents worth there. If you feel "I'm not being fair with the data, then please provide scriptural data to refute it and we'll discuss that. Saying I'm not being fair with the data without providing evidence doesn't mean a thing. You know what they say about opinions. Give me factual data and we can discuss that, hopefully without the slander and innuendo.

 

[Godsunworthyservant]

Zacchaeus was already a born again believer, he was just a lost born again believer.

I'm very familiar with Dr. Yates. He is a very learned man. While I don't always agree with his conclusions on some matters, if memory serves me, he is in agreement with me (or I am in agreement with him) on this matter. I seriously doubt that he said Zacchaeus was a "lost born again believer" just based on what I know about his theology. He might take issue with some of my conclusions but I'll be shocked if he used that phrase to describe Zacchaeus. I've been wrong about people before, so prove me wrong again. Provide the quote where he said that. You've got my curiosity aroused.

In fact, he strongly desires to follow the Lord in discipleship and begins that process by giving away the majority of his vast wealth because of what the Lord teaches him.

Now that sounds like the Dr. Yates that I know!

 

[All Becomes New]

You may define it as you wish. If you wish to discuss Job, start a thread and I'll add my 2 cents worth there. If you feel "I'm not being fair with the data, then please provide scriptural data to refute it and we'll discuss that. Saying I'm not being fair with the data without providing evidence doesn't mean a thing. You know what they say about opinions. Give me factual data and we can discuss that, hopefully without the slander and innuendo.

I am reading the thread. I do not need to bring up points that have already been brought up. Else, I made my case for Abraham, which you rejected on a technicality.

 

[Godsunworthyservant]

I am reading the thread. I do not need to bring up points that have already been brought up. Else, I made my case for Abraham, which you rejected on a technicality.

Good man. Roger, over and out!

 

[d taylor]

I'm very familiar with Dr. Yates. He is a very learned man. While I don't always agree with his conclusions on some matters, if memory serves me, he is in agreement with me (or I am in agreement with him) on this matter. I seriously doubt that he said Zacchaeus was a "lost born again believer" just based on what I know about his theology. He might take issue with some of my conclusions but I'll be shocked if he used that phrase to describe Zacchaeus. I've been wrong about people before, so prove me wrong again. Provide the quote where he said that. You've got my curiosity aroused.

Now that sounds like the Dr. Yates that I know!

-
​

He titled his written article Saving the Lost

 

[Godsunworthyservant]

-
​

He titled his written article Saving the Lost

That doesn't surprise me. That also sounds very much like something he would say. What's your point?

 

[d taylor]

That doesn't surprise me. That also sounds very much like something he would say. What's your point?

-
​

If you read his short article, he compares the account of Zacchaeus to the Parable of the Lost Sheep

Luke has already prepared the reader for this understanding of the Lord’s words to Zacchaeus. In chapter 15 we find another of the Lord’s famous parables–the Parable of the Lost Sheep. He speaks of a man with 100 sheep. They are all sheep and all, therefore, represent believers. Ninety-nine of the sheep remain with the shepherd and experience the blessings of that communion. One, however, wanders away and experiences the danger and loss of such communion. But the shepherd, who clearly represents Christ, goes to find and save that lost sheep.

So Zacchaeus was a lost believer and a believer is a born again child of God. So like i originally wrote.

Zacchaeus was already a born again believer, he was just a lost born again believer.

 

[All Becomes New]

Good man. Roger, over and out!

Others have mentioned the person who buried Jesus was rich and was saved. You reject this as well based on a technicality.

 

[Godsunworthyservant]

-
​

If you read his short article, he compares the account of Zacchaeus to the Parable of the Lost Sheep

Luke has already prepared the reader for this understanding of the Lord’s words to Zacchaeus. In chapter 15 we find another of the Lord’s famous parables–the Parable of the Lost Sheep. He speaks of a man with 100 sheep. They are all sheep and all, therefore, represent believers. Ninety-nine of the sheep remain with the shepherd and experience the blessings of that communion. One, however, wanders away and experiences the danger and loss of such communion. But the shepherd, who clearly represents Christ, goes to find and save that lost sheep.

So Zacchaeus was a lost believer and a believer is a born again child of God. So like i originally wrote.

Zacchaeus was already a born again believer, he was just a lost born again believer.

I read the article and it's actually geared toward Dr. Yates iteration of the Baptist belief of "Eternal Security", a position that I personally do not believe. It's one of those beliefs that I do not share with Dr. Yates. I didn't see where he actually used the phrase "lost born again believer" in those words, but I can see where you get the idea from his definition of lost and his explanation where he refers to Zacchaeus as both saved and lost, something akin to the Baptist description of a "back slidden" Christian. Personally, I believe one is either saved or lost. It's black and white. There's no in between and no ambiguity in Christ's teachings on the matter despite what some may intimate. I notice that Dr. Yates was honest about the fact that his opinion on the matter does not agree with most Bible commentaries. (and he's correct) That's one thing I admire about the man, he's pretty honest. As I noted before that doesn't mean I agree with everything he says. I was somewhat surprised at the actual theme of the article as I didn't recognize the inferences to Eternal Security in the portions that you quoted, otherwise I would have mentioned that I disagree.

 

[Godsunworthyservant]

Others have mentioned the person who buried Jesus was rich and was saved. You reject this as well based on a technicality.

I don't reject that he was rich or a disciple of Christ. It is clear in the Gospel accounts. I simply said that we don't know what Joseph of Arimathea did with his wealth besides giving his tomb for Christ's burial. I like to think he was a philanthropist as Christ taught but the Bible just doesn't say. I don't know where you got the idea that I reject anything in the gospel based on a technicality. I believe the gospel literally word for word. And I thought we had decided that you weren't going to "bring up points that have already been brought up", but this one has been asked and answered several times.

 

[d taylor]

I read the article and it's actually geared toward Dr. Yates iteration of the Baptist belief of "Eternal Security", a position that I personally do not believe. It's one of those beliefs that I do not share with Dr. Yates. I didn't see where he actually used the phrase "lost born again believer" in those words, but I can see where you get the idea from his definition of lost and his explanation where he refers to Zacchaeus as both saved and lost, something akin to the Baptist description of a "back slidden" Christian. Personally, I believe one is either saved or lost. It's black and white. There's no in between and no ambiguity in Christ's teachings on the matter despite what some may intimate. I notice that Dr. Yates was honest about the fact that his opinion on the matter does not agree with most Bible commentaries. (and he's correct) That's one thing I admire about the man, he's pretty honest. As I noted before that doesn't mean I agree with everything he says. I was somewhat surprised at the actual theme of the article as I didn't recognize the inferences to Eternal Security in the portions that you quoted, otherwise I would have mentioned that I disagree.

-
​

Actually some Baptist may hold to eternal security, but Mr Yates is Free Grace. he may also be a Baptist. But i am not sure of his present church membership.

Ken Yates – Grace Evangelical Society

 

[Hoping2]

The thing with Lazarus is we really can't know for sure how much money he had or what he did with what he had. For all we know he could have been one who shared whatever earthly wealth he had with those in need.

Very true.

Ananias and Sapphira also come across as rather well to do.
But they ended up showing they were not really Christians, at their ends.
Philip of the seven also seems more than just a poor man.
A wife and four daughters, and a home for them, points to at least some income.

 

[Godsunworthyservant]

Actually some Baptist may hold to eternal security, but Mr Yates is Free Grace. he may also be a Baptist. But i am not sure of his present church membership.

He has been the pastor of Little River Baptist Church in SC for some time. He is also a member of Grace Evangelical Society, a free grace organization. The free grace movement shares the beliefs on Eternal Security with many Baptists and while there are Free Grace churches, many Baptists affiliate themselves with the movement.

 

[Shodan]

There's also the Roman centurion, who apparently had enough resources that he contributed to building a synagogue for the local Jews. Luke 7:1-10

Regards,
Shodan

 

[Godsunworthyservant]

There's also the Roman centurion, who apparently had enough resources that he contributed to building a synagogue for the local Jews. Luke 7:1-10

Regards,
Shodan

Again, we don't know what the centurion did with his money. Christ healed the servant and said that the centurion had great faith but He didn't say he had received salvation. Even though it doesn't say, since the centurion had such great faith we could conclude that he might also have had enough faith to be philanthropic. And if he was truly following Christ he had salvation, the record just doesn't indicate these things, focusing instead on this single incident where it was not discussed.